text:
Time to talk Dwyane Wade with Jonathan Zaslow of 790 'The Ticket'
By David Dwork Jul 11, 2009, 8:34pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: Time to talk Dwyane Wade with Jonathan Zaslow of 790 'The Ticket'
So, tonight at 12:01 AM, Dwyane Wade can officially resign with the Heat. I'd like to put this in the simplest of terms, just so that our expectations of this don't get too high. NO CHANCE.
Clear enough?
Let's get this straight: No matter what happens, I am always going to be behind this team, and not one particular player. Now, I'm not trying to sell Dwyane short or anything here. The point being, that one day, be it from leaving or retiring, Dwyane won't be on this team anymore and we're still going to be Heat fans. We'll move on. So, the Miami Heat are a little (just a little) more important to me than Dwyane is. But let's also get this straight: Dwyane needs to do what's best for him. He's earned the max deal, he's earned every penny that will come his way, and he's earned the right to demand a championship caliber team be built around him. (Otherwise, he's Kevin Garnett to Pat Riley's Kevin McHale)
Dwyane will tell you that this whole situation isn't about the money. It's about winning. You can't believe that for a second. You just can't. It's ALWAYS about the money. But, it can be both.
If Dwyane were to resign tonight, the length of the contract (because it would be a three year extension worth $60 million) would total 5 years and approximately $93 million. If he waits one more year and opts out, the total money he can get from the Heat would wind up being 7 years (counting this coming season) and approximately $135 million. I mean, come on. How can he possibly resign tonight?
The whole "it's not about the money, I want to win" thing, is just so utterly ludicrous. In a year from now, let's say Pat has surrounded Dwyane with a championship caliber club (or close to it). Dwyane is happy and he's ready to resign. Well, if it's not about the money, then how about instead of signing for the $120 million, you only take, say, $90 million? Because that would help the Heat in a BIG way when it comes to the salary cap and adding talent every year. Does anyone see Dwyane taking less than the max, in order to give the Heat more flexibility? Because if it's all about the winning and not money, then that's the play he should make.
At the same time, it's why Dwyane won't be leaving. There are two teams for the Heat fan to be worried about, as far as Dwyane leaving.
1) Chicago: Right now the Bulls are committed to $40 million in salary for 2010. If the cap is as low as the NBA expects it to be, the Bulls don't have even remotely enough free space to sign Dwyane. That's why this rumored Carlos Boozer to Chicago trade is so significant. It would clear $15 million worth of cap (Hinrich and Thomas) in 2010, and open the door for signing a guy like Dwyane. That's important, so keep an eye on that.
2) New York: As it stands right now, the Knicks look like they'll only be able to lure one big free agent, not the two they were hoping for. At least Chicago can sell Dwyane on playing with Derrick Rose. The Knicks would be a rebuilding project, and it just makes no sense for Dwyane to leave and rebuild somewhere else.
Just so we're clear, I'm behind the Heat on this one, and I expect it all to work out. But Dwyane is doing what's best for him, and everyone needs to understand that. All in all, I'd be unbelievably shocked if he were to leave next year. Not quite as shocked as the Dolphins selecting Ted Ginn #9 overall. But pretty close.


Farmers Table Reidsville Nc was published on October 23, 2018 at 1:53 am. This post is posted in the Table category. Farmers Table Reidsville Nc is labelled with Farmers Table Reidsville Nc, Farmers, Table, Reidsville, Nc..
a city in N North Carolina. 12,492.
The present day kitchen features a modern kitchen concept to have the slim terrain on your home around. This notion presents in terms of today's home with modern furniture installation, therefore create your home appear more modern and convenient to use. As we realize, kitchen design that is modern nowadays has become popular on the list of people.
An extensive selection is of modern home layout creativity using a modern-style that you could replicate. Various contemporary kitchen style is visible in internet sources and various produce advertising. Also, a few of these ideas can even attempt to develop a contemporary kitchen modern wonderful.
Designs are placed on deal with crowded situations spot, considering that the average recent of each household possess a modern house. The present day kitchen is made to improve the contemporary idea of the kitchen possess a subject that was narrow. Who affirms having a Farmers Table Reidsville Nc that cannot be became a kitchen of your aspirations? It is precisely this challenge includes a small home can be as special as possible we have to be creative nowadays, to highlight the present day home modern-day like contemporary homes.


text:
ACCEPTED

#### According to
The Catalogue of Life, 3rd January 2011

#### Published in
Bot. Jb. 28: 275 (1900)

#### Original name
Coccoidea Henn.

### Remarks
null

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
This article was published on January 25, 2012
Twitter to roll out support for right-to-left languages this spring
Matt Brian
Matt is the former News Editor for The Next Web. You can follow him on Twitter, subscribe to his updates on Facebook and catch up with him (show all) Matt is the former News Editor for The Next Web. You can follow him on Twitter, subscribe to his updates on Facebook and catch up with him on Google+.
Twitter today announced that it has opened up its Translation Center to crowd-source translations of right-to-left languages, allowing users to read tweets in a specialised interface and use hashtags in languages including Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew and Urdu.
Asking for volunteers via its official blog, Twitter hopes that its users will step forward to join the 425,000 existing contributors to its Translation Center, which have already helped to make Twitter available in 22 languages.
We spoke with Twitter's Director of Platform Ryan Sarver and UK General Manager Tony Wang in December 2011, where the company was preparing to roll out the new version of its website and mobile applications.
Wang said at the time:
"I often get asked how big do you think Twitter is going to be. The answer to that is, well, how many people are there in the world?"
By opening its platform to encompass Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew and Urdu languages, Twitter is truly working towards making its service available to the 7 billion people on earth.
The company has already developed "new ways to ensure that Tweets and hashtags will work properly in right-to-left languages," adding that it had also "made changes behind the scenes to give right-to-left language speakers a localized user experience."
That means that as soon as the translators have done their thing, the company will make the new languages available to everyone on Twitter.com by the Spring.
Published January 25, 2012 - 4:34 pm UTC

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Just click the pin on the map below to open this map in a new window and get directions from your location.
Description: Every now and then you come across a home that checks all the boxes inside and outside, front and back. This home on Rowan Oak on the western side of Tupelo is one of those homes. From its front exterior to its spacious and stylish interior to its breathtaking backyard, this home is one of those rare finds that is impressive throughout. It starts with a well maintained front yard framing a classic red brick house. The interior features a wide open floor plan with hardwood floors in the living room and formal dining room, with ceramic tile in the kitchen and informal dining area. The living room has a tray ceiling, gas fireplace and mantel, and recessed lighting. The living room - along with the rest of the house - is as tastefully decorated and up to date as any home you will find. The dining room has a large arched window, chair railing and a wrought iron fixture. The kitchen has oversized ceramic tile, granite countertops, tile backsplash, stainless steel appliances and more cabinet space and counter space than you will ever need. There is an informal dining area adjacent to the kitchen and a laundry room just around the corner.
The master suite combines a large, but comfortable bedroom with a very relaxing bathroom. The bedroom has nine foot ceilings and a large window. The bathroom has a deep soaker tub, separate his/her vanity area, a walk in shower and toilet closet. There are also his and her walk-in closets. The remaining three bedrooms are on the other side of the home. The first bedroom has hardwood floors while the other two are carpeted. Each room is a good-sized room. There are two full bathrooms on the hallway as well, both of them very well decorated. The first has a dual vanity counter top while the second has a rustic semi-recessed sink.
As good as the house itself is, the backyard takes it up another notch. It is just breathtaking. It starts with a large open brick patio with room or cooking and seating. Beyond the brick patio is a crystal blue inground pool with a shaded poolside seating area - all surrounded by a wide green lawn. The entire yard is enclosed by a six-foot privacy fence. Simply put, it is a remarkable place to escape to alone or to entertain a crowd. Very few backyards are this well done. In addition to the pool and entertainment area, there is also a well built storage building in the corner. You probably hear the phrase "a must see home" a lot when shopping for a home, but this is truly a case where the phrase applies. If you are looking for a home in the mid-200s range, then this is an absolute must see home for you. It is too good to miss out on. View the photos below, but make sure to schedule an appointment and see it in person. You will not regret it - and you just might buy it.


The Good Person of Szechwan is a play written by the German theatre practitioner Bertolt Brecht, in collaboration with Margarete Steffin and Ruth Berlau. The play was begun in 1938 but not completed until 1943, while the author was in exile in the United States. It was first performed in 1943 at the Zürich Schauspielhaus in Switzerland, with a musical score and songs by Swiss composer Huldreich Georg Früh. Today, Paul Dessau's composition of the songs from 1947–48, also authorized by Brecht, is the better known version. The play is an example of Brecht's "non-Aristotelian drama", a dramatic form intended to be staged with the methods of epic theatre. The play is a parable set in the Chinese "city of Sichuan".


Wasserman DH (January 2009). "Four grams of glucose". American Journal of Physiology. Endocrinology and Metabolism. 296 (1): E11–21.
Inflammation and Atherosclerosis—Revisited – Sadip Pant, Abhishek Deshmukh, Guru S. GuruMurthy, Naga Venkata Pothineni, Thomas Evans Watts, Francesco Romeo, Jawahar L. Mehta, 2014. (2018). Journal Of Cardiovascular Pharmacology And Therapeutics.
Liira J, Verbeek JH, Costa G, Driscoll TR, Sallinen M, Isotalo LK, Ruotsalainen JH (August 2014). "Pharmacological interventions for sleepiness and sleep disturbances caused by shift work". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 8 (8): CD009776. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009776.pub2.
Firmin, R. L., Luther, L., Lysaker, P. H., & Salyers, M. P. (2015). Self-initiated helping behaviors and recovery in severe mental illness: Implications for work, volunteerism, and peer support. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 38(4), 336-341.


Jinsey was recently featured in an article from Backstage magazine about New York headshot photographers.
It's all in the eyes! Here in their headshots, actors Rhonda Jensen and Miguel Perez are both open, approachable, warm, and engaging. They emit a spirit, a personality, and a feeling. That's exactly what you want in a headshot—you want the casting director to feel all that. Because I shoot with natural light and not flash, it's easy for clients to feel more natural themselves; they are spontaneous and being, not posing. Their eyes are alive. Casting directors and agents like this because not only do the actors look like their headshots, but the CDs and agents get a sense of communication and honesty.
Regarding the background, I always keep it out of focus to help the subjects become more three-dimensional, as if they're jumping off the page. Regarding the clothing, I prefer that we keep the shot simple by going with mostly solid-colored clothing. That makes the eyes the most important thing in the shot. People feel they almost know these actors just by looking into their eyes. That's the kind of connection to strive for in a headshot.


Cancellations Feb 13 – Updated 6:55 a.m.
Community Mental Health CIS program will be closed today, Wednesday, February 13. CMH will be open however no agency transportation will be provided. Staff are to report to work.


For me the pregnancy months seemed to go on forever. I really needed something to occupy my time with to help things along. Planning my baby shower, the nursery (well the corner of my room for the time being) and all baby essentials were on my list of things to do. I bought a whole load of things – some were necessary, some were not, but as time went on and after a lot of Instagram watching, I knew there were a whole load of stuff I wish I had bought.
I think a rocking chair is vital for any parent and carer of children. They can be used to feed babies, soothe babies and even just hold and play with baby in a comfortable position. I found sitting and feeding baby really hurt my back without the proper setting and proper comfortable chair. Also I really felt like I needed to pick my feet up to rest on something and these great gliders come with just that: a foot stool. They also glide/ rock so help to soothe baby whether you are putting them to bed at night or just resting during the day. The colours are neutral so can be used for boys and girls and would suit in any nursery. Once I finally move house and my little angel gets his own room I will be designing the nursery and this item is a MUST!!!
I have heard a lot of good things about having a sound machine or white noise machine to help baby sleep peacefully and through the night. Ok so these are assertions and I cannot say whether this in fact helps as I have never bought one and not sure how the noise exactly soothes babies but apparently it does. If you are reading this and you're thinking "this never worked with my baby" don't fret – seriously. Every baby is sooo different that one thing may help one mum and a completely different thing will help another.
I'll be putting together a blog post on the misconceptions of the recommended approach for dealing with babies that never worked for me and will be going through what actually worked for us and our crazy flexible routine. I'm doing this because I myself felt sooo bad that all of these recommendations I read about online and things that worked with babies never actually worked for us. I don't want other mums to feel disappointment unnecessarily when each baby decides for itself what works and what doesn't. Sign up for my weekly motherhood tips below to stay up to date with all of my blog posts so you don't miss this.
The way the noise machines work is that they are supposed replicate sounds inside the womb reassuring baby and keeping him calm and relaxed in an environment he is familiar with. Therefore I always assumed that these machines are only suitable for newborns. These white noise machines are always being recommended by various sleep consultants on Instagram, so I asked one helpful lady whether someone who had never used a sound machine with their baby, could in fact implement it with an 8month old. They said yes! I still haven't tried but it is in my Amazon basket so maybe I'll take the plunge and buy one.
As I cyberstalk all my favourite mummy bloggers on Instagram, I keep coming across a pillow-like lounger with very adorable babies sleeping in them. After a little more digging I realised that these clever little pillows (or snuggle pods) actually keep baby cocooned safely and snuggly…recreating mummy's hugs and apparently the womb. At this point I understood that I, again, was missing a valuable item in my "nursery".
There are soo many types of snuggle pods and to my surprise it isn't just for newborns. There are actually ones for older babies. The question of course remains, would an older baby, who loves to move a lot especially in his sleep, sleep in one of these?? If you have any experience of this please let me know below!! I think it may be a little late in the day for me to purchase one of these for my little boy now but for baby number 2 this is on my DEFINETELY list.
Dockatot Deluxe (US link) – This seems to be the most popular choice. It's an all in one baby lounger which is great for co-sleeping too. It's suitable for babies aged 0-8 months – but doubt it would hold slightly larger babies that are younger then 8 months. I have read that those with larger babies should go for the bigger size from the outset: the Dockatot Grande (US link) – which is suitable for babies aged 9-36 months. Yes that is quite a big age gap to try to fit into but sorry I honestly cannot comment on this until I try it out for myself. These Dockatot snuggle pods are a little on the expensive side too so not sure whether the benefit outweighs the expensive price-tag so another point to check. Again if any experienced mamas out there have tried it and agree that it is worth it – holla!!
A slightly (more than slightly) cheaper version of these snuggle pods is the Poddle Pod (for babies aged 0-6 months) and the Toddle Pod (for 6-36 months). The idea behind this is the same as the Dockatot minus the brand name and price tag. The shape seems to be a little different: more rectangle as opposed to oval but the babies in the pictures on Amazon seem comfortable and cosy enough.
If you looking for another well-known brand then the Snuggle Me Organic (a US brand) is also quite popular on Instagram. Here is the UK link but they send it from the US so allow for shipping costs and times if you looking to buy it.
In a way this item is not super necessary but if you need a few minutes to deal with some chores or even pop to the bathroom it could be helpful to put your baby into the rocker (always at eye sight preferably) and go about your business – always keeping an eye on your baby of course. Some rockers are even great at rocking and soothing your baby. This is a great thing if like my little angel your hands look like they are about to fall off and you need something else (if no one else is at home) to rock him instead. Like the rest of the items in this post I haven't actually used one of these before – my baby isn't one to sit somewhere for a prolonged period of time – so cannot comment on whether it works or doesn't but I imagine it would be quite helpful.
DISCLAIMER – never leave your baby unattended in one of these nor leave them to sleep in these for too long. Always read the instructions and follow any specific recommendations. I am in no way a specialist or medical profession so please use with caution at your own accord.
A nappy bin/ disposal system is a MUST. I have on many occasions found myself throwing a wet nappy and baby wipes on the floor after changing my angel because there was no bin nearby. As he got older placing it nearby was not an option. He grabs literally everything. The smell from some nappies are seriously smelly (seriously) and you really need to put it somewhere away from your normal bin. The smell lingers and affects your normal household bins therefore separate them.
The Tommee Tippee Sangenic Nappy Disposal System – here is a great starter pack for the newbies (US link). It includes the actual bin itself plus cassets with the special nappy sacks. What's great about the Tommee Tippee Bin is that it twists and wraps each nappy when you put it in. The odour is locked in and the antibacterial film kills 99% of germs on contact. In the States, I know that the Diaper Genie is quite popular.
Well there you have it, my 5 top recommendations of what you should really buy when planning your pregnancy! Even if you don't buy items 1-4, the Diaper bin is really a must!! I'll be sure to buy all of these for baby number 2 – then I'll be able to properly report them to you!!


Bad Piggies 2018 offers 3 game mode: Ground Hot Day in which you build a cart, When Pigs Fly in which you attach a balloon to fly, and Flight in The Night in which you build motor powered cart. The goal is the same: in each level you need to reach the destination, and preferably hit star boxes to earn more stars. Have fun crafting the best ride!
Bad Piggies 2018 is an excellent launch game that you can play here, for free. Bad Piggies 2018 is powered by Flash to work flawlessly in all modern browsers. This game has been played by 660,026 people and has received a rating of 9.3 / 10 by 8,284 people. Did you like playing this game? Then also play our other launch games or to Paper Flight and Skulls vs Zombies.
Click 'Allow' to play Bad Piggies 2018! Click 'Always allow' to play Bad Piggies 2018!


"Teaching Communication Skills to Children with Autism" is a comprehensive overview of methods and strategies for developing functional communication in children with autism. It addresses the needs of nonverbal and beginning communicators, as well as verbal children with high-functioning autism and Asperger Syndrome. 7" x 9", 235 pages, softcover.


During Week 5, a team of enthusiastic students along with Mr Craig-Ward & Ms Blackmur embarked on the annual Falls Creek Ski trip. We flew to Melbourne, where we boarded the 'Falls Express' for the slopes. Lessons began at 8:30am every morning, with students up and dressed in excited anticipation well before time. During the lessons, expert ski instructors facilitated skills and progression through the varying the graded slopes in both skiing and snowboarding. The lessons allowed the foundations for skiing down wombats ramble, highway 83 and main street. With some risk taking students, heading for black runs on the summit. Highlights of the trip included Mr. Craig Wards role modelling of the black run 'Rollercoaster', which results in a rather eloquent fall in amongst the trees at the bottom of a very steep slope, and Ms. Blackmur's shoulder slide head first down the mountain.
At the completion of the day students reflected on their progress for CAS, shared memorable moments and on Thursday evening watched the 'Night ski show', which highlights the talents of the ski staff through a global spectacular. The group was lucky enough to have fresh snow on Tuesday night, which made the skiing magical.
After reluctantly leaving the slopes on Friday for Melbourne, Saturday involved a whirlwind tour of Melbourne city including Victoria square markets and Federation square.


text:
Digital in 2020: A geopolitical programme
By Samuel Stolton | EURACTIV.com
EURACTIV takes a look ahead to the big policy issues of 2020 in the field of digital affairs. [EPA / HIRSCHBERGER]
Departing from a tumultuous 2019, in which several tech behemoths faced the ire of European regulators, the forthcoming twelve months in the digital arena will prove to be lively in terms of EU policy.
2019 saw EU Commissioners hit out at online platforms for their lack of effort in targeting disinformation online, G7 ministers highlighting the 'serious risks' of Facebook's Libra 'coin,' a gradual fracturing of the EU market in terms of a 5G strategy, concerns mounting over the broader employment of Artificial Intelligence technologies, and the adoption of one of the most divisive files in the history of intellectual property law – the copyright directive.
And of course, we should not forget the announcement of the establishment of the EU's landmark cloud infrastructure – Gaia-X, the rising importance of bolstering defence against cybersecurity threats to critical national infrastructures, or tougher EU privacy rules faltering – in addition to the bloc's efforts in digital taxation falling short.
Against this backdrop, the EU's new digital tsar, Margarethe Vestager, hit out at the so-called 'biopower' of global tech giants just before taking up her new post, giving us an insight into how she will seek to continue to impose her authority over the next year.
In terms of how the momentum of 2019 could propel the direction of EU policy this year, this is our take on what could be in store, in what will prove to be a 'geopolitical' 12 months for digital policy.
The European Commission is currently in the process of thrashing out the details of the Digital Services Act (DSA), a new framework due to be put forward in 2020, which will update the decades-old eCommerce directive and establish new rules governing the internet.
The DSA is likely to include measures aimed to tackle illegal content online and political advertising across platforms, as well as establishing an EU definition of hate speech. Adopting a common approach on hate speech at the EU level will be no mean feat, as differing interpretations on the concept have been manifesting recently.
On 19 December 2019, the German justice ministry released a draft law to combat right-wing extremism and hate crime – which ramps up the legal obligation under the German Network Enforcement Act for social media providers active in Germany to delete hate speech, so that such firms would now be required to proactively report offending content to the authorities.
In France, the National Assembly approved draft legislation on hate speech in July, a revised version of which went through the senate in December after having removed a 24-hour removal order obligation. Commission Vice President for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová said towards the end of the year that the French should hold tight on the plans for now, while the Commission puts the final touches to the Digital Service Act framework.
A important point on the DSA, is the fact that the Commission proposal is unlikely to re-open the liability exemptions in the e-Commerce Directive, which had been put in place to protect hosting providers.
Moreover, it remains to be seen whether disinformation and fake news will come under the scope of the digital services act. Last year, the Commission put into action the code of practice against disinformation – a voluntary framework that aimed to stamp out the spread of fake news online. Signatories included Facebook, Google and Twitter.
However, throughout the review process, Commissioners frequently criticised the lack of oversight by some of the platforms. Should disinformation continue to cause worry in terms of the integrity and independence of European elections, regulators in Brussels may very well consider more stringent measures to ensure that fake news is not given the space to foster online.
In another area of the digital services ecosystem, trilogue negotiations are still ongoing as part of the EU's online terrorist content regulation, which aims to force internet companies to remove content promoting terrorism. There are several crucial areas of negotiation ongoing, including the timeframe of the removal orders and potential exemptions for educational, journalistic or research work.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has pledged to deliver a strategy on Artificial Intelligence and Ethics in the first 100 days of the new Commission. An EU source recently told EURACTIV that we are likely to see a 'roadmap' rather than a tightly defined strategy, as part of the announcement.
A report published in June by the Commission's High-Level Group on AI suggested that the EU should consider the need for new regulation to "ensure adequate protection from adverse impacts," which could include issues arising from biometric recognition, the use of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), AI systems built on children's profiles, and the impact AI may have on fundamental rights.
Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders told his parliamentary hearing in October he would advocate for an 'ethics-by-design' approach, whereby products and services using AI take into account ethical guidelines at the earliest possible stage in their development.
Moreover, appearing at the European Parliament's Knowledge and Big Data Innovation Summit in December, Lucilla Sioli, director of Artificial Intelligence and digital industry at DG CONNECT, suggested the EU's plans in the field of AI could help foster an environment that would bolster European technology.
"There are technical reasons, together with the complexity of our geopolitical context that really call for us to be able to develop a lot of these key technologies," she said.
Another area which hasn't received much attention so far in the field of AI is how the technology will impact intellectual property rights. When AI is used to compose a work of art or create music, who owns the work? Should AI-generated works always be in the public domain? Some of these questions will only become more pertinent in 2020.
Following on from this, the EU's copyright directive, adopted last year, will begin to be transposed in more countries across the bloc in 2020. Due to the divisiveness of the reforms, the nature or manner of how the measures will be transposed will be of interest. We already conducted a (partial) overview of how things stood towards the end of 2019.
One AI technology that will continue to raise concerns is facial recognition. Last year, the Swedish Data Protection Authority fined a municipality 20,000 euros for using facial recognition technology to monitor the attendance of students in school – the first fine issued by the Swedish DPA, and indicative of how attitudes towards facial recognition may be coloured over the next five years in Europe.
Meanwhile, France's data regulator, the CNIL, said the technology breaches consent rules outlined in the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, which states that users must give their permission before their biometric data can be stored.
In France, however, the issue is not so clear cut, President Emmanuel Macron has been keen to rally the benefits of his country's new ID programme, 'Alicem', which employs facial recognition technologies for identity verification purposes. That being said, France's Secretary of State for Digital, Cédric O, was wary about the project actually gaining traction, in an interview with Le Parisien.
In Brussels, the European Data Protection Supervisor, Wojciech Wiewiórowski, voiced a number of concerns with facial recognition technologies just before taking up the post in December, in a blog post where he highlighted the possible privacy and data protection issues.
Margarethe Vestager's approach to AI is cautious, but not overly prohibitive. She told EURACTIV in November that "great opportunities come with great risks," but that she has "strong reservations" with the 'blanket' application of some technologies in particular, such as facial recognition software.
In December, EU ministers adopted conclusions concerning the importance and security of 5G technology, stressing that an approach to 5G cybersecurity should be comprehensive and risk-based, while also taking into account 'non-technical factors'. An important statement amid continuing pressure from the US administration on policymakers and regulators in Europe, who are yet to form a unified position the involvement of telecommunications giant Huawei.
In the Commission, an October report on the coordinated risk assessment of 5G networks noted that "threats posed by states or state-backed actors are perceived to be of highest relevance". Member states have now been tasked with working on a set of measures to mitigate the cybersecurity risks outlined in the report. EU nations are currently working alongside the Commission and ENISA, the European Agency for Cybersecurity, in drawing up the plans.
5G is inextricably a geopolitical issue. Some member states, such as Poland and Romania, have adopted agreements with the US on the collaboration of next-generation mobile technologies, while others have tried to resist the US pressure.
In March, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, US General Curtis Scaparrotti, said the Alliance may cut communications with its German counterparts should the latter decide to collaborate with Huawei in the development of 5G. His comments prompted German Chancellor Angela Merkel to state that "we will define standards for ourselves," and the Germans have since put forward measures to bolster their 5G security standards.
Towards the end of 2019, we conducted a survey of the state of play in Europe. Read here to find out more and expect 5G to dominate the telecommunications agenda over the following twelve months.
Many in Europe have heralded the recent implementation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, which took effect on 1 January, as being indicative of the global reach and influence of the GDPR. The new measures will give residents in the state much more control over how their personal data is protected online, while also placing more responsibility on businesses in their data protection practices.
In Brussels, following last year's failure of EU ministers to agree on new measures to bolster data protection standards as part of the ePrivacy regulation, the EU's new Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton suggested in December that the Commissioner may present a revised ePrivacy proposal as part of the forthcoming Croatian Presidency of the EU.
However, a Commission insider later informed EURACTIV that a complete overhaul of the measures is unlikely to be on the table, and Breton will rather seek to make 'clarifications' to the Croatian Presidency concerning any revisions to the text that could be made.
In addition, throughout 2020, the European Data Protection Watchdog is set to publish several recommendations on how to improve data rights.
Meanwhile, the UK's withdrawal from the EU will have an impact on how data transfers will take place between the two parties. The Commission says it will begin evaluating the UK's data protection standards with a view to securing an adequacy agreement "by the end of 2020."
However, the Commission actually cannot commence an evaluation of UK data protection standards until the country has left the EU entirely, because the UK would still be bound by EU law during the transition period, which, under the current agreement runs until the end of 2020.
Moreover, even when such an evaluation takes place, there could be serious bumps in the road, especially when taking into account the UK's previous 'questionable' track record in mass surveillance programs and the fact that the ECHR ruled in September 2018 that the U.K. had breached human rights in its mass surveillance program.
In terms of extra-territorial applications that have raised data protection worries, China's TikTok video-sharing platform is being subjected to a national security review in the US, and the UK's Information Commissioner's Office will conclude its own investigation over the next few months.
It has increased its lobbying presence in the EU, hiring policy experts in Brussels, London, Dublin, Paris, and Berlin. The company, gearing up for the judicious eye of EU regulators, released its own transparency report on January 1.
Facebook, meanwhile, is set to go ahead in 2020 with plans to end-to-end encrypt communications across its messaging platforms, such as Facebook Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp. The move was welcomed by privacy activists but criticised by those in the security world.
As part of the EU's cybersecurity act, adopted last year, cybersecurity certification schemes may become commonplace for a breath of goods and services – the scope of which is still to be hashed out by the Commission working alongside ENISA.
EURACTIV understands that the priority for the EU is to ensure that hackable goods connected to a wider network of devices are likely to be included in the scope of the certification framework – including equipment used for 5G infrastructure, as well as Internet of Things devices and cloud services.
2020 may see significant cybersecurity breaches across public and private sectors, with a further blurring of the boundaries between hacktivism, criminality, and terrorism. Expect cyber warfare to very well be increasingly conducted with Artificial Intelligence activities, as well as an increase in the cost of cyber insurance as a result of an increase in threats and attacks.
[Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic]
Alicem
digital affairs
Digital Brief
digital policy
digital services act
Magrethe Vestager
online terrorist content
TERREG
terrorist content online
The Digital Brief
7 Jan, 12:49 // Facebook to remove deepfake videos in run-up to 2020 U.S. election
16 Dec, 21:14 // Nicky Morgan to remain UK culture minister - PM Johnson's office
14 Nov, 17:19 // BREAKING: Breton passes Parliament test
5 Nov, 11:10 // Hungary to cooperate with Huawei in 5G network rollout
30 Oct, 08:00 // Spain's Statistical Institute to track citizens' cellphones for 'sociological study'


I. STANTON CARTER (on Behalf of Oberlin M. Carter), , v. ROBERT W. McCLAUGHRY, Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
I. STANTON CARTER (on Behalf of Oberlin M. Carter), Appt., v. ROBERT W. McCLAUGHRY, Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
Argued: December 3, 4, 1901.
The petition alleged that Carter was imprisoned and restrained of his liberty by the warden of the United States prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, by virtue of a sentence imposed upon him by a general courtmartial of the United States, approved by the Secretary of War, and approved and confirmed by the President of the United States on the 29th day of September, 1899.
That the warrant under which the warden detained petitioner was an order from the headquarters of the army; that is to say, General Orders No. 172, dated September 29, 1899, and set forth at length.
To the first specification of Charge I., the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth specifications of Charge II.; the first, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first specifications of Charge III.; and the second specification of Charge IV., he pleaded the statute of limitations, the 103d article of war, and the plea was sustained by the court. To the charges and the other specifications he pleaded not guilty, and was found not guilty on the eighth, tenth, twelfth, and twenty-third specifications under Charge III.
Specification II.—'In that Captain Oberlin M. Carter, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, devising and intending to defraud the United States, and to aid the Atlantic Contracting Company, a corporation, and John F. Gaynor, William T. Gaynor, and Edward H. Gaynor, and Anson M. Bangs, and divers other persons, all of whom were likewise with him, the said Carter, devising and intending to defraud the United States, did, with the corporation and persons named, unlawfully combine and conspire to defraud the United States of divers large sums of money by aiding the said The Atlantic Contracting Company to obtain the allowance and payment of certain false and fraudulent claims hereinafter described; and in pursuance of the said conspiracy the said Oberlin M. Carter, in the months of June, July, and August, September, and October, 1896, being an officer of the United States in charge of the river and harbor district usually called the Savannah district, and of the improvement by the United States of rivers and harbors in said district, did, with the knowledge and consent of the said other parties named, so advertise for proposals for contracts for certain works of improvement in the harbor of Savannah, Georgia, in said district, and so manage and conduct said advertising, and the matter of giving out information in regard to the contract to be let, and the matter of receiving proposals and awarding the contract, as to enable the said The Atlantic Contracting Company to secure the contract for said work, and to have the same entered into by the United States with it October 8, 1896; and in further pursuance of the said conspiracy the said The Atlantic Contracting Company afterwards, to wit, from about the 8th day of October, 1896, to July 31, 1897, did furnish and put into said work certain mattresses, stone, and other material which were different in kind and character from the mattresses, stone, and other material contracted for in said contract, and very much less costly to the said The Atlantic Contracting Company, as well as of less value to the United States; which said mattresses, stone, and other material so furnished and put into the work the said Captain Carter, in further pursuance of said conspiracy, did receive and accept, and cause to be received and accepted, for the United States, as and for the mattresses, stone, and other material contracted for, and did, on or about July 6, 1897, cause to be paid, out of the moneys of the United States, $230,749.90 to the said The Atlantic Contracting Company, on account of the said furnishing and delivery of the same, and as if the said mattresses, stone, and other material had been such as were stipulated for in the contract, and at the same rate, cost, and price as if they had been.
'And in further pursuance of the said conspiracy the said Captain Carter, about June, July, August, September, and October, 1896, did advertise for proposals for a contract for improving Cumberland sound, Georgia, in said river and harbor district, and so manage and conduct the matter of such advertising, and the matter of giving out information in regard to the contract to be let, and the matter of receiving proposals and awarding the contract, as to enable the said The Atlantic Contracting Company to secure the contract for said work and to have the same entered into by the United States with it October 8, 1896; and in further pursuance of the said conspiracy the said The Atlantic Contracting Company, from about the 8th day of October, 1896, to the 31st day of July, 1897, did furnish and put into said work certain mattresses, stone, and other materials which were different in kind and character from the mattresses, stone, and other materials contracted for in said contract, and very much less costly to the said The Atlantic Contracting Company, as well as of less value to the United States; which said mattresses, stone, and other material so furnished and put into the work the said Captain Carter, in further pursuance of said conspiracy, did receive and accept, and cause to be received and accepted, for the United States, as and for the mattresses, stone, and other material contracted for, and did, on or about July 6, 1897, cause to be paid, out of the moneys of the United States, $345,000.00 to the said The Atlantic Contracting Company, on account of said furnishing and delivery of the same, and as if the said mattresses, stone, and other material had been such as were stipulated for in the contract, and at the same rate, cost, and price as if they had been.
Specification VII.—In that the accused caused to be entered on a government pay roll the names of sundry persons as laborers, and caused to be paid to them certain sums for services as laborers, whereas none of such persons had rendered services as laborers, and the accused knew such claims were false and fraudulent.
Specification VIII.—For fraudulently allowing an account of $121.60 of the Atlantic Contracting Company against the United States, for piling in repairing the Garden Bank training wall.
Specification IX.—For fraudulently allowing an account of $384 to the Atlantic Contracting Company for pile work.
Specification X.—For fraudulently allowing an amount of $108.80 to the Atlantic Contracting Company for pile dams.
Specification III.—For making a false statement to the chief of engineers as to new soundings for work in Savannah harbor, with intent to deceive.
Specification IV.—For falsely entering on the pay roll the names of certain persons as laborers to an amount of $29.50.
Specification V.—For falsely certifying as correct an account of the Atlantic Contracting Company for $121.60.
Specification VI.—For falsely certifying as correct an account of the Atlantic Contracting Company for $384.
Specification VII.—For falsely certifying as correct an account of the Atlantic Contracting Company for $108.80.
Specification IX.—For indorsing a certain false statement on a letter from the chief of engineers as to rentals on property proposed to be acquired by the United States at Savannah.
Specification XI.—For failing to account for the sum of $132.10, money of the United States, received by the accused from Alfred Hirt.
Specification XXII.—For making false reports as to his absence from his station.
The court-martial found the accused guilty of the second specification under Charge I., 'except the words 'and other material,' and interpolating the word 'and' between the words 'mattresses' and 'stone' wherever those words occur in the specification, of the excepted words not guilty, and of the interpolated word guilty;' and guilty of the charge; guilty of the sixth specification under Charge II., 'except of the words 'and other material' where they occur the second and third time, and interpolating the word 'and' between the words 'mattresses' and 'stone' where they occur the second and third time; of the excepted words not guilty; of the interpolated word guilty;' guilty of the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth specifications, and guilty of the charge; guilty of the second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, and twenty-second specifications under Charge III. of the fifth specification, 'except of the words 'the articles have been,' and of the excepted words not guilty;' and not guilty of the eighth, tenth, twelfth, and twenty-third specifications; and guilty of the charge; guilty of the 1st specification under Charge IV., and guilty of the charge.
Charge II. Specifications seven, eight, nine, and ten.
Charge III. Specifications three, four, five, six, seven, nine, eleven, and twenty-two, which are disapproved. And the sentence imposed by the court-martial upon the defendant Oberlin M. Carter, is hereby approved. Elihu Root, Secretary of War.
Washington, D. C., September 29, 1899.
By direction of the Secretary of War Captain Oberlin M. Carter, Corps of Engineers, ceases to be an officer of the army from this date, and the United States penitentiary, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is designated as the place for his confinement, where he will be sent by the commanding general, Department of the East, under proper guard.
H. C. Corbin, Adjutant General.
First. That there was no evidence delivered before the court-martial which tended to show that any crime whatever had been committed by said Carter; but, on the contrary, all the evidence taken together affirmatively showed that Carter was wholly innocent of any wrongdoing; 'and that in imposing the sentence above set out said court-martial acted beyond its jurisdiction, and said sentence was and is wholly void.' Petitioner stated that he had no copy of the evidence, but that he attached a copy of an abstract of all the evidence adduced before the court-martial.
Second. That the finding of said Carter guilty of Charge IV. and the specification thereunder, and the imposing of sentence on him as for a violation of the 62d article of war, were and each of them was wholly illegal and void, for that: (a) It was shown by the evidence, and appeared from the charges and specifications, that the two sums of money alleged to have been paid out by Carter 'for a purpose not authorized by law' were paid out by him under and in accordance with the specifications of two certain contracts for the improvement of Savannah harbor and Cumberland sound, which contracts were entered into pursuant to the act of Congress of June 3, 1896; (b) It appeared from the specification that the acts described therein were not in violation of the 62d article of war, and were not cognizable by a court-martial under that article, but if justiciable at all by the court-martial, were justiciable under the 60th article of war.
Third. That the imprisonment and detention were illegal and contrary to article 102 prohibiting a second trial for the same offense, and contrary to the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in this: (a) That it appeared from the charges and specifications, and also from the evidence, that the payment of the two checks drawn by Carter, and described in each of the specifications under which he was convicted, were the only basis of each of the four charges, and that the single act of drawing the two checks had been carved up into four distinct and different crimes, and a punishment assessed on each; (b) That the sentence was beyond the powers of the court-martial and void, for that under the 60th article of war the court-martial was authorized to inflict the punishment of a fine or imprisonment, or such other punishment as it might adjudge; (c) That under the 61st article of war, the violation of which was laid in Charge III., the court-martial had jurisdiction to inflict the judgment of dismissal from the army only; (d) That the facts set out in the specifications under Charges I., II., and IV., respectively, brought the offense therein described under the 60th article of war, under which the court-martial had jurisdiction only to inflict a fine or an imprisonment or some other punishment, in the alternative, and not cumulatively.
Fifth. That the punishment of imprisonment was beyond the powers of the court-martial and void in this: That under and by virtue of an act of Congress approved September 27, 1890, the President, by an order dated March 20, 1895, fixed the maximum punishment for a violation, by an enlisted man in the Army of the United States, of the 60th article of war, and for the violation by such person of the 62d article of war, by embezzlement of more than $100, at a term of four years' confinement at hard labor, under each article; and that thereafter, on October 31, 1895 (prior to these proceedings), the President, in accordance with the act of Congress, prescribed that said maximum limit should extend to all such violations, whether by officers or enlisted men of the army.
'That said court-martial found the said Captain Carter guilty of Charge I. and of specification two thereunder; of Charge II. and specifications six, seven, eight, nine, and ten thereunder; of Charge III. and specifications two, three, four, five, six, seven, nine, eleven, and twenty-two thereunder; and of Charge IV. and specification one thereunder; and thereupon sentenced the said Carter to be punished as hereinabove set forth; but the President of the United States disapproved the findings of said court-martial as to specifications seven, eight, nine, and ten, under Charge II., and specifications three, four, five, six, seven, nine, eleven, and twenty-two under Charge III., and approved the said sentence as originally fixed by the said court; the said several specifications so approved and the said several specifications so disapproved charging several and distinct offenses, growing out of several distinct and disconnected transactions, said several offenses charged not being of the same class of crimes.
The petition further alleged that October 2, 1899, said Carter, by Abram J. Rose, applied to the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York for a writ of habeas corpus, which writ was on October 20, 1899, dismissed; that on January 24, 1900, the decision of the circuit court was affirmed by the United States circuit court of appeals for the second circuit; that thereafter the petitioner last named prosecuted a writ of error to the circuit court and a certiorari out of the Supreme Court of the United States, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and writ of error. Copies of the opinions in each of these courts were attached. Petitioner further averred that this application was made on the same evidence as in the application to the circuit court for the southern district of New York, to wit, the evidence adduced before the court-martial.
By amendment a further allegation was added to the petition to the effect that on December 9, 1899, said Carter and Benjamin D. Green and others were indicted in the United States circuit court for the southern district of Georgia for a conspiracy to defraud the United States, a copy of which indictment was attached; 'that said indictment was based on the same facts as set out in the charges and specifications, for the conviction of which by said court-martial said Carter is now undergoing imprisonment, that is to say, Charge I., specification two, Charge II., specification six, Charge III., specification two, and Charge IV., specification one, as set out in the petition filed herein,—and that said indictment was found after the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York had denied the application for a writ of habeas corpus on October 20, 1899.' The respondent, the warden of the United States penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, returned to the writ that he had Oberlin M. Carter in custody, as such warden, and detained him by direction of the Secretary of War, the said Carter being under sentence of a general court-martial, sentenced to be imprisoned at said penitentiary for five years, and that Carter was now in custody as aforesaid, undergoing said sentence of imprisonment; that the warden was acting in the capacity of custodian of said Carter, in virtue of General Orders No. 172 of September 29, 1899, a duly authenticated copy of which was filed as part of the return; and the respondent contended that said Carter had been lawfully convicted and sentenced by the said general court-martial, which had jurisdiction of the person of said Carter, and of the various offenses for which he was tried.
Respondent further set forth the proceedings by habeas corpus in the southern district of New York, during the pendency of which the said Carter paid the fine imposed, and averred that on hearing the circuit court dismissed the writ, and Carter was remanded to custody (Re Carter, 97 Fed. 496); that thereafter the cause was carried to the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit, and that court affirmed the final order of the circuit court. 40 C. C. A. 199, 99 Fed. 948. That on February 5, 1900, a petition for certiorari was submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, which on February 26, 1900, was denied. Carter v. Roberts, 176 U. S. 684, 44 L. ed. 638, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1026. That, on the same day the application for certiorari was denied, an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, and a writ of error sued out, to review the order of the circuit court in dismissing the habeas corpus and remanding the said Carter; and that thereafter the Supreme Court, on April 23, 1900, dismissed said appeal and writ of error for want of jurisdiction. Carter v. Roberts, 177 U. S. 496, 44 L. ed. 861, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 713. That on the mandate issuing from the Supreme Court April 24, 1900, to the circuit court, the circuit court, on April 25, 1900, entered judgment, and remanded Carter to the custody from which he was produced, for the purpose of having the sentence executed. Duly authenticated transcripts of these various proceedings and copies of accompanying briefs were made parts of the return.
That in accordance with the sentence Carter was received at the penitentiary on the 27th day of April, and had been there until the present date, undergoing the same.
Respondent objected in conclusion to the admission by the court of the abstract of the evidence alleged to have been taken before the court-martial and made part of petitioner's petition, because the record of the whole proceedings of a court-martial is required by law to be reduced to writing, and deposited in the office of the Judge Advocate of the Army, and this record or a copy thereof duly authenticated is the best evidence; and, even if produced, would be inadmissible for the purpose for which it was sought to be introduced, as the courts in habeas corpus proceedings cannot examine the evidence for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the party convicted; and this case presented no exception justifying departure from this rule, as General Orders No. 172 afforded all the information necessary to dispose of the case.
The record of the circuit court shows that the matter came on to be heard on November 23, 1900, on petitioner's 'oral motion to discharge the said Oberlin M. Carter, based upon the averments of respondent's return, no evidence having been offered or considered by the court.' On December 10, 1900, it was ordered by the court 'that the writ of habeas corpus herein be discharged; and it is further ordered that the said Oberlin M. Carter be remanded to the custody of Robert W. McClaughry, warden of the United States penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.' The opinion of the court was delivered by Hook, J., in which Thayer, Circuit Judge, concurred. 105 Fed. 614.
1. That the finding of 'guilty' under Charge IV. and its specification was void, inasmuch as the specification was wrongly laid under article 62, because (a) the money was applied to a purpose prescribed by law; (b) and the crime charged was not 'to the prejudice of good order and military discipline;' and inasmuch as the crime charged was 'mentioned in the foregoing articles of war,' being covered by paragraphs 1, 4, and 9 of article 60.
2. The finding under article 62 being void, that the sentence is in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, because it was greater than could be imposed for any alleged crime taken singly, and there were only two separate crimes charged, viz., conspiracy and paying fraudulent claims, while there were three several penalties imposed, viz., dismissal, fine, and imprisonment. Dismissal and fine had been discharged, and the third, imprisonment, is illegal.
Messrs. Frank P. Blair, H. G. Stone, and Jeremiah M. Wilson for appellant.
Messrs. J. W. Clous and Solicitor General Richards for appellee.
Jurisdiction over the person is conceded, but it is argued that there was no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, because the evidence affirmatively showed that no crime whatever had been committed. Whether the sentence of a military court, approved by the reviewing authority, is open to attack in the civil courts on such a ground is a question which does not arise on this record. The motion to discharge conceded the return to be true, and if the return showed sufficient cause for detention, the circuit court was right in dismissing the writ, and its final order to that effect must be affirmed. No evidence was adduced in or considered by the circuit court, and none is before us, nor is any inquiry into the innocence or guilt of the accused permissible.
The particular ground on which the appeal directly to this court may be rested is that the case involved the construction or application of the Constitution in the contention that by the sentence petitioner was twice punished for the same offense.
That question was put forward in the petition and manifestly argued on the return. The circuit court states in its opinion that 'it is contended in behalf of Carter that his imprisonment is in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and is otherwise illegal and without warrant of law.' And, indeed, the application of the Constitution would seem to be necessarily involved if the sentence were held invalid on other grounds.
One of these objections is that the sentence exceeded the maximum punishment fixed by the President, under the act of Congress approved September 27, 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 491, chap. 998), because the term of imprisonment imposed was five instead of four years.
February 26, 1891, the President made an executive order in limitation of punishment which was promulgated to the army in General Orders No. 21, February 27, 1891; and therein it was said: 'In accordance with an act of Congress of September 27, 1890, the following limits to the punishment of enlisted men, together with the accompanying regulations, are established for the government in time of peace, for all courts-martial, and will take effect thirty days after this order.' This executive order was amended by the President March 20, 1895, and again amended March 30, 1898, and in 1901. In neither of these executive orders were its provisions extended to commissioned officers, and they solely related to the cases of enlisted men. It is true that clause 938 of the army regulations promulgated October 31, 1895, provides: 'Whenever by any of the articles of war punishment is left to the discretion of the court, it shall not, in time of peace, be in excess of a limit which the President may prescribe. The limits so prescribed are set forth in the Manual for Courts-Martial, published by authority of the Secretary of War.' But we do not find in the manual any attempt to extend the limitations to others than enlisted men; and it is evident that a limit on discretion in punishment to be imposed by the President only, can only have such operation as he may affirmatively prescribe.
The different provisions of the sentence took effect concurrently while the accused was under the control of the military authorities of the United States as a commissioned officer of the army. The dates of the order of dismissal, of the infliction of the fine, and of the beginning of the imprisonment were the same date.
He was a military prisoner though he had ceased to be a soldier; and for offenses committed during his confinement he was liable to trial and punishment by court-martial under the rules and articles of war. Rev. Stat. § 1361.
It may be added that the principle that where jurisdiction has attached it cannot be devested by mere subsequent change of status has been applied as justifying the trial and sentence of an enlisted man after expiration of the term of enlistment (Barrett v. Hopkins, 2 McCrary, 129, 7 Fed. 312), and the execution of sentence after the lapse of many years, and the severance of all connection with the army. Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 509, 24 L. ed. 1118.
In the latter case this court held, at October term, 1878, that a soldier who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a general court-martial in 1865, but whose sentence had not been executed, might 'be delivered up to the military authorities of the United States, to be dealt with as required by law.' In this matter it was subsequently advised by Attorney General Devens that the death sentence might legally be carried into effect notwithstanding the fact that the soldier had in the meantime been discharged from the service, under the circumstances detailed; but he recommended that the sentence be commuted, and this recommendation was followed. 16 Ops. Atty. Gen. 349.
In Ex parte Mason, 105 U. S. 696, 26 L. ed. 1213, where the accused was sentenced by a general court-martial to dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and eight years' imprisonment in the Albany penitentiary, an application for release on habeas corpus was denied, and the sentence held to be legal.
The original article required the whole proceedings to be laid before the reviewing authority; the Revised Statutes, that the whole proceedings should be approved; the act of July 27, 1892, that the sentence should not be carried into execution until it was approved. From this legislation it appears that the approval of the sentence, and not of the whole proceedings, is now the prerequisite to carrying the sentence into execution; and this is in harmony with articles 105, 106, 107, and 108.
In Ballew v. United States, 160 U. S. 187, 40 L. ed. 388, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 263, where the indictment embraced two counts, each setting up a distinct offense, the court instructed the jury that if they considered the defendant guilty on one count and innocent on the other, they should so find; and that if they found him guilty on both counts, that they should return a general verdict of guilty. A general verdict of guilty was returned, and judgment rendered thereon.
This court held that error had been committed in the conviction as to the first count, but none in the conviction upon the other; and as the general verdict covered both, the judgment was reversed under the statute in that behalf, and the cause remanded, with instructions to enter judgment on the second count.
In Putnam v. United States, 162 U. S. 687, 40 L. ed. 1118, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 923, where there was a conviction on two counts, and the sentence imposed was distinct and separate as to each count, but was made concurrent so that the entire amount of punishment imposed would be undegone if the judgment were sustained under either court, error being found in the conviction as to one of them, the judgment was reversed as to that count, and affirmed on the other.
That contention after all amounts to no more than to say that if the court-martial had acquitted on the disapproved findings, it must be assumed that the sentence would have been less severe, and therefore that the President should have sent the case back or mitigated the punishment, and that because he did not the punishment must be conclusively regarded as increased. This is wholly inadmissible when the powers vested in the ultimate tribunal are considered.
The court-martial for the trial of Captain Oberlin M. Carter was convened by orders issued by the President; and he was therefore the reviewing authority, and the court of last resort.
The law governing courts-martial is found in the statutory enactments of Congress, particularly the articles of war; in the army regulations, and in the customary military law. According to military usage and practice, the charge is in effect divided into two parts, the first technically called the 'charge,' and the second the 'specification.' The charge proper designates the military offense of which the accused is alleged to be guilty. The specification sets forth the acts or omissions of the accused which form the legal constituents of the offense. The pleading need not possess the technical nicety of indictments as at common law. 'Trials by courts-martial are governed by the nature of the service, which demands intelligible precision of language, but regards the substance of things rather than their forms.' 7 Ops. Atty. Gen. 604. Not only do military usage and procedure permit of an indefinite number of offenses being charged and adjudicated together in one and the same proceeding, but the rule is recognized that whenever an officer has been apparently guilty of several or many offenses, whether of a similar character or distinct in their nature, charges and specifications covering them all should, if practicable, be preferred together, and together brought to trial. 1 Winthrop, Military Law, 219; 22 Ops. Atty. Gen. 595. And it has been repeatedly ruled by the Judges Advocate General that 'a duly approved finding of guilty on one of several charges, a conviction upon which requires or authorizes the sentence adjudged, will give validity and effect to such sentence, although the similar findings on all the other charges are disapproved as not warranted by the testimony.' Digest of Opinions of Judge Advocate General, ed. 1895, p. 696; Id. ed. 1868, pp. 343, 350.
It devolved on the President to approve or to disapprove the sentence. Before taking action he referred the proceedings to the Attorney General, who submitted a careful report thereon, and recommended the disapproval of certain findings. 22 Ops. Atty. Gen. 589. These related to facts of less gravity under Charges I. and II. than the others set up thereunder, and those under Charge III. thought objectionable were not material, as dismissal was the sole punishment under that charge. The President disapproved of the findings of guilty of some of the specifications under two of the charges, and approved findings of guilty of a specification or specifications under each of the charges, and of the findings of guilty of all of the charges, and approved the sentence. He might have referred the proceedings back to the court for revision, but he was not required to do so—if in his opinion this was not necessary, and the sentence was justified by the findings which he did approve. As President he might have exercised his constitutional power to pardon, or, as the reviewing authority, he might have pardoned or mitigated the punishment adjudged, except that of dismissal, although he had no power to add to the punishment. He did not think it proper to remand, to mitigate, or to pardon. He clearly acted within his authority, whether the articles of war, the army regulations, or the unwritten or customary military law be considered, and the judgment he rendered cannot be disturbed on the ground suggested.
Second. That if that finding were void, then that the sentence was in violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
If Charge IV. be laid out of view, let us see if the sentence was void because in violation of the 5th Amendment.
That amendment declares: 'Nor shall any person be subjected for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.' The government objects in the outset that the 5th Amendment is not applicable in proceedings by court-martial, and that the question could only be raised under the 102d article of war, which reads: 'No person shall be tried a second time for the same offense,' and that, moreover, the point was not raised in the court-martial that proceeding to judgment under these three charges would be either in violation of the 102d article of war or of the 5th Amendment, and comes too late on application for habeas corpus. And, further, that the question was one within the power of the court-martial to decide, and must be held to have been waived, or be assumed to have been ruled against the accused, in which case the decision would be conclusive on habeas corpus, since if incorrect it would be merely error, and would not go to the jurisdiction.
In Re Belt, 159 U. S. 95, 40 L. ed. 88, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 987, we held that the supreme court of the District of Columbia had jurisdiction and authority to determine the validity of an act which authorized the waiver of a jury, and to dispose of the question as to whether the record of a conviction before a judge without a jury, where the prisoner waived trial by jury according to statute, was legitimate proof of a first offense; and that, this being so, this court could not review the action of that court and the court of appeals in this particular on habeas corpus.
It is difficult to see why the sentences of courts-martial courts authorized by law in the enforcement of a system of government for a separate community recognized by the Constitution are not within this rule. Its application would seem to be essential to the maintenance of that discipline which renders the army efficient in war and morally progressive in peace, and which is secured by the military code and the decisions of the military courts.
'Shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by fine or imprisonment, or by such other punishment as a court-martial may adjudge. And if any person, being guilty of any of the offenses aforesaid, while in the military service of the United States, receives his discharge or is dismissed from the service, he shall continue to be liable to be arrested and held for trial and sentence by a court-martial, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had not received such discharge nor been dismissed.
'Art. 61. Any officer who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be dismissed from the service.' Rev. Stat. § 1342.
It is said that the punishment must be imposed under either the 60th or the 61st articles; or under both; that the only penalty under the 61st article is dismissal; that the punishment under the 60th article may be 'fine or imprisonment, or by such other punishment as a court-martial may adjudge;' and that this is in the alternative, and cannot be cumulative.
That that is the necessary construction is not to be conceded. Offenses under this article may be of greater or less gravity, and the necessity for the exercise of discretion is obvious. Conviction in some cases might deserve the punishment of fine, or of imprisonment, or of both, as well as of dismissal in addition to either or both; in others lesser penalties might suffice. The word 'or' was properly used to give play to discretion. This is the view expressed in 2 Winthrop, Military Law, p. 1101.
The 60th article was taken from §§ 1 and 2 of the act of March 2, 1863 (12 Stat. at L. 696, chap. 67), 'to prevent and punish frauds upon the government of the United States,' brought forward in the Revised Statutes as § 5438; and that act provided that any person in the military service, if found guilty, 'shall be punished by fine and imprisonment, or such other punishment as the court-martial shall adjudge, save the punishment of death;' while a person in civil life guilty of the offense was punishable under § 3 'by imprisonment not less than one nor more than five years, or by fine of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars;' but when the military offense was transferred to the military code, the word 'and' was changed to the word 'or.' Hence, it is argued, that Congress thereby indicated that it intended to confine the punishment to either fine or imprisonment. We do not think this is necessarily so. The punishment of persons not in the military or naval service (in addition to a pecuniary forfeiture and double damages) was fixed at fine or imprisonment, and no other. The punishment of persons in the military service was fixed at fine and imprisonment, or such other punishment as the court-martial might adjudge. The change of the word 'and' to 'or' tended to obviate controversy as to the range of discretion.
But suppose this otherwise, still it does not follow that a fine might not be inflicted for the commission of one of the offenses enumerated in article 60, and imprisonment for the commission of another.
The penalty denounced by article 60, that the accused, on conviction, may 'be punished by fine or imprisonment or by such other punishment as a court-martial may adjudge,'—is plainly to be taken distributively, and is applicable on conviction of either of the offenses enumerated.
We understand the rule established by military usage to be 'that the sentence of a court-martial shall be in every case an entirety; that is to say, that there shall be but a single sentence covering all the convictions on all the charges and specifications upon which the accused is found guilty, however separate and distinct may be the different offenses found, and however different may be the punishments called for by the offenses.' 1 Winthrop, Military Law, 2d ed. p. 614.
Cumulative sentences are not cumulative punishments, and a single sentence for several offenses, in excess of that prescribed for one offense, may be authorized by statute. Re De Bara, 179 U. S. 316, 45 L. ed. 207, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110; Re Henry, 123 U. S. 372, 31 L. ed. 174, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 142.
The offenses charged under this article were not one and the same offense. This is apparent if the test of the identity of offenses, that the same evidence is required to sustain them, be applied. The first charge alleged 'a conspiracy to defraud,' and the second charge alleged 'causing false and fraudulent claims to be made,' which were separate and distinct offenses, one requiring certain evidence which the other did not. The fact that both charges related to and grew out of one transaction made no difference.
The sentence, then, of fine and imprisonment, was justified by the convictions of the first and second charges.
Finally, it is contended on this branch of the case that the offense under Charge III. is the same offense as those under Charges I. and II., called by a different name, and hence that the punishment of dismissal was illegal because a third punishment where but two offenses were committed.
As heretofore said, dismissal might have been added to fine and imprisonment, as part of the punishment, for either or both of the offenses, under the first and second charges.
Confinement at hard labor in a penitentiary is prescribed by §§ 5438 and 5488 of the Revised Statutes, § 5438 having been brought forward from the act of March 2, 1863, from which the 60th article was taken. And see Rev. Stat. § 5442, act March 2, 1895 (28 Stat. at L. 957, chap. 189).
Conviction of Charges I. and II. was conviction of fraud, and article 100 contemplates that the officer may be dismissed under article 60 or under article 61. Conviction of fraud under article 60 plainly involves conviction under article 61; and dismissal is as mandatory as degradation.
The construction would not be unreasonable if it were held that the words 'though not mentioned in the foregoing articles of war' meant 'notwithstanding they are not mentioned,' and that the article was intended to cover all crimes, whether previously enumerated or not. The reference is to crimes created or made punishable by the common law or by the statutes of the United States, when directly prejudicial to good order and military discipline. Our attention has not been called to any former adjudication of the particular point by the military courts, but we think it would be going much too far to say that if a court-martial so construed the words, and sentenced for a crime previously mentioned, the sentence, when made his own by the President, would be absolutely void.
Colonel Winthrop says, however, that 'the construction of these words has uniformly been that they are words of limitation restricting the application of the article to offenses not named or included in the articles preceding, the policy of the provision being, as it is expressed by Samuel, 'to provide a general remedy for wrongs not elsewhere provided for." Vol. 2, p. 1126.
The 1st and 4th subdivisions of the 60th article of war provide that 'any person in the military service of the United States who makes or causes to be made any claim against the United States, or any officer thereof, knowing such claim to be false of fraudulent,' or 'who, for the purpose of obtaining, or aiding others to obtain, the approval, allowance, or payment of any claim against the United States, or against any officer thereof, makes or uses, or procures or advises the making or use of, any writing or other paper, knowing the same to contain any false or fraudulent statement,' shall, on conviction, be punished.
The specification under Charge IV. alleged that the accused, as a disbursing officer of the United States, applied to a purpose not prescribed by law large sums of public money intrusted to him for river and harbor purposes, by causing them to be paid out by checks on false accounts, the payment being accomplished by the drawing and delivery of the checks directing payment to be made of moneys of the United States, and thus withdrew, by means of checks, from the authorized depository, moneys for an unauthorized purpose, and applied them to unlawful purposes. The application, coupled with the payment and withdrawal of the funds by checks, constituted the embezzlement defined in § 5488, while the specific acts set forth in subdivisions 1 and 4 of the 60th article were distinct from the acts prohibited by § 5488. By the charge the particular offense was laid in general terms, and by the specification the facts constituting the offense charged were stated. The specification here set forth abstraction, by fraudulent means, of $230,749.90 and $345,000, moneys of the United States intrusted to the accused as a disbursing officer of the government, but it was none the less malum prohibitum because it was also Malum in se.
Nor are we persuaded by the ingenious argument of appellant's counsel that the crime alleged in this charge was covered by subdivision 9 of article 60, because it was embezzlement of money 'furnished or intended for the military service,' § 5488 relating to the improper disposition of any public money. That subdivision denounces punishment of any person in the military service of the United States 'who steals, embezzles, knowingly and wilfully misappropriates, applies to his own use or benefit, or wrongfully or knowingly sells or disposes of, any ordinance, arms, equipments, ammunition, clothing, subsistence stores, money, or other property of the United States, furnished or intended for the military service thereof.' Most of these enumerated classes of property are obviously military stores used for military purposes; and on the principle of noscitur a sociis all the classes designated fall into the same category. And this seems to be put beyond question by the words 'furnished or intended for the military service thereof.' The military service as used in this connection means the land forces or the army. The fact that money appropriated for river and harbor improvements is disbursed by an officer of the army, and the work supervised by the engineer force in the service of the government, does not make the moneys so appropriated moneys 'furnished or intended for the military service,' as the words are used in paragraph 9. This was the view of Lacombe, J., in holding the sentence supported by the conviction of the fourth charge. 97 Fed. 496. The circuit court of appeals, without questioning the correctness of that conclusion, did not consider the question, because it sustained the sentence under the conviction of the first and second charges. The circuit court for the district of Kansas concurred in the conclusions of each of the other courts. We are of opinion that officers of the army are, in the eye of the law, on military duty although employed as such officers under statutes of the United States in the public service on duties not in themselves pertaining to the army; and that the moneys disbursed by them when so employed do not, because they are such officers, become money furnished and intended for the military service.
It is further argued that the specification was wrongly laid under article 62, because 'the money was applied to a purpose prescribed by law,' and 'the crime charged 'was not to the prejudice of good order and military discipline;" but the contention is without merit.
The fact that the vouchers purported to be issued as against the appropriations for the improvement of the Savannah river and of Cumberland sound, if these vouchers were false and falsely certified to, and if the accounts on which the moneys were paid were false, 'the moneys not being due or owing from the United States to the parties paid, or to any one else, and he, the said Captain Carter, well knowing this to be the case,' as stated in the specification,—could not make the application of the money by that payment an application to a purpose prescribed by law.
We should suppose the embezzlement would be detrimental to the service within the intent and meaning of the article, but it is enough that it was peculiarly for the court-martial to determine whether the crime charged was 'to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.' Swaim v. United States, 165 U. S. 553, 41 L. ed. 823, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 448; Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 178, 29 L. ed. 605, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570; United States v. Fletcher, 148 U. S. 84, 37 L. ed. 378, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 552.
In Swaim v. United States, which involved a sentence under the 62d article of war, Mr. Justice Shiras, deivering the opinion, said: 'But, as the authorities heretofore cited show, this is the very matter that falls within the province of courts-martial, and in respect of which their conclusions cannot be controlled or reviewed by the civil courts. As was said in Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 178, 29 L. ed. 605, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570, 'of questions not depending upon the construction of the statutes, but upon unwritten military law or usage, within the jurisdiction of courts-martial, military or naval officers, from their training and experience in the service, are more competent judges than the courts of common law. . . . Under every system of military law for the government of either land or naval forces, the jurisdiction of courts-martial extends to the trial and punishment of acts of military or naval officers which tend to bring disgrace and reproach upon the service of which they are members, whether those acts are done in the performance of military duties, or in a civil position, or in a social relation, or in a private business."


It has been clear for several weeks that an extension was necessary, and it's always been clear that European Councils can't make decisions there and then – especially if, as here, there's been no prior discussion of positions – so to leave a request until 24 hours ahead of the meeting was always a recipe for further delay.
Further complicate that by, a) not clearly asking for one particular length of extension, and b) more importantly, offering no justification for the extension other than a vague hope that "this time it'll be different" on the Meaningful Vote, and it's no surprise that the Commission and EU27 are spitting feathers.
By Dr Simon Usherwood, deputy director of the UK in a Changing Europe. This piece originally appeared on the Politics @ Surrey blog.


text:
U.S. dedicates 81,000 acres off LI for commercial wind energy
By Mark Harrington mark.harrington@newsday.com @MHarringtonNews Updated March 16, 2016 6:47 PM
The yearslong process of assessing and approving an expansive wind-farm off the South Shore of Long Island moved another step forward Wednesday when the federal government formally designated the site a "wind-energy area."
It's the latest move in a long, slow process that began in 2009, when LIPA, Con Edison and New York Power Authority first announced plans for a collaborative to explore the 200 turbine wind farm. The move sets the same site for competitive bidding by at least two other interested developers.
Federal officials have said they don't expect construction to begin until at least 2022, if the site is ultimately approved at all. Commercial fishing interests widely oppose the site, which is in fishing grounds known as the New York Bight. It is also surrounded by busy shipping lanes.
On Wednesday, the Department of the Interior announced a change in the site's former designation of a "call area," to a "wind-energy area," paving the way for a potential lease auction by the federal government, said Tracey Moriarty, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which is overseeing the process.
The 81,130-acre triangular site starts 11 miles south of Long Beach and extends eastward 20 miles south of Robert Moses State Park. In addition to LIPA and its partners, two other developers, Fishermen's Energy and Energy Management Inc., have expressed an interest in developing a wind farm on the site, officials said.
"The area is large enough for a large-scale commercial wind project, which could make substantial contributions to the region's energy supply," said Abigail Ross Hopper, director of the federal bureau, in a statement.
But fishing interests were quick to condemn the move, saying the government could have identified a much smaller segment or avoided the site entirely to protect vital fisheries for squid, monkfish, scallops and other species.
Sign up for the NewsdayTV newsletter
From breaking news to special features and documentaries, the NewsdayTV team is covering the issues that matter to you.
"We're disappointed to say the least," said Drew Minkiewicz, an attorney for the Fisheries Survival Fund, which represents 250 scallop fishing permit holders from Massachusetts to North Carolina. They face a combined loss of $5 million annually if the site becomes a wind farm.
Minkiewicz said the group would "use every means available" to stop the effort. The federal government "has to protect existing reasonable uses and they've done nothing of the sort so far. They're clearly violating the law."
With the new designation, the federal government will now begin an environmental assessment of the site in advance of an expected lease auction among the parties, if all are determined to be eligible. If no environmental issues are identified, the feds would then conduct the auction. Officials stressed that public outreach and input would continue to be part of the process.
If a lease is awarded, site characterization studies would be conducted by the lease winner, which would then submit a site plan. BOEM would follow that with deeper environmental and technical reviews, determining whether the plan should be approved, modified or disapproved. Several additional reviews and assessments would then follow, before construction could begin, perhaps by 2022.
By Mark Harrington mark.harrington@newsday.com	@MHarringtonNews
Mark Harrington, a Newsday reporter since 1999, covers energy, wineries, Indian affairs and fisheries.
Hochul: State weighing options for schools that don't enforce mask mandate
New area code to come to Nassau in 2023, state says
New diocese education CEO keeps faith in Catholic schools


I have recently learned that Jason Mazzone -- the Gerald Baylin professor at Brooklyn Law School (and blogger at Balkinization -- and perhaps most importantly reigning champion of trivia here at the faculty lounge blog) -- is moving to the University of Illinois. Jason works across a broad spectrum from intellectual property to legal history. I've been a fan for a decade or so now of his work on early national constitutional thought, including "The Creation of a Constitutional Culture."
Among Jason's many works are the Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property (Stanford University Press, 2011) and "When the Supreme Court is Not Supreme" in the Northwestern University Law Review last year.


Galesburg Cottage Hospital (173 beds), located in Galesburg, IL is seeking a Board Certified Family Medicine Physician for an outpatient only opportunity to be employed by the hospital owned clinic. The current physicians see about 20-25 patients daily. Referral patterns are well-established for this clinic. Estimated Call Coverage of 1:7. The office, constructed in 2001, is situated conveniently on the Cottage medical campus and adjacent to the hospital.
? The hospital is located in Knox County, IL with a combined service area population of 70,000.
Galesburg, Illinois offers 5 golf courses (1 of which is a PGA rated course with a country club community), three lakeside communities and easy access to major urban areas such a Chicago, Peoria, and the Quad Cities (Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa and Moline and Rock Island, Illinois) all of which host sporting and entertainment events and museums. Three and a half hours from St. Louis, Missouri.
Quorum Health empowers hospitals and healthcare providers in improving safe, quality care in local communities across the nation.
Commitment to quality, community and people are basic tenants for Quorum Health. As an operator of general acute care hospitals, the people at Quorum Health are focused on empowering local teams to create and sustain health care solutions as unique as the communities they serve. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, the organization owns or operates 38 hospitals and 15 outpatient centers in 16 states. These are valuable resources to local communities, providing good jobs and quality care close to home while contributing to the local economy. Quorum Health is dedicated to maintaining and expanding those resources to the benefit of everyone.
In 2015, The Joint Commission recognized 74 percent of our affiliated hospitals as Top Performers on Key Quality Measures. Only about one-third of hospitals nationwide received this recognition. Our affiliated hospitals are often the primary providers of acute care in their communities, and we are passionate about bringing safe, high-quality care to those we serve.
Quorum Health is committed to bringing highly skilled and dedicated physicians and practitioners to those who often need them most – those living in non-urban communities across the country with limited access to high quality care. For our physicians, we offer rewarding opportunities to make a real impact in people's lives, and to enjoy a high quality of both professional and personal life, practicing medicine in beautiful and diverse communities across the country.


text:
Brest renews its SUMP as part of a master plan (France)
Brest is the most westerly town in France and the second-largest urban centre in Brittany, with a population of 215 000. In 2010 the city decided to develop a comprehensive master plan to reduce its...
Sustainable deliveries of goods in Paris (France)
Paris and its suburbs count over 12 million inhabitants, which makes the city one of the largest economic centres in Europe, leading to a high demand for freight and a consequent increase in terms of...
Wireless charging for quiet and clean public transport in Torino (Italy)
The northern Italian city of Torino has a population of 2.2 million, including its metropolitan area. In 2003 Torino launched a fleet of electric buses serving its historic centre, newly converted...
Examining 10 years of London's Oyster travel smartcard (UK)
London is the capital city of the United Kingdom and its population, including the metropolitan area is estimated at over 12 million. In recent decades, London's underground has seen a major...
Aarhus is the second-largest city in Denmark. Its urban zone has a population of 1.2 million inhabitants. In 2011 the city implemented a highly innovative and cost-effective solution using Bluetooth...


In Orlando 32820 International Sign in Sarasota,St.Petersburg,Ft. Meyers and surrounding areas.
Many of your potential customers may be looking for a business just like yours, and it's your custom Serving West Central Florida sign that stops them from moving on and brings them directly to you. It doesn't matter whether it's a simple branded sign bearing your businesses' logo and slogan, a sale sign, or any other type of sign; a custom Serving West Central Florida sign promises your customers that they'll find what they want in your place of business. To a lot of your potential new customers, the decision to come to your place of business instead of going somewhere else is often based on ease of access and proximity. Make sure that your customers see you first with a fantastic custom Serving West Central Florida sign made to any specification. As a business owner, attracting the new customers that you need to run your business could mean a huge difference to your bottom line. At we know how critical new business is to you, and take a lot of pride in helping you to create the new customers that you need. Give us a call today, at we are happy to help with all your Serving West Central Florida sign, or sign displays services needs.


Over the years, we have enjoyed our fair share of peaches and from experience have learned a bit about using the fruit we grow. We've compiled some of our favorite "go to" recipes. Hope you enjoy them as much as we have!