text:
Graham Announces $490,000 for Calhoun Falls
WASHINGTON- U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced Calhoun Falls will receive a $214,400 grant and $276,000 loan for improvements in the water and sewer department. The funds will be used to transform an existing building and convert it into a maintenance facility. Calhoun Falls was previously awarded a $373,100 grant and $211,000 loan for this project. The grant and loan were awarded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. ####
Graham Announces $2.3 Million for Research at MUSC
WASHINGTON- U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) will receive two research grants for more than $2.3 million. MUSC will receive a $1.2 million grant for continued drug abuse research and participation in the Clinical Trial Network. MUSC partners with private drug treatment providers to advance scientifically based drug intervention treatment methods. In addition, MUSC will receive a $1,154,354 grant to conduct clinical research related to neurological disorders. Both grants were awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ####
Lindsey Graham Questioning of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts Senate Committee on the Judiciary
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Feingold. Senator Graham? SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I imagine the reason that you argued different positions is because people paid you. Is that correct? JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS: That's how I made my living, Senator. GRAHAM: OK. I can relate to that. I imagine it must be very hard to figure out what Congress intends. Do you agree with that? ROBERTS: Sometimes it's easier than others and sometimes it's hard to read the tea leaves. GRAHAM: I can relate to that also. I want to read an excerpt from the National Association of Women Lawyers and their evaluation of you -- 8/30/05 -- As a lawyer and judge, based on interviews the committee conducted, Judge Roberts has treated individual women lawyers fairly and with respect, has fostered careers of women lawyers, has been helpful in enabling women to address work/life balance issues while advancing professionally, and has been consistently described as respectful to female colleagues, female lawyers appearing before him and female employees. You've been asked about every case, I think, ever written by anyone. I would like to talk to you a little about life. The idea of judging you based on this section of the commerce clause and that section of the commerce clause is important, but I think most Americans want to know a little bit about you. And from what I can tell, the people who've worked with you and against you generally like you, and that you've been described as brilliant, one of the best legal minds of your time, well-qualified. The adjectives go on and on. And I want the record to reflect: That comes from people who know you the best. The best indication of a good lawyer is how people on the other side think of you. And we'll get some excerpts from the record to put that into the record. Apparently, from what I can tell, you've conducted your life in a noble, honorable manner; that you've been a good litigant; and that you have fought for your causes and you have done so to earn respect of those on both sides of the aisle. But there's a greater issue here about who you are. Justice Rehnquist was your mentor, is that correct? ROBERTS: He's certainly someone from whom I learned a great deal, yes. GRAHAM: OK. So if I was trying to figure out who John Roberts is and a little bit about him, I will ask this question: Write the legacy of Justice Rehnquist for a minute or two. What would you say if given that task? ROBERTS: Well, you know, I think if you were able to ask him, he would talk about being a grandfather, being a father... GRAHAM: I'm asking you. ROBERTS: ... being a husband. GRAHAM: I'm asking you. ROBERTS: But the important point is that those were important things in his life and he appreciated the need to recognize that those are the most important things. With respect to the law to which he devoted his professional life, I think a big part of the legacy that he leaves is a Supreme Court in which all of the members respected and admired him because of his fairness in administering the court and conducting the important responsibilities like managing the conference and assigning opinions. GRAHAM: You can go back in history and look at what other chief justices did. Some were -- in terms of that administrative responsibility -- some were disasters. You look at Harlan Stone, his idea of running the conference, he said what he thought, then the next senior justice said what he thought. Then Justice Stone critiqued that. Then the next justice, and then Justice Stone critiqued that. And the result was the conferences went on for days and everybody ended up hating each other. So he ran a good ship. I think we all agree with that. And his colleagues respected him whether they disagreed with him or not. But the basic question is, when you write about the legacy of a Supreme Court justice, you write more than about being a grandfather -- more about running a tight ship, especially chief justice: Would you agree with the idea that, from a conservative point of view, he was the gold standard? ROBERTS: I think he was a very effective advocate on the bench for a view of the Constitution that is one of limited and separated powers. GRAHAM: Do you share that view? ROBERTS: I do. I think that the -- now, I have to tell you that whether as a judge on the court of appeals or if I am confirmed on the Supreme Court, I will certainly be my own man and there are... GRAHAM: No one is doubting that. No one is doubting that you will not try to be fair. But the big thing, 30,000-foot view of you, is that when you look at Judge Roberts, you're looking at someone in the mold of a Rehnquist. Is that a fair assessment? ROBERTS: Well, you know, I admire the late chief justice very much. But I will have to insist that I will be my own man and I hesitate to be put in anybody's mold. And I would certainly approach the cases according to the judicial philosophy that I have developed over the years. In many respects, it's similar to his: in its recognition, I think, of the limited role that judges should have, an appropriate modesty and humility, a recognition that... GRAHAM: The idea of a dramatic departure under your watch from the Rehnquist era is probably not going to happen, is that true? ROBERTS: Given my view of the role of a judge which focuses on appropriate modesty and humility, the notion of dramatic departures is not one that I would hold out much hope for. GRAHAM: I know people don't like being labeled, Put me in that category. But I'm in a business where people label me all the time. But I ask for it, I run for office. But we do tend in our business of politics to try to label people, particularly when we're talking about judges. When the president introduced you to the United States, to the people of the United States, he said you were a strict constructionist. Do you know what he meant by that and why he chose to use those words? ROBERTS: Well, I hope what he meant by that is somebody who is going to be faithful to the text of the Constitution, to the intent of those who drafted it, while appreciating that sometimes the phrases they used, they were drafting a Constitution for the ages, to secure the blessings of liberty for their posterity. They were looking ahead. And so they often used phrases that they intended to have... (CROSSTALK) GRAHAM: Does that term make you feel uncomfortable? ROBERTS: No. GRAHAM: Now, from a 30,000-foot view of things, it seems to be that we're going to have a referendum on the Reagan era here, which I welcome. I sort of enjoyed it, he won 49 states. He did pretty good. You were part of the Reagan era as a young lawyer. When I use the word -- term -- Reagan revolution, what does it mean to you? ROBERTS: Well, it means to me generally a change in attitude. President Reagan always presented an optimistic view. He always told us that the best days of our country were ahead of us. And he reasserted basic fundamental truths in areas like foreign relations. We are going to stand up to the Soviet Union. We're proud of our system of government. That's the right approach, not the Soviet approach. And people who have come of age after the Berlin Wall has fallen sometimes don't understand what it meant at that time. GRAHAM: When it comes to the law, what does the term Reagan revolution mean to you? ROBERTS: I think it means a belief that we should interpret the Constitution according to its terms; that judges don't shape policy; that judges interpret the law and that legislators shape policy; that the executive branch executes the law. GRAHAM: Does it also mean that when you talk about affirmative action and you set up a quota system, that's not right? ROBERTS: President Reagan's policy was opposed to quotas, which were much more rigid at the time. People need to appreciate 24 years ago the idea of a quota was a rigid set-aside. We now have the recent Supreme Court decisions talking about consideration of particular factors as one factor in an affirmative action program. President Reagan was in favor of affirmative action and he was opposed to quotas. GRAHAM: When it comes to voting rights, as I understand -- and we talked a lot about it, and we probably know more than all of us ever dreamed we would know about the Voting Rights Act -- that you were implementing a policy of President Reagan that wanted to pass the Voting Rights Act in its form that you received it. Is that correct? ROBERTS: The proposal was to extend it for the longest period in history without change. GRAHAM: And we've been through a long discourse about the effect and intent test. I think you've explained yourself very well that the Supreme Court in the Mobile case said the intent test applies to Section 2. Is that right? ROBERTS: Section 2. GRAHAM: But politics took over after that, didn't it? Because the effect test no longer -- that's not the test. Isn't it some compromise between Senator Kennedy and Senator Dole? ROBERTS: There was a compromise in the test under Section 2, which is articulated in a paragraph describing what the criteria are, including a caution that this should not be read to promote proportional representation, which was some of the concern that the attorney general and President Reagan had. GRAHAM: So between Dole, Senator Kennedy and President Reagan, a new test was called the totality of the circumstances? ROBERTS: Yes. GRAHAM: Now, when you said that you -- Senator Kennedy said something I thought was very important: that courts should not stand in the way of elected officials who are trying to right wrongs. And the point I'm trying to make here is that you were picked by a conservative president because you have associated yourself with the conservative administrations in the past, advising conservative presidents about conservative policies. And there's another selection to be made, and you're going to get the same type person. And you can -- I'm not even talking to you now. (LAUGHTER) To expect anything else is just not fair. I don't expect -- I didn't expect -- President Clinton to pick you. It's not because you're not well-qualified, not because you're a good person; just a different political, legal philosophy. Now, that's what we're going to have to come to grips with here. Justice Scalia: Do you consider him conservative? ROBERTS: Yes. GRAHAM: Do you think you're more conservative than he is? ROBERTS: Oh, I don't know. I mean, I wouldn't... GRAHAM: Well, he got 98 votes. And I think you're a conservative, but I think you're one of the great minds of our generation, of our time. And I'm dying to find out if you get any votes on the other side. Time will tell. Let's talk about righting wrongs here. I think it stinks that somebody can burn the flag and that's called speech. What do you think about that? ROBERTS: Well... (LAUGHTER) We had the Flag Protection Act after the Supreme Court concluded that it was protected speech. GRAHAM: Show me where the term symbolic speech is in the Constitution. ROBERTS: Well, it's not. GRAHAM: It's not. They just made it up, didn't they? And I think it stinks that a kid that can't go to school and say a prayer if he wants to voluntarily. What do you think about that? ROBERTS: That's something that's probably inappropriate for me to comment on. GRAHAM: What do you think Ronald Reagan thought about that? ROBERTS: His view was that voluntary school prayer was appropriate. GRAHAM: I think it's not right for elected officials to be unable to talk about or protect the unborn. What do you think about that? ROBERTS: Well, again, Senator, these are issues that are likely to come before the court, and I can't comment on those particulars because... GRAHAM: Why are judges more capable of protecting or talking about the unborn than elected officials? ROBERTS: Well, again, those are issues that come before the court on a regular basis in particular cases. And on my current court or the future court, I need to be able to approach those cases with an open mind and not on the basis of statements I make during a confirmation hearing. GRAHAM: The point is that righting wrongs is a very subjective thing. And you will be asked to decide the fate of people with individual needs and individual desires, based on particular fact patterns and legal briefs. I'm confident you can do that and that you will do that. And I don't think you need to make a bargain with me to right all the wrongs that I see in life to sit on the Supreme Court. What's it like to go through the nominating process in 2005 from a personal point of view? I've been watching television, channel flipping, and I see some awful things said about you. Have you seen those things? ROBERTS: I've seen some things, yes. GRAHAM: How does that make you feel? ROBERTS: Well, some of the mischaracterizations, you know, you get annoyed at them. I don't like them. Some of the things you see you get pretty upset about. GRAHAM: How's it make your family feel? ROBERTS: I would say they get upset about some of the things, as well. GRAHAM: But, you know, it's a free country and that's just the way it is. Right? ROBERTS: It is, and it's an expression I've been using a lot lately. It is a free country, and it's a good thing that it is. GRAHAM: Let's not talk about you now, but I would like you to comment, give us some advice here. We're always trying to advise the president through you. What's the long-term effect on the quality of candidates that we'll be able to recruit for jobs like the Supreme Court if the current process continues and grows over time? ROBERTS: I think it is a very serious threat to the independence and integrity of the courts to politicize them. I think that is not a good development, to regard the courts as simply an extension of the political process. That's not what they are. I have been fortunate for the past two years to serve on a court in which all of the judges -- and they come, the D.C. Circuit, they come from very active careers in public life and sometimes very identified politically -- but it's a court where those judges put aside those ties and those views and become judges all focused on the same mission of vindicating the rule of law. And if you look at the decisions on the D.C. Circuit, you'll see that we are almost always unanimous, we almost always come out the same way. And to the extent there are disagreements, they don't shape up along political lines. That is an ideal. But the more and more that the process becomes politicized, the less likely that that's going to happen. GRAHAM: Another line of inquiry that's been disturbing to me is that we talk about the clients you represent, whether it be the Ronald Reagan administration or some private sector client, and we tend to hold that maybe unpopular position against the lawyer. There's more and more of that happening. We've had court of appeal nominees that were accused of being insensitive to the disabled population when they won their case 9-0 in the Supreme Court defending a university from the idea that they were not covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I really do worry that in the future that if we up here start holding who you represent against you, that young lawyers in the future will pass on the hard cases. What's your thoughts about that? ROBERTS: You know, it's a tradition of the American bar that goes back before the founding of the country that lawyers are not identified with the positions of their clients. The most famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. And he did that for a reason, because he wanted to show that the revolution in which he was involved was not about overturning the rule of law, it was about vindicating the rule of law. Our founders thought that they were not being given their rights, under the British system, to which they were entitled. And, by representing the British soldiers, he helped show that what they were about was defending the rule of law, not undermining it. And that principle, that you don't identify the lawyer with the particular views of the client, or the views that the lawyer advances on behalf of a client, is critical to the fair administration of justice. GRAHAM: Do you believe it's being eroded? ROBERTS: I do think there is an unfortunate tendency to attack lawyers because of the positions they press on behalf of clients. And I think that's unfortunate. GRAHAM: I'm going to give you some examples of a sitting Supreme Court justice and her positions and basically take us back to the good old days where you could have what I think are extreme positions and still make it. Are you familiar with the ACLU? ROBERTS: Certainly. GRAHAM: In the conservative world, how does that rank on the food chain? ROBERTS: I don't know that I could comment on that, but they have a consistent position of promoting civil liberties and a particular view on that. GRAHAM: If you came to the Reagan administration and the top thing on their resume was the general counsel for the ACLU, do you think they would hire you? ROBERTS: Might make it a little harder. (LAUGHTER) GRAHAM: Yes. (LAUGHTER) I think that's a good observation. Well, we have, on the sitting Supreme Court now, the former general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, who is a very nice lady, extremely qualified -- I don't agree with her hardly at all -- but a great lawyer. She has written that the age of consent for women should be 12, that all prisons to have gender equality, men and women should be in the same prison because, when you separate them, women prisoners somehow are discriminated against. She wanted to do away or argued the idea that Mother's and Father's Day should be done away with because it stereotypes men and women -- that there's a constitutional right to prostitution. I can give you -- and I'll introduce into the record -- writings from her point of view that most conservatives would find totally unacceptable. But this person, this lady, the former ACLU executive counsel, is sitting on the Supreme Court, and she got 96 votes. She said that there should be federal funding for abortion. 90 percent of our caucus is pro-life -- is that about right? Pretty close? I could assure you that, if a Republican was going to make their vote based on abortion thinking, she would have gotten no votes. Most Americans don't want federal funding of abortion, even though they're divided on the issue of a woman's right to choose. GRAHAM: She has argued that the equal protection clause guarantees a right to abortion. Now, I completely differ with that, and I'm sure the conservatives in the Senate at the time of her confirmation completely differed with that: the idea the age of consent should be 12, that bigamy statutes are discriminatory to women. I can go on and on and on. And the point I'm trying to make is that all of that was put aside, who she represented and what she believed and the position she took, and somehow back then they're able to see in Justice Ginsburg a well-qualified, brilliant legal mind and they deferred to President Clinton because he won the election. Whether that happens to you, I don't know. But for the sake of the country and the rule of law, I hope you can be in the ballpark of where she wound up. Last two questions. In your opening statement, you articulated the rule of law in a way that I thought was just outstanding. It was emotional, it made sense, average people could understand it: that the courtroom is a quiet place, Judge Roberts, where you park your political ideology and you call the balls and you call the strikes, and you try to give every American a fair shake and you put politics in its perspective. What is your biggest concern, if any, about the rule of law as it exists in America? And what are the biggest threats to the rule of law as we know it today? ROBERTS: Well, you know, the rule of law is always vulnerable because the Supreme Court, as has been pointed out often in history, has only the persuasive power of its opinions to command respect. There have been famous episodes in the past, you know -- President Jackson, Chief Justice Marshall has given his opinion; let's see him enforce it -- other episodes of that sort. But over time, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court has been established and it's generally recognized across the political spectrum that it is the obligation of the court to say what the law is and that the other branches have the obligation to obey what the Supreme Court says the law is. The one threat I think to the rule of law is a tendency on behalf of some judges to take that legitimacy and that authority and extend it into areas where they're going beyond the interpretation of the Constitution, where they're making the law. And because it's the Supreme Court, people are going to follow it even though they're making the law. The judges have to recognize that their role is a limited one. That is the basis of their legitimacy. I've said it before, and I'll just repeat myself: The framers were not the sort of people, having fought a revolution to get the right of self-government, to sit down and say, Let's take all the difficult issues before us and let's have the judges decide them. That would have been the farthest thing from their mind. The judges had the obligation to decide cases and the authority to interpret the Constitution because they had to decide cases. And they were going to decide those cases according to the law, not according to their personal preferences. Judges have to have the courage to make the unpopular decisions when they have to. That sometimes involves striking down acts of Congress. That sometimes involves ruling that acts of that executive are unconstitutional. That is a requirement of the judicial oath. You have to have that courage, but you also have to have the self- restraint to recognize that your role is limited to interpreting the law and does not include making the law. GRAHAM: What would you like history to say about you when it's all said and done? ROBERTS: I'd like them to start by saying: He was confirmed. (LAUGHTER) Whether they say that or not, I would like -- the answer is the same, I would like them to say I was a good judge. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
Graham Statement Following First Day of Hearings on Judge Roberts
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made the following statement at the conclusion of the first day of hearings on the nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. Graham is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said: "I thought it was a good day for the U.S. Senate. I thought we acquitted ourselves well on both sides of the aisle. About two and a half months ago, that was not an assured event. "Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg was liberal. She got 96 votes in the Senate. Justice [Antonin] Scalia was conservative. He got 98 votes. How many will Judge Roberts get? If people judge him based on his qualifications and the way he's lived his life, he should get 100. "Judge Roberts passed the ultimate test of anyone who wants to sit on the Supreme Court. To the public at large, I believe they saw a man they would feel comfortable with judging them and their family if they ever found themselves in a courtroom. Judge Roberts spoke from the heart and described his view of the law in a way people could understand. He convinced, I think, anyone who's reasonable that he's going to try his best to be a good judge. "The confirmation hearings have always been about whether or not the president's nominee will get an up-or-down vote. The only way he would not be confirmed is through a filibuster and until recently that's been a rare event in the Senate. After his opening statement today, I don't believe anybody will be able to mount a challenge he's out of the mainstream or he's the kind of person that should not be on the court. "Judge Roberts came across as a guy who knows what he believes, is well schooled in the law, and possesses the intellect and the integrity to sit on the court. He's a conservative. To expect George W. Bush to appoint anyone other than a conservative, you didn't listen to the last two elections." #####
Senator Graham's Opening Statement on John Roberts
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on the nomination of John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court. Graham is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the seventh inning stretch, too. We all very much appreciate it. Judge Roberts, playing a little bit off of what my colleague Senator Feingold said, I don't think you expected it to be easy. Having to listen to 18 senators proves the fact that it's not going to be easy. But I hope we will live up to our end of the bargain to make it fair. Fair is something that comes around in September in South Carolina or it can be an idea. The idea of treating you fairly is very important to me because not only are you on display, but the Senate's on display. Senator Kennedy said something that I disagree with, but he's very passionate in his statement. He said the central issue is whether or not you will embrace policies, a certain set of policies, or whether or not you will roll back certain policy decisions. I respectfully disagree with Senator Kennedy. To me, the central issue before the Senate is whether or not the Senate will allow President Bush to fulfill his campaign promise to appoint a well- qualified, strict constructionist to the Supreme Court. And -- in this case -- appoint a Chief Justice to the Supreme Court in the mold of Justice Rehnquist. He's been elected president twice. He has not hidden from the public what his view of a Supreme Court justice should be and the philosophy they should embrace. In my opinion -- by picking you -- he has lived up to his end of the bargain with the American people by choosing a well-qualified, strict constructionist. You have been described as brilliant, talented and well- qualified, and that's by Democrats. The question is, is that enough in 2005 to get confirmed? Maybe not. Professor Michael Gerhardt wrote an article in 2000 called The Federal Appointments Process, and I think he has given some advice to our Democratic friends in the past and, maybe recently, about the confirmation process that we're engaged in today. He has written, the Constitution establishes a presumption of confirmation that works to the advantage of the president and his nominee. I agree with that. Elections matter. We're not here to debate how to solve all the nation's problems. We're not here to talk about liberal philosophy versus conservative philosophy and what's best for the country. We're here to talk about you and whether or not you are qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, whether or not you have the intellect, the integrity and the character. It has been said in the past by members of this committee -- Senator Kennedy -- I believe -- it's recognized by most senators that we're not charged with a responsibility of approving justices if their views always coincide with our own. We're really interested in knowing whether a nominee has the background, experience, qualifications, temperament, integrity to handle the most sensitive, important and responsible job. And that's being on the Supreme Court. If you're looking for consistency, you've probably come to the wrong place, because the truth of the matter is that we're all involved in the electoral process ourselves and we have different agendas. Your memos are going to be talked about. The memos you wrote while you were working for President Reagan and Bush 1, in my opinion, reflect a conservative lawyer advising a conservative president about conservative policies. To some, those policies make no sense; those policies are out of the mainstream. But this hearing is about whether or not you're qualified. Not whether Reagan conservatism is in the mainstream. Does affirmative action require quotas? From a conservative point of view, no. From a conservative point of view, we don't want federal judges setting the value of someone's wages from the bench. You wrote about that. Now, some people want that, but conservatives don't. Environmental policies: We want a clean environment, but we don't want to ruin the economy in the process. We want to be able to build levees to protect cities. Conservatives have a different view of a lot of issues versus our friends on the other side. The election determines how that shakes out. We're here to determine whether or not you and all you've done in your life makes you a fitting candidate to be on the Supreme Court. Before we got here, the Senate was in disarray. May 23rd of this year, I engaged in a compromise agreement with seven Democrats and seven Republicans to keep the Senate from blowing itself up. You're the first nomination that we've dealt with in any significant manner after that agreement. There's plenty of blame to go around, Judge Roberts. On our watch, I'm sure we did things in committee that were very unfair to Democrat nominees, particularly by President Clinton. At the time of that agreement, there were 10 people being filibustered, for the first time in the history of the Senate, in a partisan manner, that were going to be on the court of appeals. We were in chaos. We were at each other's throats. Since May 23rd, we've done better. The Senate has gotten back to a more traditional role when it comes to judges. As Senator Specter described the committee, we've done some good things on this committee and in the Senate as a whole. I hope we will take the chance to start over because the public approval of the Senate now is in the 30s. That's not your fault, Judge Roberts; it's our fault. We have an opportunity as senators to show we can disagree based on philosophy but give you a fair shake. The question is whether we'll rise to the occasion. I'm hopeful we will based on the statements being made. What is the standard for a senator to confirm a Supreme Court nominee? Whatever the senator wants it to be. And, really, that's the way it should be. But there should be some goals, in my opinion. The way we conduct ourselves, one of the goals we should have, is to make sure we don't run good people away from wanting to be a judge. I don't know what it's like to sit at home and turn on the television and watch a commercial about you in the presence of your wife and your kids that say some pretty unflattering things. That's just not a problem you've faced. I'm sure Democratic nominees have faced the same type problem. We shouldn't, in our standard, be trying to come up with a standard to invalidate elections. The president won. The president told us what he's going to do and he did it. He picked a strict constructionist to be on the Supreme Court. If anybody is surprised, they weren't listening to the last campaign. Roe v. Wade: It divides America. If you believe in polling, most Americans would like to see the decision stand even though we're divided 50-50 on the idea of abortion on demand. My good friend from California has expressed a view about Roe v. Wade which I completely understand and respect. I can just tell you, Judge Roberts, there are plenty of women in South Carolina who have an opposite view about abortion. If we were to make our votes, base our votes on that one principle, Justice Ginsburg would not be Justice Ginsburg. In her writing, she embraced the idea of federal funding for abortion. She indicated that an abortion right was based on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. I dare say 90 percent of the Republican Caucus is pro-life. I dare say 90 percent of the Democratic Caucus is pro-choice. Justice Ginsburg got 96 votes even though she expressed a view of the federal government's role in abortion that I completely disagree with and I think most conservatives disagree with. There was a time not too long ago, Judge Roberts, where it was about the way you lived your life, how you conducted yourself, what kind of lawyer you were, what kind of man or woman you were, not whether you had an allegiance to a specific case or a particular cause. Let's get back to those days. Let's get back to the days where the Ginsburg's and the Scalia's can be pushed and pressed, but they can be honored for their commitment to the law and the way they live their life. Let's get back to the good old days where we understood that we were looking for well-qualified people to sit on the highest court of the land -- not political clones of our own philosophy. The reason I signed the agreement more than anything else was that I love the law. The role of the law in our society is so important. You take out the rule of law and you don't have a democracy. The law, Judge Roberts, to me, represents a quiet place in American discourse. Politics is a loud, noisy and destructive place. But the courtroom is a quiet place where the weak can challenge the strong and the unpopular can be heard. I know you will honor the rule of law in our country and that you will be a judge that we all can be proud of. God bless you and your family. ##### Note: Audio of Senator Graham's statement is available at the Senate Republican Conference radio page.
Graham Announces More Than $630,000 in Grants for South Carolina Fire Departments
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced more than $630,000 in grants to fire departments across South Carolina. "Firefighters and emergency service personnel dedicate themselves to protecting the health and safety of South Carolinians," said Graham. "These grants help fire departments save lives by providing the means to obtain the best equipment and training available." The Operations and Firefighter Safety Program grant may be used for training, wellness, and fitness programs; the purchase of firefighting equipment and personal protective equipment; and modifications to fire stations and facilities. The grants awarded include: Chesterfield Teal's Mill Rural Volunteer Fire Department will receive $52,440. Clio Clio Rural Fire Department will receive $67,288. Cowpens Cowpens Fire Department will receive $151,354. Lancaster Antioch Volunteer Fire Department will receive $61,375. Ridge Spring Ridge Spring Volunteer Fire Department will receive $34,067. Summerville Summerville Fire Department will receive $136,080. Whitmire Whitmire Rescue Squad will receive $109,590. Winnsboro Fairfield County Emergency Services will receive $22,140. The Assistance to Firefighters grant program awards one-year grants directly to local fire departments, enhancing their ability to respond to fire and fire-related hazards in the community. The program supports departments by providing them the tools and resources necessary to protect the health and safety of the public and their firefighting personnel. Grantees share in the cost of the funded project at a percentage based on the population of their respective jurisdiction. Grantees that serve jurisdictions of 50,000 or fewer residents are required to provide a non-Federal cost-share of 10 percent while grantees that serve jurisdictions of over 50,000 provide a 30 percent cost-share. The match must be in cash without the use of in-kind contributions. In addition, the maximum amount of federal funds that an applicant can be awarded is $750,000 during any fiscal year. The grants are made by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. ####
Statement from U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham on the Passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made the following statement on the passing of William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He said: "Our thoughts and prayers go out to all the members of the Rehnquist family. "In his service to our nation, Chief Justice Rehnquist was the epitomy of a conservative Supreme Court Justice. His time on the Court was historic as he helped shape the Court's direction away from judicial acvtivism to a more traditional role. "I vividly remember the dignity and firmness he provided during the Senate impeachment trial of former President Clinton. I fully believe his calming and dignified influence during that difficult period served our nation well. "Chief Justice Rehnquist will be missed and all Americans owe him a debt of gratitude for his service to our nation." #####
Graham Announces $7.3 Million for South Carolina HBCU's
WASHINGTON- U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced six Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU's) in South Carolina will receive more than $7.3 million in grants to support and expand scientific and technical programs. "In the coming decades, nuclear security and reducing the threat of global terrorism are vitally important to protecting and defending our national interests," said Graham. "I am proud that South Carolina's HBCU's are taking a leading role in preparing the next generation of professionals in these fields." Recipients include:
Allen University will receive $2 million to support the Mathematics, Science and Technology Expansion and Improvement Program.
Benedict College will receive $500,000 to support infrastructure, research and student development in science, technology, engineering and mathematics to support national security.
Claflin College will receive $2 million to support the Preparation of a Technologically Literate Science Workforce to Meet the Needs of the 21st Century program.
Morris College will receive $500,000 to support programs that prepare students for careers in nuclear security.
South Carolina State University will receive $1,301,926 to establish a pilot program in radiochemistry.
Voorhees College will receive $1 million to support Lighting the Way: The Voorhees College Virtual Learning in Cyber Security Education.
The grants were awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The goal of the NNSA/HBCU Program is to support the NNSA mission by increasing the capabilities of HBCU faculty and students to participate NNSA programs. ####
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced more than $640,000 in grants to fire departments in Abbeville, Branchville, Cameron, Pickens, and Wallace. "Firefighters risk their lives to protect others, and they deserve the best equipment and training available," said Graham. "Firefighters are some of the heroes in our midst." The grants were awarded in one of three program areas:
Operations and Firefighter Safety Program: The funds may be used for training, wellness, and fitness programs; the purchase of firefighting equipment and personal protective equipment; and modifications to fire stations and facilities.
Firefighting Vehicle Acquisition Program: The funds may be used for the purchase of firefighting vehicles including pumpers, brush trucks, tankers, rescue vehicles, ambulances, quints, aerials, foam units, and fireboats.
The grants awarded include: Abbeville City of Abbeville Fire Department will receive a $24,855 Operations and Firefighter Safety Grant. Branchville Cattle Creek Fire Department will receive a $185,250 Firefighting Vehicle Acquisition Grant. Cameron Cameron Volunteer Fire Department will receive a $190,000 Firefighting Vehicle Acquisition Grant. Pickens Holly Springs Fire Department will receive a $71,438 Operations and Firefighter Safety Grant. Wallace Wallace Fire Department will receive a $171,950 Operations and Firefighter Safety Grant. The Assistance to Firefighters grant program awards one-year grants directly to local fire departments, enhancing their ability to respond to fire and fire-related hazards in the community. The program supports departments by providing them the tools and resources necessary to protect the health and safety of the public and their firefighting personnel. Grantees share in the cost of the funded project at a percentage based on the population of their respective jurisdiction. Grantees that serve jurisdictions of 50,000 or fewer residents are required to provide a non-Federal cost-share of 10 percent while grantees that serve jurisdictions of over 50,000 provide a 30 percent cost-share. The match must be in cash without the use of in-kind contributions. In addition, the maximum amount of federal funds that an applicant can be awarded is $750,000 during any fiscal year. The grants are made by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. ####
Graham and DeMint Announce $1.59 Million for Columbia Metropolitan Airport
WASHINGTON- U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint today announced the Columbia Metropolitan Airport will receive a $1,591,032 increase to a previously awarded grant for airport improvements. This brings the total grant award for this project to $5,998,940. The money will be used to rehabilitate and increase apron areas. The funding also improves the terminal building by acquiring and installing loading bridges to enhance passenger and airline efficiency. Safety at the airport will be enhanced by the installation of perimeter fencing around a portion of the airport boundary. In addition, the airport will purchase an aircraft rescue and fire fighting rapid intervention vehicle. The grant was awarded by the U.S. Department of Transportation. ####


The Amplon RT 1-3kVA series is an online double-conversion UPS providing consistent sine-wave power to your critical equipment. It supports personal computers, networks, servers, VoIP and telecommunications. The Amplon RT 1-3kVA series features an output power factor of 0.9 and best-in-class AC-AC efficiency up to 94% resulting in greater energy savings. Optional external battery pack can be connected for longer backup time to keep your applications safe and running smoothly at all times.
True online double-conversion topology and zero transfer time to battery ensure high reliability.
Watch-dog design of DSP (Digital Signal Processor) increases reliability.
Cold-start capability provides temporary battery power when the utility power is out.
Fan failure detection alerts users to failed fans.
Hot swappable batteries ensure continuous operation even when batteries are being replaced.
Optional external battery pack for easy scaling of longer backup time.
High output power factor 0.9 provides more real power to critical loads.
High input power factor (pf > 0.99) and low harmonic distortion (iTHD < 5%) save upstream investment.
Up to 94% AC-AC efficiency and 97% efficiency in ECO mode result in marked energy cost savings.
Wide input voltage range reduces the chance of using the battery and extends battery life.
Intelligent battery management sustains battery life and performance.
Fan speed control by load level maximizes efficiency and reduces audible noise.
Load segment control allows less-critical loads to be disconnected during blackouts and saves battery runtime for important loads.
Convertible rack and tower configuration in 2U size cabinet.
Excellent local communications through rotatable LCD display.
Intelligent management software connectivity via RS232 or USB port.


Bleak rain and snow storms can really spoil your football fun. Unless … you opt for a fabric structure indoor football pitch. Not only does it provide protection against the vilest weather winter can throw at you, but it's also hugely versatile and multifunctional when deployed for other (recreational) clubs. A cinch.
Why choose a fabric structure?
When we cover a football pitch we build an aluminium or steel structure that is finished off with roof, side and gable fabrics. This type of (semi) permanent, modular structure can be built quickly, and is flexible in both dimension and design. Such a structure can be equipped with high side walls and a high roof. One huge benefit of this is the guaranteed possibility of practising corner kicks on the indoor football pitch, which isn't always necessarily possible at many other indoor venues. Moreover, the side walls of our indoor structures can be opened; guaranteeing football fun whatever the weather.
An indoor football pitch is an investment for the club. To enjoy the return on your indoor football pitch investment, deploy the structure multi-functionally. Permit other (recreational) clubs or schools to utilise it, ensuring the structure pays for itself when your club has no need for it. Our references only serve to endorse this.
A number of large clubs have already opted for Veldeman's indoor football pitches. One great example is the Belgian football club KRC Genk, for whom we have constructed a 40 m x 70 m football sports hall, with a side height measuring 8.40 m. By using light-permeable fabrics natural daylight is guaranteed. We personalised the side and gable fabrics in the club's blue colour.
So too, Lokomotiv Moscow, a Russian first-division club that asked us to construct an indoor football pitchwith a steel fabric structure measuring 60 m x 100 m. In Russia we have been able to prove our structures can cope with snow, where one such structure can bear the weight of centimetres of snow, without any problems!
Upon your request we can handle everything for you in the realisation of an indoor football pitch. We offer a total concept in which we genuinely handle everything, from the roofing right down to specific details such as the correct lighting. Naturally, personalising your sports hall is also possible.
Are you interested in an indoor football pitch? Are you particularly keen on attaining problem-free football throughout the year? If so, please contact us without delay to discuss the many options available to you.


text:
Muscle Injury, Beyrle v. Brown, through-and-through
Filed under: Uncategorized — veteranclaims @ 8:29 pm
This is a MEMORANDUM DECISION, yet it references some great quotes:
In 1968, 38 C.F.R. 4.72 stated, in pertinent part, that "[a]
through[-]and[-]through injury, with muscle damage, is always at least a moderate injury, for each group of muscles damaged." Entitlement to a moderate disability rating under section 4.72 does not require a finding of muscle damage, but does necessitate a finding of muscle involvement. See Beyrle v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 377, 383 (1996); Myler, 1 Vet.App. at 574. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 4.55(a) (1968), "[m]uscle injuries in the same anatomical region . . . will not be combined, but instead, the rating for the major group affected will be elevated from moderate to moderately severe, or from moderately severe to severe." In Myler, supra, the Court held that the Board committed CUE when it failed to assign a moderately severe rating for a through-and-through wound affecting MGs XIII and XIV under extant regulations that mirrored sections 4.55(a) and 4.72 as they existed in 1968.
Both the appellant and the Secretary claim that the failure to assign
30% disability rating for residuals of the appellant's right thigh wounds was CUE. The 1968 rating decision awarded the appellant service connection for a gunshot wound to MG XIV, the anterior of the thigh. That injury was rated as moderate, or 10% disabling, under DC Previous Document5314Next Hit. See R. at 109. The medical evidence of record before the ratings board in 1968 included records of the appellant's treatment at USAF and USN hospitals.
The USAF hospital records indicate that he suffered two wounds to the right thigh. While it could not be determined at that time whether the wounds were through-and-through, one of the wounds originated at the posterior of the thigh (MG XIII) and was "relatively deep," involving the rectus femoris muscle in the anterior of the thigh (MG XIV). R. at 61.
Upon transfer to the USN hospital for more extensive treatment, it was determined that his right thigh injury was a through- and-through wound. R. at 58. Records from the USN hospital also show that in July 1966 the appellant had skin grafts to the posterior of his right thigh. R. at 53, 59. The record in November 1968 also contained the report of the October 1968 VA special orthopedic examination. That report described the pertinent wound as "through the right thigh." R. at 96. The examiner described a 4- inch by 1¼-inch scar on the posterior of the right thigh with tissue missing below the scar. R. at 97. X-rays showed numerous bits of shrapnel in the posterior of both thighs. R. at 98.
In the decision on appeal, the Board observed that the appellant's medical records described scars on the right posterior thigh from a through-and-through wound and a loss of tissue beneath the scar. R. at 21. However, the Board, like the RO in 1968, failed to consider a separate rating for the posterior thigh muscles or how the rating of the appellant's thigh injuries are affected by 38 C.F.R. 4.55(a) and 4.72 (1968). The medical evidence before the Board in 1968 clearly establishes that the appellant suffered a through-and-through wound that penetrated through the posterior of his thigh, MG XIII, and into the muscles in MG XIV in the anterior of the thigh. It is undebatable that such a wound involved the muscles in the posterior of his thigh. Thus, pursuant to section 4.72, the appellant should have been awarded a moderate rating for MG XIII, in addition to his moderate rating for MG XIV. See Beyrle, 9 Vet.App. at 383; Myler, 1 Vet.App. at 574; 38 C.F.R. 4.73, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5313 (1968).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Patrick Engelman, Appellant,
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee.
Before FARLEY, Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a), this action may not be cited as precedent.
FARLEY, Judge: Before the Court is a July 19, 2001, decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) that (1) granted an initial rating of 30%, but no higher, for right radial nerve palsy from October 10, 1968; (2) denied an initial rating in excess of 10% for residuals of a shell fragment wound of the left second toe; (3) determined that a November 1968 rating decision that assigned a 10% rating for residuals of a gunshot wound of the right thigh, Muscle Group (MG) XIV, did not contain clear and unmistakable error (CUE); (4) denied a separate disability rating for a right-shoulder disability secondary to service-connected
residuals of a gunshot wound of the right upper extremity; and (5) denied an effective date prior to June 1, 1989, for the assignment of a combined 100% disability evaluation. Record (R.) at 1-27. This appeal is timely and the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 7252(a). The pro se appellant has filed an informal brief and a reply brief. The Secretary has filed a brief. Single-judge disposition is appropriate when, as here, the issue is of relative simplicity and the outcome is not reasonably debatable. See Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990).
The Court will reverse and remand in part and vacate and remand in part the Board decision.
The veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from
August 1965 to January 1968, including service in Vietnam. R. at 30. On
July 18, 1966, he sustained multiple gunshot wounds and shell fragment
wounds to the right upper arm, right forearm, both thighs and left foot.
R. at 58. After initial treatment at a field hospital, he was transferred
to a United States Air Force (USAF) Hospital where his wounds were
described as follows: His right upper extremity exhibited (1) a through-
and-through wound of the mid-arm with a comminuted fracture of the
midshaft of the humerus; (2) a severe contusion of the right radial nerve
that caused hypesthesia of the radial nerve distribution and an absence
of radial nerve function; (3) a second wound on the forearm over the
common extensor muscles that was "relatively superficial"; and (4) a wound
over the dorsum of the right hand over the 5th metacarpal that had been
previously closed. R. at 60, 62. Wounds to his left lower extremity
included: (1) A through-and-through wound in the mid-thigh with some
muscle destruction of the anterior and hamstring muscles; (2) amputated
great toe at the interphalangeal (IP) joint; and (3) skin and soft
tissue loss of the second toe exposing the flexor tendons and capsules of
the IP joints. R. at 60. On the right lower extremity he had two wounds
of the thigh which could not be determined to be through-and-through, one
of which, a posterior wound in the mid thigh, was relatively deep,
involving the rectus femoris muscle. R. at 61.
The veteran was subsequently transferred to a United States Naval (
USN) Hospital for further treatment where a physical examination revealed
that the wounds to his right thigh were through- and-through. R. at 58.
The fracture of the right humerus was treated by shortening and bone
grafting using bone from the left iliac crest, which resulted in radial
nerve palsy and partial recovery of radial nerve function. R. at 66, 76,
85. An osteotomy of the proximal IP joint on the left foot was
performed and fusion of that joint and the distal joint was accomplished.
Id. In July 1966, the veteran underwent skin grafting, including skin
grafts to the posterior of his right thigh. R. at 53, 59.
In December 1967, a Medical Board found the veteran unfit for further
duty. R. at 88-90. The veteran was medically discharged in January 1968.
R. at 30. In June 1968, the veteran filed a claim for VA compensation for
gunshot and shell fragment wound residuals. See R. at 108, 212. In
October 1968, the veteran was afforded a special orthopedic examination
and the examiner provided the following diagnoses:
1. Gunshot wound, right upper arm perforating with
compound comminuted fracture, right humerus,
postoperative with bone graft[] [p]late[,] 2½ inch
shortening of the humerus and deformity of the humerus
with marked atrophy of the muscles of the upper arm,
especially the posterior[,] medial, and lateral muscles
and moderate atrophy of the biceps muscles with residual
scars and neuroma in lateral scar above the elbow.
Partial ankylosis, right elbow with no flexion beyond 67
degrees and lacking 30 degrees of extension and forearm
of slight moderate pronation and only a few degrees of
pronation and supination. There is also marked atrophy
of the forearm, and scar, right forearm. Limitation of
motion of the right shoulder. Numerous bits of shrapnel
about the fracture site.
2. Gunshot wound, shrapnel wound, both thighs, perforating with
residual scars and muscle loss left thigh, anterior lateral
compartments quadriceps, femoral vastus lateralis as described.
Numerous bits of shrapnel in the soft tissues-both thighs.
3. Partial amputation, left big toe and injury second toe, left
with marked deformity and callus formation on the deformed base
. . . . Retained bits of shrapnel big [and] 2nd toes.
4. Gunshot wound right forearm proximal . . . of the radius,
healed with ulnar angulation, retained bits of shrapnel about
proximal area of the forearm.
R. at 98. The examiner's report described the veteran's right thigh
wound as "through the right thigh." R. at 96. The examiner also
described a 4-inch by 1¼-inch surgical scar on the posterior of the right
thigh, with "considerable depression on palpation showing absence of
tissue over the area of the scar and absence of lateral fascia over the
area." R. at 97.
In November 13, 1968, a VA regional office (RO) awarded the veteran
service connection for (1) gunshot wound, right upper arm, comminuted
fracture, humerus, with 2½ inches of shortening and loss of muscle tissue,
assigned a 100% prestabilization disability rating under 38 C.F.R. 4.
28 (2003), effective from February 1, 1968, and a 60% disability rating
from October 10, 1968; (2) limitation of motion, right elbow due to
fracture, rated as 30% disabling from October 10, 1968; (3) gunshot wound,
MG XIV, left thigh, rated as 30% disabling from October 10, 1968; (4)
gunshot wound right thigh, MG XIV, rated as 10% disabling from October 10,
1968; and (5) amputation, left big toe, rated as 10% disabling from
October 10, 1968. R. at 109. The veteran was assigned a 90% combined
rating as of October 10, 1968. Id.
In October 1990, the veteran was granted service connection for
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), rated as 30% disabling, effective
May 1990. R. at 146. His combined rating remained at 90%. Id. In a
September 1993, RO decision, his rating for PTSD was increased to 70% and
his combined rating was increased to 100%, both effective May 1990. R. at
189-90.
In January 1994, the veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD)
with respect to the May 1990 effective date for his 100% combined rating.
See R. at 195. The RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) in February
1995 (R. at 192-200), and the veteran filed a Substantive Appeal in
October 1995. R. at 202-08. In his Substantive Appeal the veteran
claimed, inter alia, that the November 1968 rating decision was the result
of CUE in that it failed to address the issues of service connection for
partial ankylosis of the right wrist, partial radial nerve palsy of the
right forearm and right hand, residuals of shell fragment wound to the
left 2nd toe, and a painful scar on the right upper arm. R. at 203-05.
He also claimed that the 1968 rating decision contained CUE in that the
gunshot wound to his right thigh was a through-and-through wound that
affected both MG XIV (anterior thigh group) and MG XIII (posterior thigh
group), and therefore his 10% rating should have been elevated to 30%
pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 4.55(a) (1968) (providing that ratings for two
muscle injuries in the same anatomical region will not be combined, but
instead, the rating for the major group affected will be elevated to the
next level). R. at 206-07.
In April 1996, the RO determined that there was no CUE in the 1968
decision. R. at 211-16. However, the RO did find that the 1968 RO
decision should have considered service connection for partial radial
nerve palsy, residuals of shell fragment wound to the left 2nd toe, and
painful scar on the right upper arm, and that those issues represented
open claims rather than CUE in the 1968 decision. R. at 211-13. The RO
awarded service connection for the veteran's left 2nd toe injury and right
upper arm scar rated at 0% and 10%, respectively, both effective February
1968. R. at 212-13. His combined rating for the period from October 1968
to May 1990 remained at 90%. R. at 216. With respect to service
connection for partial radial nerve palsy, the RO deferred a decision
pending completion of a new VA examination. R. at 212.
A VA neurological examination in May 1996 revealed, inter alia,
partial radial nerve damage of the right arm. R. at 226. In September
1996, the RO granted service connection for partial right radial nerve
palsy and assigned a 20% rating for the condition effective October 1995.
R. at 229-31. In October 1996, the veteran filed an NOD with respect to
both (1) the rating and effective date assigned for right radial nerve
palsy in the September 1996 decision, and (2) the April 1996 decision
that assigned a 0% rating for his left second toe injury and denied
a higher rating for his right thigh injury on the basis of CUE. R. at
On June 12, 1997, the RO issued a rating decision that granted an
earlier effective date of March 1993 for the 20% rating for right radial
nerve palsy. R. at 240. On the same day, the RO issued a Supplemental
SOC (SSOC) regarding its denial of a rating greater than 20% and an
effective date earlier than March 1993 for the 20% rating. R. at 245. In
January 1998, the veteran filed a Substantive Appeal addressing his right
thigh injury, left 2nd toe injury, and right radial nerve palsy. R. at
In a February 1998 rating decision, the RO assigned an earlier
effective date of June 1, 1989, for the veteran's 70% PTSD rating. R. at
280. This resulted in a combined rating of 100%, effective June 1, 1989.
The RO also granted service connection for residuals of a gunshot wound of
the posterior left thigh, rated as 10% disabling from February 1968; and
for a scar, left iliac crest, rated as 0% disabling, effective February
1968. The rating decision determined that the combined rating remained at
90% from October 10, 1968, until June 1, 1989. R. at 280-83.
In a May 1998 SSOC, the RO granted an earlier effective date of
October 10, 1968, for the 20% rating assigned for right radial nerve palsy,
and increased the rating for shell fragment wounds of the left second toe
from 0% to 10%, effective October 10, 1968. R. at 320-22. The SSOC
also continued the denial of an increased rating for the veteran's right
thigh injury based on CUE and determined that entitlement to an earlier
effective date for the combined 100% rating prior to June 1, 1989, was not
established. R. at 322-23. In a rating decision of May 1998, the RO
denied a separate rating for right shoulder involvement of the gunshot
wound fracture of the right upper arm. R. at 326.
In the July 19, 2001, decision on appeal, the Board (1) granted an
initial rating of 30%, but no higher, for right radial nerve palsy from
October 10, 1968; (2) denied an initial rating in excess of 10% for
residuals of a shell fragment wound of the left second toe; (3) determined
that the November 1968 rating decision that assigned a 10% rating for
residuals of a gunshot wound of the right thigh, MG XIV, was not the
result of CUE; (4) denied a separate disability rating for a right
shoulder disability secondary to service-connected residuals of a gunshot
wound of the right upper extremity; and (5) denied an effective date prior
to June 1, 1989, for the assignment of a combined 100% disability
evaluation. R. at 1-27. The Board also noted the enactment of the
Veterans Claims
Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096. R.
at 6. With regard to the notice requirements of the VCAA, the Board
stated:
The appellant was provided adequate notice as to the evidence
needed to substantiate his claims. In addition, the
discussions in the ratings decisions, the [SOCs], the [SSOCs
], and information sent to the appellant informed him of the
information and evidence needed to substantiate his claims
. . . . As such, VA has no outstanding duty to inform the
appellant that any additional information or evidence is needed
R. at 6.
In his brief, the appellant states that he is appealing all the
issues listed in the Board decision. Appellant's Informal Brief (Br.) at
1. In his response, the Secretary concedes that the Board erred in
concluding that there was no CUE in the 1968 RO decision that assigned a
10% rating for residuals of a gunshot wound of the right thigh.
Secretary's Br. at 20-25. He states that under the rating principles
extant at the time of the 1968 rating decision and illustrated by the
Court's decision in Myler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 571 (1991), the
appellant was entitled to a 30% rating for gunshot wound residuals to the
right thigh. Id. The Secretary urges the Court to reverse the Board
decision with regard to that matter and order the assignment of a 30%
rating for the appellant's right thigh injury effective from October 10,
1968. Id. The Secretary argues for affirmance of those parts of the
Board decision that denied (1) a rating in excess of 30% for right radial
nerve damage; (2) a rating in excess of 10% for residuals of a shell
fragment wound to the left 2nd toe; and (3) a separate rating for
limitation of motion of the right shoulder under DC 5201, or under DC 5202
as secondary to the gunshot wound to the right humerus. Id at 13-20. He
argues for dismissal of the claim for an effective date prior to June 1,
1989, for the assignment of a combined rating of 100% as moot because an
assignment of a 30% rating for the right thigh residuals effective October
10, 1968, will result in a combined rating of 100% effective from that
date. Id. 25-26.
In his reply brief, the appellant, inter alia, claims that the 1968
RO committed CUE by prematurely reducing his 100% prestabilization
rating for his right upper arm to 60%. Appellant's Reply Br. at 9-11. He
argues that but for that error he would have been entitled to special
monthly compensation (SMC) in 1968. Id. at 10-12. He opposes the
Secretary's concession of CUE regarding his right thigh rating without
resolution of his claim regarding entitlement to SMC because he fears a
decision by this Court on CUE will preclude his raising any additional CUE
claims with respect to the 1968 RO decision. Id. at 12.
II. ANALYSIS
A. VCAA
Although the VCAA is not applicable to CUE claims, see Livesay v.
Principi, 15 Vet.App. 165, 179 (2001) (en banc), it does apply to the
appellant's non-CUE claims. Section 5103(a), title 38, U.S. Code, as
amended by the VCAA, provides:
Upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete
application, the Secretary shall notify the claimant and the
claimant's representative, if any, of any information, and any
medical or lay evidence, not previously provided to the
Secretary that is necessary to substantiate the claim. As part
of that notice, the Secretary shall indicate which portion of
that information and evidence, if any, is to be provided by the
claimant and which portion, if any, the Secretary, in
accordance with section 5103A of this title and any other
applicable provisions of law, will attempt to obtain on behalf
of the claimant.
38 U.S.C. 5103(a). The regulation implementing 38 U.S.C. 5103(a)
states, in pertinent part:
When VA receives a complete or substantially complete
application for benefits, it will notify the claimant of any
information and medical or lay evidence that is necessary to
substantiate the claim. VA will inform the claimant which
information and evidence, if any, that the claimant is to
provide to VA and which information and evidence, if any, that
VA will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant. VA will
also request that the claimant provide any evidence in the
claimant's possession that pertains to the claim.
38 C.F.R. 3.159(b) (2003); see Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. Sec'y of
Veterans Affairs, 345 F.3d 1334, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that 3.
159(b)(1) "sets out with reasonable clarity and specificity the notice VA
is required to provide a claimant and is entirely consistent with the
statutory requirement of 5103(a)").
In Quartuccio v. Principi, this Court held that a remand for
compliance with the VCAA was required because the Secretary neither "'
notif[ied] the claimant . . . of any information, and any medical or lay
evidence, not previously provided to the Secretary that [was] necessary to
substantiate the claim' [nor did he] 'indicate which portion of that
information and evidence, if any, is to be provided by the claimant and
which portion, if any, the Secretary . . . will attempt to obtain on
behalf of the claimant.'" Quartuccio, 16 Vet.App. 183, 187 (2002) (
quoting 38 U.S.C. 5103(a)). In that case, the Court found that
documents notifying the claimant of evidence that would be "useful" or
"potentially helpful" were insufficient where those notifications failed
to identify "who is responsible for obtaining such evidence." Id.
As in Quartuccio, supra, there is no evidence in the record that
the Secretary ever notified the claimant of who is responsible for
obtaining the evidence necessary to substantiate his claim. Although the
Board found that the ratings decisions, the [SOCs], the [SSOCs], and
other information sent to the appellant notified the appellant of the
information and evidence necessary to substantiate his claims, the Board
failed to discuss whether VA ever notified the appellant of who is
responsible for obtaining such evidence. See 38 U.S.C. 5103(a). Nor
does the record contain any evidence that VA complied with its duty to "
request that the claimant provide any evidence in the claimant's
possession that pertains to the claim[s]." 38 C.F.R. 3.159(b); see
Quartuccio, supra; see also Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 370, 373-
74 (2002) (holding that Board's failure to address adequately whether VA
complied with its duties under the VCAA is remandable error pursuant
to 38 U.S.C. 7104(a) and (d)(1)).
Having determined that VA failed to comply with the requirements of
the VCAA, the Court must "take due account of the rule of prejudicial
error." 38 U.S.C. 7261(b); see Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2004). It is not for the Secretary, or this Court, to
predict what evidentiary development may or may not result from the notice
required by the VCAA. See Charles, supra. Here, because the
appellant has not had the opportunity to benefit from and react to the
notices that the Secretary was and is obligated to provide, any conclusion
by the Court that the appellant is not prejudiced would be pure
speculation. See Wagner v. United States, 365 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2004) ("Where the effect of an error on the outcome of a proceeding is
unquantifiable, . . . we [can] not speculate as to what the outcome might
have been had the error not occurred."); Daniels v. Brown, 9 Vet.App.
348, 353 (1996) (Court unable to conclude error not prejudicial where "it
is possible that the appellant would have sought and obtained additional
medical opinions, evidence, or treatises"). Nor is this an instance where
the Court can conclude that the law would be dispositive irrespective of
any additional factual or evidentiary development. See Valiao v.
Principi, 17 Vet.App. 229, 231-32 (2003) (holding that the Board's
error concerning the notice requirements of the VCAA was nonprejudicial
where the facts were not in dispute, the facts averred could not
conceivably lead to a different result, and the Board's decision was
reduced to a matter of law); cf. Mason v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 129,
132 (2002) (where "the law as mandated by statute, and not the evidence,
is dispositive . . . , the VCAA is not applicable"). Accordingly, and
having taken "due account of the rule of prejudicial error," 38 U.S.C.
7261(b), the Court will remand the matters addressed by the appellant's
non-CUE claims.
The Court will not address the other arguments and issues raised by
the appellant in connection with his non-CUE claims. "A narrow decision
preserves for the appellant the opportunity to argue any claimed errors
before the Board at the readjudication." Best v. Principi, 15 Vet.
App. 18, 20 (2001). Since the Board on remand is required to consider
anew the appellant's claim, the appellant will have the opportunity to
present to the Board any additional evidence and argument in support of
his claim. See Kay v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 529, 533 (2002); Best, 15
Vet.App. at 20; Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369, 372 (1999) (
per curiam order). The Court expects that the Board, in accordance with
all applicable laws and regulations, "will reexamine the evidence of
record, seek any other evidence necessary to support the appellant's
claims, and issue a timely, well- supported decision in the case."
Fletcher v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 394, 397 (1991); see also 38 U.S.C.
7112 (as added by the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-183
, 707(b), 117 Stat. 2651, 2673 (Dec. 2003)) (requiring Secretary to
provide "expeditious treatment" for claims remanded by the Court).
Should the Board rule against the appellant on his non-CUE claims, he will
have the opportunity to present any allegations of error to the Court in a
future appeal. See Best, supra.
B. CUE
A claim of CUE is a collateral attack on a final decision by the RO
or the Board. Disabled Am. Veterans v. Gober, 234 F.3d 682, 696-98 (
Fed. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 973 (2001). CUE claims as to RO
decisions are permitted by 38 U.S.C. 5109A; 38 U.S.C. 7111 authorizes
such claims as to Board decisions. Both statutes contain identical
language: "If evidence establishes the error, the prior decision shall be
reversed or revised." See 38 U.S.C. 5109A(a) and 7111(a); see also
38 C.F.R. 3.105(a) and 20.1403(a) (2003). The Court's caselaw
pertaining to Board decisions on claims of CUE in prior final RO decisions
is equally applicable to Board decisions on collateral attacks on prior
BVA decisions. See Jordan (Timothy) v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 261,
268 (2003) (citing Disabled Am. Veterans, 234 F.3d at 696-98); Cook v.
Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1338- 41 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S.
926 (June 16, 2003); Simmons v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 104, 114 (2003) (
noting the "functional equivalen[ce]" of 38 U.S.C. 5109A(e) and 7111(
e)).
To establish CUE in a final decision of an RO or the BVA, a
claimant must prove that
(1) either the facts known at the time were not before the
adjudicator or the law then in effect was incorrectly applied, (
2) that an error occurred based on the record and the law that
existed at the time the decision was made, and (3) that had the
error not been made the outcome would have been manifestly
different.
Grover v. West, 12 Vet.App. 109, 112 (1999). CUE is the sort of error
that is "undebatable, so that it can be said that reasonable minds could
only conclude that the original decision was fatally flawed at the time it
was made." Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 310, 313-14 (1992) (en
banc). A CUE claim cannot be raised for the first time before this Court;
the Court will only review such claims that have been the subject of a
final prior BVA adjudication. Id. ("The necessary jurisdictional 'hook'
for this Court to act is a decision of the BVA on the specific issue of
'clear and unmistakable error.'"). In reviewing Board decisions
evaluating allegations of CUE in prior final decisions, the Court "cannot
conduct a plenary review of the merits of the original decision." Archer v
. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 433, 437 (1992). We are limited to determining
whether the Board decision before us was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," including whether
the decision is supported by an adequate statement of reasons or bases.
38 U.S.C. 7261(a)(3)(A), 7104(d)(1); see Lane v. Principi, 16 Vet.
App. 78, 83-84 (2002), aff'd, 339 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (affirming
this Court's long-standing precedents regarding standard of review in CUE
determinations); Andrews v. Principi, __ Vet.App. __, __, No. 98-1849,
slip op. at 7 (June 29, 2004).
through[-]and[-]through injury, with muscle damage, is always at least a
moderate injury, for each group of muscles damaged." Entitlement to a
moderate disability rating under section 4.72 does not require a finding
of muscle damage, but does necessitate a finding of muscle involvement.
See Beyrle v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 377, 383 (1996); Myler, 1 Vet.App.
at 574. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 4.55(a) (1968), "[m]uscle injuries in
the same anatomical region . . . will not be combined, but instead, the
rating for the major group affected will be elevated from moderate to
moderately severe, or from moderately severe to severe." In Myler,
supra, the Court held that the Board committed CUE when it failed to
assign a moderately severe rating for a through-and-through wound
affecting MGs XIII and XIV under extant regulations that mirrored
sections 4.55(a) and 4.72 as they existed in 1968.
30% disability rating for residuals of the appellant's right thigh wounds
was CUE. The 1968 rating decision awarded the appellant service
connection for a gunshot wound to MG XIV, the anterior of the thigh. That
injury was rated as moderate, or 10% disabling, under DC Previous Document5314Next Hit. See R. at
109. The medical evidence of record before the ratings board in 1968
included records of the appellant's treatment at USAF and USN hospitals.
The USAF hospital records indicate that he suffered two wounds to the
right thigh. While it could not be determined at that time whether the
wounds were through-and-through, one of the wounds originated at the
posterior of the thigh (MG XIII) and was "relatively deep," involving the
rectus femoris muscle in the anterior of the thigh (MG XIV). R. at 61.
Upon transfer to the USN hospital for more extensive treatment, it was
determined that his right thigh injury was a through- and-through wound.
R. at 58. Records from the USN hospital also show that in July 1966 the
appellant had skin grafts to the posterior of his right thigh. R. at 53,
59. The record in November 1968 also contained the report of the October
1968 VA special orthopedic examination. That report described the
pertinent wound as "through the right thigh." R. at 96. The examiner
described a 4- inch by 1¼-inch scar on the posterior of the right thigh
with tissue missing below the scar. R. at 97. X-rays showed numerous
bits of shrapnel in the posterior of both thighs. R. at 98.
In the decision on appeal, the Board observed that the appellant's
medical records described scars on the right posterior thigh from a
through-and-through wound and a loss of tissue beneath the scar. R. at 21
. However, the Board, like the RO in 1968, failed to consider a separate
rating for the posterior thigh muscles or how the rating of the
appellant's thigh injuries are affected by 38 C.F.R. 4.55(a) and 4.72 (
1968). The medical evidence before the Board in 1968 clearly establishes
that the appellant suffered a through-and-through wound that penetrated
through the posterior of his thigh, MG XIII, and into the muscles in MG
XIV in the anterior of the thigh. It is undebatable that such a wound
involved the muscles in the posterior of his thigh. Thus, pursuant to
section 4.72, the appellant should have been awarded a moderate rating for
MG XIII, in addition to his moderate rating for MG XIV. See Beyrle, 9
Vet.App. at 383; Myler, 1 Vet.App. at 574; 38 C.F.R. 4.73,
Diagnostic Code (DC) 5313 (1968). Moreover, as the Secretary concedes,
even if the RO had relied exclusively on the USAF hospital records that
could not determine if the posterior thigh wound was through-and-through,
the presence of a deep wound penetrating through the posterior thigh and
into the anterior thigh, with numerous pieces of shrapnel in the posterior
thigh, also would have unquestionably established a moderate rating for MG
XIII. See 38 C.F.R. 4.56(a), (b) (1968).
Because the appellant had two wounds in the same anatomical area that
should have been rated at least moderate, the RO was required to assign a
moderately severe, or 30%, disability rating under section 4.55(a). See
Myler, supra; DCs 5313, Previous Hit5314Next Document. The failure of the RO to assign such a
rating was an undebatable error but for which the result would have been
manifestly different. See Grover, Russell, and Myler, all supra.
Accordingly, the Court holds that the Board's determination that there was
no CUE in the 1968 RO decision assigning a 10% rating for wounds to the
right thigh is not in accordance with law. 38 U.S.C. 7261(a)(3)(A); see
Lane and Andrews, both supra. The appellant's CUE claim concerning
possible entitlement to SMC has not been addressed by the Board and is
therefore not before the Court. See Russell, 3 Vet.App. at 313-14 (
holding that the Court will only review CUE claims that have been the
subject of a final BVA adjudication). The appellant will not be
precluded from raising his claim in the future. See Brown v. West, 203 F.
3d at 1378, 1381-82 (2000) (holding that Board decisions regarding CUE in
prior RO decisions only subsume those issues in the RO decision that are
addressed by the Board). In addition, the Court observes that 38 C.F.R
. 4.55(a) (1968) may also be applicable to the injuries to the
appellant's left thigh. However, that issue has not been raised by either
party and was also not addressed by the Board's decision.
III. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Board decision is reversed
to the extent it concluded that there was no CUE in the 1968 rating
decision that assigned a 10% rating for residuals of gunshot wounds to the
appellant's right thigh. That matter is remanded for the Board to assign
a 30% rating for the appellant's right thigh, and a 100% combined rating,
both effective October 10, 1968. The appellant's CUE claim concerning
SMC is dismissed. With respect to the appellant's non-CUE claims, the
Board decision is vacated and those matters are remanded for
readjudication.
Copies to:
Patrick Engelman
3726 W. Palo Alto
General Counsel (027)
810 Vermont Avenue, NW

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This very popular book is now available in a a New Translation edition. Designed to help children aged 5 to 9 years learn how to participate fully and actively at Mass, it can be used by parents or catechists.
"This book has been written to help you understand more about the Mass, and your important role in the celebration. You will learn the prayers and responses you say aloud, when to stand and sit and kneel, and some of the actions that are part of the Mass.
All this will help you to participate in the Mass fully and actively, praising God and praying for our world, listening to the Word of God, being nourished by the Eucharist and growing in love for one another."
See also 4th edition My Missal with New English Translation and Profession of Faith.


text:
Last edited by Kazragor
5 edition of W.B. Yeats and His Circle found in the catalog.
W.B. Yeats and His Circle
by Catherine Fahy
Published January 1994 by National Library of Ireland .
Poetry & poets: from c 1900 -,
Literature - Classics / Criticism,
English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh,
20th century,
Yeats, W. B.,
History: American,
Exhibitions,
Yeats, W. B,
(William Butler),,
Authors, Irish,
Biography,
Du même auteur. W. B. Yeats, On Baile's Strand: Manuscript Materials, ed. by Jared Curtis and Declan Kiely in Yeats's Legacies, Open Book Publishers, The King's Threshold: Manuscript Materials, edited by Declan Kiely, Yeats in Manuscript Series (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, ), pp. lxi + in Yeats's Mask, Open Book Publishers, Author: Richard Allen Cave. William Butler Yeats, one of the foremost figures of 20th-century literature, died on this day, Janu in Yeats was a pillar of the Irish and British literary establishments and in his.
The acclaimed first volume of this definitive biography of W. B. Yeats left him in his fiftieth year, at a crossroads in his life. The subsequent quarter-century surveyed in The Arch-Poet takes in his rediscovery of advanced nationalism and his struggle for an independent Irish culture, his continued pursuit of supernatural truths through occult experimentation, his extraordinary marriage, and /5(54). To understand Yeats, as much as that's possible, we need to read his poetry, the purest expression of his mystical system and symbolic thought. via Metafilter. Related Content: Aleister Crowley: The Wickedest Man in the World Documents the Life of the Bizarre Occultist, Poet & Mountaineer. Rare s Audio: W.B. Yeats Reads Four of His Poems.
Letters from poet WB Yeats to his first love, and artwork by his brother, sisters and father, will be auctioned at Sotheby's Published: 17 Aug Collection of Yeats family treasures to go on. William Butler Yeats was an Irish poet and playwright, and one of the foremost figures of 20th century literature. A pillar of both the Irish and British literary establishments, in his later years he served as an Irish Senator for two terms.
Images of change
Three Points quadrangle, Arizona--Pima Co., 1992
The U.S. media and Yugoslavia, 1991-1995
curious lore of drugs and medicines
Consultative papers related to the revision of the Children and YoungPersons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968.
Gossip Girl: It Had to Be You
Law and religion in contemporary society
The complete Maui, Molokai, and Lanai guidebook
forecast of the future of the Maritime Provinces.
Shakespeares garden
MY NEW PUPPY (Die-Cut Pet Board Book)
Food for Fabulous Romance
The registers of Scorborough, Co. of York, 1653-1803
Friedman & Szasz On liberty and drugs
A history of Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific
riders handbook
Athapaskan type of knife
W.B. Yeats and His Circle by Catherine Fahy Download PDF EPUB FB2
W.B. Yeats and his circle. [Dublin]: National Library of Ireland, (OCoLC) Named Person: W B Yeats; W B Yeats; W B Yeats; William B Yeats: Material Type: Biography, Government publication, National government publication: Document Type: Book: All Authors /.
Yeats and his world [Micheál Mac Liammóir] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Subject: Yeats, WB - (William Butler), - Poets, Irish - 20th century - Biography. Ireland. "Joseph Hassett's W.B. Yeats and the Muses is a valuable addition to both the critical and biographical literature on Yeats.
Equipped with shrewdly evaluated, often new, biographical material, his scrupulous engagement with the relevant poems provides convincing 5/5(3). W.B. Yeats has books on Goodreads with ratings. W.B. Yeats's most popular book is The Collected Poems of W.B.
Yeats. The Collected Works of W.B. Yeats Volume IX: Early Articles and Reviews: Uncollected Articles and Reviews Written Between and W.B. Yeats $ - $ Yeats's "A Vision" gives an esoteric and occult view of the nature of reality and is the product of years of collaboration between the poet, W.
Yeats, and his wife, George, in automatic writing, followed by years of synthesis and research to work it into book form/5(11). This book is a history of Yeats's life more than a critique of his poetry and The subtitle 'The Apprentice Mage' refers to Yeats's obsession with magic and the occult, and his efforts to write poetry that could, like a magic spell, alter physical reality by tapping into a spiritual substratum of consciousness and destiny/5.
William Butler Yeats The poet William Bulter Yeats ( - ) was a lion of English and Irish literature in the 20th century, awarded the Noble Prize in Literature in His recognition so soon after Ireland's independence afforded him the opportunity to promote Irish nationalism and cultural independence.
William Butler Yeats, Irish poet, dramatist, and prose writer, one of the greatest English-language poets of the 20th century. He received the Nobel Prize for Literature in Yeats's father, John Butler Yeats, was a barrister who eventually became a portrait painter.
His mother, formerly Susan. A drawing by Edmund Dulac from WB Yeats's 'A Vision'. WB Yeats's 'A Vision'. The young William Butler Yeats was introduced to the study and practice of the occult while in art college in Dublin.
38 rows A list of poems by W. Yeats William Butler Yeats, widely considered one of the greatest. Like R. Foster in W. Yeats: A Life, Canadian scholar Keith Alldritt concentrates on Yeats's public activities and his relationships with others.
(The poet's interior struggles and creativity are amply considered in Yeats's memoirs and Richard Ellmann's critical biography.)Cited by: 6. "The Second Coming" is a poem written by Irish poet W. Yeats infirst printed in The Dial in Novemberand afterwards included in his collection of verses Michael Robartes and the Dancer.
The poem uses Christian imagery regarding the Apocalypse and Second Coming to allegorically describe the atmosphere of post-war Europe.
William Butler Yeats is widely considered to be one of the greatest poets of the 20th century. He belonged to the Protestant, Anglo-Irish minority that had controlled the economic, political, social, and cultural life of Ireland since at least the end of the 17th century.
Most members of this minority considered themselves English people who happened to have been born in Ireland, but Yeats. Oxford Book of Modern Verse,W.
Yeats, /English Classic/Victorian Poetry/20th Century Poetry/Classic Poetry/Poetry Book BagdadVillageAntique 5 out of 5 stars () $ Favorite. Yeats: (William Butler Yeats), –, Irish poet and playwright, b.
Dublin. The greatest lyric poet Ireland has produced and one of the major figures of 20th-century literature, Yeats was the acknowledged leader of the Irish literary renaissance.
Early Life. William Butler Yeats (13 June – 28 January ) was an Irish poet and one of the foremost figures of 20th-century literature.A pillar of the Irish literary establishment, he helped to found the Abbey Theatre, and in his later years served two terms as a Senator of the Irish Free was a driving force behind the Irish Literary Revival along with Lady Gregory, Edward Martyn and.
- Includes critical essays on Yeats, his life and his ideas, placing his work within the context of his time, as well as an up-to-date bibliography of works on Yeats W.B. Yeats called A Vision my book of books/5.
The first volume in Roy Foster's magisterial biography of W.B. Yeats was hailed as "a work of huge significance" (The Atlantic Monthly) and "a stupendous historiographical feat" (Irish Sunday Independent).Now, the eagerly awaited second volume explores the complex poetic, political, and personal intricacies of Yeats's dramatic final decades, a period that saw the Easter/5.
Yeats the Initiate: Essays on Certain Themes in the Work of W.B. Yeats Kathleen Raine The eminent poet and scholar Kathleen Raine, leading exponent of the learning of the imagination, brings together all her essays on Yeats (some never before printed) covering many aspects of the traditions and influences that informed his great poetry.
William Butler Yeats (/ˈjeɪts/; 13 June - 28 January ) was an Irish poet and one of the foremost figures of 20th-century literature. A pillar of both the Irish and British literary establishments, in his later years he served as an Irish Senator for two terms.
The more I circle the life and work of WB Yeats, the more I'm drawn to wondering about his mother, Susan Yeats, nee Pollexfen. In trying to understand her influence, at first I felt hampered by how little we know about her.
W.B. Yeats and His Books by Megan Mulder on Ma in Exhibits in Special Collections marks the th anniversary of the birth of William Butler Yeats, one of the most important and influential literary figures of the 20th century.
ashleyllanes.com - W.B. Yeats and His Circle book © 2020


text:
Book A Collection
I.T Asset Disposal
Resale & Remarketing
Data Shredding
IT Installation | Relocation | Decommision
I.T Asset Redeployment
Managed I.T Services
Items We Collect
Downloads | Resources
What is computer recycling
ICO issues nuisance calls warning as two firms from same city are fined
Gigacycle > Information & Guidance > ICO issues nuisance calls warning as two firms from same city are fined
in Information & Guidance
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has reminded companies making direct marketing calls that people registered with the Telephone Preference Service are "off limits".
The warning comes as the ICO issues fines totalling £150,000 to two firms based in Bradford that, between them, sparked hundreds of complaints.
HPAS Ltd (trading as Safestyle UK) and Laura Anderson Ltd (trading as Virgo Home Improvements) broke the law when they called people who were registered with TPS.
HPAS Ltd has been fined £70,000 after the TPS and ICO received 264 complaints in 20 months. The company was repeatedly warned and placed on formal monitoring three times – but the complaints continued.
Laura Anderson Ltd has been fined £80,000 following 440 complaints in 19 months.
As well as the fines, the ICO has issued enforcement notices to both HPAS Ltd and Laura Anderson Ltd, compelling them to stop making nuisance calls or face court action.
The ICO found that neither company had subscribed to the TPS register in order to check whether the people they were contacting had opted out of receiving direct marketing. Both companies also contacted people after being explicitly told not to call again. This is against the law.
Steve Eckersley, ICO Head of Enforcement, said:
"Companies have no excuse – if people are registered with the Telephone Preference Service they are off limits.
"The law is clear and if companies fall foul of it with illegal and overly aggressive telesales tactics, we will take action on behalf of the people who suffer the nuisance."
The ICO has had statutory responsibility for the TPS since December 2016 and received complaints about both Safestyle and Virgo from people who said that they received repeated unsolicited calls and that their opt out requests were being ignored.
Complaints about Safestyle included:
"This harassment has been going on for over five years now. I want it to stop."
"I am disabled and pretty much housebound and he kept saying persistently that he was sending a rep around the next day. Makes me anxious as I kept saying no."
Complaints about Virgo included:
"Angry. This is the 3rd call in two months. I have previously requested they delete our number, we are with TPS."
"Unwanted and unneeded as we are currently dealing with a bereavement of my wife's father, who died yesterday."
"I was upset because the man was very disrespectful and impatient. I am retired and live on my own and it made me feel vulnerable."
The Information Commissioner's Office upholds information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.
The ICO has specific responsibilities set out in the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a new law that will replace the Data Protection Act 1998 and will apply in the UK from 25 May 2018. The government has confirmed that the UK's decision to leave the EU will not affect the commencement of the GDPR.
The ICO can take action to change the behaviour of organisations and individuals that collect, use and keep personal information. This includes criminal prosecution, non-criminal enforcement and audit. The ICO has the power to impose a monetary penalty on a data controller of up to £500,000.
The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) sit alongside the Data Protection Act. They give people specific privacy rights in relation to electronic communications. There are specific rules on:
Civil Monetary Penalties (CMPs) are subject to a right of appeal to the (First-tier Tribunal) General Regulatory Chamber against the imposition of the monetary penalty and/or the amount of the penalty specified in the monetary penalty notice.
Any monetary penalty is paid into the Treasury's Consolidated Fund and is not kept by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).
To report a concern to the ICO telephone our helpline 0303 123 1113 or go to ico.org.uk/concerns.
Barton Hall Industrial Estate, Manchester M30 7NB
Vat Registration No. 180975770
ICO fines British Airways £20m for data breach affecting more than 400,000 customers
Engagement key in protecting people's privacy across the UK during the pandemic
Keynote at PDP's 19th annual data protection conference
ICO takes action against company for sending spam emails selling face masks during pandemic
Studios MG Limited
Sign up to our monthly newsletter:


Do you know how awesome this foundation is? If not, you must grab it the next time you're in Sephora.
So I've heard all about NARS Sheer Glow foundation in the beauty blogging world since 2011, and after trying literally every foundation (high end & drug store) I am impressed and now addicted to NARS.
First, NARS has such a vast amount of shades to match anyone's skin tone beautifully. This foundation also gives flawless coverage with out a heavy consistency, and is easily blend able and build-able.
Go get one for yourself this summer and be amazed at how good your skin will look!


Summary Reproduction of map; shows Basalt, Eagle County, Colorado, with street names, lot numbers, water mains, "G. Lucksinger" the Roaring Fork and Frying Pan Rivers.
Notes Title printed on front of map with: "Eagle County, Colorado. Compiled from fragmentary maps and partial surveys and all available official town records and plats. Curb boxes marked scale 1 inch = 60 feet." "Note: This map is a copy of the map made by Alonzo H. Adam in 1930" and "H. E. Rowbotham 1961."; Hand-written on back of photoprint: "Fig. No. map town of Basalt by Alonzo H. Adam Courtesy Gene Luby."; Inked on photoprint: "Hotel."


Thanks to our Aluminum Chef Sponsors!
Mountain Safety Research began with a single purpose: to make the backcountry safer for mountaineers. In the decades that followed, they've stayed true to that goal, and they've used their knowledge of engineering and science to find better solutions to the challenges of the outdoors. They offer the best stoves, filters, cookware and tents for all your adventures big or small.
Perched on the ridgetop between the Kickapoo and Mississippi River watersheds lies the small town of Viroqua, Wisconsin- the heart of the Driftless Region. Boasting the second highest concentration of organic farms in the United States, the intensely varied terrain gives life to one of the most vibrant collection of sustainable farmers anywhere in the world. The Driftless Cafe is a farm-to-table experience that embraces the essence of this unique region and serves as a bridge for its growth into the future.
Once again, our three Aluminum Chefs will test their camp culinary skills against each other in true outdoor style. Kevin Callan returns as our unstoppable MC in this fast-paced event. Woods-woman, Mona Gauthier and former park ranger Marty Koch go up against local chef Luke Zahm of the Driftless Cafe in Viroqua, WI. Using MSR stoves and cook kits and a pantry of simple ingredients you might have on your next camping trip (donated by the Driftless Cafe), our chefs will compete for the best appetizer, entree, and dessert. Come join the fun - you could be one of the judges from the audience who will determine the winner of each course!