text:
Difference between revisions of "Guy Noble Taylor"
Ait (talk | contribs)
(→Sources of Information)
{{DEFAULTSORT: Taylor, Guy Noble}}
[[Category: Biography]]
[[Category: Biography - India]]
[[Category: Biography - Railways]]
[[Category: Births 1860-1869]]
[[Category: Deaths 1900-1909]]
[[Category: Institution of Civil Engineers]]
Guy Noble Taylor (1861-1902) of the Madras Railway
1903 Obituary [1]
GUY NOBLE TAYLOR, third son of Mr. George Noble Taylor, of the Madras Civil Service, was born on the 8th July, 1861, end after being educated at Charterhouse, became a pupil at the Crystal Palace School of Engineering.
In December, 1881, he was appointed Assistant Engineer on the Bengal Central Railway under the late W. C. Furnivall, and was posted to the Dum-Dum district.
On the completion of that line he was transferred in February, 1884, to the Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway, and was posted to the survey party for the first division of the extension. In the following December construction commenced, and Mr. Taylor was posted to the Bonagheer subdivision, about 30 miles in length.
About June, 1885, he was placed in charge of the plate-laying, which he superintended from Secunderabad to Warangal, 87 miles, occasionally as much as a mile and a half being laid during the day.
In April, 1886, the line to Warangal was opened by the Nizam, and Mr. Taylor was shortly after posted to the second division as Assistant Engineer, and stationed at Singareni, on the mineral branch, where great difficulty was experienced in arranging for labour, owing to the unhealthiness of the district and the denseness of the jungle. No. 2 district was opened for traffic in January, 1888, and about the following May Mr. Taylor was appointed District Engineer of No. 3 district, 70 miles of construction, which was opened for traffic in February, 1889.
From 1890 to 1893 he was associated with Mr. H. B. Molesworth as a contractor, and carried out several contracts on the East Coast Railway, the Hyderabad Deccan Collieries, the Nizam's Railway and the Eastern Delta Canals.
Early in 1896 Mr. Taylor was appointed a District Engineer on the North-Western extensions of the Nizam's Railway, on which line he served until he came to England, invalided, in 1900.
He died at his father's house, 3 Clarendon Place, W., on the 5th December, 1902. Mr. Taylor was an extremely hard-working, conscientious and able engineer, and was universally esteemed for his strict integrity.
He was elected an Associate Member of the Institution on the 3rd May, 1887.
↑ 1903 Institution of Civil Engineers: Obituaries
Retrieved from "https://gracesguide.co.uk/index.php?title=Guy_Noble_Taylor&oldid=902308"
Biography - India
Biography - Railways
Births 1860-1869
Deaths 1900-1909


Gigantic Brewing has one of the more interesting approaches to beer in America. Their regular line of year-round beer consists of exactly one brand: IPA. Everything else they make appears just once (almost all of them) or annually (Massive! is the only example I can recall of a recurring beer.) They number each new release and contract with a well-known artist to create the label. Sometimes they even have an associated musical tie-in. This would seem to violate all the rules of branding and brand-building I know: there's no consistency across either beers or labels, and each bottle is a crapshoot for their customers. If one of these beers becomes a treasured fan favorite, too bad: you'll never get to taste it again. And yet as far as I can tell the brewery is flourishing. Brewers/owners Van Havig and Ben Love are doing so well that half the time they seem to be in Tokyo or Turin promoting their latest project.
I have loved three or four of the 39 editions of this experiment and probably disliked twice that number. (The rest I enjoyed in varying degrees.) This means Gigantic is the perfect brewery for the Beer Sherpa: when a good one comes along, it's almost mandatory that I point it out.
But a new Gigantic beer is a multimedia release, too, and the label earns this special Sherpa attention as one of the most entertaining in recent memory. The artwork is by Portlander Jon MacNair and features a TTB-defying scene of dark happenings. It recalls the 1980s basements of my teenage youth. The soundtrack to those years was often the kind of silly metal that scared Tipper Gore--and which sounded a lot like the accompanying 7" single Sons of Huns created specially for this beer. (You might think Clyfford Still, who is quoted on the label praising the color black, is connected somehow to Aleister Crowley, but in fact he's an American abstract expressionist.) Pure sensory pleasure, from eye to ear to tongue, this fine beer supplies in spades.
You definitely want to track down a Kiss the Goat or three. This is one of the Gigantic beers we'll miss when it's gone.
Sounds great but also sounds, unfortunately, like it will have disappeared before I get there this year. I can't believe how Gigantic have grown. I visited the brewery shortly after it opened and, whilst enjoying the beer immensely, had no idea that they would become so renowned for their niche products.
Ginormous seems to be pretty regular, and I think they brought back Most Premium this year too.
Kiss the Goat was on draft several years back, so not the first time they've made it, just the first time they've bottled it. It was fantastic back then, too.
Also, I second the Royale. That beer was sublime.


The PDR A. Flores Gran Reserva Corojo 2006 is a new limited edition cigar from one of the best factories in the Dominican Republic. Abraham Flores of PDR Cigars has really taking control over in his state-of-the-art cigar factory and continually delivers complex, well-made cigars.
The PDR A. Flores Gran Reserva Corojo 2006 is a limited edition cigar comprised of a Dominican Corojo wrapper harvested from a 2006 crop, a Dominican Olor binder and aged blend of Dominican Corojo and Nicaraguan Habano filler tobaccos, which nicely round out this cigar. The result is a medium to full-bodied cigar loaded with rich spicy flavor.
The PDR A. Flores Gran Reserva Corojo 2006 is a new limited edition cigar from one of the best factories in the Dominican Republic. Abraham Flores of PDR Cigars has really taking control over in his state-of-the-art cigar factory delivering complex well made cigars. The PDR A. Flores Gran Reserva Corojo 2006 is another notch in his belt, a limited edition cigar comprised of a Dominican Corojo wrapper harvested from a 2006 crop, a Dominican Olor binder and aged blend of Dominican Corojo and Nicaraguan Habano filler tobaccos rounds out this cigar. The result is a medium to full bodied cigar loaded with rich spicy flavor.


We are full-packed web developers and designers. We make your dream website a reality!
We make visually stunning LOGO, BROCHURE, ECOVER, INFOGRAPHIC, BANNERS and more!
We create online videos that engage the viewers and remember it!
We do quality research to make Google love your website!
We have master the art of creating professional, engaging and mobile responsive websites.
Effective branding can help build your reputation. Let us help you stand out from your competition.
We make sure that your site is structured in a way that search engines understand and make google love it!
We establish your online presence and we always figure out the best strategy to connect with your target audience.
1. Credibility – Having a website will not only establish your online presence but also gives your business good credibility. It speaks that you mean business, you are serious about it and they can trust you.
2. Online Presence – Having a website is having an online presence and a business that is accessible to anyone, anytime and anywhere. That means, if anyone is interested in your service, they can get in touch with you and know more about you through your website. It will save you money and time.
3. Cost-effective – Having a website is more cost-effective than the traditional advertising media, like radio, television, newspaper, prints, events and other expensive advertising media. Build a WordPress website, update it with your contents, and get connected with the world! You save money in the long run.
4. Wider Audience – Having a website enables you to connect to people anywhere in the world through the power of the world-wide-web. What does this means to you and your business?
We are a Philippines Based Web Development Team founded in 2013, which have been offering quality web and advertising solutions to business owners and internet marketers worldwide.
With over 5 years of web development experience, we have master the art of creating professional, engaging and mobile responsive websites. We specializes in WordPress in creating web pages like blogs, corporate websites, marketing funnels, landing pages, ecommerce, squeeze pages, and membership sites.
We have been helping companies and Internet Marketers in creating highly converting sales funnels, marketing campaigns, autoresponders, brands, training courses. You can rely on us!
We have been helping clients in the field of video editing, video animation and production, and we have achieved excellence in what we do.
We do all kinds of video animation and production for lead generations, sales, tutorials, whatever you need – we produce your video for a very reasonable price.
WE DO ALL KINDS OF VIDEO ANIMATIONS AND VIDEO EFFECTS FOR YOUTUBE, SOCIAL MEDIA & ADVERTISING.
Let us help you strengthen the perceptions of your business through strong branding and memorable designs. Benefit from good branding that will surely increase your sales and strong market presence.
WE CAN BE YOUR BRANDING & GRAPHIC DESIGNS NINJA!
There are hundreds of blog posts being published every second worldwide. WordPress users alone have more than 2 million posts on top of other blogging platforms. So how do you make your posts discovered amidst the competition? Yes! you must do Search Engine Optimization to get the edge! We at CTI Media Services are passionate in making sites seen and loved by Google and targeted audiences. Our target is to make your post on top of search engine results whenever someone searches for a specific keyword.
Note: Our off-page SEO or Link Building is focus on social media engagement (Youtube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter) by posting and commenting. Only white-hat method.
Are you an online entrepreneur? A coach, a blogger, business owner or online marketer? Are you having a hard time driving traffic to your store, product or your business? If you think that you have something that people would be interested in, hire us! We will do all the technical aspects of the marketing and advertising, from Web Development, membership sites, ecommerce, graphics, promotional videos, autoresponders, and Advertising (Facebook or Google). Contact us today and let's talk how we can help you get more leads and sales.
WE CREATE ADS THAT CONVERTS!
MEET THE NINJA & THE ROCKSTARS!
CTI Media Services. Please meet my team of Rockstars!
Enald is an Illustrator and a graphic design rockstar!
Jericho is a Virtual Assistant ninja! Ready to work on your projects.
Rameses is a rockstar video editor and video animator.
Marlon is a Tattoo artist and he is a social media marketing Ninja!
What is your viber mobile no.
What is your Whatsapp mobile no.


text:
Mathews v. Diaz
Mathewsv.Diaz
U.S.Jun 1, 1976
426 U.S. 67 (1976)
Lewis v. Grinker
" Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88, 100, 96 S.Ct. 1895, 48 L.Ed.2d 495 (1976) ( "Hampton I"); see also…
Soskin v. Reinertson
A footnote to the quoted passage noted that the Court had "no occasion to decide whether Congress, in the…
826 Citing Cases
Summaries written by judges
holding that congressional alienage-based restrictions on federal Medicare benefits did not violate due process
Summary of this case from Bruns v. Mayhew
holding that where a statute that barred a claimant from obtaining judicial review–but not from filing a claim–before seeking administrative relief, the claimant could supplement the complaint after satisfying the exhaustion requirement
Summary of this case from Cent. Pines Land Co. v. United States
25 Summaries
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Argued January 13, 1975 Reargued January 12, 1976 Decided June 1, 1976
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1395 o (2) qualifies for enrollment in the Medicare supplemental medical insurance program residents of the United States who are 65 or older, but in subsection (B) denies eligibility to aliens unless they have been admitted for permanent residence and also have resided in the United States for at least five years. Appellee Diaz filed a class action suit in the District Court attacking the constitutionality of § 1395 o (2)(B), and thereafter the District Court granted leave to add appellees Clara and Espinosa as plaintiffs and to file an amended complaint, which alleged that Clara had been disqualified for the same reasons as Diaz (lack of citizenship, nonadmission for permanent residence, and inability to meet the five-year residence requirement), but explained that Espinosa, though lawfully admitted for permanent residence, had not attempted to enroll because he could not meet the durational residence requirement. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that appellees had not exhausted their administrative remedies. Two days later, Espinosa applied for enrollment and so advised the court. Though none of the appellees completely exhausted available avenues for administrative review, appellant acknowledged that the applications of Diaz and Clara raised no disputed factual issues and that the interlocutory denials of their applications should be treated as final for purposes of this litigation, and conceded that Espinosa's application could not be allowed under the statute. The District Court overruled appellant's motion and held that the five-year residence requirement violated due process and that, since it could not be severed from the requirement of admission for permanent residence, the alien-eligibility provisions of § 1395 o (2)(B) were entirely unenforceable. Held:
1. The District Court had jurisdiction over Espinosa's claim, which (unlike the other appellees' claims) squarely raises the question of the constitutionality of the five-year residence requirement. Pp. 74-77.
(a) Espinosa's filing of an application, though not made until he had become a party, met the nonwaivable jurisdictional condition imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) that a claim for benefits under the Social Security Act shall have been presented to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the pleadings may be treated as properly supplemented by appellant's stipulation that Espinosa had filed an application. P. 75.
(b) Appellant's stipulation that Espinosa's application would be denied for failure to meet the durational residence requirement was tantamount to a denial of the application and constituted a waiver of the exhaustion requirements, and thus satisfied the statutory requirement of a hearing and final decision. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749. Cf. Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 640 n. 6, 641 n. 8. Pp. 75-77.
2. The statutory classification in § 1395 o (2)(B) does not deprive appellees of liberty or property in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 77-87.
(a) Congress, which has broad power over immigration and naturalization and regularly makes rules regarding aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens, has no constitutional duty to provide all aliens with the welfare benefits provided to citizens; the real question here is not whether discrimination between aliens and citizens is permissible, as it clearly is, but whether the statutory discrimination within the class of aliens is permissible. Pp. 77-80.
(b) The political branches of government have considerable flexibility in responding to changing world conditions, and judicial review of decisions made by the Congress or the President in the area of immigration and naturalization is narrow. The party challenging the constitutionality of the particular line Congress has drawn has the burden of advancing principled reasoning that will at once invalidate that line and yet tolerate a different line separating some aliens from others. Pp. 81-82.
(c) This case essentially involves only a claim that it would have been more reasonable for Congress to select somewhat different requirements of the same kind. The requirements chosen by Congress render eligible those aliens who may reasonably be assumed to have a greater affinity with the United States and this Court is especially reluctant to question such a policy choice of degree. Pp. 82-84.
361 F. Supp. 1, reversed.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Harriet S. Shapiro reargued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief on reargument were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Lee, and David M. Cohen. On the brief on the original argument were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Hills, Gerald P. Norton, and Mr. Cohen.
Bruce S. Rogow argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees on reargument. Alfred Feinberg argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees on the original argument.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Jack Wasserman and Esther Kaufman for the Association of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers; by Robert Allen Sedler and Melvin L. Wulf for the American Civil Liberties Union; by Jonathan A. Weiss for Legal Services for the Elderly Poor; and by Edith Lowenstein for Migration and Refugee Services, U.S. Catholic Conference, Inc., et al.
MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by the Secretary's appeal is whether Congress may condition an alien's eligibility for participation in a federal medical insurance program on continuous residence in the United States for a five-year period and admission for permanent residence. The District Court held that the first condition was unconstitutional and that it could not be severed from the second. Since we conclude that both conditions are constitutional, we reverse.
Each of the appellees is a resident alien who was lawfully admitted to the United States less than five years ago. Appellees Diaz and Clara are Cuban refugees who remain in this country at the discretion of the Attorney General; appellee Espinosa has been admitted for permanent residence. All three are over 65 years old and have been denied enrollment in the Medicare Part B supplemental medical insurance program established by § 1831 et seq. of the Social Security Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 620, as added, 79 Stat. 301, and as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1395j et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV). They brought this action to challenge the statutory basis for that denial. Specifically, they attack 42 U.S.C. § 1395 o (2) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), which grants eligibility to resident citizens who are 65 or older but denies eligibility to comparable aliens unless they have been admitted for permanent residence and also have resided in the United States for at least five years. Appellees Diaz and Clara meet neither requirement; appellee Espinosa meets only the first.
The Medicare Part B medical insurance program for the aged covers a part of the cost of certain physicians' services, home health care, outpatient physical therapy, and other medical and health care. 42 U.S.C. § 1395k (1970 ed. and Supp. IV). The program supplements the Medicare Part A hospital insurance plan, § 1811 et seq. of the Social Security Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 620, as added, 79 Stat. 291, and as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1395c et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), and it is financed in equal parts by the United States and by monthly premiums paid by individuals aged 65 or older who choose to enroll. 42 U.S.C. § 1395r (b) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1395 o (1970 ed. and Supp. IV) provides:
"Every individual who — (1) is entitled to hospital insurance benefits under Part A, or (2) has attained age 65 and is a resident of the United States, and is either (A) a citizen or (B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who has resided in the United States continuously during the 5 years immediately preceding the month in which he applies for enrollment under this part, is eligible to enroll in the insurance program established by this part."
This case does not raise any issues involving subsection (1).
On August 18, 1972, Diaz filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that his application for enrollment had been denied on the ground that he was not a citizen and had neither been admitted for permanent residence nor resided in the United States for the immediately preceding five years. He further alleged that numerous other persons had been denied enrollment in the Medicare Part B program for the same reasons. He sought relief on behalf of a class of persons who have been or will denied enrollment in the Medicare insurance program for failure to meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1395 o (2) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Since the complaint prayed for a declaration that § 1395 o (2) was unconstitutional and for an injunction requiring the Secretary to approve all applicants who had been denied eligibility solely for failure to comply with its requirements, a three-judge court was constituted.
On September 28, 1972, the District Court granted leave to add Clara and Espinosa as plaintiffs and to file an amended complaint. That pleading alleged that Clara had been denied enrollment for the same reasons as Diaz, but explained that Espinosa, although a permanent resident since 1971, had not attempted to enroll because he could not meet the durational residence requirement, and therefore any attempt would have been futile. The amended complaint sought relief on behalf of a subclass represented by Espinosa — that is, aliens admitted for permanent residence who have been or will be denied enrollment for failure to meet the five-year continuous residence requirement — as well as relief on behalf of the class represented by Diaz and Clara.
The District Court certified a class and a subclass, defined, respectively, as follows:
"All immigrants residing in the United States who have attained the age of 65 and who have been or will be denied enrollment in the supplemental medical insurance program under Medicare, 42 U.S.C. § 1395j et seq. (1970), because they are not aliens lawfully Page 72 admitted for permanent residence who have resided in the United States continuously during the five years immediately preceding the month in which they apply for enrollment as required by [ 42 U.S.C. § 1395 o (2)(B) (1970 ed., Supp. IV)].
"All immigrants lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States who have attained the age of 65 and who have been or will be denied enrollment in the supplemental medical insurance program under Medicare, 42 U.S.C. § 1395j et seq. (1970), solely because of their failure to meet the five-year continuous residency requirement of [ 42 U.S.C. § 1395 o (2)(B) (1970 ed., Supp. IV)]." Diaz v. Weinberger, 361 F. Supp., 1, 7 (1973) (footnote omitted).
These class certifications are erroneous. The District Court did not possess jurisdiction over the claims of the members of the plaintiff class and subclass who "will be denied" enrollment. Those who "will be denied" enrollment, as the quoted phrase is used in the certification, are those who have yet to be denied enrollment by formal administrative decision. See id., at 6-7, and n. 7. But the complaint does not allege, and the record does not show, that the Secretary has taken any action with respect to such persons that is tantamount to a denial. It follows that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over their claims, see Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 764, and that the class and subclass are too broadly defined. In view of our holding that the statute is constitutional, we need not decide whether a narrower class and subclass could have been properly certified.
On October 24, 1972, the Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter because none of the plaintiffs had exhausted his administrative remedies under the Social Security Act. Two days later, on October 26, 1972, Espinosa filed his application for enrollment with the Secretary. He promptly brought this fact to the attention of the District Court, without formally supplementing the pleadings.
None of the appellees completely exhausted available avenues for administrative review. Nevertheless, the Secretary acknowledged that the applications of Diaz and Clara raised no disputed issues of fact and therefore the interlocutory denials of their applications should be treated as final for the purpose of this litigation. This satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 763-767; Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 641 n. 8. The Secretary did not make an equally unambiguous concession with respect to Espinosa, but in colloquy with the court he acknowledged that Espinosa had filed an application which could not be allowed under the statute. The District Court overruled the Secretary's motion to dismiss and decided the merits on cross-motions for summary judgment.
See infra, at 76-77, and n. 11.
The District Court held that the five-year residence requirement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and that since it could not be severed from the requirement of admission for permanent residence, the alien-eligibility provisions of § 1395 o (2)(B) were entirely unenforceable. Diaz v. Weinberger, 361 F. Supp. 1 (1973). The District Court reasoned that "even though fourteenth amendment notions of equal protection are not entirely congruent with fifth amendment concepts of due process," id., at 9, the danger of unjustifiable discrimination against aliens in the enactment of welfare programs is so great, in view of their complete lack of representation in the political process, that this federal statute should be tested under the same pledge of equal protection as a state statute. So tested, the court concluded that the statute was invalid because it was not both rationally based and free from invidious discrimination. It rejected the desire to preserve the fiscal integrity of the program, or to treat some aliens as less deserving than others, as adequate justification for the statute. Accordingly, the court enjoined the Secretary from refusing to enroll members of the class and subclass represented by appellees.
"[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ." U.S. Const., Amdt. 5.
The Secretary appealed directly to this Court. We noted probable jurisdiction. Weinberger v. Diaz, 416 U.S. 980. After hearing argument last Term, we set the case for reargument. 420 U.S. 959. We now consider (1) whether the District Court had jurisdiction over Espinosa's claim; (2) whether Congress may discriminate in favor of citizens and against aliens in providing welfare benefits; and (3) if so, whether the specific discriminatory provisions in § 1395 o (2)(B) are constitutional.
The Secretary asserted jurisdiction in this Court by direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1252, 1253. Since we possess jurisdiction under § 1252, which provides for direct appeal to this Court from a judgment of a federal court holding a federal statute unconstitutional in a civil action to which a federal officer is a party, we need not decide whether an appeal lies under § 1253. Weinberger v. Salfi, supra, at 763 n. 8.
Espinosa's claim squarely raises the question whether the requirement of five years' continuous residence is constitutional, a question that is not necessarily presented by the claims of Diaz and Clara. For if the requirement of admission for permanent residence is valid, their applications were properly denied even if the durational residence requirement is ineffective. We must therefore decide whether the District Court had jurisdiction over Espinosa's claim.
Diaz and Clara contend that the requirement of lawful admission for permanent residence should be construed so that it is satisfied by aliens, such as they, who have been paroled into the United States at the discretion of the Attorney General. However, such aliens remain in the United States at the discretion of the Attorney General, 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (d)(5), and hence cannot have been "lawfully admitted for permanent residence," as § 1395 o (2)(B) requires.
We have little difficulty with Espinosa's failure to file an application with the Secretary until after he was joined in the action. Although 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) establishes filing of an application as a nonwaivable condition of jurisdiction, Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328; Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S., at 764, Espinosa satisfied this condition while the case was pending in the District Court. A supplemental complaint in the District Court would have eliminated this jurisdictional issue; since the record discloses, both by affidavit and stipulation, that the jurisdictional condition was satisfied, it is not too late, even now, to supplement the complaint to allege this fact. Under these circumstances, we treat the pleadings as properly supplemented by the Secretary's stipulation that Espinosa had filed an application.
Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(d); Security Ins. Co. of New Haven v. United States ex rel. Haydis, 338 F.2d 444, 447-449 (CA9 1964).
"Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts." 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Although the defect in Espinosa's allegations must be cured by supplemental pleading, instead of amended pleading, the statutory purpose of avoiding needless sacrifice to defective pleading applies equally to this case. See Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 744 n. 9; Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407-408, and n. 3. Despite Espinosa's failure to supplement the complaint, the District Court was aware that he had filed his application; since the Secretary stipulated that the application had been filed, the defect in the pleadings surely did not prejudice him.
A further problem is presented by the absence of any formal administrative action by the Secretary denying Espinosa's application. Section 405(g) requires a final decision by the Secretary after a hearing as a prerequisite of jurisdiction. Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, at 328-330; Weinberger v. Salfi, supra, at 763-765. However, we held in Salfi that the Secretary could waive the exhaustion requirements which this provision contemplates and that he had done so in that case. Id., at 765-767; accord, Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, at 328-330 (dictum); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S., at 641 n. 8. We reach a similar conclusion here.
The plaintiffs in Salfi alleged that their claims had been denied by the local and regional Social Security offices and that the only question was one of constitutional law, beyond the competence of the Secretary to decide. These allegations did not satisfy the exhaustion requirements of § 405(g) or the Secretary's regulations, but the Secretary failed to challenge the sufficiency of the allegations on this ground. We interpreted this failure as a determination by the Secretary that exhaustion would have been futile and deferred to his judgment that the only issue presented was the constitutionality of a provision of the Social Security Act.
The same reasoning applies to the present case. Although the Secretary moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, at the hearing on the motion he stipulated that no facts were in dispute, that the case was ripe for disposition by summary judgment, and that the only issue before the District Court was the constitutionality of the statute. As in Salfi, this constitutional question is beyond the Secretary's competence. Indeed, the Secretary has twice stated in this Court that he stipulated in the District Court that Espinosa's application would be denied for failure to meet the durational residence requirement. For jurisdictional purposes, we treat the stipulation in the District Court as tantamount to a decision denying the application and as a waiver of the exhaustion requirements. Cf. Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, supra, at 640 n. 6, 641 n. 8.
Record on Appeal 224-227. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Record on Appeal 259-260.
Jurisdictional Statement 3 n. 3; Brief for Appellant 5 n. 5. In his Supplemental Brief, filed after our decision in Salfi, the Page 77 Secretary argues that the District Court did not possess jurisdiction over Espinosa's claim because it was not until after the District Court had issued its injunction that the Secretary resolved an unspecified factual issue presented by Espinosa's application, and that such a belated confirmation that Espinosa's application should be denied could not confer jurisdiction upon the District Court nunc pro tunc. Supplemental Brief for Appellant 4, and n. 1. However, the District Court's jurisdiction was not founded upon the Secretary's subsequent confirmation that Espinosa's application should be denied, but rather upon the Secretary's stipulation in the District Court that no factual issues remained, that the case was ripe for disposition by summary judgment, and that the only issue was the constitutionality of the statute. Even though Salfi had not been decided when he so stipulated, he is not now free to withdraw his stipulation, and no reason appears why he should be permitted to do so.
We conclude, as we did in Salfi, that the Secretary's submission of the question for decision on the merits by the District Court satisfied the statutory requirement of a hearing and final decision. We hold that Espinosa's claim, as well as the claims of Diaz and Clara, must be decided.
There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 48-51; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238; see Russian Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481, 489. Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection. Wong Yang Sung, supra; Wong Wing, supra.
The fact that all persons, aliens and citizens alike, are protected by the Due Process Clause does not lead to the further conclusion that all aliens are entitled to enjoy all the advantages of citizenship or, indeed, to the conclusion that all aliens must be placed in a single homogeneous legal classification. For a host of constitutional and statutory provisions rest on the premise that a legitimate distinction between citizens and aliens may justify attributes and benefits for one class not accorded to the other; and the class of aliens is itself a heterogeneous multitude of persons with a wide-ranging variety of ties to this country.
The Constitution protects the privileges and immunities only of citizens, Amdt. 14, § 1; see Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, and the right to vote only of citizens. Amdts. 15, 19, 24, 26. It requires that Representatives have been citizens for seven years, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Senators citizens for nine, Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, and that the President be a "natural born Citizen." Art. II, § 1, cl. 5.
A multitude of federal statutes distinguish between citizens and aliens. The whole of Title 8 of the United States Code, regulating aliens and nationality, is founded on the legitimacy of distinguishing between citizens and aliens. A variety of other federal statutes provide for disparate treatment of aliens and citizens. These include prohibitions and restrictions upon Government employment of aliens, e. g., 10 U.S.C. § 5571; 22 U.S.C. § 1044 (e), upon private employment of aliens, e. g., 10 U.S.C. § 2279; 12 U.S.C. § 72, and upon investments and businesses of aliens, e. g., 12 U.S.C. § 619; 47 U.S.C. § 17; statutes excluding aliens from benefits available to citizens, e. g., 26 U.S.C. § 931 (1970 ed. Supp. IV); 46 U.S.C. § 1171 (a), and from protections extended to citizens, e. g., 19 U.S.C. § 1526; 29 U.S.C. § 633a (1970 ed., Supp. IV); and statutes imposing added burdens upon aliens, e. g., 26 U.S.C. § 6851 (d); 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (d). Several statutes treat certain aliens more favorably than citizens. E. g., 19 U.S.C. § 1586 (e); 50 U.S.C. App. § 453 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Other statutes, similar to the one at issue in this case, provide for equal treatment of citizens and aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 10 U.S.C. § 8253; 18 U.S.C. § 613 (2) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Still others equate citizens and aliens who have declared their intention to become citizens. E. g., 43 U.S.C. § 161; 30 U.S.C. § 22. Yet others condition equal treatment of an alien upon reciprocal treatment Page 79 of United States citizens by the alien's own country. E. g., 10 U.S.C. § 7435 (a); 28 U.S.C. § 2502.
The classifications among aliens established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. IV), illustrate the diversity of aliens and their ties to this country. Aliens may be immigrants or non-immigrants. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a) (15). Immigrants, in turn, are divided into those who are subject to numerical limitations upon admissions and those who are not. The former are subdivided into preference classifications which include: grown unmarried children of citizens; spouses and grown unmarried children of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence; professionals and those with exceptional ability in the sciences or arts; grown married children of citizens; brothers and sisters of citizens; persons who perform specified permanent skilled or unskilled labor for which a labor shortage exists; and certain victims of persecution and catastrophic natural calamities who were granted conditional entry and remained in the United States at least two years. 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (a)(1)-(7). Immigrants not subject to certain numerical limitations include: children and spouses of citizens and parents of citizens at least 21 years old; natives of independent countries of the Western Hemisphere; aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence returning from temporary visits abroad; certain former citizens who may reapply for acquisition of citizenship; certain ministers of religion; and certain employees or former employees of the United States Government abroad. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a) (27), 1151(a), (b). Nonimmigrants include: officials and employees of foreign governments and certain international organizations; aliens visiting temporarily for business or pleasure; aliens in transit through this country; alien crewmen serving on a vessel or aircraft; aliens entering pursuant to a treaty of commerce and navigation to carry on trade or an enterprise in which they have invested; aliens entering to study in this country; certain aliens coming temporarily to perform services or labor or to serve as trainees; alien representatives of the foreign press or other information media; certain aliens coming temporarily to participate in a program in their field of study or specialization; aliens engaged to be married to citizens; and certain alien employees entering temporarily to continue to render services to the same Page 80 employers. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a) (15). In addition to lawfully admitted aliens, there are, of course, aliens who have entered illegally.
In the exercise of its broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. The exclusion of aliens and the reservation of the power to deport have no permissible counterpart in the Federal Government's power to regulate the conduct of its own citizenry. The fact that an Act of Congress treats aliens differently from citizens does not in itself imply that such disparate treatment is "invidious."
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 765-770.
Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 530-532; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 584-591.
See Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 13-16; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505-514; Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125-130.
In particular, the fact that Congress has provided some welfare benefits for citizens does not require it to provide like benefits for all aliens. Neither the overnight visitor, the unfriendly agent of a hostile foreign power, the resident diplomat, nor the illegal entrant, can advance even a colorable constitutional claim to a share in the bounty that a conscientious sovereign makes available to its own citizens and some of its guests. The decision to share that bounty with our guests may take into account the character of the relationship between the alien and this country: Congress may decide that as the alien's tie grows stronger, so does the strength of his claim to an equal share of that munificence.
The real question presented by this case is not whether discrimination between citizens and aliens is permissible; rather, it is whether the statutory discrimination within the class of aliens — allowing benefits to some aliens but not to others — is permissible. We turn to that question.
For reasons long recognized as valid, the responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of the Federal Government. Since decisions in these matters may implicate our relations with foreign powers, and since a wide variety of classifications must be defined in the light of changing political and economic circumstances, such decisions are frequently of a character more appropriate to either the Legislature or the Executive than to the Judiciary. This very case illustrates the need for flexibility in policy choices rather than the rigidity often characteristic of constitutional adjudication. Appellees Diaz and Clara are but two of over 440,000 Cuban refugees who arrived in the United States between 1961 and 1972. And the Cuban parolees are but one of several categories of aliens who have been admitted in order to make a humane response to a natural catastrophe or an international political situation. Any rule of constitutional law that would inhibit the flexibility of the political branches of government to respond to changing world conditions should be adopted only with the greatest caution. The reasons that preclude judicial review of political questions also dictate a narrow standard of review of decisions made by the Congress or the President in the area of immigration and naturalization.
"[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference." Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, supra, at 588-589 (footnote omitted). Accord, e. g., Kleindienst v. Mandel, supra, at 765-767; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 711-713.
Cuban Refugee Center — Weekly Statistical Report for November 13-17, 1972, App. 40.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1153 (a)(7), 1182(d)(5).
An unlikely, but nevertheless possible, consequence of holding Page 82 that appellees are constitutionally entitled to welfare benefits would be a further extension of similar benefits to over 440,000 Cuban parolees.
"It is apparent that several formulations which vary slightly according to the settings in which the questions arise may describe a political question, although each has one or more elements which identify it as essentially a function of the separation of powers. Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question." Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217.
Since it is obvious that Congress has no constitutional duty to provide all aliens with the welfare benefits provided to citizens, the party challenging the constitutionality of the particular line Congress has drawn has the burden of advancing principled reasoning that will at once invalidate that line and yet tolerate a different line separating some aliens from others. In this case the appellees have challenged two requirements — first, that the alien be admitted as a permanent resident, and, second, that his residence be of a duration of at least five years. But if these requirements were eliminated, surely Congress would at least require that the alien's entry be lawful; even then, unless mere transients are to be held constitutionally entitled to benefits, some durational requirement would certainly be appropriate. In short, it is unquestionably reasonable for Congress to make an alien's eligibility depend on both the character and the duration of his residence. Since neither requirement is wholly irrational, this case essentially involves nothing more than a claim that it would have been more reasonable for Congress to select somewhat different requirements of the same kind.
We may assume that the five-year line drawn by Congress is longer than necessary to protect the fiscal integrity of the program. We may also assume that unnecessary hardship is incurred by persons just short of qualifying. But it remains true that some line is essential, that any line must produce some harsh and apparently arbitrary consequences, and, of greatest importance, that those who qualify under the test Congress has chosen may reasonably be presumed to have a greater affinity with the United States than those who do not. In short, citizens and those who are most like citizens qualify. Those who are less like citizens do not.
The District Court held that the durational residence requirement was not rationally related to maintaining the fiscal integrity of the Medicare Part B program because the program is financed on a "current cost" basis, half by appropriations from the general revenues and half by premiums from enrolled individuals; because aliens who do not meet the residence requirement would constitute no greater burden on the general revenues than enrolled citizens who have not paid federal taxes or who pay their premiums from federally subsidized welfare benefits; because aliens, like citizens, must pay federal taxes; and because the residency requirement only postpones treatment of aliens until costlier medical care is necessary. Diaz v. Weinberger, 361 F. Supp., at 10-12.
The task of classifying persons for medical benefits, like the task of drawing lines for federal tax purposes, inevitably requires that some persons who have an almost equally strong claim to favored treatment be placed on different sides of the line; the differences between the eligible and the ineligible are differences in degree rather than differences in the character of their respective claims. When this kind of policy choice must be made, we are especially reluctant to question the exercise of congressional judgment. In this case, since appellees have not identified a principled basis for prescribing a different standard than the one selected by Congress, they have, in effect, merely invited us to substitute our judgment for that of Congress in deciding which aliens shall be eligible to participate in the supplementary insurance program on the same conditions as citizens. We decline the invitation.
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S., at 768-774; Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 483-487.
The cases on which appellees rely are consistent with our conclusion that this statutory classification does not deprive them of liberty or property without due process of law.
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, provides the strongest support for appellees' position. That case holds that state statutes that deny welfare benefits to resident aliens, or to aliens not meeting a requirement of durational residence within the United States, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and encroach upon the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens. Of course, the latter ground of decision actually supports our holding today that it is the business of the political branches of the Federal Government, rather than that of either the States or the Federal Judiciary, to regulate the conditions of entry and residence of aliens. The equal protection analysis also involves significantly different considerations because it concerns the relationship between aliens and the States rather than between aliens and the Federal Government.
Insofar as state welfare policy is concerned, there is little, if any, basis for treating persons who are citizens of another State differently from persons who are citizens of another country. Both groups are noncitizens as far as the State's interests in administering its welfare programs are concerned. Thus, a division by a State of the category of persons who are not citizens of that State into subcategories of United States citizens and aliens has no apparent justification, whereas, a comparable classification by the Federal Government is a routine and normally legitimate part of its business. Furthermore, whereas the Constitution inhibits every State's power to restrict travel across its own borders, Congress is explicitly empowered to exercise that type of control over travel across the borders of the United States.
We have left open the question whether a State may prohibit aliens from holding elective or important nonelective positions or whether a State may, in some circumstances, consider the alien status of an applicant or employee in making an individualized employment decision. See Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 646-649; In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 728-729, and n. 21.
"State alien residency requirements that either deny welfare benefits to noncitizens or condition them on longtime residency, equate with the assertion of a right, inconsistent with federal policy, to deny entrance and abode. Since such laws encroach upon exclusive federal power, they are constitutionally impermissible." Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 380.
The distinction between the constitutional limits on state power and the constitutional grant of power to the Federal Government also explains why appellees' reliance on Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, is misplaced. That case involved Arizona's requirement of durational residence within a county in order to receive nonemergency medical care at the county's expense. No question of alienage was involved. Since the sole basis for the classification between residents impinged on the constitutionally guaranteed right to travel within the United States, the holding in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, required that it be justified by a compelling state interest. Finding no such justification, we held that the requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause. This case, however, involves no state impairment of the right to travel — nor indeed any impairment whatever of the right to travel within the United States; the predicate for the equal protection analysis in those cases is simply not present. Contrary to appellees' characterization, it is not "political hypocrisy" to recognize that the Fourteenth Amendment's limits on state powers are substantially different from the constitutional provisions applicable to the federal power over immigration and naturalization.
In Shapiro v. Thompson, we held that state-imposed requirements of durational residence within the State for receipt of welfare benefits denied equal protection because such requirements unconstitutionally burdened the right to travel interstate. Since the requirements applied to aliens and citizens alike, we did not decide whether the right to travel interstate was conferred only upon citizens. However, our holding was predicated expressly on the requirement "that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement." 394 U.S., at 629. See Graham v. Richardson, supra, at 375-376, 377-380.
Appellees also gain no support from Washington v. Legrant, 394 U.S. 618, a case decided with Shapiro v. Thompson. Legrant involved a congressionally imposed requirement of one year's residence within the District of Columbia for receipt of welfare benefits. As in Shapiro v. Thompson, no question of alienage was involved. We held that the requirement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment for the same reasons that the state-imposed durational residency requirements violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 394 U.S., at 641-642. Unlike the situation in Shapiro and Legrant, the durational residency requirement in this case could at most deter only the travel of aliens into the United States. The power of Congress to prevent the travel of aliens into this country cannot seriously be questioned.
Finally, we reject the suggestion that U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, lends relevant support to appellees' claim. No question involving alienage was presented in that case. Rather, we found that the denial of food stamps to households containing unrelated members was not only unsupported by any rational basis but actually was intended to discriminate against certain politically unpopular groups. This case involves no impairment of the freedom of association of either citizens or aliens.
We hold that § 1395 o (2)(B) has not deprived appellees of liberty or property without due process of law.
The judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The Samsung Gear S3 frontier smartwatch is engineered to be rugged and versatile, for the smart adventurer. It is rugged look and durable silicon band complements its tough construction, built to hold up against harsh weather and on a regular basis bumps. With 4G LTE connectivity and NumberShare, you'll stay in touch, get updates, and receive notifications, even whilst you leave your phone at the back of.
Play a song, call a ride, check your social media, and more, all with no need to the touch your phone.


Out of all the Korean products that I ordered, this toner was the one that I was least sure about. I got this as more of an experiment in how my skin would tolerate low pH products. And because of reasons I'll explain further, I really didn't expect to like this product so much. But surprise, surprise, Etude House Wonder Pore Freshner, coupled with my BHA exfoliator has ended up being crucial to balancing my skin out and keep it acne free. I've tried both the older version of this toner and the newer version, and I'm happy to say that I love the newer version just as much!
Etude House's Wonder Pore Freshner is a really popular toner. There are a lot of reviews online, so I got to do a little bit of studying before I purchased it. This is the older version of the toner (it has since been "upgraded" to a new formulation – review below), and it claims to do 7 things for your skin: maintain pH of 4.5, refine skin tone, keep the elasticity of pores, deep cleanses pores, minimize appearance of pores, control a large amount of sebum, moisturize inside and outside of skin.
I got this toner for one reason: its promise to "maintain pH of 4.5." To maintain a healthy moisture-barrier for the skin, a lower pH (close to 4.0) is generally better for keeping skin acne-free and healthy. (Please read my post on healthy skin here.) And this was the only toner that I could find that had the lowest advertised pH level. But since I've never (to my knowledge) used a toner with such a low pH level (most of them are around 5.5), I got this toner as an experiment to see how my skin would do with lower pH products. I tested this toner, and it is around 4.5, but maybe slightly closer to a 5.0 than 4.0.
1) I'm kind of put off by Etude House's cutesy packaging. I just have a hard time trusting that a product is efficient when it's clearly packaged for teenage (or even pre-teen) girls. And while I've experimented with Etude House's Collagen Moistfull line, I found the collection so-so, and maybe only appropriate for younger skin with no real problems such as dryness, acne, sensitivity, etc… So because of this I didn't have high hopes for this product.
2) I was suspicious of the high amount of Alcohol in this product.
Ingredients: Water, Chrysanthellum Indicum Extract, Alcohol Denat, Glycerin, Butylene Glycol, Glycereth-26 Betaine, Sea Water, PEG-60 Hydrogenated CAstor Oil, Dosium Hyaluronate, Hydrolyzed Hyaluronic Acid, Citrus Medica Limonum (Lemon) Fruit Extract, Cycmbopogon Schoenanthus Extract, Oryza Sativa (Rice) Bran Extract, Prunus Mume Fruit Water, Uncaria Gambir Extract, Nelumba Nucifera Flower Extract, Cinnamomum Zeylanicum Bark Extract, Sanguisorba Officinalis Root Extract, Pelargonium Graveolens Extract, Taraxacum Officinale (Dandelion) Leaf Extract, Chrysanthemum Morifolium Flower Extract, Chamaecyparais Obtusa Water, Pulsatilla Koreana Extract, Dissodium EDTA, Phenoxyethanol, Caprylyl Glycol, Ethylglycerin, 1,2-Hexanediol.
As you can see, Alcohol Denat is the third ingredient in this toner. That is a lot! And while I do believe that a little bit of alcohol in a well-formulated product is perfectly fine (sorry, Paula!), I hesitated to use a toner where alcohol was one of the main ingredients. I expected this amount of alcohol to irritate my sensitive cheeks and to make my rosacea worse.
BUT boy was I wrong! After experimenting (and going on and off of it) for the last 6 weeks, I've realized how crucial this toner is to maintain healthy skin and now I'm in LOVE with it!
1) You have to use this after the right cleanser. A too harsh cleanser will dry out your skin, and this product will subsequently be too harsh, especially in the wintertime. I first used this toner after my CeraVe Foaming Cleanser (which is super mild – pH of 5.5) and I found that this freshner felt GREAT after this cleanser. Occasionally I find the CeraVe cleanser to not feel "cleaning" enough, but when I used this toner, my skin feels refreshed and clean, but not stripped. When I used this toner after Skinfood's Egg White Pore Foam or after Mizon's Real Rice Foaming Cleanser, my skin stung a little and my cheeks turned red. Definitely, for people with sensitive skin, this toner should only be used after a SUPER mild cleanser. After many years and lots of experimentation, I think I've finally found the perfect cleanser/toner combo – this toner seriously feels FANTASTIC after CeraVe Foaming Cleanser.
2) My skin LOVES low pH products, especially as a toner. Using this product right after I wash my skin really helps maintain a healthy moisture barrier and prepares my skin for my BHA exfoliator. (The BHA exfoliator works best when the pH level is in between 3.5-4.0. So if my skin is above 5.5 after my Cerave Foaming Cleanser plus 7.0 pH level for the water that I wash it off with, that leaves my skin probably around 6.0 pH level, which is way to high for a healthy moisture barrier if you're acne-prone. Bringing it closer to 4.5 with this toner really sets the perfect stage for my exfoliator to work efficiently and to keep my skin healthy.) When I do use this toner, I noticed that my pores stop over-producing sebum and I have no acne. As an experiment, I switched to a different toner for a couple of weeks (review will come soon). This other toner definitely was not as low as 4.5, didn't have alcohol, and was more moisturizing. Within 3 days my acne started to come back. But after 2 weeks and I switched back to the Wonder Pore, sure enough my acne was gone within 3 days. Sometimes I can't really tell if a product is working until I stop using it, and this was definitely the case with the Wonder Pore Freshner.
3) Alcohol is NOT the devil ingredient that it is made out to be. In fact, alcohol can work really well in a well-formulated product, even if it is one of the main ingredients. My skin is super sensitive. My cheeks turn bright red and get itchy over a lot of different ingredients, which is why I cringed when I first saw that this product had such a high amount of Alcohol Denat in it. BUT this product also has a lot of soothing extracts and moisturizers to counter-balance the Alcohol content. So in the end, after using the right cleanser, I found that my skin did not react in a bad way to the Alcohol in this, even if I followed it up with my BHA exfoliator (which can also irritate sensitive skin). I think the reason why Alcohol has been considered to be a demon in skin products is because it can hurt skin that has been over-stripped or mistreated by other products. For example, using a cleanser that is too harsh. Or if an alcohol-based toner has other irritating ingredients in it, like witch hazel. On its own, and on healthy skin, alcohol is not necessarily bad for the skin, but can actually work well. And this product is an example of how an alcohol-based toner can work really, really well, even on super sensitive skin!
4) This toner definitely lived up to do all 7 things that it promised: it maintained a pH of 4.5, refined my skin tone, kept the elasticity of pores, deep cleansed my pores, minimized appearance of my pores, controlled a large amount of sebum, and moisturized my skin. I am honestly SHOCKED that this toner works so well. And I know it does because even though I've switched toners twice since I first started using this, I always go back to Wonder Pore Freshner because it leaves my skin looking and feeling healthy, acne-free, and moisturized. All this from a toner. Crazy.
So when I found out that Etude House change the ingredients of the Wonder Pore Freshner, I panicked. I contemplated buying out the world's remaining supply of the 7-in-1 Freshner, and hoarding it in my office like a little squirrel. I'm glad I didn't resort to squirreling, because I found that the newer 10-in-1 Freshner worst just as well, despite having completely different ingredients!
Ingredients: Water, Alcohol, Butylene Glycol, Betaine, Mentha Arvensis Extract, Vaccinium Myrtillus Fruit/Leaf Extract, Sugar Cane Extract, Citrus Medica Limonum Fruit Extract, Citrus Aurantium Dulcis Fruit Extract, Chamaecyparis Obtusa Water, Gingko Biloba Leaf Extract, Acer Saccharum Extract, Gentiana Lutea Root Extract, Artemisia Absinthium Extract, Arnica Montana Flower Extract, Achillea Millefolium Extract, Glycereth-26, Glycerin, Ethylhexyl glycerin, Sodium Hyaluronate, Acetic Acid, Disodium EDTA, Phenoxyethanol.
This new version looks like a total reformulation, with very few ingredients the same as before. Unfortunately, there is still quite a bit of alcohol in this, but strangely enough it doesn't bother my skin. Also, this product doesn't smell that strongly of alcohol. There are also a lot more plant extracts in this, which I always like! I checked the pH, and surprisingly enough it seems lower than the 7-in-1 version. It's around 4.5, but this time it looks like it's closer to 4.0 than 5.0.
This toner promises to benefit your skin in 10 ways, and I'm happy to report it did everything that it promised! It balances my skin to an ideal pH level (4.5 is fantastic for my skin!), it refines my skin tone, cleans my pores, and makes my skin look brighter (so I assume that it help remove dead skin cells). It definitely minimizes the size of my pores, and controls a sebum. It does moisturize a little bit (compared to American and European toners), but I don't expect it to. This toner is more about balancing my pores with a low pH product and to keep my sebum under control. I'm happy to report that this newer 10-in-1 formulation works just as well as the older one!
I am super impressed with both of these toners. This product, after my CeraVe cleanser is my HOLY GRAIL of cleanser/toner combo. My skin feels amazing afterwards and it stays looking amazing all day long. In fact, my favorite part of my skincare steps is now just applying this toner because I love the way it feels on my skin.
Pros: Everything about this toner is amazing. Unbelievably, it has delivered on all its promises and now this product (plus my BHA exfoliator) is probably the most important products to keeping my skin acne-free and healthy.
Cons: The alcohol content might bother some.
Do you wear it everyday ?
Which do i use first the collagen moistfull or the wonder pore?
Use the wonder pore first! This helps bring the pH level to a healthy level for your skin before adding moisturizers.
Well, i'm from malaysia. It's obvious that it's really hot in Malaysia. And im a giddy type when it comes to products/ So, i've tried lots of local products and ended up hving acne all over my face. Which then i apply 100% aloevera gel extract, and it helps! But there are so many scars! So i checked out your blog and interested in buying the mizon repair cream. As well as this one, as i have no toner before due to my sensitive skin! Definitely gonna try it!
hi what type of cleanser do u use cuz i got bad pimples n sensitive skin ?
So great that this worked so well for you 🙂 Wasn't really that great on my skin unfortunately but loved the review!


Answer: A Business Plan is a document, or body of information, that defines the business with some precision. It identifies the goals of the business. It is like the curriculum vitae (CV) for your business.
A business plan helps the business to properly allocate its resources. It helps it make the right decisions, and prepares it to respond to unforeseen events in the operations of the business.
A business plan is even more crucial if the business is to secure a loan as part of its financing package. In that case, the business plan will provide specific and organised information about the business, including details of how it will repay the borrowed money.
The business plan also tells the management, staff, suppliers and other stakeholders of the business about the operations and goals of the business.


text:
U.S. and China formally join the Paris climate change agreement
By Gregory B. Poindexter | 9.7.16
Chinese President Xi Jinping, left, and U.S. President Barack Obama applaud as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon delivers a speech during a joint ratification of the Paris climate change agreement at the West Lake State Guest House in Hangzhou in eastern China's Zhejiang province, Saturday, Sept. 3. (How Hwee Young/Pool Photo via AP)
On Sept. 3, U.S. President Barack Obama and China's President, Xi Jinping, formally agreed to participation in the negotiated 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 21) Paris Agreement, a global agreement on the reduction of climate change.
Obama and Xi, representing the world's two biggest carbon emitters, delivered a series of documents certifying the U.S. and China have taken necessary steps to join the COP 21 Paris accord that set nation-by-nation targets for reducing carbon emissions.
"This is not a fight that any one country, no matter how powerful, can take alone," Obama said. "Some day we may see this as the moment that we finally decided to save our planet."
Xi said he hoped other countries would follow suit and advance new technologies to help them meet their targets. "When the old path no longer takes us far, we should turn to innovation," he said.
Reducing GHG
President Obama's Climate Action Plan
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon delivers his speech during a joint ratification of the Paris climate change agreement with Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Barack Obama at the West Lake State Guest House in Hangzhou in eastern China's Zhejiang province, Saturday, Sept. 3. (How Hwee Young/Pool Photo via AP)
The formal U.S.-Chinese announcement means the accord could enter force by the end of the year, if by then, two conditions are met: The needed 55-nation ratification level is met and in total, the nations that join must produce at least 55% of global emissions.
Combined, the U.S. and China produce 38% of the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
The White House has attributed the accelerated pace to an unlikely partnership between Washington and Beijing. To build momentum for a deal, they set a 2030 deadline for China's emissions to stop rising and announced their "shared conviction that climate change is one of the greatest threats facing humanity." The U.S. has pledged to cut its emissions by at least 26% over the next 15 years, compared to 2005 levels.
Under the Paris agreement, countries are required to set national targets for reducing or reining in their GHG. The targets are not legally binding, but countries must report on their progress and update their targets every five years.
Xi said he acted after China's legislature voted on Sept. 3 to formally enter the agreement. In the U.S., Senate ratification is not required because the agreement is not considered a formal treaty.
Gregory B. Poindexter
Gregory B. Poindexter, MA, serves an associate editor for PennWell Hydro Group, based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Poindexter has been a full-time journalist since 2005. Prior to joining PennWell, Poindexter owned and operated a communications company that produces organizational imagery. He holds a master's degree in mass communications from Oklahoma State University
View all posts by Gregory B. Poindexter
Europe's Ofgem publishes decarbonization action plan
Doosan Škoda Power wins first-ever Japan contract for steam turbine at biomass power plant
Vehicle to grid
Dominion raises the bar on its own goal, now pledges net zero emissions by 2050
CERAWeek canceled amid COVID-19 coronavirus concerns


Looking into the future, the USA Men's National Team has a lot to look forward too.
Two years ago the USA baseball team finally won their first World Baseball Classic. Ever since then things have looked more bright for the national team.
With baseball being brought back to the Olympics in 2020, the USA Baseball team looks to be one of the favorites to take gold. Following the year after that, the National team will play in the 2021 World Baseball Classic as defending champions. Of course, the Olympics and the WBC are two totally different tournaments.
In the Olympics, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred has already said that MLB players will most likely not play in the summer games. Mike Axisa from CBS Sports put out an article about this situation. This is what the commissioner had to say on this topic.
So it looks like come 2020 Major League Baseball will be sending its top minor league players to Tokyo for the summer Olympics.
The WBC is a different story for the USA. The world cup of baseball thankfully takes place during most of spring training and will have plenty of major leaguers playing in the tournament.
Both USAB teams are currently favored to win their respected tournaments. How amazing would it be if the National team was to win gold then the WBC? That would make it three straight championships for the USA. For those that don't know, the national team won gold at the 2000 Olympics and has won bronze twice.
The players who are projected to highlight the 2020 Olympics are Hunter Greene, Royce Lewis, Jarred Kelenic, and Kyle Tucker. In the WBC we could see guys like Mitch Haniger, Nolan Arenado, and Chris Archer. Things for the National team seem so bright at the moment. It's been a long time since the USA saw so many highlight players and prospects that will help their team and country fly to new heights.


The new wave act ABC.
ABC coalesced in 1980 in Sheffield, England, and immediately made a splash in its home country with the post-punk-kissed single "Tears Are Not Enough," which became a Top 20 hit. The song later appeared on what many consider the band's masterpiece: 1982's The Lexicon of Love, a lavish, smoking jacket-clad nod to Roxy Music-style glam-pop, lounge-jazz crooning and plush synth-pop that spawned the global hits "Poison Arrow" and "The Look of Love." As the '80s progressed, ABC's fortunes ebbed and flowed, although the band continued to enjoy U.S. success. Although many new wave records sound dated, ABC's debonair futurism ensures that the band's '80s LPs have aged like fine wine. They join Belinda Carlisle, Modern English, Limahl from Kajagoogoo, Tony Lewis from the Outfield and Bow Wow Wow's Annabella Lwin on this '80s tour. (Annie Zaleski) 7:30 p.m., $48.50-$85.50. Hard Rock Rocksino Northfield Park.
For the past several years, local promoter Wallace Settles has hosted Lemur Fest, a hip-hop festival featuring rising talent, at the Grog Shop. The fourth annual rendition of the fest comes to the club tonight. Seattle-based Ryan Caraveo, an up-and-coming rapper who has received widespread acclaim for his new album, At Least I Tried, will headline the event, and locals such as Prince Ish, Kent Archie and Nick Samps will round out the bill. (Jeff Niesel), 8 p.m., $10 ADV, $12 DOS. Grog Shop.
A motivational speaker in her spare time, Lindsey Stirling has emerged as a self-described "electronic music impresario" in the wake of the release of her 2012 self-titled debut. A violinist, dancer and artist followed up the success of her debut with her sophomore effort Shatter Me. Her literary debut, The Only Pirate at the Party, which she co-wrote with her sister Brook S. Passey, became a New York Times Bestseller. Tonight, she comes to town in support of her latest effort, Brave Enough, which draws from classical, EDM and Celtic rock, making it sound like a cross between Enya and Trans-Siberian Orchestra. (Niesel) 8 p.m., $36. Jacobs Pavilion.
The pop/rock juggernaut that is Maroon 5 launched some 20 years ago in Los Angeles. Formed out out of the ashes of alternative rock act Kara's Flowers, the band quickly topped the charts with "Harder to Breathe," a song that successfully straddled the rock/pop line. Lead singer Adam Levine's career now eclipses that of the band. A coach on NBC's reality talent show The Voice, he's become a celebrity-at-large and carries himself with the kind of pretentious that comes with the turf. Expect him to display his "moves like Jagger" at tonight's show, part of the Concert for Legends at the NFL Hall of Fame. (Jeff Niesel) 8 p.m., $50-$275. Pro Football Hall of Fame.
The Old 97's are more than just another angsty 90s/early 2000s rock band; they have always had a unique flare. The guys are effortlessly cool and stray away from sounding like they are trying too hard at any point in their catalogue. "Every Night Is Friday Night (Without You)" is a well-crafted grievance with perfectly blended instrumentals. "Champaign Illinois" is a morning after anthem that parallels a life that was wasted. The melancholy of the party lifestyle and the end of such days is expressed in the most insightful of ways. "Question" is a bit more stripped down. The acoustic ballad is about taking chances, living and learning, something we can really get behind. (Halle Weber), 8 p.m., $20. Beachland Ballroom.


text:
St Georges Church, Telford a short history
Date: 8th Jun 2012
Tags: Church History, Community History, Local History, Shropshire Archives, St George's, Telford
St George's Church, St Georges, Telford , Shropshire
If you tried to find St Georges on old maps you would be wasting your time, prior to 1860 St Georges did not exist, the area was then called Pains Lane. The area around Pains Lane was rapidly growing due to the Industrial Revolution which resulted in a new brick church being built to service the growing community.
In 1857 when the Rev William Allen arrived in the Ecclesiastical District of Pain's Lane, he had to live in the parsonage at Priorslee until the new vicarage was completed in 1863. His parish extended from the Albion Bank in the west to the toll gate on Red Hill in the east and from Snedshill in the south to the north end of Gower St in the north, just south of the Talbot Inn. The parish at this time consisted of less than 2000.
The 1805 church was of a cruciform style, from the porch steps led up to a gallery which had painted pews like the rest of the church. The altar was a large block of wood attached to the wall, the font had a pedestal of stone which was painted to imitate marble. The pulpit was at the angle of the chancel and transepts of the church.
Soon after his arrival work started on the new church, the stone was quarried locally from the hole to the north of Limekiln Bank. The foundation stone was laid on 4 November 1861 by the Rt Hon Earl Granville KG, with a silver trowel Earl Granville spread the mortar after having inserted a bottle containing parchment and some new coins into the cavity.
The church was designed by George Edmond Street RA and erected in the memory of George Granville, 2nd Duke of Sutherland and consecrated by the Bishop of Lichfield, Bishop Lonsdale, on 10 October 1862. The new church seated 800, with a chancel, a nave of 4 bays, 3 aisles and a porch in the South West side of the church. The church at this stage was without a tower.
It wasn't until 1928 that work was completed on the tower, with its bells, clock and a new flight of steps up to the road, the tower was formally opened in October 1930. It is now a landmark on the horizon which can been seen for miles around.
Post any comments to my Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/FamilyHeritageSearch


text:
The Black Brothers Series
The Power Games – Coming 2019
Club Helix – Coming 2019
Leather & Lace
Keep in contact through the following social networks or via RSS feed:
Excerpt: Matchless
Book 2: The Black Brothers
I'm just about to shut my computer off and leave the office when the phone rings. I glance at caller ID and sigh. It's my mom. Not that I don't want to talk to her; we actually have a pretty good relationship now that I live two thousand miles away. But it's Friday, my thirtieth birthday, and I have plans tonight. If I can ever get out of here, that is. Taking a deep breath, I pick up the phone.
"Hi, Mom," I say brightly.
"Milena! I'm so glad I caught you still at the office." I can hear the faint hint of my mother's Russian accent, despite the fact that she's lived in the States for thirty years.
"Of course you caught me," I say with a sigh. "I'm a lawyer. I live here."
"I know," my mom says cheerfully. "That's why I sent the flowers there. Did they arrive?"
I look at the gorgeous arrangement of orchids that arrived earlier this afternoon. My mother hadn't even hinted at the fact that she and my dad were sending me flowers when she called early this morning to wish me a happy birthday.
"They're beautiful!" I say sincerely. "I'm sorry I didn't call to thank you when they arrived. I was caught in a meeting until a few minutes ago. But," I tease, "if you learned to text, I could have texted you during the meeting." My sister and I are constantly trying to get her to join the twenty-first century, but so far she has resisted our attempts to teach her to text, tweet, or get a Facebook account.
"There's nothing wrong with actually talking to people," she retorts. "Are you doing something special for your birthday?"
"I'm going out with some friends tonight," I say.
"Male friends?" she asks hopefully.
"Sure," I say drily. "If you count David, who's married, and Simon, who's gay."
I am now officially ready to end this telephone conversation. My mom doesn't seem to understand that I am perfectly happy with my life just the way it is. I have a successful career, wonderful friends, and a condo I love in the eclectic Hillcrest neighborhood of San Diego where everything is within walking distance and I can be at the beach in ten minutes. I'm too busy focusing on my career right now to have time to devote to a relationship anyway. While it's fun to flirt and I date occasionally (okay, maybe it's been awhile), I definitely have no interest in anything serious, much to my mother's chagrin.
She sighs dramatically. "I had an eight-year-old and a six-year-old by the time I was thirty," she says.
Before I can respond, there's a scuffle in the background and I hear my sister Anya say, "Leave her alone, Mom." She has apparently wrestled the phone away from my mom because seconds later she says breathlessly, "Happy birthday, Mila! Don't listen to her. Please tell me you're going to get outrageously drunk and have wild, jungle sex tonight. I have to live vicariously through you."
I laugh. My sister is six months pregnant.
"Anya!" I hear my mom's reproving voice in the background.
"Poor baby," I tease. "I'll do my best. Listen, I've got to get out of here now if I'm going to go anywhere tonight! Give my love to Mom and tell her I'll call her tomorrow."
"Okay," she promises. "Love you!" She makes a kissing sound before hanging up.
Grateful to have dodged any further conversation with my mom about my lack of love life, I gather up some files to look at over the weekend and am stepping out the door of my office when I literally run into my boss, which is kind of like running into a brick wall. At fifty, Marcus Dunn, the senior partner at Dunn and Wallace, is just as solid as he must have been during his previous career as a Navy SEAL.
"Sorry," I say with a laugh, stepping back from the man who has been like a father to me since I moved to San Diego and joined Dunn and Wallace three years ago.
"Cutting out early today?" he asks.
I mentally roll my eyes. Only at a law firm is leaving at five thirty on a Friday considered "cutting out early."
"Yes. I'm going out with some friends tonight to celebrate my birthday. It's the big three-oh!"
"I remember turning thirty!" he says, smiling at me. "Listen, I have a special intellectual property case I need you to work on for a friend of mine, but I can fill you in on Monday before he comes in."
"Are you sure?" I ask. I hate to blow off my boss, particularly since he seems to think I'm some sort of intellectual property genius since I won the high-profile case that landed me the job at Dunn and Wallace, but I really need to leave now if I don't want to go out on the town in my business suit, which I most definitely do not. It's been months since I've gone out and had fun. Tonight I'm ready to get glammed up and let loose.
"Go! Have fun! Enjoy being young!" he says. "But be ready to work Monday morning. This one's going to be tough."
By the time my friend Olivia picks me up at eight, I have successfully made the transition from respectable lawyer to sexy siren. I've traded my conservative, tailored, black Ann Taylor suit for a short, backless, navy lace dress and strappy heels. My dark hair has been liberated from the messy bun I put in it for work and it falls halfway down my back in a riot of curls that I spent close to an hour perfecting, the shadow accentuating my dark blue eyes is smoky, and my discreet diamond studs have been replaced by long, silver chandelier earrings. I seriously doubt any of my colleagues would recognize me.
"Oh my god!" Olivia squeals as I open the door. "You look fantastic! If I were a guy, I would totally fuck you."
I laugh. "You don't look so bad yourself."
Olivia looks great in a body-hugging red dress, her blond hair pulled into an elegant ponytail that perfectly reveals her delicate bone structure and huge blue eyes that I have personally watched men drown in. One year younger than me, a successful marketing professional, and also happily unattached, she's my closest friend in San Diego.
Fifteen minutes later, we join the rest of our friends at Café Bleu in nearby Mission Hills for dinner and wine. The restaurant is small, dark, and intimate, and I smile at the chorus of "Happy Birthdays" that greets me as we arrive at the table in the back where my friends have assembled to celebrate with me. There's Brooklyn, my roommate from law school, and her husband David; Simon, whom I affectionately refer to as my gay best friend; and Jenna, a paralegal at my firm and the newest addition to our group. My heart swells as I look at the faces of the people I love most in this city who have gathered to celebrate with me. There's no one else I'd rather spend my birthday with. Exactly why does my mother think I need a man?
It's almost ten o'clock by the time we're finishing off the bottles of wine we've ordered.
"Where should we go now?" Brooklyn asks, twining her fingers with David's.
"I vote for McP's," Simon says.
I groan. "No! That's a total Navy hangout."
"Exactly!" Simon says dreamily.
"It's San Diego," Jenna interjects. "Navy guys are everywhere. What's your aversion to them anyway? All the Navy guys I've met have been totally hot."
"Yeah, they're hot," I agree. "But they're also arrogant, cocky, and used to women throwing themselves at them. I'll take a civilian any day."
"Your boss is a former Navy SEAL," Jenna points out.
"He's also arrogant and cocky," I laugh, "but in a loveable way. That doesn't mean I'd want to date him," I shoot back.
"I'd totally date him," Jenna says with a dreamy sigh.
"Jenna!" I say, totally shocked at her confession. Marcus is almost old enough to be her father.
"You just haven't met the right Navy guy," Brooklyn interjects. "They're totally your type."
"What's my type?" I ask, indignant.
"Alpha male!" Brooklyn, Olivia, and Simon chant in unison.
"Okay," I concede with a laugh. "But I'll take my alpha male without the extra dash of asshole. I'm sure he's out there somewhere."
Actually, I'm fairly certain he doesn't exist at all. Most of the guys I've dated have either been completely boring, passive, and constantly in need of reassurance, or they think being macho means treating women like crap. Just another reason my time is better spent building my career instead of looking for love.
"Please?" Simon is giving me his puppy dog eyes.
Olivia punches him lightly. "It's Mila's birthday. She gets to decide. Stop giving her a guilt trip. We'll all go prostitute ourselves out to Navy guys on your birthday."
"Promise?" Simon says hopefully, and we all laugh.
After a lengthy debate, we decide to go to The Tipsy Crow, which is a combination bar, dance club, and pool hall, and one of the most popular places to go in San Diego. I'm feeling uncharacteristically but pleasantly buzzed as Olivia, Jenna, and I share a taxi the short distance to the bar housed in a historic building in the Gaslamp Quarter. It's a beautiful building, built over a hundred years ago, with three different levels. The main level, with its long, mahogany bar and cozy booths, is great for hanging out, but there's also a lounge upstairs with pool tables, a fireplace, and rich leather chairs that give it the sumptuous feel of an old law library, as well as a brick-walled dance club in the basement where live bands usually play.
We have just walked in and are scanning the crowded bar area for the rest of our friends when I see him. He's sitting at the bar, and when our eyes meet across the room, time stops. He is, by far, the most beautiful man I have ever seen. His dark blond hair is thick and just long and unruly enough to reassure me that he's no military man, although he certainly has the physique; I can see the definition of his broad shoulders and biceps under the t-shirt he's wearing. He has smooth, tanned skin and clear hazel eyes with generous dark lashes accentuated by thick, dark brows. But it's his lips that I can't tear my gaze from. They are slightly upturned at the corners and full and sensuous—lips that were made for kissing. I watch, mesmerized, as those lips curve upward, revealing straight, white teeth as he grins at me, a slightly lopsided, wide grin he flashes like lightening illuminating a dark night.
Dammit. I realize that I have been totally busted staring at this guy. He's clearly used to it, which makes me all the more determined to ignore him.
I tear my gaze away from him and turn to Olivia, who is somehow oblivious to the gorgeous man at the bar and has luckily just found Brooklyn, David, and Simon. We make our way across the bar to the table they have managed to snag, and I can feel Cute Guy's eyes on me with every step I take. Good. Let him look, because that's as far as this is going to go. He may be gorgeous, but he clearly knows it, and I refuse to stroke his ego any further by acting interested.
We spend the first hour playing Jenga at our table and drinking responsibly—craft beers from the bar for David and Simon and Orange Crush cocktails for the girls. Then Olivia tells our waiter it's my birthday, which results in a Birthday Cake shot on the house for me, followed by several more rounds of the five dollar shot special that David insists on buying for everyone. We're all feeling a little giddy, which is how we end up playing "What are the Odds," a game from our college days where someone thinks up a crazy dare for someone else. That person then picks the "odds," a number range that's usually between one and ten, and on the count of three both the darer and the dared say a number. If it's the same, the person who's been dared has to do the dare. It's kind of like truth or dare for grown-ups, and it unquestionably gets more fun after you've had a few drinks.
I successfully avoid having to sing "I'm a Little Tea Pot" and taking a shot of tequila, but Simon has to do the Macarena, Jenna has to ask our waitress if she's pregnant, and Olivia has to dance on the bar, which she does enthusiastically to a chorus of wolf calls. When she returns to our table, flushed and out of breath, I'm conscious of Cute Guy's eyes on our table. I dart a furtive glance to where he's sitting at the bar with several of his buddies, expecting to find him staring at Olivia, but instead his gaze is leveled intensely at me. Our eyes meet for a brief second before I quickly look away.
"I have one for the birthday girl," Olivia says, sliding into the booth next to me. "What are the odds that you ask that cute guy at the bar who's been watching you all night to dance?"
I flush. "What guy?" I ask nonchalantly.
"You know exactly what guy!" she says. "He can't take his eyes off of you, and you've been trying not to stare at him all night. So….what are the odds?" She smiles smugly.
I've dodged all the dares so far but I'm not taking any chances with this one. "One and twenty," I say, choosing the largest gap to increase my chances that we won't pick the same number.
The whole table counts, "One, two, three."
"Fifteen," Olivia and I say in unison.
I stare at her, dumbfounded. She smiles sweetly at me.
"Off you go," she says blithely.
I so don't want to give Cute Guy the satisfaction of approaching him first and asking him to dance, but I've had a few drinks, I'm feeling a little reckless, and I can't turn down a dare. I'd never live it down. Besides, it's my birthday and he is gorgeous. It's just one dance.
"Fine!" I say, shooting daggers at Olivia.
I get up and make my way across the bar to where Cute Guy is sitting. He watches me, his gaze unwavering, as I approach the bar.
As I reach him, he smiles that lazy, killer smile and drawls, "Lose a bet?"
I quickly realize I've got to keep the upper hand here. He's the kind of guy that eats shy, sweet girls for breakfast. I'm not too worried, though. I can definitely hold my own.
I smile back. "I wouldn't say I lost," I say flirtatiously. "Do you want to dance?"
He slowly unfolds his long limbs from the bar stool and I am immediately aware of his powerful body. He is easily several inches taller than me, and I'm five seven without the four-inch heels I'm wearing. The hard expanse of his chest makes me feel small and vulnerable.
He smiles. "I'm Griffin."
"Mila," I say.
"Mila." It rolls off his tongue like a caress. "Beautiful, just like you."
It should sound like a corny pick-up line, but the way he says it makes my stomach drop two feet.
He looks over at the table where my friends are sitting and then back at me. "Your friends are watching to see if you're actually going to go through on the dare." He quirks an eyebrow at me. "Are we going to dance?"
"Um, sure," I say, caught off balance.
He rests his hand on the small of my back as we make our way toward the stairs that lead down to the dance club, and I feel a jolt of electricity at his touch. I try to focus on making it down the stairs in my heels without tripping and embarrassing myself beyond comprehension, but it's becoming increasingly difficult given the way his muscular arm is curving around my waist to steady me.
When we reach the bottom of the stairs, he releases my waist and grabs my hand, pulling me out onto the dance floor. It's quickly apparent that besides being blessed with extraordinary good looks, the man has got some serious dance moves. There is nothing hotter than a guy who can dance. And Griffin can really dance! He's comfortable in his own skin in a way that few men are.
I love to dance. I took formal dance classes for years when I was younger, so it doesn't take long for me to give myself over to the music and enjoy dancing with a guy who knows how to move. We start out facing each other as we move to the beat of the music, but before long his hands are on me, resting on my hips or occasionally skimming over my butt as we dance together. His arm goes around my waist, pulling me against him so our bodies are pressed together, and we shimmy in unison as we snake down towards the ground and then back up again. Our foreheads touch, and his face is so close to mine I can see the golden flecks in his hazel eyes as he smiles at me—a lazy, sexy smile that is as contagious as it is brilliant. He grabs my hand and spins me, expertly draping my arm around his neck as I complete the rotation and face him again. I let my fingers trail slowly down his chest as he watches, his eyes hooded, before I pull away.
We dance, our bodies communicating on some primitive level as we move together and then apart, his hands constantly touching some part of my body, igniting my skin. My head is spinning, but I don't know if it's the alcohol or Griffin, who's just as intoxicating. He grasps both of my hands and turns me so my back is to his chest, his arms wrapping around my waist before moving his hands to my hips as we gyrate in time with each other. He takes my hand and wraps it around his neck, holding it captive there with a firm grip as we grind together in a slow circle. It's erotic as hell, feeling the hardness of him against me. I feel a distinctly feminine satisfaction knowing I'm the cause of it. He spins me again, bringing me back to face him as our bodies press together again, but this time his hand rests at the back of my neck, the pressure of his fingers forcing me to look up at him.
My eyes widen at the unexpected intensity of his touch, but before I can react his mouth is on mine. My lids flutter closed. His lips are soft and warm, and I can't help but kiss him back. He lightly licks my lips and they part involuntarily, giving him the access he clearly wants. He slips his tongue into my mouth and I can taste the alcohol on it like metallic sparks. In some distant part of my somewhat fuzzy brain I'm aware of his fingers tangling in my hair, holding me still as he ravages my mouth. I'm a willing participant and I kiss him back hungrily, my tongue tangling with his as I feel my stomach drop the rest of the way to my toes.
His tongue slides out of my mouth but he keeps his lips pressed to mine, completely still for a moment, as though he's memorizing the imprint of my lips against his. I pull away and out of his embrace. The song is over and my heart is beating fast.
"Thanks for the dance," I say breathlessly and walk away, leaving him standing alone on the dance floor.
« Return to Matchless
Book 1: Fearless
Book 2: Matchless
Book 2.5: Timeless
Book 3: Shameless
Subscribe to my newsletter to find out about my latest books and news:
Warning: Use of undefined constant Y - assumed 'Y' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/customer/www/brynleyblake.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/adw_author_v8/footer.php on line 6
2022. Brynley Blake & Brynley Bush. All Rights Reserved.
An Austin DesignWorks Production


Sports cars are made for those who want a heart-stopping experience in a car. Now, the Chevrolet Camaro is pretty much everything you would want in a sports car. For starters, the Camaro has been made light and streamlined to breeze through the wind. This is just the highlight though. There is more about this marvelous car!
The Camaro is now taller and at first glance, it will catch you eye. From the sculptured hood, the well-designed grilles, the headlamps, the heritage-inspired round tail lamps and much more. The Camaro is certainly meant to make you stand a cut above many.
Every Camaro trim has the cockpit to look forward to. It has aggressive seat bolsters, leather-wrapped flat-bottom steering wheel not to mention outstanding ergonomics tailored for shifting.
At the heart of this Chevrolet Camaro V8 is a 6.2L LT1 V8 or a 6.2L LT1 V8 which are standard in the Camaro SS and the Camaro ZL1 trims respectively. These are engines crafted for performance and you will get up to 650 hp will the ability to accelerate from 0-60 in 3.5s.
Every foot on the gas in the Chevrolet Camaro V8 is exhilarating!
Want to get an adrenaline-charged driving experience in Dubai? You have got to rent yourself a sports car! Now, the Chevrolet Camaro is one of those sports cars that can give you the feel of breezing through the smooth Dubai tarmac as you enjoy the beauty of the city.
Renty's is here to give you that experience you are craving for through luxury cars for hire in Dubai. In our fleet, we have a Chevrolet Camaro for rent loved by tourists and business professionals in the UAE.
Hiring our low price Chevrolet Camaro is simple. Just get in touch with Renty's Chevrolet Camaro V8 rental in Dubai to make your reservation today!