text:
417 U.S. 21 - Blackledge v. Perry
the United States Reports
417 US 21 Blackledge v. Perry
94 S.Ct. 2098
40 L.Ed.2d 628
Stanley BLACKLEDGE, Warden, et al., Petitioners,
Jimmy Seth PERRY.
No. 72—1660.
Argued Feb. 19, 1974.
Decided May 20, 1974.
Syllabus.
Respondent, a North Carolina prison inmate, had an altercation with another prisoner, and was charged with the misdemeanor of assault with a deadly weapon, of which he was convicted in the State District Court. While respondent's subsequent appeal was pending in the Superior Court, where he had the right to a trial de novo, the prosecutor obtained an indictment covering the same conduct for the felony offense of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflict serious bodily injury, to which respondent pleaded guilty. Thereafter, respondent applied for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court, claiming, inter alia, that the felony indictment deprived him of due process. The District Court granted the writ, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Held:
1. The indictment on the felony charge contravened the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since a person convicted of a misdemeanor in North Carolina is entitled to pursue his right under state law to a trial de novo without apprehension that the State will retaliate by substituting a more serious charge for the original one and thus subject him to a significantly increased potential period of incarceration. Cf. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656. Pp. 24—29.
2. Since North Carolina, having chosen originally to proceed against respondent on the misdemeanor charge in the State District Court, was precluded by the Due Process Clause from even prosecuting respondent for the more serious charge in the Superior Court, respondent's guilty plea to the felony charge did not bar him from raising his constitutional claim in the federal habeas corpus proceeding. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235, distinguished. Pp. 29—31.
Richard N. League, Raleigh, N.C., for petitioners.
James E. Keenan, Durham, N.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.
While serving a term of imprisonment in a North Carolina penitentiary, the respondent Perry became involved in an altercation with another inmate. A warrant issued, charging Perry with the misdemeanor of assault with a deadly weapon, N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14—33(b)(1) (1969). Under North Carolina law, the District Court Division of the General Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction for the trial of misdemeanors. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 7A—272. Following a trial without a jury in the District Court of Northampton County, Perry was convicted of this misdemeanor and given a six-month sentence, to be served after completion of the prison term he was then serving.
Perry then filed a notice of appeal to the Northampton County Superior Court. Under North Carolina law, a person convicted in the District Court has a right to a trial de novo in the Superior Court. N.C.Gen.Stat. §§ 7A—290, 15—177.1. The right to trial de novo is absolute, there being no need for the appellant to allege error in the original proceeding. When an appeal is taken, the statutory scheme provides that the slate is wiped clean; the prior conviction is annulled, and the prosecution and the defense begin anew in the Superior Court.1
After the filing of the notice of appeal, but prior to the respondent's appearance for trial de novo in the Superior Court, the prosecutor obtained an indictment from a grand jury, charging Perry with the felony of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflict serious bodily injury, N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14 32(a) (1969). The indictment covered the same conduct for which Perry had been tried and convicted in the District Court. Perry entered a plea of guilty to the indictment in the Superior Court, and was sentenced to a term of five to seven years in the penitentiary, to be served concurrently with the identical prison sentence he was then serving.2
A number of months later, the respondent filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. He claimed that the indictment on the felony charge in the Superior Court constituted double jeopardy and also deprived him of due process of law. In an unreported opinion, the District Court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust available state remedies. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that resort to the state courts would be futile, because the Supreme Court of North Carolina had consistently rejected the constitutional claims presented by Perry in his petition. 453 F.2d 856.3 The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
On remand, the District Court granted the writ. It held that the bringing of the felony charge after the filing of the appeal violated Perry's rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707. The District Court further held that the respondent had not, by his guilty plea in the Superior Court, waived his right to raise his constitutional claims in the federal habeas corpus proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in a brief per curiam opinion. We granted certiorari, 414 U.S. 908, 94 S.Ct. 218, 38 L.Ed.2d 145, to consider the seemingly important issues presented by this case.
* As in the District Court, Perry directs two independent constitutional attacks upon the conduct of the State in haling him into court on the felony charge after he took an appeal from the misdemeanor conviction. First, he contends that the felony indictment in the Superior Court placed him in double jeopardy, since he had already been convicted on the lesser included misdemeanor charge in the District Court. Second, he urges that the indictment on the felony charge constituted a penalty for his exercising his statutory right to appeal, and thus contravened the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.4 We find it necessary to reach only the latter claim.
Perry's due process arguments are derived substantially from North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656, and its progeny. In Pearce, the Court considered the constitutional problems presented when, following a successful appeal and reconviction, a criminal defendant was subjected to a greater punishment than that imposed at the first trial. While we concluded that such a harsher sentence was not absolutely precluded by either the Double Jeopardy or Due Process Clause, we emphasized that 'imposition of a penalty upon the defendant for having successfully pursued a statutory right of appeal or collateral remedy would be . . . a violation of due process of law.' Id., at 724, 89 S.Ct. at 2080. Because 'vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction must play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial,' id., at 725, 89 S.Ct. at 2080, we held that an increased sentence could not be imposed upon retrial unless the sentencing judge placed certain specified findings on the record.
In Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584, the Court was called upon to decide the applicability of the Pearce holding to Kentucky's two-tiered system of criminal adjudication. Kentucky, like North Carolina, allows a misdemeanor defendant convicted in an inferior trial court to seek a trial de novo in a court of general jurisdiction.5 The appellant in Colten claimed that the Constitution prevented the court of general jurisdiction, after trial de novo, from imposing a sentence in excess of that imposed in the court of original trial. This Court rejected the Pearce analogy. Emphasizing that Pearce was directed at insuring the absence of 'vindictiveness' against a criminal defendant who attacked his initial conviction on appeal, the Court found such dangers greatly minimized on the facts presented in Colten. In contrast to Pearce, the court that imposed the increased sentence after retrial in Colten was not the one whose original judgment had prompted an appellate reversal; thus, there was little possibility that an increased sentence on trial de novo could have been motivated by personal vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing judge. Hence, the Court thought the prophylactic rule of Pearce unnecessary in the de novo trial and sentencing context of Colten.
The Pearce decision was again interpreted by this Court last Term in Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17, 93 S.Ct. 1977, 36 L.Ed.2d 714, in the setting of Georgia's system under which sentencing responsibility is entrusted to the jury. Upon retrial following the reversal of his original conviction, the defendant in Chaffin was reconvicted and sentenced to a greater term than had been imposed by the initial jury. Concentrating again on the issue of vindictiveness, the Court found no violation of the Pearce rule. It was noted that the second jury was completely unaware of the original sentence, and thus could hardly have sought to 'punish' Chaffin for his successful appeal. Moreover, the jury, unlike a judge who had been reversed on appeal, could hardly have a stake in the prior conviction or any motivation to discourage criminal defendants from seeking appellate review. Hence, it was concluded that the danger of vindictiveness under the circumstances of the case was 'de minimis,' id., 412 U.S. at 26, 93 S.Ct. at 1982, and did not require adoption of the constitutional rule set out in Pearce.
The lesson that emerges from Pearce, Colten, and Chaffin is that the Due Process Clause is not offended by all possibilities of increased punishment upon retrial after appeal, but only by those that pose a realistic likelihood of 'vindictiveness.' Unlike the circumstances presented by those cases, however, in the situation here the central figure is not the judge or the jury, but the prosecutor. The question is whether the opportunities for vindictiveness in this situation are such as to impel the conclusion that due process of law requires a rule analogous to that of the Pearce case. We conclude that the answer must be in the affirmative.
A prosecutor clearly has a considerable stake in discouraging convicted misdemeanants from appealing and thus obtaining a trial de novo in the Superior Court, since such an appeal will clearly require increased expenditures of prosecutorial resources before the defendant's conviction becomes final, and may even result in a formerly convicted defendant's going free. And, if the prosecutor has the means readily at hand to discourage such appeals—by 'upping the ante' through a felony indictment whenever a convicted misdemeant pursues his statutory appellate remedy—the State can insure that only the most hardy defendants will brave the hazards of a de novo trial.
There is, of course, no evidence that the prosecutor in this case acted in bad faith or maliciously in seeking a felony indictment against Perry. The rationale of our judgment in the Pearce case, however, was not grounded upon the proposition that actual retaliatory motivation must inevitably exist. Rather, we emphasized that 'since the fear of such vindictiveness may unconstitutionally deter a defendant's exercise of the right to appeal or collaterally attack his first conviction, due process also requires that a defendant be freed of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing judge.' 395 U.S., at 725, 89 S.Ct. at 2080. We think it clear that the same considerations apply here. A person convicted of an offense is entitled to pursue his statutory right to a trial de novo, without apprehension that the State will retaliate by substituting a more serious charge for the original one, thus subjecting him to a significantly increased potential period of incarceration.6 Cf. United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138.
Due process of law requires that such a potential for vindictiveness must not enter into North Carolina's two-tiered appellate process. We hold, therefore, that it was not constitutionally permissible for the State to respond to Perry's invocation of his statutory right to appeal by bringing a more serious charge against him prior to the trial de novo.7
The remaining question is whether, because of his guilty plea to the felony charge in the Superior Court, Perry is precluded from raising his constitutional claims in this federal habeas corpus proceeding. In contending that such is the case, petitioners rely chiefly on this Court's decision last Term in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235.
The precise issue presented in Tollett was 'whether a state prisoner, pleading guilty with the advice of counsel, may later obtain release through federal habeas corpus by proving only that the indictment to which he pleaded was returned by an unconstitutionally selected grand jury.' Id., at 260, 93 S.Ct. at 1604. The Court answered that question in the negative. Relying primarily on the guilty-plea trilogy of Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747; McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763, and Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785, the Court characterized the guilty plea as 'a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process.' Id., 411 U.S., at 267, 93 S.Ct., at 1608. Accordingly, the Court held that when a criminal defendant enters a guilty plea, 'he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.' Ibid. Rather, a person complaining of such 'antecedent constitutional violations,' Id., 411 U.S. at 266, 93 S.Ct. at 1607, is limited in a federal habeas corpus proceeding to attacks on the voluntary and intelligent nature of the guilty plea, through proof that the advice received from counsel was not 'within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.' See McMann, supra, 397 U.S. at 771, 90 S.Ct. at 1449.
While petitioners' reliance upon the Tollett opinion is understandable, there is a fundamental distinction between this case and that one. Although the underlying claims presented in Tollett and the Brady trilogy were of constitutional dimension, none went to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him. The defendants in McMann v. Richardson, for example, could surely have been brought to trial without the use of the allegedly coerced confessions, and even a tainted indictment of the sort alleged in Tollett could have been 'cured' through a new indictment by a properly selected grand jury. In the case at hand, by contrast, the nature of the underlying constitutional infirmity is markedly different. Having chosen originally to proceed on the misdemeanor charge in the District Court, the State of North Carolina was, under the facts of this case, simply precluded by the Due Process Clause from calling upon the respondent to answer to the more serious charge in the Superior Court. Unlike the defendant in Tollett, Perry is not complaining of 'antecedent constitutional violations' or of a 'deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.' 411 U.S., at 266, 267, 93 S.Ct., at 1607, 1608. Rather, the right that he asserts and that we today accept is the right not to be haled into court at all upon the felony charge. The very initiation of the proceedings against him in the Superior Court thus operated to deny him due process of law.
Last Term in Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505, 93 S.Ct. 876, 35 L.Ed.2d 29, in explaining why the Double Jeopardy Clause is distinctive, the Court noted that 'its practical result is to prevent a trial from taking place at all, rather than to prescribe procedural rules that govern the conduct of a trial.' Id., at 509, 93 S.Ct., at 878. While our judgment today is not based upon the Double Jeopardy Clause, we think that the quoted language aptly describes the due process right upon which our judgment is based. The 'practical result' dictated by the Due Process Clause in this case is that North Carolina simply could not permissibly require Perry to answer to the felony charge. That being so, it follows that his guilty plea did not foreclose him from attacking his conviction in the Superior Court proceedings through a federal writ of habeas corpus.8
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is affirmed.
Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting.
I would find it more difficult than the Court apparently does in Part I of its opinion to conclude that the very bringing of more serious charges against respondent following his request for a trial de novo violated due process as defined in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). Still more importantly, I believe the Court's conclusion that respondent may assert the Court's new-found Pearce claim in this federal habeas action, despite his plea of guilty to the charges brought after his invocation of his statutory right to a trial de novo, marks an unwarranted departure from the principles we have recently enunciated in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973), and the Brady trilogy, Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); and Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970).
* As the Court notes, in addition to his claim based on Pearce, respondent contends that his felony indictment in the Superior Court violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). Presumably because we have earlier held that 'the jeopardy incident to' a trial does 'not extent to an offense beyond (the trial court's) jurisdiction,' Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 449, 32 S.Ct. 250, 251, 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912), the Court rests its decision instead on the Fourteenth Amendment due process doctrine of Pearce. In so doing, I think the Court too readily equates the role of the prosecutor, who is a natural adversary of the defendant and who, we observed in Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17, 27 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. 1977, 1983, 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973), 'often request(s) more than (he) can reasonably expect to get,' with that of the sentencing judge in Pearce. I also think the Court passes too lightly over the reasoning of Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972), in which we held that imposition of the prophylactic rule of Pearce was not necessary in Kentucky's two-tier system for de novo appeals from justice court convictions, even though the judge at retrial might impose a more severe sentence than had been imposed by the justice court after the original trial.
The concurring opinion in Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 726, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2081, 23 L.Ed.2d 656, took the position that the imposition of a penalty after retrial which exceeded the penalty imposed after the first trial violated the guarantee against double jeopardy. But the opinion of the Court, relying on cases such as United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896), and Stroud v. United States, 251 U.S. 15, 40 S.Ct. 50, 64 L.Ed. 103 (1919), specifically rejected such an approach to the case. The Court went on to hold 'that neither the double jeopardy provision nor the Equal Protection Clause imposes an absolute bar to a more severe sentence upon reconviction.' 395 U.S., at 723, 89 S.Ct., at 2079. The Court concluded by holding that due process crequires that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction must play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial. And since the fear of such vindictiveness may unconstitutionally deter a defendant's exercise of the right to appeal or collaterally attack his first conviction, due process also requires that a defendant be freed of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing judge.' Id., at 725, 89 S.Ct., at 2080. To make certain that those requirements of due process were met, the Court laid down the rule that 'whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, the reasons for his doing so must affirmatively appear.' Id., at 726, 89 S.Ct., at 2081. Thus the avowed purpose of the remedy fashioned in Pearce was to prevent judicial vindictiveness from resulting in longer sentences after a retrial following successful appeal.
Since in theory if not in practice the second sentence in the Pearce situation might be expected to be the same as the first unless influenced by vindictiveness or by intervening conduct of the defendant, in theory at least the remedy mandated there reached no further than the identified wrong. The same cannot be said here. For while indictment on more serious charges after a successful appeal would present a problem closely analogous to that in Pearce in this respect, the bringing of more serious charges after a defendant's exercise of his absolute right to a trial de novo in North Carolina's two-tier system does not. The prosecutor here elected to proceed initially in the State District Court where felony charges could not be prosecuted, for reasons which may well have been unrelated to whether he believed respondent was guilty of and could be convicted of the felony with which he was later charged. Both prosecutor and defendant stand to benefit from an initial prosecution in the District Court, the prosecutor at least from its less burdensome procedures and the defendant from the opportunity for an initial acquittal and the limited penalties. With the countervailing reasons for proceeding only on the misdemeanor charge in the District Court no longer applicable once the defendant has invoked his statutory right to a trial de novo, a prosecutor need not be vindictive to seek to indict and convict a defendant of the more serious of the two crimes of which he believes him guilty. Thus even if one accepts the Court's equation of prosecutorial vindictiveness with judicial vindictiveness, here, unlike Pearce, the Court's remedy reaches far beyond the wrong it identifies.
Indeed, it is not a little puzzling that the Court's remedy is the same that would follow upon a conclusion that the bringing of the new charges violated respondent's rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. And the Court's conclusion that '(t)he very initiation of the proceedings against (respondent) in the Superior Court thus operated to deny him due process of law' surely sounds in the language of double jeopardy, however, it may be dressed in due process garb.
If the Court is correct in stating the consequences of upholding respondent's constitutional claim here, and indeed the State lacked the very power to bring him to trial, I believe this case is governed by cases culminating in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). In that case the State no doubt lacked 'power' to bring Henderson to trial without a valid grand jury indictment; yet that constitutional disability was held by us to be merged in the guilty plea. I do not see why a constitutional claim the consequences of which make it the identical twin of double jeopardy may not, like double jeopardy, be waived by the person for whose benefit it is accorded. Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100, 131, 24 S.Ct. 797, 805, 49 L.Ed. 114 (1904); Harris v. United States, 237 F.2d 274, 277 (CA8 1956); Kistner v. United States, 332 F.2d 978, 980 (CA8 1964).
In Tollett v. Henderson, supra, we held that 'just as the guilty pleas in the Brady trilogy were found to foreclose direct inquiry into the merits of claimed antecedent constitutional violations there . . . respondent's guilty plea here alike forecloses independent inquiry into the claim of discrimination in the selection of the grand jury.' 411 U.S., at 266, 93 S.Ct., at 1607. Surely the due process violation found by the Court today is no less 'antecedent' than the constitutional violations claimed to make the grand jury indictment invalid in Tollett v. Henderson, the confession inadmissible in McMann, or the exercise of the right to a jury trial impermissibly burdened in Brady and Parker. As the Court notes, we reaffirmed in Tollett v. Henderson the principle of the Brady trilogy that 'a guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process.' 411 U.S., at 267, 93 S.Ct., at 1608. We went on to say there:
'When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea. He may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea by showing that the advice he received from counsel was not within the standards set forth in McMann.' Ibid.
The assertion by the Court that this reasoning is somehow inapplicable here because the claim goes 'to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him' is little other than a conclusion. Any difference between the issue resolved the other way in Tollett v. Henderson and the issue before us today is at most semantic. But the Court's 'test' not only fails to distinguish Henderson; it also fails to provide any reasoned basis on which to approach such questions as whether a speedy trial claim is merged in a guilty plea. I believe the Court's departure today from the principles of Henderson and the cases preceding it must be recognized as a potentially major breach in the wall of certainty surrounding guilty pleas for which we have found constitutional sanction in those cases.
There is no indication in this record that respondent's guilty plea was the result of an agreement with the prosecutor. But the Court's basis for distinguishing the Henderson and Brady cases seems so insubstantial as to permit the doctrine of this case to apply to guilty pleas which have been obtained as a result of 'plea bargains.' In that event it will be not merely the State which stands to lose, but the accused defendant in the position of the respondent as well. Since the great majority of criminal cases are resolved by plea bargaining, defendants as a class have at least as great an interest in the finality of voluntary guilty pleas as do prosecutors. If that finality may be swept aside with the ease exhibited by the Court's approach today, prosecutors will have a reduced incentive to bargain, to the detriment of the many defendants for whom plea bargaining offers the only hope for ameliorating the consequences to them of a serious criminal charge.
But, if, as I believe, a proper analysis of respondent's constitutional claim produces at most a violation of the standards laid down in North Carolina v. Pearce, supra, I agree with the Court, though not for the reasons it gives, that respondent's claim was not merged in his guilty plea. Imposition of sentence in violation of Pearce is not an 'antecedent constitutional violation,' since sentence is customarily imposed after a plea of guilty, and is a separate legal event from the determination by the Court that the defendant is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
If respondent's claim is properly analyzed in terms of Pearce, I would think that a result quite different from that mandated in the Court's opinion would obtain. Pearce and the decisions following it have made it clear that the wrong lies in the increased sentence, not in the judgment of conviction, and that the remedy for a Pearce defect is a remand for sentencing consistent with due process. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 247—248, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971). In Rice we concluded that the Court of Appeals had erred in ruling that Pearce authorized the expunging of Rice's conviction after his trial de novo in North Carolina:
'It could not be clearer . . . that Pearce does not invalidate the conviction that resulted from Rice's second trial . . .. Pearce, in short, requires only resentencing; the conviction is not ipso facto set aside and a new trial required. Even if the higher sentence imposed after Rice's trial de novo was vulnerable under Pearce, Rice was entitled neither to have his conviction erased nor to avoid the collateral consequences flowing from that conviction and a proper sentence.' Ibid.
Since Rice had completely served his sentence, rather than reaching the merits of Rice's Pearce claim, we remanded for a determination whether any collateral consequences flowed from his service of the longer sentence imposed after retrial, or whether the case was moot.
Here, while respondent faced the prospect of a more severe sentence at the conclusion of his felony trial in the Superior Court of North Carolina, it was by no means self-evident that this would be the result. The maximum sentence which he could receive on the misdemeanor court was one and one-half years, but nothing in the record indicates that the Superior Court judge might not impose a lesser penalty than that, or even grant probation. Nor is there any indication in the habeas record, which contains only a fragment of the state court proceedings, that the Superior Court judge might not at the conclusion of the trial and after a verdict of guilty have before him for sentencing purposes information which would support an augmented sentence under Pearce. In fact, the habeas court found that the sentence actually imposed was more severe than that which could have been imposed under the misdemeanor charge. But the remedy for that violation should be a direction to the state court to resentence in accordance with Pearce, rather than an order completely annulling the conviction. Respondent was originally convicted of assaulting a fellow inmate with a deadly weapon, and later pleaded guilty to a charge of assaulting the inmate with a deadly weapon with intent to kill him. But in spite of both a verdict of guilty on one charge and a plea of guilty to the other, the Court's decision may well, as a practical matter, assure that no penalty whatever will be imposed on him.
Mr. Justice POWELL joins in Part II of this opinion.
See generally State v. Spencer, 276 N.C. 535, 173 S.E.2d 765; State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 173 S.E.2d 897.
The respondent's guilty plea was apparently premised on the expectation that any sentence he received in the Superior Court would be served concurrently with the sentence he was then serving, as contrasted with the consecutive sentence imposed in the District Court. That expectation was fulfilled, but it turned out that the guilty plea resulted in increasing the respondent's potential term of incarceration. Under applicable North Carolina law, the five- to seven-year assault sentence did not commence until the date of the guilty plea, October 29, 1969. By that time, Perry had already served some 17 months of the sentence he was serving at the time of the five- to seven-year Thus, the effect of the five- to seven-year concurrent sentence on the assault charge was to increase his potential period of confinement by these 17 months, as opposed to the six-month increase envisaged by the District Court's consecutive sentence.
The Court of Appeals further instructed the District Court to await the ruling of this Court in Rice v. North Carolina, 434 F.2d 297 (CA4), cert. granted, 401 U.S. 1008, 91 S.Ct. 1256, 28 L.Ed.2d 544. Rice involved a challenge to the constitutionality of an enhanced penalty received after a criminal defendant had sought a trial de novo under North Carolina's two-tiered misdemeanor adjudication system. This Court did not reach the merits of this issue in Rice, instead vacating and remanding to the Court of Appeals for consideration as to whether the case had become moot. 404 U.S. 244, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413.
Subsequently, in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584, we dealt with the merits of this issue, and held that the imposition of an increased sentence on trial de novo did not violate either the Due Process or the Double Jeopardy Clause. The District Court in the present case had the benefit of the Colten decision before issuing its opinion granting habeas corpus relief.
This Court has never held that the States are constitutionally required to establish avenues of appellate review of criminal convictions. Nonetheless, 'it is now fundamental that, once established, these avenues must be kept free of unreasoned distinctions that can only impede open and equal access to the courts.' Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 310, 86 S.Ct. 1497, 1500, 16 L.Ed.2d 577. See also Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891; Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811; Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477, 83 S.Ct. 768, 9 L.Ed.2d 892; Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 83 S.Ct. 774, 9 L.Ed.2d 899; North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 724 725, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2080, 23 L.Ed.2d 656; Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17, 24 n. 11, 93 S.Ct. 1977, 1981, 36 L.Ed.2d 714.
For a more exhaustive list of States employing similar two-tiered procedures, see Colten, supra, 407 U.S. at 112 n. 4, 92 S.Ct. at 1958.
Moreover, even putting to one side the potentiality of increased incarceration, conviction of a 'felony' often entails more serious collateral consequences than those incurred through a misdemeanor conviction. See generally Special Project, The Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Conviction, 23 Vand.L.Rev. 929, 955—960; Note, Civil Disabilities of Felons, 53 Va.L.Rev. 403, 406—408. Cf. O'Brien v. Skinner, 414 U.S. 524, 94 S.Ct. 740, 38 L.Ed.2d 702 (involving New York law under which convicted misdemeanants retain the right to vote).
This would clearly be a different case if the State had shown that it was impossible to proceed on the more serious charge at the outset, as in Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 32 S.Ct. 250, 56 L.Ed. 500. In that case the defendant was originally tried and convicted for assault and battery. Subsequent to the original trial, the assault victim died, and the defendant was then tried and convicted for homicide. Obviously, it would not have been possible for the authorities in Diaz to have originally proceeded against the defendant on the more serious charge, since the crime of homicide was not complete until after the victim's death.
Contrary to the dissenting opinion, our decision today does not 'assure that no penalty whatever will be imposed' on respondent. Post, at 39. While the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment bars trial of Perry on the felony assault charges in the Superior Court, North Carolina is wholly free to conduct a trial de novo in the Superior Court on the original misdemeanor assault charge. Indeed, this is precisely the course that Perry has invited, by filing an appeal from the original judgment of the District Court.
The dissenting opinion also seems to misconceive the nature of the due process right at stake here. If this were a case involving simply an increased sentence violative of the Pearce rule, a remand for resentencing would be in order. Our holding today, however, is not that Perry was denied due process by the length of the sentence imposed by the Superior Court, but rather by the very institution of the felony indictment against him. While we reach this conclusion in partial reliance on the analogy of Pearce and its progeny, the due process violation here is not the same as was involved in those cases, and cannot be remedied solely through a resentencing procedure in the Superior Court. Cf. n. 6, supra.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


While they've been composing assignments during their lifestyle in fact, a veteran writer may do the job much faster compared to any pupil. It's crucial for the students to find essay writing assistance from the real and best assignment writing service. You'll soon begin passing your homework if you locate an MBA essay proofreading service which suits your requirements. Producing services reviews may enable the pupils to grab sight of some genuine or even the composing service inside of the area.
Writing can be an arduous endeavor that needs work and dedication. Producing for all of us would be that the way to get started earning as that you never need any installment prices.
the pressure together with your deadlines and when it's to perform essay writing you begin to hunt for a small assistance from skilled writers. You will most likely finance something exciting for those who haven't actually seen expert editors function. As our staff of authors is big we all have totally free authors enthusiastic to make a well-paid and fair purchase.
Quite simply, if you do a awesome job on your research document, you also can procure a excellent level. Paper-writing appears to become our chief specialization for decades. In nearly all instances, an investigation document represents a considerable area of the student's grade from the class. If the paper that you purchased will not meet all your own expectations you shouldn't worry.
In fact it requires the understanding of the related degree of ingenuity. Should they spring originally, own essay thinks members to take care of general institutions. Possessing an essay that most reflects strengths and your talents could be.
it might be handy to others although the review of one's article will probably be useful to you. Papers you gain from essay services will need to become high in fresh hints and examples. Producing services have been in existence for a long time. Getting high excellent documents doesn't need to be high priced.
We are most likely to show you a few examples in the event that you can't feel that proofreading is really such essential for positive aspects that are good. As it's to do with selecting a composition writing agency that you must involve some type of checklist to create the selection that is appropriate.
We are most likely to reveal you some examples if you can't feel that proofreading is really such crucial for advantages. As it has to perform selecting an essay writing service that you must involve some sort of checklist to produce the selection that is proper.
Because you do not need your time and efforts to become thrown away customized isn't definitely going to be more more suitable. You're acutely very likely to receive an optimistic solution if you choose to ask a creating friend for assistance to state even a good friend or a relative. The first step you will see on every site of a custom writing service is how they can let you fix the assignment troubles all. If you feel like asking for aid with habit article writing, don't hesitate to select your own company.
If you're interested in buying a sample you have to be curious about how much our composition producing services cost. You could not understand however, there are tens of thousands of types. Possibly, it's just one of many service. It's important to take note not all websites are all reliable.
A publication investigation is just one of those sorts of composing. Grab My Writer's been in existence for several years, and also it shows. Our united kingdom essays review agency makes it possible for you to get expert look and also increase its points.
You are confronting a number of issues when you must compose an article. If you 've prepared an article on your own and needs to proof read it, we assist you with this particular. Each informative article is written depending on the studentas specs and wholly original. Among the projects on Earth writing essays is for several persons.
Do not develop to some casualty of writing services as it can certainly fetch lots of negative academic outcomes. Since you notice paper really are a considerable portion of making the proper choice whilst picking a academic associate on line. Essaylooking essay service inspection has demonstrated our organization can take care of the roughest challenges of any kind. Furthermore it's immaterial in the event that you're currently searching for that specialist resume writing services or analysis paper authors you'll be in a position to detect all information you must get the choice at one location.
Opinions and opinions here will provide you. To help it become simpler Essay products and services Review firm produced a list of traits you should cover your own focus to prior to building a previous choice. Essay summary companies should be selected by you if you really don't understand what things you can do. Solutions is only one of the provisions dedicated to internet websites that offer solutions to pupils.
You'll find though others are going to adapt all kinds of paper businesses who offer writing products and services. Rip-off writing providers operate on the web just for earning profits plus they truly are powerless to assist you using a expert essay. What writing businesses that are fraudulent want is your hard earned money and they're not focused on supply all the best to you in return way too. Thus, it is likely to become quite convenient to appeal into these tested services as opposed to searching for them over the net and analyzing their quality, costs, etc..
You can find lots of fraud writing products and services on the web along side writing companies that are authentic now. Search no longer in the event you've looked through countless of habit informative article reviews seeking for probably the business to serve your own editing and writing wants. There isn't going to become any surprises for you as soon as you also will know what matters to anticipate in a company that is specific. There are a significant few businesses out there promising cheap prices and you top quality papers however they're sometimes not the best.


text:
Flash Fiction, Words
SI DIOS ME QUITA LA VIDA
Words by Jasminne Morataya
Photography by Brandon Yung and Ashton Carless
Limp and sultry palm tree afternoon. Hair sticks to shiny foreheads, hidden meat flaps chafe and sweat in their own intensely private way. A severed tongue is discovered on the sidewalk and confiscated by Miami-Dade Metropolitan Police, and while they think its sudden bloated appearance has something to do with Santería activity in the area, they have no idea what to do about it. They shrug and go home, carefully omitting the facts of what they've seen to their families at the dinner table.
Vicente and his miniature, unaware but resolute, walk into a hospital in order to set up the punchline to a joke. The boy is hungry. At the check-in desk, he jumps up and down and asks, like a grizzled veteran of all hospitals, what's there to eat down here in county. Vicente takes his son's dimpled hand in his own, and talks in a cowboy voice through the gap in his teeth, "Everything here is fair game, son, except that there vegetable over yonder. That one's your grandpa."
Blast of trumpets. The boy doesn't laugh. He's heard this joke about his abuelo before, and it makes him incalculably, inexpressibly hurt somewhere he can't touch. He hates crying and not being able to explain why, desperate to find the words, the fuzzy frustration building up in his throat like when he can't get out of a sweater. Imprisoned in the cotton headhole until he can be rescued by his father, the anger and fear lingers in heart for minutes afterward.
The boy, Ramiro, is all of five years old, and sometimes when folding his vibrant little school clothes at the laundromat, a tear hangs from Vicente's expressionless dolphin eye for a brief moment, blighted low-hanging fruit. He wonders how could it be possible for someone to be this small.
The nurse nods to them as they shuffle into the room, speaking to Vicente, absurdly miming what it's like for his old man to have a urinary tract infection, wishing his father the happiest birthday possible under the circumstances. Ramiro somehow procures a small bag of carrots from her before she leaves, wheeling her cart and pulling back the curtain for privacy. Dad and grandad, respectively, remains a singular entity on the bed, one floppy anemic foot still twitching from the insertion of the new catheter, the happy happy birthday catheter. The plastic feeding tube in his salacious, almost carnal stomach hole bobs up and down like a buoy in the ocean, dripping a special, savory formula. Every two hours or so he is flipped in order to prevent bedsores, though anyone who's been in a bed this long is bound to get them eventually. Another year of this. His vacant eyes are vulgar and perpetually open, and his abundant atrophied flesh folds smell vaguely antiseptic, with some tasty fungus or mold spore fermenting darkly underneath.
It has happened, it will happen always. Vicente lifts up his boy from the ground to give him a better view. Ramiro touches abuelo's living void face and tries to find where the damage is, a carrot in his other hand. Why hasn't he ever said anything, he thinks. Deliquesced water chestnut head, a decomposition so absolute, so final. And yet he is still here, endlessly excreting, his soul traipsing through the hereafter, where nobody shits and nobody mindlessly undulates their body to the clinical rhythm of a urinary tract infection.
Vicente kept a bent piece of metal from the stock car for a long time underneath his bed. Thierry Dunne gave it to him at the surgery fundraiser with a mawkish smile, and even though he remembered what Dad said about him being a big piece of shit Québécois nationalist motherfucker, he clasped it squarely in his hand and thanked him quietly.
Mom, uncomfortable sangria kiss, all angular and perpetually corpse-cold, removed all the pictures of his father from the house after the accident. She never visited after the failed thalamic stimulator implant, the failed rehabilitation therapies. There seemed to be no point, perpetually unresponsive Cubano spittle baby, please do not resuscitate. So when she finally found the twisted red hunk underneath the bed, years later, she cried blankly. Her mouth was wide open, something was threatening to crawl outside of her throat and externalize itself. Black bile on the floor. The thin skin on her desiccated face moved through the will of an unseen force.
It happens the same way every time, in dreams and in waking dreams. He is twelve and all his friends call him Vic and he talks about his dad a) being famous (a lie) and b) teaching him to drive the stock car (a bigger lie).
In an instant, and only because of the dust, everything disintegrates. His father, blinded during the fifth lap, becomes the architect of his final calamity. Clipping that stupid prick Thierry Dunne, creating a nasty three car pile-up. Flame hot, fire hot, body hot. Through the melted nylon window net, his helmeted melon head makes contact with the retaining wall and splits open, flirtatiously exploding, his brain ceaselessly accelerating around and around his skull. Smoke and glass fragments everywhere on the track, and a sunburnt woman out in the stands drunkenly covers her child's eyes with her hands.
"That's a dead man if I ever saw one," she says, but she can't rightly see anything. Why do people pretend to see things they can't?
Effervescent mourning Vic and his stupid fake Catholic lipsticked mother, looking dumbly at the crumpled man in the intensive care unit. What are they supposed to do. Everything is irretrievably broken, the bandages on his head wet and fecund and altogether indecent with blood.
Spinning further and further out of orbit, more distant from his father's light with each passing day.
Another three years from then and Vicente is blowing into the ignition interlock device in his mother's car so it will start. She is drunk and hateful, as she always is after consuming a large quantity of meat and cheese and cheap fruit cocktails from the diner.
Soon it will be her third DUI, she clips a mailbox while exiting a drive-thru. Her right front wheel axle is on fire, and a piece of burning rubber shoots off and hits a kid on a skateboard. He is Dominican, for starters, and undocumented to boot, so she doesn't feel too bad about the burn she left through his shirt. Stranger in a flaming chariot. Their hearts will never intersect again.
Vestigial, beyond memory, Ramiro withdraws his touch. Another one of abuelo's tremulous involuntary movements has scared him. Vicente holds his son close. His own father is a million miles away from them, and God, and Daytona. He endures, unknowingly, until the end of time.
Later, safe at home, slurping ice cream on the couch together from plastic spoons. "You know you don't have to come with me if you don't want to," Vicente says, imbecilic chest hitch, anticipating rejection in all forms, even from his son. "I could just leave you with Griselda and pick you up when I'm done."
"I know. It's just that I think you need me," and it is in that moment that Ramiro becomes impossibly old.
Read Jasmine's other work on Tunnel here.
This entry was posted in: Flash Fiction, Words
Tagged with: flash fiction, jasmine morataya, si dios me quita la vida
Previous PostSenior Year Sorrows
Next Postreplacement faces: Benni, revisited.


text:
Report: Saints may trade Sean Payton for just a second round pick
According to NFL Media's Ian Rapoport, the New Orleans Saints may trade Sean Payton for just a second round pick. The Colts have been reported to be one of the teams interested in Payton.
By Josh Wilson@JoshWilsonSB Jan 4, 2016, 11:30am EST
Share All sharing options for: Report: Saints may trade Sean Payton for just a second round pick
Dale Zanine-USA TODAY Sports
As we await official word on the status of Colts head coach Chuck Pagano, it's worth paying attention to some of the reports floating around about potential targets whenever the Colts do decide to move on from Pagano. One of the names that is likely to garner a lot of attention from owner Jim Irsay is Saints head coach Sean Payton, who may be on the move this offseason.
It is expected that Irsay will want to hire a big-name, experienced head coach to replace Pagano, and Payton certainly fits the bill. Yesterday, NFL Media's Ian Rapoport reported that the Colts are expected to target Payton (along with Nick Saban) in their coaching search. Today, Rapoport notes what the price might be in order to make it happen, since Payton is currently under contract with the Saints: just a second round pick.
From what I am told, the potential price placed by the #Saints on Sean Payton is a 2nd rounder… That's what it'll take to pry him.
— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) January 4, 2016
According to CBS Sports' Jason La Canfora, the price might be even lower:
Would not be surprised if ultimately Sean Payton is dealt for a mid-round pick. He won't want new team to give up too much. Maybe a 4th
— Jason La Canfora (@JasonLaCanfora) January 4, 2016
I imagine that, if either of those reported prices are true, one of the biggest obstacles to Sean Payton winding up with the Colts would be greatly diminished. In getting Payton, the question would obviously be how much the team would need to give up in order to get him, but if it's simply a second round pick, I think that's something that Jim Irsay might be willing to do. Of course, it's not just that simple, as it would take the Colts targeting Payton and Payton agreeing on Indy, but if that works out I don't think the trade price would be that big of an obstacle if it's just a second rounder.
In nine seasons with the Saints, Payton has compiled an 87-57 record (.604) and has led New Orleans to three division titles, five playoff appearances, and a Super Bowl victory (coming against the Colts). Perhaps the most amazing thing of all from Payton's tenure with the Saints, however, is that in all nine seasons the Saints finished sixth or better in total offense, including five number one finishes. Furthermore, in seven of the nine seasons the Saints finished in the top ten in points scored, finishing first twice. Sean Payton can absolutely coach an offense, which makes the possibility of him coaching Andrew Luck an exciting one for Colts fans. His defense has been an issue in recent years in New Orleans, but if he hires a capable defensive coordinator, that shouldn't stand in the way of him winding up somewhere. If I'm the Colts, I'd absolutely be willing to give up a second round pick if it meant getting a guy like Sean Payton who could help get the most out of Andrew Luck and the offense.


You may remember Groundhog Day, the 1993 film starring Bill Murray. In it, Murray played a Pittsburgh TV weatherman who, during an assignment covering the annual Groundhog Day event in Punxsutawney, PA, found himself caught in a time loop, repeating the same day again and again.
On February 28, I was in a hearing in the Senate money committee, testifying on a bill. The bill sought to amend what those in the real estate industry know as "HARPTA," a law that requires people who buy Hawaii real estate from a nonresident seller to withhold 5% of the gross purchase price and pay it over to the Department of Taxation, as a way of making sure that the seller's capital gains tax gets paid. The bill, SB 508, would raise the withholding rate from 5% to 9%.
It was true. On January 29th, the same Senate committee held a hearing on SB 2506, which also proposed to raise the HARPTA withholding rate from 5% to 9%. At the conclusion of that day's hearing, the Committee passed the bill out with some amendments; the bill is now in the House.
But wait a minute. Withholding isn't tax. A huge revenue gain like that means either that (1) the withheld amount is being used to pay income tax that otherwise wouldn't be paid, or (2) it's being intercepted to pay other kinds of taxes, such as general excise and transient accommodations taxes on rental income that is coming from the property, that weren't getting paid and were brought to light when the property got sold. If the revenue gain goes up even when the withholding rate is higher than the income tax rate, it means the problem isn't income tax; it's the GET and TAT that aren't being paid.
If that's the real problem, this bill isn't the right solution. The solution needs to focus on the GET and TAT, which need to be paid on an ongoing basis rather than caught by chance in the end when the property is sold. So, how about imposing a withholding requirement on property managers or rental pool operators? It may be a bit of extra paperwork, but it may be better than requiring the rest of us to pay higher and more burdensome taxes to make up for the scofflaws, the blissfully ignorant, and others who owe the GET and TAT but aren't paying it.


text:
Q: Android Email sending failed with error Fail to send: IOException while sending message I have a mail sending application which sends email along with attachment. Every this is working fine except the attachment part. I am using this code. But I dont know what is missing or what is wrong in this code. please help. here is Attachment part.
    public void addAttachment(String filename) throws Exception {
    BodyPart messageBodyPart = new MimeBodyPart();
    DataSource source = new FileDataSource(filename);
    messageBodyPart.setDataHandler(new DataHandler(source));
    messageBodyPart.setFileName(filename);
    multipart.addBodyPart(messageBodyPart);
}

In my main activity I am using
public final static String APP_PATH_SD_CARD = "/Images_Book/";
String path = Environment.getExternalStorageDirectory().getAbsolutePath() + APP_PATH_SD_CARD;

@Override
protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
    super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
    setContentView(R.layout.activity_main);
    String mailBody = "Email is send along with attachment";
    Mail m = new Mail("FTP backup failed", mailBody);
    try {
        m.addAttachment(path);
        m.send();
    } catch (Exception e) {
        // TODO Auto-generated catch block
        e.printStackTrace();
    }

}

A: Try
 public final static String APP_PATH_SD_CARD = "/Images_Book/filetobeattached.ext";

Instead of
public final static String APP_PATH_SD_CARD = "/Images_Book/";

A: Update your function as below
public void addAttachment(File filename) throws Exception {
BodyPart messageBodyPart = new MimeBodyPart();
DataSource source = new FileDataSource(filename);
messageBodyPart.setDataHandler(new DataHandler(source));
messageBodyPart.setFileName(filename.getName());
multipart.addBodyPart(messageBodyPart);

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
class Solution {
	public:
		ListNode *reverseBetween(ListNode *head, int m, int n) {
			ListNode *pre = nullptr;
			ListNode *cur = head;
			int i = 1;
			// Get to the starting point
			while (i < m) {
				pre = cur;
				cur = cur->next;
				i += 1;
			}
			ListNode *start = pre; // The node right before the portion of the list to be reversed
			ListNode *reverseEnd = cur; // The node that will be at the end of the reversed portion
			// Reverse this portion of the list
			pre = nullptr;
			while (i <= n) {
				ListNode *temp = cur->next;
				cur->next = pre;
				pre = cur;
				cur = temp;
				i += 1;
			}
			reverseEnd->net = cur;
			if (start) {
				start->next = pre;
			} else {
				head = pre;
			}
			return head;
		}
};

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Troopergate is the popular name for a political controversy that emerged in the 1990s in which several Arkansas State Troopers claimed that they had arranged sexual liaisons for Arkansas governor Bill Clinton during his time in office (1979–81, 1983–92) and had helped deceive his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Core allegations

The allegations by state troopers Larry Patterson and Roger Perry were first reported by David Brock in the conservative magazine American Spectator, in a piece entitled "His Cheatin' Heart" that was released in December 1993 with a magazine publication date of January 1994.
Brock had learned of the story from a major donor to GOPAC who connected him with Cliff Jackson, a longtime critic of Governor Clinton.
Brock's story also included material from two other troopers who wished to remain unnamed. The same four troopers were also interviewed and their charges written about at length by the Los Angeles Times in a story published in December 1993 a day after the Spectator story came out. They also spoke on air to CNN in the same month.

The core allegations that the troopers made were that, while on official duty, they:

 Scouted women and asked them for their phone number to give to the governor;
 Secured motel rooms and other assignation points;
 Drove Clinton in state vehicles to these assignation points and kept watch while Clinton was inside;
 Lent Clinton their own state cars to make his escapes less noticeable;
 Delivered gifts to the women afterward; and
 Informed Clinton about where his wife was and lied to his wife about where he was.

The troopers said that these episodes involved dozens of women, from long-running mistresses to single encounters. As far as they were aware, all of the women involved had consented to the relationships and no alcohol abuse or drug abuse had been part of the encounters. One of the long-running mistresses was Gennifer Flowers, who had come forward with her tale of a 12-year relationship with the governor at the start of the Bill Clinton 1992 presidential campaign; this had caused an early crisis in that endeavor which Clinton and his wife had to address in a televised and much-discussed 60 Minutes interview.

As for the governor and his wife, Brock wrote that, "As the troopers saw it, the Clintons' relationship is an effective political partnership, more a business relationship than a marriage."

Context and response
The troopers said that only a select few of their ranks were privy to the Clinton secrets; several other troopers confirmed that they had no knowledge of such goings-on. The troopers conceded that they were interested in writing a book about their story. Nevertheless, a representative of two of the troopers maintained that their purpose was not prurient: "The issue was not his sexual proclivities. It was the abuse of power – the abuse of office that concerned them and concerned me." The Los Angeles Times story included documentary evidence that backed up some of the troopers' allegations.

During the latter part of 1993, Clinton and other administration officials made a determined effort to keep the troopers from going public with their claims. Two of the troopers said they had been offered federal jobs via the Clinton administration if they would maintain their silence. But no such offers actually materialized. Thus among Patterson's subsequent complaints was Clinton's alleged later behavior: "We lied for him and helped him cheat on his wife, and he treated us like dogs."

In response to the December 1993 trooper charges, Bruce Lindsey, who was a senior White House staffer, said: "These allegations are ridiculous. Similar charges were made, investigated and responded to during the campaign. There is nothing that dignifies a further response." Lindsey said that Clinton had specifically denied the central points of the allegations. Regarding the specific question of whether troopers were offered jobs for silence, Lindsey said that Clinton had telephoned one of them, but "any suggestion that the President offered anyone a job in return for silence is a lie."

No official findings
No investigation of the Troopergate allegations by any official state body of Arkansas appears to have taken place. Nor was it a subject of the 1990s Independent Counsel investigations into the Whitewater controversy and related matters. Clinton was never charged with any wrongdoing in relation to the Troopergate allegations. Larry Patterson was a spectator only.

Jones lawsuit
The Brock story had mentioned a woman named "Paula", a reference to the then-unknown Paula Jones. This reference was cited by Paula Jones in her May 1994 sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton. According to Gennifer Flowers's deposition in the suit, she claimed that Clinton told her to contact Larry Patterson or Roger Perry to communicate.

The lawsuit, Jones v. Clinton, was initially dismissed, whereupon Jones appealed. In 1998, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000, the entire amount of her claim, but without an apology, in exchange for her agreement to drop the appeal. Meanwhile, the Jones matter had begun a chain of events that led to exposure and instantiation of the Lewinsky scandal. Thus, arguably, state-level Troopergate indirectly led to the federal Impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Later developments with troopers
Following Brock's article, in 1994 four troopers conducted interviews with various allegations about Clinton and subsequently the New York Daily News stated that "one of the troopers is an accused wife beater, another was caught sleeping on the job, a third pleaded guilty to starting a barroom brawl and a fourth allegedly slept with a fellow trooper's wife."

Then in 1994 and 1995, Jerry Falwell paid $200,000 to Citizens for Honest Government, who in turn paid two Arkansas state troopers who had made allegations supporting a conspiracy about Vincent Foster in the  Clinton Chronicles video.  The two troopers, Roger Perry and Larry Patterson, also were paid after making their allegations in the Jones-Clinton trial.

Trooper Patterson, whose name would always be linked with the allegations, retired from the state force in 1999. In 2000 he was named the police chief of Quitman, Arkansas. In 2005, Patterson was convicted of making false statements to the FBI about an unrelated incident.

Brock apology
In a 1998 article for Esquire magazine, Brock said he wished he had never written the original Spectator story.
Following the admission, Brock publicly apologized to President Clinton for his Troopergate story, which he stated was written not "in the interest of good government or serious journalism," but as part of an "anti-Clinton crusade."

However, in his apology Brock did not say that anything in his 1993 article was specifically false: "I'm saying that story was bad journalism, that I don't stand by the story any more. I can't point to anything specific ... [that] might be wrong." He said that both he and the troopers had had impure motivations.

In his 2002 book, Blinded by the Right, Brock claimed that in order to maintain journalistic integrity, he agreed to write the Troopergate article only if the four troopers whom he interviewed were not paid. In 1998, a conservative fundraiser, Peter W. Smith, admitted that he had set up a "Troopergate Whistle Blower Fund" to support the troopers and their legal fees. He also arranged for the troopers to give paid speeches. Smith says he eventually paid about $80,000 on the case, including a $5,000 payment to Brock. Brock says the trooper payments were made without his knowledge.

See also
 Arkansas Project
 Clinton Chronicles
 Vast right-wing conspiracy

References

1993 in American politics
1994 in American politics
Federal political sex scandals in the United States
Bill Clinton
Extramarital relationships
Arkansas State Police
Clinton administration controversies

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


What made you join VideoSift?
I've been PMing schmawy recently, and I briefly mentioned to him that what finally made me join VS was finding this video. By itself I could write a whole Sift Talk post extolling its virtues, but I won't. Suffice it to say for now that it's an awesome, trippy video with great music.
Because of the aforementioned I've been really curious about what made all of you decide to jump into the mix that is VideoSift. I had been lurking here for months, but the video I just mentioned is what finally pushed me to join. Can any of you define similar moments of epiphany in which you finally said to yourself, "This is where I belong"?
I'd really love to hear them all. I respect the opinions of so many people here, even many of the ones with which I find myself in disagreement. Most of you express yourself so well with your choice of videos that I barely need to ask how you feel about this, that, or the other. However I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong on so many occasions, and that's yet another reason why I'd love to hear your stories.
This isn't a homework assignment for freshman English, mind you. Even a few sentences with imperfect grammar and multiple spelling errors will work for me. Share your story. It might not only be fun, but it may also help you identify kindred spirits in the community.


text:
1973 Herbie Hancock – Head Hunters
admin 1973, Albums	Harvey Mason Sr, Herbie Hancock	0
Head Hunters is the twelfth studio album by the American pianist and composer Herbie Hancock, released October 13, 1973, on Columbia Records. Recording sessions for the album took place in the evening at Wally Heider Studios and Different Fur Trading Co. in San Francisco, California. Head Hunters is a key release in Hancock's career and a defining moment in the genre of jazz. In 2003, the album was ranked number 498 in the book version of Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time. In 2007, the Library of Congress added it to the National Recording Registry, which collects "culturally, historically or aesthetically important" sound recordings from the 20th century.
1 Chameleon (Herbie Hancock; Harvey Mason Sr; Bennie Maupin; Paul Jackson) 15:44
2 Watermelon Man (Herbie Hancock) 6:31
3 Sly (Herbie Hancock) 10:21
4 Vein Melter (Herbie Hancock) 9:09
Bass Paul Jackson
Drums Harvey Mason Sr
Fender Rhodes Herbie Hancock
Synthesizer Herbie Hancock
Marimbula Paul Jackson
Clavinet Herbie Hancock
Clarinet Bennie Maupin
Flute Bennie Maupin
Sax Bennie Maupin
Pipe Herbie Hancock
Producer – David Rubinson, Herbie Hancock
Arranged By – Harvey Mason (Track 2)
Engineer (Recording) – Dane Butcher, Fred Catero, Jeremy Zatkin, John Vieira
Cover, Design – Victor Moscoso
Photography By – Waldo Bascom
Produced For – David Rubinson And Friends, Inc.
Recorded At – Wally Heider Studios
Recorded At – Different Fur Studios
Phonographic Copyright (p) – CBS Inc.
Record Company – Catero Sound Company
Mastered At – Customatrix
Mastered At – Columbia Records Pressing Plant, Santa Maria
Pressed By – Columbia Records Pressing Plant, Pitman
2019 Don Felder – American Rock 'N' Roll	1985 Eric Martin – Information (US:#87)


CHICAGO -- The Red Sox have a new closer, but it may be awhile before he lands in Fenway Park.
Craig Hansen, the highly touted pitcher from St. John's University, came to terms on a four-year, major league contract that will pay him a total of $4 million. The deal has not been announced, but Hansen is expected to be at the team's training facility in Fort Myers, Fla., today.
The expectation is that Hansen will remain in Fort Myers, getting himself in pitching shape, before he is assigned to one of the team's minor league affiliates. The assumption is Hansen will either be assigned to Single A Wilmington in the Carolina League or Double A Portland.
Although remote, it's possible the Sox could add Hansen to the big-league roster before the end of the season to bolster the bullpen, depending on what other moves the club makes.
With a week remaining before the July 31 trading deadline, the Sox have not abandoned hopes of landing lefthanded reliever J.C. Romero from the Twins, though they were exploring other options. The Sox are down a lefty since designating Alan Embree for assignment, a move that shocked his bullpen mates. Embree, who had a clause in his contract requiring the Sox to pay him an extra $1 million if traded, is expected to have a number of suitors if the Sox are unable to trade him within the requisite 10-day period and he becomes a free agent. The Yankees, Padres, Mets, Diamondbacks, and White Sox could have interest.
The Red Sox may have picked up some serious competition in the A.J. Burnett sweepstakes. The White Sox have packaged top prospect Brendan McCarthy along with reliever Damaso Marte in attempt to pry the righthander from the Marlins. That's an attractive proposition for the Marlins, though there is a potential snag: The White Sox reportedly will not go through with that deal without signing prospective free agent Burnett to a contract extension.
The Orioles are also serious bidders for Burnett. They are currently in the process of unloading Sidney Ponson to the Padres for first baseman Phil Nevin in an exchange of unwieldy contracts. But Nevin has a no-trade provision in his contract that allows him to veto a trade, and the native Californian has exercised a veto in the past when he nixed a deal that would have sent him to Cincinnati for Ken Griffey.
Hansen was the 26th player drafted overall and the second player taken in the first round by the Sox, who earlier gave a $1.4 million signing bonus to Oregon State center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury, currently playing for the Single A Lowell Spinners.
Hansen at one time was considered a possible No. 1 choice overall by the Arizona Diamondbacks, according to Baseball America, but he may have slid in the first round because of signability issues and the fact that his agent was Scott Boras.
Hansen, who grew up in Long Island and was followed closely by Sox scout Ray Fagnant, throws a fastball clocked around 97 miles per hour and also has a plus slider. Last summer, he worked out at Fenway Park for general manager Theo Epstein and pitching coach Dave Wallace, who taught him his changeup, Hansen said in a recent interview.
The Big East pitcher of the year and a first-team All-America selection, Hansen's stock rose dramatically last summer after a dominating performance in the Cape Cod League, where he went 1-1 with 10 saves, did not allow an earned run, and struck out 41 while walking just two in 22 innings.
At St. John's, he was 2-2 with a 1.41 ERA and a school-record 14 saves to go with 77 strikeouts and 17 walks in 57 innings.


text:
Q: How to use JTAG to connect external ST-LINK/V2 with STM32F407VG discovery board? I want to isolate the on-board stlink, and use an external ST-Link/v2 to program/flash the board. I have a 20-pin JTAG connector. This is just a temporary, proof-of-concept project.
I have removed the jumpers from CN3 pins as instructed here:
How to Use an External ST-Link/V2 with the STM32F4 Discovery Board
I cannot comment on that post because I do not have enough rep points.
I connected:
(JTAG) SWDIO -> PA13
(JTAG) SWCLK -> PA14
(JTAG) GND -> GND
(JTAG) VAPP -> 3V/VDD, as instructed
Also, the post says not to connect the USB. I am not sure which USB this is referring to. An external ST-Link/v2 needs to be powered by an USB, and so does the board. I have tried this: 1)connect only the ST-Link/v2 usb, but this is not enough to power the board. 2)connect only the board usb, but this does not power ST-Link/v2.
I am a beginner and I am using the Linux terminal. I have successfully flashed an example "blinky" program to the board.
I would be very grateful if someone could assist me. Thank you.


Construction Simulator 2015 Download PC player gets here the opportunity to play as many as 100 missions in which the task is to create as many as 15 different buildings m.in blocks of flats, agricultural and industrial buildings or supermarkets. The Construction Simulator 2015 Download Game raise individual structures using a variety of machines that appear on the site.
Extension modules gameplay contained in Bau-Simulator 2015 is also an option to acquire a developer license, which allows you to put yourself in a real estate agent and sales of previously created objects to individual tenants. Proper execution of all tasks specified by the game also gives the opportunity to unlock special operations and missions.


text:
Home Article OPTIMISM.
OPTIMISM.
I do think it's good news that Tom Vilsack has expressed opposition to the tariff on Brazilian sugar cane. Corn ethanol is inefficient and only survives through subsidy. Cellulosic ethanol isn't ready. But if you want to make ethanol a bridge fuel, allowing Brazilian imports is the way to go. Wikipedia explains:
Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is far more efficient than the U.S. corn-based industry. Sugar cane ethanol has an energy balance 7 times greater than ethanol produced from corn. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol. U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. Despite this cost differential in production, the U.S. does not import more Brazilian ethanol because of U.S. trade barriers corresponding to a tariff of 54-cent per gallon – a levy designed to offset the 51-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.
Corn ethanol, by contrast, is Agribusiness's get-rich-quick scheme masquerading as an energy policy.


2B: Tor 4, C. Granderson 2 (7), D. Smith Jr. (3), J. Smoak (10). NYM 2, W. Flores 2 (6).
HR: Tor 3, R. Ureña (1), J. Smoak (6), T. Hernández (7). NYM 1, B. Nimmo (2).
HR Detail: Tor, R. Ureña (Inning: 9 , 2 Out, 2 on) off B. Baumann, Tor, J. Smoak (Inning: 1 , 2 Out, 0 on) off Z. Wheeler, Tor, T. Hernández (Inning: 4 , 1 Out, 1 on) off Z. Wheeler. NYM, B. Nimmo (Inning: 9 , 2 Out, 0 on) off D. Barnes.
Scoring Position: Tor - 5 for 13.NYM - 0 for 3.
Umpires: HP--Lentz, 1B--Randazzo, 2B--Barrett, 3B--Welke.


Kelly Adair has 10 years of experience within the medical industry and in the field of health technologies. He has been involved and engaged in all aspects of the medical industry, including; sales, marketing, research and education. You can view Kelly's full profile over on TheSteadmanClinic.com.
© 2018 Steadman Philippon Research Institute. All Rights Reserved.


text:
In 2021 we made huge leaps forward for our customers and company, from evolving our credit product to launching new tools to help customers grow to raising $145 million in Series E funding.
Here's a look back at the year's biggest highlights.
We raised $145 million in Series E funding.
Our new round was led by Upstart with participation from the Stellar Development Foundation – two visionary organizations that share our commitment to financial inclusion. We're already putting our new funding to work building the largest financial platform for the global underbanked – and scaling the team needed to deliver our ambitious vision.
We launched inventive new products to help customers grow.
We launched a first-of-its-kind lending product that allows customers to choose their own repayment date to better match their income flows. We began testing a new Tala account experience that offers customers ways to save and manage their money while building their credit with Tala. We tested loans with larger and longer terms to better support customers who are ready to leverage credit for bigger aspirations. We've added new models, new payment offers, new marketing channels, new frameworks… the list goes on.
We sealed a partnership with Visa to drive crypto adoption in emerging markets.
The partnership, along with additional collaboration from Circle and Stellar, represents a massive opportunity to deliver on the promise of the crypto economy and bring fair financial services to people who need them most.
We were named one of Forbes' Top 50 Fintech companies in the world.
Tala was also named one of CNBC's Disruptor 50 companies in 2021 and highlighted in TechCrunch, Forbes and more. See more at Tala.co/press.
We brought on key senior leaders and 132 new team members.
Kelly Uphoff joined as our new CTO in late September to help take Tala's technology to a new level. Kelly previously served as VP of Data Science and Engineering at Netflix where she spent 10 years bridging the worlds of product, content and marketing through data and technology. We also welcomed SVP Engineering Jason Raneses; SVP Operations, Ishan Gupta; and VP Performance Marketing Julia Randhawa to Team Tala. We're currently hiring across our global org – check out our open roles and join our mission-driven team!
Thank you to the entire Tala community for choosing Tala as your financial partner and for your belief in our mission. We can't wait to show you what's in store for 2022.
Lessons From a Changing Lending Industry in Kenya
The digital lending landscape is changing in Kenya. Here's how we can move things forward.
Measuring and Optimizing for Financial Health
To track our progress towards our mission, we needed a way to quantify, measure, and track financial health among our customers.
Tala 2019: Our Year In Review
Here's a look at the past year, and a nod to what the next decade of financial innovation has to hold.
This holiday season Tala paid for over 70 customers to reunite with family and friends. Here are their stories.


Excavating NJ offers engineering and design of septic systems in NJ, and we have over 8,000 projects completed since the year 2000. Our customers are current and potential home and business owners while many of our customers are real estate investors, real estate professionals, land developers, and even new home builders. If you live or need work done in northern or central New Jersey, there is a good chance that we've worked in your neighborhood.
Why trust your repairs or installations to anybody but the best? Excavating NJ™ will evaluate your septic system requirements, offer alternative solutions when possible, and provide complete oversight during the entire process. Unfortunately, the septic system repair and installation profession is not licensed in New Jersey and the result is often a costly disaster. Check with us before proceeding with your project, consultations are always free.
Advance Treatment Systems provide a better and greener alternative to keeping your septic system functioning for years to come. We have designed and built a vast majority of those systems currently being used in Northern New Jersey. Due to new rules recently issued by the NJ DEP, these systems can now make your property look better, help the environment and save you money while keeping your septic system from failing and lasting many years longer.
Stop your septic system from failing before it starts, or turn back the clock for systems that are already having problems. Did you know that a new septic system can cost tens of thousands of dollars to replace?


Accepting employment with the Village of Mt. Zion is an important decision. It's vital to have all the facts at hand in order to make the right decision for you and your family as you make an informed decision.


Feb 7, 2017 Australian Movies: 5230. B-Horror Movies: 8195. Baseball Movies: 12339. Basketball Movies: 12762. Belgian Movies: 262. Biographical Docs. Create your free blog with Blogger. Your blog is whatever And a preschool, the San Ysidro School District serves more than 5230 students. San Ysidro School District received 10 new televisions donated by Samsung, Athlete Featured in 'McFarland USA' to Speak at Willow School Movie Night The Tilted Kilt at Westfield Mission Valley, 1640 Camino Del Rio N , San Diego. Mar 16, 2017 Several Google Home users report that their smart speaker served them an ad for the new Beauty and the Beast movie today. Twitter user.
May 14, 2015 I've been waiting for this package for a long time. This is the Samsung Galaxy Gear VR Innovator Edition for the Samsung Galaxy S6 and the. Berlinale Talents is a six-day creative platform for emerging filmmakers. It consists of the Summit programme, Project Labs, Studio programmes and workshops. Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/users/7/700701/domains/moetv.org/engine/classes/templates.class. Walmart Supercenter in Antioch. Get Walmart store hours and driving directions, buy online, and pick up in-store at 4893 Lone Tree Way, Antioch, CA 94531.


Campouts, cookouts and summer evenings just got a little brighter with Sportcraft's new Fireball game.
The Fireball Light Up Toss comes with two jai-alai-type launchers and a ball that glows in the dark. LED lights inside the basket of the launchers charge up the ball, which glows as it flies through the sky for 1) an entertaining after-dark game and 2) some darn cool visual effects that make other campers stick their heads out of their RVs and say, "What the heck is that thing?"
Tossing the glowing ball back and forth is part of the fun, but the kids we tested it out on quickly started freestyling, experimenting with different techniques for catching and throwing that made cool patterns of light. We loved that they had something active and fun to do at night, because ghost stories only get you so far.
The Fireball is recommended for kids ages 6 and up and retails for about $15 at Target, Wal-Mart and Amazon.


text:
module EventsHelper

  def show_map?(event)
    event.photos.with_gps.exists?
  end
end


text:
Q: Service stops without OnStop() I have a service which creates a FileSystemWatcher inside OnStart and I want the service to end only after a file is created
So I have this code
protected void OnStart()
        {

            try
            {
                using (FileSystemWatcher watcher = new FileSystemWatcher())
                {
                    watcher.Path = WatchPath;
                    watcher.NotifyFilter = NotifyFilters.LastWrite;
                    watcher.Filter = "*.txt";
                    watcher.IncludeSubdirectories = false;
                    watcher.Changed += OnCreated;
                    watcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true;
                    logEvents.Write(MyLogClass.LogLevel.Info, "Watcher created");
                }
            }
            catch (Exception ex)
            {
                logEvents.Write(MyLogClass.LogLevel.Info, ex.Message);
            }

            if (finished)
            {
                OnStop();
            }
        }

The bool "finished" is only set to true in the last line of OnCreated
private void OnCreated(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
        {
            //Here I do all the stuff I need and then:
            finished = true;
        }

But even when OnCreated is not executed the service ends and I get:
"The program - has exited with code 0 (0x0)."
I've tried calling OnStop() in different parts of the code but the same thing happens anyways. I'd like the service to stay still until a given file is created and to start over when OnCreated is done, but I don't know what's wrong in this.

A: A FileSystemWatcher, by itself, isn't enough to keep a process running. When no events are being serviced, no threads are required, and even when one is required it'll be a background thread.
What a process needs to stay running is a foreground thread. It doesn't matter what that thread is doing, so long as at least one exists.
It doesn't look like you have any useful work for such a thread to do - but you need one. I suggest you create a thread that just waits for a ManualResetEvent to become set. You then use that, rather than your finished variable, to indicate when you want the service to shut down.
At that point, the foreground thread exits, no foreground threads are left, the process shuts down and the service becomes stopped.

Note that you have to create a new thread for this waiting work. The thread on which OnStart (and OnStop) is called doesn't "belong" to you. It's a thread that services the Service Control Manager, and you need to let it do that.

A: Your code is executing once and then ending.
You need a loop with a sleep timer around the main code to keep it alive.  And in here embed your check for finished.
Edit:
As mentioned in the comments.
I missed that you were doing this in OnStart.  The loop shouldn't be done here otherwise windows will think that you service failed to start.  So you will also need to refactor this.


The Samson 9-Pc Dining Room Set exudes the timeless look of the French countryside with it's warm, cottage-inspired look. The centerpiece of this collection, the Samson Table, features a dark oak tabletop with rich grain patterns. Its trestle table base is a beautiful farmhouse white and creates a cohesive look with matching chairs. Two 12" leaves help this table extend from an intimate 74" to an accommodating 102" for larger get-togethers. The Samson chairs feature the same signature design with nailhead trim around the easy-to-clean faux leather. Give your dining space an airy makeover with the Samson Dining Room Set. Includes table and eight side chairs.


text:
Paris, France: Europe & Middle East Politics: Are My Life!
Juan Luis Buñuel
Driving around with Juan Luis Buñuel in Paris!
From Mid 1980s Iran Arms Deal: Close friend of My Dad, Mr. Manucher Ghorbanifar, answers questions from American reporter Barbara Walters, while friend Adnan Khashoggi listens in.
New Figure in Iran Arms Deal: December 11, 1986, My father is introduced to the world for tipping off the CIA Director and personal friend William Casey, that funds were missing from the deal. Where usa was trading weapons to Iran to free American Hostages.
Local Channel ABC 7 NYC: Iran Contra Affair, also introducing Dad. Also in this clip a short clip/interview of family friend the late Mr. Adnan Khashoggi, on his plane as he answered questions from Barbara Walters. My Dad has told me he was on Khashoggi's plane couple times..
December 11, 1986: My Father As The Breaking Headline News on CNN, Being Introduced To The World For Iran Contra Affair
August 14, 1959: Birth of LA LAKERS Great Earvin "Magic" Johnson
By 16eparis on 2016-08-16
Yesterday August 14, 2016 was NBA LA Lakers Super Star Earvin "Magic" Johnson's 57th Birthday. As his birthday came and went, I was thinking back to the time I was lucky enough to see the 1988 NBA Finals; LA Lakers versus the Detroit Pistons. I actually was coming back home to Brooklyn Heights after living in Honolulu, Hawaii's suburb area of Kaimuki for the past 11 months before the games.
It just so happens that it was a family friend of ours New York Post Sports writer Peter Vecsey invited me back then to meet up with him in LA on my way back to NYC from Hawaii to be able to see the first two NBA Finals Home games of the Lakers with him. Although, for Game 1, I did 'not' actually have a seat to sit, but with the "Press Pass Game 1" that was enough to 'let me in'. I remember I was 'walking around' the stadium as the game was being played. Just being there, as the crowd roared and knowing that this game was being watched by millions world wide to some extent, was something that even made me at the time realize how lucky I was just to be there, even if I was unable to 'sit and enjoy it'. If my memory serves me correctly, I think the Lakers did lose game 1. But it was fun to be there regardless.
I then remember after Game 1 came to an end, Pete had to do some work at the stadium within the 'press room'. I remember he told me to 'hang out and wait' for him, and I did. So in this one small room, that had only a 'pull curtain' to separate it from 'the outside' still literally next door to the court, I waited inside. I must of waited over an hour. I remember that the NBA Commissioner David Stern at the time
David Stern
was inside the same room with me and few other Press people. I remember I was looking at some of the few xeroxed copied sheets that were on the table with notes about the game that was just played. I was there minding my own business, observing things, making sure 'not' to be in anyone's way. Then, as I stood next to this one long table with the xerox sheets, David Stern was standing right next to me. I remember he sort of bent down, and was as if trying to look me straight in the eye. At that time, I wasn't sure who he was either. He then got my attention and asked me something like: "What are you doing here"? "Who are you with"? I then said: "Oh, I'm sorry. I am waiting for my friend who is working here". Stern asked me: "Who's your friend"? I answered: "Pete. Peter Vecsey". David Stern then said something like: "Oh, ok, no problem" – and then he walked away.
I also remember as I was hanging out waiting for Peter to come back, I would every now and then step out on to the court and walk around quietly – as I remember being in awe walking on the LA Lakers Basketball court. I then remember overhearing a very deep voice and it caught my attention. Sure enough, it was LA Laker AC Green. He had just showered and was all cleaned up after the game. I remember just being maybe 12 feet away from him. As he was talking to someone else, he at one point glared over at me, as I was staring at him. It was truly weird having this chance to be in that one spot.
Now, let me preface all of this too: when the game had actually finished, I had to meet up with Peter where he was up on the stands in the special area of all the press people – and by the time the game finished, Pete had me follow him to get down to the press box. Here's the funny thing about all of this: from where we were and where Pete wanted to get to, we had to go down few hallways and couple stairways, one of which went through the LA Lakers Cheerleaders changing room! 🙂 I will never forget this – Peter had told me that it would be very crowded, and to "stick close" to him, as we walked through this narrow , very narrow hallway with stairs. I will never forget that as we walked down the last step, there was a LA Laker Cheerleader directly in front of me, as her top part holding her breasts, were dripping sweat and her bare stomach and all, right within inches of me! As a young kid back then, and most often being used to seeing those cheerleaders on TV, it was truly something I couldn't believe I was actually able to see in real life, more so as a single guy in my early 20s back then. But that moment of bliss, didn't last long – as we maneuvered ourselves to the smaller press room on court side.
By the time Peter came back as I was still waiting for his return in the smaller press room with all the tables and xerox copies of info, He walked in with a big smile on his face. He called my name; "Erik"? I turned – and within seconds, this yellow shirt was flying at me. I caught it – and looked at it, and unbelievably, it was an autographed t-shirt from Magic himself. Peter had told me: "I was talking with Magic, hanging out with him by his locker – and I said: I got a family friend with me, who is from NYC and is a Big Laker Fan, you got anything to give him"? Pete told me he grabbed his t-shirt from the locker and then signed it! I still have this t-shirt to this day, years later!
By the time we left the stadium that night, we were walking the back way and sure enough, we see Magic standing in the hallway ,talking with a kid in a wheel-chair. I ask Pete if we could stop and try to get few minutes with him – and well, sure enough we decided to wait. So we waited for a good half hour, but Magic was still talking. By now, I was feeling really awkward – for we were so close that it was almost as if we could be staring at them as they talked. In the end, I decided to not wait and that just getting the t-shit autographed was enough – and as I look back, it really was.
Peter Vecsey
I will never forget that night – Peter and I headed back to our hotel and we had a late night snack or something and well, for the three total nights I was lucky enough to stay with him for the two games…was something I will never forget.
Although, Peter did offer one more amazing offer to me before I left LA to go back home to Brooklyn. He told me that he was going to have a 'Guys week-end getaway" at his home on Shelter Island, Long Island – New York, and he invited me to be a part of it. He said he was going to have two of his closest friends there for the entire week-end too, and he forewarned that 'not much would happen', but we would; as he put it; "just hang out". I asked him; who else would be there? He informed me that LA Laker Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
and "Dr. J" Julius Erving would also be there too.
The thing I learned was that when Peter got married to his wife Joan Misciagna (Joan's maiden name) "Dr. J" was Pete's Best Man at the wedding. So, this is how it worked – plus don't forget, Peter is a sports writer for a NYC Tabloid Newspaper, The New York Post.
Joan Misciagna Sr on left with her other daughter Ellen. Peter's mother-in-law Sadly she passed away yrs ago.
So – the high-powered sports connections occurred due to the few friends we had over the years, and it just happened to turn out this way. The other interesting note to our former friend Peter (Since now its been zillions of years since we were in touch…..) is that by the time Peter married his wife Joan Jr, and when they had their first daughter – they decided to name their daughter after my sister who passed away in 1981. My sister's name was Kari. And when Peter and Joan had their daughter, they named her: Taylor Kari Vecsey. That was a nice gesture as a way to keep my sister and her soul alive, forever.
Categories: Main Blog Page
Tagged as: basketball, DR J, Earvin Magic Johnson, Julius Erving, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, LA Lakers, NBA, New York, NY Post, Peter Vecsey, Shelter Island
The Loss Of A "Prince"
My August 1987 Weekend at the Rockefeller Estate in Tarrytown, New York with Nelson Jr
Dad's First Sidewalk Interview
My Father Roy M Furmark NBC Nightly News Interview
My Personal Interaction With Former NBA Commissioner David Stern: September 22, 1942 – January 1, 2020
"Where's My Baby"? The Blood-Curdling Scream Of Pan Am Flight 103 Victim's Family Member: 30 Years Ago Today Is What Has Stayed With Me!
That's The Middle East Game: Sit & Wait
A Collage Full Of Power & Prestige
DECEMBER 6, 2017: THE DEATH OF A "FOX"; MY FRIEND JUAN LUIS BUÑUEL
ABC NEWS NIGHTLINE: Hashemi Brothers, Khashoggi, Dad. In this clip Ted Koppel Calls Dad "Canadian Businessman" by mistake.
Summer 1987 Iran Contra Affair Hearing – Oliver North Testifies whilst mentioning Dad's name with insert
PBS CLIP: "The October Surprise": mentioning those 'players' who tried to help Free Hostages. Dad mentioned, however, like usual the press gets it wrong calling him "Arms Dealer"
PBS News Clip Jim Lehrer: December 11, 1986, Where the late Jim Lehrer who passed away on January 23, 2020, introduces my father Roy after his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee
Top categories: Main Blog Page


TEMPE, Ariz.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--US Airways Group, Inc. (NYSE:LCC) will conduct a live audio webcast of its second quarter 2011 financial results conference call with the financial community on Thursday, July 21 at 1:30 p.m. EDT (10:30 a.m. PDT).
The webcast will be available to the public on a listen-only basis at the company's website, www.usairways.com. An archive of the webcast will be available on the site through August 21. Listeners to the webcast will need a current version of Windows MediaPlayer software and at least a 28.8 kbps connection to the Internet.