For this month's Barrie Summy's Book Review Club, I'm doing short reviews of a mystery series I've been enjoying this year featuring a female sleuths: Lady Darby.
Keira, Lady Darby, is the widow of a notorious anatomist who married her because of her artistic talent and then forced her to illustrate his anatomy book by observing autopsies. There was a scandal after his death and her part became public knowledge. She has been hiding out at her sister and brother-in-law's estate in Scotland, until her sister decides to throw a house party and all the old pain comes back. The other guests treat her with disdain and mutter about her behind her back. Then one of the female guests is murdered in a brutal fashion, and Keira is asked to help Sebastian Gage, who has some experience as an inquiry agent. Her anatomy training comes in handy, but she has a hard time dealing emotionally. Very engaging main character and excellent mystery.
Mortal Arts is one of the most emotional mysteries I've ever read. In this book, Keira (Lady Darby) learns that a childhood friend who she thought had died was instead committed to an insane asylum nine years ago. Now he is out, but kept locked up at the family castle. Will may be Lord Dalmay, but is he stable enough to be around people? After serving in the military during the Napoleonic Wars, he came home with a severe case of PTSD, which was not understood at the time. Like Keira, he's an artist who acted as her drawing master when she was a teen. She saw his troubled drawings then and sympathizes, esp. since her evil former husband had threatened her with a similar fate if she didn't do what he wanted. Her protectiveness of Will interferes with her burgeoning relationship with Sebastian Gage, who shows up at Dalmay House also. Then a young local woman disappears. The specter of the asylum hangs over everything in this terrific mystery.
Heather Wilds's narration is stellar. I especially love listening to the Scottish accents.
The story opens on New Year's Eve, 1830, at a Hogmanay ball in the Scottish border country. Keira, Lady Darby, and her brother Trevor are in attendance at the home of their aunt and uncle. All is in preparation for the First Footing, in which a carefully chosen member of the household (a dark-haired man) is set to be the first person to cross the threshold after Midnight. (In Scottish tradition, the hair color of the first footer indicates whether good or bad luck will prevail in the coming year. A fair-haired man, or heaven forfend, a woman arriving first is Bad Luck.) Things go awry when a young red-headed man rushes into the hall to report a murder at nearby Dryburgh Abbey. A caretaker was shot to death when he disturbed grave robbers digging up the bones of the late Lord Buchan.
At her uncle's bequest, Keira reluctantly writes to Sebastian Gage to ask him to investigate. Once again, they are thrown together and stumble into a puzzling conspiracy to steal and then ransom the bones of prominent Scotsmen. Grave robbing was fairly common in this era, though typically only recently buried graves were exhumed so the corpses could be sold to anatomists. Why someone would be stealing skeletons is a real puzzlement.
Keira and Gage's romance heats up again, and his presence helps her to find her muse and start painting again, after weeks of struggling to put paint to canvas. Another good read/listen, though not as engrossing as the first two books.
Note: Trip to Harry Potter World was postponed, so I'll be here to blog hop after all.
As always, click on the graphic below for more great reads in the Barrie Summy Book Review Club.
Click icon for more book review blogs @Barrie Summy.
This entry was posted in Book Review Club and tagged A Grave Matter, Anna Lee Huber, audiobook, Book review club, Heather Wilds, Lady Darby Mystery Series, Mortal Arts, reviews, The Anatomist's Wife by Linda / Lyndi. Bookmark the permalink.
Love the Maisie Dobbs books I have read but the other is new to me.
The Lady Darby Mystery series is much more historical, but that's a subgenre I enjoy a lot.
How funny! I was just reading about Hogmanay yesterday when researching other countries' new year traditions. These books have such interesting premises. I think I'll follow your lead and try the audio version. There's something about accents and audio books. 🙂 Thank you for reviewing. I hope you're having a fun Harry Potter day!
Alas, we postponed the trip to HP World. Everything is still so crowded this week.
I think audiobooks are always better with accents!
My kids went to HP World! I hope you make it!
Great reviews. I'm not sure if it's an author for me, I'll have to think about it!
That's the cool thing about reading. There's so much variety. Something for everyone!
I love the first 2 covers – Scotland would be a great setting for an historical mystery.
I'm really enjoying the Scottish setting, though I think some of the later books move south into England. So many of the historical mysteries are set in London, so it's nice to have a different setting.
Looks intriguing. Thanks for the reviews! It can really be challenging to provide a review for a series, and you did a great job with it.
Thank you, Stacy. I tried not to include any spoilers. That is the challenge of reviewing a series.


text:
The blast games pro are for children aged 9 to 16 and consist of a total of seven robotic challenges/disciplines. Depending on their momentum, the participating teams have the opportunity to compete and distinguish themselves either in three (triathlon), five (pentathlon), or in all seven (heptathlon) challenges.
A team that has chosen to participate only in the triathlon is not entitled to participate in the pentathlon or heptathlon. Similarly, a group that has chosen to participate in the pentathlon is not entitled to participate in the heptathlon. On the contrary, a team that has chosen to participate in the pentathlon or heptathlon has the right to compete in all the smaller categories. This ensures a fair ranking of the teams throughout the competition, according to their individual skills. For example, a team that finished fourth in heptathlon could be the champion of the season in triathlon and/or pentathlon and/or be able to win individual distinctions.
The platform used in the blast games pro is LEGO® MINDSTORMS® EV3.
Can you withstand the most tiring endurance race? Combine the perfect coding with clever building and travel between and beyond the lines.
This is your chance to go as far away as possible! Use your knowledge in physics and engineering to create a robot that will throw the ball further and break all records!
Can you accurately follow the winding path? It's a challenge that is tougher than it sounds… Enter through the color gates and run as fast as you can.
It's your team against gravity! Challenge your engineering skills to build a robot with unbeatable traction and torque.
Welcome to the wrestling arena and get ready to rumble! Take on the role of a muscled wrestler by creating your robot and pushing your opponent out of the ring in an exciting match.
A special challenge that requires perfect building in order to be able to travel from one box to another!
It's all about that red! Collect all the red blocks without stepping into the blue obstacles and run as fast as you can. Remember, details make the difference!
blast (build and learn art • science • technology) is an innovative educational concept based in Athens, Greece. blast is the founder and owner of the blast games
official LEGO® Education partner and exclusive organizer of the blast games in Shanghai, Zhejiang, Jiangsu and Anhui.
the blast games are endorsed by the LEGO® Education office in China

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Celebrate New Year (or Hogmanay!) in style with our range of New Year Breaks in Yorkshire designed to take the stress out of the biggest party night of the year. From black-tie banquets to impressive fire work displays, our New Year specials have it all right there for you.


text:
Lawaspect.com
Plagiarism Cheker
Essay Category
Law Notes
Campbell v. Louisiana
PETITIONER:Campbell
RESPONDENT:Louisiana
LOCATION:The White House
DOCKET NO.: 96-1584
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)
LOWER COURT: Louisiana Supreme Court
CITATION: 523 US 392 (1998)
ARGUED: Jan 20, 1998
DECIDED: Apr 21, 1998
ADVOCATES:
Dmitrc I. Burnes – Argued the cause for the petitioner
Richard I. Ieyoub – Argued the cause for the respondent
Richard P. Ieyoub – for respondent
Facts of the case
erry Campbell, a white man, was indicted for second-degree murder by a grand jury in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana. Campbell moved to quash the indictment by citing a long history of racial discrimination in the selection of grand jury forepersons in Evangeline Parish. No African-American had served as a foreperson for the past 16 years despite the fact twenty percent of the registered voters were black. Campbell claimed such practices violated his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process rights. A Louisiana trial judge denied Campbell's challenge, holding that he lacked standing as a white man complaining about the exclusion of African-Americans from serving as forepersons. The Louisiana Court of Appeal overruled the trial judge and decided Campbell had standing. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.
Does the exclusion of other races other than the defendant's violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
William H. Rehnquist:
We'll hear argument next in Number 96-1584, Terry Campbell v. Louisiana.
Mr. Burnes, we'll hear from you.
Dmitrc I. Burnes:
Chief Justice, and may it please the Court–
Petitioner Terry Campbell has been improperly denied standing to raise the equal protection, due process, and Sixth Amendment fair crosssection objections to the grand jury which indicted him.
Despite the acknowledged and undisputed de facto racial discrimination practiced against African Americans in Evangeline Parish, petitioner was denied the opportunity to object solely because he is white.
The case is about race, and the case is about racial discrimination.
The case is about petitioner's equal protection, due process, and Sixth Amendment claims.
The case is not about gender, retroactive application to other cases, or overturning Hobby.
The facts in the case are simple and undisputed.
Number 1, African Americans were not being selected as grand jury forepersons and number 2, petitioner was prevented from objecting to number 1 solely because he is white.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
Is it true that there's never been a nonwhite foreman in Evangeline County?
I would not know past the evidence presented to the trial court.
For the period of evidence presented to the trial court there was never a black selected.
I don't know historically, back through the Louisiana Purchase–
But you're saying from the years… what time frame are we talking about that there has been no nonwhite?
–A 16-1/2 year time period during which generally there are supposed to be two grand juries selected each year.
One year I believe there was only one grand jury selected, so it was a string of 35 consecutive white grand jury forepersons.
There's a difference in the way the foreperson is selected in New Orleans, is that right?
I believe there is, Your Honor.
Is the experience any different there?
I would not know that.
I haven't looked into that, Your Honor.
So you don't know whether Evangeline County is unique in Louisiana or represents the general way things are–
I would say, Your Honor, that there have been cases brought up in a lot of the parishes in Louisiana, in Sabine Parish, I believe in Lafayette Parish and Lake Charles.
I don't have a list of exactly which parishes, but I know that this has been brought up in a lot of the parishes there.
Sandra Day O'Connor:
–This same issue?
The issue of nonselection of whites to the grand jury–
So apparently other parishes are doing the same thing.
–To a greater or lesser extent, yes, sir.
Yes, Your Honor.
Uhhuh.
Let me ask you, since you're interrupted, how… you make a faircrosssectionofthejury claim with regard to the foreperson of the jury?
That is correct, Your Honor.
Fair crosssection, Sixth Amendment fair crosssection claims, generally–
How would that work in connection with a single person, a foreperson?
How would we apply a faircrosssection theory to that?
I guess you have a couple of other theories, equal protection and due process, but it certainly isn't clear to me how a fair crosssection claim could be made out.
–You're right, Your Honor, in prior courts… in prior cases this Court has found problems in applying fair crosssection to a single person.
The Court has concentrated on groups that the fair crosssection applies to.
Right, so… but you're pursuing that claim, nonetheless.
Oh, yes, Your Honor, definitely.
In fact, there are–
Well, would you like to justify it, since you're pursuing it?
In fact, there are two groups that the fair crosssection claim can be focused upon.
One is a grand jury group as a whole.
You have a grand jury where 11 of them are chose randomly and fairly, we would submit, and then the twelfth member is chosen unfairly, always chosen as a white person.
That's going to distort that group.
You don't have the fair crosssection in the grand jury itself.
But even more importantly, the… if you look at the grand jury venire, the approximately 300 people called to court that day whose names are going to be drawn and placed on the grand jury, the judge gets to the point where he selects the grand jury foreman, and you no longer have the representative crosssection sitting up there.
You only have the white people sitting in the room that the judge selects from.
That effective grand jury venire–
There are 300 people on the big venire that are called?
–Your Honor, I'm not 100-percent sure about the number of 300.
A large number of people are called, given summons to show up for jury duty.
And the judge selects someone from that large number to be the foreperson of the grand jury.
And then subsequently the other members of the grand jury are selected at random by a clerk or something of that sort.
Your Honor, that's the way the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 413 reads.
The judge… I don't know that the code article specifically means that he has to make his selection before the other ones are chosen.
When I looked through the minutes for the past 16-1/2 years, generally they seemed to indicate that the 12… the 11 were drawn at random and then the judge selected someone else sitting in there, and again occasionally minutes are entered very loosely or just from a form, so I don't know if that does mean he was first or second on that.
What does the foreperson of a grand jury do in Louisiana?
Your Honor, that is pointed out in the State's brief at page 26.
The statutory provisions provide that the foreman shall preside over all hearings, may delegate duties to other grand jurors, and may determine rules or procedures.
This basically means that he leads the discussions, he decides when to vote, how to vote, and what to vote on.
Can he cast a vote himself?
Oh, yes, he does.
He is one of the 12 voting members of the grand jury, and that is–
Anthony M. Kennedy:
And that was left out of the State's description of his powers at page 26.
–I don't think the State was trying to mislead.
I think the State was at that point in 26 attempting to show some of the other powers of the grand jury foreman–
Well, it said it's ministerial, because he has some duties that might be called ministerial, but he's also a vote… or she is also a voting member.
–And that I believe is the very important fact in here.
Petitioner Campbell takes the position that this… this Court has had previous cases saying you cannot pick a grand jury unfairly.
Here, one voting member of the grand jury is picked unfairly.
Petitioner Campbell has equal… has raised equal protection–
Is that different, then, from the situation in the Hobby case that we had?
–In the Hobby case–
Where the Court said the grand jury foreman in that case had a ministerial role?
–The basic difference is, in the Hobby case a grand jury, the entire grand jury is selected in a fair manner and then that one person, the grand jury foreman, is given the job of doing the clerk duties for the grand jury, but the point is that whole grand jury was chosen in a fair manner.
But in Hobby how was the foreman chosen?
I believe he was chosen by the judge, Your Honor.
Why is that different?
Why is that different from your case?
It's different because the judge is looking at the grand jury, the entire grand jury panel who was chosen in a fair fashion.
In Louisiana, 11/12ths of the grand jury is chosen in a fair fashion and then the grand jury foreman is chosen not from the panel but from the venire sitting out there, and that choice is made in a discriminatory fashion.
That choice is always made for a white grand jury foreperson.
But in Hobby it was the same objection, wasn't it?
The foreman or foreperson was always white.
The objection… yes, the objection was that the foreperson was always white.
The objection here is that the foreperson was always white, but here it's that the voting member was chosen in a discriminatory manner to sit on the grand jury.
In Hobby, there was no voting member chosen in a discriminatory fashion to sit on the grand jury.
But a choice was just made in a discriminatory fashion by people already chosen.
I mean, the discrimination is still there.
Oh, there is a discrimination and at that point you would look to… and Hobby focused on what is the harm that is going to come from this.
I don't think Hobby said there was never… the opinion in Hobby said there was never any discrimination.
It said there was.
But then when you stop and you look, you don't find a due process harm involved there.
Well, Hobby focused on the remedy.
On the remedy.
And what do we have to look at here, just standing?
We're not concerned here today with remedy–
Well, we would–
–but just standing?
–We would submit that remedy is implicated and that standing is implicated.
Standing was the issues cited, or the questions presented in the writ for petition.
However, this Court's rules do say that all questions fairly subsumed are also included and here we have… if we were sitting now before the trial and it hadn't gone forward, this case… this Court would probably only be looking at standing, but the case has gone forward.
Petitioner Campbell has been convicted and sentenced to a life sentence, simply because of the time delays of getting through the courts, so now–
Well, I thought that all… of the questions in the petition refer to whether your client has standing to raise the equal protection claim, the due process claim, and the fair crosssection claim.
It didn't occur to me that you intended to ask us to apply a remedy.
–Your Honor, the questions do–
Other than to rule on the standing claim.
–Your Honor, we do need to have rulings from this Court on standing.
Once this Court does rule on standing the question is, then what?
Send it back, I assume.
Well, Your Honor, that's–
If we were to determine there was standing on some or all of these matters.
–Your Honor, that is one option open to this Court.
Mr. Burnes, going back from Peters v. Kiff on, in any case where this Court allowed someone to challenge as discriminatory the selection of the petit jury or the grand jury, in any one of those cases, has the result ever been anything other than the conviction got set aside?
–Well, of course, the Hobby case, Your Honor, the conviction was not set aside.
In Rose v. Mitchell, a leading case in this area, the petitioner, this Court held that the petitioner failed to prove his prima facie case and did not set aside the conviction, so there are cases, there are times when this Court may find standing, may find a right, may even find a remedy–
Might… conceivably in this case if standing were recognized the Court could say, but you haven't shown that there was, in fact, discrimination in the selection of the–
–Conceivably the Court could take that opinion.
However, the facts here are very clear.
They've never been disputed.
There are multiple places in the record where the judge repeatedly says, we all know what happened here.
We all know blacks haven't been chosen.
At the actual hearing on the motion to quash the judge allowed Mr. Campbell's thenattorney to present a prima facie case.
He then turned to the State and said, now let's here from you, what do you have to say to it, basically.
The State then only argued on standing, never made any rebuttal with respect to that prima facie case, even–
–Mr. Burnes, if you wanted to bring that issue here you're obligated to put it in your question presented, I think, as Justice O'Connor has pointed out.
You have three subdivisions and every one of them is limited to standing.
–And again, Your Honor, those… the questions do raise the issue of standing, which has been a roadblock in this case.
This Court also has rules that any question is fairly derived… and I don't remember the exact statement, fairly derived from those questions, subsumed–
Fairly subsumed, I think.
I think that means that the general… that the language of the question includes something that perhaps is lesser, or… but it seems to me standing and remedy are two very distinct things.
–Your Honor is correct, standing and remedy are distinct.
In this case, Mr. Campbell has been denied the standing on the equal protection claims, on the due process and Sixth Amendment fair crosssection claims.
This Court, if it rules that Mr. Campbell has standing on any or all of those, it is then faced with the question, does it go forward and say what the remedy in this case is, or does it not.
We believe that this case in the record shows that there has been evidence put on for the prima facie case.
The State's been offered a chance to rebut and has not.
We believe the case at this point is just turning on the remedy then.
I would like to make it clear that Mr. Campbell has raised equal protection claims.
There's the bare, straightforward claim.
Why can I, Terry Campbell, a white man, be indicted by this illegal grand jury when a black man cannot?
That's the dominant feature of this case, and that's how it's really been viewed by most of Louisiana courts.
Now, in this case your client raised this… these claims all along–
–in the proceedings below.
There's no problem of waiver or anything of that kind.
These have been preserved, I take it.
That's correct, Your Honor, and I haven't had a chance to say it yet, but the equal protection claim has that bare naive claim I just mentioned and also has the more sophisticated third party standing.
If you look in the appendix–
I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you… has the bare what claim?
–The bare, or naive equal protection claim.
Why can I, a white man, be indicted by this illegal grand jury?
That's just a straightforward equal protection claim.
Why does a black man have protection from being indicted by this unconstitutionally selected grand jury but I, a white man, don't have protection from being indicted by this–
Are you also raising… urging that the… Campbell has standing to raise the denial of equal protection to the nonwhite who might have been selected?
That is the second part, the more sophisticated equal protection claim that comes under the Powers third party standing, that Mr. Campbell is in a position to adequately put forth their rights, all of the analysis that was in the Powers case, that he has a relationship with the excluded jurors, so–
Antonin Scalia:
The first equal protection question is sort of… I mean, it's a very strange assertion of equal protection.
Why isn't a perfectly valid answer to that that, well, a black man could object to this… to this grand jury, but a black man couldn't have objected to a grand jury in which the foreman was always a black?
That's perfectly fair.
It's almost gameplaying to say that this is an equal protection violation.
It's just a standing question, simple… simply put.
Does he have standing or not?
–It is a standing question, Your Honor, and that's the way the trial court and the supreme court of the State of Louisiana have ruled, is that Mr. Campbell did not have standing to raise–
Right, and it would be perfectly equal protection if Louisiana rules a black man has standing to challenge the exclusion of blacks, and a white man has standing to challenge the exclusion of whites, and neither one has a standing to challenge the opposite.
What's unequal about that?
–Well, the cases in the past, Your Honor, have held that, for instance in Batson, on a preemptory challenge, it doesn't matter whether the defendant is black or white.
They can object… they have a standing to object to the discrimination question.
It was ruled as a standing question.
It wasn't dressed up as an equal protection claim.
I don't understand… I don't understand your equal protection claim, that's all.
Your Honor, I'm–
The standing question is right or wrong.
It doesn't become right or wrong because there's a denial of equal protection involved if you come out the other way.
–Perhaps the reason I'm arguing this way is because the trial courts and the supreme court of the State of Louisiana have couched their rulings in terms of the fact that Mr. Campbell, you are a white man accused of killing a white man, therefore you don't have standing to raise this claim or that claim or the other claim, and–
That's either right or wrong.
–That… and I believe in this case Mr. Campbell has a right to raise the equal protection claim.
Part of the reason I'm arguing this way is also that the State's brief has attacked whether there's Article III standing.
I believe in this bare claim that there's Article III standing, there's an injury, there's causation, there's redressability.
In the sophisticated… what I call the sophisticated equal protection claim there is the third party standing and the due process, I think there's Article III standing.
In the Sixth Amendment claim there's Article III standing.
That is why I'm explaining the claims somewhat, is to show how they fit within the standing requirements of Article III and the exceptions for third party standing as in Powers.
Your Honors, I'd also like to direct your attention, if I could, to the State's brief.
The State in its brief does agree in some forms with the petitioner Campbell's claims on all three grounds.
With respect to the equal protection ground, at page 22, note 9, the State of Louisiana recognizes this Court's decision that if discrimination in the selection of the grand jury itself occurs, the proper remedy is reversal of the subsequent conviction, and that's what happened here.
There was discrimination in the selection of the grand jury itself.
Grand juror number 12 was chosen in a discriminatory manner.
With respect to the due process claim on page 26 and note 12, in Guice 2 the Fifth Circuit noted that because the foreman in Louisiana is selected from the venire rather from the grand jury itself, any discrimination in the selection of a foreman necessarily taints the composition of the grand jury as well.
Only 11 of its 12 members were chosen at random.
If that is so, the petitioner may obtain relief by challenging the composition of the grand jury, and this he has failed to do.
But, in fact, that is what Mr. Campbell has been doing from the beginning.
He's been saying that this twelfth member of the grand jury was chosen in a discriminatory manner, has always been chosen white.
And on page 30, under the B heading with respect to the Sixth Amendment argument, the State writes, if this Court decides that the Sixth Amendment itself is implicated regardless of whether the judicial body at issue is the grand jury or just the grand jury foreman, then the State concedes that under Holland v. Illinois petitioner has standing to assert a Sixth Amendment challenge.
It's the law, the Constitution and its amendments and the prior decisions of this Court, that have forced the State to make concessions on these issues.
In the dissent by Justice Scalia, to which Chief Justice Rehnquist joined in the case of Powers v. Ohio, there's a statement.
It would be absurd to… and this is at page 1379 in the Supreme Court Recorder 111.
It would be absurd to suppose that a black juror has a right not to be discriminated against through peremptory strike in the trial of a black defendant but not in the trial of a white defendant.
However, this is the absurd position the State has taken.
An African American prospective grand juror has a right not to be discriminated against in the selection of the grand jury foreperson in cases involving black defendants but not in cases involving white defendants.
In its conclusion to its brief in page 34 the State says, Louisiana in no way condones race discrimination in the administration of criminal justice in any corner.
However, the State's presence here today shows otherwise.
This Court has the opportunity and has the power to correct the racial discrimination in the administration of criminal justice which is currently accepted in and by the State of Louisiana.
If there are no further questions, I'd reserve the balance of my time.
Very well, Mr. Burnes.
General Ieyoub, we'll hear from you.
Richard I. Ieyoub:
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court–
First of all, Your Honors, I would like to correct some of the statements made by counsel for petitioner.
He seems to indicate that there is wholesale discrimination around the State of Louisiana as to the selection of grand jury foremen.
There's never been any proof of this.
In fact, I know from personal knowledge that there have been black foremen of grand juries throughout the State of Louisiana–
Stephen G. Breyer:
But then it's not a problem.
I mean, he just wants to have standing so he can make the claim.
Then you'd prove it out, right?
–That's correct.
And you'd say there wasn't, and he'd say there was, so we'd have an argument.
That's correct, Your Honor.
Also, insofar as the selection of the foreman is concerned in Louisiana, the judge does not select from the large grand jury venire, the general venire of 300 persons.
What happens is that a grand jury venire is brought into the courtroom.
It can be as few as 20 and as many as 100, but the grand jury venire is brought into the courtroom, the judge selects the foreman from the grand jury venire after that venire has been shown to satisfy the general qualifications to serve as grand jurors and then the other 11 are chosen.
It takes 9 out of 12 to reach an indictment, so the fact that the grand jury foreman is necessarily a voting member of the grand jury does not necessarily portend that his responsibility should not be classified as merely ministerial.
General Ieyoub, you don't dispute, do you the figures that were presented that for the last 16 years there's never been a nonwhite grand jury foreperson in Evangeline County?
No, Your Honor.
That was stipulated to by the State.
So it wouldn't matter what went on in other counties.
Except for… there's a curiosity in Louisiana law, and I'm sure you can tell me why this is so.
It doesn't work that way in New Orleans.
In New Orleans, the foreperson is selected from the group of 12 instead of separately.
Why is that so?
Your Honor, Orleans Parish is treated differently throughout Louisiana law.
Nobody knows why, except for the fact that those people in Orleans Parish think that they're different from the rest of the State, but in fact there… throughout Louisiana law there are exceptions for Orleans Parish.
I can't give Your Honor a reason.
But you wouldn't have this problem if you did it throughout the State the way they do it in that parish.
Well, Your Honor, in Orleans Parish the judge does choose the foreman and then the judge also selects the other 11.
That's how I understand it done in Orleans Parish.
Now, in other places, other than Orleans Parish, the judge will select the grand jury foreman and then the other 11 are randomly selected out of the box and that's the way it's done in–
–Maybe I remember the statute wrong.
I thought the others were selected in New Orleans just like they are in Evangeline, and it was only the foreperson that–
–No, Your Honor, I don't think that that's the case.
In Evangeline Parish, of course, as I've stated the judge selects from the grand jury venire, and then the 11 are chosen randomly, the other 11 grand jurors.
–So you're saying in New Orleans there's no random selection at all.
It doesn't appear that way, Your Honor.
I just have one other quick thing that you had in your brief.
It says that… when you say… you said it was… the grand jury foreman's role is ministerial, but it says in your brief that the grand jury may determine rules of procedure.
What does that mean, may determine rules of procedure?
If you have the power to determine rules of procedure, that's an enormously important power.
I mean, can… what does that involve?
–Your Honor, what I think that involves is basically ensuring that the proceedings go through in a very orderly way, not setting forth specific, distinct rules of procedure.
The grand jury foreman, as stated by the Louisiana supreme court, the Louisiana supreme court has interpreted Louisiana law to mean that the grand jury foreman's duties are, in fact, ministerial and–
Well, is the foreman a voting member of the grand jury?
–Yes, Your Honor, the foreman is a voting member of the grand jury.
And has some power to set procedure.
Has some power to set the procedure, but there is also a codal article in the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure that states that any of the other grand jurors may rule him into court if they disagree with what he's doing relative to the procedure that takes place in the grand jury, which is some indication that his power is no greater than the other.
Well, Mr.–
–That still doesn't his power is just ministerial, unless you were to say that his power as foreman is ministerial but he has every bit as much power as any other grand juror in voting on indictments.
That's correct, isn't it?
That's correct, Your… Mr. Chief Justice.
And in Vasquez v. Hillery this Court referred to the grave constitutional trespass that occurs when jurors of a particular race are intentionally excluded from the grand jury, so if the proof is that in the case of one member of the grand jury that blacks are always excluded from this foreperson selection, then why doesn't that fit under Vasquez v. Hillery?
Why isn't there standing to raise that on the part of this petitioner?
Your Honor, in Vasquez v. Hillery the petitioner, as I understand it, was a member of the excluded class.
In this case, there is no Article III standing as to equal protection.
In the case of Powers, when the issue was with respect to a trial jury we didn't think that mattered.
Would there be a different rule on a grand jury?
Your Honor, insofar as Powers is concerned, I would point out to the Court that Powers granted third party standing, not personal standing under Article III insofar as equal protection goes.
Well, I guess that's an argument here, too.
Do you concede that at least the petitioner has third party standing under Powers?
No, Your Honor, not in any sense and the reason I don't is because, in finding that the petitioner in Powers satisfied the three criteria necessary for third party standing, that is, injury in fact, relationship to the third party, and hindrance to the third party itself being able to bring an action, the Court placed strong emphasis on the importance of the voir dire phase of the trial and the adverse impact that discrimination during voir dire… the voir dire stage would have on the fairness of the trial itself.
In finding injury in fact, this Court pointed out that when there's discrimination during the voir dire stage by the use of peremptory challenges the discrimination is in the body that's going to decide guilt or innocence.
That's not true insofar as the grand jury is concerned.
The discrimination takes place during the trial itself.
Obviously, grand jury proceedings are long before–
That's why I referred you to the Vasquez v. Hillery description of the grave constitutional injury that occurs on a grand jury situation.
–I agree with you Your Honor, and I think the cases relative to… there's no question that there are grave consequences for discrimination, racial discrimination on grand juries.
Most of the cases have been whenever the petitioner has attacked the entire grand jury venire.
Peters v. Kiff was such a case, where the entire venire was attacked.
Rose v. Mitchell did involve attacking discrimination as to the foreman, but the petitioner in that particular case was a member of the excluded class.
It was also prePowers the Court made that statement, so–
That's correct, Your Honor, but again, I think that Powers should not be extended to cover this case.
–But to this extent, why are they just the same.
One of the points made in Powers was that the person who was excluded from being on the jury in one case, yes, the grand jury, that is… was a most unlikely challenger, so you have to have this kind of surrogate standing because the person who was excluded, either from being on a petit jury or from serving here as the foreperson, that you… that would be something that you can't imagine, walking into court, that somebody says, oh, I could have been the foreperson so I'm going to sue, I'm going to spend my resources suing for that.
Your Honor, in Powers the Court, in speaking of the third criteria, that is, hindrance to the party excluded itself from bringing the action stated that, as you said, Your Honor, that it would be very difficult for an individual juror excluded during the voir dire to bring… such actions are very rare.
Secondly, it's very difficult for the individual juror to prove that there would be discrimination against him or her recurring in the voir dire stage.
That doesn't hold true in this particular case.
I think the Court pointed out in Powers that discrimination with the use of peremptory exceptions as to individual jurors is different from when you have a systematic exclusion by clerks, by jury commissioners, by judges… there have been numerous actions brought by individual blacks alleging that there has been discrimination on… discrimination as to the selection of the foreman in the grand jury.
There seems to be no hindrance.
Terry Campbell is a very poor champion of third party rights in this particular case.
But how is that any different from, say, Taylor v. Louisiana, where Taylor was certainly… Taylor was complaining that there were no women in the jury, and he was a man who raped a woman in front of her child and still he had standing to assert that claim.
Taylor v. Louisiana?
Again, Your Honor, I would suggest in Taylor, Taylor made a valid due process claim that the entire grand jury venire, that in that entire venire there had been an exclusion, systematic exclusion of women.
As such, that particular grand jury did not represent the varieties of human experience and the qualities of human–
David H. Souter:
No, but now you're going to the substance of the claim rather than the issue of standing.
–Well, Your Honor–
Taking you at your argument here, would it be your position that if the State were to say, we will… in fact, we'll announce this, that we will in fact discriminatorily exclude blacks from 1/12th of all grand jury positions, one of the 12 positions will always go to a white, that in fact that would not support a claim with respect to the invalid composition of the jury?
–Your Honor, as to equal protection, as to an equal protection claim–
Well, no, I'm responding to your argument and your argument, if I understood it correctly, was that somehow we can respond to standing here by saying that there is no claim with respect to the composition of the grand jury as a whole.
If I misunderstood your argument, tell me, but I thought that's what you were arguing and so I want to see how far you will go with that and I'm saying, I'm asking you, if the State announced right up front, we are going to discriminate with respect to 1/12th of the positions on every grand jury, would that, in fact, be insufficient to support a claim with respect to the invalid composition of the jury and, on your argument, insufficient to result in standing for anybody?
–Your Honor, I would… if the claim… if there is a claim that due process has been violated with the court's announcement that there's discrimination as to 1/12th of the grand jury, that being the grand jury foreman, then I think that we have to do an analysis as to whether or not discrimination as to that one person is so significant that it has an appreciable impact on the administration of criminal justice.
Then the answer to my question is no, that alone would not–
That's–
–support a claim.
But why wouldn't it?
I mean, why isn't there… you say that a white person has standing to say the grand jury that indicted me was too white.
You concede that.
That a white person–
A white person can say there weren't enough black people on the grand jury that indicted me.
Yes, I concede that.
Now, somebody says, fine, that's my claim.
My claim is, if even one position was always white, then there were not enough black people on the grand jury that indicted me, so how could a person have standing to make the first argument but not have standing to make the second argument–
–since the second argument is the first argument?
–Hobby v. United States felt… of course, Hobby was remedied, there's no question about that, but in Hobby v. United States the Court, or this Court found that if there is discrimination as to one individual, who in fact maintains a ministerial position and the rest of the grand jury as a whole meets the representational requirements or values of due process, then that… there has not been a violation of due–
So then you would win on the merits.
–We would win on the merits.
But why would the person not have standing to argue that systematically discriminating in one position–
–creates as bad a grand jury from the point of view of the Constitution, or nearly as bad as discriminating in eight or nine or ten or three or four?
I would like to make the argument that constitutionally speaking those things are equivalent, or just about as bad, or wrong in any event.
Can't he at least make that argument?
First of all, the individual has to show an injury in fact.
That injury has to be palpable.
It has to be distinct.
It can't be hypothetical or analytical.
John Paul Stevens:
Mr. Attorney General, why didn't Hobby answer the standing question?
There you had a white defendant who complained about the very same thing.
Your Honor, the Court, or this Court did not speak of standing in Hobby.
I know, but that's a threshold issue.
Nobody questioned standing in Hobby.
And of course, in Hobby there was… the foreman was chosen from among the 12 who had already been picked in a satisfactory crosssection.
So why isn't Hobby the answer to the standing issue in this case and that's the end of the case?
We have different circumstances in this case than existed in Hobby, Your Honor and let me explain.
And they're relevant to the standing issue?
–Relevant to the standing issue.
First of all, injury in fact.
In this case, for instance, Campbell's injury in fact, Mr. Campbell has not suffered an injury in fact.
He has not suffered a palpable, distinct injury and I think Hobby shows that.
Did Hobby suffer a palpable, distinct injury.
No, Your Honor, he did not.
So that… the cases are alike in that regard, then.
They're alike in that regard.
Secondly, causation, as to causation there has… the injury has to be fairly traceable to the conduct complained of, or the illegal injury.
In this case, the State respectfully submits that in no way is the injury to petitioner fairly traceable to the fact that there might have been discrimination as to the grand jury foreman.
In fact, in this case the petitioner's grand jury had three blacks on the grand jury.
He had six blacks on the petit jury that convicted him.
He used five of his peremptory exceptions to knock off five blacks, where the State only used one peremptory exception.
How can it be said that there's causation as to standing here?
And finally, redressability.
It has to be shown–
Excuse me.
You're assuming that the injury is the ultimate conviction, right?
Well, I mean, if that's the criterion I suppose there's never any standing to challenge the grand jury.
I mean, no harm, no foul.
The grand jury is only meant to determine whether there's probable cause to bring you to trial and if they do indict, no matter how badly it's set up, even if you make up a grand jury, once you're tried by a petit jury and found guilty, you haven't been harmed, right?
–Well, Your Honor, this Court has held that if, in fact, there's… discrimination can be found–
–In the grand jury.
–In the grand jury, that is, if there is discrimination–
Right, which suggests that your argument is wrong.
–No, Your Honor–
The harm is not the ultimate conviction.
There must be some other harm involved.
–Even if we say that the harm is the fact that the individual was indicted, you must… again, I will show that in order for an indictment to come down in Terry Campbell's case it just took 9… 9 out of the 12.
We don't know what the vote was in this grand jury, whether or not the foreman actually voted for indictment or not, but in any event, I don't see how his injury is in any way fairly traceable to the alleged misconduct here, or any misconduct that might be alleged.
But if we're talking about the alleged injury being the conviction, then wouldn't that be true in all the cases where someone who was not a member of the class, whether it was racial or gender, is allowed to make the challenge?
The case that I brought up before, is it likely that women on the jury would have been more favorable to Taylor?
He certainly didn't have to prove that, did he?
Now… but insofar as due process is concerned, in addition to injury in fact and causation, there has to be redressability.
That means that the petitioner must be… there has to be… it has to be likely that a favorable decision of the Court, that is, as to standing, would grant the relief that he's asking for and that would not the case, I don't think, in here, in light of Hobby v. United States.
If this Court would find, for instance, that he might have standing under the–
Well, may I interrupt you with this question, then.
As I think all of our questions have indicated and you yourself agree, the difference between Hobby and this case was that in Hobby the discrimination did not affect the composition of the grand jury.
Here, it does.
If there was discrimination here, it affected the composition of the grand jury.
Isn't that the distinction between this case and Hobby?
–Your Honor, you say that discrimination did not affect the Hobby… in Hobby–
As I understand it, and you correct me if I'm wrong, in Hobby a grand jury was selected.
After that selection process, one person was designated to be the foreman.
In this case, one person is designated to be the foreman and the claim is that that discriminatory designation determines the composition of one out of 12 members of the grand jury.
Therefore, the discrimination here, if it is shown, affects the composition of the grand jury, who is one of the 12, whereas in Hobby it did not affect who was one of the 12, or whatever the number is.
Isn't… is that correct?
–That's correct, Your Honor, but even if it affects the composition of the grand jury, we have to determine whether or not that particular effect violates due process values if he is making a claim under the Due Process Clause.
What I am saying is that the fact that there may have been discrimination as to the foreman in this case in no way violates the due process values because we have stated, and I think the Louisiana supreme court in interpreting our law has stated, that basically the grand jury foreman's duties are ministerial.
In addition, Hobby–
Well, his duties as foreman may be ministerial.
We can accept that for the sake of argument.
His duty as a voting member of the grand jury isn't ministerial, is it?
–No, Your Honor, but in Federal… in the Federal grand jury the foreman is also a voting member, if I'm not mistaken, so–
Let me suggest the point this way.
As I understand the petitioner here, the argument really would be essentially the same if the person selected by this method of designation by the Court were not the foreman at all, were just one random member of the grand jury and therefore it seems to me, although it's… it certainly makes it a harder case, if you will–
–in one sense if the grand jury is… if the foreman's responsibilities are ministerial.
It doesn't eliminate the case, because the composition is still affected.
The composition is affected, Your Honor, but how is it affected?
And let me point out that Hobby, in addition to talking–
Well, the claim is.
It is affected in a discriminatory way in that 1/12th of every grand jury is going to be the result of a racial discrimination.
That's what the claim is.
That's all that's affected.
–Well, of course, the petitioner would have to prove a–
–Right, would have to prove–
And that's why we have trials, but that doesn't go to… the question is, how does it affect standing?
–In addition, Your Honor, just speaking of the foreman and the ministerial responsibilities of the foreman in Hobby, the Court pointed out that if there is discrimination as to one individual… in Hobby it happened to be the foreman, but that if there was discrimination as to one individual and the grand jury as a whole, the rest of the grand jury satisfied the representational requirements of due process, then that would not be enough to find that there had been a violation of the petitioner's rights.
How many would it take, 2 out of 12, 3 out of 12, 4 out of 12?
When do we cross the line, on your reading of Hobby?
Your Honor, I think that if in fact it can be shown that there is systematic exclusion of a number of individuals–
Well, how many?
One is not enough.
What's enough?
–Your Honor, I would say that one is not enough.
How many is enough?
We would have to take that on a casebycase basis, Your Honor.
Well, you're not taking this on a casebycase basis.
You're saying one, as a matter of law, is not enough.
When do we get to the point at which, as a matter of law, it might be possible?
–Whenever the petitioner makes the claim that the grand jury venire, the entire venire or a large part of the venire has been selected in a discriminatory way so that due process values have been violated.
In this particular–
Well, the claim here is not that the venire was discriminatorily chosen, but that individuals were discriminatorily chosen from the venire, so if your argument is correct there never would be standing to make a claim because there never would be a claim.
–Your Honor, I don't think that there would be standing to make a claim, as I said earlier, if there's an allegation that only… that there was discrimination as to the foreman of the grand jury, or any one of the other 12.
I don't think that there would be standing to make that claim there.
Even though we found standing in Hobby.
You want us to ignore that.
Yes, Your Honor, because I don't think–
Well, I don't see how we can or should.
–Well, Your Honor, I don't think that the petitioner in this case, as I have argued, has really satisfied the criteria for Article III standing under Allen v. Wright.
If there were no Article III standing in Hobby, this Court would have had to say so on its own motion.
That's correct, Your Honor, but I don't know why the Court didn't address… necessarily address standing in Hobby.
They found that there was no violation of due process rights and we would argue that Hobby should hold here.
We said there was no remedy required in that.
Remedy, yes, Your Honor, no remedy.
The basic claim of the petitioner in this particular case has been that he has third party standing to assert the rights of a third party.
That's his basic claim.
That's his chief claim.
His lawyer stood up at the motion to quash and argued, saying Terry's rights have not been violated.
He is asserting the rights of the third party that has been excluded.
It has always been third party standing and we suggest that, under Powers v. Ohio, that he doesn't have third party standing.
Powers v. Ohio granted third party standing because of the particular nature of the voir dire phase of the trial and the types of discrimination that took place at that time.
That did not occur.
How in the world can we say, with respect, Your Honors, that there is a bond of trust that is created between the petitioner and the third party whenever there's a selection of a grand jury foreman.
The defendant is not even present in court for… as a practical matter.
As long–
I guess it's the case, isn't it… I mean, suppose a judge or the system deliberately excluded blacks from position number 4.
Position number 4 was always white.
That's illegal, isn't it?
Pure racial discrimination.
So if it's… they exclude blacks always from 5, 6, and 7 as well, then the white person has standing, in your view.
Not as to equal protection.
Well, 9, 10, 11… 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Now, does the white person have standing?
I think under due process the white person would–
Yes, all right.
Now, what's your theory under which the white person has the standing if it's 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 but it's not 1?
They're both illegal.
They're both grand juries, they're both… I mean, that's I think what people have been trying to get at.
What would the theory of the thing be?
–Well, the theory of it would be, Your Honor, that this has a significant impact, that there's more of a significant impact on the administration of criminal justice, that due process representational values are not satisfied in the second case.
But as in this case he does not have third party standing.
He does not have… he has not shown that he satisfies the criteria in Article III that is stated, that is, injury in fact, causation, and redressability.
General Ieyoub, may I ask you another question about how things work in Louisiana?
In your brief on page 28 you said that the… that the foreperson is presumably replaced every 6 months, as is the entire grand jury.
Is there any reason why you… it's only presumably?
Is it… does the–
I think that they are replaced.
Grand juries in Louisiana sit for not less than 4 months nor more than 8, and when a grand jury is dispensed with, then the grand jury foreman changes.
–So it's always… they all change, including.
There's no difference.
There's no carryover, or–
That's correct, Your Honor, unlike Tennessee in the Rose case, where the grand juror, jury foreman could sit for 2 years, or as long as a judge wanted him to sit.
But Your Honors, with all due respect, we feel that Petitioner Powers' conviction should be affirmed.
This court is always adding stories to the temples of constitutional law, but Your Honors, if the Court please, we urge Justice Jackson's caution and that is that the temples have a way of collapsing if one too many stories is added.
Your Honors, we request that the conviction be affirmed.
–Thank you, General Ieyoub.
Mr. Burnes, you have 8 minutes remaining.
I would like to address a few of the points raised by General Ieyoub.
The injury here, the harm involved when you're looking at the claims which would fall under Article III standing, is the right not to be indicted by a nonimpartial grand jury.
But look… look… I mean, I have no problem with your due process standing.
I do have a problem on the merits of the due process claim, which is supposed to be an assertion that the conviction here was fundamentally unfair.
Your client had a petit jury, fairly chosen… you made no claim that that wasn't fairly chosen… which found your client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime alleged.
Now, the only function of the grand jury beforehand is not to find whether he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but to find whether there's reason to believe, adequate reason to believe that he might have committed it, to have him tried.
Well, my goodness, we've gone beyond that.
I mean, the game's over.
A petit jury has said yeah, there's not only reason to believe, he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is fundamentally unfair about your client's conviction?
That he was denied the opportunity to have an impartial grand jury look at the evidence presented to that grand jury and say, we're only going to indict him for manslaughter, or we're not even going to indict him at all.
That is a right that the citizens have.
But there could be no possible mistake a grand jury's having found there to be probable cause, given that a petit jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.
I mean, I… you know, it's a terrible thing to exclude people like that, and maybe somebody had… I'm sure a black grand juror who has been excluded could set it right, or the Justice Department could bring suit to set it right, but I don't see why your client has been convicted in a fundamentally unfair manner.
He's had a petit jury that, fairly chosen, found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Campbell was convicted.
However, he has the right to have the grand jury look at the evidence and say, we're only going to indict for manslaughter.
He has that right and there was an error made and somebody should correct that, but did that error deprive him of… make his conviction fundamentally unfair?
It's only his conviction.
I mean, if you're asking for something else, money damages or, you know, something different, maybe you've got a claim there, but your client's conviction was fundamentally unfair–
Your Honor, we aren't arguing that the conviction was fundamentally unfair.
We are arguing that he was denied his rights at that grand jury stage.
–Well, in the Mechanic case in the Federal courts we held that even though a Federal grand jury does not conform to the requirements set up by Congress, nonetheless, if the person is convicted, the shortcomings of the grand jury are harmless error.
Why doesn't the same thing follow in this situation insofar as your due process claim is concerned?
Your Honor, there's… because the long line of cases from this Court which find that racial discrimination at the grand jury–
But those are not due process cases.
–Well, with respect to the due process, I believe there is a due process harm there when, in order to be convicted and sentenced to a life sentence in Louisiana, the citizen has a right to the indictment by the grand jury and the grand jury here was not impartial, did not have… he was not–
Well, when you say not impartial that suggests that some members of the grand jury were prejudiced against your client.
Now, there's no evidence of that, is there?
–Well, as–
–Your Honor, there is no evidence in the record of that and you can't see the evidence in the record of that and that's pointed out very clearly in the Vasquez v. Hillery case, where–
Which was an equal protection case.
–Which says that you cannot determine–
You're just melding together the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause, it seems to me.
–Well, Your Honor, the analysis, the argument right there that you cannot tell what the harm is because you're not allowed to look at those deliberations and look at those votes is equally as strong in the due process area as in the equal protection area.
You know, this seems to be sort of the gaming theory of criminal justice.
Your client, with a different grand jury, might have been lucky enough to get a grand jury that didn't find sufficient cause to bring an indictment, might have been that lucky, although it's clear there was sufficient cause to bring an indictment.
Indeed, he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I find it hard to find that a deprivation of fundamental fairness.
The only issue for the grand jury was whether there was enough evidence here to bring the prosecution and that's been established by the conviction.
It's been established a fortiori.
It's been established 10 times over by conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
I find it hard to see that your client's been deprived of fundamental fairness.
Your Honor, that's where we would disagree with Your Honor, that–
Does Peters v. Kiff help you?
–Peters v. Kiff, Your Honor, is a case involving I believe petit juries.
And grand jury both, I think.
And extended to grand juries.
Here, the harm is that he's not given a chance for the grand jury to say, you know, this defendant may or may not have done that, we're going to only find for manslaughter, and not subject him to that life sentence.
Was there a majority opinion for the Court in Kiff?
I thought there was not.
I thought we really don't know what was–
I don't recall, Your Honor.
–3-3-3, as I recall.
Your Honor, I'd like to… Your Honors, I'd like to address a few more issues.
One is that General Ieyoub raised the point that only 9 votes were needed by the grand jury again on that case that would seem to be urging an issue, urging a rule that we could discriminate on 3 out of the 12 grand jury members, still get 9 votes from the other ones and have a valid indictment.
I don't believe that is a good rule.
General Ieyoub has also argued that the Louisiana supreme court has said that the grand jury foreman is ministerial, but you have to look at where the grand jury… where the Louisiana supreme court said that.
That was in this case which is under review here.
The problem here that there was systematic exclusion by the judge and that Petitioner Campbell has been denied standing to raise these claims.
Whenever the State has argued against it they start going to the merits of the claims.
They start saying how he's got to prove this or prove that with respect to due process, yet Petitioner Campbell isn't given an opportunity to prove whether there was a due process violation or an equal protection violation or a Sixth Amendment violation when he's not given standing to assert them.
If there's no other questions, I'd yield my time.
Thank you, Mr. Burnes.
The case is submitted.
United States v. Villamonte-Marquez
Foster v. Love
Michel v. Louisiana – Oral Argument, Part 2: Michel v. Louisiana (32) – November 09, 1955
United States v. Hays – Oral Argument – April 19, 1995
Case Briefs - 1997
Kyllo v. United States
City of Boerne v. Flores
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Dames & Moore v. Regan
Goldberg v. Kelly
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Terry v. Ohio
Miranda v. Arizona
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper?
How about receiving a customized one?
HAVEN'T FOUND ESSAY YOU WANT? FOR ONLY $13.90/PAGE
Plagiarism Cheker Law Essays Law Schools Law Notes Case Briefs
47 Bergen St--Floor 3, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA
© 2020 Law Essays and Papers
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this
website. If you need this or any other sample, we
can send it to you via email.
Please, specify your valid email address
We can't stand spam as much as you do
No, thanks. I prefer suffering on my own.
Remember that this is just a sample essay and since it might not be original, we do not recommend to submit it. However, we might edit this sample to provide you with a plagiarism-free paper
Edit this sample
YOUR TOPIC ISN'T HERE?
We can write it from scratch
GET YOUR PAPER
100% Purchase
Academic Content


text:
Thursdays 8:00 PM on ABC
Grey's Anatomy News
Grey's Anatomy Reviews
Grey's Anatomy Spoilers
Grey's Anatomy Watch Online
Grey's Anatomy Music
Grey's Anatomy Episode Guide
Grey's Anatomy Quotes
Grey's Anatomy Cast
Grey's Anatomy Pictures
Grey's Anatomy Videos
Grey's Anatomy Caption Contests
Grey's Anatomy Round Tables
Follow Grey's Anatomy
Grey's Anatomy Facebook Grey's Anatomy Twitter
Derek, Meredith and Zola Picture
Derek, Meredith and Zola in a scene from this week's Grey's Anatomy episode, "This is Why We Fight."
Rating: 4.8 / 5.0 (44 Votes)
Grey's Anatomy Season 9 Episode 16: "This is Why We Fight"
Meredith Grey, Derek Shepherd
Grey's Anatomy Photos, Grey's Anatomy Season 9 Episode 16 Photos, Meredith Grey Photos, Derek Shepherd Photos
Grey's Anatomy Photo Preview: "This is Why We Fight"
Grey's Anatomy Caption Contest 351
Steve Marsi
Grey's Anatomy Season 9 Episode 16 Quotes
I'm short so my punches land low.
Permalink: I'm short so my punches land low.
This place is a sinking ship.
Permalink: This place is a sinking ship.
Grey's Anatomy Season 9 Episode 16 Music
Salty Sweet MS MR
Bones MS MR iTunes
Never Gonna Let You Go Esthero iTunes
Grey's Anatomy Season 9 Episode 16
Grey's Anatomy Round Table: "This is Why We Fight"
Grey's Anatomy Season 9 Episode 16 Photos
This is Why We Fight
Watch Grey's Anatomy Season 9 Episode 16 Online


Question 1: DTH services are provided by________.
Question 2: The benefits of public warehousing includes_______.
Question 3: Which of the following is not a function of insurance?
Question 4: Which of the following is not applicable in life insurance contract?
Question 5: CWC stands for_______.


text:
Children's General Story Books
English Language: Reading Schemes
Chicka Chicka Boom Boom
4.22 (131,343 ratings by Goodreads)
Classic Board Books
By (author) Bill Martin
US$6.86 US$7.99 You save US$1.13
The complete edition of the bestselling children's favorite, Chicka Chicka Boom Boom, is now available as a Classic Board Book! A told B
and B told C,
"I'll meet you at the top
of the coconut tree."
When all the letters of the alphabet race one another up the coconut tree, will there be enough room?
Of course there is always enough room for this rollicking alphabet chant that has been a children's favorite for more than twenty years! Bill Martin Jr and John Archambault's rhythmic text keeps the beat with Caldecott Honor illustrator Lois Ehlert's bold, cheerful art. This winning combination has created a series of enduring Chicka Chicka favorites, and now, for the first time ever, the complete edition of the original Chicka Chicka Boom Boom story is available as a Classic Board Book. With sturdy pages and rounded corners, this portable edition of an irresistible alphabet romp will delight a new generation of young readers.
For ages 0-5
Format Board book | 36 pages
Dimensions 140 x 180 x 20mm | 363g
Publication date 28 Aug 2012
Publisher SIMON & SCHUSTER
Publication City/Country United States
Edition Statement US ed
Illustrations note colour illustrations
Bestsellers rank 12,649
Bill Martin
Counting Kisses
Michael Rosen
Click, Clack, Moo
Doreen Cronin
Orange Pear Apple Bear
All the World
Liz Garton Scanlon
The Teddy Bears' Picnic
Jimmy Kennedy
Rosie's Walk
Pat Hutchins
LMNO Peas
Judi Barrett
Olivia: Board Book
Chicka Chicka 1, 2, 3
Jr. Bill Martin
Good Dog, Carl
Alexandra Day
And Tango Makes Three
Giggle, Giggle, Quack
The Christmas Baby
Olivia Saves the Circus
About Bill Martin
Bill Martin, Jr. (1916-2004) has been called "America's favorite children's author." He wrote more than 300 books for children, including the classic texts Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?, illustrated by Eric Carle; and Chicka Chicka Boom Boom, illustrated by Lois Ehlert. John Archambault is a poet, journalist, and storyteller who worked with Bill Martin, Jr. on several projects. He lives in Idyllwild-Pine Cove, California. Lois Ehlert has created numerous inventive, celebrated, and bestselling picture books, including Chicka Chicka Boom Boom, Holey Moley, The Scraps Book, Mice, Ten Little Caterpillars, RRRalph, Lots of Spots, Boo to You!, Leaf Man, Waiting for Wings, Planting a Rainbow, Growing Vegetable Soup, and Color Zoo, which received a Caldecott Honor. She lives in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
5 55% (71,668)
2 5% (6,564)
Book ratings by Goodreads
Goodreads is the world's largest site for readers with over 50 million reviews. We're featuring millions of their reader ratings on our book pages to help you find your new favourite book. Close X


Fast and very good quotations, informed advisers to help you choose the correct merchandise that suits all your preferences, a short creation time, responsible excellent command and different companies for paying and shipping affairs for Fire Resistant Straps , fire resistant straps , Fair Resistant Hook and Loop , our firm imports a large number of foreign advanced devices. Welcome clients from your home and overseas to call and inquire!
"We've got a really efficient group to deal with inquiries from prospects. Our purpose is ""100% customer fulfillment by our product excellent, price & our group service"" and enjoy a superb track record amid clientele. With many factories, we can easily deliver a wide selection of Fire Resistant Straps , fire resistant straps , Fair Resistant Hook and Loop , We insist on the principle of "Credit being primary Customers being the king and Quality being the best" we have been looking forward to the mutual cooperation with all friends at home and abroad and we will create a bright future of business.


If you are working at frequencies of the order of 850MHz to 4GHz and find that a frequency multiplier is required, the HMC 187, HMC 188 and HMC 189 (see table) frequency doubler may be just the solution you are looking for. The isolation performance of these devices ensures that the input frequency (fin) and its harmonics 3fin and 4fin are attenuated by 35dB relative to the wanted output frequency 2fin. This excellent isolation specification reduces the need for additional output filtering and is also an advantage where several doublers are connected in series to produce four or eight times the input frequency.
The tiny outline of the HMC18x- series device occupies a board area of 3mm by 4.8mm and measures just 1.07 mm high. Internally the device contains balanced to unbalanced transformers (baluns) to match the doubler circuit with the output and input. The doubler circuit itself is passive and comprises a full wave Schottky diode bridge rectifier. The monolithic baluns which are integrated on-chip give the device a relatively high low-frequency roll-off at 850MHz.
Lower frequencies can also be multiplied but the conversion loss factor (given as typically 15 dB) will increase. The input and output are matched for 50 Ohm operation and the input signal level should be of the order of +15dBm which will give a output level of approximately 0dBm. The main characteristics of the three versions of this device are summarized in the table above.


text:
Q: prediction with linear regression from scratch I want to build a linear regression model to predict y values. I have my X and Y values as NumPy arrays. However, the model doesn't give the correct value even when the given dataset is straightforward to learn (for ex: x= [10, 15], y=[20, 30]).
Here is the code:
x = [10, 15, 23, 30, 40, 49, 57, 60]
y = [10000, 21000,25000, 30000,45000, 52000, 65000, 70000]

x = np.array(x)
y = np.array(y)

n = len(x)
m = np.ones(n)
b = np.ones(n)

def hypothesis(x, m, b):
    h = x*m + b
    return h

def cost(y, h):
    c = (1/(2*n))*(np.sum(np.square(h - y)))
    return c

def grad_des(x, y, h, theta, L):
    theta = theta - L*(x/n)*(np.sum(h - y))
    return theta

iter = 100000
L= 0.00005
for i in range(iter):
    h = hypothesis(x, m, b)
    c = cost(y, h)
    m = grad_des(x, y, h, m, L)
    b = grad_des(x, y, h, b, L)
    if i%10 == 0:
        print('h:', h, "c:", c,)

A: There seems to be a lot of confusion of how the gradient should look like. First of all gradient is different for w and for b, second of all the one you have right now is not correct for w nor for b.
It should be something among the lines of
def grad_des(x, y, h, w, b, L):
    w = w - L*np.dot(x, h - y)/n
    b = b - L*np.dot(np.ones_like(x), h - y)/n
    return w, b

or if you prefer with np.sum:
def grad_des(x, y, h, w, b, L):
    w = w - L*np.sum(x * (h - y))/n
    b = b - L*np.sum(h - y)/n
    return w, b

or just
def grad_des(x, y, h, w, b, L):
    w = w - L*np.mean(x * (h - y))
    b = b - L*np.mean(h - y)
    return w, b

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Royal Windsor Racecourse is delighted to welcome Classic Ibiza & Ministry of Sound to our racecourse on Friday 3rd August. If you haven't yet purchased your ticket, ensure you grab yours online sooner rather than later! BUY HERE!
The Jockey Club Live and Newmarket Racecourses are proud to announce the final evening of music for the Newmarket Nights season, presenting MAGIC OF MOTOWN.
Uttoxeter Racecourse have announced that they have secured a double line-up from the 80s and 90s with Heaven 17 and Lightning Seeds set to play the Staffordshire venue on Saturday 19 May 2018.


text:
Current Drug Discovery Technologies
Manuscripts submitted for publication in Bentham Science journals are subjected to single blind peer-review, except for a selected number of patent journals where double blind review is followed. Single blind reviewing maintains the identity of the reviewers, not disclosing their names to the authors. The anonymity of reviewers ensures objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by reviewers.
Reviewers are advised to consider the following important aspects of a manuscript when conducting the review.
1. Reporting of Original Results:
The results reported in the manuscript must be original and authentic work of the authors. They should be devoid of any plagiarism and the material should not have been published earlier. Studies which report some reproduced results, for example a new clinical trial, may also be considered for publication.
2. Experiments and Analyses:
Experiments and other analyses should meet the recognized technical standards and must be described systematically. The research presented in a manuscript should facilitate in reaching accurate conclusions from the statistics. Methods and experiments as well as reagents should be documented in detail.
3. Interpretation of Results:
Authors should present and interpret the results and conclusions in an appropriate and comprehensive manner, clearly explaining the results and outcomes of their study. Incomplete interpretation of results may result in rejection of the manuscript.
4. Language of Composition:
The manuscript should be written in English in a clear, direct and active style, free from grammatical errors and other linguistic inconsistencies. All pages should be numbered sequentially, facilitating the reviewing and editing of the manuscript. Authors should seek professional assistance for correction of grammatical, scientific and typographical errors before submission of the revised version of the article for publication. Professional editing services may also be sought by the team available at Bentham Science at an extra charge.
5. Experiments involving Humans and Animals:
The research must meet the highest applicable international standards of the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. A brief description on ethical guidelines is given in the 'Instructions for Authors' of every journal published by Bentham Science.
6. Reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, MIAME, STROBE, EQUATOR) and Community Standards for Data:
The manuscript should adhere to suitable reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, MIAME, STROBE, EQUATOR) and community standards for data availability. Bentham Science seeks to disseminate research and therefore stipulates that the public deposition of data is as per the followed standards (for example gene sequences, microarray expression data, and structural studies). Other similar standards that may be applicable should also be followed.
IMPORTANT POINTS TO CONSIDER:
Reviewers are expected to provide advice on the following points in their review reports:
Is the manuscript written comprehensively enough to be understandable? If not, how could it be improved?
Have adequate proofs been provided for the declarations?
Have the authors addressed the previous findings fairly?
Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments?
Bentham Science encourages authors to publish detailed protocols as supporting information online. Do any particular methods used in the manuscript warrant such a protocol?
PRIVACY STATEMENT:
The peer-review of a manuscript is a confidential process. Reviewers should keep the whole process completely confidential. They should consult the EiC/Senior Editor and obtain permission before consulting another colleague for help in the peer-review of the submitted manuscript.
Reviewers should not disclose any information whatsoever to anyone before publication of the manuscript.
REVIEWING PROCESS FLOW CHART:
Vladimir P. Torchilin
Department of Pharmaceutical Science Center for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Nanomedicine
Biography of Vladimir P. Torchilin
Vladimir P. Torchilin, Ph.D., D.Sc. is a University Distinguished Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Director, Center for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, Northeastern University, Boston. His interests include drug delivery and targeting, nanomedicine, multifunctional and stimuli-sensitive pharmaceutical nanocarriers, biomedical polymers, experimental cancer therapy. He has published more than 400 original papers, more than 150 reviews and book chapters, wrote and edited 12 books, and holds more than 40 patents. Google Scholar shows more than 44,000 citations of his papers with H-index of 96. He is Editor-in-Chief of Current Drug Discovery Technologies, Drug Delivery, and OpenNano, Co-Editor of Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and on the Editorial Boards of many other journals. He received more than $30 M from the governmental and industrial sources in research funding. He has multiple honors and awards and in 2011, Times Higher Education ranked him number 2 among top world scientists in pharmacology for the period of 2000-2010.
⇨ Journal Home⇨ Editorial Policies⇨ Editorial Board⇨ Reviewer Board⇨ Board Recruitment Workflow⇨ Join Editorial Board⇨ Indexing Information⇨ Announcements⇨ Endorsements⇨ Authors' Comments⇨ Special Offers
⇨ Contents & Abstracts⇨ Open Access Articles⇨ Free Copies Online⇨ Journal Catalog 2019⇨ Journal Catalog 2020⇨ Most Accessed Articles⇨ PURCHASE ARTICLES⇨ Order Reprints⇨ Subscribe⇨ Trial Requests⇨ Library Recommendation
Current Drug Discovery Technologies Journal was launched in 2004. Dr. Vladimir P. Torchilin serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.
New eBook
Frontiers in Clinical Drug Research – Alzheimer Disorders
You can view the contents of this eBook [here] or purchase it [here].


Noi lo facciamo davanti a tutti. Translation: We do it in front of everyone. This is the modus operandi at Bella Gelateria, which proprietor and maestro gelatiere, James Coleridge, takes very seriously. "We don't keep things in storage," he says. "We make everything from scratch right here using only the freshest local ingredients and quality sourced products from around the world." To put it another way, Coleridge sees himself as caretaker of an old-world process that is quickly disappearing in today's world of industrialized gelato.
I discovered Bella Gelateria a few summers ago while spending a weekend with my husband at the Fairmont Pacific Rim before the birth of our second child. Located on the ground floor of the hotel, Bella Gelateria harkens back to the traditional ice cream parlors found in Rome or Naples: striped cream-colored walls, checkerboard tiles on the floors, custom millwork with roman arches. On one wall hang black-and-white photographs from celebrated master ice cream maker Donata Panciera's book, Il Mio Gelato, reproduced exclusively for the gelateria. Classic songs by Andrea Boccelli and Tiziano Ferro play softly on the stereo while, behind the counter, Coleridge scoops out spoonfuls of his delectable creations. "What's your favorite flavor?" I ask one of the customers. "It changes every week," he says finally with a hint of a smile. Indeed, every day Coleridge creates 24 flavors from scratch, depending on what's available and in season.
A graduate of Gelato University, Coleridge opened Bella Gelateria in Vancouver in 2010 and quickly gained attention with his unique concoctions. Every day he handcrafts dozens of flavors inspired by the seasons (like Xoxolat chocolate bacon, maple cinnamon crème brûlée, toasted marshmallow and saffron rosewater, to name a few.) He keeps them out of sight under the counter in stainless steel containers to ensure the ideal air, temperature, humidity and aroma. "We are trying to preserve this tiny little ice crystal in the perfect state before someone tastes it," Coleridge says.
"We're big fans of the 100-mile diet," Coleridge tells me. His local ingredients include Avalon organic milk from Chilliwack, cherries from Osoyoos, and Bartlett pears from the Okanagan. But the chocolate he brings from France. "Michel Cluizel costs four or five times more than a typical chocolate," he says. "But you can't make five star gelato with one star ingredients." Every three weeks or so he clears customs for his shipment of Sorrento lemons that fly in from (where else?) Sorrento, Italy. Smooth and delicate with a long finish, his lemon sorbeto is out of this world.
He tells me of another creation: Lavender di Federique. An 11-year-old girl came into the gelateria over the summer and saw a lavender sorbeto on the menu. "I grow lavender in my garden," she told Coleridge. "I tell you what," he responded, "I'll buy the lavender from your garden and make a sorbet with it." The little girl's name? Federique, of course.
After I tell Coleridge about my childhood in Argentina, where gelato is a way of life, he invites me to step behind the counter and inside his glass-walled kitchen where the magic happens. Flavors are infused for at least 12 hours then poured in Cattabriga "Effe" mixers, which helps craft an extremely smooth and intense gelato where air is almost non-existent. Like a proud papa, he points to the state-of-the-art stainless steel containers that keep gelato out of sight and in a temperature-controlled environment. "We don't practice 'Spatulart' here," he says, referring to the technique of making the gelato display look good. "At Bella Gelateria it's not about what gelato looks like but what it tastes like." And what it tastes like is everything you want gelato to be: a dream, a fantasy, a childhood memory.
With summer almost here, the quest for finding the best gelato means, happily, that you simply must try them all. The real question is: cup or cone?
"We are trying to preserve this tiny little ice crystal in the perfect state before someone tastes it," Coleridge says.
Like is your friend… your really cool friend who knows the ins and outs of Vancouver. We take you to the nooks and crannies of our beautiful city, be it at the perfect cafe to watch the world go by or the best little street party you've never heard of. We've been around the block (and around the globe) and can guide you to the most interesting places to eat, drink, party and lay your head, whether it's in Tofino or Tel Aviv. Let's be friends.


Spring weather is just around the corner and as personal stylists, this is the busiest time of the year for us. We're not the type to let our clients scramble for a spring wardrobe just as the days start to warm up, instead we plan ahead, shopping in January and February for the best spring pieces. Not only are we on the look out for incredible statement pieces, the best new handbags, and the ultimate shoe styles of the season, we also search for practical pieces that our clients will reach for over and over again.
This season, our go-to outfit combination is not only comfortable and easy, it's also incredibly chic—the matching knit set. We've sung the matching set's praises over and over again on our blog and our continued love for it this season proves it's not just a passing fad. Check out our favorite ways to style this chic trend and shop the post to add an updated version to your own spring line up.


What is the relationship between debt and growth rates?
In their recent book, This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, Carmen Reinhart and INET advisory board member Kenneth Rogoff found that when government debt crosses the threshold of 90% of GDP, median growth rates fall by 1%, and average growth falls considerably more.
Reinhart and Rogoff have since called the reaction to their strategy and results "somewhat muddled," and have clarified their findings in a recent paper.
They also indicate that it is not enough to interpret single episodes (like the U.S. around World War II, or recently in Japan) as empirical evidence that the 90% threshold does not exist.
Should governments be prudent with their deficits, taking care to avoid the 90% threshold? Or should they continue stimulus packages to ensure that private sectors are healthy enough to sustain themselves?


text:
Q: MessageBox in VBA Excel I need to create a message box that will display 3 different Excel ranges.
This is my data:

and I need to have a message box that should look like this:

After clicking OK, it should display B1:B6 like this:

And then when you click OK again it should display range C1:C6.
This is my code so far:
Sub Message_Box()

Dim a As Range
Dim sTxt As String

For Each a In ThisWorkbook.Sheets("Sheet1").Range("a1:a6")
sTxt = sTxt & vbLf & a.Value
Next a

MsgBox sTxt

End Sub

A: Sub Message_Box()

Dim a As Range
Dim t As Integer
Dim sTxt As String

For t = 1 To 3
    For Each a In ThisWorkbook.Sheets("Sheet1").Range(Cells(1, t), Cells(6, t))
    sTxt = sTxt & vbLf & a.Value
    Next a

    MsgBox sTxt
    sTxt = ""

Next t

End Sub

A: Here's another way you could do it:
Sub Message_Box2()
Dim a       As Range
Dim sTxt    As String
Dim myData() As Variant

Dim numCols As Long, numRows As Long

With Sheets("Sheet1")
    numCols = .Cells(1, .Columns.Count).End(xlToLeft).Column
    numRows = .Cells(.Rows.Count, 1).End(xlUp).Row

    ReDim myData(numCols, numRows)
    myData() = Range("A1:C" & numRows)
End With
Dim i As Long, k As Long, numTimes As Long
For k = 1 To numCols
    For i = 1 To numRows
        sTxt = sTxt & vbLf & myData(i, k)
        Debug.Print sTxt
    Next i
    MsgBox sTxt
    sTxt = ""
Next k
End Sub

Edit: It's a little overkill, but I was just wondering how one could use an array to do it, so made it before I realized it had already been answered.


text:
10-Step Identity Access Management Process Design
Take a critical step in securing company resources, while allowing users enough access to get the job done.
Click through for 10 steps to a successful IAM project, as outlined by Steve Jensen, VP/CISO for Carlson Wagonlit Travel.
Identity Access Management (IAM) is a critical step in the process of securing company resources, while allowing users enough access to get the job done. Accessing data is only one component of identity and access management. Once a user has access to data, what should they be able to do with it? Should a user be able to modify or delete it? Should they be able to FTP it off to another site outside the company?
According to Steve Jensen, VP/CISO of Carlson Wagonlit Travel, there are four reasons to undertake an IAM project: regulatory compliance, enhancing security, making security operations more efficient, and making it easier for business units to interact with security.
Jensen has outlined the following 10-step program to a successful IAM project.
Why All the Hype Over Net Neutrality?	Learn what net neutrality is all about and why it's so important.
OffSiteDataBackup	Learn more about what businesses should expect from their off-site data backup vendor.
Seven-Step Security Health Checklist	See how you fare with this security health checklist.


How do I know if Heritage Hills can can meet my care needs?
Heritage Hills memory care offers 24 hour licensed nursing as well as a Resident Service Director who specializes in assessing our potential residents. The assessments help determine the appropriate level of care for each of our new incoming residents as well as allow us to monitor them in their own environment so we can learn their current habits and routines. This is also a time where we find out their specific likes and dislikes. The initial assessments can take anywhere from 30minutes to an hour. Once the assessment is complete our nurse will put in place the appropriate care plan for the new resident and determine the next steps leading to move in to the community.
Can I bring my own furnishings to Heritage Hills?
Is there transportation and is it wheelchair accessible?
Scheduled transportation to errands, outing and local appointments is included in your all inclusive rate. Heritage Hills bus is wheel chair friendly and we will use it frequently to get our residents outside the community to enjoy the fresh air and take part in scenic drives down the coast.
Will smoking be allowed at Heritage Hills?
Can my loved one bring their pet? What if they cant take care of the pets needs anymore?
Heritage Hills is 100% pet friendly with weight restrictions pending the room size and accommodation chosen. If your loved one can no longer care for the pet the resident service director can develop a care plan for the pet and our team of caregivers will care for the pets needs at an additional monthly cost.
What if my loved one health changes?
Heritage Hills understand the importance of aging in place and not having to move when our residents care changes. We offer 24 hour licensed nursing and have the capability for end of life care so our families can find comfort in knowing once they loved one enters Heritage Hills they are there to stay.
At Heritage Hills you can visit at any time. When the front desk lobby is closed and locked there will be a number posted that you can call and this will alert the charge nurse and from there you can be let in to sign in and visit your loved one.
Can my loved on walk around freely?
Yes, we are a secure memory care community meaning our residents have the flexibility to go about their normal daily activities while maintaining their safety within the community grounds.
Is Senior living tax deductible?
Senior living can be tax deductible. We encourage you to ask your preferred tax professional what they can do to assist you in this matter. Any documentation needed from Heritage Hills can be provided by our business office director.
1. Do your staff members specialize in memory care? What does your training program entail?
2. If my loved one's care becomes acute, can he or she still live here?
3. What happens if my loved one runs out of money?
4. Do your prices go up every year? What is your annual rate increase?
5. What is your turnover rate? For staff? For residents?
6. How often do your residents get outside the community?
7. How do you deal with difficult behaviors or combativeness?
8. Tell me about your memory care program?
9. If my loved one comes to need more care over time, will the price increase?
10. Tell me about medications and how you feel about antipsychotics?
11. What is your staffing ratio?
12. Is there awake staff at night?
13. How often do the residents eat and are meal times flexible?
14. Can I take my loved one out of the community?
15. Should I visit in the first couple of days?
16. Can we spend the night if our loved one is having a hard time?
17. Do you have a psychiatrist on board?
18. Do you accept pets? If so, is there a fee associated? Can you provide care for the pet if my loved one can't?


text:
Q: Why can humour be dry but not wet? Humour that is presented in a matter of fact way, as it weren't even an attempt to be funny, can be described as dry. And any sort of writing or information can be dry if it's overly factual in nature.
As far as I know, though, no one uses wet to describe obvious humour or information with lots of flourishes.
What would be the right word for the opposite of "dry" in these metaphorical senses?
Or, to ask another way, what one word would you place in these sentences:

His joke definitely wasn't dry, it was downright _____________!
I thought her lecture would be dry, but it was surprisingly ____________.

When was dry first used in this sense, and was wet ever used as it's opposite metaphor?
And if I dare ask a "why" question, is there a reason dry is used in this metaphorical sense without having pulled along the obvious antonym?

A: In this case, dry is not the opposite of wet, but it means bare, and lacking adornment, such as a dry report.
Etymonline, the online etymology dictionary, indicates the word has been used to describe comedy for more than 500 years!

dry O.E. dryge, from P.Gmc. *draugiz, from PIE *dreug-. Meaning "barren" is mid-14c. Of humor or jests, early 15c. (implied in dryly); as "uninteresting, tedious" from 1620s.

As for antonyms, instead of a dry lecture, you might sit through a lively one.  When applied to jokes, a joke might be farcical, or whimsical; a comedy routine might be laced with slapstick.  One website I found listed 20 distinct forms of humor; others in that list which seem "opposite" of dry include hyperbolic, sophomoric, screwball, but probably not mordant.

A: While it is true that dry is often used to describe a type of understated humour, and the person who tells a joke  usually delivers the punchline in a  flat deadpan voice. It is false that its most obvious antonym wet is never associated with humour. You can in fact wet yourself laughing, which implies that a person laughs so heartily that he or she temporarily loses control of their bladder. Another typical slang expression is piss yourself laughing
A plausible antonym to dry humour could be vaudeville, as in

His joke definitely wasn't dry, it was pure vaudeville!

Although I still prefer J.R's slapstick solution, which typifies the physical humour/comedy genre.

A: While I have not seen such a usage, the term juicy might convey the sense of the opposite in both these examples.
In regard to humor, the term dry can convey subtlety and indicate a form that may be an acquired taste, like dry wine or martinis.  Juicy connotes a more robust and obvious quality.
As to the lecture, the concept of bare or barren does seem to be the closer meaning. I think juicy would work there as well.
This is mere opinion and without reference.


A petition seeking a vote on removing the Freedmen from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is due to be turned in this week.
Former deputy chief John Ketcher says he has gathered nearly 2,100 signatures on the petition to deny citizenship to the Freedmen, the descendants of former African slaves who were made members of the tribe in a post-Civil War treaty.
The tribe's highest court ruled that the Freedmen are entitled to citizenship if they can show their ancestor appeared on the Dawes Roll, the same roll used to determine Cherokee ancestry.
The tribe has since enrolled hundreds of Freedmen but top officials, including Chief Chad Smith, have questioned their inclusion if they don't have Indian blood.


Tabata- 13:30 minutes (20seconds on, 10 seconds rest) of SSH, speed skates, Imperial Walkers, weighted triceps extensions, curls, OH press, bent over rows, 2x 1-minute planks, merkins, wide merkins, diamond merkins, ab crunches, plank jacks, mountain climbers, and other fun stuff.
Lunge to trees with weight. Weighted presses, flutter kicks, Dolly, Rosalita, 6″ hold, 30°-45°-90° and overhead lunge back to start for KBS, windmills, 10 burpees and 5 get ups.
10 minutes of yoga and stretches.
Dolphin Day this Saturday, beatdown: same bat time, same bat channel, ERT training at Wesley beginning at 8:30. Contact Milkbone if you want to sign up. 2nd year anniversary beatdown scheduled on 3/10.
Prayer concerns: Cantore's dad-heart cath, Bundy's mom-heart ablation, possible reduction of blood thinners, Milkbone-follow up on calf surgery today.
Previous post2018 SGHS Bridge Run Double Down!
Next postHDHH 2-21-18… When it's "GOOD" to not be afraid.


Next time you're hosting a party, entertain like a pro with an easy build-your-own nacho bar. Perfect for any fiesta, nacho bars are a fan favorite. Create your own nacho bar with our go-to guide of nacho bar do's and don'ts.
Keep your build-your-own nacho bar festive and fun by decorating with a brightly patterned table cloth and serveware. Line plastic hot dog baskets with parchment paper so party goers can load up on nachos without making a mess. Keep your core nacho bases warm throughout your fiesta by serving them in slow cookers. For easy nacho making, elevate your slow cookers by resting them on a large, inverted ceramic mixing bowl.
To give guests a variety of nacho combinations to choose from, offer two nacho base options. For our nacho bar, we decided to offer two nacho recipe ideas, Chicken Fiesta Nachos and Chorizo Nachos. Include a menu on each slow cooker with a list of the components that build each type of nacho so guests can properly top their tortilla chips.
Include Chicken Fiesta Nachos at your party by breaking down this recipe. For a zesty chicken nacho base, keep shredded rotisserie chicken, black beans and the recipe's stirred tomatoes and reserved liquid in a slow cooker.
Set the components for each type of nachos out in individual bowls so guests can add their desired topping amounts. For Chicken Fiesta Nachos, have drained RO*TEL® Original Diced Tomatoes & Green Chilies, cooked refried beans, cheddar and Monterey Jack cheese, green onions, canned sliced ripe olives (drained) and guacamole.
To make Chorizo Nachos, start by preparing this Queso Dip for a Crowd. Just add chorizo to the recipe by heating 1 pound of chorizo sausage in a large, nonstick skillet over medium-high heat, stirring occasionally for 5 minutes or until the chorizo is finely crumbled and browned. Drain your chorizo and stir it into your Queso Dip for a Crowd once the cheese is melted. Keep your zesty queso warm in a slow cooker. When it comes to Chorizo Nacho toppings, include bowls of sour cream, diced avocado and black beans.
No nacho bar is complete without drinks. Make easy, 3-ingredient Big Batch Margaritas by pouring one 12-ounce can of thawed limeade into a large pitcher. Using your empty limeade can as a measuring cup, pour 2 cans worth of tequila, 1 can of triple sec, and 1½ cans of water into your large pitcher.
To salt the rims of your margarita glasses, run the edge of a lime wedge around the tops of them. Pour some salt onto a small plate and place the top of your margarita glasses into the salt. To serve your margaritas, fill your glasses with ice, pour and sip! For non-alcoholic Big Batch Margaritas, omit tequila and triple sec.
Photos and concepts for this nacho bar were provided by Garnish with Lemon.