text:
package com.amazonaws.services.dynamodbv2.datamodeling;

import com.amazonaws.services.dynamodbv2.AmazonDynamoDB;
import com.amazonaws.services.dynamodbv2.datamodeling.DynamoDBMapperConfig.PaginationLoadingStrategy;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.ListIterator;
import java.util.NoSuchElementException;

/**
 * Unmodifiable list supporting paginated result sets from Amazon DynamoDB.
 *

 * Pages of results are fetched lazily from DynamoDB as they are needed. Some
 * methods, such as {@link PaginatedList#size()} and
 * {@link PaginatedList#toArray()}, require fetching the entire result set
 * eagerly. See the javadoc of individual methods for details on which are lazy.
 *
 * @param <T>
 *            The domain object type stored in this list.
 */
public abstract class PaginatedList<T> implements List<T> {

    private static final String UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE = "This is an unmodifiable list";

    private static final String ITERATION_ONLY_UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION_MESSAGE = " is not supported when using ITERATION_ONLY configuration.";

    /**
     * Reference to the DynamoDB mapper for marshalling DynamoDB attributes back
     * into objects
     */
    protected final DynamoDBMapper mapper;

    /**
     * The class annotated with DynamoDB tags declaring how to load/store
     * objects into DynamoDB
     */
    protected final Class<T> clazz;

    /** The client for working with DynamoDB */
    protected final AmazonDynamoDB dynamo;

    /** Tracks if all results have been loaded yet or not */
    protected boolean allResultsLoaded = false;

    /**
     * All currently loaded results for this list.
     *
     * In ITERATION_ONLY mode, this list will at most keep one page of the
     * loaded results, and all previous results will be cleared from the memory.
     */
    protected final List<T> allResults;

    /** Lazily loaded next results waiting to be added into allResults */
    protected final List<T> nextResults = new LinkedList<T>();

    /** The pagination loading strategy for this paginated list **/
    private final PaginationLoadingStrategy paginationLoadingStrategy;

    /**
     * Keeps track on whether an iterator of the list has been retrieved.
     * Only updated and checked when the list is in ITERATION_ONLY mode.
     */
    private boolean iterationStarted = false;

    /**
     * Constructs a PaginatedList instance using the default PaginationLoadingStrategy
     */
    public PaginatedList(DynamoDBMapper mapper, Class<T> clazz, AmazonDynamoDB dynamo) {
        this(mapper, clazz, dynamo, null);
    }

    /**
     * Constructs a PaginatedList instance.
     *
     * @param mapper
     *            The mapper for marshalling DynamoDB attributes into objects.
     * @param clazz
     *            The class of the annotated model.
     * @param dynamo
     *            The DynamoDB client for making low-level request calls.
     * @param paginationLoadingStrategy
     *            The strategy used for loading paginated results. Caller has to
     *            explicitly set this parameter, since the DynamoDBMapperConfig
     *            set in the mapper is not accessible here. If null value is
     *            provided, LAZY_LOADING will be set by default.
     */
    public PaginatedList(DynamoDBMapper mapper, Class<T> clazz, AmazonDynamoDB dynamo, PaginationLoadingStrategy paginationLoadingStrategy) {
        this.mapper = mapper;
        this.clazz = clazz;
        this.dynamo = dynamo;
        this.paginationLoadingStrategy = paginationLoadingStrategy == null ?
                PaginationLoadingStrategy.LAZY_LOADING : paginationLoadingStrategy;

        this.allResults = new ArrayList<T>();

        // Ideally, we should eagerly load all results here as soon as EAGER_LOADING is configured.
        // But the implementation of loadAllResults() relies on a fully initialized sub-class object.
        // So we have to do this in each sub-class constructor.
    }

    /**
     * Eagerly loads all results for this list.
     *

     * Not supported in ITERATION_ONLY mode.
     *

     */
    public synchronized void loadAllResults() {
        checkUnsupportedOperationForIterationOnlyMode("loadAllResults()");

        if ( allResultsLoaded )
            return;

        while ( nextResultsAvailable() ) {
            // Keep all loaded results
            moveNextResults(false);
        }

        allResultsLoaded = true;
    }

    /**
     * Returns whether there are more results available not yet included in the
     * allResults member field. These could already have been fetched and are
     * sitting in the nextResults buffer, or they could be fetched from the
     * service opportunistically at the time this method is called. A return
     * value of true guarantees that nextResults is non-empty.
     */
    private boolean nextResultsAvailable() {
        return !nextResults.isEmpty() || loadNextResults();
    }

    /**
     * Attempts to load the next batch of results, if there are any, into the
     * nextResults buffer. Returns whether there were any results to load. A
     * return value of true guarantees that nextResults had items added to it.
     */
    private synchronized boolean loadNextResults() {
        if ( atEndOfResults() )
            return false;

        do {
            nextResults.addAll(fetchNextPage());
        } while ( !atEndOfResults() && nextResults.isEmpty() );

        return !nextResults.isEmpty();
    }

    /**
     * Moves the contents of the nextResults buffer into allResults and resets
     * the buffer.
     *
     * @param clearPreviousResults
     *            Whether it should clear previous results in allResults field.
     */
    private void moveNextResults(boolean clearPreviousResults) {
        if (clearPreviousResults) {
            allResults.clear();
        }
        allResults.addAll(nextResults);
        nextResults.clear();
    }

    /**
     * Fetches the next page of results (which may be empty) and returns any
     * items found.
     */
    protected abstract List<T> fetchNextPage();

    /**
     * Returns whether we have reached the end of the result set.
     */
    protected abstract boolean atEndOfResults();

    /**
     * Returns an iterator over this list that lazily initializes results as
     * necessary.
     *

     * If it configured with ITERARTION_ONLY mode, then the iterator
     * could be only retrieved once, and any previously loaded results will be
     * cleared in the memory during the iteration.
     *

     */
    @Override
    public Iterator<T> iterator() {
        return new PaginatedListIterator(paginationLoadingStrategy == PaginationLoadingStrategy.ITERATION_ONLY);
    }

    private class PaginatedListIterator implements Iterator<T> {
        /**
         * Whether this iterator is constructed by a PaginatedList in
         * ITERATION_ONLY mode.
         */
        private final boolean iterationOnly;

        /**
         * A hard copy of the allResults list to prevent
         * ConcurrentModificationExceptions.
         * Only needed when the list is not in ITERNATION_ONLY mode.
         */
        private final List<T> allResultsCopy;

        private Iterator<T> innerIterator;

        private int pos = 0;

        public PaginatedListIterator(boolean iterationOnly) {
            this.iterationOnly = iterationOnly;

            if (iterationOnly) {
                synchronized (PaginatedList.this) {
                    if (iterationStarted) {
                        throw new UnsupportedOperationException("The list could only be iterated once in ITERATION_ONLY mode.");
                    }
                    iterationStarted = true;
                }

                allResultsCopy = null; // not needed for ITERATION_ONLY mode
                innerIterator = allResults.iterator();
            }
            else {
                /*
                 * We make a copy of the allResults list to iterate over in order to
                 * avoid ConcurrentModificationExceptions caused by other methods
                 * loading more results into the list while someone iterates over it.
                 * This is a more severe problem than it might seem, because even
                 * innocuous-seeming operations such as contains() can modify the
                 * underlying result set.
                 */
                allResultsCopy = new ArrayList<T>();
                allResultsCopy.addAll(allResults);
                innerIterator = allResultsCopy.iterator();
            }
        }

        @Override
        public boolean hasNext() {
            return innerIterator.hasNext() || shouldSyncWithAllResultsList() ||
                   nextResultsAvailable();
        }

        /**
         * If we aren't in ITERATION_ONLY mode then allResults is the authoriative source of
         * results. If it's size has increased since this iterator was last synched with it then we
         * have more results to process and need to re-sync allResultsCopy with allResults.
         *
         * @return True if more results are available in allResults then what we have currently
         * snapshoted in the iterator, false otherwise.
         */
        private boolean shouldSyncWithAllResultsList() {
            return !iterationOnly && allResults.size() > allResultsCopy.size();
        }

        @Override
        public T next() {
            if ( !innerIterator.hasNext() ) {
                /*
                 * We need to immediately fetch more results from the service,
                 * if
                 *   -- it's in ITERATION_ONLY mode (which means innerIterator
                 *      is always pointing at the "real" list of loaded results)
                 *   OR it's not in ITERATION_ONLY and our private copy of the
                 *      result list is already up to date with the full one.
                 */
                if ( iterationOnly
                        || allResults.size() == allResultsCopy.size() ) {
                    if ( !nextResultsAvailable() ) {
                        throw new NoSuchElementException();
                    }
                    /* Clear previous results if it's in ITERATION_ONLY mode */
                    boolean clearPreviousResults = iterationOnly;
                    moveNextResults(clearPreviousResults);
                }

                if ( iterationOnly ) {
                    /*
                     * allResults has been replaced with the latest page of results.
                     */
                    innerIterator = allResults.iterator();
                } else {
                    /*
                     * Update our private results copy, and then update the inner iterator
                     */
                    if (allResults.size() > allResultsCopy.size()) {
                        allResultsCopy.addAll(allResults.subList(allResultsCopy.size(),
                                                                 allResults.size()));
                    }

                    innerIterator = allResultsCopy.listIterator(pos);
                }
            }

            pos++;
            return innerIterator.next();
        }

        @Override
        public void remove() {
            throw new UnsupportedOperationException(UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE);
        }

    }

    /**
     * Returns whether the collection is empty. At most one (non-empty) page of
     * results is loaded to make the check.
     *

     * Not supported in ITERATION_ONLY mode.
     *

     */
    @Override
    public boolean isEmpty() {
        checkUnsupportedOperationForIterationOnlyMode("isEmpty()");

        return !iterator().hasNext();
    }

    /**
     * Returns the Nth element of the list. Results are loaded until N elements
     * are present, if necessary.
     *

     * Not supported in ITERATION_ONLY mode.
     *

     */
    @Override
    public T get(int n) {
        checkUnsupportedOperationForIterationOnlyMode("get(int n)");

        while ( allResults.size() <= n && nextResultsAvailable() ) {
            moveNextResults(false);
        }

        return allResults.get(n);
    }

    /**
     * Returns whether the collection contains the given element. Results are
     * loaded and checked incrementally until a match is found or the end of the
     * result set is reached.
     *

     * Not supported in ITERATION_ONLY mode.
     *

     */
    @Override
    public boolean contains(Object arg0) {
        checkUnsupportedOperationForIterationOnlyMode("contains(Object arg0)");

        if ( allResults.contains(arg0) )
            return true;

        while ( nextResultsAvailable() ) {
            boolean found = nextResults.contains(arg0);
            moveNextResults(false);
            if ( found )
                return true;
        }

        return false;
    }

    /**
     * Returns a sub-list in the range specified, loading more results as
     * necessary.
     *

     * Not supported in ITERATION_ONLY mode.
     *

     */
    @Override
    public List<T> subList(int arg0, int arg1) {
        checkUnsupportedOperationForIterationOnlyMode("subList(int arg0, int arg1)");

        while ( allResults.size() < arg1 && nextResultsAvailable() ) {
            moveNextResults(false);
        }

        return Collections.unmodifiableList(allResults.subList(arg0, arg1));
    }

    /**
     * Returns the first index of the object given in the list. Additional
     * results are loaded incrementally as necessary.
     *

     * Not supported in ITERATION_ONLY mode.
     *

     */
    @Override
    public int indexOf(Object arg0) {
        checkUnsupportedOperationForIterationOnlyMode("indexOf(Object org0)");

        int indexOf = allResults.indexOf(arg0);
        if ( indexOf >= 0 )
            return indexOf;

        while ( nextResultsAvailable() ) {
            indexOf = nextResults.indexOf(arg0);
            int size = allResults.size();
            moveNextResults(false);
            if ( indexOf >= 0 )
                return indexOf + size;
        }

        return -1;
    }

    // Operations requiring the entire result set

    @Override
    public int size() {
        loadAllResults();
        return allResults.size();
    }

    @Override
    public boolean containsAll(Collection<?> arg0) {
        loadAllResults();
        return allResults.containsAll(arg0);
    }

    @Override
    public int lastIndexOf(Object arg0) {
        loadAllResults();
        return allResults.lastIndexOf(arg0);
    }

    @Override
    public Object[] toArray() {
        loadAllResults();
        return allResults.toArray();
    }

    @Override
    public <X> X[] toArray(X[] a) {
        loadAllResults();
        return allResults.toArray(a);
    }

    // Unsupported Operations

    @Override
    public ListIterator<T> listIterator() {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException("ListIterators are not supported for this list");
    }

    @Override
    public ListIterator<T> listIterator(int arg0) {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException("ListIterators are not supported for this list");
    }

    @Override
    public boolean remove(Object arg0) {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException(UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE);
    }

    @Override
    public T remove(int arg0) {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException(UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE);
    }

    @Override
    public boolean removeAll(Collection<?> arg0) {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException(UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE);
    }

    @Override
    public boolean retainAll(Collection<?> arg0) {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException(UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE);
    }

    @Override
    public T set(int arg0, T arg1) {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException(UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE);
    }

    @Override
    public boolean add(T arg0) {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException(UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE);
    }

    @Override
    public void add(int arg0, T arg1) {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException(UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE);
    }

    @Override
    public boolean addAll(Collection<? extends T> arg0) {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException(UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE);
    }

    @Override
    public boolean addAll(int arg0, Collection<? extends T> arg1) {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException(UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE);
    }

    @Override
    public void clear() {
        throw new UnsupportedOperationException(UNMODIFIABLE_MESSAGE);
    }

    private void checkUnsupportedOperationForIterationOnlyMode(String methodSignature) {
        if (this.paginationLoadingStrategy == PaginationLoadingStrategy.ITERATION_ONLY) {
            throw new UnsupportedOperationException(methodSignature + ITERATION_ONLY_UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION_MESSAGE);
        }
    };
}


text:
John Sandford (John Camp)
I attended a book signing by John Sandford, a pseudonym used by John Camp, at Scottsdale's Poisoned Pen Bookstore yesterday evening. I made some notes from the event.
My apologies for any errors herein; they are my own. If I've misstated something, I apologize and will make corrections when so notified.
John is promoting his latest novel, The Investigator. Examining the copy on my lap, I estimated the book's length at about 180,000 words. (A big book.)
There were 40+ people in the audience including his wife who is also a journalist by trade. He said he bounces everything off her and that she's his best editor.
He writes in Word "because the publisher's require it." He spent several minutes complaining about it's bugs and mentioned an on-going struggle concerning the possessive apostrophe for words ending in "s" which (apparently) is a known bug. (He works on a PC, not a Mac. I refrained from trying to promote Scrivener on the Mac, my preferred environment.)
He said that for his WIP, Work In Progress, he started by going to the locale and observing its day-to-day. He became interested in the people, speculated about their lives, and that the story grew from there.
When he writes, he has no particular plot in mind.
He also commented that he's really struggling with the WIP. I think he said that he's re-drafted the latest scene many times but, so far, the story won't move forward.
I asked what was the ratio of words written-but-deleted versus those that finally get published. He took a long moment before answering it doesn't apply to him because he may revise a scene 20 to 30 times until it works.
He mentioned he would be attending a conference/meeting in the fall, and would be participating in a "review the first page" of submitted works. He said it was vital for authors to grab the reader within that space, and to then keep up the action.
He complained about what seemed to him to be the increasing practice of extreme and frequent violence in new books.
He mentioned that he likes to read, among others, The Gray Man series. I presume he's referring to ones by Mark Greaney.
While signing my copy of John's latest book, I mentioned my efforts at writing a novel, and that I'm "not yet" published. He said it seems to him that beginners often submit their first novel, get back a rejection, try to fix it, and then do this over and over. He suggested it would be better to leave the work and move on to writing a new one. I commented that my current WIP has been, among other things, a learning opportunity. He nodded and agreed that's a good thing and not uncommon for new writers, but then re-iterated the advice to leave it and start on the next thing. In this regard, he related his own beginning experience:
His first novel, "Chippewah Zoo," has never been published.
His second—title not mentioned—was also never published.
His third work started the Kidd series, was published, but didn't sell.
His fourth—the second in the Kidd series—was successful.
FYI: Poisoned Pen has a busy calendar of author signings. You can attend in-person as I did to get the opportunity for the Q&A, a signed-in-person copy, and the chance for a brief one-on-one moment, or you can attend via live-stream on the Internet (and submit a question), or you can view recorded copies at a later date.
This entry was posted in Writing by Ed Skinner. Bookmark the permalink.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Alison L. Roberts
Content Evaluation, Licensing & Dev
Segment Production & Public Relations for an Anime Podcast
Interviewing awesome folks about their work in the anime & manga industry – including a few legends.
The Anime Today podcast started a year prior to my arrival at Right Stuf and featured a mix of store and production news.
Once I got settled in, I was charged with introducing anime and manga industry interviews to the show's format, and the first segment hit podcast and iTunes feeds in late December 2006. As I produced each interview segment, I was responsible for the following:
Lining up and scheduling interview subjects;
Conducting research (and occasionally pre-interviews);
Obtaining photo and web assets from the guests, for inclusion in the podcast and its liner notes;
Creating background briefs and interview questions that were provided to the podcast hosts and producers;
Serving as on-air talent during most of the interview segments;
Promoting the release of each podcast episode with press releases and social media; and
Following up with interview guests (post-podcast release) and coordinating cross promotions.
Podcast's Legacy
Anime Today was one of the first anime podcasts to have a featured interview as a regular segment, and I capitalized on the company's status as a leading retailer and longtime industry member to gain unprecedented access to a wide variety of guests. Interview subjects ranged from legendary figures who introduced anime to North America (pre-1990s) to present-day editors, translators, voice actors, directors, production teams, authors, journalists, and industry insiders.
By the time the podcast retired in 2011, multiple other organizations had successfully adopted similar interview segments into their formats. Right Stuf started re-releasing these interviews via their YouTube channel in 2016.
You can also still download the full interviews via iTunes. (Recommended!)
Notable Interviews
Fred Ladd (U.S. writer and producer responsible for bringing Astro Boy, Kimba the White Lion, Gigantor, and more to American TV in the 1960s)
Peter Fernandez (Writer, director, and voice of Speed Racer)
Carl Macek (Producer of Robotech)
Frederik L. Schodt (Writer, interpreter, and translator; author of The Astro Boy Essays: Osamu Tezuka, Mighty Atom and the Manga/Anime Revolution; translator for both the Astro Boy and Phoenix manga series)
Frederik L. Schodt and Jared Cook (Co-translators for Viz Media's release of Naoki Urasawa's Pluto manga)
Neil Nadelman (Anime translator for The Irresponsible Captain Tylor, Mobile Suit Gundam)
Helen McCarthy (Anime Encyclopedia, The Art of Osamu Tezuka: God of Manga)
Jonathan Clements (Anime Encyclopedia, Schoolgirl Milky Crisis)
Hiroko Yoda & Matt Alt (Ninja Atttack!)
Patrick W. Galbraith (The Otaku Encyclopedia)
Greg Ayres (Negima!, BECK: Mongolian Chop Squad)
Crispin Freeman (Hellsing, Revolutionary Girl Utena)
Michael Sinterniklaas (Founder NYAV Post, The Venture Brothers)
Stephanie Sheh (Eureka Seven, Bleach, Paradise Kiss)
More! Interviews ran in almost every episode, from 30 through 121.
"Microphone" icon by Nono Martnez Alonso, via The Noun Project.
Let's connect & discuss your upcoming projects!
All content within, unless otherwise designated, © 2000-2019 Alison L. Roberts.


This program will assist proposed guardians to present a complete petition for guardianship for up to five children and includes a fee waiver petition.
This program includes forms needed to present a complete petition for general conservatorship of the person or limited conservatorship of the person and includes a fee waiver petition.
This program includes forms needed to complete the dissolution petition and disclosures. Answer files saved with this program can be used to complete the Dissolution Foreign Service program.
This program helps a user who wants to respond to a governmental child support complaint, to fill out the FL-610 Answer form and the FL-150 or the FL-155 to provide financial information to the court.
This program requests information to complete Temporary Restraining Order, proposed order, custody and visitation, and income and expense forms.
This program includes the forms needed to respond to request for a domestic violence order.
This program will allow a petitioner to request a name change for one adult, one or more minor children or a family group (one adult and up to nine children).
This program is designed to help you figure out your best option for handling your matter. Before using this interview, you should have already determined that your matter is within the jurisdiction for Small Claims court and you now want to decide how you want to proceed with your matter.
This program will produce a summary sheet at the end of the interview to help you with your next steps.


Raspberries? Lemon? Tuffles? Need I say more! Today I'm sharing my simple recipe for raspberry lemon truffles! If you are staying this Valentine's Day or date night or maybe your just in a treat yo self mood these are ones you are going to want to make over and over again!
dip balls into vanilla almond bark until coated then place on wax paper.
place in fridge and serve when ready to eat!
These truffles are as good as they look if not better! Last time I made these there was an intense game of rock paper scissors as to who would get the last one! If you all make these tag me in your instagram stories @monicsutter or leave me a comment below letting me know! I hope you all have a great weekend! I'm not too sure what we are doing but I'm sure all be sharing it on my social media!
Thanks so much for stopping by and reading today's blog post! It means a lot to me! So thank you! REALLY!
PS If you are looking for another Valentine's Day treat check out how to make my heart shaped mini pies. It's an old but they are so light and tasty!


text:
https://www.yourconroenews.com/neighborhood/moco/news/article/Willis-ISD-superintendent-earns-doctorate-during-15823102.php
Willis ISD superintendent earns doctorate during pandemic
By Meagan Ellsworth, Staff writer
Updated 5:48 pm CST, Tuesday, December 22, 2020
Willis Independent School District Tim Harkrider receives his doctorate in educational leadership from Sam Houston State University on Saturday at NRG Stadium.
Photo: Submitted Photo / Submitted Photo
A former professional baseball player who became a superintendent in Montgomery County has earned his doctoral degree during the pandemic.
In June 1993, Tim Harkrider was drafted in the eighth round by the California Angels, now the Anaheim Angels. But an ankle injury that required three different surgeries forced him to his professional baseball career short and retire in 1998, he said.
"I never wanted to be known as just a former baseball player," Harkrider said.
After the strike of bad luck, Harkrider, 49, felt motivated to swing for success in a different field, this time in education. Motivated to accomplish more in his life, he worked through the administrative ranks as a teacher, coach, assistant principal, principal at four different school districts.
Today, he leads as the superintendent at the Willis Independent School District's where he has served for nearly a decade with 20 years of experience in public education. In the years since he hung up his baseball cap, he has also finished a master's degree and obtained his superintendent certification from other colleges.
In May 2018, he finally entered Sam Houston State University's doctoral program, which he postponed shortly after he became the superintendent. He received his doctorate in educational leadership on Saturday afternoon.
"I think receiving my doctorate is kind of the culmination of me moving past my baseball career and into a successful administrative career," Harkrider said.
This was no easy accomplishment for the longtime educator who continued to juggle his responsibility as a superintendent, husband, father, and student himself. In fact, when his wife how his first class went after being of the game for seven years — he wanted to quit.
"I literally came home that night and my wife said, 'What do you think? How did it go?" Harkrider said recalling the conversation. "'I think I'm a little too old to do this, so I think I'm done.'
"She started laughing and then she realized I was serious, and she said, 'you're serious'. and I said. 'I'm dead serious. I can't do this.' And she said, 'oh you are.'"
He went back the next week, but he said it never easier. But he had his family, professors, 12-person cohort and community rooting for him. He kept his eye on the ball and kept swinging.
Then, the pandemic would strike at home.
In the Spring, Willis ISD and Sam Houston State University were among the many public schools and universities across the nation and world who were forced to make tough decisions as cases began to rise and society began to shut down. Both the school and the university shifted to online learning.
Harkrider shared he was thankful to already be in the last semester of face to face courses instead of just starting the program, which would have been more difficult when the pandemic hit.
"I felt like I'd never stop whether I was working all morning or afternoon on Willis things and trying to figure out what was going on, how we were going to feed kids, how the online learning piece was going and then I would kind of immerse myself into my proposal," Harkrider said.
"If there is one bright spot from this pandemic, me being able to try to immerse myself in this program and keeping those long hours, I really wanted to get done and I wasn't going to wait another semester," he continued. "So probably 12-hour days or more trying to get it done, I ended up proposing in June and then after that finished the final couple of chapters, my results section and chapter five over the course of the summer."
He credits having a great Willis ISD team as one the biggest helps for taking of both the district and him, including with the board of trustees switching the school's meeting nights to accommodate his schedule.
"On behalf of myself and the entire Willis ISD board of trustees, we want to congratulate Dr. Harkrider on this huge accomplishment while successfully leading the district through unprecedented times with dedication and heart," Willis ISD School Board President Cliff Williams said. "We look forward to his leadership for many years to come."
Despite the challenges and changes, Harkrider finally hit the grand slam and walked across the NRG Stadium stage on Saturday to receive his doctoral degree from SHSU with his family in attendance. There were his two sons who also graduated from high school and college in the big year for the family despite 2020's uncertainties.
"It was a cool day," Harkrider said. "There is a lot of sacrifice that took place, whether it was two years of Wednesday nights of me being gone and kids asleep by the time I got home, and a lot of time getting up early in the morning and working on assignment and kids wanting to do something and I need to get this deadline met."
"They sacrificed quite a bit too and I felt like walking in the ceremony, they knew I was done in September it was over," he continued. "But I really wanted them to see the final product that hopefully will motivate them that they can do whatever they decide they want to do with their life. There doesn't have to be any limits to their goals."
He believes he grew as a leader in the diverse cohort comprised of secondary and elementary administrators from large and small school districts that he believes has helped him understand situations and different challenges better, including from a racial standpoint, working with students in poverty, as well as special education.
"That surprised me, I wasn't expecting to grow as a person and a leader and I think that was my biggest takeaway is that I am a much a better leader two and a half years later than I was in May of 2018," Harkrider said.
He hopes he models being a lifelong learning for his Willis ISD students and staff.
"Just keep pushing yourself, keep stretching and keep trying to be better than you were the day before," Harkrider said. "If that is your goal and that is what you are shooting for then you are going to be successful."
For the future, his game plan in mind is to continue to move Willis ISD forward with its "great team" in a way that the supportive community can be proud of and high expectations.
"If there is one thing, I learned during my baseball career, it is that success is not guaranteed, and to just continue to push to be the best we can be," Harkrider said.
mellsworth@hcnonline.com


text:
package org.eclipse.jface.text.provisional.codelens.internal;

public class CodeLensHelper {

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Measurement Solutions has over 40 years experience supplying, specifying and supporting the Australian Rupture Disc (burst disc) market. Our extensive knowledge and commitment to sound engineering practice ensures we consistently provide our customers with dependable advice and the best solutions for their over or under pressure protection applications.
Rupture disc offered with a choice of true 90% or 95% operating to burst ratio.
The HPX® Rupture Disc (bursting disc) is a scored, reverse acting rupture disc utalising CDC's industry leading technology and craftsmanship. The HPX® Rupture Disc is a high precision reverse acting rupture disc that offers proven performance in excess of 5 million cycles at 95% operating ratio. Thats over 5 times longer than our nearest competitor!
The HPX® Rupture Disc excels in fully liquid, gaseous and partial gas/liquid systems. Full opening guaranteed.
- Compliance with AS1358, ASME, PED, ISO, NACE, CE, NADCAP, Reach and more.
The SANITRX HPX® rupture disc (bursting disc) is a scored reverse acting rupture disc (bursting disc) designed specifically for the pharmaceutical, food and beverage, and biotech industries. This differential pressure relief device features an instantaneous full-open relief area for protecting equipment, vessels, systems and people from an overpressure condition. This high precision reverse acting rupture disc (bursting disc) offers proven performance in excess of 5 Million cycles at a 95% operating ratio.
SANITRX HPX® Rupture Discs comply with essential criteria of ASME BPE and USP Class VI.
The HPX-Ta™ Rupture Disc (bursting disc) is a Tantalum semicircular scored reverse acting rupture disc designed specifically for use in highly corrosive media, such as bromine, chlorine, HCL, nitric acid or sulfuric acid. In certain concentrations, temperatures and moisture conditions, Tantalum is frequently the only suitable rupture disc material for the application.
The LOTRX® Rupture Disc (bursting disc) is a scored reverse acting rupture disc (bursting disc) that utilizes failure initiating indents, a highly accurate manufacturing method to achieve and control a burst pressure at close tolerances, plus a precision semicircular score to provide a clean, consistent opening pattern. The LOTRX® Rupture Disc (bursting disc) is designed for extremely low pressure applications below the range of the HPX® Rupture Disc product family.
The STAR X Rupture Disc (bursting disc) is designed to provide protection at even lower burst pressures than the ULTRX or MINTRX rupture discs. It has Continental Disc's patented non-symmetrical failure initiating indents, to precisely control disc buckling at a predetermined pressure. The STAR X Rupture Disc incorporates a handling ring to reduce torque sensitivity. It is specifically designed for low pressure applications that require operating ratio of up to 90% of the disc's rated (marked) burst pressure.
The MINTRX Rupture Disc (bursting disc) has many of the same benefits as the HPX Rupture Disc, but is specifically designed to operate at lower burst pressures. When the patented precision controlled indentation on the rupture disc surface initiates the reversal action, full opening will occur..
The RCS Rupture Disc (bursting disc)is a reverse acting, cross-scored, solid metal rupture disc (bursting disc), providing reliable pressure relief protection, easy installation, and retrofit to your pre-existing piping arrangement. Available in sizes outside the range of the HPX® Rupture Disc product family.
Sanitary rupture disc designed for pharmaceutical, food, beverage, and biotech industries.
The SANITRX® LPX is a stainless steel, reverse acting rupture disc (bursting disc) designed specifically for the pharmaceutical, food and beverage, and biotech industries.
This differential pressure relief device features an instantaneous full-open relief area for protecting equipment, vessels, systems and people from an overpressure condition.
The SANITRX HPX® II Rupture Disc is a semicircular, scored, reverse acting rupture disc (bursting disc) designed specifically for applications in the pharmaceutical, food & beverage and biotech industries that require pressures above our SANITRX HPX® Rupture Disc. Available in sizes 1 ½" to 4," this rupture disc is available to fit between standard sanitary ferrules, NA CONNECT® flanges or SANITRX® fittings. SANITRX HPX® II rupture discs are shipped in sanitary, environmentally friendly, non-toxic packaging.
For applications that require lower pressures with reduced flow resistance, Continental Disc offers the SANITRX LP® Rupture Disc (bursting disc). This new rupture disc was designed specifically to provide the same features as the original SANITRX® Rupture Disc, but with the added benefit of lower available burst pressures plus, through the benefit of using our on-site ASME Accepted Flow Test Laboratory, the SANITRX LP® Rupture Disc has been designed to have one of the lowest KR flow resistance factors available in a rupture disc of any design - from any manufacturer.
Rupture Discs (Bursting Discs) function as a pre-designed "weak point" in a pressurized system, and they should be the strongest part of your pressure protection system. Continental Disc Corp's rupture discs (bursting discs) utilize innovative and patented designs, the highest quality materials from traceable sources, and ISO 9001 manufacturing procedures performed by skilled craftsmen.
First choice for pulsating and cyclic pressures.
rupture discs, which may warrant consideration when selecting a rupture disc.
95% of the stamped burst pressure.
Longer service life under cyclic or pulsating conditions.
Economical option suited to static conditions.
until the tensile strength of the material is reached and rupture occurs.
Why Choose a Rupture Disc??
Aside from instantaneous full relief, zero leakage and lower operating costs. Rupture discs (bursting discs) are a failsafe relief device, which is a huge advantage if the purpose of your relief device is protection of personal and equipment. Valves can stick, corrode, be damaged or miss assembled/serviced. All of which can result in a failure to operate and a potentially catastrophic outcome. HPX rupture discs are a fail safe design which, regardless of damage, corrosion and age will still burst at or below it's certified value.
Continental Disc Corporation manufactures rupture discs (bursting discs) to our customers' specifications which protect vessels, equipment and systems against damaging overpressure conditions.
Quality begins during our first contact with you. That quality is an integral part of every step we take to provide you with what you expect to receive. All manufacturing is performed under an approved ISO 9001 Quality Assurance System. Continental Disc Corporation can supply rupture discs (bursting discs) certified to the standards of ASME, the European Pressure Equipment Directive, 3A Sanitary Standards Council and many others.
Continental Disc Corporation offers an emergency service program to meet your needs. Shipping schedules are adjusted daily to meet your emergency requirements.
Whether it's from the standard product line, or a custom-manufactured rupture disc (bursting disc) for a one-of-a-kind application, Continental Disc Corporation has built a reputation for solving the toughest pressure relief problems for OEM's...Defense...Space Exploration...Aircraft and Aerospace...Chemical and Petrochemical... Food Processing...Electronics..and countless more.
Continental Disc Corporation's custom manufacturing capabilities have been tapped for such wide-ranging projects as air conditioning units, oxygen supply systems, aircraft ejection seats, sonobouys and the space shuttle.
The same engineering, testing and manufacturing talent that has solved one-of-a-kind problems for worldwide industries is now available to deliver innovative solutions for your specific pressure relief problems.
art processing and testing requirements.
Whether your needs are for quantities of one or one hundred thousand, Continental Disc is ready to solve your pressure relief problems.


text:
Understanding the ADA
The Blog of William D. Goren, J.D. LL.M.
About William D. Goren, J.D., LL.M.
Kisor Decided: What Does it Mean for Auer Deference?
July 2, 2019 by William Goren Leave a Comment
I had a great time last week doing two CLEs with my colleague and foil Richard Hunt in Dallas. Those webinars can be found here and here. We had an absolute blast. I also got some personal time in as well with a really close friend and his family in nearby Fort Worth. So, ready to go for another week. Shortly before we did the first webinar, I got news from Robin Shea, the person behind the Labor And Employment Law Insider blog in my blogroll, that Kisor v. Wilkie came down. It's timing could not have been better because the case explicitly and implicitly came up in both webinars. As promised last week, the blog entry of the week is on Kisor v. Wilkie. As usual the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: introduction; why Auer deference makes sense; Auer deference from here on out; why Auer deference doesn't get overruled; stare decisis must be respected; why case must be remanded; Chief Justice Roberts concurring opinion stating that the majority opinion and Justice Gorsuch are not that far apart; Justice Gorsuch concurring opinion setting forth the case why Auer deference should have died; and takeaways. Of course, the reader can focus on any or all of the categories. That said, at a minimum, the reader is going to want to read III, Auer deference from here on out, and IX, takeaways, for sure. For those with a more academic bent, it's interesting comparing Justice Kagan's take on why Auer deference had good policy reason behind it (II), with Justice Gorsuch's take on why Auer deference should be blown up (VIII). Similarly, the stare decisis section (V) is interesting in light of how the Supreme Court is not always following stare decisis of late.
Introductory Thoughts
Unanimous decision. However, unanimous in result only and not in its reasoning.
The swing vote was clearly Chief Justice Roberts. Of particular significance, he joined the section circumscribing Auer deference, the section talking about how stare decisis mattered, and the section discussing the merits of the case. Otherwise, he pointedly did not join the majority opinion.
Justice Kavanaugh did write a concurring opinion. That opinion essentially says he agrees with what Chief Justice Roberts said about how there is not much daylight between Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kagan.
We previously discussed the oral argument in this case here. Just to recap, what happened here was a veteran lost a benefits case because an agency interpretation of its regulations was given Auer deference. He then appealed through the system, and it eventually came before the United States Supreme Court.
Kenneth Culp Davis, widely recognized as the Dean of administrative law and cited to by Justice Gorsuch in his concurring opinion, actually taught administrative law while I was at the University of San Diego getting my JD degree. He had an absolutely brutal reputation, and I was too scared to take his class. I do remember some who did.
Why Auer Deference Makes Sense (plurality)
For various reasons, regulations may be genuinely ambiguous. That can happen for a variety of reasons. For example, the subject matter of a rule could be so specialized or varying in nature so as to be impossible to capture it in every detail. Or, it could be a situation where the agency when drafting the regulation could not have reasonably foreseen. Either way, real uncertainties about a regulation's meaning arise.
Justice Kagan gives five different examples of how regulations have real uncertainty about their meaning, including: whether the ADA line of sight rule applies to only when people in the stadium are seated or whether it applies when people in a stadium are standing and a person with a mobility impairment needs to see over them; whether a Transportation Security Administration regulation applying to liquids, gels, and aerosols in carry-on baggage would apply to any kind of liquid or just to liquids that the policy is designed to protect against; whether a Mine Safety And Health Administration rule requiring employers to report occupational diseases within two weeks after they are diagnosed would include the results of a chest x-ray; an FDA regulation concerning what an active moiety is; whether a Police Department making disciplinary infractions subject to pay deductions factors in the whether police captains are eligible for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Auer). The first example pertaining to the ADA is interesting because both the Seattle Mariners and the Baltimore Orioles are engaged in litigation at this time on this very point.
Auer deference operates on a presumption that Congress generally wants the agency to play a primary role in resolving regulatory ambiguities.
The Supreme Court has held in the past that the power of an agency to interpret its own regulations is a part of the agency's delegated lawmaking powers.
Agencies writing a regulation often have direct insight to what the rule was intended to mean.
If you want to know what a rule means, ask its author.
Resolving genuine regulatory ambiguities often entails the exercise of judgment grounded in policy concerns. For example, what comparable line of sight means is complicated in the sports arena when spectators sometimes stand up. The question arises as to how costly is it to insist that the stadium owner take that sporadic behavior into account and is the viewing value received worth the added expense. That is a policy question rather than a legal question.
Agencies have unique expertise often of a scientific or technical nature relevant to applying a regulation to complex or changing circumstances.
Agencies can conduct factual investigations, can consult with affected party, and can consider how their experts have handled similar issues over a long course of administering a regulatory program.
Agencies have political accountability because they are subject to the supervision of the president who in turn answers to the public.
Congress frequently has expressed a preference for resolving interpretive issues by uniform administrative decision rather than piecemeal through litigation.
III (majority)
Auer Deference from Here on Out
For Auer deference to apply, the regulation must be genuinely ambiguous. We mean it we mean it. That is, the regulation must be genuinely ambiguous even after a court has resorted to all the standard tools of interpretation.
If the reason for the presumption do not apply or there are other reasons outweighing the reason behind the presumption, courts should not give deference to an agency's reading except to the extent it is persuasive authority.
Deference is not warranted where court concludes that an interpretation does not reflect an agency's authoritative, expertise-based, fair, or considered judgment.
The new version of Auer deference gives agencies the ability to do their job while obligating courts to perform their reviewing and restraining functions.
If uncertainty in the regulation does not exist, no plausible reason for deference exist either. The regulation just means what it means and the court must go with that. That is, if there is only one reasonable construction of a regulation, then a court has no business deferring to any other reading no matter what the agency says would make more sense. Holding otherwise, would allow the agency to create a new regulation without going through the rulemaking process.
Only where the legal toolkit is empty and the interpretive question still has no single right answer does the judge get to conclude that Auer deference applies. It isn't good enough that agency regulations can be difficult understand. Before Auer deference applies, an independent deep dive by the court is in order.
The deep dive includes carefully considering the text, structure, history, and purpose of the regulation as if the interpretation of the regulation did not exist.
Even if genuine ambiguity exists, the interpretation of the regulations still have to be reasonable. That is, it has to come within the zone of ambiguity the court has identified after applying all its interpretive tools. Citing to Chevron, Justice Kagan says that it is entirely possible interpretation of a regulation will not be reasonable.
In deciding whether Auer deference is or is not appropriate, you look to several factors: 1) whether the regulatory interpretation is the agency's authoritative or official position, rather than an ad hoc statement not reflecting the agency's views. That is, the interpretation must at least come from those actors using mechanisms understood to make authoritative policy in the relevant context; 2) the agency's interpretation must implicate some form of its expertise. After all, administrative knowledge and experience largely account for the presumption that Congress delegates interpretive lawmaking power to the agency. This is especially the case when a rule is technical or commonly implicates policy expertise, such as the examples given by justice Kagan in the first part of her opinion. Finally, when the agency has no comparative expertise in resolving regulatory ambiguity, Congress presumably would not grant the agency the authority to do so; and 3) an agency's reading of a rule must reflect fair and considered judgment. That does not include deferring to a merely convenient litigating position or an after-the-fact rationalization abandoned by the agency to defend the agency action against attack by others. It also does not include deferring to a new interpretation that creates unfair surprise to regulated parties. For that matter, it also generally does not include giving deference to agency interpretations advanced for the first time in legal briefs.
So, Auer deference from here on out as Justice Kagan put it, "is a deference doctrine not quite so tame as some might hope, but not nearly so menacing that they may fear."
Why Auer Deference Doesn't Get Overruled (plurality)
Auer deference as circumscribed is consistent with the judicial review provisions of the administrative procedure act because: 1) all traditional methods of interpretation must be applied first and plain meaning must be in force; 2) an independent deep dive always must be conducted; 3) the interpretation of the regulation must be reasonable; and 4) the interpretation must be authoritative, expertise-based, considered, and fair to regulated parties.
Auer deference as circumscribed is consistent with the administrative procedure act's rulemaking requirements because: 1) interpretive rules do not have the force of law and never forms the basis for an enforcement action; 2) the courts get the ultimate say on Auer deference; and 3) no evidence exists that any regulation in American history was designed poorly because an agency can fall back on Auer deference.
Auer deference does not violate separation of powers principles because courts retain a firm grip on the interpretive function.
Why Auer Deference Should Continue as a Matter of Stare Decisis (majority).
Inherent to precedent is a fundamental principle of the rule of law because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, inconsistent development of legal principles. It also fosters reliance on judicial decision and contribute to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process. To move away from that, requires special justification, which, outside of an argument that it was wrongly decided in the first place, is not the case here.
Auer deference goes back more than 75 years or more with the Supreme Court deciding dozens of cases on that point and the lower Court doing it thousands of times. In fact, Auer deference is all over administrative law.
Abandoning Auer deference would cast doubt on many settled constructions of rules.
Congress has refused to take up the question of whether Auer deference should continue. By statute, it could have gotten rid of Auer deference if it wanted to, but it never did.
The parties made no claim that Auer deference is unworkable, which is a traditional basis for overruling the case.
Auer deference is not a doctrinal dinosaur.
Absolutely true that agencies have far reaching influence, which is why Auer deference gets severely circumscribed by this case.
Why the Case Must Get Remanded (majority)
The Federal Circuit acted too fast in declaring the regulation ambiguous. That is, they didn't do the deep dive before applying Auer deference. As mentioned above, that deep dive involves looking at a variety of indicators, such as the text, structure, history, and purpose as well as whether the regulation really has more than one reasonable meaning.
The Federal Circuit acted too fast in saying that Auer deference applied even if the regulation was genuinely ambiguous. That is, what the interpretation of the regulation of the sort that Congress would want to receive deference? Did the board member's ruling reflect the considered judgment of the agency as a whole?
Chief Justice Roberts Concurring Opinion Stating That There Isn't Much Daylight between Justice Gorsuch and the Majority Opinion of Justice Kagan.
Under the majority opinion for Auer deference to apply, the following factors have to be considered: 1) the underlying regulation must be genuinely ambiguous; 2) the agency's interpretation must be reasonable and must reflect its authoritative, expertise-based, and fair and considered judgment; and 3) the agency must take account of reliance interest and avoid unfair surprise.
On the other hand, Justice Gorsuch says that the situations a court might be persuaded by the interpretation of the regulation would include a court finding: 1) the agency considered the problem; 2) the agency offered a valid rationale; 3) the agency brought if expertise to bear; and 4) the agency interpreted the regulation in a manner consistent with earlier and later pronouncements.
Comparing ¶ 1 with ¶ 2 of this section of the blog reveals that the two are very close once style differences are accounted for.
Different question as to whether the court should give deference to an agency's regulation (Chevron deference). That is, Chevron deference saved for another day, if ever.
Justice Gorsuch Concurring Opinion on Why Auer Deference Should Die
The majority opinion can't get five votes to say that Auer deference is lawful or wise. Instead, it survives on the basis of stare decisis.
There are so many new restrictions and limitations put on Auer deference that Chief Justice Roberts claimed to see little practical difference between keeping it on life support and overruling it entirely.
Justice Gorsuch would stop the business of making up a new system for judges to abdicate their job of interpreting the law and allow the Court of Appeals to apply its independent judgment of the law's meaning.
The scheme put forward by the majority is so complicated that it will no doubt come before the court again. At that time, hopefully the Supreme Court would just get rid of Auer deference entirely.
Auer deference originally began as dicta in a decision about emergency price controls at the height of the second world war. Only in the last few decades of the 20th century lawyers in court dusted Auer deference off and shaped it into a reflexive rule of deference to regulatory agencies. They did that without even considering whether a rule like that could be legally justified or even made sense.
Auer deference first got his start in the Seminole Rock case, here, and there the statement had no authority to back it up. In fact, Professor Davis said that particular language was an unexplained aside and made no difference to the case's outcome.
The same term the court came down with Seminole rock, it came down with Skidmore, which talks about persuasive authority.
In the name of Auer deference, courts have invariably, though not always, mechanically applied and reflexively treated Auer deference as a constraint upon the careful inquiry one ordinarily expects of courts.
In the real world, a judge uses his or her traditional interpretive toolkit to reach a decision about the best and fairest reading of the law. They do that in just about every area of the law. However, when it comes to interpreting federal regulations, Auer deference displaces that process by requiring judges to defer to the agency's interpretation of the regulation as controlling regardless of what a considered analysis reveals.
Squaring Auer deference with §706 of the Administrative Procedure Act simply doesn't hold up. That section requires a reviewing court to resolve for itself any dispute over the proper interpretation of an agency regulation.
Auer deference is also incompatible with §553 of the Administrative Procedure Act.. That section requires agency to follow notice and comment procedure when issuing or amending legally binding regulations (substantive rules), but not when offering mere interpretations of those regulations. Auer deference for all practical purposes means that any new interpretation of the regulation might as well be a new regulation.
Justice Kagan's statement about how an agency's interpretation lacks the force of law doesn't add up because it rests on a too narrow understanding of what it means for an agency action to bear the force of law.
Auer deference allows for hidden legislative intentions to overrule express statutory directives.
Auer deference doesn't work with the Constitution either as the judicial power of the United States vests exclusively in the Supreme Court and in the lower courts. A core component of that power is the duty of interpreting the laws and applying them in cases properly brought before it.
The founding fathers were very jealous of ensuring a fair hearing before a neutral judge so that the rule of law reigns supreme and does not merge into the rule of men.
Auer deference tells a judge that he or she has to interpret agency interpretation of regulations in a way that says what the executive agency says they mean. Problem with that if that executive officials are not nor are they supposed to be entirely impartial. That is, they have their own interest, constituency, and their own policy goals when interpreting a regulation.
Whether purposeful or not, the failure of an agency to write a clear regulation winds up increasing its power by allowing it to both write and interpret rules bearing the force of law. Such a system unites powers the Constitution deliberately separates and denies the people the right to an independent judicial determination of the law's meaning.
The author knows best position of the majority makes little sense in light of the reality of administrative agencies. That is, agency personnel changes over time and agency policy priorities can shift dramatically from one presidential administration to another. Auer deference says that courts have to defer to the current view of those regulations when those current views may or may not correspond to the views of those who actually wrote the regulation in the first place.
In Justice Gorsuch's opinion, technical expertise isn't a reason to keep Auer deference either as courts can consider that technical expertise in the context of persuasive authority.
While stare decisis is used as the vehicle for keeping Auer deference, the new Auer deference system reshapes Auer deference in new and experimental ways. Further, preserving Auer deference through stare decisis on the basis of a heightened standard standard given to statutory decisions is not deserved as it was dicta from a decision of the Court..
Auer deference undermine judicial independence.
No persuasive rationale supports Auer deference.
Auer deference has not proved to be a workable standard and the new paradigm will make things even more confused and unworkable.
Auer deference is out of step with how courts normally interpret written laws.
Auer deference potential for mischief has grown exponentially with the explosive growth of the administrative state over the last half-century. In fact, the administrative state produces so many reams of regulation that it dwarfs the statutes enacted by Congress. In 2018 the Code of Federal Regulations total 242 volumes and 185,000 pages. So, the cost of continuing to deny citizens an impartial judicial hearing on the meaning of disputed regulations has increased dramatically since the beginnings of Auer deference.
The majority opinion raises the question of the continuing validity of decisions applying Auer deference just as if the majority had overturned Auer deference entirely.
The better approach is to allow court to decide cases based upon independent judgment and to follow the agency's view only to the extent it is persuasive.
If Auer deference still gets applied quite a bit after this decision, then the Supreme Court should overrule it when the time comes.
From reading the majority opinion, it seems that Justice Breyer's concern in oral argument about a judicial power grab may have affected Chief Justice Roberts in some way. Also, how getting rid of Auer deference would fundamentally reshape administrative law (stare decisis), most probably played a role as well since Chief Justice Robert joined the stare decisis part of the opinion..
A real she said he said situation between Justice Kagan and Justice Gorsuch regarding the policies behind Auer deference. Justice Kagan believes Auer deference has many things to commend it. On the other hand, Justice Gorsuch does not agree with that. To Justice Gorsuch's mind, Auer deference results in administrative agencies going out of their lane. Whenever any branch of the US government goes out of its lane, to Justice Gorsuch that is a bridge too far.
Very interesting that of the examples Justice Kagan uses to explain her opinion, one of them is the site line dispute going on in stadiums at this very moment. I don't know about the other examples, but I do find it curious an example was chosen where litigation is very much ongoing on that very point.
It makes sense to me that there are situations where an agency has unique expertise to bring to a matter where the regulations are unclear.
Justice Scalia must be smiling as his focus on plain meaning has now come to administrative law. That is, if a regulation is clear, then the courts are supposed to do a full stop right there.
Auer deference as reconfigured requires courts to engage in a deep dive, independent analysis, if there is a doubt as to what the regulation means. Pretty clear from the decision, that Auer deference is meant to be the exception rather than the rule.
The new paradigm is incredibly complicated. For example, just when is the agency's expertise really brought to bear? Is that expertise only for technical matters, such as moiety's, or does it extend to other situations? If so, what? At a minimum, whenever Auer deference comes up, a court is going to have to go through a lot of hoops before it allows Auer deference to proceed.
I'm not sure what to make of the fact that a few of the Justices talked about how Chevron deference is not at issue in this case. That seems a bit strange because the arguments in favor of Chevron deference are much stronger than the arguments for Auer deference.
Mechanical and reflexive application of agency interpretations is dead.
The Fair Housing Act circular on service dogs and emotional support animals is now very much up in the air because the Fair Housing Act does not talk about service animals and emotional support animals. For that matter, the Fair Housing Act doesn't even have any regulations on the subject. One wonders how landlords are going to react to this. Some of that reaction may depend upon how the Department of Housing and Urban Development reacts to this decision.
In the education field, Office of Civil Rights letters frequently get thrown around in the same way as precedent. Unclear, how this decision impacts the persuasive authority of those letters.
One wonders about how Justice Gorsuch's talking about the rule of law needing to reign supreme rather than the rule of men will impact some of the larger issues going on now with respect to the administration's response to congressional subpoenas and to executive privilege. I don't view Justice Gorsuch's statement about this as anything surprising. As we discussed here, Justice Gorsuch is a very much every branch of government needs to stay in their lane type of guy.
Having worked for the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules in the State of Illinois, Justice Gorsuch's view on the author knows best made a great deal of sense to me. However, Justice Kagan's view on agency expertise also made sense to me for the same reasons.
In Illinois, there is a separate agency called the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, a division of the legislature. JCAR's job is to proofread all regulations and then more importantly ensure that the regulations meet legislative intent. If the regulations did not meet legislative intent, then a committee of the legislature could state as much and tell the agency to walk back to regulations. As a practical matter, when regulations went beyond legislative intent, the agency generally didn't want to pick that fight and would walk it back once told as much by JCAR staff. One wonders if under this decision the JCAR's of the respective States that have them will not get even more power than they currently have, which may not be a bad thing.
Enforcement guidances, technical assistance memorandums, circulars and anything not a regulation having gone through the notice and comment process are now up for individual assessment as to whether the courts are going to buy off on it. The problem with this approach is that there are many many District Court judges out there not to mention 12 different Courts of Appeals. It's possible we will get an awful lot of conflicting decisions when it comes to giving deference to agency interpretation of the regulations.
In short, Auer deference very well may go too far, the new Auer deference paradigm may be too complicated, but persuasive authority may be chaos. It will be very interesting to see how all this works out.
Filed Under: General Tagged With: §553 of the administrative procedure act, §706 of the administrative procedure act, ad hoc, ADA, administrative knowledge, administrative procedure act, Agency interpretation of regulations, agency's authoritative or official position, Auer deference, authoritative, Chevron deference, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Chief Justice Roberts, Circulars, consider judgment, deep dive, Department of Housing and Urban Development, dicta, emotional support animals, Enforcement guidances, expertise based, fair, fair and consider judgment, fair housing act, force of law, genuinely ambiguous, history, HUD, implicates some form of expertise, independent analysis, interpretive tools, joint committee on administrative rules, judicial independence, judicial power grab, justice gorsuch, Justice Kagan, Justice Scalia, Kenneth Culp Davis, Kisor v. Wilkie, legal toolkit, legislative intent, notice and comment, office of civil rights, persuasive authority, plain meaning, purpose of the regulation, reasonable, reflexive rule of deference, reviewing and restraining functions, rule making process, Seminole Rock, Service dogs, Skidmore, stadium sight lines, stare decisis, structure, tax, technical assistant memorandum, traditional methods of interpretation, unfair surprise to regulated parties, unique expertise, unworkable, zone of ambiguity
Interstate Sovereign Immunity
May 15, 2019 by William Goren 1 Comment
Today's blog entry discusses the case that came down from the United States Supreme Court on May 13, 2019, discussing interstate sovereign immunity. The case is Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. We have blogged on sovereign immunity before, such as here. It is an incredibly complicated area of the law, but this case isn't that difficult compared to what we have blogged on before. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: facts; majority opinion; dissenting opinion; and takeaways. The reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.
The facts are rather convoluted. Suffice to say, this was the third time this case came before the Supreme Court, but the first time the issue of interstate sovereign immunity was specifically considered. It involved an individual, Hyatt, who made a boatload of money on a microchip while residing in California. He later moved to Nevada. California thought the move was a sham and went after him for big time tax liability. The person being pursued by California for tax liability turned the tables on them by suing them in Nevada for torts he alleged the agency committed during the audit. California authorities argued throughout that they were immune from suit according to California law. After the case went up to the Supreme Court for the first time, Hyatt prevailed at trial. Eventually, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld a $1 million judgment on one of the claims and remanded for new damages trial on another. Then, it went up to the Supreme Court a second time where the Supreme Court said that the full faith and credit clause required Nevada to grant the California Board the same immunity that Nevada agencies enjoy. When the Nevada Supreme Court instructed the trial court to enter damages in accordance with the statutory Nevada provisions, it went back up to the Supreme Court for a third time for specifically considering interstate sovereign immunity. In a prior case, dating back 40 years, the Supreme Court had said that a State could or could not grant sovereign immunity to another State. That is, the grant of sovereign immunity was not mandatory regardless of what the other State's law might say. In other words, sovereign immunity is available only if the forum State voluntarily decides to respect the dignity of the other State as a matter of comity, or respect.
Majority Reasoning That Sovereign Immunity Is Mandatory Where the Other State's Law Says So
At the time of the founding of the United States, States were immune under both the common law and the law of nations. The Constitution's use of the term "States," reflects both kinds of traditional immunity. States retain those aspects of sovereignty except as altered by the plan of the constitutional convention or certain constitutional amendments.
When the States ratified the Constitution, they surrendered a portion of their immunity by consenting to suit brought against them by the United States in federal courts. While such jurisdiction of the federal courts is not conferred by the Constitution in express words, it is inherent in the constitutional plan.
The whole idea behind the 11th amendment in light of its history and structure is to preserve the States traditional immunity from private suits.
The Constitution affirmatively alters the relationship between the States so that they no longer relate to each other solely as foreign sovereigns. Each State's equal dignity and sovereignty under the Constitution implies certain constitutional limitations on the sovereignty of its sister States, such as the inability of one State to bring another into its courts without the latter's consent.
The Constitution implicitly strips States of any power they once had to refuse each other sovereign immunity, just as it denies them the power to resolve order disputes by political means.
There are many constitutional doctrines not spelled out in the Constitution but are nevertheless implicit in the structure and supported by historical practice, such as: judicial review; intergovernmental tax immunity; executive immunity; and the president's removal power. Like those doctrines, the States sovereign immunity is a historically rooted principal embedded in the text and structure of the Constitution.
The decision to overrule precedent means looking at: the prior decision's quality of reasoning; the prior decision's consistency with related decisions; legal developments since the decision; and reliance on the decision. All of those criteria are met according to the majority because the prior decision failed to account for the historical understanding of state sovereign immunity. It also failed to consider how the Constitution reordered the States relationship with one another. Further, that decision, to the majority's eyes, was an outlier in sovereign immunity jurisprudence when compared to more recent decisions. Finally, the reliance factor is minimal as it only involves Hyatt incurring the loss of litigation expenses and a favorable decision.
Dissenting Opinion Reasoning
At the time of the founding of the United States, nations granted other nations sovereign immunity in their courts not as a matter of legal obligation but as a matter of choice. In legal jargon, comity or grace or consent.
No provision of the Constitution gives States absolute immunity in each other's courts.
Concept like "constitutional design," and "plan of the convention;" are highly abstract and difficult to apply. Such concepts invite differing interpretations as much as the Constitution's broad liberty protecting phrases such as "due process," and "liberty." They also suffer from the additional disadvantage of not actually appearing anywhere in the United States Constitution.
Where the Constitution alters the authority of States with respect to other States, it tends to do so explicitly, such as what is found in the import export clause and in the full faith and credit clause.
Why would the framers silently and without any evident reason transform sovereign immunity from one based upon consent into an absolute immunity that States must accord one another?
Overruling a case always require special justification, which is not present in this case. That is, while reasonable judges can disagree about whether the prior decision was correct, the very fact that disagreement is possible shows that overruling the decision is obviously wrong.
States normally grant sovereign immunity voluntarily. If they fear that this practice is insufficiently protective, they can enter into an interstate compact guaranteeing that the normal practice of granting immunity continues.
It is dangerous to overrule decision only because five members of the later court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question.
So, what does this mean in terms of how sovereign immunity works. The way it works now after this decision with respect to an individual suing their own State has not changed. That is, the court is going to first look at whether the State has explicitly consented to being sued. If it is a situation where a federal law, such as the ADA, forces a State to waive their sovereign immunity, then the court will attack it this way. First, they will look to whether the State has consented to being sued. Second, if the answer is no, the court turns to federal law to determine if the federal law explicitly waives the State's sovereign immunity. Finally, if the federal law does do that, which the ADA for example does, then the very complicated question becomes whether the waiver of sovereign immunity is consistent with the enforcement clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution.
With respect to a person residing in one State but then suing a different State with respect to federal law, the analysis would be the same as in ¶ IV1. With respect to a State law, the analysis turns entirely upon whether the State has waived consent to being sued. If the answer is that they have not, then the forum State now has no choice but to grant the sovereign immunity. The harder question is what if it is not clear whether consent has been waived or not. In that case, does the forum State refer the matter to the other State's courts for a decision much in the way federal courts may ask for an opinion from a State court on a matter of State law?
Justice Breyer's statement about the danger of overruling the decision when five members of the later court come to agree with earlier dissenters comes immediately after citing to a decision dealing with abortion. That placement is undoubtedly intentional.
¶ II6 of this blog entry is emphasized intentionally. This kind of statement is not something you expect from a conservative jurist, as they typically look into the text of the document to figure out what the document means at the time it was written. If they don't try and figure out what document means at the time it was written, they would probably try to figure it out in terms of the plain meaning of the document. Looking to what is embedded in the text and structure of the Constitution potentially blows things wide open. One can argue that that approach isn't really any different than finding a penumbra of privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut. In fact, Justice Douglas took that very approach in reaching the conclusion that the Constitution had a penumbra of privacy emanating from several different constitutional provisions. See Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479, 482-485 (1965). Similarly, Justice Goldberg joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan referred to the language and history of the ninth amendment to find a right of marital privacy. Id. at 487. So, look for a huge fight at the Supreme Court when the abortion decisions come up before it with respect to whether prior decisions should be overruled or not. ¶ II6 gives the four liberal justices all kinds of ammunition to argue that considering Griswold and the many years since then, that some level of pro-choice (up to a point of viability?), is now embedded in the Constitution.
You may be asking what does any of this have to do with the rights of persons with disabilities? A fair question. I'm not exactly sure. However, I think the whole area of sovereign immunity is so fascinating that I just couldn't resist blogging on this case.
Filed Under: General Tagged With: 14th amendment, absolute immunity, comity, constitutional design, constitutional plan, embedded in the text and structure, enforcement clause of the 14th amendment, equal protection clause, forced waiver of sovereign immunity, franchise tax Board of California v. Hyatt, full faith and credit clause, Griswold v. Connecticut, historically rooted, history and structure, immunity from private suit, implicit in the structure and supported by historical practice, import export clause, interstate compacts, interstate sovereign immunity, Justice Brennan, Justice Breyer, Justice Douglas, Justice Goldberg, Justice Thomas, Justice Warren, overruling a case, overruling precedent, penumbra, penumbra of privacy, plain meaning, plan of the convention, sovereign immunity
Understanding the ADA 4th Edition
ABA JOURNAL WEB 100
2014-2018: 5 Consecutive Years!
2017 & 2016 FEEDSPOT TOP 100 LEGAL BLOG
Medical Licensing Boards, Physician Health Programs, and the Lack of ADA Compliance: an Opportunity for Plaintiff Lawyers July 13, 2019
Kisor Decided: What Does it Mean for Auer Deference? July 2, 2019
The Noisy Restaurant, ADA Compliance, and a Book on Class Action June 25, 2019
Transgender military ban: The Ninth Circuit Decision June 17, 2019
ADA Legal Resources
Department of Justice ADA Web Site
Disability Discrimination, EEOC Info
DuPage County bar Journal, The Brief
Midwest Center for the Law and Deaf
National Association of Attorneys with Disabilities (NAAD)
Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act
ADA and Mediation/Arbitration: Things to Think About
Affirmative-action and persons with disabilities
Americans with Disabilities Act Claims: Is a Mixed Motive Jury Instruction Dead?
An ADA Checklist as You Go About Your Practice
Disability compliance for higher education interview on why colleges and universities should perform ADA compliance audits
Expect huge impact from DOJ regulations implementing Titles II and III of ADAAA
Help your institution avoid some common mistakes when dismissing students with disabilities
Internet addiction, ADA, and employment
Internet and Title III of the ADA
Is Your University or College's Homepage Accessible to Prospective Students with Visual Impairments?
Legal Liability of Buying or Developing Inaccessible Technology
Reassignment and the ADA: Is It a Matter of Right and How Do You Prove It up?
Service dogs and the ADA
Should Your Law Firm's Internet Site Be Accessible to the Persons with Disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Act and Employment
The Ins and Outs of Nevada's Service Animal Laws
What is the statute of limitations for ADA claims
architectural accessibility
disability law blogspot
FMLA Insights Blog
labor and employment law blog (management)
Lawffice Space Blog
management employment law blog (California based firm)
Ohio Employment lawyer blog (Jonathan Hyman-management)
PLAINTIFF California labor and employment law blog
plaintiff employment law blog
Robin Shea's employment and labor law insider blog (management-Constangy, Brooks & Prophete)
Second Circuit civil rights cases
state sovereign immunity in Scotus blog
The blog for Supreme Court goings on
The employer handbook blog
Title III and Fair Housing Act Blog (defense)
Title III and II ADA blog
Title III blog business side (Seyfarth Shaw)
Workplace safety and health law blog
ADA and ADA Related Cases at the Supreme Court: Where They Have Been and What Is Next
ADA and the Applicable Statute of Limitations
ADA compliance auditing for higher education
ADA Compliance Is a Nondelegable Duty
Are public colleges and public universities immune from suit as a result of sovereign immunity in ADA matters
Can You Get Compensatory and Punitive Damages When Alleging Retaliation
Just When Does the Statute of Limitations BEGIN to Run in ADA Cases
Service dog v. Emotional support animal
Suing state court system for title II violations
Temporary disabilities and the ADA
What do you have to show to get compensatory damages under title II of the ADA
What does it mean to exhaust administrative remedies under title I of the ADA?
Why a recent US Supreme Court opinion is a huge victory for title I plaintiffs (mixed motive)
ABA Blawg 100 2014
ADA and ADR
ADA Game Changer: CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC
ADA Litigation Game Changer
Auer Deference blog entry in SCOTUS blog
Blog entry on Impact of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar on the ADA
Blog entry on Judge Gorsuch on Disability Rights Linked to by SCOTUS Blog
Blog entry on Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco
CBS money watch article discussing website accessibility litigation.
CRST Van Epedited blog entry referenced in over lawyered
Death Penalty and Intellectual Disabilities Supreme Court Opinion
Does title IIof the ADA/§ 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applied to employment
E-bay's Inaccessibility to the Deaf
EEOC affirmative action per § 501 blog entry referenced in March 2016 employment Law blog carnival
Employment Law Blog Carnival November 2015
Expert Interview Series: ADA Consultant William Goren on What You Need to Know About ADA Compliance
February 2016 employment Law blog carnival
Finding creative solutions within the law
Fisher II blog entry referenced in Scotus Blog
Fry oral argument blog entry referenced in Scotus Blog
Guest Post on Illinois Business Litigator Blog regarding My Burden of Proof When Dealing with Remediation Blog Entry
How Fry playing out blog entry referenced by Scotus blog
How the legal industry lets down lawyers with disabilities
Illinois business litigator blog featuring my blog entry discussing whether a corporation has a retaliation cause of action under the ADA
Impact of Abercrombie and Fitch Decision on the ADA
Interstate sovereign immunity in SCOTUS blog
Is the Texas House violating the ADA by refusing CART
June 2015 ABA Journal article on attorneys with disabilities and the preconceptions they face
Law practice today members spotlight
legal issues of buying inaccessible technologies article posted to the ABA green room
Legal pad radio show interview first run Wednesday, February 12 at 7:30am.; Re-airs at Saturday, February 15 at 3:30pm and Monday, February 17 at 9am
Legal pad radio show interview first run Wednesday, January 29 at 7:30am.; Re-airs at Saturday, February 1 at 3:30pm and Monday, February 3 at 9am
Legal pad radio show interview first run Wednesday, October 23rd at 7:30am.; Re-airs at Saturday, October 26th at 3:30pm and Monday, October 28th at 9am
Let's Talk About Arbitration blog entry and other entries featured on the Illinois business litigator blog
MH issues and the State Bar
Oral Argument in Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco
PBS News Hour piece discussing accessibility of amusement parks for persons with disabilities
Reflections on the development of disability as a diversity concern in the legal profession
SCOTUS blog references Blog entry discussing the impact of South Dakota v. Wayfair on Internet accessibility litigation
SCOTUS blog references Endrew oral argument blog entry
SCOTUS Blog references Fry decided blog entry
SCOTUS Blog referencing blog entry that Reviews Supreme Court cases and the upcoming Supreme Court cases vis a vis the ADA/disability rights
Sevorson decision analyzed
Sheehan decision
Supreme Court on Auer Deference blog entry in SCOTUS blog
Trimble v. Kroger
Voyage Atlanta Profile
What's wrong with this job description blog entry featured in December 2015 employment Law blog carnival
When to grant more leave after FMLA is exhausted
Why ADA is a Good Law
Presentations of interest
ADA Hot Issues: Essential Function, Attendance, and Reassignment
ADA Hot Issues: Pregnancy, Reassignment, and Legal Issues of Buying Inaccessible Technology
Don't Let The ADA Bite Your Law Firm – Complying With the ADA Instead of Becoming a Target
Hot issues in title I and in title II of the ADA
Let's Count the Ways the ADA Impacts Your Law Practice
Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act, Fourth Edition – Hot Off the Press – A Brown Bag Series
Powered by WordPress and the Utility Pro theme for Genesis Framework.


text:
KinoTV Movie Database by Unicorn Media
Cyril Chadwick
Actor - Great Britain
Born June 11, 1879 in Kensington, London
Died November 3, 1955 in Paddington, London
Mini-Biography:
Cyril Chadwick was born on June 11, 1879 in Kensington, London. He was an English Actor, known for The Iron Horse (1924), The Black watch (1929), Peter Pan (1924), Cyril Chadwick's first movie on record is from 1914. Cyril Chadwick died on November 3, 1955 in Paddington, London. His last motion picture on file dates from 1929.
Cyril Chadwick Filmography [Auszug]
1929: [05.22] The Black watch (King of the Khyber Rifles) (Cast: Major Twynes), Directed by John Ford, with Victor McLaglen, Myrna Loy, Roy D'Arcy,
1928: [] The Mating Call (Cast: Anderson), Directed by James Cruze, with Thomas Meighan, Evelyn Brent, Ren�e Ador�e,
1928: [04.28] The Actress (Trelawny of the Wells) (Cast: Capt. de Foenix ), Directed by Sidney Franklin, with Norma Shearer, Owen Moore, Gwen Lee,
1926: [10.04] Gigolo (Cast: Dr. Gerald Blagden), Directed by William K. Howard, with Rod La Rocque, Louise Dresser, Jobyna Ralston,
1925: [02.02] Forty Winks (Lord Chumley (Working title)) (Cast: Gasper Le Sage), Directed by Paul Iribe, Frank Urson, with Raymond Griffith, Theodore Roberts, Viola Dana,
1924: [08.28] The Iron Horse (Cast: Peter Jesson), Directed by John Ford, with George O'Brien, Madge Bellamy, Charles Edward Bull,
1924: [08.17] The Man who came back (Cast: Captain Trevelan ), Directed by Emmett J. Flynn, with George O'Brien, Dorothy Mackaill,
1924: [] Peter Pan (Cast), Directed by Herbert Brenon, with Mary Brian, Betty Bronson,
1923: [10.00] The Social Code (To Whom It May Concern) (Cast: Colby Dickinson ), Directed by Oscar Apfel, with Viola Dana, Malcolm McGregor, Edna Flugrath,
1923: [08.19] Don't Marry for Money (Cast: Crane Martin ), Directed by Clarence Brown, with House Peters, Rubye de Remer, Aileen Pringle,
1923: [04.16] Slander the Woman (The White Frontier (Working title)) (Cast: Monsieur Lemond), Directed by Allen Holubar, with Dorothy Phillips, Lewis Dayton, Robert Anderson,
1922: [12.31] The Strangers' Banquet (Cast: Bond ), Directed by Marshall Neilan, with Hobart Bosworth, , Rockliffe Fellowes,
1922: [01.01] Three Live Ghosts (Cast: Spoofy), Directed by George Fitzmaurice, Edmund Goulding, with Norman Kerry, Anna Q. Nilsson, Edmund Goulding,
1920: [12.20] The Misleading Lady (Cast: Tracey), Directed by George Irving, George W. Terwilliger, with Bert Lytell, Lucy Cotton, Frank Currier,
1920: [] Clothes (Cast: Arnold West), Directed by Fred Sittenham, with Olive Tell, Crauford Kent,
1919: [12.21] Out Yonder (The Girl from Out Yonder) (Cast: Reggie Hughes), Directed by Ralph Ince, with Olive Thomas, Huntley Gordon, Marie Coverdale,
1918: [08.25] On the Quiet (Cast: Duke of Carbondale), Directed by Chester Withey, with John Barrymore, Lois Meredith, Frank Losee,
1918: [04.08] The Richest Girl (Cast: ), Directed by Albert Capellani, with Anna Murdock, David Powell, Charles Wellesley,
1918: [01.07] Mrs. Dane's Defense (Cast: James Risbee), Directed by Hugh Ford, with Pauline Frederick, Frank Losee, Leslie Austin,
1917: [11.26] Bab's Matinee Idol (Her Matinee Idol, Her Shattered Idol) (Cast: Hon. Page Beresford), Directed by J. Searle Dawley, with Marguerite Clark, Helen Greene, Isabel O'Madigan,
1916: [07.06] The Smugglers (Cast: Brompton), Directed by Sidney Olcott, with , Margaret Greene,
1915: [] Marrying Money (Marriage a la Carte) (Cast: Archie Vandeveer), Directed by James Young, with Clara Kimball Young, , Chester Barnett,
1915: [02.28] A Day That is Gone (A Day That Is Dead) (Cast), Directed by N. N., with Charles Clary, Seena Owen, Eugene Pallette,
1914: [11.30] Mrs. Black Is Back (Cast: Bramley Bush), Directed by Thomas N. Heffron, with May Irwin, Charles (III) Lane, Clara Blandick,
1914: [05.17] The Somnambulist (Cast: Algernon - the Sleepwalker), Directed by N. N., with Florence LaBadie, Sidney Bracey,
1914: [03.17] The Cat's Paw (Cast: Captain Mandeville), Directed by Frederick Sullivan, with James Cruze, Florence LaBadie, George Barnes,
Filmography Cyril Chadwick nach Kategorien
The information above does not purport to be exhaustive, but give the level of information to our database at the time of last update. All figures are best knowledge and belief researched to, legal claims arising from incorrect or missing information are expressly rejected.
Due to the current law in some countries can be held responsible person who addresses refers to having a criminal content spread may or criminal content and pages further refer, unless he closes clear from such liability. Our links below are researched to the best of my knowledge and belief, but we can not accept in any way for the content of these web pages and links from us any liability. We provide this explanation by analogy from all countries and all languages of. Quotations, if not otherwise marked, in the usual right to quote with identification of the sources added.
The copyright lies with the authors of these quotes - Cyril Chadwick - Biography KinoTV Movie Database
More on Cyril Chadwick
Search for Names
Died on this date
TV-Filmtip
Research Sources
Durch Anklicken auf die Flagge wird die entsprechende Sprache ausgewählt.
Menu-Positionen werden dann ebenfalls in dieser Sprache angezeigt.
webmaster [at] kinotv [dot] com
© 1996-2018 Unicorn Media sagl. All rights reserved. Design: based on HTML5 UP - . Build 0.4.0118


text:
By The Epoch Times - China
Chinese Warships Approach, Then Pull From Japan Waters
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 16:10
This aerial shot taken on Sept. 15, 2010 shows the disputed islands known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China in the East China Sea. (Jiji Press/AFP/GettyImages)
Japan's defense ministry said that several Chinese ships were spotted in the area near Japanese territorial waters, moving toward the disputed Senkaku Islands, before they pulled away hours later. The two nations have been at an impasse over who owns the rocky islands in the East China Sea and tensions remain high.
The incident on Tuesday morning marked the first time that Chinese warships entered the contiguous zone between Yonagunijima island and Iriomotejima island in Okinawa Prefecture, part of Japan, the ministry said, according to the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper. Both Okinawa and the Senkaku Islands are located in the East China Sea.
But later, the warships appeared to have been moving away from the disputed islands, which are believed to be located near reserves of natural gas and other resources, the Asahi Shimbun reported. The fleet consisted of two Chinese navy destroyers, two frigates, two submarine support vessels, and a supply ship.
"There has been a clear phase change," one Japanese Defense Ministry told the Asahi.
However, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's office stressed that the Chinese ships did not actually pass between the two islands.
"The latest passage was not in the contiguous zone around the Senkakus," an aide to Noda told the Asahi Shimbun. "China is also becoming more cautious."
But Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura on Tuesday admitted that Japan is "unsure what China's intentions are."
The ships are said to belong to the same group that traveled in waters near the main island of Okinawa on Oct. 4, and were likely doing training exercises, reported the Japan Daily Press.
U.S. Admiral Cecil Haney, who commands the Pacific Fleet, told Japanese broadcaster NHK that the Chinese military needs to be transparent on what its seven naval vessels are doing in waters near Japan.
A diplomatic row between China and Japan erupted several months ago over who should down the Senkaku Islands, known as Diaoyu, in Chinese.
In China, nationalist protesters have attacked Japanese businesses, corporations, and even people over the dispute.
There also appears to be a Chinese regime-orchestrated plan to boycott Japanese companies, which resulted in several companies, including automaker Toyota, suspending production in China in October.
Japanese auto giant Nissan also said it would suspend production at a joint venture in China beginning on Sept. 27.
Japanese Medicine Boycotted by Chinese Hospitals Over Island Row
Late last month, Chen Zhifei told New York-based NTD Television: "Japan has played a very critical role in China's economic development. Even now China's economy still relies heavily on imported technology, equipment, and products from Japan, so China will suffer devastating consequences if it cuts economic ties with Japan."
The Epoch Times publishes in 35 countries and in 19 languages. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.
Source: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/chinese-warships-approach-then-pull-from-japan-waters-304564.html
God's Word - Genesis Chapter 34
X22 Report: - Deep State Pushing Antifa! Chaos, Civil War, Trump Counters The Narrative By Mentioning The Military! - Must Video
Med Beds, Healing Frequency & Bible Prophesies! Prophets Knew They'd Be Revealed in the End Times, but What Do 'Massive Arrests' Have to Do With Them?! Wow!
Special Forces Seize Deep State Cloning Lab in Alaska? (Video)
This Is Crazy! Βanks Start Lοsing People's Μoney, as Ρeople Try to Withdraw Cash! - About & More Video
Trump update 1/29/2023..Trump says he's 'angry' and accuses Biden of putting the US on the 'brink of World War III'
Bank Runs, Bail-Ins & Demolishing Davos! - Tom Luongo - SGT Report
Beware! The Old Playbooks Are In Full Use Today! "End Goal Then vs. Now!" - Truth & Art TV
How the Atlanta Riots Were Funded
Imminent Cyber Attack For A New World Order! - Greg Reese Report
Mass Injections of Livestocks, Karma for Cops, Cisa Weaponized, Pharma Real Meaning Exposed, & More (Video)
Michael Jaco: Best Situation Report to Date! (Video)
Calls to suspend covid 19 vaccines in South Africa because of safety concerns hits mainstream news
Ivermectin the Truth: With Juan O' Savin, Requested Research Project Information (Video)
Q: Near Civilization Death: EVENT M.A.D>> MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION (Videos)
Cops Commit Brutal Murder In Memphis - Justice Will Be Done