text:
No. 94,224
EARNEST DOUGLAS (DOUG) SEIFERT and
1. The differences between a warranty deed and a deed poll are discussed.
2. Under the general principles of contract interpretation, deeds are to be construed in accordance with the intent and purpose of the grantors after examination of the entire instrument under consideration, and where there is no ambiguity or uncertainly in a deed, and where the intention of the grantor is clearly and unequivocally expressed, there is no occasion for employing rules of construction.
3. The interpretation and legal effect of written instruments are matters of law, and an appellate court exercises unlimited review.
4. Covenants and agreements restricting the free use of property are strictly construed against limitations upon such use.
5. The enforceability of restrictive covenants is based on the equitable principle of notice, whereby a person who takes land with notice of a restriction upon it will not be permitted to act in violation of that restriction.
6. A grantee may be bound by covenants in a deed which is accepted but not signed by the grantee.
Appeal from Montgomery District Court; ROGER L. GOSSARD, judge. Opinion filed June 30, 2006. Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Daryl Ahlquist, of Hines & Ahlquist, P.A., of Erie, for the appellants.
Kenneth G. Gale, of Adams & Jones, Chartered, of Wichita, and Jeffrey A. Chubb, of Scovel, Emert, Heasty & Chubb, of Independence, for the appellee.
Before GREENE, P.J., PIERRON and CAPLINGER, JJ.
PIERRON, J.: Ernest Douglas (Doug) and Leslie R. Seifert appeal the trial court's denial of their counterclaim for enforcement of restrictive covenants in a transfer of property from 1978. The Seiferts argue the restrictive covenants are enforceable against Jeremiah 29:11, Inc., (Jeremiah); the deed was a deed poll or warranty deed and not an indenture; the transaction did not meet the requirements of the statute of frauds; and the transfer in 1978 gave adequate notice to subsequent purchasers of the restrictive covenant. We reverse and remand with instructions.
The facts in this case are for the most part undisputed. On March 8, 1978, G. Weaver Jordan and G.E. Jordan executed a document entitled "Warranty Deed" selling approximately 50 acres to Daniel and Pearline Dallinga for $25,000. In the 1978 deed, after the granting provisions, there are three restrictive covenants listed as follows:
"1. No manufacturing or commercial enterprise or enterprise of any kind shall be maintained on, in front of, or in connection with the property hereby conveyed, nor shall such property in any way be used for other than strictly residential purposes. This restriction shall not be construed, however, as preventing the operation of a small scale farming enterprise other than a feed lot.
"2. The property conveyed herein shall not be subdivided into building lots nor shall more than one private residence be erected or placed on said property.
"3. No mobile home or house trailer shall be located or occupied on the property hereby conveyed.
"It is understood and agreed that this conveyance is made and accepted and the realty is hereby granted, on and subject to the above covenants, conditions, restrictions, and reservations, which covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations shall apply to and run with the conveyed land."
The 1978 deed ends with lines for the signatures of both grantors and both grantees. The Jordans had notarized signatures on the signature lines for the grantors, but there are no signatures on the lines for the grantees. The deed was filed of record in Montgomery County on March 10, 1978.
Several conveyances of this property occurred after 1978, but none of the conveyances specifically referenced the restrictions set forth in the 1978 transfer between the Jordans and the Dallingas. A couple of the warranty deed transfers had a general proviso limiting the transfer by easements, conditions, restrictions, and limitations of record. Jeremiah obtained the property in question by general warranty deed on August 4, 1999. The Seiferts own property adjacent to Jeremiah that was previously owned by the Jordans.
This case started as a boundary line dispute initiated by Jeremiah against the Seiferts concerning a fence constructed approximately 25 years ago. The Seiferts filed a counterclaim against Jeremiah for enforcement of the restrictions and covenants set forth in the 1978 transfer of the property. Jeremiah uses the property as a leadership training center for pastors and leaders of nonprofit corporations, as well as a boy scout camp. The Seiferts alleged that Jeremiah's use violated the commercial enterprise restriction.
The trial court's findings regarding the original boundary line dispute are not at issue in this appeal. After a full trial, the court held that the 1978 restrictive covenants were void and unenforceable against Jeremiah. The court held the 1978 warranty deed was a mutual or indentured deed requiring the signatures of both the grantors and grantees, and since the grantees did not sign the deed, as a matter of law, the grantees did not accept the restrictive covenant contained therein. The court clarified that the indentured deed was not a "deed poll" and that as a matter of law, the parties intended that the grantees' signatures be obtained before the deed should be effective. The court found the deed indicated that the parties intended that the grantees should sign the deed and without the signature it was unenforceable as failing to comply with the statute of frauds. The court also found there was no actual or constructive notice of the restrictive covenants to Jeremiah and without notice and the incomplete indentured deed, the restrictions were unenforceable. The court held:
"The Court further finds as a matter of law that Plaintiff's Exhibit A was effective to convey title but not effective to provide notice to the Plaintiff concerning the restrictive covenants and that the Plaintiff was not placed on notice that the restrictive covenants were in effect and, therefore, unenforceable against the Plaintiff."
On appeal, the Seiferts argue the trial court erroneously held that the restrictive covenants contained in the 1978 deed were unenforceable against Jeremiah. Seiferts contend the 1978 deed was a valid warranty deed and the restrictive covenants contained in the deed were appurtenant to the land and were binding on subsequent owners.
Under the general principles of contract interpretation, deeds are to be construed in accordance with the intent and purpose of the grantors after examination of the entire instrument under consideration, and where there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in a deed, and where the intention of the grantor is clearly and unequivocally expressed, there is no occasion for employing rules of construction. See generally Zukel v. Great West Managers, LLC, 31 Kan. App. 2d 1098, 1101, 78 P.3d 480 (2003), rev. denied 277 Kan. 928 (2004). "The interpretation and legal effect of written instruments are matters of law, and an appellate court exercises unlimited review. Regardless of the construction given a written contract by the trial court, an appellate court may construe a written contract and determine its legal effect. [Citation omitted.]" Unrau v. Kidron Bethel Retirement Services, Inc., 271 Kan. 743, 763, 27 P.3d 1 (2001).
K.S.A. 58-2203 addresses the requirements for a valid warranty deed:
"Any conveyance of lands, worded in substance as follows: A.B. conveys and warrants C.D. (here describe the premises), for the sum of (here insert the consideration), the said conveyance being dated, duly signed and acknowledged by the grantor, shall be deemed and held a conveyance in fee simple to the grantee, his or her heirs and assigns, with covenants from the grantor, for himself or herself and his or her heirs and personal representatives, that the grantor is lawfully seized of the premises, has good right to convey the same and guarantees the quiet possession thereof, that the same are free from all encumbrances, and the grantor will warrant and defend the same against all lawful claims."
Blacks' Law Dictionary 770 (6th ed. 1990) defines "Indenture" as:
"In real estate conveyancing, a deed to which two or more persons are parties, and in which these enter into reciprocal and corresponding grants or obligations towards each other; whereas a deed-poll is properly one in which only the party making it executes it, or binds himself by it as a deed, though the grantors or grantees therein may be several in number."
Black's Law Dictionary 414 (6th ed. 1990) defines "Deed Poll" as: "A deed which is made by one party only. A deed in which only the party making it executes it or binds himself by it as a deed." Black's also defines "Warranty deed" as: "Deed in which grantor warrants good, clear title. A deed which explicitly contains covenants concerning the quality of title it conveys. In some states, statutes impute warranties or covenants from the use of specific words, such as 'grant.'" Black's Law Dictionary 1589. See 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Deeds § 3 (2002).
The only substantive reference to a deed poll in Kansas jurisprudence occurred over a century ago in Akin v. Davis, 11 Kan. 580, 584-85 (1873):
"The words in the above instrument making the grant, or giving the license, are all in the name of Davis: 'I, L. F. Davis' agree that the defendants shall have the right to flow back the water, 'and I do further hereby waive my right to recover damages,' 'provided,' etc., 'and provided further,' etc. To all of which 'I hereby bind myself, my heirs,' etc.; 'sealed with my seal,' etc. Nowhere and in no instance throughout the entire instrument, is there any covenant, agreement or promise on the part of the defendants (plaintiffs in error) that they would do anything whatever. It is Davis who bargains, covenants, and agrees and waives, with provisos, limitations and restrictions. It is simply a deed-poll from Davis to defendants. 2 Washb. Real Prop. 588; 7 Bouv. Law Dict., 'Deed-Poll.' See also 2 Metc., 180; 9 Metc., 405; 14 Gray, 443."
Applying the above cited rules of interpretation and generally recognized definitions, we agree with the trial court that the 1978 deed between the Jordans and the Dallingas was intended to be an indentured deed, not a deed poll, and correctly conveyed title using an indentured deed form. The 1978 deed meets all the requirements for a valid warranty deed set forth in K.S.A. 58-2203. There is no requirement in K.S.A. 58-2203 that the conveyance be duly signed and acknowledged by the grantee, only the grantor. The deed clearly set forth the intention of the grantors, in plain, simple, and concise language, and there is no occasion for employing rules of judicial construction. Davis v. Vermillion, 173 Kan. 508, 249 P.2d 625 (1952). The provisions of the deed make it clear that the Jordans, as grantors, conveyed the property to the Dallingas, as grantees, for $25,000. There is no confusion in the description of the real estate. There was valuable consideration exchanged in the transfer. There are no ambiguities in the restrictive covenants.
There is also no evidence presented to the contrary that the Dallingas paid the $25,000 for the property and lived within the confines of the restrictive covenants. There is no evidence the Dallingas rejected the restrictive covenants. The 1978 deed was properly and timely recorded. However, the trial court stated: "The grantees did not sign the deed and did not as a matter of law accept the restrictive covenant contained therein." We disagree.
The evidence indicates the Dallingas accepted the benefits and detriments of the warranty deed transfer. Had the Dallingas signed the 1978 warranty deed, there is no question the restrictions would run with the land. However, the lack of a signature by the Dallingas in this case does not void the restrictive covenants. Acceptance of a deed by the grantee is necessary, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, acceptance will be presumed. Hansen v. Walker, 175 Kan. 121, 124, 259 P.2d 242 (1953); see also Bowman v. Walnut Mtn., 251 Ga. App. 91, 95-96, 553 S.E.2d 389 (2001) ("By accepting a deed with covenants and restrictions, the grantee voluntarily consents to be bound by such covenants."). When the conveyance is clearly beneficial to the grantee, not only is acceptance presumed, but "it has been held that this presumption is not overcome by anything short of the actual dissent of the grantee." Wuester v. Folin, 60 Kan. 334, 337-38, 56 Pac. 490 (1899).
There is really no evidence to the contrary that the Jordans and the Dallingas also intended the restrictive covenants to be appurtenant or to run with the land. The clear and unambiguous language of the 1978 deed stated: "It is understood and agreed that this conveyance is made and accepted and the realty is hereby granted, on and subject to the above covenants, conditions, restrictions, and reservations, which covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations shall apply to and run with the conveyed land." The parties do not give much argument to the fact that the 1978 deed also meets the requirements for creating a valid appurtenant covenant, namely that the covenant is in writing, must touch and concern the land, privity of estate, and notice. See Schlup v. Bourdon, 33 Kan. App. 2d 564, 569, 105 P.3d 720 (2005).
The critical issue for determination is what effect, if any, the lack of the Dallingas' signatures on the indentured deed has on subsequent owners of the property. As indicated above, the Dallingas were clearly subject to the restrictive covenants. The trial court held that the 1978 deed was "effective to convey title but not effective to provide notice to the Plaintiff concerning the restrictive covenants." Again, we disagree.
The rules governing the construction of covenants imposing restrictions on the use of realty are the same as those applicable to any contract or covenant, including the rule that, where there is no ambiguity in the language used, there is no room for construction, and the plain meaning of the language governs. When construction is necessary, the language used will be given its obvious meaning. Zukel, 31 Kan. App. 2d at 1101.
We recognize another well-settled rule that covenants and agreements restricting the free use of property are strictly construed against limitations upon such use. Such restrictions will not be aided or extended by implication or enlarged by construction. Doubt will be resolved in favor of the unrestricted use of property. 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions § 16, 568. In Welsh v. Flo, 146 Kan. 807, 811, 73 P.2d 1084 (1937), the Kansas Supreme Court stated:
"And of course a liberal construction must be used in the placing of limitations upon such restrictions, and a question of doubt must be resolved in favor of the grantee rather than the grantor for the exercise of broader privileges in case of doubt, but at the same time the broad privilege claimed must be within reasonable limitations."
The enforceability of restrictive covenants has its origin in common law and has long been recognized in the state of Kansas. McColm v. Stegman, 3 Kan. App. 2d 416, 419-20, 596 P.2d 167 (1979). Enforceability is based on the equitable principle of notice, whereby a person who takes land with notice of a restriction upon it will not be permitted to act in violation of that restriction. Hecht v. Stephens, 204 Kan. 559, 561-62, 464 P.2d 258 (1970). Persons who take real property with notice of restrictive covenants will not be permitted to act in violation thereof and may be enjoined in equity. Kennedy v. Classic Designs, Inc., 239 Kan. 540, Syl. ¶ 2, 722 P.2d 504 (1986).
The trial court found that because the indentured deed form used in the 1978 deed failed to comply with the statute of frauds as a contract relating to an interest in real estate that was not signed by the grantees against whom the contract would be enforceable, it, therefore, was unenforceable and void. Consequently, it was unenforceable against subsequent owners such as Jeremiah as well. The court also held that since the deed failed to comply with the statute of frauds, the deed was not effective to provide notice to Jeremiah concerning the restrictive covenants and they were unenforceable. We disagree.
Jeremiah had constructive notice of the restrictive covenants in question. K.S.A. 58-2222 provides:
"Every such instrument in writing, certified and recorded in the manner hereinbefore prescribed, shall, from the time of filing the same with the register of deeds for record, impart notice to all persons of the contents thereof; and all subsequent purchasers and mortgagees shall be deemed to purchase with notice."
Jeremiah's claim that since the 1978 warranty deed was not signed by the grantee then the
covenants were not enforceable is a legal conclusion not yet determined when Jeremiah
purchased the property. There has been no challenge to the fact that the 1978 deed was properly
filed. Kansas courts charge parties with constructive notice of public records. The fact that
Jeremiah's title company did not find this public document does not make the covenants
unenforceable against Jeremiah. In Travis v. Glick, 150 Kan. 132, 141, 91 P.2d 41
(1939), the
Kansas Supreme Court held that a party charged with constructive notice cannot claim ignorance
of public records in order to toll the statute of limitations. Similarly, subsequent purchasers of
real estate are charged with constructive notice of the presence and contents of recorded interests
in land, if sufficiently described, even when they were not a party to the conveyance and when
the interest was not properly indexed by the register of deeds. Luthi v. Evans, 223
Kan. 622, 629,
576 P.2d 1064 (1978).
We do not have a statute of frauds problem in this case. K.S.A. 33-106 generally provides that no action shall be brought upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them "unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him or her lawfully authorized in writing." The statute of frauds is intended to protect parties from agreements not reduced to writing. See, e.g., Bank of Alton v. Tanaka, 247 Kan. 443, 452, 799 P.2d 1029 (1990) (the statute of frauds renders an oral agreement unenforceable unless there are equitable considerations that remove it from the statute's application).
In this case we have no allegation of promises or agreements that were not included in the 1978 warranty deed. The complete agreement was reduced to writing. Both the acceptance of the deed by the Dallingas and the failure of the Dallingas to reject the deed as improperly filed with the register of deeds satisfy the statute of frauds in this case and impose the undertakings in the deed upon the Dallingas and subsequent owners. Therefore, the covenants which ran with the land were not invalid for the grantee's omitted signature on the deed.
Rulings which support the finding that a grantee may be bound by covenants in a deed which is accepted but not signed by the grantee can be found in Schmucker v. Sibert, 18 Kan. 104, 111-12 (1877); Republic Steel Corporation v. Payne, 272 Ala. 483, 132 So. 2d 581, 584; Murphy v. Gray, 84 Ariz. 299, 327 P.2d 751 (1958); Neblett v. Placid Oil Company, 257 So. 2d 167, 170, (La. App. 1972); Armstrong v. Ledges Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., ___ N.C. App. ___, 620 S.E. 2d 294, 298 (2005); and Daniel v. Wray, 158 N.C. App. 161, 580 S.E. 2d 711 (2003).
Although we have thus far reversed the trial court's decision based on our finding that the restrictive covenants are enforceable against Jeremiah, we note the court's failure to address the "Release of Covenants" of the restrictions executed by the Jordans. This issue has not, therefore, been argued to us. The court admitted the release over the objections of defense counsel and reserved a decision on what effect the release had on the situation.
Building restrictions may be released, waived, or abandoned, or the right to enforce them may be lost by estoppel. See Pool v. Denbeck, 196 Neb. 27, 241 N.W.2d 503 (1976); 20 Am. Jur. 2d Covenants § 226, 751. Restrictive covenants exist for the benefit of owners of land and may be waived or released by them. See Lauber v. Martin, 37 A.D.2d 754, 323 N.Y.S.2d 357 (1971); Trustees of Columbia College v. Lynch, 70 N.Y. 440 (1877). However, these cases may not be dispositive here, depending on the facts. We especially find significant the fact that the persons allegedly releasing the covenant are no longer owners of the property.
We reverse but remand for the trial court's consideration of whether the Jordans' release of the covenants released Jeremiah from the enforcement of the restrictive covenants.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
GREENE, J., concurring: I agree with the majority's opinion in all respects, except as to the need for remand to include consideration of the Jordan's Release of Covenants. I believe such remand is unnecessary for the following reasons.
The Release of Covenants is contained in the record on appeal and reflects an instrument executed by the Jordans on August 7, 2002, releasing the restrictive covenants "after the date of the execution of this instrument." From the undisputed facts, the Jordans had absolutely no interest in the property on said date. Accordingly, it is apparent from the face of the instrument that the purported release has no legal effect.
It is a fundamental principle of property law that one cannot convey an interest greater than one possesses in said property on the date of the purported conveyance. See 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Deeds §7. A grantor who has previously disposed of title in land cannot later transfer that title to a subsequent grantee. Johnson v. Allen, 178 Kan. 348, 352, 285 P.2d 765 (1955). Similarly, one who has long since conveyed his or her fee simple interest in real estate cannot release restrictive covenants imposed during his or her ownership, especially where such covenants were expressly made to "apply to and run with the conveyed land."
The Jordan Release of Covenants is of no legal moment. No remand is necessary to so conclude.


text:
Will NanoCollege break away from UAlbany?
Report says draft proposal would make Nanoscale school an independent campus
ALBANY — The state has drafted plans to make the $14 billion University at Albany's College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering its own campus, with CEO Alain Kaloyeros as its president.
The Associated Press reported Wednesday that it had obtained a copy of a proposal to make the NanoCollege a "specialized college" much like the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse.
The NanoCollege is unusual compared to other SUNY institutions in that it invites the world's leading computer chip manufacturers, such as IBM Corp. and Intel Corp., to use its high-tech clean rooms and labs for cutting-edge research alongside its faculty, scientists and students.
More than 3,100 people are employed at the NanoCollege campus, and the average salary is $95,000. The school is credited with helping the local high-tech sector grow and attracting GlobalFoundries, which has built a $7 billion computer chip fab in Saratoga County and has plans for an additional $16 billion investment at the site.
It was unclear from the wire service's report whether the proposal was generated by staff of Gov. Andrew Cuomo or the State University of New York, the umbrella organization of the state's 64 campuses.
The AP said the proposal will need approval by the SUNY board of trustees as well as the governor and the Legislature.
It appears also that such a proposal may need to be approved by the state Education Department's Office of Higher Education, which has a set of protocols for opening a new college. Jonathan Burman, a spokesman for the Education Department, said Wednesday that no such proposal is currently being considered by the department or its Board of Regents.
State officials refused to comment Wednesday on the report. The governor's office and UAlbany spokesman Karl Luntta referred all questions to SUNY. State officials privately tried to downplay the news, claiming that no definitive plan for the NanoCollege's future exists.
SUNY spokesman David Doyle said Wednesday that he could not confirm or deny the AP story, which he said he had read.
"I can't have any comment," Doyle said. "It's just not something that we're commenting on."
Only an official from the Legislature would even entertain the idea that a plan to spin off the NanoCollege may exist.
"We haven't discussed it yet, but it is something we will review," said Michael Whyland, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.
The NanoCollege has enjoyed relative autonomy from UAlbany since 2008 when the SUNY board gave Kaloyeros duties "fully comparable and equal" to that of a SUNY university president.
He reports directly to SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher. The school, on the Albany NanoTech campus on Fuller Road, has its own budget its funding requests are separate from UAlbany's. However, undergraduate students at the NanoCollege rely heavily on UAlbany courses to fulfill their degree requirements.
Spinning off the NanoCollege as its own separate school has been considered a logical progression in recent years, considering the amount of state and federal funding the school enjoys, which overshadows the research dollars that UAlbany attracts on its own.
The NanoCollege has also been caught in a power struggle — below the surface — with UAlbany in recent years. The NanoCollege has hired high-profile UAlbany professors for its Albany NanoTech campus, and it recently grabbed Tech Valley High School, a major tenant at UAlbany's East Campus in East Greenbush, a move that enraged university officials and supporters.
On the same day that the Tech Valley High School move was announced, the NanoCollege also started replacing the "University at Albany" in its name with just "SUNY," a move that also raised suspicions and begged the question of whether the NanoCollege was seeking to become its own campus.
On its own, the NanoCollege received nearly $224 million in research funding in fiscal 2012, according to SUNY Research Foundation. That's more than double the $106 million that UAlbany received in the same period. Stony Brook University on Long Island received $183 million, the most of any of the state's four universities, when the NanoCollege results are taken away from UAlbany's numbers.
The Research Foundation began separating the NanoCollege's research funding in 2010. SUNY as a whole collected nearly $1 billion in research funding in 2012, meaning that the NanoCollege accounted for roughly one-fourth of all research funds flowing into the SUNY system.
However, the NanoCollege spends far less of its research dollars on salaries compared to the rest of the UAlbany campus.
More Information
According to the Research Foundation, research dollars funded $11.6 million in salaries in 2012, while the rest of UAlbany funded $32.9 million in salaries with research dollars.
A large portion of the research dollars that the NanoCollege receives — $50 million in 2012 — pays for equipment used in its state-of-the-art clean rooms where companies like IBM and GlobalFoundries do computer chip manufacturing research.
Companies like IBM pour tens of millions of dollars into the NanoCollege each year to use its space and equipment through the Research Foundation, which is SUNY's clearinghouse for both private and governmental funding.
Lease payments that the Research Foundation makes to the nonprofit organization that controls the NanoCollege's facilities are set at $25 million this year and increase to $43 million in subsequent years. The Research Foundation gets the money from the companies that have contracts to do research at the school.
email@example.com • 518-454-5504 • @larryrulison

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Visteon's boardroom tumult: Connecting all the dots
Late last year, I blogged about whether Visteon would jump the Pacific to Asia. Today, we still don't know for sure, but the pieces are falling into place.
Today, the supplier announced Don Stebbins, 54, was out as CEO, replaced on an interim basis by former Dura Automotive CEO and current Visteon board member Tim Leuliette, 62.
The shakeup is happening amid rumors that Korean supplier Mando Corp. may attempt to acquire Visteon's lucrative climate control business. The rumors helped fuel a rally in Visteon stock today (up 8.3 percent at closing time).
In July, Visteon announced it offered $805 million to acquire the remaining 30 percent stake in its Korean joint venture, Halla Climate Control Corp. But that deal was nixed after the country's National Pension Service rejected the offer.
Then earlier this month, Visteon lowered its annual sales forecast, citing currency and declining vehicle production in Europe and other regions, Bloomberg reported. Sales this year will be $6.6 billion to $6.8 billion, compared with a May forecast of as much as $7 billion, according to the report.
Leuliette has significant experience in the Asian market, including his China-centric investment firm Andus-Leuliette LLC. A year ago, Hong Kong-based China Auto Parts and Accessories Capital Holding Ltd. acquired the stake previously held by The Tempo Group Inc., a Beijing auto supplier.
He also leads Bloomfield Hills-based banking firm Finnea Group LLC.
Leuliette was hired on to lead supplier Dura Systems in 2008 after it emerged from bankruptcy and led its sale to New York-based private investment firm Patriarch Partners in 2010.
As Stebbins walked out the door, effective Aug. 10, the Visteon board immediately added two new board members, one to replace Stebbins and another to raise the membership to eight.
The new members include former Eagle-Picher CEO David Treadwell and Francis Scricco, senior vice president of manufacturing, logistics and procurement for Avaya Inc. until his retirement in October 2008
Treadwell has deal-making experience as well. He led the supplier out of bankruptcy in 2006 as COO and pared off several of its divisions upon becoming CEO later that year.
Speculation is already spreading that with Mando on the hunt, Visteon could be primed for a deal.
If Mando makes an offer for the climate business and the Visteon board decides to bite, Visteon will be left with a near $2 billion-a-year interiors business after it terminated an agreement to sell the remainder of its interiors business to its China joint venture Yanfeng Visteon Automotive Trim Systems Co. The company originally announced the deal last November.
It's unclear what would then happen with the interiors business, but it may leave an open window for competitors such as Johnson Controls, Magna International or Lear.
JCI offered $1.25 billion to acquire Visteon out of bankruptcy in May 2010 (the deal was immediately rejected by Visteon management).
Visteon sold its lighting unit to India-based Varroc Group for $92 million earlier this year.
The company reported a second-quarter net income of $75 million, after two consecutive quarterly losses. Visteon has been plagued by unprofitability since Ford Motor Co. spun off the supplier in 2000. Visteon reported a net income of $1 billion in 2010 after shedding $1.2 billion in debt through Chapter 11.
Stebbins fell on his sword trying to hold Visteon together. Only time will tell if Leuliette and his team are determined to dissolve the supplier through a set of deals.
Until then, Korea's Mando remains on the prowl.
Send us a letter
Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.


text:
The Invitation XI, set 323 to win, were 190 for five in their second innings when the match was called off. Home team captain Justin Ontong made an unbeaten 51 after his side had seemed in danger of defeat when he went in to bat with his team on 101 for four.
Opening bowlers Umar Gul and Junaid Khan both struck early in the second innings. The tall Mohammad Irfan took two wickets and off-spinner Saeed Ajmal claimed one.
Earlier, the Invitation XI opening bowler Kyle Abbott took three quick wickets - one with the old ball and two with the second new ball - before the tourists declared on 250 for nine. They lost four wickets for ten runs on Monday.
The Pakistanis travel to Johannesburg on Tuesday to prepare for the first Test against South Africa starting at the Wanderers Stadium on Friday. (AFP)


text:
109 W. 38th St
New York, NY - 10018
General Liability Insurance: 1,000,000.00
Approximate # Of Drivers: 750
Get Competitive Quotes from Multiple CourierCompanies in the New York area
Get Fast Quotes for Same Day, One Time & Recurring Deliveries
Compare Delivery Services & Fleet Info
Company Overview: Established In 1983,we are now a 30 year old company founded as a one-person rush, same-day courier operation in Philadelphia. Within a year, the company known as American Expediting Company was successfully competing with the city's top messenger services with clients ranging from hospitals, top law firms, banking institutions, and transportation companies. By 1988, it was considered one of the leading time-critical delivery organizations in the region. Today, our company boasts locations that serve the continental United States. Our services have grown to include air transport, national logistics programs, distribution and warehousing capabilities and emergency fulfillment. Our growth strategy through the years has been mostly through the insistence of our current customer base. We deliver top quality service, high percentage on-time delivery, and state-of-the-art technology to make our customer experience optimal. Practically all markets in the continental United States are being directly serviced by our direct agents including:
Northeast Region: Boston, Hartford, Buffalo, New York City, Newark Mid-Atlantic Region: Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Richmond Southeast Region: Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, Miami, Tampa Midwest Region: Chicago, Columbus, St. Louis, Minneapolis Western Region: San Diego, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, Denver, Houston TX
Monday-Friday:12 AM-12 AM (24 hr)
Saturday:12 AM-12 AM (24 hr)
Sunday:12 AM-12 AM
5 stars
The system works cleanly every time and it is a permanent fixture in our sourcing arsenal. I would highly recommend this as a useful and cost effective tool for both shippers and service providers.- W.Cohen, Sunteck Transport Group
I used your service after calling around looking for couriers and getting frustrated. I found you on Google and posted an escrow document needing to be picked up and within 15 minutes I had numerous quotes in my inbox. After selecting a courier company I have never been so impressed with the professionalism of this particular company. They just blew me away!- Company in California
Got six calls in 10 minutes with different rates. And the amazing fact was the quality and the professionalism of the companies who called. Extremely helpful and knowledgeable. What a great service!- User in Phoenix
My only regret with Drivv/Courierboard is that I didn't know about this sooner!! The service I received was quick and exactly what I needed. I have already shared this information with people on my team and we will definitely be using this service in the future. Thanks so much for your help and the follow up!- Company in West Virginia
I'd like to let you know that I am very happy with your service and currently finalizing my delivery details with the courier company we selected. They have provided excellent professional assistance, way beyond my expectations. Thank you for facilitating such an efficient and accessible tool, as I am in Australia and thanks to your website, finding a reliable courier service provider was very easy and a pleasant experience.- Company in Australia
Drivv provides quick access to reliable New York, NY courier service providers that provide the best solution at competitive prices. Our network of New York, NY professional courier companies are available 24/7 and provide a full range of delivery and courier services including same day delivery, next day freight, white glove delivery, New York, NY area and state-wide freight shipping, messenger services, and distribution or route delivery service.


text:
Sophomore Christian Francia
Final Stats
NORTH DARTMOUTH, MA-The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth's women's swimming team defeated Elms, while the men's meet ended in a tie in a dual meet at the Tripp Athletic Center Saturday.. The Corsair women won, 141-99, and the Corsair men and Blazers each wound up with 108 points.
Women's winners for UMD included the 200 yard medley relay team of junior Megan Brady (Peabody, MA/Peabody HS), junior Lindsay Days (Mattapoisett, MA/Bishop Stang HS), sophomore Abbey Prives (Wellesley, MA/Wellesley HS) and freshman Leslie Martin (Pittsfield, MA/Pittsfield HS) in 2:06.00. Sophomore Morgan Cooper (Sunderland, MA/Frontier Regional HS) took both the 200 yard freestyle in 2:03.83 and the 100 yard freestyle in 57.72 seconds. Freshman Brooke Garvey (Billerica, MA/Billerica HS) won both the one meter diving competition (163.43 points) and the three-meter competition (139.70 points). Junior Maggie Conlon (Methuen, MA/Methuen HS) won the 400 yard individual medley in 5:09.05, sophomore Katelyn Kidney (Lynn, MA/Lynn Classical HS/Bryant) took the 100 yard butterfly in 1:05.52, and senior Kim Moore (Billerica, MA/Billerica HS) won the 500 yard freestyle in 5;46.83.
For the men, freshman Edward Olean (Seekonk, MA/Seekonk HS) won the 400 yard individual medley in 4:28.19 and the 500 yard freestyle in 5:08.95, sophomore Matt Lee (Chelmsford, MA/Chelmsford HS) took the 100 yard backstroke in 1:01.05, sophomore Christian Francia (Hampton, NH/Winnacunnet HS) won the three meter diving with 285.67 points, sophomore Chris Brown (Burlington, MA/Burlington HS) won the one meter diving with 218.92 points, and the 200 yard medley relay team of senior Nick Poliseno (Brockton, MA/Brockton HS), sophomore Julian Jiminian (Springfield, MA/Renaissance HS), junior Josh Potcner (Holbrook, MA/Cardinal Spellman HS), and Giardini finished first in 1:58.57.
"I was very happy with our performances today," said UMass Dartmouth Head Coach Cathy Motta. "The men's meet ended in a tie, despite many swimmers not competing. We will now be off until January 3rd, when we will return to prepare for our annual training trip."
UMass Dartmouth's women are now 2-3, while the UMD men are 1-2-1. The Elms women are now 3-4, while the men are now 1-2-1.
The Corsairs will return to action when they visit Simmons January 17th, while the Blazers will host Bridgewater State January 11th.


text:
NDAA, DLA, DNA... Still Clear as Mud
Industry and government continue to hammer away at anti-counterfeiting measures. Dan Deisz of Rochester Electronics recently presented at the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) & Standardization Conference, which focuses on government-related matters. Deisz shared the following observations.NDAA
Henry Livingston of BAE reported on the impact of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), notably Section 818. It was clear from his presentation that there will be modifications to the NDAA and Section 818, as there are too many ambiguities and wording clarifications that need to be revisited. As the presentations went on, there was continued discussion regarding counterfeit products, relating to materials other than just electronic components.
On day two, an executive panel on anti-counterfeiting kicked off the afternoon session. The basis of this panel was to outline the specific modifications that should be made to the NDAA and Section 818. Between this panel discussion and the earlier presentation by BAEs Livingston, the issues within the NDAA became clearer to the audience, and more questions were asked as a result.
On the table is a recommendation that the term "suspect counterfeit" or "counterfeit" be changed to "non-conformance." One reason is to appease legal minds, and another is to broaden the range of products covered across more than just the Department of Defense. The language in Section 818 that talks about "trusted sources" is going to be adjusted to "trustworthy sources" in an effort to avoid comparison to the Trusted Access Program Office (TAPO).
There are a number of terms left open to interpretation in Section 818 when it comes to system integrators and long-term maintenance contracts. Questions that were brought up include: Is Section 818 retroactive, or does it apply only to new contracts? If an end-product consists of government IP integrated into OEM IP, who is responsible for the government IP's conformance with Section 818? What about DOE, NASA, and all the other government agencies? Why arent they called out in Section 818? These types of questions and more have yet to be sorted out in this ambiguous legislation.DNA
The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) discussed DNA marking as an anti-counterfeiting measure. DLA admitted that its own inventory of parts is now suspect and is searching its entire inventory for counterfeit products, especially 59xx products, which include active and passive components. Even though the SIA has submitted letters in response to the DNA marking mandate, DLA is moving forward with DNA marking.
There are inherent issues with this process that will not fully address the interdiction of counterfeit devices. There are now two sourcing distributors that have purchased applied DNA product and will be able to ship product into DLA. DLA clarified its position regarding DNA: If it gets two bids on a product where one is from a sourcing distributor that uses DNA marking and has traceability, and one from an OCM authorized distributor with no DNA marking, the DLA will opt to purchase the components from the sourcing distributor.
How do you feel about these points? Is NDAA any clearer? Does DNA marking solve the counterfeiting problem?
More Blogs from George Karalias
Standard packaging is no more, and package obsolescence will drive product EOL at a more frequent rate going forward.
By working with the right suppliers, customers can get critical components even after they are obsolete.
Using smart product life-cycle management, component manufacturers are making life easier for their customers.
Choosing the right partner for obsolescent and EOL parts is important, both for your business and the environment.
As the US honors those who gave their lives to defend freedom, its time for the electronics industry to take meaningful steps to reduce the use of dangerous counterfeit parts in military equipment.
EBN Newswire
Newark Celebrates Women in Engineering
Resourcessponsored content
Latest Poll
EBN Dialogue / LIVE CHAT
EBN Dialogue enables you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Open to the entire EBN community of electronics supply chain experts, these conversations see ideas shared, comments made, and questions asked and answered in real time. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats. Stay tuned and join in!
Archived Dialogues
Live Chat 01/15: CPOs Re-Shape Their Business Roles
Increasingly chief procurement officers (CPOs) are re-shaping their organizational role to focus on creating results far beyond cost controls. A new IBM survey explores how.
Live Chat 11/12: Examining the Cyberthreat to Supply Chains
The number of cyberattacks is on the rise and hackers are targeting the supply chain. Drew Smith, founder and CEO of InfoArmor, will be on hand to discuss the reality of today's threat landscape and what to do about it.


text:
Beamish Park Hotel3
Marley Hill, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE16 5EG
Price FromView Rooms
- Very Good
- 145 guest reviews
"We got the room on offer through laterooms, meaning we could give a 5 for value. Having stayed at the hotel £180-220 is too much for the sta..."
"Excellent stay. Room comfortable and stylish. Food very good...."
"Brilliant hotel just round the corner from Beamish Museum, sat nav tried to send us down a track but found it ok, massive cooked to order br..."
"This is one of the best hotels we have visited, excellent service, food, accomodation...."
"We were able to get access to our room early with no fuss or bother, and it was ideal with external patio access for our planned late arriva..."
About the hotel
Surrounded by beautiful countryside, yet within easy reach of the A1, The Beamish Park Hotel is the perfect retreat for both business and pleasure. The hotel is family owned and operated, with friendly staff who will ensure you feel more than welcome throughout your stay. With a selection of bedrooms to meet individual needs, a 2 AA Red Rosette award restaurant, and Driving Range and 9 hole Golf Course on site, the Beamish Park is ideal for overnight stays or longer breaks in the area.
Popular local attractions such as Beamish Museum, Newcastle Upon Tyne and the historical city of Durham are all within a short drive of the hotel.
Read MoreLess
Facilities Show/hide
- Main
- Hotel Non-Smoking Throughout, Disabled Facilities, Air conditioning in rooms, 24 Hour Reception, Babysitting services, Cots available, Wedding Licence, Safety Deposit Box, Tea/Coffee making facilities in each room, Hairdryer in each room, Telephone In Each Room, 24 Hour Room Service, Limited room service for hot food, Wake Up Call Available, Interconnecting rooms available, Pets Allowed, Porter, Ground floor bedrooms, Public Air Conditioning
- Parking
- Car parking available onsite
- Business
- Wi-Fi Available, Meeting Facilities, Wi-Fi Available In Public Areas, Wi-Fi Available In Rooms, Private dining services
- Dining
- Restaurant, Lounge Menu, Bar, Breakfast to go
- Leisure
- Golf 9 Hole, Pitch n' Putt
- In Room Entertainment
- TV, Satellite TV, Radio
- Accessibility
- Disabled Access Public Areas, Disabled Access Bedrooms, Disabled toilets on ground floor, Wheelchair Access, Wheelchair Access To Reception, Wheelchair Access To Restaurant, Wheelchair Access To Bar, Wheelchair Access To Conference Rooms, Wheelchair Access To Disabled Car Parking Spaces
Useful Info Show/hide
- From 14:00 hours
- By 11:00 hours
- Up to 12 years old
- The price shown is based on the occupancy and dates you have searched for. Prices and availability are subject to change based on the arrival date, number of nights and occupancy searched for. All prices are inclusive of all local taxes.
- Pets are allowed
Customer Reviews
Our reviews are from genuine LateRooms.com customers. We verify that the customer has stayed before leaving a review.
Very Good
94% would recommend it to a friend
Customer service
Food quality
Room quality
We got the room on offer through laterooms, meaning we could give a 5 for value.
Having stayed at the hotel £180-220 is too much for the sta...
Read More Less
The Beamish Park Hotel
Excellent stay.
Room comfortable and stylish. Food very good....
Read More Less


text:
Welcome Back
Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Log In
Sign Up Now
Usagansbach Jobs
Post a Job
For Employers
Resume Upload
Sign Up
Seasonal Travel RN - ICU, ED, OR, PACU (Arecibo,PR)
Apply Now
HealthCare Traveler Jobs
$34,630.00 -48,010.00/year*
Arecibo , PR
Healthcare - Nursing
Loading some great jobs for you...
Critical Need for All Hospital Based RN Specialties
Travel Registered Nurse Jobs & Assignments
Would you like to spend the spring / summer somewhere great? The Hospitals have already started posting the available seasonal travel assignments with the HCEN Network of staffing agencies. Submit your information request today and get your choice of great locations before they are gone.
Veteran Traveler or researching your first assignment options, You are in the right place.
Tired of always being asked to complete a lengthy application?
Why complete multiple applications just to get information before you know if there is something you are interested in?
We can appreciate that, we have been in your shoes as past \\\"Travelers\\\"
Get the information you need from the Nation's Top Staffing Agencies with one free, quick & short \\\"More Information Request Form\\\" click on \\\"Apply\\\" or \\\"Apply on Career site\\\"
For the past 6 years, thousands of Nurses just like you have utilized the sites of HealthCare Employment Network to explore a career as a Traveling Registered Nurse.
Interested in locating that perfect RN Travel Assignment Job?
Looking for great compensation as well as leading benefits packages?
Where would you like to go
Spend the winter in the warmth of Florida, Arizona, Hawaii, Southern California or many others.
Spend the summer in the beautiful states of Colorado, Utah, Vermont or visit the New England states.
So many great options today's travel nurse has to choose from
ASAP starts. Numerous 8,13 & 26 week travel assignments available.
Complete the More Information Request and let the staffing agencies come to you.
Requested Nursing Specialties
Cardiac Cath Lab, Labor & Delivery, Pediatrics, PCU Stepdown, Telemetry, Maternal-Newborn, Emergency Department, Medical-Surgical, ICU - Critical Care, Intensive Care, Newborn Nursery, CVICU - Cardio-Vascular Intensive Care, Oncology, NICU - Neonatal Intensive Care, General Surgery, PICU - Pediatric Intensive Care, CVOR-Open Heart Surgery, General Surgery, SICU - Surgical Intensive Care, OR - RN First Assistant, MICU - Medical Intensive Care, Neuro - Intensive Care, Pediatric Surgery, Trauma - Intensive Care
RN - Registered Nurse - Travel Nurse.
Registered Nurse Licensure in the state of practice.
Minimum of two years recent hospital experience in your primary specialty.
No flagged or under investigation licenses.
Associated topics: bsn, cardiothoracic, nurse, nurse clinical, nurse rn, psychiatric, recovery, registed, surgery, transitional
Associated topics: bsn, cardiothoracic, nurse, nurse clinical, nurse rn, psychiatric, recovery, registed, surgery, transitional
Associated topics: care, ccu, coronary, intensive care, intensive care unit, nurse, nurse rn, recovery, surgery, unit
* The salary listed in the header is an estimate based on salary data for similar jobs in the same area. Salary or compensation data found in the job description is accurate.
Launch your career - Upload your resume now!
Upload Resume
Loading some great jobs for you...
Login or Sign up
Sign Up
Remember Me
Sign in
Confirm Password
By submitting, you agree to our
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Sign Up
This email has been taken, please login or use a different email.
Don't have an account?
Enter your email to continue as a guest:
By submitting, you agree to our
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy


text:
Arrival in Mexico
Elizabeth Howard
18, 1997
We drove here from Mexico City yesterday. After driving for 3 hours we began to see monarchs very suddenly, just east of Zitacuaro. First one, then another--and within a mile we drove into a blizzard of monarchs, all floating through the air like huge snowflakes.
The countryside here is scattered with daisy-like flowers (composites) which grow on huge bushes, often 8-10 feet tall. Many butterflies were drinking nectar from these flowers, fattening up before their long winter. Most, however, were in flight, drifting together in the same direction, continuing the silent parade that's been traveling toward this region since August.
The long trip has clearly taken a toll on the monarchs. I was surprised to see how dull and faded their wings were, quite unlike the bright colors and fresh condition they had when we last saw them in the north. Though it was easier to see the butterflies that were flying low, it was most remarkable to look up in the sky and imagine their numbers. The butterflies filled a huge column of air and we traveled through them for over 30 miles. They were higher than the eye could see, and even with binoculars it was impossible to see how high the cloud of butterflies reached.
As we drove into Angangueo monarchs were everywhere: flying past windows and over rooftops, past donkeys carrying loads of wood, past children dressed in red school uniforms, past men wearing the cowboy hats of Michoacan, past chickens in people's yards and houses painted with vivid colors. Against this backdrop of Mexican life were the same monarchs, so familiar in my garden at home, but now in an entirely different place. The atmosphere was lively and festive, and the butterflies decorated the sky as if for their own homecoming celebration.
Up in the Sierra Chincua sanctuary the size of the over-wintering colony has grown substantially since biologist Eduardo Rendon watched the first arrivals during the weekend of November 1 and 2. Where there were 2 trees filled with monarchs on November 2, there are now 800 trees-- just 2 weeks later! Already the forest floor beneath these butterfly trees is littered with the wings of dead monarchs. The birds and mice that will prey on the butterflies here all winter must welcome the arrival of this easy source of food.
This week, as the butterflies continue to arrive and settle into the forest where they'll spend the winter, we're visiting schools in the surrounding region. Many of the symbolic monarchs you made are being given to the children here to watch over until spring. I'm taking as many pictures as I can, but I wish you could be here in person to see the excitement your butterflies bring. Each child carefully chooses one butterfly, then discovers where it came from and locates the home town of their new friend on a map. Though these children live right beside the monarch sanctuaries, they often don't know they are a world treasure. The Symbolic Migration is helping them to see the importance of their place, and to realize that children across North America know about them and care about the butterflies.


text:
Election Announcement 2019
Notice of Publication of electoral Roll
MSPC Election Announcement
: email@example.com
: R-square, 4th Floor, Opp E.S.I.S. Hospital Compound,L.B.S. Marg, Mulund (W),Mumbai - 400 080.
: 022-25684291
Disclaimer: Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council is not responsible for any
inadvertent error that may have crept in the information being published on this
website. The information published on this website is for immediate information.
MSPC does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information. If you are referring
this website for the purpose of taking admission then you are advised to refer
to the concerned college and or pharmacy council of india (http://pci.nic.in)
for the approval status for the purpose of registration


text:
ShakeOut Information and Activities for Kern County
The Great Southern California ShakeOut is a regional effort spanning eight southern California counties. This page is specifically for the residents of Kern County.
ShakeOut Participants in Kern County
Over people in southern California are currently registered to participate in the ShakeOut Drill on November 13, and currently
- See the current list of Kern County participants,
including which school, school districts, businesses, organizations, government agencies, and others are participating!
ShakeOut Activities in Kern County
Presentations, preparedness fairs, and other activities are now being scheduled in Kern County, leading up to the ShakeOut Drill on November 13 and related events.
- See the current list of ShakeOut Activities in Kern County
- See the current list of All ShakeOut Activities
If you are organizing an event that is relevant to the ShakeOut, please provide details using the Contact Us form and we may add it to the calendar, or contact you for more details.
Regional Associates for Kern County
ShakeOut Regional Associates are people who are working together to encourage the residents, schools, organizations, and businesses of their county to participate in The Great Southern California ShakeOut. Many are giving presentations in their communities, participating in local events, or contacting other local leaders to help spread the word.
The chair of the Kern County Associates is Michael Maggard(Supervisor, Third District, Kern County Board of Supervisors).
- See the current list of Kern County Associates.
News and Updates
Additional News releases and ShakeOut-related news
More Updates from the ShakeOut Blog...


text:
Although getting a new job, a new apartment, and other small personal successes are now cause for celebration, there remain only three benchmark occasions for humans to plan meticulously, send out invitations to and eat finger food at. Two of them are birth and death. I've got those covered: I was definitely born, and rumor has it that someday I'll probably die. The one in the middle's the one I'm not sure about.
The phrase "wedding expo" falls somewhere between "ocelot ownership" and "colonizing outer space" on the list of activities that are relevant to my life—which is to say, so far down on that list that it actually places somewhere in the molten-lava center of the earth. I've never had a serious relationship.
Conversely, I am a grown-up in ways that plenty of other people aren't: I am twenty-six, have reasonably impressive writing jobs, pay rent on my own studio apartment, adequately care for myself and the idiotic little cat who lives with me. I eat kale. I recently took the batteries out of my vibrator and put them in my Swiffer. What's more depressingly grown-up than that?
Even as my identity as a self-sufficient single adult flourishes, the idea of marriage makes me feel even more like a child. It's something that grown-ups do! Case in point: I was the maid of honor at my childhood friend's wedding last summer. While my mom was downstairs doing the Electric Slide at the reception, I got drunk and went to second base with an acquaintance of the groom's in the room upstairs designated for the bridesmaids' purses and hair tools. And I'm a child of divorce. So that should tell you all you need to know about me and weddings.
Not that I wasn't aware of the existence of the wedding expo. This is 2013! There's a My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic expo populated primarily by men who watch the show and call themselves "bronies." So a large convention room filled with tiered cakes, frothy dresses and coupons for 20 percent off ballroom dancing lessons is hardly an offbeat concept.
Two weeks ago, I received an email inviting me to the New York Wedding Expo sponsored by New York Magazine, whose reputation as a mainstay for the high-maintenance Manhattan bride guaranteed an unfortunately lopsided chill bride :: crazy Bridezilla ratio. I am the kind of person who has had more than one panic attack in comparably low-key places like Duane Reade. With this in mind, I took a deep breath, had a beer (okay, two beers. Okay, three beers) and went over there.
After this necessary chugging of Stellas, I made my way through the gaggles of women standing outside, holding various floral and food freebies, many of them on cell phones parsing out matrimonial ceremony options with friends or moms who weren't present.
Inside the huge convention room was a veritable Choose Your Own Adventure: Bridal Edition, with mostly New York-based designers, restaurants, videographers, and others purveying their wares to women, their moms and the occasional bored fiancée. ("We're shopping for tiny foods to eat at that party we're having to celebrate ourselves hopefully dying together! Baby, try this crab medley.") Everyone's marching around like Himmler in Tory Burch flats. It's like The Hunger Games and everyone's a Wedding Tribute.
An alien whose first trip to Earth included a jaunt around the New York Wedding Expo would think the wedding was the endgame, not the lasting marriage itself, and after the wedding, the two would never see each other again.
One of the more idiosyncratic components of wedding expos, it turns out, are the live models posing in dresses made by some designers present. I did a brief, informal sampling of the marital status of these wedding dress models. None of them were married. ("I just got out of something serious," one model in a bedazzled gown said. "I just want to have fun right now.")
"So does it feel weird to be wearing a wedding dress?" I ask.
With a wary glance towards the designer—this being, after all, a hard-to-come-by job—most of them gave me a quick nod to the affirmative, or a furtive "Yeahhh." Most looked befuddled that I'd even ask.
The most eye-catching of the live models are three who have been posed on a bright, hot-looking platform with a painted nature backdrop. I am informed by the designer that it's based on Botticelli's "Primavera" (above).
"If you look at the painting, it's really exactly the same," she says.
"Wow. I'm a little drunk," I inform her.
She laughs. "You're my kind of girl."
She invites me to a cocktail party afterwards. I offer to get the three models a drink. They decline.
Although I've made a point to leave my press pass in clear view in front of my jacket, as I wander past various vendors' booths, variations of this keep happening:
Congratulations! Are you the bride?
awkwardly pigeon-toes feet, shows them press pass.Hahaaaa, no, I'm not!
Cringes a little, as if embarrassed on my behalf. Smiles, attempting to make me feel more at ease with the exchange.
Haha, oh, oops!
And then I attempt to linger and ask questions. Women crowd into the booth and begin asking questions that pertain to their actual wedding ceremony and the vendors have a chance to hustle for actual money, rather than derp around uncomfortably with me. Finally, my claustrophobia and discomfort win out.
Well, I'll get out of your way because there are real people – I mean real brides – I mean, hahahaHAAA!
At which point I grab a crab cake in my talons and run away. And, scene.
Clutching my wine like a safety blanket, I find brief solace at a booth of offbeat jewelry and not much human traffic, run by two men in a couple. They met on the street and have been dating for a few decades now, one of them says. They have a dog and a house in New Hope. Soon they're hoping to retire, move to Honolulu, and work with horses. Surrounded by the people and wares of so-called traditional marriage, their quiet union—earned after years and years of fighting restrictions, controversy and ever-changing laws–-seems doubly poignant to me. I'm glad to see, on my way out the door, that more brides-to-be seem to be flocking to their station.
If I get married, I want a small wedding, I decide on the spot. Small enough to fit in a thimble, if possible.
Ironically, one hour after I make my great escape from the Expo, I'm sitting in a bar snacking on the crab medleys and mini-cupcakes I hid in my purse, waiting for a first date to begin. You have to crawl before (if) you walk down the aisle.
Follow Anna on Twitter: @annabreslaw
Photo of presentation by Donna Distefano Ltd.


text:
Don't see your question? Visit our help section.
Get access to great in-store deals and local pick-up
Sign up for our email deals newsletter!
Welcome Back to Wipeout! Where things are wetter, wilder and wackier than ever!
Wipeout 3 boasts all-new features and effects that catapult players into the most intense, body-contorting action yet! Fans will recognize their favorite obstacles like the Sweeper Arms and the Big Balls, but will be blown away by 12 fresh winter and summer course themes with dozens of obstacles allowing for non-stop fun. Players will be running through wild, over-the-top challenges created exclusively for Wipeout 3, experienced through a fun over-the-shoulder perspective, and with a hilarious "Instant Replay" function that will have families and friends in stitches as they watch and relive their worst wipeouts over and over again.


text:
Isaac Burnett (1780 - May 1860), one of my paternal fourth great-grandfathers, is my oldest verifiable Burnett ancestor. Beyond that, things get confused. Many researchers show him as the son of Daniel Burnett and a woman named Mariah, or Maria, with her last name often given as Burnham. This may be traced to two perhaps unrelated (no pun intended) facts.
First, in the venerable New England Historic Genealogical Society's publication, Massachusetts Town Birth Records 1620 -1850, there is a record from the town of Ashfield of an Isaac born to Daniel Burnett and Mariah.
Second, the 1850 U S Federal Census gives Massachusetts as Isaac Burnett's birthplace.
Voila! Isaac's parents are Daniel and Maria(h) Burnett. But as a wise National Park Ranger told me on a genealogically-inspired trip a few years back: it takes three legs to make a stool. One bit of information is interesting, two makes it more likely, but three confirms it as a fact.
And in this case, not only are we missing that crucial third leg, but there is this damning piece of evidence, which others seem to excuse or ignore: Daniel Burnett's birth is well-documented as being in 1776, just four years before his supposed son's in 1780. Anyway....
We do know that Isaac was born in Massachusetts in 1780, and moved to Maine by at least 23 December 1802, when he married Deborah Grindle (25 Feb 1784 - aft 1860), daughter of a long-established and prolific New England family, whose name is also found as Grindal, Grindall, and Grindell.
The Burnetts are next found in the 1810 U S Federal Census living in Sedgwick, Hancock County, Maine, with their first four children, all girls: Peggy (17 May 1804 - ?), Lydia (8 Nov 1806 - ?), Sarah (20 Oct 1808 - ?), and another, possibly named Abigail.
In 1814, the family moved about fifty miles to the northwest, to the just-incorporated town of Newport, Maine; they are considered among the town founders. At one of the earliest town meetings, on 3 April 1815, Isaac Burnett is named as an agent of the newly-formed school district.
|Newport, Hancock, Maine about 1875.
By 1820, there are two more daughters and--at last--a son (as of now all nameless, alas), then another: Reuben Burnett (abt 1818 - aft 1880), named after Deborah's father. On 12 March 1826, the last child--and at last my direct ancestor--Nathaniel S Burnett was born.
Isaac Burnett was primarily a farmer; an 1850 census reports he had seventy improved acres and thirty unimproved acres. He possessed one horse, two milk cows, two oxen, four other cattle, eleven sheep, and one swine, and was producing wheat, oats, rye, wool, butter, and cheese.
|Isaac Burnett is found on Line 10, after three lines of those prolific Grindalls.
On Line 12 can be found Samuel Squire, whose daughter Rachel will marry Isaac's son Nathaniel four months after this Census was taken. [Detail]
By the time of Isaac's sudden death (of "old age", which is nice to read after a page otherwise full of dropsy, consumption, and typhoid fever) at age eighty in May 1860, he had also been working for some time as a blacksmith, perhaps a reflection of Newport's growing prominence as a carriage-making town.
It is remarkable how much we can learn about this ordinary man who died over one hundred and fifty years ago.
But who are Isaac Burnett's parents?
1. Isaac Burnett (1780 - May 1860) was born in Massachusetts, and married Deborah Grindle (25 Feb 1784 - aft 1860), daughter of Reuben Grindle (20 Mar 1757 - 15 Jul 1835) and Hannah Lowell (23 Jan 1759 - Sep 1802), on 23 Dec 1802 in Hancock County, Maine.
2. Nathaniel S Burnett (12 Mar 1826 - 10 Oct 1885) married Rachel Elizabeth Squire (28 Jan 1829 - 21 Apr 1902), daughter of Samuel Squire (13 Apr 1797 - 26 Jul 1871) and Lovina Coleman (27 Oct 1806 - 2 Jul 1901), on 26 Dec 1850, in Hancock County, Maine.
3. Charles A Burnett (Feb 1856 - 17 Jan 1930) married Ella Swarts (1 Sep 1861 - Apr 1899), daughter of Charles Swarts (12 Feb 1835 - 8 Jan 1909) and Henrietta Davenport (Jan 1836 - May 1904), on 1 Sep 1879 (her eighteenth birthday!), at Spring Lake, Minnesota.
4. Alfred Nathaniel Burnett (19 Aug 1883 - 31 Jul 1959) married Jennie Arleta Eaton (14 Mar 1891- 15 Apr 1979), daughter of Dor Henry Eaton (May 1869 - 31 Dec 1945) and Anna B A Miller (Jan 1867 - aft 1920), in 1909 in Minnesota.
5. Leroy Stanley Burnett (31 Aug 1910 - 11 May 1980) married Hazel Lucille Erickson (6 Sep 1910 - 6 May 2002), daughter of Erick Albert Erickson (28 Aug 1864 - 27 Nov 1948) and Johanna Maria "Marie" Svard (5 Feb 1875 - 28 Apr 1914), on 21 Jun 1933 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
6. [Living] Burnett married Beverly Alane Brown (8 Aug 1934 - 7 Mar 2010), daughter of Dana Earl Brown (26 Jan 1910 - 10 Sep 1984) and Myrna Margaret Severin (6 Nov 1907 - 12 Jun 1997), on 4 Mar 1961 in Long Beach, California.
7. Your humble blogger.


text:
Coach Bill Tierney has led Princeton to six NCAA men's lacrosse championship titles in his 16 years as head coach. Now he shares his insights to adjusting your defense to an ever-changing offense. After winning a national title, Princeton went on to lead the nation in scoring defense, scoring margin, and winning percentage in 2002. Coach Tierney explains how to create dozens of different defenses by choosing any one of the five outer-circle theories, combining it with any inner-circle plan of action and adjusting individual responsibilities. He gives an extensive marker board presentation with pressure-filled defensive schemes designed to confuse opposing offenses. The advantages of Tierney's system is it takes away the center of the field, does not allow for easy shots, and focuses on containment of the ball and the offensive players. All of these concepts, and the drills used to teach them, combine to develop a strong, cohesive team defense at any level. 41 minutes. 2004.
Return to Lacrosse Coaching Videos Home


text:
Joomla! Hotel Templates
- Unlimited downloads and updates
- Unlimited support, for a single website
- Free RSMediaGallery! single-site license
A Joomla template is a collection of files (graphics and code) that dictates the overall appearance of your website.
There are a few things you must consider when looking for Joomla templates:
Now that we're clear on all the meanings of choosing a Joomla template, let's take a look at our features of all Joomla templates that we have:
To ensure the proper functioning of your website, download the latest Joomla version from the official website; all of our Joomla templates work with Joomla 3.6.5 and upwards, but the minimum requirements might be raised as Joomla and the web changes - so stay up to date!
Want to see more technical information about each Joomla template? Please check our docs.
We're proud to have more than 150.000 happy customers that use our Joomla extensions & templates. Take now the right decision for your online business.


text:
April Book Lovers Night features poet and author Joyce Sutphen
March 25, 2013
In honor of National Poetry Month, the featured guest at the April Book Lovers Night is poet and author Joyce Sutphen. Sutphen will read at 7 p.m. Wednesday, April 3 in room 204, Gorecki Center, College of Saint Benedict, St. Joseph, Minn.
Her first book, "Straight Out of View," won the Barnard Women's Poets Prize. Other notable works by Sutphen include "Naming the Stars," which won the Minnesota Book Award in Poetry and "Coming Back to the Body," which was a finalist for the Minnesota Book Award.
Sutphen's poems have been published in Poetry, American Poetry Review, Atlanta Review, Minnesota Monthly and Water-Stone. Her work has been featured in Ted Kooser's American Life in Poetry and in The Writer's Almanac. She has appeared on "A Prairie Home Companion," hosted by Garrison Keillor and co-edited the award-winning anthology "To Sing Along the Way: Minnesota Women Poets from Pre-Territorial Days to the Present."
In 2011, Sutphen was named the second Minnesota Poet Laureate by Governor Mark Dayton. She has also been the recipient of a McKnight Artist Fellowship and a Minnesota States Arts Board Fellowship.
Sutphen grew up on a farm near St. Joseph, Minn. and currently lives in Chaska, Minn. She holds a doctorate in Renaissance drama from the University of Minnesota, and has taught British literature and creative writing at Gustavus Adolphus College in Saint Peter, Minn.
Sutphen will be available for book signing after her presentation. This event is free and open to the public.
The CSB/SJU Bookstore will offer recommended books for sale at 20 percent off during the event. For more information, contact [email protected] or call 320-363-2119.


text:
"Every person is a golden link in my chain of good."
Every person and everything is connected because we are all made up of energy. All energy is created from the same original substance and by the creative force of the universe. It is available to everyone and does not discriminate.
There is an abundance of this creative substance and energy. All things are possible.
Start where you are. Do what you can with what you have. Do your best at all times and do all the good you can each day and each moment.
Trust where you are is where you are supposed to be. This is the place for you to start. Take the next step from where you are. One thing leads to another even though you may not be able to see the full plan from where you are.
We are not given the entire picture, just the next step. We must have faith that by taking the next step, the next one will present itself.
"Everything is happening in perfect, divine order."
Life is a game. We have to learn how to play again. As children we learned how to play and far too often as adults we stop playing and having fun. Being serious is not the solution – being creative and curious like a child is.
"Those who bring sunshine to the lives of others, cannot keep it from themselves."
Sir James Barrie
🙂 Lee
The MEGA Coach
(Photos by Google)


text:
No. 91,547
1. A party can open the door to admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence, but neither counsel nor a witness for a party can open the door for itself to present the inadmissible evidence.
2. An unanticipated qualified answer to an otherwise innocent question by one party does not open the door for the other party to explain the basis for any qualification.
3. Under the facts of this case, where the State urgently sought to "back-door" hearsay evidence of prior crimes into the trial absent the procedural steps and safeguards required for such evidence, we are not inclined to find the resulting admission of such evidence to be harmless.
4. In a multiple acts case, several acts are alleged and any one of the acts could constitute the crime charged. In such a case, the jury must be unanimous as to which act constitutes the crime.
5. Under the facts of this case, where the remarks of the State in closing argument clearly served to give the jury an option of finding guilt on the basis of multiple acts as to the possession of methamphetamine charge, the failure to give a unanimity instruction was clear error.
6. Evidence of ingestion of methamphetamine, by itself, does not and cannot establish possession or control of the substance.
7. The admission of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Appeal from Cloud District Court; THOMAS M. TUGGLE, judge. Opinion filed February 18, 2005. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Sandra Carr, assistant appellate defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Walsh, county attorney, and Phill Kline, attorney general, for appellee.
Before RULON, C.J., GREENE and HILL, JJ.
GREENE, J.: William G. Letourneau appeals his convictions and sentences for aiding and abetting the manufacture of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of ephedrine, and possession of a stimulant, claiming error in the admission of evidence and in the instructions to the jury, as well as insufficiency of evidence and an illegal sentence. Concluding that trial error was not harmless, we reverse the convictions and remand for new trial.
Factual and Procedural Overview
The charges against Letourneau resulted from events occurring in Cloud County on June 22, 2002, as law enforcement officers were in the process of executing a search warrant at the residence of Scott Brichat. During the search, officers observed a vehicle pull into the alley behind Brichat's house, stop, back out of that alley, and proceed down the street to enter another alley. The vehicle stopped momentarily in the second alley, and then proceeded on a route which led to the front of Brichat's house, where Brichat exited the passenger side of the vehicle. Some of the officers proceeded to the second alley, where they found a black duffle bag and a large white bucket, both of which ultimately proved to contain paraphernalia used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, together with precursors and completed methamphetamine. Another officer pursued the vehicle, identified the driver as Letourneau, and ultimately arrested him. Letourneau was charged with aiding and abetting in manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of ephedrine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was found guilty on all counts by a jury and sentenced to 178 months' imprisonment, the standard presumptive term for a level 1-C drug felony. On appeal, Letourneau complains of numerous trial errors and illegal sentencing.
Did the District Court Err in Admitting Alleged Hearsay Evidence of Letourneau's Prior Criminal Activity?
Letourneau initially complains that the district court erred in admitting a statement of one of the arresting officers that he had "previous intelligence information" that Letourneau had been involved with Brichat in "cooking" methamphetamine. The circumstances surrounding the elicitation of this testimony is critical to the parties' respective positions.
Upon cross-examination of the officer, defense counsel asked on two occasions whether the officer believed that Letourneau was truthful during the officer's investigatory questioning, and the officer testified that he felt Letourneau gave truthful answers to "most" of the questions. On redirect examination, the State asked the officer if he had a basis not to believe some of Letourneau's answers, asking, "But there's other things that you have that entered into your mind-set as to why you didn't believe him; is that correct?" Defense counsel asked to approach the bench, an off-the-record discussion ensued, and the defense ultimately objected to this question on the grounds that the inquiry was irrelevant, called for hearsay testimony, and sought to introduce evidence of prior crimes. The objections were overruled, and the following testimony was elicited by the State:
"Q. . . . Was there any prior knowledge you had of Mr. Letourneau prior to that evening that entered into the equation as to whether you believed him or not?
"A. Yes, I had prior knowledge.
"Q. And what was that prior knowledge that entered into your equation?
"THE COURT: Continuing objection is noted.
"Q. Your may answer that.
"A. Prior knowledge that I had was Agent Virdin had with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation relayed information to me of information Mr. Letourneau cooking meth with Mr. Brichat.
"Q. Prior to June 22nd?
"A. That is correct."
The State contends that the testimony was not objectionable because (i) defense counsel opened the door to such testimony; (ii) it was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; and (iii) any error in its admission was harmless. We disagree as to all three of these contentions and additionally conclude that the evidence was violative of K.S.A. 60-455.
First, we disagree that defense counsel "opened the door" by merely asking the officer if he believed Letourneau. The question did not provoke any need for explaining a basis not to believe the defendant; rather, the officer's answerpresumably unanticipated by the defensewas a qualified affirmative. To suggest that the question somehow opened the door to the basis for the qualified answer is a stretch that we decline to make. Granted, a party can open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence, but neither counsel nor a witness for a party can open the door for itself to present the inadmissible evidence. See State v. McClanahan, 259 Kan. 86, 94, 910 P.2d 193 (1996). Moreover, an unanticipated qualified answer to an otherwise innocent question does not open the door to explain the basis for any qualification.
Second, we disagree that the hearsay should be permitted because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The State argues that whether the information was true or not was not the issue, but rather the precise issue was simply whether the officer had any basis--whether true or not-- for his qualified answer. This may technically be the case, but the officer's basis for his qualified answer was wholly irrelevant. More importantly, the State admitted in oral argument on appeal that it sought a permissible vehicle by which to introduce the Virdin testimony and could not achieve its admission until it felt the door had been opened in this manner. It is not credible for the State to suggest that it did not urgently seek to introduce the Virdin "information" for its truthfulness and for precisely the purposes prohibited by K.S.A. 60-455.
Finally, we cannot conclude that the admission of this testimony was harmless. Our review of the record reveals little direct evidence to establish Letourneau's knowledge of the contents of the duffle and bucket or to link him as a participant in any manufacturing process absent the evidence of prior involvement with Brichat in such activities. The testimony regarding Virdin's "intelligence information" served to demonstrate to the jury that Letourneau had a propensity to involve himself in such activity and therefore probably committed the crimes now charged, precisely the purpose prohibited by K.S.A. 60-455. When the State urgently seeks to "back-door" such hearsay evidence of prior crimes into the trial in this manner absent the procedural steps and safeguards required for such evidence (see State v. Mason, 250 Kan. 393, 404, 827 P.2d 748 [1992]), we are not inclined to find the result to be harmless. We conclude that the improper admission of this evidence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt but instead deprived Letourneau of a fair trial, thus requiring reversal and a new trial.
Did the District Court Err in Failing to Give a Unanimity Instruction?
Letourneau next argues that his right to a unanimous verdict was violated by the district court's failure to give a unanimity instruction as applicable to the charge of possession of methamphetamine. No such instruction was requested at trial, so we review for clear error. See K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 22-3414(3); State v. Banks, 273 Kan. 738, 743-44, 46 P.3d 546 (2002).
In a multiple acts case, several acts are alleged and any one of the acts could constitute the crime charged. In such a case, the jury must be unanimous as to which act constitutes the crime. State v. Davis, 275 Kan. 107, 115, 61 P.3d 701 (2003). Therefore, to ensure jury unanimity, either the State must elect the particular act upon which it will rely for conviction or the court must instruct the jury to agree on a specific underlying criminal act. State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 289-90, 875 P.2d 242 (1994).
In State v. Hill, 271 Kan. 929, Syl. ¶ 3, 26 P.3d 1267 (2001), our Supreme Court adopted a two-step analysis for determining whether a unanimity instruction is required. The first step is to determine whether there was a possibility of jury confusion from the record, or if the evidence shows either legally or factually separate incidents. 271 Kan. at 939. A legally separate incident is when a defendant presents different defenses to a separate set of facts, or when the court's instructions are ambiguous but tend to shift the legal theory from a single incident to two separate incidents. 271 Kan. at 939. A factually separate incident is when independent criminal acts have occurred at different times or when a later act is motivated by a "fresh impulse." 271 Kan. at 939. If jury confusion is not shown under step one, the second step is to determine if the failure to give a unanimity instruction is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to all acts. 271 Kan. at 939.
Here the State alleged two wholly separate grounds for finding Letourneau guilty of possession of methamphetamine: (i) evidence completed methamphetamine was found among the contents of the duffle and bucket; and (ii) evidence Letourneau allegedly admitted to ingesting methamphetamine earlier on the night of the incident. Letourneau argues on appeal that the State not only introduced evidence of these separate grounds, but also confused the jury as to these separate acts during closing argument:
"And I appreciate that being brought up because I had forgotten we also have the possession of meth, the fact that he took meth out at the sand pit. I didn't even think about that. We had meth in that lab, that's possession of meth. But we got something else to consider now. We've got him saying he took some meth out there."
The possibility of confusion may not have existed based upon the mere evidence of separate acts, but the remarks of the State in closing argument clearly served to give the jury an option of separate incidents as to the possession charge. The possibility of such confusion is particularly harmful to Letourneau given the fact that the evidence of having ingested methamphetamine does not and cannot, by itself, establish possession or control of the substance. See State v. Flinchpaugh, 232 Kan. 831, 835, 659 P.2d 208 (1983).
On remand, the State must either refrain from introducing evidence that Letourneau ingested methamphetamine as establishing possession, or a unanimity instruction must be given to assure that the jury is unanimous on an act or acts that may sufficiently establish possession of methamphetamine.
Did the District Court Err in Admitting Evidence of Injuries Suffered by Officers Upon Inhaling Fumes from the Duffle Bag and Bucket?
Letourneau asserts he was deprived of a fair trial when the court admitted evidence related to the injuries Crough sustained when he inhaled hazardous fumes from Brichat's clandestine methamphetamine lab. Letourneau argues that Crough's testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial.
"The admission of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citation omitted.] An appellate court's standard of review regarding a trial court's admission of evidence, subject to exclusionary rules, is abuse of discretion. Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. One who asserts that the court abused its discretion bears the burden of showing such abuse of discretion. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Jenkins, 272 Kan. 1366, 1378, 39 P.3d 47 (2002).
"Except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible. K.S.A. 60-407(f)." State v. Bloom, 273 Kan. 291, 303, 44 P.3d 305 (2002).
"Relevant evidence is any evidence 'having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact.' K.S.A. 60-401(b). The determination of relevancy is a matter of logic and experience, not a matter of law. Nevertheless, there must be some material or logical connection between collateral facts and the inference or result they are supposed to establish for them to be competent. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Pennington, 276 Kan. 841, 847, 80 P.3d 44 (2003).
Here, the State contends Crough's testimony was relevant because it established the presence of anhydrous ammonia, which helped confirm the lab was operating at the time it was taken from Letourneau's truck and supported its argument that Letourneau had to know what was happening in the bed of his truck. We agree.
Crough's testimony was neither inflammatory nor intended to infuriate the jury. Crough only testified he had not had a lung problem prior to the night Letourneau was arrested, he was still under medical care for his lung condition, and breathing the fumes of anhydrous ammonia is commonly known to cause such injuries. Testimony from a forensic scientist had established methods and processes used by methamphetamine manufacturers, which included transporting paraphernalia from place to place and manufacturing the methamphetamine in stages. We view Crough's testimony as merely establishing the strength of the ammonia fumes and the presence of a currently operating methamphetamine lab in Brichat's black duffle bag, and the white bucket which coincided with the testimony of the forensic scientist. Morever, Crough's testimony was abbreviated and consisted only of a response to a few questions.
We decline to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence.
Were Letourneau's Convictions Supported by Sufficient Evidence?
Letourneau also argues that his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mays, 277 Kan. 359, 377, 85 P.3d 1208 (2004).
Although Letourneau argues that the State presented no direct evidence connecting him to the clandestine methamphetamine lab, this argument ignores the circumstantial evidence including that the duffle bag and bucket were being transported in his truck, that fumes from these items were strong enough to cause peril to the investigating officers, and that during a taped interview with authorities, Letourneau admitted ingesting methamphetamine. A conviction of even the gravest offense may be sustained by circumstantial evidence. State v. Davis, 275 Kan. at 118. We are convinced that a rational jury could find Letourneau guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore reject his argument of insufficient evidence.
Summary and Conclusion
Letourneau also argues that he was illegally sentenced. This issue is moot given our reversal and remand for new trial.
Reversed and remanded for new trial to proceed in a manner not inconsistent with this opinion.


text:
Click here for PressBox Interview with AD Brett Adams
OWINGS MILLS, Md. - Stevenson University has announced that it is adding football to its roster of 19 NCAA Division III varsity sports for men and women. The University will recruit 40 to 50 student athletes for a developmental season to start in fall 2010 and kick off intercollegiate play in fall 2011.
The team will compete against current Capital Athletic Conference (CAC) members Frostburg State, Salisbury, Wesley and Gallaudet, and looks forward to cross-conference play.
"Football is a great fit for Stevenson and reflects our commitment to Division III sports and educating student athletes," said Paul Cantabene, Associate Director of Athletics in charge of men's sports. "Current students, alumni and prospective students have all expressed a strong desire in having football here."
Stevenson has witnessed tremendous growth over the past decade, building a new campus in Owings Mills and increasing its undergraduate population to nearly 2,700 students. The University intends to grow that number to 4,000 and expects that the excitement and interest that football creates will be key to attracting a greater number of students, especially male students.
"Football is such a popular sport and we really believe it is something that will add vitality to our campus," said Director of Athletics Brett Adams.
"Football will complement our existing athletic programs well and expenses will be offset by gains in admissions," added Cantabene.
The institution expects to attract 40-50 students representing strong local and regional high school football talent for its fall 2010 developmental season and at least 40 additional students by fall 2011 for its first varsity season.
"Our geographic location is perfect," said Tim Campbell, Executive Vice President for Financial Affairs and Chief Financial Officer. "Numerous high school students want to continue to play at the college level and there aren't enough Division III opportunities."
In an odd coincidence, Stevenson is bringing football back to the practice facility that was once the home of the Baltimore Colts and later the Ravens. It purchased the Owings Mills facility from Baltimore City and the Ravens in 2006. The University has existing practice fields on its two campuses and plans for new stadium on its Owings Mills campus.
Stevenson University, known for its distinctive career focus, is the third-largest independent university in Maryland with more than 3,400 students pursuing bachelor's, master's, and adult accelerated degrees at locations in Stevenson and Owings Mills.