text:
Jewish Released Time | Holidays Shabbat Chabad-houses Chassidism Subscribe Calendar Links |
Rambam - Sefer HaMitzvos As Divided for The Daily Learning Schedule Positive Mitzvah 60; Negative Mitzvot 100, 98; Positive Mitzvah 62; Negative Mitzvah 99 |
Day 157 | Day 159 |
Positive Mitzvah 60: Offering Animal Sacrifices at their appropriate age
Leviticus 22:27 "And from the eighth day onward, it shall be acceptable as a sacrifice"The Torah considers an animal younger than eight days old as inappropriate to be offered as a sacrifice.
We are commanded to sacrifice animals which are at least eight days old.
Introduction to Mitzvot 98 - 107:
Laws Concerning Sacrifices
There are many different types of sacrifices.Some are offered as an atonement for sin; other are offered to give thanks to HaShem; still others are offered in order to fulfill a promise or pledge.
There are various laws concerning the different types of sacrifices.
For example, one type requires the entire animal be burnt upon the altar, while another type allows certain parts to be eaten by the priests and the person bringing the sacrifice.
The Negative Mitzvot 98 - 107 teach us what is prohibited in regard to different types of sacrifices.
Negative Mitzvah 100: We are forbidden to offer an animal as a sacrifice that has been acquired by an improper exchange
Deuteronomy 23:19 "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog, into the house of the L-rd your G-d"Animals that are designated to be offered as sacrifices must be acquired in a proper and dignified way.
This Negative Mitzvah cautions us not to offer an animal that has been obtained in a manner which the Torah considers improper or not becoming.
Negative Mitzvah 98: We are forbidden to offer honey or leavened dough upon the altar.
Leviticus 2:11 "For you shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering"Besides animal sacrifices, meal offerings are also presented on the altar.
These offerings are made of wheat and oil, and they are called a "Minchah Offering".
The ingredients of the Minchah are mixed and formed into a dough.
This dough may not be leavened dough, which means it must not rise high like bread. (Just like on Pesach when we are forbidden any leavened dough, which is called Chametz.)
Also, a sweetener like honey, fruit juice or date extract may not be used, because it causes the dough to rise. We are forbidden to present dough that has risen as a meal offering upon the altar.
Positive Mitzvah 62: Offering salt with a sacrifice
Leviticus 2:13 "With all your offerings you shall offer salt"Salt is a very effective preserver.
The Torah commands us to offer salt with all sacrifices.
This salt hints, that by presenting our offerings to HaShem we are "preserving" our closeness to Him (see also Negative Mitzvah 99).
Negative Mitzvah 99: We are forbidden to offer a sacrifice without salt
Leviticus 2:13 "Neither shall you omit salt the covenant of your G-d"All sacrifices must be offered with salt (see Positive Mitzvah 62). We are not allowed to present a sacrifice or meal offering which does not contain salt.
The Torah calls the addition of salt to the sacrifice "the covenant of your G-d."
A covenant is a treaty or pact made between two parties.
The Torah uses salt to symbolize HaShem's covenant with the Jewish people.
Salt does not spoil and it retains taste for a very long time, so, too, HaShem's bond with the Jewish people will never be broken.
In general, when doctors disagree, follow the opinion of the majority of the experts. But in the case of surgery, if there is uncertainty it is usually better to refrain and trust that the Healer of All Flesh will heal and strengthen you.
From: Bringing Heaven Down to Earth by Tzvi Freeman - firstname.lastname@example.com
Day 157 | Day 159 |
Current 613 Commandments PDA | Moshiach General Books | About Children's Corner |


text:
Last week's economic events included S&P Case-Shiller's home price indexes, reports on new and pending home sales and the Fed's FOMC statement. The details:
Case-Shiller Reports Fast Paced Home Price Growth
According to S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Indexes, U.S. home prices grew at their fastest pace in 16 months in November. Portland, Oregon led the charge with home prices increasing 11.10 percent year-over-year followed by San Francisco, California at 11.0 percent; Denver, Colorado posted a year-over-year gain of 10.90 percent. 14 cities posted home price gains while four cities posted declines in home prices and two cities posted no change on a month-to-month basis.
David M. Blitzer, chairman of the S&P Index Committee, noted that slumping oil prices and a strong dollar were posing challenges to domestic and international homebuyers. In spite of high demand, the supply of available homes continued to drive home prices up in most cities in the S&P Case-Shiller 20-City Home Price Index.
In related news, the Commerce Department reported that sales of new homes jumped to a year-over-year reading of 544,000 new home sales as compared to November's upwardly revised reading of 491,000 new homes sold and expectations of a year-over-year reading of 506,000 new homes sold as of December. The December 2015 reading was 9.90 percent higher than for December 2014.
Analysts cited a shortage of new homes for driving sales; builders are facing obstacles in hiring and finding suitable land for development. Some builders were said to be targeting high-end buyers which leaves a shortage of homes available for first-time and mid-range home buyers.
The National Association of Realtors® reported a minor gain in pending home sales in December. Pending home sales gauge future closings and mortgage activity. December's pending sales reading was higher by 0.10 percent month-to-month and posted a year-over-year gain of 4.50 percent. December's gain represented the 16th consecutive monthly gain for pending home sales. Analysts had expected a month-to-month gain of 1 percent, but high demand and a slim supply of affordable homes are leaving would-be buyers on the sidelines.
Fed Holds Off on Raising Rate; Mortgage Rates Lower
The Federal Reserve announced its decision not to raise its target federal funds rate on Wednesday; Freddie Mac reported lower average mortgage rates on Thursday. The average rate for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage dropped by two basis points to 3.79 percent; the average rate for a 15-year fixed rate mortgage fell 3 basis points to 3.07 percent. The average rate for a 5/1 adjustable rate mortgage were lower by one basis point at 2.90 percent. Discount points were unchanged at 0.6, 0.5 and 0.5 percent respectively.
What's Ahead
This week's scheduled economic news includes reports on construction spending, ADP payrolls, Non-Farm payrolls and the national unemployment rate.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Spark Classroom / Year Green / Winter / Age 2-3 / Learner Leaflets
Leaflets help learners explore Bible story themes in class and on their own with creative activities, interesting facts, and stories. There's a leaflet for each lesson in the curriculum.
- Fun, thoughtful activities help kids see how the story relates to the world around them
- Active learning includes hands-on activities, interactive games, and creative crafts
- Includes facts and stories about history, and modern-day issues that relate to Bible stories
Spark Classroom Year Green Winter covers the birth of the Messiah, his miracles and parables, in 13 weeks.
Spark Classroom Year Green is part of a two-year curriculum for kids age 2 to grade 6. Resources include everything from Leader Guides to lesson prep videos.
- In stock
- Suggested order quantity: One per learner


text:
The Fender® American Vintage II series presents a remarkably accurate take on the revolutionary designs that altered the course of musical history. Built with period-accurate bodies, necks and hardware, premium finishes and meticulously voiced, year-specific pickups, each instrument captures the essence of authentic Fender craftsmanship and tone.
With its alluring curves, sparkling sounds and groundbreaking tremolo bridge, Fender's new 1954 Stratocaster® was a phenomenon, unlike anything the world had ever seen. By 1957, the Stratocaster had crystallized into a mid-century masterpiece.
Featuring a trio of Pure Vintage '57 Stratocaster pickups, sweeping body contours and a supremely comfortable "V"-shape neck with a 7.25" radius maple fingerboard, the American Vintage II 1957 Stratocaster reproduces the quintessential tone and feel of the original. Other appointments include a vintage-accurate synchronized tremolo with cold rolled steel block and bent steel saddles, single-line "Fender Deluxe" tuners and a single-ply pickguard.
Offered in three stunning nitrocellulose lacquer finishes – 2-Color Sunburst and Sea Foam Green over alder and Vintage Blonde over ash – the American Vintage II 1957 Stratocaster celebrates a true icon of Fender instrument design.
The instruments in the American Vintage II series are direct descendants of the original Fenders: designed for players with a fine appreciation for vintage Fender tone and feel and built with unmatched quality, down to the last screw. These are Fender electrics in their purest form: Fender American Vintage II, the stuff of legends. This model comes with a deluxe case.
- Alder or Ash body
- Gloss Nitrocellulose Lacquer Finish
- Pure Vintage '57 Single-Coil Strat pickups
- "V"-Shaped Neck Profile
- Pure Vintage Synchronized Tremolo with Bent Steel Saddles
- Pure Vintage Single-Line "Fender Deluxe" Tuners


text:
Need help? Call us: (1800-8890-326) or firstname.lastname@example.com
5 Mukhi Rudraksha 3.41 cm | Premium
It infuses wonderful energy into the person who wears it.
Five Mukhi Rudraksha provides the wearer with mental calm and significant powers to deal with problems intellectually.
When there is a memory gap in your mind, it cures memory loss. Additionally, It regulates blood pressure, according to ancient Vedic texts.
Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, mental handicap, stress, anxiety, and neurotic disorders are examples of medical issues.
- 100% Natural Gemstones with Lab Certificate.
- Lifetime Guarantee of Purity & Authenticity.
- Energized & Activated for Best Results.
- Safe & Fast Doorstep Delivery Worldwide.
Buy it on Rudraksha Life
Get upto 30% off on products when you create your account with Rudrakshalife. Valid only for new users only.
Additional Information
Treatment | Unheated & untreated |
As per Shastra's :
।। पंचवक्त्रः स्वयं रुद्र : कालाग्निनार्मतः प्रभुः सर्वमुक्ति प्रदश्चैव सर्व काम फल प्रदः ।।
पदशिवपुराण अ. २५, श्लो. ६९
5 Mukhi Rudraksha represents the Kaalagni roop of Lord Shiva. It is considered that all the wishes of the wearer are fulfilled and he gets free from all the bonds.
Shiv Puran Chapter. 25, Shloka. 69
Essence of Five Mukhi Rudraksha:
According to the vedas, 5 mukhi Rudraksha's representation, Kaalagni Rudra, is considered the form of Shiva that is rical of the enemies. He has a power to destroy evil powers in no time. Due to his strength, he even destroyed the rule of Tripurasur. He appeared, showing a very kind heart, to deliver the Devas, Rishis, and humanity from oppression. He ended the reign of terror that had surpassed the definition of evil itself with strength. With his weapon, the Kalaagni, he quickly burned down all three of Tripurasur's cities, turning them to ashes. The anger of Rudra was directed at all the malevolent occupants.
This assists individuals to encounter Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. This is a very significant Rudraksha that is now a permanent part of the Swasthya Bandh and Shiv Mala. Because of its strong energy, it is a requirement for everyone who wants to encounter the Shiva element.
Benefits of wearing the 5 Mukhi Rudraksha :
- General benefits: It is said that the wearer of this Rudraksha has a fearless and fulfilled existence. As a result, the user enjoys good health and calm in life. The user experiences a better quality of life and a stress-free environment in his everyday activities.
- Spiritual Benefits: As per the scriptures, this rudraksha is considered a chakra cleanser and re-energizer. Vishudha chakra is associated with 5 Mukhi Rudraksha and will thus improve the wearer's verbal communication and self-expression.
- Health Benefits: After wearing this, blood circulation improves, and blood pressure is reported to be maintained. This bead helps to treat sinusitis, colds, and chronic coughs. It is regarded as the best option for good health and mental calmness and guards the wearer against premature death.
Who should wear the Five Mukhi Rudraksha:
It is believed that the Rudraksha's wearer is freed of his sins, enlighted with his life's purpose, experiences wish fulfilment, and receives happiness in their journey through life. The wearer receives positivity and rises in the life graph.
As per mythological texts, this bead makes the wearer courageous and protects them from an early death. In a metaphysical sense, it opens up every chakra in the body, allowing divine energy to flow freely. Warmth enters the body when a 5 Mukhi Rudraksha is held in the palms of both hands. The 5 Mukhi Rudraksha reduces the harmful effects of the planet Jupiter, if any, in the kundli of the wearer.
There is no restriction on possessing this Rudraksha and, thus, it can be worn by any person.
Lord Rudra and 5 Mukhi Rudraksha
He prevents early death in the role of Mrutyunjayaaya. He purifies followers by removing their sins as Kaalagni Rudra, making it possible for them to live through their entire life cycle.
Lord Rudra is prayed to in several of the Anuvakas (stanzas) to drive away evil and grant prosperity, health, and money. The 5 Mukhi Rudraksha's connection assures that the wearer is pursuing the path that is divinely intended for him while receiving the highest level of protection.
Maha Rudra, Kala Rudra, Kalpanta Rudra, and Veera Rudra are some of the other names of Lord Rudra. He is the source of good fortune, bravery, and vibrant existence. In order to experience his heavenly power, wear a 5 Mukhi close to your heart. Doing so is the only way to do so. To fend off evil and enliven the space, a 5 Mukhi can be maintained in each room of the house.
How to Maintain your Rudraksha :
- It is suggested that Rudraksha should not be worn during performing funeral rites and menstrual cycles for women.
- One should remove the Rudraksha while sleeping at night.
- One should not wash it with soap as it will dehydrate the holy beads. Thus, it is suggested to remove it while bathing.
- Once a week, the Rudraksha bead should be washed with water and oil. It can be almond or edible oil.
- One can chant the basic mantra of Lord Shiva—"Om Namah Shivaya"—at least 11 times before wearing it.
- This Rudraksha lasts for years, and the wearer can also pass it to future generations.
Additional Information
Treatment | Unheated & untreated |
25 Years of Trust
25 Years
of Trust
Trust Rudraksha Life
Worldwide Free Shipping
Free Shipping
Free On All Orders
Our Contact Email
Our Contact
Tuesday - Sunday / 11:00AM - 7:30PM
Tuesday - Sunday
Working Days/Hours


text:
If you have an older desktop CPU for the server, like me (AMD Phenom II), you web applications may be suffering from slow page loads. Some (older) CPUs switch to the faster frequencies from power-saving mode very slowly. And this causes slow page rendering.
There are two ways to improve CPU performance on Linux sever.
One is by holding frequencies at maximum all the time. That increases power consumption.#!/bin/bash for core in $(seq 0 3); do # Core from 0 to 3 (4 core CPU) if [ "`cpufreq-info -c $core | grep \\\"performance\\\"`" == "" ]; then cpufreq-set -c $core -g performance fi doneThe second one is to instruct the OS to scale up the frequencies on 20% load:
#!/bin/bash file=/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/up_threshold if [ -f $file ]; then if [ "`cat $file`" != "20" ]; then echo 20 > $file fi fi
Performance isn't much slower and fan noise is much more ear pleasant.
Cpu-freq must be installed. Use "sudo apt-get install cpufrequtils". Save the code into a file and run it every few minutes with the help of "cron".
In my case the time to render a WordPress site decreased from around 800 ms to 500 ms.


text:
Free Shipping on purchases of $50+
Thank you so much for supporting small. Find us on the directory. We are upstairs near the food court across from the play space in Burlington Mall. Contact us 781-362-4630.
Regular price $22.00
Limited Collection: AC Brave Knights Boys Romper-Jumpsuit
Pete + Lucy is U.S.A women-owned brand, small-batch, limited style, and quantity. Designed in the U.S. and customizable by me. The material is very soft and comfortable - the perfect design for any occasion! The 'milk silk' feel of the material is a blend of Cotton/Polyester/spandex. The pattern is referred to as "milk silk" a super soft, comfortable, buttery feel material- you will fall in love! When it's gone, it's gone! General feedback is that the items run generous. The items are designed for a baggy, boutique feels with room to grow in. We always recommend sizing down if the child is at the beginning of a size. Please note size measurements. Care instructions: Cold wash, gentle cycle, hang dry or tumble dry low inside out, do not bleach, do not iron.
**Available to ship within 24-48hrs or curbside pick-up from store


text:
In health care, for example, a cure for cancer will be found by 1995 and will be generally available in the early 21st Century.
Closer to the present, it's felt that within two years doctors should be able to detect most genetic defects before birth and be able to prevent them by the 1990s.
In transportation, an all plastic car, except for engine and drive train, will be common by 1990. So will the electric car. The service-free, accident-proof automobile is expected to be in widespread use by the year 2000.
Ditto for automated urban transit, after becoming technologically possible in 1985 and economically feasible 10 years later.
Also by 1995, aerospace experts predict an economic alternative to petroleum fuel and full use of it by 2010.
See also:
The Futurists of 1966 Looking Toward A.D. 2000
Health Care in 1994 (1973)
Headlines of the Near Future (1972)
Closer Than We Think! Monoline Express (1961)
The Population Bomb: Scenario 1 (1970)
The Population Bomb: Scenario 2 (1970)
The Population Bomb: Scenario 3 (1970)
Future Without Football (Daily Review, 1976)
Going Backward into 2000 (1966)


text:
Gordon Parks bought his first camera in a pawn shop and got his first real photography job at the New Deal's Farm Security Administration (FSA)."American Gothic," his bold arrangement of a White House cleaning lady with a mop in front of a flag, got him in trouble on his first assignment.
As a multifaceted creative artist, Parks stacked up firsts again and again in a long career that has been seeing numerous tributes over the past year. 2012 was the 100th anniversary of his birth, and exhibits are still underway. Read more


text:
Free Agency Report: National League, Part VIII
Manny Ramirez drove the Dodgers to within three games of the World Series, but no one knows whose uniform he'll be donning in 2009.
Alright, the push is on to hammer the rest of these reports out as we gear up for the release of the 2009 RotoRob MLB Draft Kit. If you've missed any of the previous parts of this series, catch up here:
American League Part I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII , IX and X.
National League Part I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII.
Los Angeles Dodgers
The Los Angeles Dodgers only made slight strides over 2007, but it was enough to win the NL West and come within three wins of the World Series. But let's face it – without pulling the trigger on the Manny Ramirez deal, there's no way this team earns its third straight winning season, never mind makes the postseason.
Of course, the fate of Manny is still very much up in the air, and if he bolts, the Dodgers will go back to the substandard offensive team they were before he arrived. This is a team that finished 13th in the NL in runs and slugging, but would have been much worse had Ramirez not looked like Ted Williams over the final couple months of the season. There were just too many passengers in this lineup. Jeff Kent looked like a shell of himself, and thankfully has opted for the rocking chair; Juan Pierre was simply awful, managing just 13 extra-base hits all season long, finally being reduced to a part-time role.
Unfortunately, the team has done very little to improve itself offensively, making the re-signing of Ramirez all the more vital.
Pitching was definitely this team's strength in 2008 as they paced the NL in ERA, OPS against and WHIP. Hong-Chih Kuo was superb as a spot starter/long reliever; Cory Wade was spectacular out of the bullpen; Derek Lowe enjoyed a tremendous season, but has since departed, landing in Atlanta and leaving young Chad Billingsley as the de facto ace for the Dodgers.
Lowe's departure, combined with the retirement of Greg Maddux and the dispatching of Brad Penny has left the Dodger staff potentially thin and rather fragile to an extent. This could prove to be the team's undoing, although fortunately, they reside in a weak division where 84 wins was good enough to take home a title last season.
No. 2 starter Hiroki Kuroda dealt with shoulder problems last season, but so far this spring, the news is good. Clayton Kershaw, still not old enough to drink, will be asked to shoulder a heavy load. It would be a huge bonus if Jason Schmidt, finally pain free, can emerge with the fifth starter job, or if Jeff Weaver, added on a minor league deal, can rediscover the form that allowed him to win 27 games with the Dodgers in 2003 and 2004. And Randy Wolf is also back, another constant injury risk, but an arm that can definitely help if he can make 30 starts.
Closer Takashi Saito is gone, and while Jonathan Broxton can clearly handle the role (notwithstanding some hiccups in the playoffs that turned the NLCS in the Phillies' favour), the trickle down effect will hurt the overall depth of the Dodger pen.
The Dodgers had to deal with a major-league high 13 free agents this offseason – a hell of a lot for a team seeking its first NL Championship since 1988.
One other piece of bad news for you Dodger fans, especially the superstitious types: LA has only made the playoffs in even numbered years since 2004. The youth movement is definitely underway in LA, but this team may have to take a step back before it can take another step forward.
Joe Beimel, LHP: Despite coming off his finest big league season, Beimel remains unsigned. He was a bit more hittable in 2008 than he's been in a couple of years, but with the lusting after of lefty relievers by most teams this offseason, he was expected to get a multi-year deal. Now, he may have to head back to the Dodgers, where he lost in arbitration in 2007, perhaps just for one year.
Gary Bennett, C: Former juicer Bennett missed most of 2008 with an injury, not that anyone ever notices Russell Martin's backup very often. He's still out there, and despite his lack of action last year, I suspect Bennett will land a back-up role somewhere.
Casey Blake, 3B: Blake was having a fine year with the Tribe, but he struggled once he arrived in LA after the Dodgers gave up a couple of prospects to acquire him. Still, he cut his strikeout rate last season and gets on base at a decent clip and with such a weak market at the hot corner, the Dodgers opted to re-sign him for three years and $17 million.
Rafael Furcal, SS: Furcal was having a superb year, but his season ended extremely early, causing him to earn consideration for a 2008 RotoRob Award as the Fantasy Bust of the Year. Still, the Dodgers saw enough to bring him back, despite fierce competition from the A's and Braves, the later of which actually thought they had signed him. Assuming the Dodgers don't bring Manny back, Furcal will be counted on to spur the team's little ball attack with his blazing speed.
Nomar Garciaparra, SS: He remains injury prone, but is a great team player, and when Furcal went down, Garciaparra shifted over to short for a while and actually emerged as a decent wire pick for a while. The Phillies have made him an offer, but his days of being able to handle a full-time job look done.
Jason Johnson, RHP: Despite his propensity to surrender too many long balls, Johnson held his own in a spot starter/long man role while he was with the Dodgers. A couple of years ago, Johnson had to go to Japan to find his way back to the majors, however, this year, the Yankees will give him a shot, penning him to a minor league deal.
Jeff Kent, 2B: Kent's knee woes did him in and a walk rate that had been declining for the past couple of seasons really helped usher in the end for this 16-year-vet, who retired as a lifetime .290 hitter and one of the greatest power-hitting second basemen ever.
Derek Lowe, RHP: The loss of Lowe, whose control was impeccable last year, will really hurt. D-Lowe will look to propel the Braves back into contention this season.
Greg Maddux, RHP: Maddux was enjoying a fine year with the Padres, but as we predicted, he was dealt at the deadline back to the Dodgers, with whom he spent part of the 2006 season with. The Professor wasn't quite as effective once he landed in LA, giving up more homers than normal, and then he decided to call it a day after 355 career wins. That'll do, I guess.
Chan Ho Park, RHP: Park put himself back on the map with a fine season as a spot starter/long reliever in LA, becoming one of the Dodgers' better reclamation projects. He looked like a serious retread back in 2006 when the Mets gave him a shot, but Park is now a legitimate candidate to battle for the fifth starter job on the World Champion Philadelphia Phillies, who signed him for one year and $2.5 million.
Brad Penny, RHP: Penny dealt with some shoulder problems last season, looking good upon his return before getting rocked in his next start and landing back on the DL. He made it back for two appearances in September before shutting it down for the season. Now, Penny is part of a potent Red Sox rotation, and the former All-Star will try to prove last season was a blip.
Manny Ramirez, OF: Once Man-Ram arrived from Boston, he almost single-handedly turned the Dodgers season around. He was enjoying a solid year for the BoSox, but as a Dodger, he was absolutely sick, batting almost .400 and showing incredible power, patience and plate discipline. However, where Ramirez winds up is still anyone's guess. The dude has already turned down a $25 million offer for one year from the Dodgers. Could division rival San Francisco swoop in and steal Manny? If the Giants do so, it could swing the balance in the NL West. The Dodgers don't seem to be in any kind of panic to re-sign the future Hall of Famer, and that could cost them.
Mark Sweeney, 1B: As we discussed early last season, bringing Sweeney back last year didn't work out so well. He looks like he's done as he hasn't even had any bites this offseason. Time for the 39-year-old to follow Kent's model, perhaps.
Next: We'll head northeast a ways and report on the Milwaukee Brewers' offseason.


text:
Final Four Almost Set for World Women's Championships |
December 14, 2010 | |
The final four is nearly set at the Women's World Championship in Antakya, Turkey (December 2-25). Rating favorites Humpy Koneru and Hou Yifan are in and will face-off in the semifinals. Xue Zhao also advanced, defeating Almira Skripchenko is the second game. Play through some decisive games below: 5156 5157 US resident Lufei Ruan, who plays for China and Harika Dronavalli (India) drew both their regular games and will playoff tomorrow. Update: US resident Lufei Ruan advances! See the official website for live games, schedule and full regulations. |


text:
China leads in illicit outflows, M'sia 2nd
(Reuters) – Malaysia, an export-dominated economy with a wealthy elite, lost US$64.38 billion in 2010 and US$285 billion cumulatively between 2001 and 2010, the report said. Illicit financial flows have grown by 13.3 per cent a year since 2001, robbing countries of wealth and benefiting a handful of corrupt leaders.
WASHINGTON- Crime, corruption and tax evasion have cost the developing world nearly US$ 6 trillion over the past decade, and illicit funds keep growing, led by China, a financial watchdog group said in a new report.
China accounted for almost half of the US$858.8 billion in dirty money that flowed into tax havens and Western banks in 2010, more than eight times the amounts for runner-ups Malaysia and Mexico. Total illicit outflows increased by 11 percent from the prior year, Global Financial Integrity, a Washington-based group that campaigns for financial accountability, said in its latest report released on Monday.
"Astronomical sums of dirty money continue to flow out of the developing world and into offshore tax havens and developed country banks," said Raymond Baker, director of GFI.
"Developing countries are hemorrhaging more and more money at a time when rich and poor nations alike are struggling to spur economic growth. This report should be a wake-up call to world leaders that more must be done to address these harmful outflows," he said.
All the countries in the top 10, which this year saw India, Nigeria, the Philippines and Nigeria join the ranks, face significant problems with corruption, and in most there are vast gaps between rich and poor citizens as well as internal security problems.
Leaders of the Group of 20 major economies increasingly are focusing on ways to crack down on money laundering, bank secrecy and tax loopholes to prevent funds stolen from public coffers or earned through criminal activity from depleting the budgets of developing countries.
The sums are so huge that for every dollar in foreign direct aid, 10 leaves developing countries.
China lost US$420.4 billion in 2010 and over the decade lost a total of US$ 2.74 trillion. And its losses are steadily rising. In an October report, GFI said another US$602 billion in illicit flows left China in 2011 for a total of US$3.79 trillion between 2000-11.
However, the numbers in the latest report are not directly comparable with earlier data because GFI has updated its methodology, making the estimates somewhat more conservative. It measures illicit flows by calculating the difference between fund inflows from loans and net foreign direct investment, and the outflows from a country to pay for trade, cash transfers and other earnings.
Aware of the destabilizing impact of corrupt money, Chinese leaders are embarking on a crackdown. Outgoing President Hu Jintao recently warned corruption threatens to destroy the communist party and the state. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin last week also put the issue high on his agenda as citizen protests over corruption mount.
"Our report continues to demonstrate that the Chinese economy is a ticking time bomb," said Dev Kar, GFI's lead economist, who compiled the report. "The social, political and economic order in that country is not sustainable in the long run given such massive illicit outflows."
Mexico lost US$51.17 billion in illicit flows in 2010 for a total of US$ 476 billion over the last decade, which does not even count the billions of dollars in bulk cash that probably left under organized crime and drug dealing.
Malaysia, an export-dominated economy with a wealthy elite, lost US$64.38 billion in 2010 and US$285 billion cumulatively between 2001 and 2010, the report said. Illicit financial flows have grown by 13.3 per cent a year since 2001, robbing countries of wealth and benefiting a handful of corrupt leaders.
Kar said the worsening picture over the past decade coincides with the globalization of finance and loosening of capital controls, changes that make it easier to transfer funds to Western banks and to tax havens.
"Until governance improves and measures to shrink the underground economy take hold, we will not see a sustained decline in illicit flows," Kar said.
GFI called on world leaders to accelerate efforts to curtail the flow of dirty money by clamping down on secret bank accounts and ownership of shell companies; reforming customs and trade protocols so that export/import payments cannot be used to hide illegal fund transfers; requiring multinational companies to report their profits by country to prevent tax avoidance; and strongly enforcing anti money-laundering laws.


text:
Diana Nyad's successful swim from Cuba to Key West on Monday was made all the sweeter because she had tried — and failed — four times before.
She learned you should "never, ever give up," but she also learned some practical lessons to help beat the elements in those earlier attempts. Out of failure, she innovated. And out of innovation, she succeeded.
"In my interviews with explorers, over and over again, so many of them said, really, the only failure that counts is dying," says National Geographic staff writer, Hannah Bloch, wrote about failure for the September issue of the magazine.
Up And Away
Bloch tells All Things Considered host Jacki Lyden about the 19th-century Swedish patent clerk who became a polar aeronaut and national hero, Salomon August Andrée.
"This was an era when the Arctic and the North Pole were really uncharted territory. And many people had tried to reach the North Pole overland and had died trying," Bloch says.
To circumvent the challenges of others, Andrée took a completely different path: He decided to fly there in a hydrogen balloon. The idea was so bold that he even convinced the King of Sweden and Alfred Nobel to back his project. He and a small crew took flight on July 11, 1897.
They never made it to the North Pole; their remains were discovered some three decades later. The tuxedo he'd brought along to wear on his triumphant return remained packed away, unused.
But their failure served as motivation for many other polar aeronauts. Italian explorer Umberto Nobile eventually made the first successful trip in 1926. He, too, traveled by air, but flew a dirigible instead of a hydrogen balloon.
Coming Back From The Edge
It took others' persistence to learn from Andrée's mistakes, just as he had learned from those before him. Some risk-takers, though, are fortunate enough to learn from their own failures.
American anthropologist primatologist Agustin Fuentes, for example, changed the course of his career after getting lost in the jungles of Borneo.
Fuentes had been trekking deep into the jungle to catch a glimpse of the elusive maroon leaf monkey when he realized he was in trouble. Being lost was dangerous in a region full of leopards and venomous snakes.
"I was actually helped out of the jungle by an orangutan who came down, got me, and walked me back into camp," he said in a Google+ Hangout sponsored by National Geographic.
"But the punch line here is that early in my career, I wanted to study those things on the edge, the last remaining members of a species or something like that," Fuentes says. "I failed, so my experience there gave me the hint that ... maybe what you should be looking at is not these last few things living out there, but those primates that do OK with people."
Since then, Fuentes has made a successful career researching a much less timid primate: the macaque.
"Think about what the world would look like if there was no such thing as failure," National Geographic's Bloch says. "What would be the point of doing anything? I think failure is what gives success its meaning."
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
This pandemic is a journey, and Bryan Cross is making some of its most important trips.
"We have a precious cargo," he said about the container that sits in his passenger seat.
"This vaccine is very temperature sensitive, so once it comes out of the freezer, we have to make sure it maintains a specific temperature and can't be shaken at all, so we have to treat it like a baby here in the front seat and hand-deliver it to each of our pharmacies," Cross explained.
Riding shotgun in this pharmacist's car is a container of 500 doses of Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine.
Cross is vice president of professional services for MidMichigan Health. The company runs a handful of hospitals in central and northern Michigan. He's driving some of these vaccines to his company's most remote hospital.
"We are the most isolated hospital in the whole state," said Chuck Sherwin, president of MidMichigan Medical Center in Alpena, a city of around 10,000 located on Lake Huron, which is about a four-hour drive away from Detroit, Michigan.
While geography may make this area feel far away when it comes to vaccinating, it is not behind. Healthcare workers here are some of the first in the country to receive the second dose of the vaccine. Three weeks ago, hundreds of Alpena healthcare workers received their first dose.
Those healthcare workers are people like ICU nurse Katrina Farley.
"My hardest part is having to sit with someone who is passing without family there," Katrina said.
Within the next couple of weeks, the vaccine is expected to give her 95-percent immunity to the novel coronavirus.
"So, if this is the little bit I can do to protect the rest of the people, that's what I want to do," she said.
Handling this vaccine is a process where the clock is always ticking. MidMichigan Health has one special freezer that can keep the vaccine at the desired 94-degrees below zero.
"In the freezer, it's good for six months, and then once it's out of the freezer in a refrigerator, it's good for five days," Dr. Bates explained.
The freezer is kept in Midland, Michigan, which is about three hours south of Alpena. When it's taken out, it's up to people like Cross to drive it to the hospitals so it can be used.
"It's very time-sensitive, so we have to make these trips a little more thoughtful, so we don't waste any of the vaccine," Cross said.
There are concerns rural communities will fall behind in vaccinating because some don't have a special freezer like MidMichigan Health.
"If we were on our own, a small rural hospital in northern Michigan, it would be very difficult for us to navigate this whole process," Sherwin said.
Next week, Dr. Bates hopes MidMichigan Health can start vaccinating members of the community who are at a high risk of coronavirus complications, like those over the age of 65.
He's seen the power of the little vials the world has been waiting for on people like ICU nurse Katrina Farley, who hasn't seen her mom in a year.
She says the vaccine will help her continue to care for those suffering from the virus. Its work she'll continue until the journey of the pandemic is done.
"There's a light at the end of the tunnel," Farley said. "We're going to beat COVID, we are. There's just going to be time. It's going to take time."


text:
Secondly, the Galactic Holofeed blog has dug up some interesting information out of the Terms of Service (ToS) in regards to possible micro-transactions in SW:ToR.
(I) You acknowledge and agree that all items acquired for points during the Game Program are non-refundable and non-tradable.Kill Ten Rats has commentary here.
(K) You acknowledge and agree that BWA reserves the right to change/add/remove points rewarded in the Game store at any time and without warning.
(M) You acknowledge and agree that points acquired during the Game Program cannot be saved up for or used in the commercial version of the Game.
What are these points that can be traded for items? Earlier in the Terms of Service, they explain that BWA is BioWare Austin, and that "Game Program" refers to the beta test, but the "points" were never explained. Perhaps you get some kind of point-based reward for submitting bugs? I don't know, but it does sound an awful lot like beta testers will be testing out micro-transactions.A year or so ago, and I would of have started crying foul right about now, but I'm no longer afraid of micro-transactions. When done properly they can work as a business model. In this case, just like the actual game that will be SW:ToR, we need details and Bioware is sparse (at best) with those.


text:
about our ingredients
Blendily's ingredients are as close to the origin as possible.
- We grow and gather the flora from our own garden and in the surrounding wild forests and landscapes.
- We support local farmers and purveyors that honor the land that they cultivate.
- When we do source exotic botanicals from afar, we ensure that the ingredients bear the Organic seal or we have personally visited the supplier directly.
How it's made
Each and every product is hand-made in the store. The flowers, herbs, oils, butters, waxes, hydrosols, extracts, and essential oils used in our products are all on display. Our process and products are so transparent, you can come watch us make them. No hidden agendas, proprietary blends, or chemicals of concern. Everything is available to see, smell, feel, and even taste. Our garden and distillation atelier is located 5 blocks away from the Flagship store.
100% Happiness Guarantee, learn more about our return policy here.


text:
Carbon fiber
1990-2018 Mercedes-Benz W463
Elegant carbon parts will be a unique addition to the interior of your car! Genuine carbon fiber clearcoated with high-glossy ultraviolet protective varnish, will make your car stand out! Easy installation – instead of original panels. Perfect fitment. Mounts in its direct place like original! Package includes 10 pcs(carbon fiber thin insertions).


text:
OmniFaces 2.6 has been released!
The main new things are a bunch of general purpose converters for strings and collections, a new implicit EL object #{faces}
which delegates to Faces
utility class and last but not least a new attribute for @ViewScoped
which triggers saving the entire physical bean in JSF view state when client side state saving is enabled, hereby making it effectively to be not expirable and thus live forever as long as the associated page lives, even when cached/copied.
You can find the complete list of additions, changes and fixes at What's new in OmniFaces 2.6? list in showcase.
Update 12 April 2018: OmniFaces 2.6.9 has been released with the main bugfixes being: 1) Removed accidentally introduced Java 1.8 specific methods causing OmniFaces 2.6 it to not run on Java 1.7 anymore. 2) Fixed several MyFaces incompatibilities with @ViewScoped
unload. 3) Fixed the problem of standard JSF converters not being useable anymore when a @FacesConverter
is created which extends from a standard JSF converter while having beans.xml
with bean-discovery-mode
set to all
Non-Maven users: download OmniFaces 2.6.9 JAR and drop it in /WEB-INF/lib
the usual way, replacing the older version if any.
Maven users: use <version>2.6.9</version>
For CDI-less users, the latest 1.1x version is still 1.14.1.
If you need some arguments to move to CDI:
- Upcoming JSF 2.3 will require a CDI dependency
- JSF own @ManagedBean and @XxxScope annotations are marked deprecated in JSF 2.3 (already as of 2.3-m06)
- Spring 3.x already supports javax.inject API from CDI, so Spring services (which are often used to substitute the lack of EJB support in Tomcat) can seamlessly be injected in CDI managed beans.
The @ViewScoped
annotation got a new attribute: saveInViewState
. When you're using client side state saving by having the javax.faces.STATE_SAVING_METHOD
context parameter set to client
along with a valid jsf/ClientSideSecretKey
in web.xml
as below...
<env-entry-value><!-- See http://stackoverflow.com/q/35102645/157882 --></env-entry-value>
...and you explicitly want to store the whole view scoped bean instance in the JSF view state instead of in the HTTP session, then set the annotation's saveInViewState
attribute to true
import javax.inject.Named;
import org.omnifaces.cdi.ViewScoped;
public class OmniCDIViewScopedBean implements Serializable {}
It's very important that you understand that this setting has potentially a major impact on the size of the JSF view state, certainly when the view scoped bean instance holds "too much" data, such as a collection of entities for a data table, and that such beans will in fact never expire as they are stored entirely in the javax.faces.ViewState
hidden input field in the HTML page. Moreover, the @PreDestroy
annotated method on such bean will explicitly never be invoked, even not on an unload as it's quite possible to save or cache the page source and re-execute it at a (much) later moment.
It's therefore strongly recommended to use this setting only on a view scoped bean instance which is exclusively used to keep track of the dynamically controlled form state, such as disabled
, readonly
and rendered
attributes which are controlled by ajax events.
New converters
A bunch of new converters have been added. It's after all a bit embarrassing why they were not added to OmniFaces much sooner as they are all quite "general purpose" and have been repeated in all our projects for years. Anyway, better late than never ;)
: thegetAsObject()
trims any whitespace from submitted string values. ThegetAsString()
does effectively nothing.omnifaces.ToLowerCaseConverter
: thegetAsObject()
lowercases any character in submitted string values based on current locale. ThegetAsString()
does effectively nothing.omnifaces.ToUpperCaseConverter
: thegetAsObject()
uppercases any character in submitted string values based on current locale. ThegetAsString()
does effectively nothing.omnifaces.ToCollectionConverter
: thegetAsObject()
converts any commaseparated string to a collection, along with trimming away any whitespace around the delimiters. The delimiter is configurable via an attribute. ThegetAsString()
does effectively the reverse, but when using for output only, you could also use the existing#{of:joinXxx()}
functions instead.
The well-known Faces
utility class got a counterpart in EL with help of FacesELResolver
. All methods which start with get
or is
, and take no parameters, and return either String
or boolean
, and are not related to response nor to session or flash (for which already implicit EL objects #{session}
and #{flash}
exist), will be available as properties of the implicit object #{faces}
. Examples are:
To find out all of them, check the javadoc whether the method explicitly states This is also available in EL as
OmniFaces 3.x
The 2.6.x will be the latest OmniFaces release for JSF 2.2. The focus will now be moved to OmniFaces 3.0 for JSF 2.3. JSF 2.3 itself is scheduled to be finalized this quarter. Major change will be the upgrade from Java 7 to —finally— Java 8 with all of its awesomeness. With this new major release, a bunch of OmniFaces artifacts which are already taken over in JSF 2.3 will be deprecated (except of <o:socket>
as it still allows room for new ideas and improvements), and the ones already deprecated in OmniFaces 2.x will be removed.
To learn what's new in JSF 2.3, head to this complete overview of new JSF 2.3 features in Arjan Tijms' blog.
Maven download stats
Here are the Maven download stats after previous release:
- October 2016: 11663
- November 2016: 12911
- December 2016: 13439
- January 2017: 10889
- February 2017: 12060
- March 2017: 14669


text:
continuing on the train to Catch Up Town.... next stop, miette.
when the delightful tilly asked if i'd help test out her latest adorable pattern, i wrote her a long winded email explaining the amount of plate-age i had going on, and why i sadly couldn't test, and by the end of the email i had totally talked myself into testing. the center front seam was stuck in my brain. to be honest, i don't care for center front seams, but, they are AWESOMESAUCE for playing with prints!
i managed to find a recurring pattern in the print (those stripes were hellacious) and was able to eke out mirror images. unfortunately i wasn't able to get a careful placement on side seams no matter how i tried, i'm telling ya, someone was having a good toke when they made this yardage. but hopefully the psychedelic colors distract from that.
speaking of payback, let's talk payOFF!! for my girl nikki's brilliant giveaway of her delicious book, you sew, girl! we had 57 contenders (duplicate entries were deleted & shout outs not counted). magic random number generator, take it away...


text:
Joint Procedure Committee Meeting
Scheduled on Thursday, April 20, 1989 @ 10:00 AM
Joint Procedure Committee
April 20, 1989
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., April 20, 1989, by Justice H. F. "Sparky" Gierke, Chairman.
Hon. Wallace Berning
Hon. Gerald Glaser
Hon. Ronald Hilden
Hon. Lawrence Leclerc
Hon. Beryl Levine
Hon. Kirk Smith
Mr. Patrick Brendel
Mr. Robert Heinley
Mr. John Kapsner
Mr. Dwight Kautzmann
Professor Larry Kraft
Mr. James Lamb
Mr. Ronald McLean
Mr. David Peterson
Hon. Eugene Burdick
Hon. Frank Kosanda
Hon. James O'Keefe
Mr. Leonard Bucklin
Ms. Cathy Howe Schmitz
DeNae Kautzmann, Staff Attorney
Sandy Demianew, Secretary
Justice Gierke introduced the new Committee members Pat Brendel and John Kapsner. A warm welcome was extended to them.
Judge Leclerc MOVED that the Minutes of the Joint Procedure Committee meeting of March 24-25, 1988, be approved as submitted. Mr. Kautzmann seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
EXPLANATORY NOTES TO CIVIL RULES AMENDED AT DECEMBER 1987 MEETING AND RULE 51(c), NDRCivP, AND EXPLANATORY NOTE
Judge Leclerc MOVED to approve the explanatory notes to the Civil Rules that were amended at the December 1987 meeting found on pages 66-116 of the meeting materials and to delete therein reference to the North Dakota Revised Code of 1943 and insert in lieu thereof reference to the North Dakota Century Code. Mr. Lamb seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED. Judge Leclerc MOVED to approve the explanatory note to Civil Rule 50(d) contained in Handout #16. Mr. Kautzmann seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Mr. Kapsner MOVED to approve Civil Rule 51(c) and the explanatory note as contained on pages 104-105 of the meeting materials. Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
(c) Exceptions to Instructions. The giving of instructions and the failure to instruct the jurors shall be are deemed excepted to unless the court, before instructing the jurors, shall submits to counsel the written instructions which it proposes to give to the jurors and shallasks for exceptions to be noted, and. tThereupon, counsel must shalldesignate such the parts or omissions of such instructions as he that counsel may deem considers objectionable. Thereafter, only the parts or omissions so designated shall be are deemed excepted to by the counsel designating the same. All proceedings connected with the taking of such exceptions shall must be in the absence of the jurors and a reasonably sufficient time shall must be allowed counsel to take such exceptions and to
note the same them in the record of the proceedings.
RULE 51(c), NDRCivP
Judge Berning wrote to the Committee suggesting that Rule 51(c) be amended to provide that when an objection is made to jury instructions that specific grounds be stated for the objection. The Committee reviewed proposed Rule 51(c) contained in Handout #5 which provides for such amendment. Judge Glaser indicated that he agreed with the change. He indicated that if a lawyer cannot point out what is wrong or what is lacking with an instruction not much is being accomplished. Pat Brendel stated that what the judges are saying here is that if there are no grounds then there is no issue to appeal.
Mr. Kautzmann indicated that in the recent Klem case the court indicated that even though there were no specific grounds stated for the objection to the jury instruction that it made no difference. He stated that the court has ruled on this issue and that we do not need to amend Rule 51(c), NDRCivP. Mr. Peterson agreed that a change was not needed. Trial counsel have other things at that time to be concerned with and are not able to review the instructions until the end of the trial which does not give lawyers adequate time to review and research them in order to determine what specific objection would be made.
Judge Glaser indicated that the problem is that the attorneys have the time to think about it later when the appellate process starts and at that time find the grounds for the objection. He indicated that it is best to do it initially at the trial level in order to give a fair trial the first time around.
Staff pointed out to the Committee that the rule in the State of Iowa, which was alluded to by Judge Berning in his letter, provides that specific grounds for objection be stated and also that the Federal rule requires grounds for the objection. Judge Glaser pointed out that at the present time in order to protect oneself the lawyer only needs to take exception to all of the instructions and what good is that. Mr. Kautzmann stated that under the proposal a lawyer would only have to object to procedure and that they don't have time to review the instructions so there would be nothing gained. Judge Hilden indicated that perhaps this area of law could be handled in the pre-trial conference. Mr. Peterson stated that that
would not resolve the problem because often times the judge wants to wait to hear the evidence.
Mr. Kautzmann indicated that we would have more of a problem with the proposed rule in cases that involve novel issues than with the current rule. The real question here is whether a lawyer has the time to adequately review and research an instruction to find grounds for an objection. Mr. Kapsner pointed out that under the proposed rule the burden would be on the prosecutor to object to whatever the defense attorney has worked on for three days in drafting a proposed instruction since the prosecutor doesn't have three days to research it and that's not right or fair.
Judge Leclerc MOVED to kill consideration of proposed Rule 51(c), NDRCivP. Mr. Lamb seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
EXPLANATORY NOTE TO RULE 81, NDRCivP, AMENDED AT MARCH 1988 MEETING
Mr. Lamb MOVED to approve the explanatory note to Rule 81, NDRCivP. Pat Brendel seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED. Judge Leclerc requested that staff counsel double-check the legislation regarding appeals from non-administrative bodies. If changes to the rule are necessary because of this legislation, it must be brought back to the Committee.
Mr. Peterson MOVED to adopt the criminal explanatory notes found on pages 121-182 of the meeting materials except for the explanatory note to Rule 15 on pages 146-148. Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Leclerc pointed out that Rule 15(a), NDRCrimP, should refer to Coy v. Iowa, 108 S.Ct. 2798 (1988). Mr. Kapsner indicated that he did not believe that the explanatory note should contain reference to the Governor's Commission on Victims and Witnesses. Mr. Peterson MOVED to adopt the explanatory note to Rule 15(a), NDRCrimP, found on pages 146-148 of the meeting materials with the deletion of the last sentence on lines 28-32 on page 147. Mr. Heinley seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Rule 15 is substantially the same as Rule 431, Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure (1974). Former Rule 15, effective until January 1, 1980, was an adaptation of Rule 15, FRCrimP. The present rule provides for a greatly expanded use of depositions in criminal cases. Subdivisions (a)(b)(f) and (h) were amended, effective ______________. The amendments are technical in nature and no substantive change is intended.
Subdivision (a) permits depositions to be taken to perpetuate testimony, as in the former rule, but also for discovery purposes, which was not previously provided for. Rather than requiring court approval of discovery depositions, this subdivision changes the emphasis by allowing them without court approval, subject to the right of party or deponent to move under paragraph (4) to have a court order that the deposition be continued, not taken, or limited in scope or manner of taking. The court will set a time after which discovery depositions may not be taken without court permission. Leave of court is required for the taking of a deposition to perpetuate testimony. Subdivision (a) was amended effective _______________. The amendment was made in order to clarify the fact that audio-visual depositions may be taken under the rule. The amendment also provides that the method of taking audio-visual depositions is governed by Rule 30.1, NDRCivP.
* * * * *
The place of taking a deposition is governed by subdivision (e). Restriction is placed on taking depositions outside of this state in situations where the defendant may not travel or be transported to the proposed location, unless he the defendant waives the right to be present.
Subdivision (f) concerns the presence of the defendant at a deposition. Distinction is made between a discovery deposition and one to perpetuate testimony. The defendant is not required to be present at a discovery deposition, but his the defendant's presence may enable the prosecution to use the deposition as substantive evidence at trial, as provided in subdivision (h). The taking of a deposition to perpetuate testimony
necessitates the defendant's presence, with three exceptions: defendant is excused by the court upon an appearance and voluntary waiver of the right to be present; defendant is voluntarily absents himself absent after start of deposition; or if a judicial officer presiding over te deposition justifiably excludes the defendant because of his the defendant's disruptive conduct. No warning is expressly required before exclusion, as in Rule 43(b)(2). If the defendant is not present at a deposition to perpetuate testimony under one of the above exceptions, his the defendant's counsel must be.
Paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) covers the situation when the defendant is not present at the start of a deposition to perpetuate testimony and has not been excused under paragraph (2). The taking may proceed as a discovery deposition or the prosecuting attorney, if he the prosecuting attorney is taking the deposition, may postpone the taking and secure a court order to take the defendant into custody to assure his the defendant's presence, so that the deposition will have the greater admissibility of a perpetuation deposition.
* * * * *
EXPLANATORY NOTE TO RULE 803, NDREv, AMENDED AT MARCH 1988 MEETING
Judge Leclerc MOVED to approve the explanatory note to Rule 803, NDREv, as contained in Handout #7 with the deletion of the last sentence on lines 48-50. Judge Glaser seconded the motion.
Judge Smith indicated that he would like the word "alleged" inserted before the phrase "sexual abuse" on line 40. Justice Gierke indicated that that may be improper as the rule talks about victims. Judge Glaser felt that the explanatory note should only indicate that the amendment provides a hearsay exception in sexual abuse cases and the rest of the explanation should be deleted. Mr. Peterson offered an alternative whereby the note would indicate that the hearsay exception for children who are alleged victims of sexual abuse is provided by the amendment. Professor Kraft questioned the language used to
explain the change in the numbering system for paragraphs 24 and 25. He suggested that the language be as follows: "Former paragraph (24) was renumbered to paragraph (25) . . ." and to delete the rest of the language contained in lines 43-50. Judge Leclerc accepted Professor Kraft's amendment into his motion with the approval of the second. Motion CARRIED.
Rule 803 is an adoption of Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence with one notable change occurring in Rule 803(22), which is discussed below.
The last two sentences in 803(8) are derived from Sections 31-09-11 and 31-09-12, NDCC, which are superseded by these rules. Cf. Rules 803 (24) (25) and 804(b)(5).
The excepted situations listed in this rule traditionally have been deemed to have circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness which render hearsay evidence reliable and admissible, even though the declarant may be available to testify.
The first three exceptions listed comprise what has been loosely termed the "res gestae" exception. That phrase is not used in this rule. The use of the specific exceptions, rather than the vague and elusive "res gestae" is felt to depict a clearer picture of which statements are within the exception, and the justification for their admissibility. This approach has been specifically approved by the North Dakota Supreme Court. Starr v. Morsette, 236 N.W.2d 183 at 187, n. 1 (N.D. 1975).
Subdivision (22) provides that, in certain instances, evidence of a previous final judgment comes within a hearsay exception. The subdivision differs from its federal counterpart in that the federal exception for pleas of nolo contendere has been deleted as that plea is not used in the State courts of North Dakota. Rules 11 and 12, NDRCrimP. The subdivision also was changed by adding that post-conviction proceedings, like appeals, do not affect the admissibility of previous convictions.
It should also be noted that these exceptions remove only the hearsay objection to evidence. Evidence of a past conviction under paragraph (22) sought to
be introduced must also meet the requirements of Rule 609, NDREv.
Rule 803 was amended, effective ____________, to provide a hearsay exception for child victims of sexual abuse. Former paragraph (24) was renumbered to paragraph (25) and amendments to this paragraph are technical in nature and no substantive change is intended.
The basis for the admission of hearsay evidence under any of these exceptions is its circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. Paragraph (24) (25) provides that a statement not specifically listed may also be admitted if it has comparable guarantees of trustworthiness and meets the three listed conditions. Furthermore, notice must be given of its intended use.
This subdivision is designed to prevent the strained extensions of hearsay exceptions that have occurred in the past. Evidence meeting the requirements of paragraph (24) (25) should be admitted and now may be without distorting the listed exceptions.
The Committee reviewed the contempt drafts prepared by Judge Burdick found in Handouts #9 and #15. The Committee indicated that since Judge Burdick was absent they did not feel comfortable in discussing the Uniform Law Commissioners' Amendments to the Rules of Evidence. Mr. Kautzmann MOVED to strike the Uniform Law Commissioners' amendments from the agenda. Judge Glaser indicated that we have not received an explanation as to why we should consider the Uniform Law Commissioners' Amendments. He suggested that a policy be implemented whereby matters that are brought before the Committee must be specific in nature so that rules are not considered in a vacuum. We need to know why an amendment is good and why our rule is deficient. Judge Leclerc indicated that many of the Uniform Law Commissioners' amendments to the Rules of Evidence are good and should be reviewed by the Committee. Motion CARRIED.
The Committee felt that Judge Burdick could best argue what he sees are necessary changes in the contempt law. However, Mr. Peterson indicated that he
did not feel that the role of the Joint Procedure committee is to address legislative changes. He believes the Committee's function is in the rules area only. Judge Leclerc indicated that there is precedent for committees to propose legislation. However, he agrees with Mr. Peterson that the Joint Procedure Committee should not be proposing legislation.
Staff counsel gave a short overview of what the Committee has been doing for the last several years with the contempt issue and what the other states of the union are doing as well as the trend of recent case law. Justice Levine reiterated the difference between civil and criminal contempt. For civil contempt, you look at the remedy whether its conditional and coercive. For criminal contempt, you look at whether its punitive and unconditional. She indicated that the North Dakota Court has spoken in Baer v. Hampton and we also have the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hicks.
Judge Glaser stated that there is no problem in defining contempt. The problem is when you start a proceeding you don't know what kind of contempt it is because it can be one or the other. The classic case is in child support cases. If someone wants counsel, what do you do?
Mr. Peterson MOVED to table indefinitely. Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Judge Glaser MOVED a substitute motion to recommend the contempt proposal contained in the meeting materials on pages 26-31 to be submitted to the Legislature. Pat Brendel seconded the motion.
The Committee felt that we have worked on this for a number of years, a lot of work has gone into this and we do not wish to throw it away. However, several Committee members felt that if we propose this legislation it carries the connotation that we approve it and recommend it. Justice Gierke suggested that perhaps we could ask for an interim study. Judge Leclerc did not like asking the Legislature to mess around with the court's inherent powers. He thinks we should deal with this matter by rule. Judge Glaser again pointed out that this legislative matter is not unusual for the Committee to consider nor is it unusual to recommend changes to the Legislature. Pat Brendel stated that it is much better to go statutorily because of the due process concerns. Motion CARRIED.
EXPLANATORY NOTE TO RULE 23, NDRCrimP
Mr. Kapsner MOVED to delete everything after line 48 in Handout #19 concerning Rule 23, NDRCrimP. Mr. Kautzmann seconded the motion. The explanatory note was compared to the current explanatory note in the Rule Book and it appears that paragraph (3) except for the first sentence needs to be stricken. Staff was requested to propose an explanatory note for consideration after lunch. Mr. Kapsner withdrew his motion with the consent of the second.
Staff counsel explained the proposal before the Committee and that subsection (a) was previously approved at the March 1988 meeting.
Mr. Lamb believes that subsection (b) in the alternative rule should be subsection (a). He feels that exceptions should be stated first. However, philosophically he feels that the rule should encompass all motions and that there not be any exceptions.
Mr. Peterson MOVED not to adopt subsection (b) which deals with summary judgment on lines 46-68 of the proposed rule in Handout #3. Judge Smith seconded the motion.
The reason that the summary judgment section should be left out is because Civil Rule 56 is sufficient. Judge Glaser indicated that Rule 56 does not track Rule 3.2 and that what we are working toward is having one procedure. All motion rules should be reviewed and reconciled. The present proposal before the Committee is a band-aid approach. Mr. McLean stated that procedurally both the local Federal rules and local rules in Minnesota are worthwhile. We should not be putting special procedures into Rule 56. It makes perfect sense that summary judgments be treated differently. Further discussion was held on this topic including whether additional response time should be given for summary judgment motions in subsection (a). Judge Smith indicated that the viable way to handle Rule 3.2 is to treat it as a general rule for all except specific rules which prevail.
Mr. Kautzmann MOVED to terminate discussion. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Motion failed. Mr. Kautzmann indicated that if we have a problem with Rule 56 then it should be addressed
separately. We need to determine how the conflicting rules are going to be handled.
The meeting was recessed until 1:00 p.m., April 20, 1989.
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m., April 20, 1989, by Justice H. F. "Sparky" Gierke, Chairman. The attendance remained the same as in the morning session except that Mr. Leonard Bucklin was present.
Mr. Kapsner MOVED to amend proposed Rule 3.2 at line 40 of Handout #3: "must be made not later than five days after expiration of the time for filing briefs." Mr. McLean seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Smith suggested an amendment at lines 21-23 to strike "upon the" at line 21; strike "filing of briefs, or" and insert after the word "upon", "five days after" at line 22; and strike "filing," and insert "brief" on line 23. Justice Levine asked whether 3.2 applies in criminal cases. Not everyone agreed on this point. Judge Glaser indicated that it does because it is a rule of court and it applies to all rules. Mr. Kapsner indicated that Judge Smith's suggested amendment is very good and that if the Committee accepts it we can then delete lines 24-26.
Mr. Bucklin stated that Rule 3.2 was designed to speed up the motion process and to make it easier. Now we are adding more days to the procedure by allowing a five-day window. Should we be doing this? We're giving five additional days to ask for an oral hearing. Pat Brendel indicated that he believes that the provisions of this rule do not apply to rules that specifically outline procedures. He believes that specific rules supersede the rule of court. Mr. Brendel suggested that (b) of the alternative proposed Rule 3.2 be amended as follows: "The provisions of this rule shall not be construed to supersede the
provisions of any of the other rules of civil or criminal procedure." This way we are not specifically excepting rules and are telling lawyers that Rule 3.2 does not necessarily wipe the slate clean, there may be other rules to consider. We should not make it specific because we'll leave some rules out. Judge Leclerc indicated that we have compounded the problem by striking "heard" in (a) because other rules require a hearing. For example, Rules 7(b), 12(d), 26, 27, 56(d), 59(d)(e), and 68(a). It was pointed out that the explanatory note would have to be rewritten because "heard" has been deleted.
Mr. Peterson indicated that we should leave the civil rules alone. He believes that the way Rule 3.2 is structured is good. If a time line is a problem, there is usually no problem in getting an extension. Mr. Kautzmann stated that the 3.2 type of motion practice does not lend itself for usage in criminal procedure and as such these motions are not used in the Federal system.
Mr. Kautzmann MOVED to amend Rule 3.2 to indicate that Rule 3.2 does not apply to criminal procedure. Motion died for the lack of a second.
Mr. Kapsher indicated that perhaps subsection (c) should be amended to state that one must file a brief before an oral hearing can be granted.
Mr. Peterson MOVED to delete lines 46-49 of the alternative proposed Rule 3.2 and to delete "failure to" on line 50; to delete lines 51-52 and to delete "motion to summary ruling" on line 53 and to approve the rest of the rule. In effect, the motion deletes subsection (b) and subsection (c) only deals with the filing of a brief. The Committee felt that the motion should be broken up for the vote. Therefore, Mr. Peterson MOVED the amendments to subsection (c) deleting "failure to" on line 50 and deleting lines 51-52 and deleting "motion to summary ruling" on line 53. Mr. Lamb seconded the motion. Judge Glaser asked whether the amendment included on line 29 the phrase "If any party who has timely served and filed a brief" and the answer was yes. Motion CARRIED. Judge Leclerc voted no and requested that his vote be recorded in the minutes.
Mr. Heinley MOVED to delete subsection (b) from the alternative proposed Rule 3.2, NDROC. Mr. Kapsner seconded the motion. Judge Glaser presented the question of whether Rule 3.2 controls in case of any conflict. That issue needs to be resolved. Judge
Glaser would like to add a provision to Rule 3.2 which indicates that Rule 3.2 controls in cases of conflict. Mr. Kautzmann indicated that rules in conflict with Rule 3.2 would control. Mr. Bucklin pointed out that if we did not want the criminal rules included in the 3.2 motion practice then we would have to amend Civil Rule 7 in order to get it out of the Rules of Court. Mr. Peterson requested staff to go through the civil rules and to pull the rules that address briefs, hearings and time lines and to do it also for the criminal rules. Judge Smith stated that Rule 3.2 is the general rule and that the only differences with specific rules deal with time lines and the matters that are submitted. There is really no large conflict here. Rule 3.2 is intended to govern general motion practice.
Mr. Peterson MOVED a substitute motion that staff review the Rules of Civil Procedure that conflict with 3.2 in briefing schedules, hearing requests, time lines and to include reviewing the criminal rules also and to report back to the Committee. Mr. Kautzmann seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Mr. Kapsner indicated that we should approve what we have before us now because it's much better than the current rule and we can address other problems at a later date. Mr. Kautzmann did not feel that 3.2 should apply in criminal cases because of the fact that the defendant has to be present at all stages of the proceeding.
Mr. Kapsner MOVED to adopt Rule 3.2 as amended without subsection (b) of the alternative rule proposal. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED. Mr. Kautzmann and Judge Leclerc voted no and requested that their votes be recorded in the minutes. Judge Leclerc requested a copy of Rule 3.2 as passed by the Committee.
Mr. Kautzmann MOVED that Rule 3.2 not apply in criminal proceedings. Judge Glaser MOVED to table until staff has had a chance to research the civil and criminal rules. Mr. McLean seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
(a) Filing with Clerk. Unless otherwise permitted by the court, all notices of motion and supporting papers, with proofs of service, must be filed with
the clerk at least 3 days before the date of any hearing permitted, and all returns thereto must be served and filed with the clerk at least one day before the date of hearing. Unless so served and filed, the motions, and returns thereto, may be vacated by the court.
(b)Filing Prior to Hearing in Default Matters. All pleadings and other papers relating to default matters must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing, unless otherwise directed by the court.
(c) Submission (a) Submission of Motion. on Briefs. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, uUpon serving and filing a motion, or within 5 days thereafter, the moving party shall serve and file a brief and other supporting papers and the adverse party shall have 10 days after service of the a brief within which to serve and file an answer brief and other supporting papers. Upon the filing of briefs, or upon expiration of the time for filing, the motion is deemed submitted, heard to the Court and taken under advisement by the court, unless counsel for any party who has timely served and filed a brief requests the taking of testimony or oral argument on the motion. If any party who has timely served and filed a brief requests the taking of testimony or oral argument, the request must be granted., the procedures under the rules for obtaining a hearing must be followed, unless otherwise ordered by the court. The party requesting oral argument must secure a time for the argument and serve notice upon all other parties. The court may hear oral argument on any motion by telephonic conference. The court, in its discretion,may require the taking of testimony or oral argument and may allow or require testimony on the motion. Requests for oral argument or the taking of testimony must be made not later than 5 days after expiration of the time for filing briefs. Each motion must be heard at a time designated by the the court. The court,
with the consent of all parties affected, may hear oral argument on any motion by telephonic conference.
(d) (b) Failure to File Briefs. Failure to file briefs or to request the taking of testimony or oral argument with the prescribed time subjects a motion to summary ruling. Failure to file a brief by the moving party is an admission that, in the opinion of counsel, the motion is without merit. Failure to file a brief by the adverse party is an admission that, in the opinion of counsel, the motion is meritorious.
(e) (c) Extension of Time. Extensions of time for filing briefs, or for continuance of the hearing on a motion, may be granted only by written order of court. All requests for extension of time or continuance, whether written or oral, must be accompanied by an appropriate order form.
(f) (d) Time Limit for Filing Motion. Except for good cause shown, a motion must be filed in such time that it may be heard not later than the date set for pretrial of the case.
EXPLANATORY NOTE TO RULE 23, NDRCrimP
Mr. Peterson MOVED to adopt the amended explanatory note to Rule 23, NDRCrimP, as set forth in Handout #19. Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Rule 23 is adapted from Federal Rule 23 and governs trial by jury or by court in all criminal actions within this State. Rule 23 differs from the Federal Rule in that the Federal Rule permits only a written waiver. There is no right to trial by jury under Federal law in cases involving a petty offense. 18 U.S.C.A., Section 1, provides, "any misdemeanor, the penalty for which does not exceed imprisonment for a period of six months or a fine of $500 or both is a petty offense." (See Callan v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 557, 8 S.Ct. 1301, 32 L.Ed. 223, 228 (1888); District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617, 624, 57 S.Ct. 660, 81 L.Ed. 843,
846 (1937); United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681, 84 S.Ct. 984, 12 L.Ed.2d 23, rehearing denied, 377 U.S. 973, 84 S.Ct. 1642, 12 L.Ed.2d 742 (1964); Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 86 S.Ct. 1523, 16 L.Ed.2d 629 (1966); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed.2d 491, rehearing denied, 392 U.S. 947, 88 S.Ct. 2270, 20 L.Ed.2d 1412 (1968). See also, State v. Heath, 177 N.W.2d 751 (N.D. 1970), dealing with criminal contempt. Criminal contempt is a crime in every essential respect; it is a violation of the law; punishable by fine, imprisonment or both. The Court went on to say, in Heath, at page 754, "Where the Legislature * * * has fixed the maximum penalty for the offense of criminal contempt at thirty days in jail and a $250 fine, we find such criminal contempt to be petty criminal contempt. Therefore, the defendants were not entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right.")
Subdivision (a), which provides for the waiver of jury trial by the defendant, embodies existing practice, the constitutionality of which has been upheld. (Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854, 70 A.L.R. 263 (1930).) See also Section 40-18-15 NDCC which provides that a jury waive in municipal court must be in writing. But Subdivision (a) does not give the defendant an absolute right to waive trial by jury. Before such a waiver may be granted, the defendant must have the approval of the court and consent of the prosecution. (Dixon v. United States, 292 F.2d 768 (D.C. Cir. 1961).) This position reflects the view that "Trial by jury is the norm and with occasional exceptions, the preferable mode of disposing of issues of fact in criminal cases above the grade of petty offenses." (Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 37-38, 85 S.Ct. 783, 791, 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965).)
Subdivision (b) was amended, effective January 1, 1988, to confirm in part and to supersede in part Section 29-17-12, NDCC.
Subdivision (b) implements the provisions of § 29-17-12, NDCC, by clarifying when a request for a jury of 12 in a Class A misdemeanor case must be made to be "timely." However, subdivision (b)
supersedes the provisions of § 29-17-12, NDCC, which provides for a jury of 6 in all felony cases unless the defendant makes a timely demand for a jury of 12. Art. I, Section 13 of the N.D. Constitution provides that a person accused of a crime for which he may be confined for a period of more than one year has the right to trial by a jury of twelve. Subdivision (b) implements this constitutional right by providing that in felony cases a jury shall consist of twelve qualified jurors. See, State v. Hegg, 410 N.W.2d 152 (N.D. 1987).
* * * * *
Judge Benny Graff requested that the Joint Procedure Committee amend Appendix A to Rule 8.2, NDROC, to add a request for financial information concerning the spouse's income. Proposed Appendix A adds the financial statement of a spouse's income to the form. Mr. Peterson MOVED to approve proposed Appendix A as contained in Handout #6. Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
RULE 32, NDRCrimP
Chuck Placek of the North Dakota Parole and Probation Office requested that Rule 32 be amended to provide for a uniform procedure in dealing with pre-sentence investigation reports. The Committee felt that this was a bureaucratic problem and that it should not be addressed by rule. These reports are generated by the Parole and Probation Office for the courts and they may simply keep additional copies for themselves. Judge Berning MOVED to kill the proposal. Judge Hilden seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
The Supreme Court referred a memorandum from Lu Dunn, Clerk of the Supreme Court, to the Joint Procedure Committee regarding the problem of a notice of appeal being filed with the appellant failing to do anything more to perfect the appeal. The Supreme Court adopted an internal office practice to address this issue. Staff used similar language in drafting proposed amendments to Rules 13, and 42, NDRAppP. Rule 13 deals with sanctions and Rule 42 deals with voluntary dismissal. The Committee felt that this was
not a sanction and should be treated as an involuntary dismissal. Judge Leclerc MOVED to approve proposed Rule 42, NDRAppP, on page 235 of the meeting materials. Mr. Brendel seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Staff reviewed all the rules and explanatory notes that have been approved by the Joint Procedure Committee in the last two years and also the action that was taken today. Mr. Kautzmann MOVED that the rules and explanatory notes approved by the Joint Procedure Committee since the last publication be recommended for adoption to the Supreme Court and that staff be given the authority to prepare explanatory notes to Rule 3.2, NDROC, and Rule 42, NDRAppP, to be submitted to the Supreme Court for adoption. Judge Leclerc seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Staff was requested to send the rules and explanatory notes to the members of the Committee at the same time that they are submitted to the Court. The Committee then decided that rather than sending the material to every member that copies will only be sent to members who request the material. Judge Smith, Judge Leclerc and Mr. Bucklin indicated that they do in fact want a copy.
RULE 10(a), NDRAppP
The Committee received a letter from Marian Barbie and Judge Glaser concerning a problem with entire records being transmitted to the Court in an appellate case. Marian Barbie in her letter requested that an amendment be made to Rule 10, NDRAppP, providing for a partial record being sent in some cases. Staff indicated that currently Rule 10(g) allows for this; therefore, an amendment is not necessary. Staff also informed the Committee that the clerk's office has indicated that the Supreme Court prefers the entire record on appeal. The Committee discussed the problem and Justices Levine and Gierke will carry the Committee's concerns to the Court and will remind them of Rule 10(g), NDRAppP.
RULE 43(d), NDRCivP
At the time that Rule 43, NDRCivP, was initially adopted it referred to a section of the code that addressed the oath form for witnesses. However, the reference to Section 31-01-22, NDCC, was deleted from the rule and therefore there is no standard oath form that is used throughout the courts in North Dakota. Pat Brendel MOVED that we add to Rule 43 the following: "The oath shall be administered as follows: Do you swear (affirm) that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help you God)?" Mr. Peterson seconded the motion.
Mr. Bucklin pointed out that Section 31-01-22 is not superseded - that the code reviser has simply made a mistake and that this should be pointed out to the code reviser. Mr. Brendel withdrew his motion with the consent of a second. It was the consensus of the Committee that the code reviser be advised that Section 31-01-22, NDCC, has not been superseded by Rule 43 and that it be reprinted.
The use of Fax machines is extremely popular and it may be the up and coming thing. Mr. Bucklin indicated that he is not against the use of Fax for service but indicated that the problem with it now is the quality of paper. Apparently, the State of Minnesota has conducted a study on this and it may be wise for us to review their study report before we proceed any further. It was the consensus of the Committee that staff check out the study results from Minnesota.
The Committee discussed Judge Smith's recommendation regarding problems of requests for change of judge in proceedings requesting the exercise of the trial court's injunctive powers. Judge Glaser pointed out that the statute in Title 29 is not substantive - it is procedural and perhaps we should be drafting a rule which would supersede the statute. Judge Berning MOVED to table Judge Smith's recommendations. Mr. Brendel seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Berning explained the problem in granting numerous continuances under Rule 6.1. The dockets are getting congested. He proposed limiting the number of continuances that a lawyer may receive in order to curb abuse of the rule. Judge Smith indicated that the judges may alleviate the problem by checking on the lawyers and pinpointing them down to specific dates. However, this has been tried in Judge Berning's district and has not worked. Mr. McLean indicated that he did not want it changed to be at the discretion of the judge. There are plenty of partners within his firm and if he was ordered to defer to a partner within his firm he would be uncomfortable with that because that person would not know the case and would not be thinking along the same lines as far as handling the case, etc.
Mr. Bucklin indicated that the problem seems to be that subsection (a) grants a right to a continuance. Judge Berning indicated he was not comfortable leaving it at the discretion of the judge. However, he would feel much better if we limited the number of continuances in a particular case. Pat Brendel indicated that this is predominantly a county court problem. He just tried a case charged in 1986 two weeks ago because of all the continuances that were granted.
Mr. McLean MOVED to add the following sentence to Rule 6.1(a): "However a party's entitlement to continuances cannot exceed two." Judge Berning seconded the motion. Motion FAILED.
Justice Gierke suggested the following language: "However a party will be granted no more than two continuances as a matter of right pursuant to this rule." Judge Smith indicated that the judges should be able to handle this without changing the rule. Judge Leclerc MOVED to table indefinitely. Mr. Bucklin seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
STATE V. JENSEN (RULE 35, NDRCrimP)
This case was distributed to the Committee members for information purposes.
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court which held that the motion for reduction of sentence was untimely and without merit. The motion was made some nine years after the sentence was imposed.
The Supreme Court referred information dealing with a project that the American Judicature Society had received funding for. The specific project is entitled JURY NOTETAKING AND QUESTION ASKING: A FIELD EXPERIMENT. Mr. Bucklin pointed out that this was not the kind of experiment to be done in North Dakota. Mr. Kautzmann MOVED to table indefinitely. Pat Brendel seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
The Committee received a letter from Judith Atkinson regarding the problem of state courts recognizing tribal court orders. Mr. Peterson MOVED to table indefinitely. Mr. Kautzmann seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED. The Committee indicated that this is a jurisdictional matter and not a procedural matter.
It was requested that the meeting schedule for the Joint Procedure Committee be made a year in advance. If that is unworkable, several Committee members indicated that they would like at least three months' notice. The Committee discussed having the meeting in September or October. Judge Leclerc invited the Committee to meet in Fargo. Mr. Lamb invited the Committee to meet in Grand Forks during Homecoming. However, the Committee felt that with all the other activities going on at the time of Homecoming that it would not be a good idea to meet at that particular time but maybe later in October. Mr. Lamb indicated he would contact staff concerning the meeting date.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. The next meeting will tentatively be held at the end of October 1989.
Sandy Demianew


text:
LOS ANGELES, Sept 21 (AP) — It had all the makings of a massacre. Six guns, including a Colt AR-15 rifle. About 1,000 rounds of ammunition. A bulletproof vest. And an angry Southern California man who threated to kill his co-workers at a hotel and its guests.
But a concerned colleague intervened, alerting authorities who arrested 37-year-old Rodolfo Montoya, a cook at the Long Beach Marriott hotel, the next day and discovered the arsenal where he lived in a rundown motor home parked near industrial buildings.
In the weeks since three high-profile shootings in three states took the lives of more than two dozen people in just one week in August, law enforcement authorities nationwide reported a spike in tips they are from concerned relatives, friends and co-workers about people who appear bent on carrying out the next mass shooting.
Some of those would-be shooters sent text messages to friends or posted on social media that they hoped to one-up previous mass shootings by killing more people.
Law enforcement authorities and experts say the reasons for the increase in tips and heightened awareness of thwarted mass shootings vary.
In some cases, it's the so-called "contagion effect" in which intense media coverage of mass shootings leads to more people seeking to become copycat killers. In other cases, it's a reflection of the general public being more aware of warning signs when a friend or relative or co-worker is in an emotional crisis — and more willing to tip off police.
On average, the Federal Bureau of Investigation receives about 22,000 tips about potential threats of violence weekly.
Following the high-profile shootings during the first week of August in Gilroy, California; El Paso, Texas; and Dayton, Ohio that killed 34 people and wounded nearly 70, the volume of calls to federal authorities increased by about 15,000 each week.
Mass shootings tend to plant the idea of carrying out a rampage or at least encourage the idea in potential mass shooters, each seeking notoriety or striving to "out-do" others with higher death tolls, said sociologist James Densley, a criminal justice professor at Metropolitan State University in St. Paul, Minnesota, who studies mass shootings and the people who perpetrate them.
And the general public in turn becomes more aware of the possibility of mass shootings, heightening people's willingness to speak out if a friend, relative or co-worker appears to be in the midst of a crisis and plotting carnage, Densley said. In addition, the media focuses not only on the actual shootings, but also on those that are foiled.
But identifying and predicting who the next shooter will be is challenging for authorities, he said.
The reason? Mass shootings remain rare events and there's no one basic profile for the gunmen. The demographics of school shooters and their motivations are vastly different from someone who carries out carnage in a place of worship. The same holds true for those who carry out workplace shootings.
"When it comes to thinking about the profile of a mass shooter what our research is starting to uncover is there's not really one profile of a mass shooter," Densley said.
But the one common thread is that there are usually warning signs in the days and weeks leading up to the shootings, with many shooters taking to social media to vent outrage at whatever is troubling them.
Greg Shaffer, a retired FBI agent who now is a private security consultant specializing in active shooters and terrorism, said in an interview that the challenge for law enforcement is the juggling act of trying to balance the public's safety while not trampling on Americans' constitutional rights. For example, at what point does a troubling social media post constitute an illegal threat versus simple venting that's protected by the First Amendment?
"The real rub is where do you draw the line between First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights?" he said. "We allow hate speech. It's freedom of speech. Where do you decide that it's no longer posturing and now it's a threat? … At what point do you crash his pad and take away his guns? You can't be the thought police."
Shaffer added: "That's the hard part in law enforcement. You don't want to trample those … rights because it's vital to our institution."
The other challenge is more practical, said Houston Police Chief Hubert Acevedo. It's impossible for law enforcement in real time to pore over social media posts and quickly isolate those showing that someone poses a real threat.
"There's just so much traffic on social media, in cyberspace, that it's like looking for a needle in a haystack," said Acevedo, the president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association representing police chiefs and sheriffs for the largest U.S. and Canadian cities.
The public's cooperation — and their willingness to risk angering a friend, relative or co-worker by informing on them— is key to stopping mass shootings ahead of time, he said.
In Long Beach, California, where police disrupted the possible plans to carry out the hotel attack, Police Chief Robert Luna thanked hotel staff for warning investigators.
"Instead of us visiting each other in hospitals or making funeral plans," Luna said, "we can talk about the courage you showed."
Luna said in an interview that his department often handles threats of mass shootings but the Marriott case was unusual because Montoya, a cook upset over human resources issues, had the guns and ammunition to carry out his plans plus equipment authorities believe could be used to make ammunition.
"All the ingredients were there for a catastrophe," Luna said.
Montoya has been jailed for lack of $500,000 bail and has pleaded not guilty to charges of criminal threats, dissuading a witness by force or threat and possession of an assault weapon. He faces more than five years in prison if convicted.
Luna said after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead, authorities investigated an increase in threats to Long Beach schools. Officials decided to send detectives immediately to schools — an expensive move the chief said was "absolutely worth it."
Nothing happened at the Long Beach schools, but Luna said he didn't want to risk ignoring the threats.
Luna welcomes the increase in tips to authorities about potential mass shooters, saying Long Beach residents have followed the "see something, say something" guidelines and report suspicious behavior to police.
"There are people, thank God, that are speaking up," he said. "It's not only 'see something' but if you hear something, if you read something, you absolutely have to say something."