text:
webpage capture
Saved from
no other snapshots from this url
12 Aug 2013 05:26:57 UTC
no other snapshots from this url
24 Jul 2011 15:36:43 UTC
All snapshots
from host
from host
long link
download .zip
report bug or abuse
3 captures
24 Jul 11 - 14 Mar 12
News & Opinion
Sports News
Business & Recruitment
Going Out
Business Directory
Classified Ads
Family Notices
Latest news
Your letters
Your texts
Aisling Awards
About Us
Contact Us
Search this site
Search the web
Murdered John revived our community spirit
Andersonstown News Monday
"It was only a bit of banter," said a red-faced female protestor when I asked her what was going on outside the Asda store on the Shore Road last Tuesday. She explained in very colourful language that "them Asda crowd" had sacked one of their workforce, William Hunter, "the salt of the earth" for, ahem, a disciplinary indiscretion.
"He told a deliveryman to change the music on his stereo and put on The Sash. Not much harm in that is there? We're staying here till he's brought back, so we are."
Not much harm indeed. However, without giving the matter much thought I decided to go to some other supermarket for the few items I was seeking. No way was I going to argue with that mob. I can always go back, in any case, when this "storm in a teacup" has blown over, I reasoned
I read later that day that Mr Hunter had, indeed, been sacked for what seemed a fairly trivial matter. A republican personality – I can't remember his name – was quoted as saying that that there was no harm in The Sash.
But then it was revealed that William Hunter, the man sacked by Asda and the focus of the well organised protest, was involved in the murders of the McErlane brothers in May 1975. This put a completely different perspective on his actions. As I read the reports I realised that while I never knew Thomas, I had, in fact, known John McErlane. After the summer holidays of 1974, I returned to my school to find that the enrolment had decreased by almost 30 per cent. Given that the school was barely three years old with a brand new building it was a major blow.
There had been a spate of incidents in the greater Glengormley district. A number of Catholic workmen had been assassinated in their work huts at Rush Park and Ballyduff. The infamous Whiteabbey Abbatoir incident, where youths and girls were mown down, had occurred in the first two months.
The Workers' Strike in May was the last straw for many and a number of young families emigrated to Australia and New Zealand. However, help was at hand.
Father Kevin O'Leary arrived in Glengormley in September 1974. He found a community reeling. He couldn't believe the lack of hope. All social activity was at a standstill. He found that many neighbours didn't know each other and he set about rectifying the situation. Fr O'Leary was no ordinary priest, his title was Doctor as he had gained a PhD, but he wore his scholarship modestly. He was a talented mathematician. At a wine and cheese party in Queen's University, a lady with a Malone road accent asked him what his subject was. "Sums, ma'am," was his reply.
He revived the social committee. I was cajoled to chair it. Unfortunately, the rump of a previous committee turned up. To say that they were obstructive was an understatement.
"You can't do that," we were told, because, "that's not the way it's done here."
Many of them seemed content to block rather than to promote events. Among the ideas being tossed about were the revival of weekly bingo and the promotion of an annual ballot for a car.
Both of these were being vetoed because of the prohibitive cost of printing. Fr O'Leary saw that we had a problem. We couldn't ask volunteers to quit, so he set about looking for new blood.
He visited all the recent arrivals to the parish and while in Archvale he met a young couple and after talking to them for a while he invited the husband to join the social committee. The new member turned out to be John McErlane, and what a breath of fresh air he turned out to be.
At his first meeting he listened to the oft-repeated argument about the prohibitive cost of printing bingo books.
"I know a printer well," were the only words he said throughout the meeting. As usual we were out of time and it was decided to pursue the matter at the next meeting which the secretary was announcing a month ahead. "I think we should meet next Monday," volunteered John. Some of us covered up our smiles as he received some thunderous looks from the old-timers, but meet on Monday we did.
John arrived a couple of minutes late and deposited a big box on the table. It contained enough bingo books to last a year.
"He's just the kind of man we need, a doer not a procrastinator," Fr O'Leary told me next day.
Bingo returned under a new format. The old-timers staffed it dutifully and it soon became profitable.
Slowly but surely, social life returned to the parish and John McErlane looked after printing and publicity. When he undertook a task you marked it as done.
But trouble was still brewing. John only attended six meetings.
Two bombs exploded in the Glen Inn in April 1975 injuring five customers. A more serious bombing took place at the Catholic-owned Hill Tavern in Carnmoney three weeks later.
A bomb was thrown into the packed bar while the crowd were watching the UEFA Cup Final. One girl lost a foot while her boyfriend, a part time barman in the bar, had a serious foot injury.
And then came a torrid week. On Wednesday, May 21 the CBPPU on Antrim Road was blown up for the fourth time. Next day, a bricklayer on the building site of the new Christian Brothers' School on the Hightown Road opened a booby-trapped flask and was killed instantly. And then on Friday afternoon two hooded men entered the room in Mount Vernon in which the McErlane brothers were playing cards. All six people, including the woman of the house, were ordered to lie face-down and the two brothers were shot in the back of the head.
All these deeds were claimed by the Protestant Action Force. The shooting of the brothers was said to be retaliation for the shooting of the proprietor of an all-night service station on the Shore Road. At 7am on Friday morning a car drew up on the forecourt as the proprietor was talking to a Catholic breadserver who delivered to the service station at that time each morning. He saw the barrel of a gun pointed at the breadserver and he shielded him, being hit by six bullets. It is believed that this was another PAF mission which went wrong.
Jeffrey Donaldson has admitted he didn't know William Hunter's past when he congratulated the Shore Road picketers on their success in having him reinstated. Now that he does know, he has chosen, like Mr Hunter, not to apologise.
Asda management have failed as well. They have put finance before principle. They say they have drawn a line under what happened.
As things stand it will not take a picket to keep me out of their stores. I'll stay on this side of the line. Unlike William Hunter, I will not be an asset to Asda.
Our Papers
Subscribe To Newsletter
Send us your e-mail address and we'll keep you up to date with what's happening on BelfastMedia.com
Our latest videos
Latest videos


text:
Live Tracking Map - Worldwide VoyageSee Larger Map >TRACK THE VOYAGE
Worldwide Voyage Tracking Map
Track the progress of our crewmembers as they voyage around the world. The yellow line tracks our iconic canoe Hōkūle`a. Planned by navigators, the green line is a reference course linking departure and destination points with consideration to vessel capabilities, winds, currents, and anticipated weather conditions. To track Hikianalia, Hōkūle`a's sister vessel, zoom out and follow the red track, or click here. For more about our voyaging fleet, click here. For more about designing a course strategy and reference course, click here to go to our Learning Center.
See all posts >
Voyage Updates
Hōkūleʻa PM Update | July 3, 2015Apprentice navigator Haunani Kane reports on Hōkūleʻa's journey across the Gulf of Carpentaria off the northern coast of Australia.
Hōkūleʻa AM Update | July 3, 2015Apprentice navigator Haunani Kane reports on the morning sailing conditions in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
Hōkūleʻa Update | July 2, 2015Hōkūleʻa departs Thursday Island en route to Darwin, Australia.
Hikianalia Update | July 1, 2015Arriving off the coast of Niʻihau, the Hikianalia crew prepares to find the small island of Nihoa.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Bulletstorm is a futuristic first-person shooter developed by People Can Fly and Epic Games. This video game is one of those things where you'll either dig it or you won't. Unrepentantly over the top, the game shares a common spirit with movies like Kill Bill or Shoot 'Em Up. It revels in gratuitous everything, just for the sake of being excessive in and of itself.
Most of the ridiculousness inherent in Bulletstorm stems from the game's story and much reported on "skillshot" based combat system. The script itself is your typical sci-fi fare, but the manner in which the character dialogue is written really makes it stand out. Mostly because it's immature to the point of being infantile and heavily laced with puerile profanity- but in a good way. Also, it's not the amount of profanity that's staggering, it's the sheer variety of it. It's almost like they rounded up a bunch of high school freshman, locked them into a room all night with the assignment to come up with as many vulgar phrases as possible, without repeating themselves. Stuff like , , and . You get the idea.
As far as the combat goes, it's not that it's excessively gory compared to other first-person shooters, it's more the manner in which the violence is executed. A short way into the game you gain a whip-like weapon called a "leash." This weapon allows you to pull enemies towards Hunt (Bulletstorm's main character), and interact with your surroundings in various ways to activate traps, etc. Additionally, Hunt can also slide into and kick away enemies. Throw in a variety of weapons, and there are several nasty ways in which baddies can be taken down. Some of the more, shall we say, creative combinations, are awarded points and called "skillshots." While it may not sound over the top on the face of it, when you spend half an hour using the leash to pull an enemy toward you just so you can kick him away, fire your sniper rifle and steer the bullet all Wanted style into the guy's genitals, just to unlock a skillshot called "nutcracker," then you may see what I mean.


text:
All of his supporters understand that it would be self-defeating to weaken Obama and heighten the risk of another step backward.
We live in different shades of gray, and we have to do what we have to do to keep America safe and to weaken our enemies.
And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken.


text:
rckette04's name card
Real name
Lauren Gay
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States
Lauren Gay
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States
Rckette04's most popular stock photos
rckette04's blog
This user does not have a blog yet.
Rckette04's intro
Admittedly, I know pretty much nothing about photography. For almost a year now, I have used stock.xchng to find images to use as backgrounds for worship for the church that I work for and have become interested in taking some of my own pictures in the process. Right now I am trying to learn by doing and am seeking feedback on any photos I submit to aid in the learning process. Eventually I hope to move on to using actual film, but I figure that digital is a good starting point.
Rckette04's equipment
Nikon Coolpix 5200
StatsNumber of photos rank
|Not in the TOP 1000.
Download rank
|Not in the TOP 1000.


text:
Whether it's a Christmas treat, birthday, as a gift, or party snacks; ginger bread men are good all year round. They are a great way to get the kids involved and creative in the kitchen and it will bring out the kid in the rest of you. This sweet, spicy and very moreish recipe will certainly get everyone of all ages knocking at you kitchen door.
- Makes approximately 20 biscuits
- 3 oz (75 g) soft brown sugar
- 2 tablespoons golden syrup
- 1 tablespoon black treacle
- 1 teaspoon cinnamon
- 1 teaspoon ginger
- finely grated rind of ½ orange
- 3½ oz (95 g) butter cut up into cubes
- ½ teaspoon bicarbonate of soda
- approximatly 8 oz (225 g) plain flour
- Pre-heat the oven to gas mark 4, 350°F (180°C).
- Sieve the soft brown sugar into a large sauce pan
- Add the golden syrup, treacle, 1 tablespoon of water, spices and rind.
- Whist stirring constantly, bring this mixture to boil.
- Remove the pan from the heat and stir in the butter, and the bicarbonate of soda.
- Gradually stir in the flour until a smooth dough is formed– you may need to add a little more flour if the dough to too sticky.
- Cover the dough with cheese cloth and leave in a cool place to rest and become firm, this should take about 20-30 minutes.
- Roll the dough out on a lightly floured surface to 3 mm thick and cut out the gingerbread men or any other shapes of your choice. (this is where the kids can help out, just be careful with any sharp edges on cutters)
- Arrange the biscuits on the lightly greased baking sheets
- Bake for 10 to 15 minutes or until the biscuits feel firm when lightly pressed.
- Allow biscuits to cool for a few minutes before transferring to wire cooling rack
- Once the biscuits are completely cool, the kids can really get involved – use you imagination, get a collection of sweets and different coloured icing and let them get creative


text:
Marketing Information
Many of the experiments currently performed using the CO2 Gas Sensor can be performed or complemented using the O2 Gas Sensor. Due to its wide measurement range, the O2 Gas Sensor can also be used to monitor oxygen concentration during human respiration.
Included with the O2 Gas Sensor is a 250-mL bottle to be used as a respiration chamber for studying plants and insects, or rusting of iron.
General Information
Additional Information
Package Contents
Physical Characteristics
Power Description
Technical Information


text:
Informal: I appreciated Jane helping us clean up the mess. (noun)
More acceptable: I appreciated Jane's helping us clean up the mess. (possessive noun)
Informal: Ron's parents did not approve of him getting married. (personal pronoun)
More acceptable: Ron's parents did not approve of his getting married. (possessive adjective)
Although the noun/pronoun + gerund combination is not uncommon and would make sense to most English speakers, editors and writing teachers generally recommend using a possessive before a gerund.
©2014 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy


text:
Sonic Hack Showcase 3 - Sonic The 30 Day Challenge Revisited
My first video of the 3rd series of the Showcase.
Backstory : So the whole reason I started the showcase was due to the amount of popularity Mario Hacks got.
Thinking to myself doing Mario Hacks would be a lost cause at this point I noticed a lack of any Sonic Hack videos, I might also add I have no idea what kind of Sonic hacks there were if any.
So I tried a test video of a hack and it went down well. So begins the Sonic Hack Showcase!
This is now the 3rd series and I thought i'd post it from the start since I can update this as I go and they have no particular order.
Be sure to check out my other Hack Videos on my channel and subscribe if you want to be updated.
If you like this video, see where it all began with the first series!


text:
Saturday, Saturday, Saturday!!!
This is the hilarious new trailer from D.C. Douglas for Pastor Terry Jones and his Dove Outreach Center's asinine Quran Burning Day.
We'll sell you the whole seat, but you'll only need the edge!
Follow the whole Quran burning story on Blippitt here
Related articles by Zemanta
- Quran Burning in Florida Condemned by Sarah Palin (blippitt.com)
- Westboro Baptist Church Furious Nobody Cared When They Burned the Quran (queerty.com)
- Send Pastor Terry Jones to Afghanistan to Burn a Quran (secularnewsdaily.com)


text:
Submit a file
Our awards
Link to us
RSS Feeds
Popular search phrases
:: tasks
short descriptions
full descriptions
mightymacros Excel Utilities 3.34
mightymacros Excel Utilities simplifies many repetitive tasks by providing a useful set of tools with quick and direct access from the cell short cut menu. The add-in contains tools that provide fast access, to all your important files and folders and will help you find and navigate information as you perform your daily tasks.
Download now
FreeGamia Cubed D 1.0
Exciting puzzle game in which you have to go through 11 levels, with increasingly complex tasks. Your aim is to twist the object so as to fit it over the faces of another! The game is very addictive, and you'll want to play it again and again!
Download now
FreeGamia Battle Ground 3D 1.0
Check out our new arcade battle tank shooter, BattleGround3D. There are 36 levels, each with different tasks and enemies. Evade air strikes and other hazards! Between battles, you can improve and upgrade your tank. There is also an opportunity to create a battle with set rules or against each other!
Download now
FreeGamia Nya Nya Nyaa 1.0
In this game you have to take on the role of Nhan-Kat! Your task is to perform all the tasks of your girlfriends. Use logic and reflexes to avoid falling or being hit by any creature!
Download now
SQL Administrator Free for SQL Server 22.214.171.1240
EMS SQL Administrator for SQL Server is a toolset for efficient SQL Server administration. It provides a complete and easy-to-use set of tools for administering SQL Server. SQL Administrator is designed specifically for database administrators and allows you to perform administrative tasks in the fastest, easiest and most efficient way.
Download now
Grand Auto Adventure 1.0
3D racing sandbox game. There is a city with lots of cars and different tasks at your disposal. Take part in illegal races around the city, go away from the police and make money for new cars. If you become a respectable driver or a dangerous scorcher - it only depends on you and on your choice.
Download now
Holiline Reminder 3.3.0
Have you ever forgotten someone's birthday? Missed deadlines? Or you're not satisfied with your current reminder? The basic principle of Holiline is to be around when you need it and not when you don't. Holiline Reminder places birthday countdowns, special holidays, upcoming weddings and tasks in a creeping line bar that will stay at the top or bottom of your screen or over the Task Bar. Supporting themes to-do gadgets will enrich your desktop.
Download now
Altova FlowForce Server 2015r4
Altova FlowForce Server 2015 is a highly scalable server solution to automate enterprise workflows, data transformations, aggregation, conversion, document and report generation, and other tasks performed by dedicated high-speed servers. FlowForce Server starts jobs based on a variety of triggers, and runs multiple jobs simultaneously, even multiple instances of the same job. FlowForce Server is available for Microsoft Windows, Linux, and Mac OS.
Download now
FreeGamia Fill Up 1.0
Fill Up! What a suprise! You have inherited a gas station, but you have to prove your worthiness first by demonstrating your level of skill and mastery, in order to become a rightful owner. Build, demolish, upgrade, accomplish different tasks and you will achieve the goal. Fill Up! is about constructing and developing a petrol/gas station and completing 48 fascinating tasks related to car servicing. There are two playing modes: making a career a
Download now
FreeGamia Word Killer 1.0
Wordkiller is an unusual combo of a keyboard trainer with an arcade game, in which entertainment stimulates the user to learn type faster and with more accuracy. The player must defend from enemies coming from three lines by killing them with blades. To start the blade, you must type the words that are shown separately for each of the projectiles and it is ready to use. It is worth noting that the game has 10 missions with different playing tasks
Download now
HourGuard Timesheet Software Free 1.53
HourGuard Free is an easy to use timesheet and time recording software that is ideal for freelancers and professionals who bill by the hour. Simply click start and stop accordingly as you work on different tasks. Later create full timesheet reports including a break down of what projects you did worked or create invoices to bill clients and customers for your time worked.
Download now
RealtyJuggler Real Estate Software 10
RealtyJuggler Real Estate Software for Realtors and other real estate professionals. 90 day FREE Trial. Track closings, listings, buyers, sellers, prospects, lockboxes and more. Automatic tasks and reminders create a punch-list of common agent activities such as putting up riders, taking pictures, and contacting clients. Never forget another yard sign or open house. Emphasis has been placed on ease of use and simplicity of operation.
Download now
FreeGamia Math Genius 1.0
This educational game for is children and adults, and can be learned quickly. The game boasts colorful graphics and unusual gameplay. Choose from two levels of difficulty - Easy and Normal, and five different game modes - Classic, Infinite, Collect, 60 sec and Training. You can also post scores in the online table of records and compete with other players. And to keep things interesting, more than 20 different tasks are required (achievements)!
Download now
Convert OST to PST Free 14.09
OST files are Outlook Data Files which store the mailbox data of MS Outlook during offline mode. But, certain software or hardware related issues like hard disk failure, virus attack, network errors, sudden power failure, improper Outlook exit, etc. may corrupt OST files. The only way to access corrupt OST files is convert them to PST format. Use a professional OST recovery tool like Recoveryfix for OST to PST. It accurately recovers all Outlook mailbox items including emails, attachments, appointments, contacts, calendars, notes, tasks, journals etc. from corrupt, damaged or inaccessible OST files and converts them to Outlook PST format in almost no time. The Convert OST to PST Software is equipped with two data scanning modes ? Standard and Advance, to perform OST recovery in almost every condition. The smartly programmed tool is even capable of recovering data from password protected and highly encrypted OST files. The advanced software also provides option to recover emails in three different formats ...
Download now
FreeGamia Spooky Range 1.0
An exciting 3D shooting gallery in a spooky Halloween setting. The game will provide you with fun moments ... and perhaps some really bad ones too. You must perform tasks at various locations - from caves to castles. Get ready to strike many targets and you'll need to hone your shooting skills to score high. Initially your enemies will be pumpkins and bats, but as you advance you will shoot skeletons and battle huge bosses.
Download now
Convert XLS 7.42
Fast, accurate & powerful, 'Convert XLS' is the comprehensive Excel/CSV/TXT conversion tool. Convert to/from Excel, CSV, TXT etc. Batch able. Automate all your Excel processes easily. Repeat complex conversion tasks by restoring prior 'Conversion Jobs'. A 'Conversion Job' consists of all 'Conversion Tasks' that you specify to be done within the 'Convert XLS' user interface. It's the best Excel conversion tool you've never tried, until today.
Download now
Advanced Task Scheduler Network 220.127.116.111
Advanced Task Scheduler Network is a Client/Server task scheduler, which allows you to create scheduled tasks on the server and manage them from any computer on the net remotely. Client/Server architecture of this software in addition to all the capabilities of the Professional Edition provides IT departments and professionals with an excellent solution for managing scheduled tasks on a variety of network environments.
Download now
DriveScan File Explorer 1.2
Find, manage & report on high volumes of files and folders in Windows. Quickly scan drives & network shares to find every file or folder then sort, group, filter and search to locate just what you need. Easily perform bulk file & folder management tasks or export reports. Quickly find old, large or duplicate files by filtering on attributes or applying conditional formatting. Perform bulk moves, copies, deletions, recycle, open or archive to ZIP.
Download now
A VIP Simple To Do List 2.9.43
VIP Simple To Do List is an easy-to-use PDA software for you to quickly organize and effectively manage your daily tasks. It uses To Do List method to help you do more in less time. It is an organizer, planner, notepad and reminder combined in one powerful application. Use our software to organize, prioritize and track completion of tasks, manage household projects and events, plan your life for days, months and years ahead.
Download now
Here is a huge and endless world of Defenderia, which waits for you to explore it! Travel around the map, fight hordes of monsters, find treasures! Choose from a variety of heroes with unique abilities. Large number of consumables and a lot of upgrades. Randomly generated levels, a lot of interesting events, dozens of achievements and tasks to be done. Fight against monsters, as in the classic games, or create combos of monsters on the colored
Download now
Cubed D 2.3
Exciting puzzle game in which you have to go through 11 levels, with increasingly complex tasks. Your aim is to twist the object so as to fit it over the faces of another! The game is very addictive, and you'll want to play it again and again!
Download now
A VIP Sales Management Solution 4.04
VIP Task Manager is professional easy-to-use software for Sales Team project, workflow management. VIP Task Manager combines functions of CRM, TeamOrganizer, ProjectManager, DocumentManager. It allows your team to plan, track and report of your sales team's activities, share your contacts database, calendar, tasks, files, links etc. VIP Task Manager provides you with total control over your customers, sales managers and sales tasks execution.
Download now
Job Designer 22.214.171.124
Schedule your rooms, employees and other resources with our all-in-one solution for generating quotes, invoices and reports - on the desktop, or online. Link tasks, employees, equipment and other items from the user-defined database. Automatically check for conflicts on all linked items. Get an instant job costing as soon as the job is created. Print invoices per job, client or project, and much more...
Download now
A VIP Purchase Management Solution 4.02
VIP Task Manager is professional easy-to-use software for Purchasing Team project, workflow management. It combines functions of Order processing system, Supplier Manager, Team Organizer and Project Manager. VIP Task Manager is the best tool for planning, tracking and reporting your purchasing team's activities, sharing your contacts, calendar, tasks, files etc., collaboration in real time and control your suppliers, managers and tasks execution
Download now
Fill Up 2.9
Fill Up! What a suprise! You have inherited a gas station, but you have to prove your worthiness first by demonstrating your level of skill and mastery, in order to become a rightful owner. Build, demolish, upgrade, accomplish different tasks and you will achieve the goal. Fill Up! is about constructing and developing a petrol/gas station and completing 48 fascinating tasks related to car servicing. There are two playing modes: making a career a
Download now
MP3 & Audio
Home & Desktop
Multimedia & Design
Software Developer
Web Developer
Another tags
text editor
text messaging
text to speech
Page 1 of 10
Legal disclaimer
Privacy policy
© 2004-2015 IT Shareware


text:
matrilumina, august 2012
we gather.
and if you are called to gather.
say yes.
do anything it takes to make it so.
it will be worth all your effort, your money, your time, the trouble to organize childcare and feed your family while you are gone.
because you'll return a better, brighter version of yourself.
because the world needs you to be more fully you.
because you need to awaken.
because the women you will meet will be beautiful teachers, and they all signed on to meet you.
because you really do need that kind of beauty…to survive in the world.
and well, because hafiz said so.


text:
Nod & De Novo Review Vs Reconsideration
Posted 02 August 2009 - 02:43 AM
What is a De Novo Review?
What is a Request for Reconsideration?
Is a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) automatically one or the other?
Posted 02 August 2009 - 09:45 AM
BUT this does not stop the NOD clock.
VA may or may not act on the Reconsideration request.I filed one and then filed the NOD with only days left (I marked my calender) as the recon request still produced no acknowledgement of my evidence.
Then the VA sent me a letter asking if I had filed an I-9 already (which at some point I did-you would think they knew that)and sent me another letter which I forget what it said-
then the BVA awarded my direct SC death claim and this changed the entire aspect of the Recon claim.
It is rendered moot as soon as the VA makes a SMC consideration.I had to write to the RO and explain that to them and tell them that although the I-9 has been filed, they cannot send this claim to the BVA without consideration of the recent BVA award letter and a proper award letter from them-in compliance this time with the BVA award.
You need evidence for a Reconsideration Request that they have not seen before or listed as evidence-
or you need to prove that the evidence they had was not properly addressed.
For Reconsideration Requests of CUE claims, you need more legal evidence.
It can make things go faster but that is few and far between.
De Novo means a 'new look'- a DRO reviews the claim after a denial has been made and a DRO de Novo has been requested.
The DRO job description helped me to get them to CUE a decision as it was not followed correctly by the DRO.
It pays to read their job description here at hadit-if you request a DRO review.
Posted 03 August 2009 - 02:13 PM
I avoided that term with a couple of veterans I've worked with recently, whose denials were overturned by the DRO. I argued legal points, not medical ones. The evidence was there, and in the end, it was in fact a CUE claim without calling it that.
Posted 03 August 2009 - 03:28 PM
Posted 04 August 2009 - 10:11 AM
Since the DRO I had was the VARO rater that denied the claim. It simply got rubber stamped with the same SOC.
Allen, Me thinks I have been rubber-stamped as well. Almost verbatim on the de Novo Review decision as was in the original. Stinks, huh?
Posted 04 August 2009 - 10:14 AM
Posted 04 August 2009 - 11:35 AM
Posted 04 August 2009 - 11:33 PM
Posted 04 August 2009 - 11:53 PM
DRO/DRO de novo review = the DRO process is the begining of the APPEAL PROCESS. It is referred to as THE INFORMAL APPEALS PROCESS and allows you to receive one more look at your claim by a senior rater assigned to the appeals team before going into the formal appeals loop. It is prompted if you send in a piece of paper (any type)to the VA after you receive your rating in which you clearly state that you DISAGREE WITH THEIR DECISION. This is normally done if you have no new evidence (at the time you prepare your Notice of Disagreement) however, you feel the need to argue legal and medical points in your claim that you feel the rater did not properly consider. ie.... you feel that the rater did not consider specific guidance or law contained in CFR 38 and if he/she had they would have awarded your claim or you feel that based upon their failure you were awarded a 30 percent rating verus a 70 percent rating. Now even though you may not have had new evidence when you prepared you Notice of Disagreement that does not mean you can not submit new evidence collected by you during the process.
De novo, as has already been provided, is a legal term that simply means " a new look/review of a case without taking into consideration the previous decision". Normally when a vet submits a Notice of disagreement they will ask that it be done on a De novo basis. What this is supposed to do is take the last decision completely away from the file, give it to the senior rater and asked him to process the claim as though it was never processed (now if you think this is done then I have some bridges to sell you hahahaha). However, as you read on this site and others listen to the war stories about rubber stamped or carbon copy DRO reviews!
To your third question NO NO NO NO! A Notice of Disagreement is the start of the appeals process and will never ever be considered by the VA as a reconsideration!!! If you meet the requirements for a reconsideration then YOU BETTER MAKE SURE it is clear in your request!
If you do submit a reconsideration you have to keep in mind that all the while you are fishing and drinking beer waiting on the VA to reconsider your claim THE APPEALS TIME LINE IS TICKING and you only have 12 months to begin the appeal from the date of your decision letter. This is important in that when you ask for the reconsideration the rater may not deem such an action appropriate (remember it is for when you have new evidence that is not associated with your claims file at the time the decision was made - it is not to simply argue a point with the rater). If an when he makes a determination, which could take 6-8 months, he may not notify you. Now you are sitting there all dumb, fat and happy sucking them suds and catching catfish think the VA is gonna do you right. The next thing you know its been 13 months since you heard any thing from the VA so you call and they say "your file has been closed" and now you cry!!!!!!! What happened was whilst you was a thinking they had to see it your way, the rater never got back to look at your reconsideration or he did and was to lazy to send you even a computer generated form and now you time to appeal (Send in your notice of disagreement) has expired!@!!!!!!!!! and they closed your claim out causing you to lose possibly 3-5 years of backpay. So the moral of the story is stay active in your claim. Keep in mind that no matter what you think you have that should be reconsidered, the VA may not think so and sometimes a recon could take a while even though you hear stories of them being handled within two weeks (its possible)
The appeals process goes like this:
Vet gets rating - he has 12 months FROM THE DATE OF DECISION to submitt his notice of disagreement. The NOD begins the informal appeals process
Nod submitted and vet gets the Statement of the Case from the DRO - vet now has 60 days to file the VA Form 9 which will be attached to the SOC. This is caused the formal appeals (or the perfection of the appeal which began by the submission of the NOD) process and will get you to the BVA.
Vet gets a DECISION LETTER (not an SOC) from the BVA. - he now has 120 days to file his NOTICE OF APPEAL with the court.
Long post but I hope it helps to understand the process. If anything seems strange or don't make sense it is just my nightly meds kicking in hahahaha.
Posted 05 August 2009 - 12:28 AM
THANKS!!! Exactly what I was looking for and wondering about. I hope it helps others!
Posted 05 August 2009 - 09:41 AM
Thanks that was a very good explanation.
Posted 06 August 2009 - 03:26 PM
Please post a link to the citation for Reconsideration of VA Claims.
TS Snave
Posted 07 August 2009 - 02:25 AM
(a) Application requirements. A motion for Reconsideration must be in writing and must include the name of the veteran; the name of the claimant or appellant if other than the veteran (e.g., a veteran's survivor, a guardian, or a fiduciary appointed to receive VA benefits on an individual's behalf); the applicable Department of Veterans Affairs file number; and the date of the Board of Veterans' Appeals decision, or decisions, to be reconsidered. It must also set forth clearly and specifically the alleged obvious error, or errors, of fact or law in the applicable decision, or decisions, of the Board or other appropriate basis for requesting Reconsideration. If the applicable Board of Veterans' Appeals decision, or decisions, involved more than one issue on appeal, the motion for reconsideration must identify the specific issue, or issues, to which the motion pertains. Issues not so identified will not be considered in the disposition of the motion.
(b) Filing of motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration of a prior Board of Veterans' Appeals decision may be filed at any time. Such motions must be filed at the following address: Director, Administrative Service (014), Board of Veterans' Appeals, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420.
© Disposition. The Chairman will review the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the motion and, depending upon the decision reached, proceed as follows:
(1) Motion denied. The appellant and representative or other appropriate party will be notified if the motion is denied. The notification will include reasons why the allegations are found insufficient. This constitutes final disposition of the motion.
(2) Motion allowed. If the motion is allowed, the appellant and his or her representative, if any, will be notified. The appellant and the representative will be given a period of 60 days from the date of mailing of the letter of notification to present additional arguments or evidence. The date of mailing of the letter of notification will be presumed to be the same as the date of the letter of notification. The Chairman will assign a Reconsideration panel in accordance with §19.11 of this chapter. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7103, 7108)
Posted 07 August 2009 - 02:29 AM
February 2-, 2004
Board of Veterans' Appeals
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20420.
re: Veteran: [veteran name].
C-file: [vet ssn]
or, in the alternative,
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed is a copy of the VA Form 22a, signed by the above veteran appointing
me as his representative in connection with VA matters. Enclosed you will find a disk
for your convenience. On it you will find the veterans 1135 page C-file, a rough index
of the C-file, and a copy of this Motion, with exhibits. These documents may be viewed
using an Adobe Acrobat reader. It should save the time you might otherwise spend
sending to the St. Petersburg VA Regional Office for the C-file.
This letter relates to a reduction in the veterans VA benefits which occurred on
March 1, 1982, following a letter addressed to him dated Jan 05, 1981 (Exhibit 1). Prior
to that time the veteran had been rated at 90% disabled, with individual unemployability,
resulting in a 100% disabled total rating. As the result of this action in 1981, the
veterans compensation was reduced from $1220 (approximately) to $740 per month.
Mr. [last name] has remained at the 90% rating from that day forward, with the
exception of a few times when he received a total rating due to hospitalizations.
The reduction of benefits was finally upheld in a decision of the BVA dated
January 17, 1984. That is the decision for which the veteran seeks reconsideration. In
the alternative, that is the decision that the veteran contends contains clear and
unmistakable error.
The veteran is a combat Marine veteran of the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968.
After 14 months hospitalization on the hospital ship Repose, in Guam, and at the
Oakland Naval Hospital, the veteran was finally medically discharged with a diagnosis
of dissociative disorder. The record is clear that this condition was attributed to his
combat experiences. (Exhibit 2). He is also recorded as having received numerous
shrapnel wounds and an injury to his pelvic area arising from having been hit by
sandbags during an shell burst on his bunker.
Following his hospitalization, but before discharge, the veteran was involved in
an automobile accident in Mississippi in which he received additional injuries to his
pelvic area and hips. On August 13, 1970, the veteran was accorded a 10% rating for
anxiety, and a 10% rating for his hip condition (Exhibit 3).
After extensive treatment for his various conditions, and multiple claims and
ratings, the veteran was accorded a rating on September 20, 1978, in which he was
determined to be 90% disabled, with entitlement to IU plus special monthly
compensation for lost of use of lower left extremity at the (k) rate. The effective date for
the IU was Nov. 13, 1972. (Exhibit 4).
On November 29, 1978, the Veteran discovered his wife was having an affair
with her gynecologist and in a fit of rage he stabbed her to death. On November 21,
1979, after stating that he had no recollection of the incident and having entered a
general plea of guilt, he was sentenced to life in prison by a Florida court. (Exhibit 5).
The January 5, 1981, letter taking away the veterans IU rating was the first that
he heard about the VAs decision to take away part of his compensation. (Exhibit 1).
The reduction was to take place immediately. The veteran was provided appeal rights.
The letter says the basis of taking away the IU rating was that he had been removed
from the possible work environment. This letter followed a VA Rating Decision dated
December 19, 1980, which stated, Veteran has been imprisoned for life for slaying his
wife. This happened in 1979 with the sentencing occurring apparently i n early
November 1979. Per M21-24,07, the Board has determined that veteran is not entitled
to Code 18 in view of his removal from the work possible environment. (Exhibit 6).
The veteran was never provided prior notice that this action was going to be
taking place, nor an opportunity to comment on the action before it was finalized.
On or about January 14, 1981, the veteran filed a notice of disagreement with
this action of the Regional Office. He also asserted a claim for PTSD. On February 11,
1981, the Regional Office issued a Statement of the Case (Exhibit 7), once again
basing the decision on the removal from work possible environment theory. On July
29, 1981, the veteran sent the Regional Office the reasons why he should not have
been considered removed from the work possible environment (Exhibit 8, page 1). A
handwritten note on this document indicated that the VA accepted it as a 1-9 (VA Form
1-9, substantive appeal). On August 12, 1981, a Veterans Service Officer also
submitted argument as to why the veteran should not lose his IU benefits on the theory
utilized by the VARO (Exhibit 8, page 2).
On January 5, 1982, the Board of Veterans Appeals considered the veterans
appeal, but characterized the claim as, Entitlement to a total evaluation based on
individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. It remanded the
veterans case. Without addressing the law applying to termination of a veterans IU
benefits, or even the fact that the veteran was appealing a termination, it treated the
case as an original claim for IU. It ordered that additional evidence be developed
relating to the PTSD claim that also was being appealed. (Exhibit 9).
The last sentence of the remand stated, No action is required by the appellant
until he receives further notice. The BVA then returned the case to the VARO with the
specific instruction that the issue in the case was, Entitlement to a total evaluation
based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. (Exhibit 10).
On October 29, 1982, the VARO issued another rating decision. It listed the
issues as, Increased evaluation for SC left hip condition, individual unemployability, SC
for post traumatic stress disorder, increased evaluation for SC anxiety. (Exhibit 11).
Approximately two weeks later (November 12, 1982), the VARO issued a
Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), denying the veterans claim for PTSD
and IU. The reason given for denying the IU claim was that, Evidence establishes that
the veteran is unemployable because of removal from the labor market and not
because service connected disabilities are so severe as to preclude employment even
though he is in a wheelchair. (Exhibit 12). Thus the VARO continued to act pursuant to
its removal from work possible environment theory. No law regarding individual
unemployability, or the termination of benefits, was cited in the SSOC.
There is no record that either the October 29, 1982, rating decision, or the
November 12, 1982, SSOC were ever sent to the veteran or his service representative.
The SSOC does state that the BVA decision was sent to the veteran.
Notably, neither the special orthopedic, nor the special psychiatric, examinations
required in the 1982 BVA remand were accomplished by the VARO at any time during
its post-remand development of the case. There is no record that either were even
attempted. There is no indication in the file that the VARO ever attempted to comply
with the M-1 VA Health Care Adjudications Manual, Part I, Section VII, (Examination
and Treatment of Veterans Confined in or Paroled from Penal Institutions (Change 83,
August 2, 1965))(Exhibit 13). The VARO was aware of this policy, because a copy of it
is contained in the veterans C - file.
There is a March 9, 1983, VARO document that states that the prison
volunteered to provide orthopedic and psychiatric records to the VA on the veteran .
The same exhibit goes on to make an amazing statement to the RB (rating board)
saying, Per Mr. Chamberlain - when reports are received from prison - rate, SSOC or
whatever & re-certify to BVA on that evidence. (Exhibit 13).
A deferred rating decision dated March 25, 1983, acknowledged that the veteran
had provided a PhD psychologists diagnosis of PTSD, but denied the veterans claim
for that condition because (of all things) there was no definitive diagnosis by a clinical
psychiatrist to corroborate. It stated that the evidence warranted no change in the
denial of total evaluation due to individual unemployability (Exhibit 14). On March 29,
1983, the VARO issued an SSOC, reiterating the deferred rating decision (Exhibit 15).
On May 9, 1983, the veterans service representative wrote, pointing out that the
VA had failed to follow the remand instruction to GET a psychiatric evaluation, and
arguing that no rating could be issued without it (Exhibit 15). On June 7, 1983, the
National American Legion representative once again pointed out that the veteran had
not received a psychiatric examination as had been required for PTSD.
On October 4, 1983, the BVA prepared a letter, first repeating language from a
hostile, unsolicited letter which the VA had received from a doctor in 1979. The BVA
letter also noted, without comment, a recent diagnosis of PTSD. The BVA sent this
letter, along with the claims file to a BVA doctor, asking for a correct diagnoses of the
appellant's psychiatric disorders, whether he has a true posttraumatic stress disorder,
and what the primary psychiatric diagnosis is currently. (Exhibit 16).
On October 21, 1983, the doctor wrote back to the BVA. Based on the records
review, the doctor stated that the veteran had NO psychiatric diagnosis. This letter did
not discuss the two psychological diagnoses in the file, nor did it discuss the fact that
the veteran current was rated 10% for anxiety based on a medical discharge for
dissociative reaction. (Exhibit 17). The veterans representative objected to a diagnosis
based only upon a records review (Exhibit 18).
On January 17, 1984, the BVA issued its second decision on the veterans claim
for, among other things, Entitlement to a total evaluation based on individual
unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. It characterizes the veterans
position as, It is contended by and on behalf of the veteran that the disabling
manifestations of his service-connected disabilities have rendered him unable to
perform a substantially gainful occupation.
On page 8 of this BVA decision, for the first time, one finds a tangential
reference to the VA regulations on the requirements for termination of benefits. In
reducing a rating of 100 percent service-connected disability based on individual
unemployability, caution must be exercised in such a determination that actual
employability is established by clear and convincing evidence. (38 C.F.R. 3.314 ©). It
then made findings that:
3. The appellant has been reported as capable of tutoring and manual labor jobs
that can be accomplished from a wheelchair; in other words, he has been shown
to be clearly and convincingly able to work.
4. It has not been demonstrated that service-connected disabilities are
productive of sufficient impairment so as to render the veteran unable to perform
a substantially gainful occupation.
Based on these findings, the BVA decision was:
3. Restoration of the total evaluation based on individual unemployability due to
service-connected disabilities is not warranted. (38 U.S.C. 355; 38 C.F.R. 3.321,
3.340, 3.341, 3.343©, Part 4, 4.16).
In arriving at its decision, the BVA failed, neglected or refused to discuss
regulatory required findings necessary before a withdrawal of benefits were to finalized.
Specifically, the BVA failed to make a finding based on an examination showing
material improvement in physical or mental condition. The version of VA regulation 38
C.F.R. § 3.343(a) in effect at the time provided that total disability ratings were not to be
reduced or discontinued, in the absence of clear error, unless there was an examination
showing material improvement in physical or mental condition. The decision based on
that examination should have been whether, upon consideration of all the facts and
records, the veteran had attained improvement under the ordinary conditions of life, i.e.,
while working or actively seeking work or whether the symptoms have been brought
under control by prolonged rest, or by following a regimen which precludes work. If the
latter, reduction from total disability ratings should not have been considered pending a
reexamination after a period of employment (3 to 6 months). (Exhibit 19).
None of this was considered or discussed in the 1984 BVA decision. Instead,
the veterans case was treated much as a new claim for IU. Although the BVA decision
acknowledged that the VA carried the burden of proof of showing clear and convincing
evidence in its decision, it totally fails to discuss what it was that had to be shown.
There is no examination showing improvement in the Veterans case, nor any mention
of improvement. As noted above, what they had the duty to show was that there had
been improvement in the veterans condition since he had been previously determined
unemployable. A review of the BVAs finding of facts reveals no mention of
improvement. It deals entirely with his current condition. The discussion, and the facts
of the case, are bereft of any examination showing material improvement in physical or
mental condition.
Even if the 1984 BVA decision had correctly applied the law regarding withdrawal
of benefits, there is still the monumental problem that the veteran had NEVER been
provided the necessary due process notification and opportunity to be heard on the
subject. All the veteran had ever been told regarding the withdrawal of his benefits was
a.) It was being done based on the work environment theory, as opposed to a
finding of material improvement in his condition based on examination showing
same, and
b.) The withdrawal was a fait accompli, for which the VA was not prepared to
consider argument and evidence.
Contrary to the law and regulations, he was never provided an explanation of the law
1 Although the veteran does not have access to the version of this Manual provision
which existed in 1981 through 1984, it must be assumed that the language was similar to that
discussed above.
under which his benefits were being withdrawn. He was not given 60 days, or any
days, within which to respond. He was misled as to the law that would eventually be
applied to his appeal. And he was instructed by the BVA that, No action is required by
the appellant until he receives further notice. (1982 BVA decision). The only notice he
ever received after that was a request that he fill out a work history form. The VA
neither wanted, nor was prepared to consider any due process argument or evidence
on the issue.
Quite frankly, it is apparent that, after it had withdrawn the IU benefit, it never
regarded the issue on appeal as a question of the propriety of the withdrawal. By all
indications, from the date of the withdrawal forward, the veterans responses and
arguments were treated as a new claim for IU.
Not having further avenue of appeal, the veterans case was over.
It is the veterans position that the elimination of the rating for individual
unemployability was contrary to the law and that the IU rating should be restored,
effective March 1, 1981. There are several reasons for this position. They are:
Prior to the 1984 BVA decision in his case, the VA had relied on the provisions of
the VA Adjudication Manual, M21-24,07 (sic) to relieve him of his IU rating.
Presumably, this is a reference to the Veterans Benefits Administration Adjudication
Possible Environment. " That opinion determined that nothing in the legislative history
of 38 U.S.C. § 5313 suggests that Congress intended that an extant IU rating be
reduced upon a veteran's incarceration for a felony conviction. The theory of loss of IU
benefits based solely on incarceration was a fiction developed by the agency contrary
to even its own regulations.
The General Counsel opinion noted that to the extent that manual provisions
may be interpreted as imposing requirements not in the statute or regulations that are
unfavorable to a claimant, those additional requirements may not be applied against the
claimant, citing Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (Vet. App. Mar. 7, 1997).
Accordingly, to the extent that these manual provisions were interpreted as requiring
discontinuation of an IU rating on the basis that a veteran is not in a "work possible
environment", the manual provisions were improperly applied against the veteran.
The VA never had the statutory right to withdraw IU benefits from the veteran on
the basis that it did, i.e., his incarceration. The veteran is entitled to reinstatement of
his IU benefits, and payment of all IU benefits previously withheld.
Even if it were determined that the VA had not relied upon an illegal manual
provision to withdrawn the veterans IU benefits, the process by which it withdrew them
was constitutionally infirm, rendering the resultant deprivation of benefits void.
There is, and was at the time, ample authority stating that if the VA intends to
withdraw established benefits from a veteran, it has the obligation to honor his due
process rights to be heard on the subject. For instance, the provisions of the version of
38 C.F.R. § 3.343© in effect at the time, regarding termination of total disability ratings,
as applied to IU ratings, states that the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.105 are for
application. 38 CFR § 3.105(e) covers reduction in evaluations in compensation cases.
It reads:
Where the reduction in evaluation of a service-connected disability or
employability status is considered warranted and the lower evaluation would
result in a reduction or discontinuance of compensation payments currently
being made, a rating proposing the reduction or discontinuance will be prepared
setting forth all material facts and reasons. The beneficiary will be notified at his
or her latest address of record of the contemplated action and furnished detailed
reasons therefor, and will be given 60 days for the presentation of additional
evidence to show that compensation payments should be continued at their
present level. Unless otherwise provided in paragraph (i) of this section, if
additional evidence is not received within that period, final rating action will be
taken and the award will be reduced or discontinued effective the last day of the
month in which a 60-day period from the date of notice to the beneficiary of the
final rating action expires. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5112(b)(6))
Of course nothing of the kind ever occurred in this veterans case. The first
notification that he ever received that his benefits were going to be reduced was the
letter of January 5, 1981. (Exhibit 1). That letter gave him no options other than appeal,
which he did. It did not cite the law upon which it purported to act. It did not propose
anything. It did not give him any opportunity for the presentation of additional evidence.
Since it didnt inform him of the (il)legal basis for the action, there was no way in which
he could have known how to respond.
The M21-1 Manual itself sets out details on complying with the due process
issues. Part Iv - Authorization Procedures, Chapter 9 - Due Process, Subchapter 1 -
Notification, 9.02 Pre-termination/reduction Noticegeneral, states:
Requirement of Notice. A beneficiary has the right to be informed of a proposed
adverse action so that he or she can offer evidence or argument to show why the
proposed adverse action should not be taken. Therefore, unless authorized by
paragraph 9.05 or 9.06, do not terminate, suspend or reduce benefits or take any
adverse action without first sending the beneficiary a pre-termination/reduction
notice. This rule applies to all benefits.
a. Time Limits
(1) Send the beneficiary advance written notice of a proposed adverse action.
Continue payments for at least 60 days after the date of notification to allow time
for the beneficiary to submit evidence showing that the proposed action should
not be taken.
(2) Unless specifically requested by the beneficiary, do not implement the
proposed adverse action until the latest of the following events occurs:
(a) The 60-day period expires.
(b) Any evidence submitted by the beneficiary during the 60-day period is
© If VA receives a request from the beneficiary for a personal hearing within 30
days after the date of the pre-termination/reduction notice, a final decision is
reached on the evidence developed through the hearing or the claimant fails
(without good cause) to appear for the scheduled hearing. See paragraph
NOTE: If evidence submitted establishes that the adverse action should
not be taken, immediately inform the beneficiary.
b. Notification. Every pre-termination/reduction notice must include the following
(1) Statement of Proposed Decision. State the proposed action fully and clearly.
(2) Statement of Proposed Effective Date. Determine the effective date under
the provisions of 38 CFR 3.500 through 3.503. The requirement that payments
be continued through the 60-day pre-termination/reduction notice does not alter
this date. Inform the beneficiary that he or she may minimize any potential
overpayment by requesting that the award be adjusted immediately and that if an
overpayment is, in fact, created, he or she will be responsible for repayment.
Advise the beneficiary that, if the proposed adverse action is affirmed, he or she
must repay any overpayment that results from the continuation of payments.
(3) Basis for Proposed Decision. State the fact and reasons for the proposed
action. The facts should include a statement of the evidence being considered.
Include a brief statement of any calculations used to arrive at the proposed rate
of payment. Tailor the language used in each notice to the facts of the case.
(4) Right to Present Evidence, Request a Personal Hearing and Have
Representation. Every pre-termination/reduction notice must inform the
beneficiary of these three basic rights.
(5) Required Language. Exhibit A of this chapter provides language which must
be included in each pre-termination/reduction notice. VA Form 21-0506 may
also be used for this purpose, but it does not contain language about minimizing
an overpayment.
* * * *
Subchapter II. Reductions, Paragraph 9.24, establishes procedures in the case
of incarcerated veterans, and provides that:
a. Unofficial Notice Received. If an informal notice is received stating that the
veteran is incarcerated, establish controls (paragraph 9.08) and initiate
development for completion of a VA Form 21-4193, "Notice to Department of
Veterans Affairs of Veterans or Beneficiaries Incarcerated in Penal Institution."
Send the beneficiary a predetermination notice based on the provisions of
paragraph 25.04 only after official verification of incarceration is received.
b. Official Notice Received. When official notice is received that the veteran is
incarcerated, most often from a completed VA Form 21-4193, "Notice to DVA of
Beneficiary Incarcerated In Penal Institution," begin the due process provisions
as outlined in 9.03 of this chapter. Establish end product 600 and control for 60
days per 9.08 of this chapter. Final action is based on paragraph 25.04. Note
that both the EP 290 and EP 600 continue until final action is taken.
* * * *
Subchapter II, Imprisonment, Paragraph 25.04 Imprisonment in Penal
Institutions, provides in section ©(6): Notice of Discontinuance or Reduction to
Payee. A claimant is entitled to due process before reduction or termination of
benefits. Cite the applicable statutory authority (38 U.S.C. 1505 or 5313) in the
predetermination notice. Include information about the dependent's rights to an
apportionment and other information as applicable. If the address of the
dependents is available, develop for an apportionment with them at the same
time the payee is notified. Inform the payee VA may resume payments effective
the date of release from prison if notice of release is received within 1 year of
that date. If notice is not received within 1 year of the release date, VA may only
pay from the date the notice is received ((38 CFR 3.665 (i) and 3.666 ©).
Nothing of the kind ever happened to the veteran in this case. Even if the
provisions cited above may have been written subsequent to the date that the veterans
IU benefits were withdrawn, they are illustrative of the duty to meet due process
requirements. It certainly cannot be argued that Due Process is a concept more recent
that the facts of this case since they are derived from the 5th Amendment to the US
Constitution. The requirement to give due process has always existed. The citations
above give clear instructions on how those duties can be successfully carried out.
Both the Federal Circuit's and the Veterans Court's case law require compliance
with fair process. See Austin v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 547, 551 (1994); Thurber v.
Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (1993) ("entire thrust of the VA's nonadversarial claims system
is predicated upon a structure which provides for notice and an opportunity to be heard
at virtually every step in the process"); Sutton v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 553, 566 (1996)
(discussing and applying VA procedural protections and remanding for "Board to
consider and discuss . . . whether the veteran had been given adequate notice of the
need to present argument and further evidence on the merits of his claim and an
adequate opportunity to appear at a hearing"); Archbold v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 124,
129 (1996) (fundamental right to receive appellate rights and Statement of the Case);
Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 59, 66-67 (1994) (discussing and applying VA fair process
principles and announcing fair process rules); Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384,
392-94 (1993) (holding that VA claimants must be afforded "full benefits of . . .
procedural safeguards" afforded by statutory and regulatory provisions establishing
"extensive procedural requirements to ensure a claimant's rights to full and fair
assistance and adjudication in the VA claims adjudication process").
Even assuming that the basis of the VAs withdrawal were NOT the illegal work
possible environment theory, and was some other more legally palatable theory, it
remains clear that the due process provisions of the Constitution were not applied in the
withdrawal of IU benefits in this case.
In addition to the critical errors listed above, the veteran notes numerous other
errors in the processing of his case leading up to the challenged 1984 BVA decision.
They are:
1. The January 1982 BVA decision specifically discouraged the veteran from
making any argument relating to either the work possible environment issue, or the
termination issue. This discouragement was critical in view of the VAROs failure to
seek the veterans response to its subsequent rating decision and SSOC.
2. The rating decision of October 1982, and Nov 1982 supplemental statement of
the case were never provided to the veteran.
3. The VARO never provided the veteran the special medical evaluations that he
was entitled to pursuant to the 1982 BVA remand. It failed to make an effort to provide
these examinations, and it failed to follow VA authority relating to trying to get these
examinations. Exhibit 13 instructs the VARO to utilize fee based physicians if VA
physicians were not available. A remand by the Board confers on an appellant the right
to compliance with the terms of the remand order and imposes on the Secretary a
concomitant duty to ensure compliance with those terms. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet.
App. 268, 271 (1998).
4. The VARO never provided the veteran an opportunity to respond to the post
remand Rating Decision or SSOC, as was required in the 1982 BVA remand ("After the
appellant has been afforded an 'opportunity to respond, the claims folder should be
returned to this Board for appellate consideration, if in order.")
5. The BVA sought in independent medical opinion in lieu of a medical
examination. A medical opinion, based on records, is not an examination and cannot
substitute for one.
6. The letter from the BVA to the IME doctor was impermissibly tainted. A letter
from the Board requesting an IMO must "fully and accurately reflect[ ] the disability
picture, including both objectively demonstrated disabilities and subjectively claimed
pain or other disability." Bielby v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 260, 268-69 (1994). "If the
engagement letter fails to set forth all of the claimant's impairments, both objective and
subjective, or fails to set forth any other relevant factual detail, such as the time period
during which symptomatology manifested itself, the [independent medical expert]
cannot render an opinion which is supported by a sufficient prior review of and plausible
basis in the record." Id. See 38 U.S.C. § 7109 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.901(d) .
7. The IME was inadequate. It failed to address the TWO diagnoses of PTSD in
the claims file, or that fact that the veteran had been discharged with a medical
diagnosis of dissociative disorder, and currently was receiving a 10% VA disability
rating for "anxiety." The IME found NO psychiatric diagnoses without consideration or
discussion. The IME concurred with the diagnosis of a prison physician whose
examination DID NOT include a review of the C file.
Under 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1000, 20.1001 (2002), the veteran may seek
reconsideration at any time. Reconsideration may be ordered "[u]pon allegation of
obvious error of fact or law." Veteran contends that there were two obvious errors of
law in the 1984 BVA decision on the issue of withdrawal of his IU benefits. The first
was that the withdrawal was made on the basis of an illegal policy contained in the
M21-1 Manual, not justified by either regulation or Federal statute. This error was
confirmed by the precedential opinion of the General Counsel 13-97.
The second error of law was even more clear. In withdrawing the veterans IU
benefits, the VA failed, neglected or refused to notify the veteran of the basis of its
actions pursuant to regulatory authority existing at the time, or give him an opportunity
to consider the withdrawal action and respond to it, as required by the Due Process
clause of the United States Constitution. Rather than providing notice of intent to
terminate due to improved condition, as required in 38 CFR § 3.343, the VA at first told
the veteran that it was withdrawing his IU benefits pursuant to the now discredited work
environment theory. It continued telling the veteran the withdrawal was based on this
theory up until the date of the 1984 BVA decision. At that time, the basis of the
decision changed to a factual determination that the veteran was currently capable of
Thus the VA both failed to notify the veteran of the proper theory of
discontinuance of IU benefits because it never used a proper theory. Additionally it
failed to give him the due process opportunity to appear and be heard as was required
by its own regulations at the time.
This letter should also be considered as a claim that the 1984 BVA decision
referred to above contained clear and unmistakable error. The statute authorizing
BVA CUE, the "Revision of Veterans' Benefits Decisions Based on Clear and
Unmistakable Error Act," is found at Pub. L. No. 105-111, 111 Stat. 2271 (November
21, 1997) (codified at 38 U.S.C.S. §§ 5109A and 7111). The BVA regulations providing
procedures for BVA CUE are found at 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1400-20.1411 (2002).
It cannot be contended that the errors committed by the BVA in this case were
harmless. Loss of IU benefits without benefit of due process are hardly harmless. The
veterans compensation dropped nearly in half. It should be pointed out at this point
that this veteran is not subject to the law reducing the benefits of incarcerated veterans
to the 10% rate. Both his crime, and the award of IU benefits took place before
October 25, 1980. See 38 USCS § 5313(d) [Limitation on payment of compensation
and dependency and indemnity compensation to persons incarcerated for conviction of
a felony]
(d) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall apply (1) with respect to
any period of incarceration of a person for conviction of a felony committed after
October 7, 1980, and (2) with respect to any period of incarceration on or after
October 1, 1980, for conviction of a felony of a person who on October 1, 1980,
is incarcerated for conviction of such felony and with respect to whom the action
granting an award of compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation
is taken on or after such date.
The record certainly contains no evidence that the veterans condition had
improved between the effective date of his IU rating (Nov. 13, 1972. (Exhibit 4)), and
either the date the benefit was actually discontinued (Jan 5, 1981) or the date of the
challenged BVA decision in January 1984. In fact the records document a continued
worsening of the veterans left hip and leg condition, and his mental condition until he
eventually had the leg amputated. Thus, the usual burden in CUE cases, where the
veteran must demonstrate that, absent the error, he would have prevailed, is
considerably simplified. Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 44 (1993) (holding that if it is
shown that a specific error was made, "persuasive reasons must be given as to why the
result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error. It must be
remembered that there is a presumption of validity to otherwise final decisions, and that
where such decisions are collaterally attacked . . ., the presumption is even stronger.")
In this case the otherwise final decision was that the veteran was entitled to
100% based on IU. It would only be speculation to suggest that the veteran would
have been reduced to a lower rate, if he had been accorded due process. A review of
the record, however, seals the question. There is not a scintilla of evidence in the file
suggesting that the veterans physical condition, or employability had improved between
1972 and 1984. In fact there is no evidence even comparing the two situations.
It would take speculation to suggest that, if evidence was adduced relative to the
veterans condition on the two dates, it would have been adequate to revise the
otherwise final decision to grant the veteran IU. There is nothing in the record to
suggest this. Thus, it is clear that the status quo, in which the veteran was entitled to
100% disability based on IU was and is manifestly different from the speculative
contention that he would have been reduced if the terms of 38 CFR § 3.343 had been
Thank you for your immediate attention to this injustice.
Very truly yours,
Attorney at law
Posted 07 August 2009 - 12:04 PM
Thanks for the reply. Your posts actually line up with the issues surrounding my confusion on requesting a Reconsideration at the VARO level.
The reg you cited indicates that a Reconsideration is a BVA level process, not a VARO process.
Also, the court case you cited was for a Reconsideration based on a CUE.
I am looking for the M21-1MR citation that covers Reconsiderations at the VARO level. If a Reconsideration is something that the VARO is called upon to do (and not just route it to the BVA) then it should be in their adjudication manual.
Please post the citation for a local VARO Reconsideration.
TS Snave
Posted 07 August 2009 - 03:39 PM
But i'll keep looking if it's not.
§42.38 Reconsideration of initial decision.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the initial decision within 20 days of receipt of the initial decision. If service was made by mail, receipt will be presumed to be five days from the mailing in the absence of contrary proof.
(b) Every motion must set forth the matters claimed to have been erroneously decided and the nature of the alleged errors. The motion shall be accompanied by a supporting brief.
© Responses to the motions shall be allowed only upon request of the ALJ.
(d) No party may file a motion for reconsideration of an initial decision that has been revised in response to a previous motion for reconsideration.
(e) The ALJ may dispose of a motion for reconsideration by denying it or by issuing a revised initial decision.
(f) If the ALJ denies a motion for reconsideration, the initial decision shall constitute the final decision of the Secretary and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after the ALJ denies the motion, unless the initial decision is timely appealed to the Secretary in accordance with §42.39 of this part.
(g) If the ALJ issues a revised initial decision that decision shall constitute the final decision of the Secretary and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after it is issued, unless it is timely appealed to the Secretary in accordance with §42.39 of this part.
Posted 07 August 2009 - 04:18 PM
(h) Difference of opinion (§3.105). (1) As to decisions not final prior to receipt of an application for reconsideration or to reopen, or prior to reconsideration on Department of Veterans Affairs initiative, the date from which benefits would have been payable if the former decision had been favorable.
Posted 08 August 2009 - 11:32 AM
No, this isn't what I'm looking for since this reconsideration reg requires a 20 day response time and it pertains only to initial decisions (not a decision that was on appeal).
I have read posts on hadit advising vets to submit a reconsideration to the VARO at anytime before the 1 year mark (and if they don't get a new Decision prior to the 1 year mark to get their NOD submitted) but I have not been able to find the process covered in the M21-1MR.
If you can find a citation for Reconsideration at the VARO level, I'd be interested in reviewing it. One thing I learned during my claim was you had to know the regs as well or better than the VARO because ultimately, that's the only thing you can try to hold them to. That's why I've always been uncomfortable with the Reconsideration route at the VARO leve - because I could never find the supporting process in the manual.
Thanks for your help,
TS Snave
Posted 08 August 2009 - 01:23 PM
This is what i've come up agaisnt also.
I'm finding very little on reconsideration. I did come accross it mentioned under DRO review. Other than what i've posted, theres nothing.
NOD maybe the best.
In the past, i've used reconsideration at the VARO level. But mostly NOD with RO & BVA decisions.
If it's for appeal, than NOD for BVA should work for VARO's as well. It has for me over the last decade.
Posted 08 August 2009 - 01:44 PM
Posted 08 August 2009 - 02:00 PM
Posted 08 August 2009 - 03:25 PM
Posted 10 August 2009 - 08:45 AM
Allan - Thanks for the posts. The other reason that Reconsiderations at the VARO level bothered me is that you still have to send in your appeal within the 1 year time frame and let's face it, we are talking about disability claims here so we are all walking wounded in one way or another and who knows how you will be doing right before the 1 year appeal period ends? It always made more sense to me to just get it done as an appeal up front. So far as I know, a Reconsideration doesn't go to the front of the line in front of an appeal so I don't see the overall value. However, having said that, I have read on hadit where it has been successful for some vets which is why I've tried to find it in the M21-1MR manual to see what process we can expect the VA to follow.
Posted 10 August 2009 - 12:28 PM
I filed an NOD & requested a hearing. After the hearing I won a partial award of 30% & pension.
It seems they almost deny everyone the first time, so atleast folks should send in their NOD's to rebut the denials before appealing to the BVA.
As soon as you appeal to the BVA, your claim will just get passed back to the RO level anyway. It's better to try to get the RO level to work out their error's, before it goes to the BVA.
Everyone should read their denials carefully. Most are full of errors to outright lies from what i've experienced. Some can get worked out by requesting a local hearing at the VARO.
When you've exhausted your NOD's to the VARO, than file a form 9 and appeal to the BVA if you need to.
If you have to appeal to the BVA, it's a long, long road to travel. First it gets burried in the caverns of the AMC for years, before the BVA makes a final.
Posted 10 August 2009 - 05:28 PM
As our star Lawyer Alex used to say take every bite of the apple that you can.
Even if you lose at DRO and it takes a few months its a better Statement of the Case and a map on how to win your claim. That is what is so obvious the VA not you VSO tells you how to win your claim.
Posted 10 October 2010 - 03:45 AM
When I first filed my claim it was denied right away.
I filed an NOD & requested a hearing. After the hearing I won a partial award of 30% & pension.
It seems they almost deny everyone the first time, so atleast folks should send in their NOD's to rebut the denials before appealing to the BVA.
As soon as you appeal to the BVA, your claim will just get passed back to the RO level anyway. It's better to try to get the RO level to work out their error's, before it goes to the BVA.
Everyone should read their denials carefully. Most are full of errors to outright lies from what i've experienced. Some can get worked out by requesting a local hearing at the VARO.
When you've exhausted your NOD's to the VARO, than file a form 9 and appeal to the BVA if you need to.
If you have to appeal to the BVA, it's a long, long road to travel. First it gets burried in the caverns of the AMC for years, before the BVA makes a final.
I agree, the lie and twist facts, and i am not just sayin it, I have absolute proof... how they can get away with the lies is beyond me.. they should al be fired.. and their hiring practices for the stupid morons should al be re-written..
I had to take my NOD's and clearly spell out my evidence so even a 3rd grader could read the evidence... they have al0l been consolidated into one DRO hearing request.. I will love to confront these liars in person...
I have had a DRO request in since around September 2009. But now the dro has been expanded to include one more NOD I just had denied..
My IMO is also listed along with my evidence to make sure they understand that there is an IMO (a frakkin huge IMO).
Sorry, if I ranted, but it is so outrageous and disgusting what the people get away with in the way they deny Veterans with blantant lies..
Posted 10 October 2010 - 08:51 AM
He said the correct term is "review of rating."
This is the person who negotiates with the VA for the American Legion veteran claims for all of Oregon.
Maybe that will help in researching.
Posted 10 October 2010 - 10:51 PM
Posted 11 October 2010 - 12:15 AM
Posted 11 October 2010 - 01:26 AM
You can file a NOD and have it go through normal VARO review instead of going through a DRO.
I believe after you file for Reconsideration or Notice of Disagreement, (NOD) than the process that follows is, review of previous rating.
There is a time line to file for Reconsideration or Notice of Disagreement. I would check very closely through the CFR's, USC's and M-Manuals concerning the legal filing of, "Review of Rating". If you file for the wrong thing and your time runs out to file for a NOD, you may end up SOL.
Other than the process the VA raters do after you file a written NOD, I've never heard of "Review of Rating" in the codes.
However, Reconsideration or Notice of Disagreement is there.
(b) Unless the claimant has requested review under this section with his or her Notice of Disagreement, VA will, upon receipt of the Notice of Disagreement, notify the claimant in writing of his or her right to a review under this section. To obtain such a review, the claimant must request it not later than 60 days after the date VA mails the notice. This 60-day time limit may not be extended. If the claimant fails to request review under this section not later than 60 days after the date VA mails the notice, VA will proceed with the traditional appellate process by issuing a Statement of the Case.
Edited by allan, 11 October 2010 - 01:34 AM.


text:
What Would You Do
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What Would You Do may refer to:
- What Would You Do? (game show), a Nickelodeon television series
- Primetime: What Would You Do?, an ABC News television series
- "What Would You Do?" (City High song)
- "What Would You Do" (Tha Dogg Pound song)
- "What Would You Do (If Jesus Came to Your House)", a country gospel song popularized by Red Sovine and Porter Wagoner
- "What Would You Do?", song by The Isley Brothers from Body Kiss
- "What Would You Do", a song by Mariah Carey, a reworked version of "If We" from the Glitter soundtrack album
|This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title What Would You Do.
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.


text:
The Hole in the Wall is a watering hole with live music and standard drinks. Open seven days a week, it's one of the original spots in the Junction where you can have a late weekday drink.
The bar has been in business since the area first went wet (allowing liquor licensed establishments) about ten years ago. Early this year, though, it went through a major overhaul under new owner, and established Toronto bar buff Espyros Goulas. His first objective was to rid the bar of its rough and rowdy customers, and draw in a more progressive, vibrant crowd.
The bar's space is narrow (you'll probably miss it if you're driving by) but deep, and with great acoustics. "This place is all about the live music," says Goulas.
The first and last Wednesday of each month features Blues artists often accompanied by secondary acts that have included a sitar player and a punk rock band. On the first Thursday of each month, a 16-person Bluegrass band manages to squeeze in and play.
The last Thursday is Jazz night that has included such popular musicians as Bonnie Lester and Daniel Barnes. Tuesdays are hosted by a six-person rotation of Toronto comedians. Country music on Sundays, various live bands on Saturday nights and, finally, a karaoke night each Friday that can get pretty rowdy.
On nights without scheduled entertainment, the bar can be deserted, but could be a good spot to entertain a friend or watch an evening sports event on one of three big screen TVs. The drink selection includes Rickard's, Keith's and Creemore on tap, standard liquors and a small selection of wine. With his experience, Goulas can probably mix a mean cocktail (based on the copious amounts of clamato juice behind the bar, I recommend a Caesar).
Additional Details
- Beers on Tap:
- Rickards red/white, Keiths Red/white, Creemore
- Signature Drink:
- Caesars?
- Bar Snacks:
- None
- Patio:
- Yes
- Music/Genre:
- Blues, punk rock
- Live Music:
- Yes
- Who Goes There:
- 30 something Junction locals
- Hours:
- 4 pm to 2 am daily
14 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
getting rid of the original "rough and rowdy" patrons sounds super progressive
That crowd isn't going anywhere.
I went to this bar last night with my husband on a whim, and loved it... except for the fact that I'm pretty sure they served a large group of waaaaay underage kids. We're talking, like, 16 years old here. I mean, I have no problem with underage drinking. But bars are for grown-ups. They totally ruined the vibe for everyone there. I think I'd rather have the "rough and rowdy" than the "young and mouthy." Maybe that's just me.
We were NOT rough and rowdy. We are an eclectic bunch of various backgrounds and professions. WE came together as a neighbour-hood. We liked one anothers company,and protected like family
Good luck to the new
The karaoke night sounds like fun,I've had regular jobs for 40 years but maybe it's time to hone my impression skills for singing and voices. I started when I was 4 because I could hear cartoon voices or sounds and mimick them,Show Biz is a lot like sports where it takes just one injury to wipe out your future and if you have no "Plan-B" to earn a income you can go down the toilet pretty fast. I'm a non-smoker and get migraines from them so I didn't see a future with tone-deaf drunks that also smoked and made me ill.
Tone-deaf drunks are fine because everything they hear sounds OK to them,but the burning eyes throat tickles from heavy smoking was not my calling in life. I also used the youtube and AGT videos to see some pretty bad Vegas tribute Acts that are all show to cover-up the poor impressions,I play instruments and read music to follow the beat and time intro's or endings and this is very important for when you get lost and must Ad-Lib in the gaps until you catch-up.
My Robert Goulet is better than Rich Little's version because I do the whole tune except I need lots of space,Perry Como,Willie Nelson,Dean Martin,Jim Reeves,Neil Young,Gordon Lightfoot,Berry&Robin Gibb,and others stay in check until I perfect them. I've met Rich Little and seen his shows in Hamilton,I haven't seen him play a musical instrument yet which means my Neil Diamond with a trombone and Hello Dolly with banjo a-la Louis Armstrong has a leg-up on him.
I'm about to redo Mack The Knife because the German version doesn't appear to have been translated properly since some english words don't exist in german and a generic term can cover several inferrences,plus a Opera singing coach in Toronto can help beef up my Placido Domingo and for some Show Tunes. There are lots of things I'm really bad at,I stopped doing them...but I've done impression for over 50 years but not for money of a living.
Time to slow down and get back on stage to get paid for something i did for free.
This bar has been closed since we moved to The Junction in November 2011... there's been a sign up that says it will reopen soon under new management, but I haven't seen any signs of life yet. Anyone know when it'll be up and running? This part of the city sure could use a few more bars!
Grand re-opening on Friday, Jan. 20 (apparently). Hopefully they'll be rid of the TVs. Takes away from people enjoying each other's company.
Amazing new place in the neighborhood. Good tunes and beers on tap. Super friendly owners....good vibe!
The Hole in the Wall has been revitalized and is great. Live music and lots of fun people. We have a great time every time we go. In fact, we're probably going tonight!! Is there a weekly events page anywhere for Hole in the Wall? I was just wondering who is playing tonight.
Found the page on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Hole-in-the-Wall-TO/297080207010287
The latest incarnation of this spot is worth a visit, even if you're not local. Excellent service, good atmosphere and lighting, good selection of drinks and beer on tap, limited but revolving menu of very decent food. Three minor quibbles - the prices have inched up, which is a mild shame since it became a regular spot for me. Cash only. And, while others may appreciate the live music that seems to be happening many nights, it can be a bit much for such a small space when you want to dine and talk.
Awesome place I found in the junction ! Cozy, small but unique space. Great beers on tap, and the food!!! Incredible menu for a local watering hole. Tasty and fresh! Been twice now, will be back lots!
If some one wishes to be updated with newest technologies therefore
he must be pay a quick visit this site and be up to date all the time.


text:
The following is an archive of a post made to our
'vox mailing list'
by one of its subscribers.
believe it or not, this is linux related, but the explanation is longer
than it is interesting.
if i ran microsoft word, i assume i would be able to import graphics
files into my document.
does anyone know if MS word can import png's?
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then you win. -- Gandhi, being prophetic about Linux.
Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D
vox mailing list
Hosting provided by:
Sunset Systems
Sunset Systems offers preconfigured Linux
systems, remote system administration and
custom software development.
LUGOD: Linux Users' Group of Davis
PO Box 2082, Davis, CA 95617
Contact Us
LUGOD is a 501(c)7 non-profit organization
based in Davis, California
and serving the Sacramento area.
"Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.


text:
Wilson Center Experts
Jonathan Dekel-Chen
Project Summary
archivally-driven history of the Join Agricultural Corporation of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the Jewish colonization movement to southern Ukraine and Crimea in the 1920s and 1930s. Assessment of the interaction between the Soviet regime, the Jewish settlers, the American sponsors and administrators, and the position of the United States government. Cultural life of religious Jewish shopkeepers, peddlers, and tradesmen who migrated from the Pale of Settlement to join new cooperative agricultural colonies in the Crimea. agro-joint; agriculture


text:
When I first started putting together the monthly list of the best of the Blue Jays my first thought was is there even 10 moments in April worth noting? Yes, April was tough to swallow at times, but it still had a number of memorable moments for Jays' fans to look back on.
Let's review the rules for moments of the month from last season. If it happened at a Jays game or involved a Blue Jays in any way and it happened this month, oh and if it's cool it can be included in the list. I think that covers it so let's get to it. Here we go in chronological order (sort of)…
1. Opening Day
Before April went downhill fast and everyone started jumping off the bandwagon the sky was the limit for the new-look Blue Jays on opening day.
Justin Masterson silenced the Blue Jays bats in the opener as Cleveland won 4-1. It wasn't the opener the packed house at Sky Dome was hoping for, but seeing Jose Reyes, R.A. Dickey and Melky Cabrera make their Blue Jays debut was worth it.
2. Crazy bat dude
Not all of the highlights from opening day were on the field. Cleveland second baseman Jason Kipnis lost the handle and his bat went flying into the seats. That led to this memorable and hilarious reaction from a fan.
Well played crazy bat dude. Well played.
3. April 4 – First win of the season
The Blue Jays recorded their first W of the season on April 4 in a slugfest against Cleveland by a score of 10-8. The ball was flying over the fence in the win as Toronto went deep five times. That included a pair of blasts by J.P. Arencibia, who finished the night 3-4. Jose Bautista, Edwin Encarnacion and Colby Rasmus also homered in the victory. It was also a nice night for Jose Reyes, who scored three runs and stole his first base as a Blue Jay.
Hopefully we'll see more nights like this by the Jays in the month of May.
4. Apr. 6 J.A. Happ 5-0 win & a Colby bomb
The Blue Jays 5-0 win over the Red Sox on April 6 was memorable for a few reasons. First J.A. Happ delivered the first great start of the season by a Blue Jays hurler. Happ pitched more like an ace than a No. 5 starter and blanked the Sox over 5 1-3 innings, allowing only one hit while striking out six.
The other memorable moment that night was this …
5. It's a celebration!
Before the Blue Jays tough start began to suck the life out of the month of April every home run or run scored led to some kind of unique celebration in the dugout. It seemed like every player had a few celebrations up their sleeve. Here's just a few worth another look.
6. April 21 – Comeback win over the Yankees
The Blue Jays completed a three-game series against the Yankees on April 21 and it looked like it was going to end the same way it began. With a loss.
Toronto started the game out well with a single run in the first and second innings to go up 2-0. New York scored their first run in the third and after two in the fifth and another in the sixth, New York led 4-2.
In the bottom of the sixth the Jays struck back. Adam Lind started the inning with a walk and advanced to third on a double by J.P. Arencibia. Colby Rasmus plated Lind with an RBI single and Brett Lawrie extended the rally with a two-run double. Lawrie would come around on a single by Melky Cabrera and the Jays were up 6-4.
An Arencibia two-run homer in the seventh inning put the Jays up 8-4 and that would be the final score. Nice comeback, which unfortunately we could not repeat when we faced the Yanks again a week later.
7. April 24 – Rajai Davis cuts him down
On April 24 the Blue Jays played the finale of a three-game series against the Orioles. Baltimore was going for the series sweep but thanks to a pinpoint throw by Rajai Davis that never happened.
The Jays hit four home runs in game, with Davis, Edwin Encarnacion, Jose Bautista and J.P. Arencibia all going yard. Despite the Jays power barrage the game was tied at 5-5 after nine innings.
In the bottom of the tenth Manny Machado started the inning with a single to center. After Nick Markakis fouled out to left, Adams Jones reached on an error by Bautista. With Machado now on second Chris Davis recorded the second out of the inning on a fly ball to center. J.J. Hardy then stepped in and punched a single through the left side into left field. Davis fielded it and threw a strike to Arencibia who tagged out Machado trying to score.
With the game still tied Toronto got back on top in the 11th thanks to a bases loaded walk to Maicer Izturis. Casey Janssen retired the side in order in the bottom of the inning and that was the ballgame.
8. Kawasaki time!
Three words: Munenori Kawasaki GIFS!
9. April 30 – Morrow Ks five in a row
I'll admit I have a soft spot for Brandon Morrow. He's easily my favorite pitcher on the Jays and if I could only see one game in a given week it would be a Morrow start. Some people like power hitters. I like power pitchers who have the ability to rack up the strikeouts.
Morrow's best start in April was arguably his season debut against Cleveland in which he allowed only one run and struck out eight. However, he did something on the final day of the moth against the Red Sox that I think was more memorable.
In the first inning with men on first and second Morrow faced off against "Big Papi" David Ortiz and struck him out on three pitches. His next battle against Mike Napoli went much longer as Napoli stuck around for 10 pitches before swinging and missing. In the second inning Morrow whiffed both Mike Carp and Jarod Saltalamacchia swinging. He capped off the inning by getting Will Middlebrooks looking to strikeout the side. That's five Red Sox in a row down by strikes.
10. April 30 – Edwin's bombs
The final game of April was also memorable for another reason. Edwin Encarnacion was hitting bombs. I think the home run speaks for itself.
Yes, that's the fifth deck. Edwin followed that up in the seventh inning with a two-run home run that put the Jays ahead 8-7 and allowed them to finish off the month of April on a winning note.
**Blue Jays gifs created supplied by the blue Jays gif page, the Blue Jay Hunter Tumblr and GameReax. Be sure to visit and support their sites.


text:
Seattle, WA (PRWEB) February 09, 2013
Spresso is a software application that manages project digital assets (files and folders) as a series of version backups. Spresso is designed to be extremely easy to use and intuitive (especially for occasional use). Perhaps this quote of a future Spresso user says it all:
"I am constantly trying to be organized with my work and have gotten better but still run into problems. I've definitely learned to make V1, V2, etc versions of my project to send to the client but that's not where I have issues. Its when I think everything is all approved and I make a 'Final' folder and move my 'asset' folder and all the other folders into it as well then they come back with a change, now I have a 'Final' folder within that one with Final_V1 and Final_V2 (because that makes a whole lot of sense...) Plus, assets get lost - missing links to media and graphics used in projects that I have to hunt down, or maybe I accidentally flattened a version in Photoshop and no longer have all the layers... Needless to say, the headaches are endless." Michael V.
The time to plan for version control is definitely not after making some disastrous changes to a graphics, Web site, software development, or publication project. Spresso helps manage project work as it is being updated. Spresso acts as a simple collaboration tool by packaging up all project assets (files and folders) to be shared with other Spresso users. This is especially useful when working with virtual workers, editors, reviewers, and customers.
Anyone involved with computer-based projects that needs a simple way to organize and backup their work as versions will find Spresso indispensable: photographers, graphic designers, project managers, contract administrators, Web site designers, authors, software developers, ... just about everyone!
There are three variations of Spresso planned:
Spresso licensing is unique. Spresso can be installed on all of the personal computer systems a licensed end user owns (either Mac OS X or Windows). Leading Software Maniacs recognizes that modern-day software licensing that restricts usage on no more than one or two computers is totally unfair.
Spresso is scheduled to be released in the summer of 2013. Leading Software Maniacs is looking for early adopters and those interested in helping fund the final stages of development and product launch with #Kickstarter.