text:
Criminal prosecution of drug traffickers under the continuing criminal enterprise statute in federal courts of the United States of America*
I. Legislative history of the continuing criminal enterprise statute
II. Elements of the offence
III. Frequent defence arguments in 21 U.S.C. section 848 cases
IV. Forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. section 848
Author: WILLIAM J. CORCORAN, MARTIN C. CARLSON
Pages: 77 to 94
Creation Date: 1983/01/01
Criminal prosecution of drug traffickers under the continuing criminal enterprise statute in federal courts of the United States of America*WILLIAM J. CORCORAN
Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., United Sates of America
The continuing criminal enterprise statute, 21 United States Code 848, which was enacted in 1970 to deal, inter alia, with suppression of illicit traffic in drugs, contains a mandatory minimum sentencing provision of not less than 10 years and up to life imprisonment following conviction. It also contains a provision to seek forfeiture of the profits obtained by the defendant from the criminal enterprise. When drug-trafficking organizations move their finances abroad, it becomes difficult to identify assets in order to seek forfeiture. Therefore, the successful prosecution of major drug traffickers, under this statute, requires the cooperation of the institutions concerned and of courts in other countries in order to obtain the necessary evidence. Such co-operation is facilitated by a bilateral mutual Judicial assistance treaty, when it exists.
In this article is discussed the continuing criminal enterprise statute, 21 United States Code (U. S. C.) 848, which is the most important federal criminal statute in the United States of America directed at illegal drug traffickers and their organizations. The statute was enacted in 1970 as part of a comprehensive legislative scheme to deal with drug abuse prevention and control. It is the only statute in the federal drug laws that contains a mandatory minimum sentencing provision of not less than 10 years and up to life imprisonment following conviction. A number of convicted persons are currently serving life sentences under this statute.
The continuing criminal enterprise statute also contains a provision enabling the United States to seek forfeiture of the profits obtained by the defendant from the criminal enterprise and the defendant's interest in the enterprise. As drug-trafficking organizations move their finances out of the United States to other countries - either to launder those funds and thereby hide their financial interest, or to invest the funds in assets out of the United States - it becomes increasingly difficult for prosecutors and investigators to identify assets in order to seek forfeiture as part of the criminal case. As a result, it has become necessary for prosecutors to seek the co-operation of private institutions and the courts in other countries to obtain evidence of violations of the laws of the United States.
* This paper was published in the United States in a more extensive format, with appropriate citation to legal authorities and appendix of forms, as a monograph for prosecutors of federal criminal cases. with several exceptions, the citations to legal authorities in the United States have been deleted for this publication.
In the past, prosecutors have relied on the letters rogatory process as the vehicle for requesting assistance from the courts in other countries. Because of the need to obtain evidence from abroad prior to seeking indictment, however, prosecutors prefer to utilize provisions of a bilateral mutual judicial assistance treaty when such an agreement is in force between the United States and the other country. The treaty agreement process is not only more efficient but also attentive to the evidentiary requirements of prosecution in the requesting state. Greater exchange of evidence in these investigations will enable more successful prosecutions of major drug traffickers under this statute.
I. Legislative history of the continuing criminal enterprise statute
The continuing criminal enterprise statute, 21 U.S.C. section 848, was enacted as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The statute is directed at any person who "occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management" in a drug-producing and drug-distributing enterprise, and provides for one of the most severe penalties of any federal criminal statute currently in force. Under the Act, convicted offenders must be sentenced to a minimum of 10 years' imprisonment with no possibility of parole. In addition, the court may impose a life sentence without parole and fines totalling $ US 100,000. 1 Moreover, all profits and assets that have afforded the defendant a source of influence over the illegal enterprise are subject to forfeiture.
The statute reads, in part:
" Continuing criminal enterprise (penalties' forfeitures)
" (a) (1) Any person who engages in a continuing criminal enterprise shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years and which may be up to life imprisonment, to a fine of not more than $100,000, and to the forfeiture prescribed in paragraph (2); except that if any person engages in such activity after one or more prior convictions of him under this section have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 20 years and which may be up to life imprisonment, to a fine of not more than $200,000, and to the forfeiture prescribed in paragraph (2).
1 All dollars referred to are United States dollars.
"(2) Any person who is convicted under paragraph (1) of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise shall forfeit to the United States:
"(A) The profits obtained by him in such enterprise, and
"(B) Any of his interest in, claim against, or property or contractual rights of any kind affording a source of influence over, such enterprise."
"(Suspension of sentence and probation prohibited)
"(c) In the case of any sentence imposed under this section, imposition or execution of such sentence shall not be suspended, probation shall not be granted, and section 4202 of Title 18 and the Act of 15 July 1932 (D. C. Code, sections 24-203 to 24-207, shall not apply".
As the legislative history illustrates, Congress had two purposes in mind when it adopted section 848 , which were to severely punish major traffickers of illegal drugs who conducted their activities through an organized group of individuals; and to deter prospective criminal entrepreneurs. The authors of the Act explained:
"This section ... is the only provision of the bill providing minimum mandatory sentences, and is intended to serve as a strong deterrent to those who otherwise might wish to engage in the illicit traffic, while also providing a means for keeping those found guilty of violations out of circulation."
The expansive reach of the forfeiture provision of section 848 (a) (2) demonstrates that Congress intended to prevent unindicted members of drug rings from continuing the illegal enterprise after its organizers, managers or supervisors had been convicted under the statute. Equally evident is the intent of Congress to strip illicit drug organizations of all profits and property, and thereby create an additional obstacle to such activity. In total, section 848 and its legislative history embody a clear congressional mandate to deter and eradicate major illicit distribution operations of controlled substances in the United States.
II. Elements of the offence
In determining whether a prospective defendant should be indicted for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, the facts of the investigation should be analysed carefully to determine whether the elements of the statute have been met. These elements are defined in subsection (b) of the statute:
"(Continuing criminal enterprise defined)
" (b)For purpose of subsection (a) of this section, a person is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise if:
"(l) He violates any provision of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter the punishment for which is a felony, and
"(2) Such violation is a part of a continuing series of violations of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter :
"(A) Which are undertaken by such person in concert with five or more other persons with respect to whom such person occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management, and
"(B) From which such person obtains substantial income or resources."
Generally, subsection (b)requires proof of five elements in order to sustain a 21 U.S.C. section 848 prosecution. First, the defendant's conduct must constitute a felony violation of the federal drug laws (848 (b)(l)). Secondly, that conduct must take place as part of a continuing series of violations (848 (b)(2)). Thirdly, the defendant must undertake this activity in concert with five or more persons (848 (b)(2) (A)). Fourthly, the defendant must act as the organizer, supervisor or manager of this criminal enterprise (848 (b)(2) (A)). Fifthly, the defendant must obtain substantial income or resources from this enterprise (848 (b)(2) (B)). These separate elements, and their proof, are discussed in greater detail below.
A. 21 U.S,C. section 848 (b) (1) - "the punishment for which is a felony"
Section 848 (b)(1) specifically bases proof of a continuing criminal enterprise on proof that the individual defendant has committed a felony violation of the federal drug laws.
This requirement limits those felonies that can serve as predicates to a continuing criminal enterprise prosecution. Under section 848 (b)(1) only felony violations of the subchapters I and II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act can provide the foundation for this charge. Therefore other criminal activity, even if closely related to a drug trafficking scheme, cannot be used to establish a continuing criminal enterprise.
A felony violation of federal drug laws can be established in a number of ways. The most common understanding of the term "violation" Contemplates a substantive offence under subchapters I or II or, more simply, actual commission of a felony under subchapters I or II. Acts in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise, however, need not have been committed personally by the defendant to qualify as violations of section 848 (b)(1). It is sufficient for purposes of the Act that the defendant conspired to commit a felony violation of subchapters I or II.
Moreover, once a conspiracy is charged and proven, the defendant may be held responsible for substantive acts committed by other co-conspirators in furtherance of the common criminal scheme. Under the vicarious liability rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in Pinkertonv. United States,328 U. S. 640, 646 - 47 (1946), the act of one co-conspirator in furtherance of an unlawful plan is the act of all. In Jeffersv. United States, 432 U.S. 137 (1977), the Court opened the door for application of Pinkerton to section 848 cases by interpreting the "in Concert with" language of the statute as encompassing the agreement required to prove a conspiracy.
At least one court has already acknowledged this relationship and held " Pinkertonand its progeny equally applicable to defendants charged with either conspiracy to violate the drug laws or a section 848 continuing criminal enterprise". Thus, once a section 848 defendant has been proven a member of a conspiracy, any substantive offence or act committed by his fellow conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy may be used against the defendant as a violation of "any provision of this subchapter or subchapter II ... the punishment for which is a felony" (848 (b)(1)). Furthermore, these overt acts may be proven as part of a continuing criminal enterprise prosecution even if they have not been pleaded in the indictment as separate substantive offences. Accordingly, either actual commission of a felony or conspiracy to commit a felony will serve under the Act to satisfy the requirements of section 848 (b)(1).
B. 21 U.S,C, section 848 (b)(2)-"continuing series of violations"
Subsection (b)(2) further defines the crime of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise by requiring that the violation be "part of a continuing series of violations". In defining the term "continuing" one court relied in part on a dictionary definition but looked also to United States v. Midstate Horticultural Company, 306 U.S. 161, 166 (1939), which defined a "continuing offence" as "a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy". The court construing section 848 adopted the following definition:
"To remain in existence or in effect; last; endure; ... not terminated by a single act or fact; subsisting for a definite period or intended to cover or apply to successive similar obligations or occurrences."
As for the term "series", the same court relied on a combination of dictionary definitions, common usage and State law to define "series" as "three or more related transactions". Courts in subsequent cases have adopted this definition and have required proof of three or more related violations in order to establish a "continuing series of violations" under section 848 (b)(2).
This seems, however, to be a rather limited, mechanical approach to the Act. While the phrase "continuing series of violations" undoubtedly calls for proof of repetitious criminal conduct, there is nothing in the text or legislative history of section 848 that supports the conclusion that three related violations must be proven in order to demonstrate a "series of violations". If Congress had intended to place such a limitation on the Act, it could have done so explicitly. In several other particulars Congress did very specifically define the type of conduct required to violate section 848.
Thus, neither the text nor the legislative history of section 848 supports the conclusion that a specific number of violations must be proven to demonstrate a "series of violations". While in most instances proof of this element of the offence will follow from demonstrating a series of related violations, this need not always be the case. In appropriate factual settings, it may be possible to demonstrate a series of violations without mechanical adherence to the "rule of three". Given the popularity of this rule with the courts, however, it would be prudent for a prosecutor to be prepared to prove three related violations as part of the Government's proof in any section 848 prosecution.
This langugage should not be read, however, to require proof of a massive drug trafficking operation as part of every continuing criminal enterprise prosecution. On the contrary, in some cases a single effort to import and distribute drugs may meet the requirements of section 848 (b)(2). This principle is illustrated by one case that involved a conspiracy to import and distribute a single shipment of marijuana. The entire criminal enterprise alleged in the indictment spanned only five days. Yet, despite the limited temporal scope of this operation, the court held that it could be characterized as a continuing criminal enterprise under section 848.
C.21 U.S.C. section 848 (b)(2) (A) - "in concert with five or more other persons"
The offence of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise is further defined in subsection (b)(2) (A), which states in part that the series of violations must be committed "in concert with five or more other persons". This is the only element of section 848 that has been defined by the United States Supreme Court. In Jeffersv. United States, 432 U.S. 1 37 (1977), the Court reasoned that the "in concert" language required proof of an agreement between the defendant and each of the five (or more) others identical to the kind of agreement necessary to establish a lesser included offence of section 848. This decision has had the effect of requiring proof of such agreements in all section 848 cases. As is the case with proof of a conspiracy, an agreement may be demonstrated by direct evidence or it may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
One additional point should be made with respect to this subsection of the Act. Case law clearly indicates that the defendant need not act in concert with the five or more others at the same time in order to violate section 848. As the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated in United States v. Sperling:"As the persons charged must have been acting in concert with five or more persons" (506 F.2d at 1344). Nor do these five individuals have to act in concert in the same state or district. The requirement of concerted action is not narrowly restricted in terms of time or place.
D.21 U.S.C. section 848 (b)(2) (A) - "a position of organizer, u supervisory position, or anyother position of management"
In addition to requiring that the defendant commit the violation "in concert with five or more other persons", section 848 (b)(2) (A) requires that the defendant occupy "a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management" with respect to these other persons. These additional elements have caused many to refer to section 848 as the kingpin statute, a title that is not entirely accurate. Although Congress undoubtedly was targeting the kingpins of major drug rings when it enacted the continuing criminal enterprises statute, it by no means intended to limit its reach to one kingpin per drug ring. As one court of appeals has stated: "the definition of the crime speaks in terms of 'any person', section 848 (a)(l), and of 'a person', section 848 (b) ... (T)here is no indication that (the statute) can be applied to only one dominant participant in a conspiracy".
Congress did not intend that the Government be required to prove that the defendant was the sole ringleader. Since the language of the statute is in the disjunctive form, the Government's burden is only to show that the defendant organized, supervised, or managed at least five other persons. That the defendant "organized", "supervised", or "managed", may be proven by circumstantial evidence of conduct in accordance with the everyday meaning of those words. Finally, it is not necessary that the superior-subordinate relationships existed at the same moment, or that these relationships were all of the same type.
E.21 U.S.C. section 848 (b)(2) (B) - "substantial income or resources
The final element that must be established under the continuing criminal enterprise statute is set forth in section 848 (b)(2) (B). This subsection requires that the defendant derive "substantial income or resources" from the continuing series of violations. In answering a vagueness challenge, one court noted that the phrase "substantial income" was common in tax statutes and had been held to be not unconstitutionally vague. The court went on to define "substantial" as "of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable". This general definition has afforded prosecutors great latitude in proving this element of the crime and has supported Section 848 convictions in cases involving relatively small sums of drug money.
Judicial decisions in the United States construing the phrase "income or resources" have also afforded the prosecution great latitude in establishing section 848 violations. In United States v. Jeffers532, F.2d, 1101,1116 - 17 (7th Cir. 1976), aff'd in part, vacated in part on other grounds, 432 U.S. l37, (1977), the court upheld the trial judge's instruction that substantial income "... does not necessarily mean net income ... (but) could mean gross receipts or gross income". The court explained:
"The courts have not taken the 'substantial income' requirement as setting a definite amount of profits that must be proven to obtain a conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. Nor do we think this would be a proper interpretation of the statute. The 'substantial income' requirement should be interpreted as a guide to the magnitude of the criminal enterprise. Congress did not seek to punish small-time operators under this section. It sought to punish only those who obtained 'substantial income or resources' from a continuing series of drug violations. Certainly, this can be established by substantial gross receipts or substantial gross income as in Siscaand Manfredi. Examined in this light, and keeping in mind the extreme difficulty in this conspiratorial, criminal area of finding hard evidence of net profits, the definition of income as 'gross income or gross receipts' was entirely proper."
In a subsequent court decision, a jury instruction was upheld that had emphasized cash flow rather than net income. The court reasoned that to set up a definition of substantial income or resources in terms of net income would be unreasonable. A business can be carried on even though a profit is not realized.
Proof that the section 848 defendant derived substantial income or resources from the illegal enterprise can be based on both direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence may, of course, include prior statements of the defendant or a co-conspirator indicating receipt of substantial income or resources from the enterprise. Such statements may be offered as admissions of the defendant, as statements of a co-conspirator, or through other sources, such as a court-authorized electronic surveillance. Because of difficulties inherent in obtaining such direct evidence, however, the Government must in many instances rely on circumstantial evidence.
Various forms of circumstantial evidence have been identified and used for the purpose of proving the substantial income or resources element of section 848. Federal income tax returns and return information can be used to prove this element of the offence. This data can be obtained under the section of the United States federal tax statute that provides for disclosure of such information to federal officers for non-tax-related criminal investigations. Upon application by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, an Assistant Attorney General, a United States Attorney, or any other designated federal prosecutor, a federal district court judge or magistrate may issue an ex parte order to turn over such information if it is determined "on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant" that: a specific criminal act has been committed; the tax return or return information is or may be relevant to a matter relating to the commission of the act; and the information sought cannot reasonably be obtained from other sources.
Three other kinds of circumstantial evidence can be used to prove this element of the section 848 offence. They are: evidence of the defendant's position in the drug network; the quantity of narcotics involved; and the amount of money that changed hands.
Finally, evidence that large amounts of money changed hands can be used to establish this element of the crime. In one case, the Government's chief witness testified that he saw money in amounts ranging from $ 2,500 to $ 6,000 being turned over to the defendant. The defendant argued that this testimony was based on "pure speculation", but the court held that it was both admissible and supportive of the inference that the defendant received substantial income from his illegal enterprise.
Often the proceeds from illegal drug trafficking are used immediately to purchase valuab1e real estate and items of personal property. Such transactions, however, cannot preclude a judicial determination that the defendant received Substantial income or resources from his participation in the illegal enterprise. In one case an appellate court was faced with the argument that evidence of the defendant's purchase of expensive private real estate should not have been admitted by the trial court because there was no evidence connecting these purchases to the alleged drug enterprise. In rejecting this argument the court held that the defendant's ability "to finance lavish personal expenditures without having a legitimate source of income" was sufficient proof that he derived substantial income or resources from the illegal enterprise. The court also noted that although the funds for such acquisition may have been lawfully obtained, this goes to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility.
Another common practice in the business of illicit drug trafficking is to accept drugs from a supplier on consignment under an agreement to pay the purchase price at a later date after they have been resold. In a federal prosecution in New York the defendant had accepted narcotics on Consignment but had not at that point received any money from their resale. At trial he argued that the transaction represented a consignment debt or an operational deficit and, as such, could not constitute "substantial income or resources". In rejecting this argument the court noted that "in the context of this record, it indicates a substantial anticipated profit". The court pointed to the defendant's own admission that the heroin was worth $170,000 and his acknowledgment that he had been making large purchases for redistribution on a bi-weekly basis to support the inference that this "consignment debt" actually reflected a substantial profit.
Similarly, in another case the court held that the evidence of substantial income was sufficient to sustain a conviction despite the fact that the defendant owed a consignment debt to his distributor. The court based its conclusion on three factors. First, the evidence revealed that the defendant had significant quantities of cocaine and marijuana in his possession. Secondly, the court noted that the defendant had outstanding contracts to sell large quantities of these drugs. According to the court these outstanding contracts provided the defendant with "a substantial amount of accounts receivable". Finally, the court referred to evidence that demonstrated that the defendant financed a large-scale narcotics operation and lavish personal expenditures without any legitimate source of income. According to the court "(t)his evidence, considered separately or together, is sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that (the defendant) obtained substantial income or resources from (t)his operation ..."
Taken together, these court decisions constitute a clear rejection of the "consignment debt" defence and reflect a more realistic view of the economics of drug trafficking. Moreover, the decisions appear to support the proposition that a showing of substantial anticipated income may satisfy the requirements of section 848 (b)(2) (B).
Discussion of the relationship of scienter to section 848 is found in United States v. Manfredi,488 F. 2d 588, at 602 - 03 (2d Cir. 1973). In that case, the defendant argued that the continuing criminal enterprise statute was so vague that it failed adequately to warn him of the criminal nature of his conduct. The court rejected this argument and explained:
"The conduct reached [by section 848] is only that which [the defendant] knows is wrongful and contrary to law ... Prerequisite to conviction under section 848 is the commission of a series of felonies, each involving specific intent; that [the defendant] did not suspect that his conduct was criminal and violative of law would be risible."
Thus, the court refused to impose a requirement of scienter independent of or in addition to that necessary to prove the predicate crimes.
III. Frequent defence arguments in 21 U.S.C. section 848 cases
An important part of the pre-trial preparation in any criminal prosecution consists of efforts to anticipate and, wherever possible, negate potential defence arguments. Since defences that can be raised in a criminal prosecution are limited only by the facts attending that case and the imagination of defence counsel, it is not possible for any text to identify, much less discuss, every possible defence that may be raised to a criminal charge. Accordingly, the purpose of this section is simply to identify certain frequently presented defences in section 848 prosecutions and to describe the present state of the law with respect to those defences.
A.Constitutionality of section 848- "Void for vagueness"
One frequent defence asserted in section 848 prosecutions has been to challenge the constitutionality of the Act itself. This challenge focuses on the language of the Act and argues that this language is so vague that it does not afford the defendant with sufficient notice that his conduct might violate the law. Therefore, defendants argue, the Act is unconstitutionally vague on its face.
This challenge has met with little success in the courts. While several courts have commented that the continuing criminal enterprise statute could have been drafted with greater precision, to date no court has dismissed an indictment brought under the Act on the grounds that the language of section 848 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Indeed, several courts have begun their consideration of this question with the premise that a vagueness challenge can only "be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand". This is very important premise because, in the context of a section 848 prosecution, it significantly limits the availability of this defence. The continuing criminal enterprise statute is directed against large-scale drug trafficking. Therefore, by tying a vagueness challenge to the facts of a particular case, the law forces defence counsel to argue vagueness on the basis of a specific factual record. In many section 848 prosecutions this record will contain compelling evidence of extensive criminal activity. Accordingly, it is not surprising to find that challenges to the constitutionality of the Act, as applied in individual cases, have also generally proven unsuccessful.
For example, in one federal prosecution in Los Angeles, California, the defendant, a principal in a Mexican heroin smuggling ring, challenged the constitutionality of section 848 as applied in his case. Defendant's constitutional challenge to the Act was broad-based, with the defendant contending that "the phrases 'continuing series of violations', &'undertaken ... in concert', 'organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management' and 'substantial income or resources' were too indefinite to provide the basis for his conviction".
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected those arguments and affirmed the defendant's conviction. In reaching that conclusion the Court refused to examine those phrases in the abstract. In Stead the Court insisted that section 848 must be considered as a whole and in the context of the entire Act. Adopting that perspective, the Court concluded that the language of section 848 provided the defendant with sufficient notice of the illegality of his conduct. Other courts have consistently adopted that view and held, in a variety of factual contexts, that the phrases "continuing series", "undertaken ... in concert", "organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management" and "substantial income or resources" were not unconstitutionally vague.
B.Joinderand severance
A continuing criminal enterprise is, by definition, an undertaking that involves a variety of criminal acts and several different parties (848 (b)(2) and (b)(2) (A)). Therefore it is not surprising to discover that continuing criminal enterprise prosecutions are typically multi-defendant, multi-count proceedings. Because continuing criminal enterprise prosecutions frequently involve large numbers of defendants, each of whom is charged with a variety of offences, questions regarding joinder and severance of both defendants and offences are common in these cases.
In federal court, joinder of both offences and defendants is governed by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Once offences or defendants are joined in an indictment, their severance may be obtained only by order of the court. Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs severance practice in federal criminal prosecutions, and provides that: "If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder (of offences or defendants) the court may order ... separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires". In considering a Rule 14 motion to sever, the trial court weighs the defendant's right to a fair trial against the public's interest in the efficient administration of justice. The court must determine whether joinder of offences and defendants would so prejudice the jurors that they would be unable to consider each defendant and each charge individually. Rulings made by a trial court in this area are subject to review only for an abuse of discretion and upon a showing of compelling prejudice.
In section 848 cases, questions of prejudicial joinder often arise in one of two contexts. First, in several cases, defendants not charged with any violation of the continuing criminal enterprise statute have moved to sever their trial from that of a co-defendant who is so charged. These defendants have argued that they would be prejudiced by the trial of their case as part of a larger continuing criminal enterprise prosecution.
The second situation in which prejudicial joinder has become an issue involves those cases in which an individual defendant is charged both with operating a continuing criminal enterprise and with numerous other violations of the federal drug laws. In these cases the defendant has moved for severance of the section 848 count from the other substantive offences, arguing that trial of the section 848 charge would prejudice the jury in its consideration of these other offences.
Both of these situations were present in a federal prosecution wherein the indictment brought against the individual defendants proceeded on two counts. Count I charged each of the 23 defendants with conspiracy to manufacture, distribute and possess phencyclidine (PCP) in violation of 21 U.S.C. sections 841 (a)(l) and 846. Count II charged two of the defendants with operating a continuing criminal enterprise. At trial the latter two defendants were convicted under both counts I and II of the indictment. In addition several other defendants were convicted under count I alone.
On appeal, one of the defendants who had been convicted on both counts argued that the trial court erred in refusing to sever the conspiracy count from the continuing criminal enterprise charge. He pointed out that part of the Government's proof at trial on the section 848 count consisted of evidence that he had been convicted of conspiracy to manufacture PCP in Florida. At trial, the prosecution used this prior conviction to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was part of a "continuing series of violations" (848 (b)(2)). According to the defendant, introduction of this prior conspiracy conviction as part of the continuing criminal enterprise prosecution prejudiced the jurors in their consideration of the conspiracy charge pending against him.
The Court rejected this argument. Noting that joinder of these offences was proper under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court held that severance would only be appropriate upon a substantial showing of prejudice by the defendant. In this case, the district court had determined that the joinder of these offences was not prejudicial. The Court of Appeals concurred in this finding, holding that the district court's exercise of its discretion was not unreasonable.
The Court also addressed a prejudicial joinder question raised by several co-defendants. These individuals, who had been charged under count I of the indictment, argued that the trial of their cases was prejudiced by the evidence introduced as proof of the continuing criminal enterprise. The trial court had denied motions to sever filed by these defendants, indicating that any prejudice resulting from a joint trial could be avoided by appropriate cautionary instructions to the jury.
The Court of Appeals affirmed this trial court ruling. In this case the Court indicated that the trial instructions given to the jury insulated the defendants from any undue prejudice. Given these instructions, the Court concluded that the jury could "compartmentalize" the evidence and consider each defendant separately.
With respect to the issue of joinder of defendants, these cases have ultimately turned on whether the jury can consider each defendant and each charge separately. The cases that have considered this question generally have concluded that, with cautionary instructions, jurors can separately consider each defendant and offence. Therefore these cases have refused to allow severance of defendants in a continuing criminal enterprise prosecution.
With respect to severance of offences, several courts have noted that a continuing criminal enterprise is made up of a series of substantive violations of the federal drug laws. Since proof of these lesser offences is part of the proof of a section 848 violation, these courts have indicated that joinder of the offences is not unduly prejudicial. The courts, therefore, have refused to allow severance of the related substantive offences from the continuing criminal enterprise prosecution.
Finally, if a defendant does obtain a severance of these lesser offences from the section 848 charge he may not later raise the defence of double jeopardy as a bar to the prosecution of these lesser offences. The United States Supreme Court has held that there is no violation of the double jeopardy clause when a defendant elects to have the two offences tried separately and persuades the trial court to honour his election.
C. Double jeopardy
The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". It is important at the outset to recognize that the double jeopardy clause does not serve as a restraint on the legislature. Legislatures remain free under this clause to define crimes and fix punishments. Rather, what the double jeopardy clause does is limit the discretion of courts and prosecutors.
There are two component parts to this constitutional guarantee. First, it protects a criminal defendant from successive prosecutions for the same offence. In addition, however, the double jeopardy clause prohibits the imposition of multiple punishments on a defendant for a single offence.
Much double jeopardy analysis turns on the definition of an "offence". The Fifth Amendment merely guarantees that no person shall be placed twice in jeopardy "for the same offence". It in no way prohibits successive prosecution or multiple punishment of a defendant for different offences. Moreover, statutory crimes need not be identical to constitute "the same offence" for double jeopardy purposes. Rather, under the double jeopardy clause cumulative punishment of two crimes is appropriate only when each offence requires proof of a fact that the other does not. In other words, the double jeopardy clause forbids successive prosecutions or multiple punishment when proof of one offence necessarily involves proof of all of the elements of a second offence. This rule effectively prohibits successive prosecution or multiple punishment of greater and lesser included offences.
Double jeopardy questions often arise in section 848 prosecutions. The recurrence of these questions is hardly surprising. In part they are a product of the text of the Act itself. Section 848, by its express terms, requires proof of a series of felony violations of the federal drug laws as part of the proof of a continuing criminal enterprise (848 (b)(1) and (b)(2)). Moreover, the Act requires a showing that the defendant has acted "in concert" with others (848 (b)(2) (A)). These provisions of the Act raise the question of whether conspiracy of substantive federal drug violations are lesser included offences of section 848.
The relationship between these offences, and the double jeopardy implications of this relationship, were discussed in Jeffersv. United States 432 U.S. 137 (1977). Jeffersinvolved the prosecution of a drug distribution network in Gary, Indiana. The petitioner, Garland Jeffers, was charged in two separate indictments with conspiracy to import heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. section 846 and operating a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. section 848. Prior to trial the United States moved to join these two indictments in a single proceeding. The defendants opposed this motion, arguing that joinder of these offences would be unduly prejudicial. The district court granted the defendants' request, denied the Government's motion to join, and tried these indictments separately.
Jeffers was convicted at each trial and given the maximum possible sentence for each offence. It was further ordered that these two sentences run consecutively. Thus, at the conclusion of these two trials, Jeffers faced punishment in the form of life imprisonment without parole and fines totalling $125,000.
On appeal Jeffers argued that consecutive prosecution of this section 846 conspiracy and the section 848 continuing criminal enterprise violated the prohibition against double jeopardy because conspiracy was a lesser included offence of section 848.
The opinion of the Supreme Court did not ultimately reach this question. Jeffers was deemed to have waived any double jeopardy claim he might have possessed when he elected to proceed with separate trials. It is clear, however, that at least eight members of the Supreme Court construed section 848 (b)(2) (A) as requiring proof of an agreement between the defendant and others. Construed in this way, a section 846 conspiracy is a lesser included offence of section 848. Thus, successive prosecutions of a single offence under both statutes would offend the double jeopardy clause.
D. Sentencing issues
One unique feature of the sentencing scheme established by 21 U.S.C. section 848 can be found in Subsection (c)of that Act. This subsection provides that: "in the case of any sentence imposed under this section, imposition or execution of such sentence shall not be suspended, probation shall not be granted, and section 4202 of Title 18 and the Act of 15 July, 1932 (D.C. Code, sections 24-203 to 24-207) shall not apply". This subsection of the Act has the effect of denying any defendant convicted under section 848 release from imprisonment prior to the expiration of his sentence.
This feature of the Act, which effectively denies convicted defendants any possibility of parole, has been challenged on both statutory and constitutional grounds. To date, however, no court has struck down this aspect of the sentencing scheme of section 848.
Constitutional challenges to this punitive scheme have proceeded on two distinct theories. Defendants have argued that this absolute bar on parole either violates the equal protection clause or constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The gravamen of these two constitutional challenges is essentially the same. Each of these challenges is premised on the idea that an absolute bar to parole in some way offends the United States Constitution.
Yet it is clear that there is no right to parole guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Rather, parole is entirely contingent upon either the grace of the restraining authority or some specific statutory entitlement. Accordingly, every court that has considered these constitutional claims has, quite correctly, rejected them summarily.
Recognizing the weakness of these constitutional challenges, a number of defendants have elected to contest the prohibition of parole of section 848 (c)on statutory grounds. Section 848 (c)which was enacted in 1970 as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, specifically provides that "(i)n the case of any sentence imposed under this section ... section 4202 of Title 18 ... shall not apply". At the time of the enactment of section 848 (c)18 U.S.C. section 4202 governed the eligibility of prisoners for parole. Thus, this reference in section 848 (c)had the effect of denying parole to those convicted under the continuing criminal enterprise statute. In 1976, however, section 4202 was repealed as part of a recodification of federal parole laws. The provisions of section 4202 were then recodified as part of 18 U.S.C. section 4205. The text of section 848 remained unchanged, however. Congress did not choose to repeal this provision of the continuing criminal enterprise statute when it recodified the federal parole laws. Moreover, in recodifying these parole provisions, Congress specifically indicated that "(n)othing in this chapter shall be construed to provide that any prisoner shall be eligible for release on parole if such prisoner is ineligible for such release under any other provision of law" (Section 4205 (h)). Therefore it would seem that the prohibition on parole effected by section 848 (c)remains undisturbed by the recodification of the parole laws.
IV. Forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. section 848
In enacting section 848 Congress intended to create a powerful deterrent against large-scale drug trafficking. In addition Congress adopted section 848 with an eye towards providing prosecutors with a multi-faceted tool for proceeding against drug distribution networks. Congress attempted to achieve these goals by providing section 848 with a punitive scheme directed against both the criminal enterprise and its individual participants. By arming this Act with severe penalties, including extended terms of imprisonment, heavy fines and a prohibition on parole, Congress intended to both punish and deter individuals engaged in drug trafficking. By providing the Act with a forfeiture provision, Congress took the additional step of stripping the enterprise itself of all illicit profits and property. Criminal forfeiture under section 848 (a)(2) provides the prosecutor with a new and powerful weapon to be used in combatting large-scale drug traffickers. Forfeiture denies criminal enterprises the use of many of their economic resources, reduces the profit motive behind many drug-trafficking schemes and provides the United States with additional revenue.
In the past several years, increasing emphasis has been placed on the forfeiture provisions of the Act. Asset seizures by the United States have increased dramatically from the earlier techniques to aggressive pursuit of illicit drug profits. Forfeiture investigations and prosecutions have assumed a greater sophistication. Thus, criminal forfeiture has begun to assume the significance that Congress intended it to have when section 848 was enacted.
Litigation of criminal forfeitures presents a number of legal issues not typically found in criminal prosecutions. The prosecutor must be aware of the fact that a defendant may attempt to frustrate any forfeiture by disposing of assets. To prevent this disposition of assets the prosecutor may have to seek a restraining order or performance bond. Similarly the prosecutor must tailor his proof to conform with the scope of the forfeiture provision. In this regard, questions may arise concerning the forfeitability of assets that are jointly held by the defendant and third parties.
In other instances assets held by the defendant may have been sold or otherwise transferred to third parties. The prosecutor must determine whether these assets are properly subject to forfeiture. The prosecutor must also make some determination regarding the rights of innocent third parties who have purchased these assets. Finally, the maintenance and disposition of forfeited property will often present the prosecutor with a host of questions.
The investigation and litigation of criminal forfeitures under the continuing criminal enterprise statute has been discussed at length in a United States Department of Justice publication entitled Criminal Forfeitures under the RICO and Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statutes. This publication canvasses the law in this area, highlighting a wide range of issues that frequently arise in this litigation. It also provides forms for indictments, restraining orders and special verdicts in criminal forfeiture cases. The publication, available to prosecutors in the United States is an indispensable guide for the litigation of criminal forfeitures arising out of drug-trafficking activity. Because the topic of criminal forfeiture has been thoroughly discussed in this previously issued Department of Justice publication, we will not review the issues raised by these forfeiture provisions in this article. We will instead urge those interested in criminal forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. section 848 to obtain a copy of Criminal Forfeitures under the RICO and Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statutes.


text:
Just a quick note. Seems there has been some unrest in the blogosphere over Facebook. A bit disturbing to me as well.
First off is Cory Doctorow post on How Your Creepy Ex-Co-Workers Will Kill Facebook. It touches on something I felt for awhile. Do I HAVE to friend you? Even if we are just work mutual friends? It worth the read and a good think.
Next up is Facebook's Beacon. Matt Dickman does an excellent job breaking down what Beacon is and why it matters to marketers. I had been noticing this when somehow magically Facebook posted some recipes from epicurious.com. I didn't notice it at first, but then it got kind of creepy. The Idea Shower (which I'm adding this blog to a regular reading list) does a great job explaining the situations behind Beacon and privacy issues.
Thing is, I agree with what these post share. Facebook is kind of overstepping its bounds for my taste. The ad guy in me wants data shared, really. But within good taste. On top of that, while I like Facebook, it really just doesn't do it for me. I'm glad its there, but I kind of want to keep it at arms reach. I mean, I like being able to keep up with my friends. But…I kind of like being able to disappear from the social scenes every now and then as well.3 Comments

subset: commoncrawl


text: EXECUTIVE Summary: The primary objective of the APR-ICT Service is to support the ICT operation in Company office. In additional, APR-ICT will monitor the ICT operations in other branch offices within Asia Pacific, while the local-site ICT Staff (or delegated Staff) in each APR office is response to manage their routine ICT operation as well as their local out-source service. Global-ICT acts as a competency center to provide directive and also assist the operation in other regions. For the ERP Support model, APR-ICT will act as the first line support of any trouble shooting or software change request within APR region; those requests will be escalated to 2nd line support (i.e. Global-ICT or Consultancy Company) if necessary.


text:
Browsing Tag tony todd
Old, Oldboy: THE MAN FROM EARTH Quirky Queue Film Review
By Scott David at January 30, 2013 | 11:05 pm | 0 Comment
5 / 5 stars Science fiction just wouldn't be the same without Jerome Bixby. His stories have inspired classic television and film, and his scripts are just as memorable. One of his short stories was adapted for The Twilight Zone episode "It's a Good Life." Another, which he co-authored, became the inspiration for the classic film of miniaturization Fantastic Voyage more...
Drama , Featured , Quirky Queue , Reviews , Science Fiction


text:
CSS Submit Button Rollover Css3Menu.com
Clinical Update June 2015
By Zur Institute
View a complete list of Clinical Updates.
When patients become involved in litigation, whether by their choice or not, they often request that the psychotherapist disclose the therapy records. If the request is in the form of a court order or signed patient authorization, most therapists expediently disclose the records, without giving it much thought. However, this may not be in the best interests of the patient, due to the substantial risks inherent in such disclosures - both to the patient and the therapeutic relationship.
In fact, there are significant risks associated with either decision - to disclose or to refuse. For example, disclosure could cause the patient to lose their lawsuit, and could forever destroy the therapeutic relationship. These risks are substantially greater than when records are disclosed to third parties. Because of the increased risk, the fact that informed consent is a legal and ethical requirement for healthcare providers, and because true informed consent is inherently difficult to obtain, providers should try to obtain informed consent when records are to be disclosed to the legal system.
Informed Consent & the Legal System:
Instructions for requesting accommodations for disabilities
Refund and Course Exchange Policies
Share This:
Follow Us On:
Click here to receive clinical updates by e-mail.
Online Courses - Zur Institute on YouTubeLive Workshops - Forensic & Expert Witness Services - Consultations for TherapistsPrivate Practice Handbook - HIPAA Compliance Kit - Clinical Forms - CE Board Approvals - Discussions Online Catalog - Free Articles - Boundaries & Dual Relationships - General Public Resources - Seminars For General PublicOrganizational Discounts - About Us - FAQ - Privacy, Disclaimer, Terms of Use, DMCA - ADA Policy & Grievance - CV Home - Contact Us - Site Map
ZUR INSTITUTE, Inc. Ofer Zur, Ph.D., Director
321 S. Main St. #29, Sebastopol, CA 95472 Contact Zur Institute, Inc.
© 1997-2018 Zur Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement, Disclaimer & Terms of Use. Site design/maintenance by R&D Web


text:
Well hello out there! We realize that we have been missing in action since we signed off for summer vacation way back in June. But don't worry, we are still a rogue band of six designing friends. However, we have all found ourselves consumed with other things and priorities. You know, life sometimes gets in the way! Check down below to read what we all have been up to individually.
After much deliberation of what direction to take with this blog (over wine, of course), we have decided to make posting much less formal. Rather than regularly posting three times a week about wine, food, and design, we will post when, and if, we can. As we all have our own blogs, we may also share links to relevant postings there. We promise to keep up the fun tone and stay in touch as much as possible.
Mary Anne says: "I am fortunate to be enjoying a great work/life balance. I keep up my design business on a part-time basis, with 2-3 clients on the go at any one time. The rest of the time I spend with family and friends, at the cottage, working through my travel bucket list, and enjoying this beautiful city in which we live. I have also renewed my interest in yoga and clean eating. My husband is inching towards retirement by working 4 days/week, the kids are launched and we want to be free to enjoy life while we are able."
Lisa says: "Much like Mary Anne I have found a great work/life balance. Dividing up my time working on my clients' projects, my own cottage renovations, travelling and keeping up with friends and my large extended family. I'm so fortunate and thankful to be able to do all of this and hope to keep this wonderful pace of life going for a long time."
Donna says; "Busy. That would describe life for this TBB. With a full time day job that is taking up more and more of my time, I'm dividing the rest of my time between family (including my darling little grandsons), my increasing travel portfolio and starting a new blog. ~deep breath~ With all of this activity, spending time on the design side of my life has been limited to our own home, which will have to satisfy me until other areas of my life slow down."
Maureen says: "My life has taken a huge direction change. My husband is now headquartered in the Big Apple for up to 3 years and we decided we had had enough of his commuting (for the past 20 years) so I am along for the Manhattan ride. While I'm here I plan to absorb any DESIGN in any form that NYC has to offer. I will also endeavour to use this time to expand my design /computer skills. As much as I'm looking forward to family and friends visiting us, I'm super excited for a NYC TBB reunion."
Sonya says:" I don't even have time to think about how busy I am! I've spent the last year working on several design projects, the largest being seven – yes SEVEN – Tamarack model homes in Kanata with fellow TBB Maureen. Between the design work, a contractor hubby and 3 busy kids, there is sometimes just enough time to relax with a glass of vino at the end of day … and then we start all over again!"
Nicole says:"Busy? Did someone say busy? I'm working full time making windows pretty and functional in Ottawa, specializing in Hunter Douglas blinds. On the side, I do a little colour consulting and room design as well. When I'm not measuring rooms or windows, I've got two little people in my life that still require a fair amount of hands on care. I also commit many (MANY!) hours volunteering and fundraising for my children's school. Movie nights, logowear, Spring Fling…you name it, I've done it! After that, I train for half-marathons. 10 completed so far! I cherish my TBB outings and getaways to unwind and disconnect. Come on NYC!"
Well, that about sums it all up. We are still committed to Wine, Dine and Design, just in a more informal way. Believe us, we still have lots to share with you, our wonderful followers. Thanks for listening and we will be in touch soon!


text:
Kardashian Sisters Talk Fashion and Weddings with Lucky November 2011
No wonder, the Kardashian trio always manages to attract a huge amount of attraction, be it an important event, TV program or a magazine cover. The Kardashian sisters this time land on Lucky magazine, November 2011 issue, Kim, Kourtney and Khloé each gracing their own cover. In the interview with the magazine, the sisters are talking about clothes, weddings, sisterhood, annoying little habits and handling media attention. The three sisters confess to the magazine that their strong obsession for fashion started yet in a young age. Kourtney Kardashian, 32, recalls that, "I used to play Donna Karan. I used...Read More


text:
In 2010, the Payments Council – which was succeeded by Payments UK in June 2015 - sponsored the launch of the payment industry's Sort Code Validation Accreditation Scheme (Scheme); a voluntary scheme which has arisen from industry initiatives to improve the distribution of Bank Reference Data - specifically the desire to provide assurance that the sort code information within the UK payments industry is accurate and up to date.
The Scheme is aimed at those commercial providers that offer sort code validation products on a subscription basis and / or a 'pay per use' basis to assist organisations with the management of their electronic payment processing needs.
Providers will be able to offer their customers sort code validation products that carry the Payments UK accreditation mark providing the minimum "Threshold Criteria" have been met.
The Accreditation Scheme logo:
In return, providers of accredited products will have industry approval of their products and will be listed in the table of accredited products below, which includes further information on availability, accessability and additional functionality.


text:
How did a thirty-something housewife and mother become a successful businesswoman, media darling, and veritable guru at the center of a wellness craze? KIMIKO accomplished this and more by simply learning how to walk.
There is walking, and then there is walking. While most people take it for granted, KIMIKO realized the full potential found in every step through the power of posture walking. Every long gait is a reflection of inner beauty; every muscle, from the neck down to the toes, is there to exude confidence and strength. Each new stride can build upon the next to create a rhythm and pace to life, keeping your positivity switch "on" no matter what stands in your way.
Walking Your Way to a Better Life is not just an exercise primer, though. It's also a true story about a woman who boldly strode her way out of depression. It chronicles a spiritual awakening by way of exercise that you, too, can make your own, and imparts valuable tips for keeping your chin up emotionally.


text:
Ensuring Safe, Nutritious Meat and Poultry
The meat and poultry industry exists to nourish people in America and around the world. It is our fundamental reason for being. The nutrition value and safety profile of our foods are critical to achieving our primary purpose. Ensuring people's health is also good for business because it ensures long-term customers.


text:
I received my BFA in Painting and Printmaking from VCU in Richmond, Va. in 1992 and my MIS degree from VCU in 2008. Virginia Commonwealth University is rated as the #1 Graduate School for Sculpture in the US and #2 in the country for Fine Arts in general (according to US News & World Report. You can see that report here.) I was really blessed to go there and it was a great experience. Today, I received an email from my alma mater, asking me to participate in a yearly survey they conduct regarding my experience at VCU and how it affected (or didn't affect) my career and future decisions with my work. Here is an excerpt of the email:
"SNAAP—the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project—is an innovative study of arts graduates from across the United States and Canada. Virginia Commonwealth University wants to know: Looking back, how do you feel about your arts education? What paths have you taken in your career? The information you provide will illuminate the national findings about the value of an arts education and will be used to strengthen our programs here and in many other institutions. The SNAAP survey is a rare opportunity to help shape the future of arts education and is offered only to participating institutions and their graduates."
I've taken this survey in the past as I think they send it out every year or so. At the end of the survey they actually give you an infographic of all the results of those who have taken it thus far. I have to admit that it's pretty interesting. SNAAP's report found that:
- The unemployment rate for arts alumni is less than half the unemployment rate for all Americans, and about equivalent to the unemployment rate for college graduates.
- The overwhelming majority (92%) of SNAAP respondents reported either a "good" or "excellent" experience at their alumni institution and most would "do it all over again" if given the chance.
- More than three-quarters of currently employed arts alumni are "somewhat" or "very" satisfied with their primary job.
- More than two-thirds of arts alumni remain active in the arts community by creating, exhibiting and performing.
- Arts alumni are significantly more likely than the average American to have volunteered their time or donated money to an arts organization or artist in the past year.
When I was in undergrad art school, it was back in the late 80's-early 90's so it was more difficult to network with galleries, find jobs in our field, or interact within an arts community outside of where you lived. It helped if you knew someone who could set up introductions. I learned about what was going on in the art world by reading about in Art News or Art in America. To find out about what few art jobs there were, we looked in the newspaper (remember job-hunting in the "Want Ads?") There were also good publications like Art Calendar which showcased exhibition opportunities, but I don't remember that being too prevalent until later. There were no cell phones and no computers, so we typed out our artist statements and resumes on the typewriter and snail-mailed them. (Yes, I know I'm old, but no one can document all the stupid stuff I did back then either.)
So in art school itself, they weren't really focused on teaching us about marketing your work, pricing your work, negotiating (or sales in general,) copyright laws and its application to our work, contracts, etc. You get the picture. I remember there was an Art Law class they offered for one semester to see how it would fly and they never offered it again while I was there. So much has changed over the years in most art schools. There are, of course, schools like Pratt Institute which offers programs like the Master of Professional Studies in Arts and Cultural Management program (their arts version of an MBA) or their Advanced Certificate in Museum Studies. University of New Orleans has an MA in Arts Administration program that I almost applied for, but I decided to live closer to family. As far as being one of the top art schools in the country, I'm surprised that VCU hasn't branched out in these arenas. Here is the infographic I spoke of.
One of the questions the survey asked was if my experience in art school affected my current job and I answered a hearty "Heck yes!" As a blogger and artist, I believe that just about every experience you have leads you to where you're supposed to be in Life. I use my creativity all the time in my household. I have a studio that was converted from an unfinished attic, and is a great place for painting, sewing…there's a miter saw for making frames, jewelry-making station, and so on. I learned most of those fun things in art school, and if I'm using it today then it was a good investment. It took me a long time to figure out what I wanted to be when I grew up, (especially since blogging didn't exist back then!) I spent years in the wrong professions, existing in Cubicle Farms or punching a clock because I didn't know what else to do with two degrees in Art! I am finally in a comfortable place professionally, and am grateful to my alma mater for not necessarily teaching me how to be successful… but teaching me to be a good artist and define success on my own terms.


text: Demetria Devonne "Demi" Lovato is an American actress, singer, and songwriter who made her debut as a child actress in Barney & Friends. In 2008, Lovato rose to prominence in the Disney Channel television film Camp Rock and signed a recording contract with Hollywood Records. She released her debut album, Don't Forget, that September; it debuted at #2 on the US Billboard 200 and has been certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of Amer...... more on Wikipedia


text:
Thread: RIP Joe Frazier
11/08/2011 2:57am, #1
RIP Joe Frazier
Boxing great Joe Frazier passed away Monday Nov 7th, at age 67.
Word is, as death came for him, he managed to crack two ribs, and dislocate the Grim Reaper's Jawbone.
Post your praise here. http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=110977
Last edited by bobyclumsyninja; 11/08/2011 3:42am at .


text:
|Elasto-Gel™ Cast & Splint Padding
General DescriptionFor prevention of pressure sores and skin iritation that can develop under casts and splints. Eliminates maceration, moisturizes the skin, and prevents friction.
Directions For Use1. If using under a cast, all traces of soaps, detergents, and disinfectants should be removed from the skin before applying the padding.
2. Select a cast/splint pad of appropriate size and remove from the package.
3. The pad may be cut to size and/or shape with scissors. Leave the clear plastic film on gel while cutting the padding. Holes may be cut in the pads to fit over and between fingers, toes, and other protrusions to allow for complete protection of the target area.
4. Remove clear plastic film from gel and position the pad and proceed with the application of the cast, splint, or put on the pressure garment. Alternatively, the cover roll may be used first, then gel, then apply cast.
5. If a splint needs to be stabilized then the white fabric backing may be removed. To do so, moisten the fabric (using a damp cotton swab). Slowly "peel" the cloth from the gel and apply the gel pad to the patient. Then remove the clear plastic film, put the splint in place, and secure it as needed.
6. Elasto-Gel™ Cast and Splint Pads may be layered on top of each other for additional padding.
Caution: DO NOT get the cast and splint padding wet.
Caution: If skin irritation occurs, discontinue cast and splint pad use.


text:
Rumor: PS3 With Monster Hard Drive & Dual Shock 3 To Replace 80GB
Obviously, the biggest rumor floating around is the apparent news that Sony will soon be discontinuing production of the 80GB PlayStation 3 model. Best Buy was the first retailer to post a bit of "closeout" evidence and we've also just heard from an inside source at GameStop that said the 80GB model's SKU was "deleted" in the store's inventory. But this rumor has prompted another rumor...an even bigger one, believe it or not.
According to ArsTechnica, an inside source of their own who "has been right almost every time" recently spoke about the discontinuation of the 80GB PS3 plus the fact that Sony will continue their two-SKU market approach. Yep, two PS3 models, with one of them being the 40GB model that's currently on store shelves. But what's the other version? Here's what their "mole" had to say-
"Sony is, in fact, phasing out the 80GB PS3. Sony is going to stay with the two-SKU approach though, and the prices look to stay the same. The Spiderman 3 pack-in will disappear as well once the 80GB unit is gone. In order to maintain a similar value proposition to the 80GB/Spiderman 3 bundle, I expect to see a storage increase to 120 or 160GB at the same price point, plus the new Dual-Shock 3 controller..."
Woah. So we're looking at a $499 PS3 with at least a 120GB hard drive and the Dual Shock 3 included? We've known for a while we'd eventually get the DS3 (it's already available in Japan), and we also knew Sony would be "evaluating consumer demand and market trends" to decide on new PS3 models. But this "underground info" is certainly news to us, and big news at that. Could it be true? Only time will tell...
1/28/2008 Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter


text:
St. Peter's Church
© 2005 Steve Zettler
Construction of St. Peter's began in 1758 to meet the growing size of the Anglican congregation at Christ Church. The reputation of Robert Smith, the carpenter-builder-architect1 was already such that in building the church he had "access to the best workmen in the city and . . . sought each for his own specialty." Construction was not completed until 1761, in good measure because of the difficulty of meeting its costs. The long-span roof truss at St. Peters, providing an interior free of columns, was typical of the eight churches Smith designed in Philadelphia.
Lewis's visits to Governor Thomas McKean brought him diagonally across the intersection from the church. It did not yet have its four-story tower and steeple, nor the graves of men whose names would be linked with his. Nicholas Biddle was 17 years old in 1803. Charles Willson Peale had yet to paint the portraits of the two explorers, but he had started his museum when he lived just a block south of the church. Both Biddle and Peale are interred here.
Out of view to the right of the church, along Fourth Street, stand seven Osage orange trees grown from cuttings Lewis brought back from Pierre Chouteau's garden in St. Louis.
1. Sea captain John MacPherson's house, Mount Pleasant; Franklin's mansion off Market Street; Walnut Street Prison; and the east wing of the Pennsylvania Hospital.
Funded in part by a grant from the NPS Challenge-Cost Share Program


text:
Rick Diamond/Getty Images, Lester Cohen/Getty Images
Rick Diamond/Getty Images, Lester Cohen/Getty Images
Jay-Z making a rather fashionably late appearance at Clive Davis' annual pre-Grammy gala at the Beverly Hilton hotel last night.
Jay, who was still sporting Oliver Peoples sunglasses around 9:30 p.m., arrived with his entourage in tow, which consisted of two model-looking babes as well.
So where was Beyoncé?
Despite the fact that B didn't make any fashionable appearance of sorts, don't think Jay forgot about his lady!
Clive was onstage, paying tribute to a gal in the audience with "five decades" of No. 1 hits. A girl next to Jay-Z got superexcited at hearing that, turned to him and said, "OMG...it's Beyoncé! Beyoncé is here!"
J.Z.'s crew started cracking up as B's hubby turned to her and replied:
"Five decades? Five decades? My girl ain't that old!"
Of course, the real recipient of Clive's affection was Barbra Streisand, who was being honored at last night's event.
A slightly younger, but already successful, cutie in the audience was...
Taylor Swift , looking rail-thin in a gorgeous silver sequin minidress. Appreciate that metabolism while you've got it, honey!
Swift, who was all smiles throughout the evening, graciously chatted with anyone and everyone who came up to her throughout the night (and there were many fans, trust).
One brunette who apparently just screened Valentine's Day applauded the singer (now singer slash actress) on her "surprisingly funny" performance.
But don't think Taylor's giving up the mic for more scripts. As fun as she said being a part of the movie was (and easy, since she 'fessed it was only about two days of work), she's not retiring from music anytime soon to add that "slash" to her resume.
While Taylor cruised solo, a threesome attached at the hip was...
Rihanna, Katy Perry and her fiancé, Russell Brand.
Katy and Ri-Ri rarely left each other's sides, standing up to dance together when the Black Eyed Peas performed "I Got a Feeling" (even though Josh Duhamel stayed seated) and took a few girly bathroom breaks together, too.
But don't think Russell was annoyed by any third-wheelin'.
All three stepped out to the smoking patio to talk, laugh and drink for most of the night. Looks like Katy's bestie totally approves of her new guy.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Rihanna and Katy will mix business with pleasure. When asked on the carpet if Perry would like to team up with Rihanna, the usually joking gal stayed totally mum. Is it wishful thinking to hope that's because something is already in the works?
While Katy and Russell were getting their cozy time on, Rihanna danced and mingled with the crowd...including ex-flame Drake, while her new BF, Matt Kemp was nowhere in sight.
That relaysh isn't gonna go anywhere if Kemp is too big of a baby to face a little press!
Either way, glad last night went much better for Rihanna than a year ago.
For all the Grammy action, tune in to E! today starting at 5 and watch Live From the Red Carpet!


text:
Luxury Gifts
Bespoke furniture designer Iain James invites you to view an expansive collection of furniture spanning over four centuries, from William and Mary (1694), to the Art Deco period (1910-1939). View the beauty and excellence of each piece online, including Mahogany Bookcases, Cabinets and Sideboards. Better still, we invite you to come and see the pieces in person at one of our showrooms. Iain James initially took influence from producers of traditional furniture, such as Adam, Chippendale, Hepplewhite and Sheraton.
However, recently introduced more fresh and exciting designs within their collection of Art Deco inspired furniture. In 2003 Iain James were delighted to launch the innovative Art Deco furniture range, adding yet another dimension to their collection. This enabled them to introduce exotic timbers into their pieces which were very much part of this exciting period. These include Macassar Ebony, Burr Poplar and Burr Walnut. Inspired by 18th and 19th Century designs, Iain James reproduces the ambience of this classical period through the liaising of careful design reproduction and specialist polishing and restoration skills. Pictured is an example of pieces from the Art Deco range in a Dining Room formation. Each individual piece is hand coloured and so the shades may vary. Each piece is then distressed and shaded to achieve a subtle antique effect, before the finish is gently 'built up' through the application of fine layers of polish. Iain James provide a colour matching service if required, please contact Pavilion Broadway for more information and assistance.
Completing the process is the intricate dulling of the finish, using fine wire wool, pumice powder and brush before being burnished with high quality beeswax to its final patina. These specialist polishing skills create an aged period appearance. Experienced craftsmen with an in-depth knowledge of the antique and restoration trade practice the traditional hand polished methods.
To assist in creating an antique appearance, Iain James do not 'grain fill' the timber and therefore their pieces may display occasional small open knots and minor natural flaws, adding to the unique character of each bespoke piece. All items, unless otherwise indicated, feature 'antiquing and distressing' characteristics such as fine scratches and splash marks, which are designed to aid the aged appearance further. This time-intensive finishing method is designed to enhance and accentuate the beauty of each carefully selected timber and veneer used. Iain James chooses to work with a mixture of both traditional and exotic timbers and veneers. On the right, a two door cabinet in Burr Walnut is pictured, displaying its unique character and striking natural charm. The terms 'Mahogany', 'Walnut', 'Satin' and 'Yew tree' within the Iain James collection relate to the finish, and therefore do not mean the furniture is entirely made of that material. The sizes displayed are a guideline and may occasionally vary slightly depending on the natural panels of wood used.
Pavilion Broadway trust Iain James to bring all of the successful elements together to produce stunning furniture, as well as remaining environmentally friendly. This is cemented by Iain James being a founder member of Woodland Heritage, an organisation focusing on long-term sustainment of woodlands and forests. Timber materials are also purchased suppliers that source from legal and sustainable managed forests.
There are no products matching the selection.


text:
Link Building this week (Sept. 28)
28 Sep
The paid link debate is a discussion that probably will never end. And certainly not if you keep reading stuff like Rae Hoffman's excellent post about how difficult it is for Google to determine which link is a paid one and which one isn't. Jim Boykin explains why it's unlikely that you get penalized for selling text links. Great post, I also believe that Google only tries to identify paid links and to not count them.
However, in some cases, it might better to offer something else of value in stead getting a regular paid link. Another option is using viral marketing as a link building technique.
In the category 'advanced link building', Jennifer Slegg posts great stuff about revisiting your linking strategies for a link health check. She offers some great tips which, in some cases, won't get you any new links, but might give your rankings just that little extra boost.
Michael Martinez is a regular in this advanced category. And when he writes more than one in-depth article in a week, this always results in at least one deadline missed. His Link Analysis hat trick this week even made me miss more than one…
And also:
- If you liked the post about 10 uncommon places to drop your URL, you might like post-it guerilla link marketing as well.
- Sage Lewis writes about How To Knock it Out of the Linkin Park.
- Andy Beard explains how to use links correctly.


text:
profile | register | preferences | faq | search
Posts: 1657From: Dunfermline, Fife, ScotlandRegistered: May 2004
Whilst honorees and a theme have not been selected as of yet (they meet to decide next month) they traditionally mirror the Edwards events. This will be followed by a 2 day Edwards Open House and Air Show celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the U-2.
I last attended the GOE in 2003 and it was the most memorable and history filled weekend one could possibly imagine and will most definately be making the trip to California this October and recommend others with an interest in flight test to do the same.
Regards, Derek
Posts: 1330From: Huntington BeachRegistered: Feb 2000
------------------Kind Regards
Douglas Henry
Enjoy yourself and have fun.... it is only a hobby!http://home.earthlink.net/~aztecdoug/
Posts: 3043From: London, UKRegistered: Feb 2002
"Johnny Foreigner" can get into the Open House and airshow without the need for a body cavity search. You get waived into the base and follow the line to the carpark (lakebed) and then queue and go through security checks before actually getting to the Open House itself. If you attended the GOE on the Friday you could always get into the museum on the Thursday before the GOE or on the day of the GOE itself... bound to be a bunch of us heading out there for a look around and to drop a wad at the museum shop.
Posts: From: Registered:
Doug - the 50th of the U-2 is not the Blackbird or RoadRunners group - this is AT Edwards. An event sponsored by EAFB. The FTHF is thinking they will mirror that and have asked me to help contact some potential "Eagles".
See you all there!
1 ticket for Sims/Hankow event1 for Edwards1 for Reno Air Races1 for SETP
..any more I should attend? <LOL>
All times are CT (US)
Copyright 1999-2012 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a


text:
On 06/11/2012 23:44, Eduardo Tabacman wrote: > David, > > are these changes in the version of the dtd for download: > > http://www.w3.org/Math/DTD/mathml3/mathml3.dtd > > ? yes, unless I messed up the commit, and in the zip of all the dtd files. It should now say <!ATTLIST %mspace.qname; %CommonAtt; %CommonPresAtt; %TokenAtt; width %length; #IMPLIED height %length; #IMPLIED depth %length; #IMPLIED linebreak (auto|newline|nobreak|goodbreak|badbreak |indentingnewline) #IMPLIED indentalign (left|center|right|auto|id) #IMPLIED indentshift %length; #IMPLIED indenttarget CDATA #IMPLIED indentalignfirst (left|center|right|auto|id|indentalign) #IMPLIED indentshiftfirst CDATA #IMPLIED indentalignlast (left|center|right|auto|id|indentalign) #IMPLIED indentshiftlast CDATA #IMPLIED> > > (I don't see any revision history in the file, btw.) The dtd and XSD versions are never really revised they are simply regenerated from the Relax NG which makes maintaining a separate log of dtd changes a bit hard. I just noticed that the boiler plate dtd comments derived ultimately from the mathml1 and 2 DTD still says there is a revision log at the end which isn't true, I should fix that. > > Thanks, > > eduardo The last few entries in the cvs log for mathml3.dtd are revision 1.13 date: 2012/10/28 23:08:01; author: dcarlis; state: Exp; lines: +8 -1 indentation attributes on mspace ---------------------------- revision 1.12 date: 2012/08/09 12:29:35; author: dcarlis; state: Exp; lines: +20 -20 missing //XML firstname.lastname@example.com ---------------------------- revision 1.11 date: 2012/07/06 12:12:29; author: dcarlis; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1 update in line with errata and changes in entities draft distribution David >Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 23:58:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:45 UTC


text:
The National Indie Excellence® Awards has just named Strong Suspicions a Finalist in the Westerns category of their 2016 indie and small press authors competition. Publishers Weekly lists the National Indie Excellence® Awards as one of the top book awards for self-published authors, stating, "Competition is fierce."
As you would naturally expect, to place or win in a contest such as the National Indie Excellence® Awards, a novel needs to present a compelling story. But it has to do much, much more than just that. Books that are not well edited or polished are eliminated pretty quickly.
"Now I would say that 95% of the books that come in look basically the same as the books you might see coming from a major publisher," says Tara Johnson, who manages the self-pub awards program at Writer's Digest.
Strong Suspicions is the second Emmett Strong novel to receive National Indie Excellence® Awards honors. Last year, Strong Convictions was the contest's Westerns category winner.
Both Emmett Strong novels have been gaining excellent reader following. Currently, both titles are ranked among the top 12 classic-style Westerns in Amazon.com's Kindle store. And readers have been regularly giving 4- and 5-star ratings and reviews for both books.
Many thanks to each of you who has already read Strong Convictions or Strong Suspicions and expressed your enjoyment of the reading experience. If you haven't yet read either story, why not grab a copy today and "saddle up" for an entertaining Western adventure?


text:
The following article was written by my good friend, William Dollarhide. Enjoy…
Dollarhide's Genealogy Rule No. 9: An 1850 census record showing all twelve children in a family proves only that your ancestors did not have access to birth control.
The National Archives' Guide to Genealogical Research in the National Archives (Washington: NARA, 1982), p.21, states: "The (1790) schedules for Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia were burned during the War of 1812."
That statement is not correct.
First of all, there was no federal census taken in Tennessee in 1790, which did not become a state until 1796. Tennessee was formed from the old Southwest Territory, which, along with the Northwest Territory, was specifically left out of the federal census taken in 1790. (See note 8 below). As to the others, when the British Army burned Washington in 1814, there were no original census schedules from the states located there. All of the original manuscripts were still located in the offices of the clerks of the federal district courts for each of the various states. There were no copies made, and none of the original censuses were ever sent to Washington until after an 1830 law required that they be transferred to the office of the Secretary of State. As a result, the only census schedules whose destruction could be blamed on the British Army was the 1810 census schedules for the District of Columbia, whose District/Supreme Court was located in Washington, DC.
If Not the British, Who Gets the Blame?
All of the early census losses, particularly those from 1790 through 1820, were a result of mishandling or neglect by the clerks of the federal district courts. Since the first census law (an act passed by Congress on 1 March 1790, published in United States Statutes at Large, Volume 2, page 564), the U.S. marshals were responsible for taking the census. In 1790, there was one U.S. marshal for each state/district, plus Kentucky (a district of Virginia) and Maine (a district of Massachusetts). The marshals appointed assistants to take the door-to-door enumeration in divisions to consist, as the 1790 act put it, ". . . of one or more counties, cities, towns, townships, hundreds, or water courses, mountains, or public roads."
The 1790 census act gave enumerators nine months from the census day (the first Monday in August 1790) to enumerate the people, to post copies of the statistics "at two of the most public places" in the divisions, and to send the name lists to the marshal. The marshal then had four months to send "the aggregate amount" of each census to the president, having deposited the actual name lists with the clerk of the federal district court. Although the law was clear that the clerks were directed to "receive and carefully preserve the same," some of the clerks obviously failed in their duties, particular those clerks in 1790 for the states/districts of Georgia, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Virginia. In 1800, blame the clerks for the territories/districts of Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, and Missouri. In 1810, blame the clerks for the Michigan, and Ohio, and possibly the District of Columbia (along with the British); and in 1820, blame the clerks for Alabama and Arkansas.
In an act of 28 May 1830 (U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 4, p. 430) the clerks of the district courts were ordered to transfer to Washington all of the original census name lists in their care (those of the 1790 through 1820 censuses). The census losses, 1790-1820, are the only statewide census losses, except the 1890 census, lost resulting from a fire in 1921. There were missing counties, missing towns, missing E.D.s for censuses after 1820, but there were no other state-wide losses. The reason for the early census losses lies in the way the original censuses were treated by the clerks of the federal district courts. The British Army had nothing to do with it.
Now, if an official publication of the keeper of the original census manuscripts (the National Archives) dispenses incorrect information about the losses of the earliest censuses, the possible result is that people tend to believe them, and then the misinformation is repeated by other agencies. For example, at the website for the Georgia State Archives (ADAH), the devastating loss of Georgia's 1790, 1800, and 1810 federal censuses was explained as "probably lost when the British burned Washington in 1814." If Georgia genealogists were to do a little research in the federal district courts of Georgia, they might learn that the 1790 census schedules were first deposited at the office of the clerk of the district court within Georgia's first U.S. District Court House, still located in Savannah, Georgia. There may have been multiple court buildings there since 1790. But the question arises: has anyone ever gone down to the second basement or third attic in the present court building looking for boxes of paper, bound volumes, loose manuscripts or any other evidence of lost census schedules? Probably not – after all, if the British burned them in 1814, why look?
A repeat of the district court house search exercise should be done in any state with one or more lost census years, 1790-1820. (They are listed in the table below). A place to start is any Historical Records Survey documents that included the federal district courthouses for those states – these were the WPA projects done in the late 1930s and early 1940s to conduct inventories of historical documents found in county, state, or federal court houses. Projects were done in all states, but few of the projects ever reached publication, and the work ended with the onset of World War II. Many of the field notes and unpublished inventories ended up in the National Archives.
Statewide Census Losses, 1790-1820
The table below shows the extent of statewide census losses for the 1790 through 1820 censuses.
A dash (—) in a column means a census was not taken for that state in that year. "Lost" means the census returns for that state were not sent to Washington after an 1830 law required their return, and were probably lost prior to 1830. "Extant" means the manuscripts of the census returns survive and microfilm/electronic copies of them are available.
(1) Three counties are missing from the 1820 Georgia schedules.
(2) Of Illinois Territory's two counties in 1810, Randolph is extant and St. Clair is lost.
(3) Missing from the Indiana 1820 schedules is Daviess County.
(4) Three counties are missing from the Maryland 1790 schedules.
(5) Missing from the 1790 New Hampshire schedules are thirteen towns in Rockingham County and eleven towns in Strafford County.
(6) Missing from the North Carolina schedules are three counties in 1790, four counties in 1810, and six counties in 1820.
(7) In 1800, about a fourth of the population of the Northwest Territory was in Washington County, whose original census name list was discovered among the papers of the New Ohio Company in Marietta, Ohio. All other counties were lost.
(8) In a 1790 letter to Southwest Territory's Governor William Blount, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson asked the Governor if he could have all county sheriffs take a census there, even though the first census law did not include territories, and Jefferson could provide no money for the effort. Governor Blount complied, but with a tally of the inhabitants only. Six years later, the Southwest Territory became the state of Tennessee.
(9) In 1820, two federal court districts were in place in Tennessee, one with an U.S. Courthouse in Nashville, the other in Knoxville. The original censuses returned to Washington according to the 1830 law were from the Nashville district only, representing the western two-thirds of the state. The twenty eastern counties enumerated within the 1820 Federal Court District out of Knoxville were not received in Washington and are presumed lost.
(10) The Census Bureau's printed "Heads of Families" index to the 1790 census includes Virginia. However, these names were extracted and compiled from county tax lists of Virginia 1787-1789. Virginia's original census schedules for 1790 were lost.
(11) An earlier version of this table was published in The Census Book: A Genealogist's Guide to Federal Census Facts, Schedules, and Indexes, by William Dollarhide.


text:
We are excited to announce that Minto got a hat trick at the DRHBA Awards last night, winning all 3 of the Outstanding Achievement Awards! Each year, the Durham Region Home Builders Association (DRHBA) holds the Awards of Excellence Gala to celebrate and honour creative achievement in architectural design, outstanding construction and customer service.
At the Awards Presentation Gala last night, Minto took home 3 prestigious awards: Community of the Year – Kingmeadow, Green Builder of the Year, and Builder of the Year – Large Volume. We are so happy with this recognition! Thank you to our entire Minto team, our purchasers, and our trades for making this possible.
Founded in 1953, the Durham Region Home Builders' Association represents approximately 160 member companies in Durham, comprised of builder, developer, supplier, contractor and professional members representing more than 4,500 employees.
Special thanks to the DRHBA team for the exceptional honour, and for hosting such a memorable event last night!
Check us out at mintokingmeadow.com to find out more about our Kingmeadow project in North Oshawa!


text:
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Reading mode: Light Dark
Forum indexPentax SLR TalkChange forum
Thumb Up Grip
Started Jul 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
brandrx • Forum Pro • Posts: 28,337
Thumb Up Grip
Jul 11, 2014
Hi folks,
I want to see how one of these Thumb Up Grips work for the Pentax K-01. I will also try it on my Pentax Q.
This is the one I ordered: Thumb Up Grip - Buy one get one free.
-- hide signature --
Ron - 'We don't have time to go take pics this afternoon Carl.'
Carl - 'What do you mean? It will only take 1/1000s.'
'Keep your eyes looking forward. However, glance back now and then to see where you've come from. It will put a smile on your face.' ~ brandrx
Pentax K-01
Reply to thread Reply with quote Complain
|Post (hide subjects)
|Posted by
|Jul 11, 2014
|Jul 11, 2014
|Jul 11, 2014
|Jul 11, 2014
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow
Latest reviews
Finished challenges
|Demolition by Dutch Newchurch
from Your City - Demolition
|Antz by Deadfisheye
from Animated Film Title
|Beautiful Kyoto's girl in Kimono by Fuji san
from Miss Japan
|All pink by Minas_Eye
from Pink
|Jaguar Hood Ornament by edandgini
from J is for ...
Most popular cameras
Top threads in this forum
Most bookmarked in this forum
Top posters in this forum


text:
ALLEGANY, N.Y. (WIVB) – Deputies say a man caught stealing from the Walmart in Allegany had drugs on him as well as the stolen goods when they arrested him and his alleged accomplice in the parking lot.
The Cattaraugus County Sheriff's Office was called to the store after loss prevention officers saw the pair stealing items Thursday night. Deputies arrived at the scene and placed 27-year-old Anthony Vavrecan and 23-year-old Jessica Shoup, both of Hinsdale, under arrest out in the parking lot.
Both are charged with petit larceny. Authorities say Vavrecan had needles and a controlled substance in his possession, and he tried to hide evidence in his clothing. He was additionally charged with criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument, seventh degree criminal possession of a controlled substance and tampering with physical evidence.
Vavrecan and Shoup were taken to the Cattaraugus County Jail on bail.


text:
Customer Feedback
Tom Moore – CEO SVMI
Pearl Predict provided a unique picture of a very complex business challenge that enabled a clear decision by my BOD.
Troy Barring – BOD SVMI
Pearl Predict provided a clear, simple, picture of a decision the Board was struggling with that we could not get any other way – clear, efficient, accurate!
Frank Kohoutek – SVP Operations, Crossings Automation
I can not imagine not having a tool like Pearl Predict when faced with complex business challenges and many teams driving outcomes. It is all about exceeding goals and with Pearl Predict this makes the challenge much simpler.
Steve Cadigan – VP Linked in
I realized we could be looking at the next generation of tools that become the game changer for those who have responsibility for future growth in the business.


text:
Last month, Frisker Automotive Inc., which has the world's eyes on it for its highly anticipated 'Karma' a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) had announced that it had secured an investment of $1 billion to initiate the production of Karma. Now, California based Fisker has stated that it has furthered grabbed another $100 million in a Series C funding round that the company intends to channel for the production of its luxury sedan, as well as an all new electric car. The Karma is essentially a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle that falls in the same category of the immensely popular, Chevrolet Volt. The Karma is powered by a 20 kilowatt lithium-ion battery that has been designed to bring extended range to vehicle, thereby making it more fuel efficient. Fisker Automotive is largely an investor driven firm, with some of the prominent ones being Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, New Enterprise Associates, A123 Systems Inc., Palo Alto Investors, Qatar Investment Authority and Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide.
As per auto-switch system, the conventional gasoline engine in the Karma immediately takes over after the car has run about 50 miles on electric power and this gorgeous sedan can sprint from 0 to 60 mph in just six seconds, attaining a top speed of 125mph when driven in sports mode. One of the most astounding features of the soon to arrive luxury hybrid electric is its roof mounted solar panel that is capable of generating half-kilowatt-hour of energy everyday thus charging the battery and extending the range of the sedan an incredible 300 miles, before it requires refueling. The Karma when launched will be carrying a price tag of $96,000 for a basic model and the top end model of the Karma will set you back about $109,000.
Via Venture Beat & Wall Street Journal