text:
Balkinization   |
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Early Reaction to Boumediene.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Early Reaction to Boumediene. Marty Lederman
The Court held 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the petitioners at GTMO have a constitutional right to petition for habeas corpus and that the DTA/MCA process of D.C. Circuit review from CSRT decisions is not an adequate alternative to habeas. On the latter ruling, as I predicted, the mess of the Bismullah case might have been the straw that broke the camel's back: "The order denying rehearing [in Bismullah] was accompanied by five separate statements from members of the court, which offer differing views as to scope of the judicial review Congress intended these detainees to have. Under the circumstances we believe the costs of further delay substantially outweigh any benefits of remanding to the Court of Appeals to consider the issue it did not address in these cases."
Congratulations. I just heard the news 5 minutes ago. It looks like the majority didn't care for the endrun around Hamdan the Congress had crafted in the MCA. Kennedy came through!
And since Senator Lindsey Graham was instrumental in crafting both the DTA and MCA, I'm guessing his professional standing as a attorney ain't much to write home about no more.
many memorable passages:
"To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on and off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say "what the law is."
"Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers ... Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person."
It was clear at oral argument that Kennedy did not think the DTA scheme for review of CSRT decisions was an adequate substitute for habeas. Boumedienne is the poster child for how delicately the Court is now balanced, and the disastrous consequences to the doctrine of separation-of-powers that await us if a President McCain makes good on his promise to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito.
Wow! What a breathtaking rewrite of the writ and the Constitution.
Kennedy makes a completely disingenuous and self serving claim that the precedent in this area is indeterminate, a claim which Scalia eviscerates in his scathing dissent. However, Souter does not even have the good taste to hide behind Kennedy's pathetically small fig leaf of indeterminacy. Instead, Souter openly concedes Scalia's observation that the Court has extended habeas corpus jurisdiction to foreign POWs for the first time in Anglo American history. In response, Souter offers the equivalent of the retort "tough sh_t!" After all, Souter observes, the Court in rewriting the habeas statute in Rasul made it plain that they would rewrite the Constitution the next time around. The only amusing observation I can take away from this appalling outlaw decision is that the same folks who criticize the Executive for ignoring the Congress when it exercises unenumerated powers are celebrating the Court for the second time ignoring Congress exercising its enumerated powers.
-- And since Senator Lindsey Graham was instrumental in crafting both the DTA and MCA --
. I think both bills were crafted outside of Congress. Senator Graham was mostly advocating the position he was given, and not crafting his own position. . I think this decision would have come out the other way, but for the stories in oral argument about the nature (adequacy/inadequacy) of the CSRT proceedings. That nature is also a huge factor in the pending DC Circuit cases (Bismullah), and SCOTUS decided to address it now, rather than remand or wait for the DC Circuit to reach a conclusion.
What is striking is how poor the Chief Justice's reasoning seems to be: that the barring of habeas is acceptable given that detainee rights/protections are stronger than they have been in the past. This relativity argument includes no substantive grounds for what is allowable and what isn't, (read: that since detainees had absolutely no process for years, now that they have some it must be ok).
This is especially striking in light of the fact that Kennedy is saying it remains a valid question whether "enemy combatant" is a legitimate category in the first place. My questions are two: What might this decision imply about potential federal court appeals from final commission decisions? What happens if they send just these detainees back to Bagram or foreign locales?
-- the barring of habeas is acceptable given that detainee rights/protections are stronger than they have been in the past. --
. I too see that as a sound-bite argument. In order to reach a defensible opinion on "protection of rights," one has to see the rules AS APPLIED. The CSRTs involved in these cases have been too opaque and appear slanted. Maybe they aren't, but without the right see the details (even in camera), no credible court is going to bless the process or outcome.
This ruling helps the detainees, but won't stop KSM et al. from getting convicted in time for the election.
They split off Al Qahtani because he had a good relationship with his lawyers. They let 3 dismiss their lawyers last week. They let KSM intimidate the detainees whose lawyers spoke at last week's tribunal. These guys are ready for martyrdom. The Show Trials will go on, and we will have at least 3 convictions on September 15 or 16th.
"I think both bills were crafted outside of Congress. Senator Graham was mostly advocating the position he was given, and not crafting his own position."
You are far too kind my friend, but then, that's what I like about you.
The key passage is in Souter's concurrence. These guys have been locked up for 6 years, he says, so don't give us any BS about emergency war powers and expeditious Defense Department review.
I would suggest this is probably more than anything what the Bart DePalmas of the world miss. Yes, there are some precedents for indefinite detention of POW's (though there are also some contrary precedents). But they were decided in very different contexts. Here you have a war against an undefined enemy with the administration claiming that the entire world is a battlefield. The Court is saying that whatever military powers were conferred on the political branches, the Constitution wasn't meant to authorize THAT sort of indefinite detention. In the trees, I can understand conservative objections to this decision. But the majority sees the forest.
"Souter offers the equivalent of the retort "tough sh_t!"
I haven't read the opinion yet, but given Bart's track record, I'd have to presume his "contribution" here is bogus. Still, if it were true, it'd be a kind of poetic justice, given Scalia's recent exhortation (in re Bush v. Gore) to "get over it."
Kennedy for the Court:
It is true that before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases before us lack any precise historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by executive order for the duration of a conflict that, if measured from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history. See Oxford Companion to American Military History 849 (1999). To call this claim breathtakingly disingenuous may be generous. There is NOTHING new about this situation. During the entire Anglo American history of the Writ, the English and American armies have taken prisoners of war from regular and irregular militaries and this is the first time over those hundreds of years in which a civilian court has arrogated the power to determine the status of foreign POWs. The length of the war does not grant the Court this executive power.
The other comment I would make is that Scalia-- vaunted, "principled", Scalia-- basically endorses the most extreme right wing (and completely false) summation of the war on terror before even reaching any legal issues in his dissent. He's fairly announcing to the world that "I am deciding this case based on my personal predilections rather than the law". And his statement that the Court's decision will get people killed is absurd-- especially since he joined Roberts' decision which says that the Court's decision won't afford the detainees any new rights in the end.
This guy, the hero to conservatives, is rapidly lurching towards the "worst Supreme Court Justice in history" competition in his old age.
What indefinite detention? As al Qaeda has been defeated, most of the Gitmo prisoners have been released. The implication that the writ is somehow triggered for foreign POWs based on the length of a war is completely novel and was not incorporated into the Constitution with the Suspension Clause. If the Court thought that it would be wise policy to amend and extend the writ to cover POWs in a long war, then it should have recommended that Congress amend the habeas corpus statute to extend the writ. Instead, this arrogant Court amended the Constitution again. Finally, Scalia did not go far enough with his observation that this decision could get people killed. When presented with the option of taking an enemy prisoner that the courts may release to shoot at me again or simply killing the enemy, which option do you think the average grunt will favor? This is BAD policy.
You really think that troops will begin summarily executing people on the basis of this ruling? You think that analysis is going to occur for the "average grunt"? I find it interesting that you, as a lawyer, believe that a review of the situation would not yield the appropriate result--i.e. that the gov't would not be able to prove a person is a terrorist or taking up arms against the US. Because in your hysteria, that is exactly the implication.
-- There is NOTHING new about this situation. --
. Except to some, it's a "new kind of war, with a new kind of enemy." And the newness of it all justifies a new DTA and MCA. . Nope, nothing "new" at all. . I see in Scalia's dissent, that the President relied on the legal opinion of Yoo for the proposition that GTMO is out of judicial reach, based on a reading of Eisentrager. I haven't read the dissent to see how Scalia differs with the majority's differentiation of Eisentrager with GTMO. I hope he expressed more than "appeal to authority."
Marty and Community -
thank you for this. and quit wasting keystrokes on Bart - my god, his 'blog' makes the claim last week's SSCI II report - proves Bush didn't lie - his proof: citing the WaPo's editorial board. um, yeah. leave him be to his game of Rainbow Six
If you minimize de jure distinctions and ignore the Court's opinion on the great difference in the practicality of applying habeas at GTMO versus the claimed historical parallels, then there is NOTHING new about this situation.
Fixed it for you, Bart.
If you minimize de jure distinctions and ignore the Court's opinion on the great difference in the practicality of applying habeas at GTMO versus the claimed historical parallels, then there is NOTHING new about this situation.
And if "practicality" had anything to do with the price of tea in China, that "fix" might be relevant. Eisentrager did not turn on the claim that it was "impractical" to grant constitutional rights to enemy aliens in foreign countries, but on the grounds that it's loony to think that habeas applies in such situations.
"The order denying rehearing [in Bismullah] was accompanied by five separate statements from members of the court, which offer differing views as to scope of the judicial review Congress intended these detainees to have." Therefore, without SCOTUS answering any of these questions itself, the case is remanded directly to several dozen DC Circuit judges who have already issued far more than five different positions on these difficult issues. This guarantees that no two cases will arrive at the same conclusion about the fundamental legal questions, and brings the case back to the high court in another two years.
"The test for determining the scope of [the Suspension Clause] must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain." In other words, because the Government chose to detain these prisoners at GTMO for the very purpose of avoiding a judicial check on the legality of the detentions, the Court will ensure that the constitutional guarantee extends to the naval base.
Does this mean The Insular Cases are no longer good law?
"Instead, Souter openly concedes Scalia's observation that the Court has extended habeas corpus jurisdiction to foreign POWs for the first time in Anglo American history."
Um, the same administration that put these people in Gitmo to avoid judicial review also made very clear they were not POWs to avoid the Geneva Conventions.
Re: "a claim which Scalia eviscerates in his scathing dissent."
The only thing Scalia eviscerates are the meager scraps that remain of his reputation as an intellectually honest jurist. Scalia LIES THROUGH HIS TEETH when he writes at p. 23 of his dissent: "all available historical evidence points to the conclusion that the writ would not have been available at common law for aliens captured and held outside the sovereign territory of the Crown. Despite three opening briefs, three reply briefs, and support from a legion of amici, petitioners have failed to identify a single case in the history of Anglo-American law that supports their claim to jurisdiction." This is an audacious and FLAT-OUT UNTRUTH and directly contradicted by Kennedy J.'s review of the amicus materials. Namely, amicus cited the case of 18th Century India to show that the great writ was indeed available in a territory that was under de facto English control, yet formally under the sovereignty of a foreign power. The ONLY basis that the majority found for distinguishing the cases was that in India, the writ was heard by an English court sitting in Calcutta. (This is not really a consequential distinction when one considers some of these cases involved the court at Calcutta entertaining the writ brought on behalf of foreign persons held by British officials in India even outside of the territory of English control.) Scalia's dissent, needless to say, does not bother to mention these amicus submissions, or the majority's consideration of them. Given that an advocate before the federal courts who submitted an argument in this manner would be potentially subject to sanction for unprofessional/unethical conduct, I find Scalia's opinion shameful--although not surprising, given that Scalia has long-ago abandoned any pretense of possessing a temperament appropriate to the judiciary, nevermind the highest court in the nation.
On a previous thread, I expressed doubt as to how the Court would deal with this matter. I am naturally pleased that a bare majority of the Court has come to the traditional common law position of holding that the common law writ must be available to anyone detained by executive fiat so as to enable the Court to enquire into the legality of detention.
Secondly, the Court was, I think, extraordinarily careful not to determine the status of detainees, precisely because I think the majority has difficulty with Bart's generalisation that all are "prisoners of war" in Bush's nebulous "global war on terror" which is a legal novelty. Naturally, Neocon Bart is outraged and I imagine many other "loathsome spotted reptiles will be too. But the Neocons only have themselves to blame. That's what comes from taking a view of presidential power which transcends even that claimed by King George III at the time of the US break with the Crown. In a very real sense, the Bush Administration and above all, the Neocon lawyers advising him, brought this mess upon themselves – (i) by seeking to create a 'legal black hole' where the detainees would be immune from legal process for ever and (ii) by crafting 'made to measure' military kangaroo courts - which the majority plainly did not like. If the Administration had used better lawyers, especially during the period when they had a firm majority in both houses of Congress which they do not now have, a system could have been crafted which might have avoided the majority reaching the conclusion it did. It is interesting to note from the discussion of the WW2 military tribunal cases that, if the Administration had availed itself of the Chapter VII authority that was on offer by the UNSC for intervention in Afghanistan, language could have been written into the Chapter VII resolution to create a detention process and a proper tribunals for the emergency in Afghanistan and, I believe, the Court would have been only too happy to limit the enquiry on habeas to whether a prisoner was lawfully detained under such process and if so, deny relief on the merits. Three muted cheers for the majority – habeas relief should be swift and as the majority duly noted - some detainees have been detained for 6 years already.
Prof. Lederman:
What about a new detention statute, not for those detainees to be tried for violations of the laws of war, but for the vast majority of detainees being held indefinitely as "enemy combatants"? Well, [because] the Court holds that such detainees are entitled to habeas, and that the D.C. Circuit scheme is not an adequate substitute, then any new replacement regime Congress might legislate would have to effectively recapitulate the protections of habeas -- and why should Congress bother with that, once habeas proceedings have commenced?" Why indeed? To stall and buy time, of course! They don't want things to fall apart completely in the days before the election (and that's the event horizon for the Republicans right now). That's been their MO since day one, and they'll drag it out with new wrinkles, all the while thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court and all that believe in due process of law. They've done it twice so far; why stop when they're so near the finish line? I'd note that the stonewalling on investigations and claims of "state secrets" and "executive privilege" have all been of the same ilk.... Cheers,
Eisentrager did not turn on the claim that it was "impractical" to grant constitutional rights to enemy aliens in foreign countries, but on the grounds that it's loony to think that habeas applies in such situations.
Actually, Eisentrager did turn in part on practical concerns and on the Court's judgment as to whether and to what extent jurisdiction would "hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy." Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) at 779. In Boumediene, Kennedy clearly distinguishes the facts from those in Eisentrager, and does so on essentially the same grounds as he did previously in his concurrence with the Court's decision in Rasul: First, Guantanamo Bay is in every practical respect a United States territory, and it is one far removed from any hostilities. The opinion of the Court well explains the history of its possession by the United States. In a formal sense, the United States leases the Bay; the 1903 lease agreement states that Cuba retains "ultimate sovereignty" over it. Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval Stations, Feb. 23, 1903, U.S.-Cuba, Art. III, T. S. No. 418. At the same time, this lease is no ordinary lease. Its term is indefinite and at the discretion of the United States. What matters is the unchallenged and indefinite control that the United States has long exercised over Guantanamo Bay. From a practical perspective, the indefinite lease of Guantanamo Bay has produced a place that belongs to the United States, extending the "implied protection" of the United States to it. Eisentrager, supra, at 777—778. The second critical set of facts is that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being held indefinitely, and without benefit of any legal proceeding to determine their status. In Eisentrager, the prisoners were tried and convicted by a military commission of violating the laws of war and were sentenced to prison terms. Having already been subject to procedures establishing their status, they could not justify "a limited opening of our courts" to show that they were "of friendly personal disposition" and not enemy aliens. 339 U.S., at 778. Indefinite detention without trial or other proceeding presents altogether different considerations. It allows friends and foes alike to remain in detention. It suggests a weaker case of military necessity and much greater alignment with the traditional function of habeas corpus. Perhaps, where detainees are taken from a zone of hostilities, detention without proceedings or trial would be justified by military necessity for a matter of weeks; but as the period of detention stretches from months to years, the case for continued detention to meet military exigencies becomes weaker.
Well, today's opinions in Munaf v. Secretary of the Army and Secretary of the Army v. Omar holding that, while the petitioners have access to habeas corpus, the reviewing US courts cannot order the Army not to release the petitioners into Iraqi custody, suggests a remedy to the Boumediene decision.
The United States should release all detainees at Gitmo who are not to be tried as war criminals by the United States into the custody of the country where they were captured or the country of their citizenship. All future POWs are to be kept in the countries where they are captured, if necessary by the armed forces of that country.
Bart said: "All future POWs are to be kept in the countries where they are captured"
Are you now conceding that the detainees at Guantanamo are NOT "enemy combatants", but instead Prisoners of War? If so, then where does your argument go about their interrogators' immunity from Geneva restrictions?
Actually, Eisentrager did turn in part on practical concerns and on the Court's judgment as to whether and to what extent jurisdiction would "hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy." Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) at 779.
No, it didn't. The fact that the court listed negative consequences if the respondents' position was adopted -- the section you're citing -- does not mean that the negative consequences represent the reason for the holding. The Eisentrager court did not say, explicitly or implicitly, that if habeas hearings didn't interfere with the war effort, that it would have ruled the other way; it held, explicitly, that the writ does not run to aliens outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
While I AGREE with today's majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."
You are misreading Eisentrager, David. The argument in the relevant section of 339 U.S. 777-780 wherein the Court refers to consequences that "would hamper our war effort or aid the enemy" is of the following form. To the argument that a "limited opening of our courts to resident aliens" must be allowed because "among them are many of friendly personal disposition to whom the status of enemy is only one imputed by law," the Court replies that, no, the prisoners' status as enemies is not in dispute. The Court continues that, just as with the Court's decision regarding resident alien enemies, non-resident enemies too are denied "use of our courts that would hamper our war effort or aid the enemy." The Court then proceeds to list a host of practical reasons why granting non-resident enemies even a limited opening to use our courts would be seriously detrimental to our war effort or aid the enemy.
The response that the opening of the courts to Quirin and Yamashita should also guarantee such use of the courts to the enemy prisoners in Eisentrager is rejected by the Court in part because the prisoners in Quirin were within the United States and Yamashita was a prisoner in an insular possessions over which the United States was sovereign. However, it should be noted that the fact that the prisoners in Quirin "were tried by a Military Commission sitting in the District of Columbia at a time when civil courts were open and functioning normally" was not the only "grave ground[] for challenging military jurisdiction" and demanding access to the civil courts recognized by the Court's opinion. It also includes the following accounting of other "grave grounds": "They were arrested by civil authorities, and the prosecution was personally directed by the Attorney General, a civilian prosecutor, for acts committed in the United States. They waived arraignment before a civil court, and it was contended that the civil courts thereby acquired jurisdiction, and could not be ousted by the Military. None of the places where they were acting, arrested, tried, or imprisoned was, it was contended, in a zone of active military operations, was not under martial law or any other military control, and no circumstances justified transferring them from civil to military jurisdiction." It should be further noted that the Eisentrager Court, as it does in its treatment of Quirin, does not reject the application of Yamashita to Eisentrager directly and solely on the basis of sovereignty. Rather, the Court notes that the "heads of jurisdiction" in Yamashita cannot be invoked by the prisoners in Eisentrager. United States sovereignty over its insular possessions in the Philippines occasions United States jurisdiction. That makes sovereignty a sufficient condition for jurisdiction, but does not argue to necessity. So, what we actually have is the Court presenting multiple reasons for denying habeas to undisputed enemy prisoners, and the use of sovereignty only as a stepping stone to establishing jurisdiction over the place of the prisoners confinement, which in turn is of particular relevance to the question of enemy prisoners' access to U.S. civil courts. All of that makes Eisentrager very different from Boumediene, where the prisoners' status as enemies is precisely the matter in dispute, and the Court has already determined that their residence at Gitmo places them within the jurisdiction of the United States, despite the fact that said jurisdiction is not conferred by de jure sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay.
Does this mean The Insular Cases are no longer good law?
No, it just means they're even worse law. All else aside, if this opinion helps put a stake through the faux-formalist nightmare that is the Insular Cases, it can be marked down as unalloyed good news for Constitutional jurisprudence in general.
I'm unclear as to whether this decision gives habeas rights to ordinary POWs who are transferred to US territories or whether it rejects the Administration's attempts to avoid giving the detainees POW status.
Bart DeP says: "The United States should release all detainees at Gitmo who are not to be tried as war criminals by the United States into the custody of the country where they were captured or the country of their citizenship."
Maybe you should read the cases and learn something about their factual contexts before you comment on them. The lead plaintiff in Boumediene was among a group of alleged terrorists turned over by Bosnian officials to U.S. forces in Bosnia--very likely at their request--after they were released by the Bosnia Supreme Court because of a lack of evidence that they were actually planning terroristic acts. So you see, Bart, you have the causation reversed. Your "solution" is not a "remedy" to Boumediene. Instead, it was one of the (potentially) permissible options that characterized the status quo ante between civilized nations, prior to the Bush Administration's protracted attempt to maintain an interstitial law-free-zone. (Of course, the acceptability of handing over detainees to country for disposal depends on the context of the capture of the detainee, the strength of the evidence against him, and whether the accepting country uses rasonably fair procedures to determine whether they should be subject to a war crimes tribunal, prosecution under ordinary municipal criminal law, or release--in some cases, scooping someone up with little or no evidence and dumping them in a country whose human rights record your own executive condemns (IE Syria) would merely be a form of governmental rendition/kidnapping). This is rather amusing, since the effective upshot of your argument seems to be that the aprpopriate response to the Supreme Court's decision would be for the Bush Admin to do what a lot of people who care about human rights and international law wanted it to do all along.
Good article,Thank you!
Tactical Flashlights Tactical Flashlight Flashlight Led Flashlight Led Flashlights Led Lights Rechargeable Flashlights Streamlight Tactical Gear Tactical Light Tactical Lights Xenon Flashlight Xenon Flashlights Palights HID Flashlight High-intensity Flashlights Wolf-Eyes Flashlight Wolf-Eyes Flashlights rc helicopter helicopter airplane r/c rc rc airplane rc heli r c helicopter r c airplane airplane model remote control video game PS2 PS3 Playstation 2 Playstation 3 Nintendo DS SONY PSP WII XBOX XBOX 360 Gamecube GBA
Its a great pleasure reading your post.Its full of information I am looking for and I love to post a comment that "The content of your post is awesome" Great work Back Surgery Type
Thanks so much with this fantastic new web site. I'm very fired up to show it to anyone. It makes me so satisfied your vast understanding and wisdom have a new channel for trying into the world. tipskids.com
Post a Comment
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin's Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |


text:
Jumbo Baguette Diamond Ring
Pairs well with
Crafted in stunning 14K gold and adorned with an impressive 7.36 CTW of dazzling diamonds, this ring exudes opulence and luxury. Elevate your style with this breathtaking statement piece.
- 14K Gold
- Color: Yellow Gold
- VS1 Clarity
Rocco's Jewelry delivers new, and authentic natural earth mined diamond-focused jewelry designs. Offering timeless, reliable, and high-class products.
To qualify for financing, you'll need an active checking account with a three-month income history. Additionally, you'll be asked to provide a government-issued photo ID and a Social Security Number (SSN). These requirements ensure a smooth approval process, giving you the opportunity to enhance your style and personal expression.
Once approved for Financing, you'll receive up to $4,000 of shopping power to spend on your next purchase at Rocco's Jewelry. This extra financial flexibility empowers you to upgrade your selected jewelry piece, adding more sparkle or choosing a more exquisite design that truly speaks to your taste and preferences.
Our Layaway Program allows you to reserve an item and pay for it over a set period of time. This is a great option if you want to purchase a piece of jewelry but need more time to pay for it. You'll receive the item once payments have been completed.
At Rocco's Jewelry, we proudly offer international shipping, ensuring our customers worldwide can enjoy our exquisite pieces. Each order is packaged with care, fully insured, and requires a signature upon delivery, guaranteeing your purchase arrives safely and directly to you. We are dedicated to providing a seamless and secure shopping experience, from order placement to your door.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Unfortunately iPhone and iPad devices do not support flash, which is used by our current digital edition. To read your digital edition, use the same URL on any laptop or PC device.
For information about non-flash solutions, namely mobile Smartphone applications, which are compatible with iPhone and iPad devices, please visit http://www.pagesuite.com/Smartphone.aspx. To understand whether your digital edition will be available as a Smartphone application, please contact the publisher directly.


text:
Common use
With this new medicine, a lot of problems will be solved. Manforce is a common use medicine that can be found in packages of 25g, 50g or 100g, depending on the need and dysfuntion. Also called the blue pill because it's blue, this pill is very similar with Viagra so that means it can be used without prescription. Very strong and safe as well as very effective, Manforce will increase your strenght and boost you up for proper results.
Dosage and direction
Manforce is used by men with erectile dysfunctions and the dosage is established depending on the gravity of the problem. Some can take up to two pills but that doesn't mean everyone should take two in the same time. When a user can't have a proper erection for a long period of time, that's when Manforce take into action and assures the user a proper functionality of his penis. It's very important to read the directions on the box for a perfect usage of Manforce. Usually Manforce is recommended with an hour in advance and with a dosage of 50g but that isn't a rule as it may vary depending on the user.
Before starting to use Manforce as a help drug, you must first make sure that you really need it, that you really have an erectile problem. Only after you make sure that you need treatment for your erectile problems, you can use Manforce. This strong medicine should not, under any circumstances, be used along alcohol or any other energizing drinks. That could cause severe problems. A very important thing is to use Manforce with care and always respect the dosage, never use more than you need.
Manforce or any other similar medicine should never be used by people with hyper sensibility on the ingredients. Read the instructions very carefully and make sure you are fit to use this medicine and only after a visit to the doctor. Also, men with critical heart disease should not use Manforce under no circumstances. Manforce has not been used on patients with severe liver problems or critical eye problems, that's why it is recommended that this category of people to abstain form using Manforce.
Possible side effects
The most common and among the only side effect that Manforce has, are the light headaches but this doesn't applies to more than 1 out of 10 users. For a full list of side effects it is recommended that use consult a pharmacist in advance. There are little side effects knows so far as Nanforce is more complex and advanced than the classic Viagra. After the effect is gone, you will feel little to none discomfort or exhaustion as it is a very safe medicine with a high rate of success among the users.
Drug interaction
There is a small list of drugs ( adempas, amoxicillin, biaxin, etc.) that interact with Manforce but none of them are known to produce severe problems or bad reactions that could make you feel sick. That's why Manforce is a very successful medicine as it produces little to none effects in combination with other drugs. Alcohol is the only combination which is strictly forbidden as the use of Manforce with alcohol could lead to severe damage of the blood flow of your body. Sildenafil can low your blood flow and the combination with alcohol could slow it even more, leading to problems to your health.
Missed dose
Since Manforce is a generic medicine with no prescription required, it can be sued with no limitation but with great responsibility. It is recommended to take it only when need it and no more than the dosage suitable for you and your erectile problem, usually 1 per day. Missed doses don't apply to this medicine as Manforce is not a treatment, it's a drug that gets into action for a limited period of time without any important side effects, making the patient to feel better in a fast yet limited period of time.
In case of an overdose, you should immediately contact your doctor or go to a Hospital. It is very important for you to keep Manforce at a correct dosage and never pass the limit by taking more than one pill per day. Manforce is a very powerful medicine which can cause you great problems in case of an overdose, severe headaches, strong exhaustion, etc. That's why you always have to be very careful when using it. Always read instructions and never take Manforce without a doctor's diagnosis on your erectile problems.
Like all medicine, Manforce should be kept in a cool and dry place, without the reach of children or animals. Storing temperature is the same with most drugs and Manforce uses the same system of ingredient mixing like most drugs use that's why you shouldn't be too worried about it. Keep these details and provide Manforce a good storage and temperature for a better and longer usage of this new and amazing product. Pay attention to the instructions and always make sure that nobody but you can reach the medicine.
We provide only general information about medications which does not cover all directions, possible drug integrations, or precautions. Information at the site cannot be used for self-treatment and self-diagnosis. Any specific instructions for a particular patient should be agreed with your health care adviser or doctor in charge of the case. We disclaim reliability of this information and mistakes it could contain. We are not responsible for any direct, indirect, special or other indirect damage as a result of any use of the information on this site and also for consequences of self-treatment.


text:
Members of a task force proposing regulations for recreational marijuana in Colorado approved recommendations Tuesday that would allow for marijuana tourism but block out-of-state pot shop owners.
The Amendment 64 Implementation Task Force voted to allow people from outside of Colorado to shop in forthcoming retail marijuana stores, though the amount they could purchase at any one store would be limited.
The goal is to prevent "smurfing," which would occur when one person goes from store-to-store accumulating marijuana to then sell into the black market. The thinking is that lowering the amount of marijuana an out-of-stater could buy in any one store would make smurfing too time-consuming to be worthwhile.
The task force also approved recommendations that recreational marijuana stores only be owned by Colorado residents. People would have to live in the state for two years to be considered residents.
And the task force voted to recommend that recreational marijuana stores be vertically integrated — meaning they would have to grow most of what they sell — for at least the first two years. In addition, only medical-marijuana dispensary owners would be able to apply to open recreational marijuana stores for the first year. Applications for recreational pot shops will be accepted starting later this year.
Amendment 64 legalized limited possession and retail sales of marijuana for people 21 and older. The task force has until the end of the month to recommend rules for how that should work. Legislators will then cobble together laws for the new recreational marijuana regime.
The first recreational marijuana stores are expected to open at the beginning of next year.
John Ingold: 303-954-1068, email@example.com or twitter.com/john_ingold


text:
KWC Set Ups: Keith Matsumura
"This project highlights each of Kendama USA's players and the specific kendama set ups they chose to use for the KWC while also adding my own style into the mix. Every photo was taken with instant-print cameras (Polaroid OneStep SX-70 and Fujifilm Instax 210) and every word written by hand. I like taking the foreign route in todays technology era and crafting things by hand. Having a limited amount of film for the cameras also added a surprise/suspense element to it all because each shot was a make-or-break on whether or not it would come out in focus or not. I really want to thank Jero, Cecilia Chow, Luke Evans, and the K-USA team for their contributions on making this come together "
For the next 10 days straight we will release one of the players pages so be on the look out so you can see what set ups some of your favorite pro players are choosing to jam these days.


text:
Treat Your Cavities with Your Dentist near Albany IN
When treating a cavity, your dentist serving Albany IN will remove the decayed portion of your tooth and fill it with another substance. This procedure is called a filling. There are multiple options for the material to be used in the filling, the most common of which are composite fillings and amalgam fillings.
A composite filling is also known as a tooth-colored filling since the material used in the filling can be closely matched to the color of your teeth. Composite fillings provide good durability for small to medium cavities, and the procedure typically involves removing less of a tooth than you would during an amalgam filling. They are also particularly well suited for treating front or highly visible teeth because of their natural look.
When can a composite filling be used for?
- A decayed tooth (i.e. cavity)
- Chipped or broken teeth
- Decreasing the gap between teeth
How it's done
After your dentist numbs the area where the filling is to be placed, he will remove any decayed portions. A substance is then applied to help open up the pores of your teeth for a stronger bond and hardened and cured with a special light. Once this is complete, the filling is applied in thin layers to slowly form the complete filling. After the composite has hardened, the filling will be smoothened and polished to be comfortable and fit your bite.


text:
Before you leave...
Take 20% off your first order
20% off
Enter the code below at checkout to get 20% off your first order
The Ultra 410 Combo is compact and combines high-quality materials with intelligent locking technology.
Free Delivery on orders over $100 excluding large and bulky items
The Shimano Deore XT M8100 front disc brake set gives you good quality braking power. The Deore XT M8100 right lever is perfect for a variety of flat bar bicycles but is aimed at mountain bikes. With the Shimano Deore XT Trail BR-M8100 Front Disc Brake & BL-M8100 Right Lever you'll have plenty of confidence in your brakes.
Thanks for subscribing!
This email has been registered!
These terms and conditions apply to customers located in the AUS ("Customers") who access the Lofti website ("Website"). Please read these terms and conditions carefully before accessing and/or ordering any goods from the Website.
These are the terms and conditions of Lofti Pty Ltd ("Lofti"), which is the company that sells goods to Customers on the Website. If you access the Website, and/or place an order for goods, you agree to be bound by these terms and conditions.
Lofti's registered address is 13A Stepney St, Stepney SA 5069, ACN 095 147 998, ABN 58 095 147 998
You should print a copy of these terms and conditions for future reference.
The Website is operated by Lofti Pty Ltd, whose registered address is Lofti Pty Ltd, 13A Stepney St, Stepney SA 5069, ACN 095 147 998, ABN 58 095 147 998
If you have any questions about the Website please contact us.
By placing an order through the Website, you warrant that you are legally capable of entering into binding contracts.
After placing your order, you will receive an automated order acknowledgement. Please note that this does not mean that your order has been accepted. All orders are subject to acceptance by Lofti.
You will receive an email confirming that Lofti has accepted your order when your order has been processed and is ready for delivery by Lofti.
Once Lofti accepts your order, a contract to purchase the goods from Lofti takes effect between you and Lofti.
The contract to sell goods to you only relates to those goods listed in the confirmation email.
You will not be charged before your order has been processed and is ready for delivery.
However, upon receipt of your order, Lofti will create an authorisation. This will show on your bank statement as a reservation of funds which allocates the money to your order, but this will not be realised until your order has been picked and processed in Lofti warehouse. In the event of us not being able to fulfil your order we will immediately request that your bank cancels the authorisation. If the authorisation still remains after several days, please contact your bank to request that they act upon our cancellation of the payment.
A description of the main characteristics of goods can be found on the product pages of the Website.
Prices for goods on the Website appear on the product pages and include all applicable taxes.
Prices and offers may vary and may only be available for limited periods. All prices and offers are subject to availability and may be withdrawn or amended at our discretion. The prices on the Website may differ to prices in our retail stores, catalogues or elsewhere.
The Website contains a large number of goods and it is possible that, despite our best efforts, some of the goods listed on the Website may be incorrectly priced. If we discover an error in the price of the goods you have ordered we will inform you as soon as possible. We will give you the option of reconfirming your order at the correct price or cancelling it.
Price quotations are given on the assumption that no variation in the price will be made by the manufacturer/sole importer and that Government levies remain unaltered. In the event of such changes, the price of any orders placed before the variation will remain the same and no further increases will be passed to you.
Lofti is under no obligation to sell incorrectly priced goods to you at the incorrect price.
Some offers carry a maximum quantity per customer. If this is applicable, this is detailed on the individual offer.
We reserve the right to cancel the contract between us if we, or our suppliers, have insufficient stock to deliver the goods you have ordered or if the delivery service provider does not deliver to your area.
Any goods displaying "ex display" on the image are heavily marked down in price to clear. They may have been a display model in one of our stores and as such may show signs of discolouration, slight marks and evidence of prior fitting/use. Faults are NOT of a serious or structural nature and are usually minor marks.
Any personal information provided to us will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy.
You may pay by Mastercard, VISA, VISA Debit, PayPal and Gift Cards. Please ensure if you are using a credit card that you provide the card holder's name as it is shown on the card, and the billing address corresponds as it appears on the card statement. Payment will be taken in AUS Dollars ($), and if applicable, your card will be charged according to the exchange rate at that time.
Gift Cards can be redeemed by AUS customers only online at Lofti and in branches of Lofti Pty Ltd located in the Australia only). Gift Cards may be exchanged for goods of a higher price than the value stored on the card on payment of the difference. If you do not spend the entire balance on the Gift Card the remaining balance will be stored on the Gift Card. No cash change will be given. Gift Cards may not be refunded, exchanged for cash, used as payment with discount vouchers or taken as deposits. Please treat Gift Cards as cash, we will not accept liability for lost, stolen or damaged cards. Gift Cards are valid for 24 months after purchase. Any balance remaining after expiration of the validity period will be cancelled.
Gift Cards cannot be used to buy further Gift Cards.
Gift Cards cannot be used to purchase goods for delivery outside of the AUS.
To help us prevent fraud, orders of $400 AUS Dollars or more may require a landline telephone number. Card fraud is illegal, and perpetrators will be prosecuted.
We reserve the right to cancel an order if we suspect that there is a risk of fraud.
Delivery costs are additional to the displayed price and vary depending on the delivery service you select, the country of delivery and the quantity/weight of goods ordered.
AUS delivery charges will be confirmed to you, before your order is accepted.
If your order is particularly heavy, it may be subject to extra delivery charges. If any order is subject to extra delivery charges you will be advised of the additional cost before delivery of your order begins. You have the option to cancel the order if you do not wish to pay any additional delivery costs.
Please note we are currently unable to deliver to PO Boxes.
We will use our reasonable endeavours to deliver the goods or services within the times indicated. However, where delivery times and dates are given, they are for general guidance only and we will not be held liable for late delivery of goods caused by circumstances beyond our reasonable control.
Lofti offers the following options for orders – Standard Delivery and Next Day Delivery. Please see below for further information about AUS delivery options.
Delivery times depend on the delivery service selected and the types of goods ordered. Lofti always aims to dispatch all goods in stock as quickly as possible. The maximum AUS delivery lead time for goods is 30 days unless specifically agreed by Lofti with you.
Lofti will use third party couriers. Couriers will require a signature to ensure safe receipt of your goods.
If you are not available to collect and sign on the courier's first visit they may leave a contact number to arrange re-delivery.
The couriers will attempt re-delivery up to a maximum of three (3) times and if delivery is not successful after the third attempt, they will return the goods to Lofti and Lofti Pty Ltd will issue a refund on their behalf. Lofti reserves the right to re-charge the delivery cost for re-delivery.
If you select Lofti standard delivery option, Lofti aims to have all accepted orders placed before 6pm dispatched in three (3) to seven (7) working days, excluding Weekends and Public/Bank Holidays
If you select the Next Day Delivery option, and your order is placed and accepted before 7pm Monday to Friday, we aim to have your order delivered to your door within one (1) day provided the next day is not a Monday, Sunday or Public/Bank Holiday. Orders placed after 7pm will take an extra 24 hours to deliver (excludes Monday, Sunday and Public/Bank Holidays).
Next Day Delivery is not available for certain areas of the AUS. If the delivery destination is located in an area where Next Day is not available, your order will be delivered as soon as possible.
You can get your order delivered to one of our participating stores/branches within the AUS. Once your order has been delivered to your chosen store, you'll get an email confirming it's ready to be picked up.
Your parcel can only be collected within your chosen stores opening hours. Please ensure you have your order number, unique delivery code (from your order collection email) and a form of ID, if you don't have all three, you will not be able to collect your order.
Acceptable forms of ID are:
• Credit / Debit Card
• Valid Passport
• Medicare Card
• Drivers Licence
• Utility Bill
For under 18s:
• Medicare Card
• Savings Book
Please note that if you would like someone else to collect the parcel on your behalf, they will either need proof of your identity or identification with the same surname as yours.
You have up to 28 days to collect your parcel from your chosen store. If you fail to pick up your parcel within this period, it will be returned to the warehouse, you will then need to speak to Customer Services for a refund.
If you pre-order goods with a launch date, then we will reserve your goods and hold the whole order until the day before the launch date. We will dispatch the pre-ordered goods via Express Delivery the day before the launch date, if delivery is within the AUS.
Lofti may split delivery of your order into several parcels based on stock availability. You will not be charged extra for this method of shipping. Any additional consignments for delivery in the AUS will be sent using the "AUS Delivery option: Express Delivery".
Free delivery offers, when available, only apply to orders for delivery to the AUS Mainland (which excludes). Free delivery offers are sent using Standard Delivery service, please see "AUS Delivery option: Standard Delivery". Free delivery offers cannot be used in conjunction with any other offer, promotion or discount code.
Please cancel your online order within the cooling off period. You have 60 days to change your mind from the day after you receive your order.
You can cancel any item ordered online in accordance with the terms in this section apart from:
You cannot cancel your contract in respect of pierced earrings, made-to-measure/order goods (e.g. furniture) or perishable goods (e.g. foods) unless they are faulty, damaged upon delivery or incorrect.
Where you have failed to take reasonable care of the goods, we reserve the right to refuse a refund and return the goods to you at your own cost.
Your cancellation period ends 28 days after the day on which the items are delivered to you (or someone you nominate to receive the items for you) or you collect your items from one of our stores (AUS Mainland only). If your order consists of multiple items or parts which are delivered on different days, then the cancellation period (in respect of your whole order) ends on the day 28 days after the day on which the last of the items or parts are delivered to you (or a person you have nominated to receive the order).
You can cancel by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.com or by post to:
Customer Returns
13A Stepney St
Stepney SA 5069
You need to give Lofti a clear statement that you would like to cancel which includes your name, address, details of the order you wish to cancel and some contact information such as a telephone number or email address.
You can use the Returns Form, but you do not have to. To use the form, simply print it off, fill it in and, either scan and email it to Lofti at the above email address or post it to Lofti at the address above.
You must return your items by post to the below address no later than 14 days after the day on which you informed Lofti that you would like to cancel your order;
Customer Returns
13A Stepney St
Stepney SA 5069
Any returns are at your own risk. For your protection, Lofti recommends that you return your items via registered post.
You must pay for any return delivery costs, except where the wrong item has been sent to you or the item is defective. Where an item cannot, by its nature, be returned by post (for example an exercise bike) we charge a collection fee.
The items need to be in the original packaging where it forms part of the goods, for example, boxed goods, garments and gift items). Where an item has a return policy swing ticket attached, it must still be attached and undamaged upon return. Return postage is at your own cost and risk.
Lofti Limited will refund you in full for any items you return but will deduct from any reimbursement an amount equal to any diminishment in value of the items as a result of you handling the items beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the items.
Lofti Limited will refund you using the same payment method originally used by you to make the payment (unless you have expressly agreed otherwise). You will be refunded no later than 14 days after the day Lofti receives the items you are returning back from you.
Please return your purchases to either the store you purchased from or your local store.
Please clearly state on the Returns Form the reason for return and whether you require a refund or exchange. Lofti is only able to exchange items for the same product.
Lofti advises that you send items back via registered post. The return address is:
Customer Returns
13A Stepney St
Stepney SA 5069
Personalised items are non-returnable (unless they are defective). Some items are non-returnable for hygiene reasons. Please note that this does not affect your statutory rights.
Items need to be in the original packaging where it forms part of the goods, for example, boxed garments and gift items. Where an item has a return policy swing ticket attached, it must still be attached and undamaged upon return and sent to Lofti at your own cost and risk.
You have a legal obligation to take reasonable care of the items while they are in your possession. If you fail to comply with this obligation, Lofti may have a right of action against you for compensation. This applies to all items that are returned.
Once a refund has been issued you will receive a confirmation email detailing the amount which has been refunded and the item(s) Lofti has received back. If a refund or reimbursement is payable to you, Lofti Limited will transfer the money using the same method originally used by you to pay for your purchase. Lofti Limited cannot refund via the original payment then a cheque will be raised to the address on the order (except in the case of a full or part purchase of items using a Gift Card, as detailed below).
If any product purchased with a Gift Card is subsequently exchanged for a product of a lower price, any money owing will only be issued as a Gift Card. If your purchase was partially paid for on Gift Card and a refund is payable to you, your Gift Card will be refunded up to the card's original value, and any outstanding balance owed after this will be refunded via the other payment method originally used for your purchase. If you no longer have the Gift Card used to purchase the returned item(s), Lofti will issue you with a new Gift Card to the value payable to you up to the amount of the card's original value.
Lofti aims to process all returns as quickly as possible and you should receive confirmation of this within a week of having returned the item.
In the unlikely event that you receive a defective product, you will be entitled to one of the following remedies:
* The Tier 1 right to reject, for perishable goods that would not be expected to last for 30 days, lasts only as long as such perishable goods would reasonably be expected to last.
If you think you have received a defective item, please return the items back to Lofti including details where possible of:
Lofti advises that you send items back via registered post. The return address is:
Customer Returns
13A Stepney St
Stepney SA 5069
Lofti will examine the returned items and notify you of your refund or repair or replacement via email within a reasonable period of time.
Lofti Limited will process any refund due to you as soon as possible and, in any case within fourteen (14) days after the day Lofti confirms via e-mail that you are entitled to a refund for defective items. The refund will be made to the same payment method originally used by you to make the payment (unless you have expressly agreed otherwise).
Where an item is confirmed as faulty, Lofti will bear the reasonable postage costs of returning the items up to the cost of the standard delivery charge. Lofti will not refund any Next Day, Express or other premium component of delivery.
Any goods specified as and supplied to you as 'Competition Goods' are supplied for specialist use and are subject to extreme wear and stress whilst in use. The life expectancy and durability of such goods are greatly reduced and you should note that any claim for failure or wear shall be limited to that of the manufacturers' guarantees. You agree that such use shall be a relevant circumstance for the purposes of Australian Consumer Law. In addition, any parts connected to Competition Goods may be placed under stress and you should take advice from experts prior to purchase of such parts. You should also be aware that manufacturers may limit their guarantees when parts are installed for competition use.
If you have a query about returning goods, please contact us.
If Lofti fails to comply with these terms and conditions, Lofti shall only be liable to you for the purchase price of the goods and any proven losses that you suffer as a result of Lofti 's failure to comply (whether arising in contract, tort (including negligence), breach of statutory duty or otherwise) which are a foreseeable consequence of such failure.
Lofti will not be liable for losses that result from its failure to comply with these terms and conditions that fall into the following categories:
(a) loss of income or revenue;
(b) loss of business;
(c) loss of profits;
(d) loss of anticipated savings;
(e) loss of data; or
(f) waste of management or office time.
(g) other indirect loss, consequential loss, damages or expenses.
Nothing in these terms and conditions is intended to exclude or limit Lofti 's liability for:
(a) death or personal injury caused by Lofti 's negligence;
(b) fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation;
(c) any breach of the obligations implied by section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979;
(d) defective products under the Consumer Protection Act 1987;
(e) any other matter for which it would be illegal for Lofti to exclude or attempt to exclude its liability.
Whilst Lofti adopts industry standard protections against computer viruses, it is not able to warrant that this website is free from computer viruses or any other malicious or impairing computer program.
Nothing in these terms and conditions is intended to affect your statutory rights.
All warranties and guarantees in respect of goods are provided entirely by the manufacturers/AUS importers and are subject to terms contained therein. You are reminded to complete all warranty/guarantee cards/documents upon receipt of the goods where appropriate.
Nothing said by any sales person on our behalf should be understood as a variation of these terms and conditions or as an authorised representation about the nature or quality of any goods offered for sale by us. Save for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation, we shall have no liability for any such representation being untrue or misleading.
Any advice given by our agents or servants during the order process is based entirely upon information provided by you. Where advice is given after visual inspection by our agents or servants, such advice shall amount to an opinion only and we shall not accept liability for any inaccuracies therein. Goods supplied are supplied only to correspond to the purpose for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied and not for any alternative uses to which they may be put. We shall accept no liability for any failure of Goods due to any such alternative use, amendment or modification.
You confirm that you shall comply with any and all rules relating to installation of the goods and fully accept that we shall not be liable for any loss which results from forced, misdirected, inappropriate or unqualified installation of any goods or not adequately maintained the goods. Furthermore, we shall accept no liability for death or personal injury, unless caused directly by our own negligence.
Any goods, or parts of them, that are modified or adapted by you or any third party shall no longer be warranted by the manufacturer nor shall we be liable for any failures resulting from any such modification or adaptation.
Lofti will not be liable or responsible for any failure to perform, or delay in performance of any of its obligations to you that is caused by events outside Lofti 's reasonable control (a "Force Majeure Event"). A Force Majeure Event includes any act, event, non-happening, omission or accident beyond Lofti 's reasonable control and includes (without limitation) the following:
(a) Strikes, lock-outs or other industrial action;
(b) Civil commotion, riot, invasion, terrorist attack or threat of terrorist attack, war (whether declared or not) or threat or preparation for war;
(c) Fire, explosion, storm, flood, earthquake, subsidence, epidemic or other natural disaster;
(d) Impossibility of the use of railways, shipping, aircraft, motor transport or other means of public or private transport;
(e) Impossibility of the use of public or private telecommunications networks; or
(f) The acts, decrees, legislation, regulations or restrictions of any government.
In the event of a Force Majeure Event, Lofti 's performance is deemed to be suspended for the period that the Force Majeure Event continues, and Lofti will have an extension of time for performance for the duration of that period. Lofti will use its reasonable endeavours to bring the Force Majeure Event to a close or to find a solution by which its obligations to you may be performed despite the Force Majeure Event.
Applicable laws require that some of the information or communications Lofti sends to you should be in writing. By accessing the Website, you accept that communication with Lofti will be primarily electronic through e-mail or notices posted on the Website. For contractual purposes, by accessing the Website you agree to this electronic means of communication and you acknowledge that all contracts, notices, information and other communications that Lofti provides to you electronically comply with any legal requirement that such communications be in writing. This condition does not affect your statutory rights.
Unless otherwise specified the intellectual property rights in the contents of all the pages in this website, are owned or licensed to Lofti Limited, or a member of the group of companies to which Lofti Limited belongs or are used with permission from the owner.
The contents of this website may not be copied, reproduced, modified, downloaded or used in any form without our prior written permission.
Lofti takes all feedback very seriously and aims to deal with complaints as quickly and effectively as possible.
For complaints relating to orders placed through the Website please email contact us. To assist Lofti Limited in dealing with your complaint, please detail all aspects of the complaint, your order number and your contact details.
Lofti reserves the right to revise and amend these terms and conditions from time to time. You will be subject to the terms and conditions that are in force at the time that you order goods from Lofti unless:
Physical activities can be hazardous. The selection and use of suitable equipment requires skill, and you should ensure you are appropriately equipped and trained. In the interests of your safety and the safety of others, you should also ensure that you are properly trained in the techniques you will need to employ in pursuit of your chosen activity. Lofti recommends that you seek and take the advice of a suitably qualified person before purchasing your equipment. Once purchased, the equipment should only be used in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions and should likewise be inspected before use and properly maintained. Nothing in this notice affects your statutory rights.
These terms and conditions shall be subject to Australian Consumer Law.
The courts of Australia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all claims or disputes (whether contractual or non-contractual) arising in relation to, out of or in connection with these terms and conditions including orders for goods. These terms are applicable from 7 March 2021.
Take 20% off your first order
Enter the code below at checkout to get 20% off your first order
The Ultra 410 Combo is compact and combines high-quality materials with intelligent locking technology.
The Ultra 410 Combo is compact and combines high-quality materials with intelligent locking technology.


text:
Delve into the world of Magic: The Gathering with shock land proxies, essential tools for practicing and perfecting your deck strategies.
Explore how shock land proxies empower MTG players to test and optimize their decks, ensuring precision and competitiveness.
Top 6 Use Cases of 911Proxy
911Proxy provides you with the best residential proxies solution to excel in the following six key areas:
- Brand Protection
- Market Research
- Crawling and Indexing
- Web Testing
- Ad Verification
- SEO Monitoring
Our rotating residential proxies from 911Proxy enable you to maintain a vigilant watch over your brand's online presence, ensuring the preservation of its integrity and intellectual property rights.
View DetailsResidential Proxies Pricing
- Avg. 99.9% success rates
- Unlimited connection requests
- Rotate residential IP
- 99,99% Uptime
Highly stable proxy to ensure your experience.
- Ultra Fast Speed
Enjoy very low latencies due to the distributed cloud infrastructure.
- High Success Rates
Our technology and proxy network enables you to achieve the highest success rate.
- Global Coverage
Access a distributed proxy network covering all countries around the world.
- Unlimited Sessions
Scale your projects indefinitely whenever required.
- Easy to Configure
Configure or update settings on your services using our easy-to-use panel or API.
- Michael
For owning an e-commerce company, the 911proxy really helped us. We were skeptical of their 100% compliant residential proxies, but it works and we're very happy with it.
- Max Eddy
We have replaced the old proxy-based infrastructure with API links provided by 911proxy.The service is very fast and reliable. We are getting better now.
- Sam Chui
We need access to residential IPs that can be flexibly targeted in order to be able to reliably analyze price accuracy, as some advertisers adjust their price display based on the user'slocation. Very satisfied with the results.
Some possible inquiries have already been explained
Your destination for proxy news, how-to guides, and the latest on our proxy tech.
View All


text:
Specialized in art by Robert McGinnis Ray (Raymond Elseviers), Frank McCarthy, Gunther Kieser, Hans Hillmann, Jack Kirby, Marvel Third Eye Black light... As well as Steve McQueen, Audrey Hepburn, Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen, Alain Delon, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Brigitte Bardot, Sophia Loren, Catherine Deneuve, Paul Newman, Raquel Welch and many other actors and actresses and Italian fotobusta (photobusta), Japanese B2 posters, Belgian posters, French posters, German A1 posters, Fillmore posters, Family Dog posters, Airlines and travel posters, Munich 1972 Olympics posters and many more colorful images which can be discovered on the site. Feel free to contact the gallery for any queries/questions. ILLUSTRACTION GALLERY - Art That Pops. The item "GRATEFUL DEAD DOORS BG 45 OP2 FILLMORE concert poster BILL GRAHAM 1966 RARE" is in sale since Saturday, August 7, 2021.
This item is in the category "Entertainment Memorabilia\Music Memorabilia\Rock & Pop\Artists G\Graham, Bill\Posters". The seller is "illustractiongallery" and is located in New York, New York.
This item can be shipped worldwide.


text:
1 item tagged "ernie"
How We Made GitHub Fast. Detailed overview of the new GitHub architecture. It's a lot more complicated than I would have expected—lots of moving parts are involved in ensuring they can scale horizontally when they need to. Interesting components include nginx, Unicorn, Rails, DRBD, HAProxy, Redis, Erlang, memcached, SSH, git and a bunch of interesting new open source projects produced by the GitHub team such as BERT/Ernie and ProxyMachine.


text:
REUTERS Monday, 01 July 2013 08:04 PM EDT
"I was scared," Zimmerman said in a taped police interrogation three days after the killing in this central Florida town, which was replayed at his murder trial.
The six-member, all-female jury in Seminole County court listened to a tape of the Feb. 29 interrogation, during which lead police investigator Chris Serino suggested that Zimmerman had several opportunities to defuse his fatal encounter with Martin before it ended in bloodshed.
But Zimmerman acknowledged he never sought to identify himself to the youth, who was a stranger never before seen by Zimmerman and aroused the neighborhood watchman's suspicions as the youth walked through the housing development on that rainy night.
At one point, Zimmerman told police Martin approached his vehicle, which had been following him, partly circling it on foot before coming to a stop about a car length away. But Zimmerman rolled up his car window and ignored Martin, while speaking with a non-emergency police dispatcher.
"He wasn't within ear shot and I didn't want to confront him," Zimmerman said, when asked why he hadn't used that opportunity to say he was a neighborhood watchman.
"Did it ever occur to you to actually ask this person what he was doing out there?" asked Serino, who noted Martin may have perceived Zimmerman as a threat because he was following him.
"No sir," Zimmerman said.
Serino told Zimmerman he did not seem to be acting in "fear" when he decided to jump out of his car to see where Martin went after he dropped out of sight.
But Zimmerman told Serino he only got out of his car because he could not tell police the name of the street where he had last seen Martin, even though the Retreat at Twin Lakes housing complex where he lived has only three streets.
"To be honest with you, I have a bad memory ... A terrible memory," Zimmerman said.
He also told Serino he couldn't remember how many times Martin allegedly punched him in the nose at the beginning of the fight that ended in Martin's death.
Zimmerman told police that he didn't even know he had killed Martin, with a lone hollow-point bullet round pumped into his chest at point blank range, until he was brought into police headquarters for questioning.
Prosecutors are hoping to use Zimmerman's statements to police to delve into any inconsistencies in his account about what happened in the racially charged case that triggered civil rights protests and debates about the treatment of black Americans in the U.S. justice system.
On the stand, Serino said there were "things that didn't quite add up," about Zimmerman's account, including his failure to remember the names of the three streets where he lived.
Though Zimmerman shot Martin through the heart with his 9mm Kel-Tec semi-automatic pistol, killing him almost instantly, Zimmerman also told police that the youth continued to talk after being shot.
"You got me," he quoted Martin as saying, moments after he was shot. "He was still talking and I was on top of him," he added.
Zimmerman, a fair-skinned 29-year-old Hispanic, has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and could face life in prison if convicted. He says he killed Martin, 17, in self-defense. It is not yet known whether Zimmerman will testify at his trial.
The trial is scheduled to run through Wednesday then take a break on Thursday for the Independence Day holiday. Circuit Judge Debra Nelson said court would resume on Friday.
Martin was a student at a Miami-area high school and a guest of one of the housing development's homeowners. He was returning to the home after buying snacks at a convenience store when he was shot in the chest during a confrontation with Zimmerman.
Zimmerman was a member of the neighborhood watch and called police to report a suspicious person. Prosecutors claim he profiled Martin and chased after him vigilante-style rather than waiting for police to arrive.
In order to win a second-degree murder conviction, prosecutors would have to convince the jury that Zimmerman acted with "ill will" or "hatred" and "an indifference to human life."
© 2024 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
Receive breaking news and original analysis - sent right to your inbox.
Interest-Based Advertising | Do not sell or share my personal information
Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.


text:
Rogue Fitness New Gear
Showing 1-2 of 2 Products
Rogue's "New Gear" menu features all the latest functional fitness equipment added to our own equipment arsenal, as well as recent arrivals from dozens of carefully selected, internationally trusted vendors. If it comes into our warehouse, this is where you'll see it first-- newly launched barbells, bumpers, racks, rigs, accessories, apparel, footwear, nutritional supplements, and more.
New products are listed on RogueFitness.com virtually every day, so we suggest checking back here often. To learn more about any of the new gear above, just click the image to see a detailed description, photo gallery, and ordering options.


text:
ME-0213 – Cartridge Filter, Cotton Wound – 65 Micron Roll Filter Paper, Bags, Socks, Cartridges, Liners, Filteraid
Flow Pro Products Offers the finest filtration media available on the market today. We handle Non Woven, Spun Bond, and Point Bond Roll Filter Media. Bags, Socks, Melt Blown and Pleated Cartridges, and Liners from 5 to 300 Micron, and 0.50 oz to 6.00 oz.
Use the Media Part Number Configuration Guide below to determine Type, Micron Rating, or Weight, Width, and Length, or Contact one of Flow Pro's team of professionals for assistance with your next Filter Media purchase.
Request a Quote for:ME-0213 – Cartridge Filter, Cotton Wound – 65 Micron


text:
Why is Estate Planning Important?
Many people assume that estate planning is only for the wealthy. So, it must come as a shock to the families of all the Canadians who die every year without a will when the province takes control of the estate to decide how the assets are to be distributed. Even for smaller estates, the costs and delays of probate can have devastating consequences. The goal of estate planning is to arrange your financial affairs in a way so that your assets can be passed to your heirs as quickly and as completely as possible.
The good news for Canadians is that no estate tax is owed when an estate is transferred to your heirs after you die. The bad news, however, is that depending on the type of assets in an estate there may be "deemed disposition tax" that could seriously disrupt the financial lives of your surviving family. Properly planned estates have assets arranged and titled in such a way as to minimize any taxes payable. Estate planning tools such as trusts are often employed to reduce the exposure to taxes. Estate planning is not just planning for death; it is also essential to ensure that your affairs are handled in accordance with your wishes while you are alive. Should you become mentally or physically incapacitated and unable to manage your own affairs, tools such as a power of attorney become important life planning tools.
Many people avoid estate planning because they think it is complicated and expensive, which, for most estates, is not true. While it usually requires the guidance and assistance of an estate planning professional or attorney to execute the legal documents, a lot of time and expense can be saved by organizing your financial information and determining your goals and objectives prior to meeting with one. At the very least, everyone should have a simple will, which for the amount of distress and costs it can prevent, is very inexpensive. Larger estates may require additional layers of estate planning tools, such as trusts. Still the more preparation done in advance, the easier and less expensive the process will be.


text:
Share This
This is a reproduction of a classic text optimised for kindle devices. We have endeavoured to create this version as close to the original artefact as possible. Although occasionally there may be certain imperfections with these old texts, we believe they deserve to be made available for future generations to enjoy.
Tag This Book
This Book Has Been Tagged
It hasn't. Be the first to tag this book!
Our Recommendation
Track It.
This book has been $8.43 within the past year.
Notify Me When The Price...
Log In to track this book on eReaderIQ.
Track These Authors
Log In to track George Sand on eReaderIQ.


text:
Pintuck Detail Ponte Pants - Black
- 52% Nylon, 42% Rayon, 6% Spandex
- Stretchy Material
Life is too good to stress over returns. We want you to love your purchase as much as we do. If you get your order and aren't completely satisfied with your items, simply package them back up and include a note with your order number and either the word "REFUND" or "EXCHANGE"
If you choose to EXCHANGE, be sure to include the new size you want and a contact email or phone number in case new shipping costs are incurred.
Ship returns to: Soho Girl, 1151 Santee. St. Los Angeles, CA 90015
Returns must be postmarked back to us within 14 days of delivery. All return items must be in brand new condition, no signs of wear and tags still attached. Returns from orders that received free shipping will be refunded less the $5 shipping cost. All sequin items are subject to a 25% restocking fee. The exception to our awesome return policy is swimsuits and Halloween costumes, for obvious hygienic reasons. For Elizabeth K Dresses we offer Exchanges and Store Credit if shipped back to us within 7 days of receipt. We charge a $2 restocking fee per item for all returns sent back to us. We charge a 25% Restocking fee to process any exchange or store credit. If sent back for an exchange we will charge a 25% fee at the time of shipping out your new item. Unfortunately Elizabeth K dresses can not be returned for a refund due to our manufacturer's return policy.
Soho Girl's goal is to make you happy and beautiful. We are pleased to offer easy returns and ask that you hold onto your return tracking and shipping information until your return is fully processed.


text:
In the era of the internet, ingress the peaceful world by listening to songs from your favorite artist whom you love to listen to every day. You can now connect with the new artists, albums, and songs of your choice effortlessly. Are you someone who loves listening to Ray Kahvi? With Wynk, you can now access to all Ray Kahvi's songs, biography, and albums. Tune into Ray Kahvi album and enjoy all the latest songs harmoniously. Listen to Ray Kahvi MP3 songs online from the playlist available on Wynk Music or download them to play offline. Discover new favorite songs every day from the ever-growing list of Ray Kahvi's songs.
With Wynk, you can listen to and download songs from several languages like English Songs, Hindi Songs, Malayalam Songs, Punjabi Songs, Tamil Songs, Telugu Songs and many more. Personalize your playlist easily so that you can listen to your favorite songs from the Ray Kahvi album without any disturbance. Keep Wynking!!
Don't forget to install Wynk Music on your mobile phones
Wynk Music is the one-stop music app for the latest to the greatest songs that you love. Play your favourite music online for free or download mp3. Enjoy from over 22 Million Hindi, English, Bollywood, Regional, Latest, Old songs and more.
2024 © All rights reserved | Airtel Digital Limited