text:
Robert WARREN, Charles Brooks, Consolidated Plaintiffs–Appellants, Robert Trocchio, Sylvia Torres, as Administratrix of the Estate of Jorge Burgos, Jr., Louis Massei, Consolidated Plaintiffs, Kenneth Bailey, Plaintiff, v. George PATAKI, Former Governor of New York State, Sharon Carpinello, Glenn S. Goord, Eileen Consilvio, Former Executive Director, Manhattan Psychiatric Center and Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, Robert Dennison, Former Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole and Chief Executive Officer of the New York State Division of Parole, Dale Artus, Former Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Defendants–Appellees, John Doe(s), # 3, Superintendent of Wyoming Correctional Facility, John Doe(s), # 4, Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, John Doe(s), # 5, Superintendent of the Downstate Correctional Facility, John Does, # 6 through 20, Medical Personnel Who Examined and Evaluated Plaintiff Pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law Article 9, Michael Giambruno, James Conway, Paul Annetts, Emilia Rutigliano, Prabhakar Gumbula, Olusegun Bello, Allan Wells, Jonathan Kaplan, Mary Ann Ross, Ayodeji Somefun, Michal Kunz, William Powers, Leo E. Payant, Lawrence Farago, Luis Hernandez, Samuel Langer, Jeffrey Tedford, Former Deputy Superintendent of Security, Clinton Correctional Facility, William J. Sackett, Facility Senior Parole Officer, Clinton Correctional Facility, Jean Liu, Psychiatrist who Evaluated Plaintiff for Possible Civil Commitment, Abadul Qayyum, Charles Chung, Defendants.*
In 2005, then-New York State Governor George Pataki launched the Sexually Violent Predator Initiative (the "SVP Initiative" or the "Initiative"), which provided for the involuntary civil commitment at state psychiatric facilities of some "sexually violent predators" ("SVPs") nearing the date of their release from incarceration or supervision. The six plaintiffs in this case were civilly committed to a psychiatric hospital in late 2005, during the first weeks the Initiative was in effect. In 2008, they filed this action against several individuals who allegedly designed or implemented the Initiative, asserting claims under the Fourth Amendment, the substantive and procedural components of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and several provisions of New York state law.
In Bailey v. Pataki, 708 F.3d 391 (2d Cir.2013), we affirmed on interlocutory appeal the decision of the district court (Jed S. Rakoff, Judge ) in Bailey v. Pataki, 722 F.Supp.2d 443 (S.D.N.Y.2010). There, the district court had concluded that the defendants could not establish as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage that they were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiffs' procedural due-process claims. In affirming, we concluded that if the material facts alleged were proven, the Initiative would have violated the plaintiffs' clearly established rights to procedural due process. Bailey, 708 F.3d at 403–04.
Following our decision, the district court held a jury trial on the plaintiffs' false-imprisonment, procedural due-process, substantive due-process, and state law claims against six defendants: former Governor George Pataki; former Office of Mental Health Commissioner Sharon Carpinello; former Department of Correctional Services Commissioner Glenn S. Goord; former Executive Director of Manhattan Psychiatric Center Eileen Consilvio; former Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility Dale Artus; and former Division of Parole head Robert Dennison. During the trial, the district court entered judgments as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 in the defendants' favor on the false-imprisonment claims, among others, deeming them impermissibly duplicative of the procedural due-process claims. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motions for judgment as a matter of law on their procedural due-process claims and their entitlement to actual, compensatory damages for the alleged due-process violations. The jury ultimately rejected the plaintiffs' remaining substantive due-process claims, found defendant Carpinello liable for procedural due-process violations, and awarded each plaintiff one dollar in nominal damages against her.
Plaintiffs Robert Warren and Charles Brooks appeal, challenging the district court's (1) jury instruction on personal involvement; (2) denial of judgment as a matter of law on procedural due-process liability; (3) denial of judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs' entitlement to actual, compensatory damages; (4) entry of judgment for the defendants on the plaintiffs' false-imprisonment claims on the grounds that these claims were duplicative; and (5) limitations on depositions, and several other evidentiary decisions. The plaintiffs dispute neither the judgment against them on their substantive due-process claims nor the denial of their requests for punitive damages.
For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the plaintiffs' arguments lack merit. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
Factual Background
We set forth the factual background underlying this appeal in some detail in our opinion affirming on interlocutory appeal the district court's denial of summary judgment for the defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. See Bailey, 708 F.3d at 393–99. We rehearse it here only insofar as we think it necessary to an understanding of our resolution of this appeal.
The SVP Initiative
In October 2005, then-New York State Governor George Pataki faced a challenge: He had tried and failed several times to persuade the State Assembly to establish a program that would permit the civil commitment and confinement of designated sex offenders in New York State. Political pressure on the issue was mounting in the wake of a widely publicized murder committed by a then-recently paroled sex offender. Unwilling to wait any longer, as we described in Bailey, id. at 394, the Governor directed New York's Office of Mental Health ("OMH") and Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS")1 to "push the envelope of the State's existing involuntary commitment law," id. The result was the SVP Initiative. Its principal theme was that every "sexually violent predator" in state prison should and would be evaluated for involuntary civil commitment before being released from incarceration.
Sharon Carpinello, the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health, with several others, developed an implementation plan for the SVP Initiative. She presented it to Governor Pataki's representatives in mid-September 2005. The Initiative provided for a commitment process based on the procedures set forth in New York Mental Hygiene Law ("MHL") § 9.27 et seq. ("Article 9"), instead of the more stringent criteria for commitment set forth in Correction Law § 402,2 which the SVP Initiative's designers had also considered. Under this process, before being released from prison, inmates who had been deemed "sexually violent predators" would be evaluated by two OMH psychiatrists, each of whom would render an opinion as to whether the inmate should be involuntarily committed to a state psychiatric facility. Before the evaluation, DOCS would provide OMH with criminal history reports for each inmate. OMH would use these reports to create editorialized descriptions of the inmate's criminal history and an assessment of their likelihood of recidivism. They would then provide these materials to the OMH psychiatrists. If the OMH psychiatrists recommended civil commitment, the inmate would be transferred to a psychiatric center and examined by a psychiatrist to confirm the diagnosis. Once admitted to the facility, the inmate would begin undergoing a specialized course of treatment.
OMH officials informed Governor Pataki's office that they needed four to six months to prepare for the implementation of the SVP Initiative, including training the psychiatrists responsible for examining the inmates. Governor Pataki nonetheless ordered that the SVP Initiative begin forthwith.
Thereafter, under Goord's direction, DOCS began identifying inmates to be evaluated for civil commitment by OMH psychiatrists. The pool of inmates was drawn from those who had committed a violent offense as defined by New York Penal Law § 70.02, and those who had committed a sex offense as defined by Penal Law § 130, as well as from another list of inmates who had committed felonies that had been, to some extent, sexually motivated. Any inmate who refused to appear for an evaluation was potentially subject to disciplinary action, and refusal could have constituted a parole violation.
The SVP Initiative was in effect only briefly. In 2006, after several inmates who were confined under the SVP Initiative sought habeas corpus relief in state courts, the New York Court of Appeals held that the SVP Initiative should proceed under Correction Law § 402 instead of MHL Article 9, and ordered that each civilly committed individual remaining in OMH custody be provided an immediate retention hearing. State ex rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio, 7 N.Y.3d 607, 614, 859 N.E.2d 508, 512, 825 N.Y.S.2d 702, 706 (2006). Then, in 2007, the New York State Legislature ended the SVP Initiative by enacting a comprehensive statutory scheme for the civil commitment of dangerous sex offenders nearing release from incarceration or supervision.
The Defendants' Roles
Each of the defendants played a unique role in the design and implementation of the SVP Initiative.
George Pataki was the Governor of New York State from 1995 to 2006. He authorized the SVP Initiative, made it the official policy of the State of New York, and tasked DOCS and OMH with developing a detailed plan for its implementation.
Sharon Carpinello was Commissioner of OMH at the time the SVP Initiative was in place. Her duties as Commissioner included establishing, developing, and coordinating OMH programs and procedures. She helped to develop OMH's plan for implementing the SVP Initiative, reviewed the plan, and approved it for submission to Governor Pataki. After Governor Pataki approved the plan, she ordered OMH to carry it out.
Glenn Goord was the Commissioner of DOCS during the implementation of the SVP Initiative. He was involved in the process of planning the SVP Initiative, and understood that it called for inmates to be committed without a prior hearing. Goord ordered DOCS to implement the SVP Initiative by selecting for examination inmates due to be released and, depending on the result of the examination, arranging for their transportation to psychiatric hospitals for commitment.
Eileen Consilvio was Executive Director of Manhattan Psychiatric Center ("MPC") when the SVP Initiative was created. She agreed to make the MPC available to receive inmates designated for involuntary civil commitment under the initiative. Consilvio handled the logistics of Warren's and Brooks's civil commitment there.
Dale Artus was Superintendent of the Clinton Correctional Facility3 ("Clinton"), where Warren was imprisoned and to where he was returned after he was civilly committed. Warren allegedly filed complaints about his confinement with Artus, who did not respond to them.
At the time that the SVP Initiative became effective, Robert Dennison was the highest-ranking officer in the Division of Parole ("Parole").4 Warren alleges that when he was confined at Clinton, he wrote to Dennison complaining about his reconfinement despite his having been granted parole. It is not clear from the record what if anything Dennison did to investigate or otherwise address the situation.
Plaintiffs' Confinement
Plaintiffs Robert Warren and Charles Brooks, both convicted sex offenders, were involuntarily committed at the MPC and Kirby Psychiatric Center pursuant to the SVP Initiative after they were scheduled to be released from prison. Their involuntary civil commitment was based entirely on the recommendations of OMH psychiatrists.
Robert Warren was serving a sentence for multiple crimes, including sexual abuse in the first degree, when he was approved for parole and scheduled to be conditionally released from prison on September 27, 2005, under the supervision of Parole. The day before his scheduled release, and without prior notice, two OMH psychiatrists evaluated Warren by conducting short interviews, one of which was done remotely by video, and completing with respect to each of them a so-called Certification of Examining Physician to Support an Application for Involuntary Admission form. On that basis, they determined that he required involuntary commitment in a psychiatric hospital. On the day of his scheduled release, he was transferred to a state psychiatric institution instead.
Less than two months later, Warren was again examined by a psychiatrist, but this time he was found not to require confinement. On October 23, 2005, he was discharged into the custody of Parole. He was never in fact released on parole, however, nor was he given a parole revocation hearing. Instead, he was returned to DOCS and housed at Clinton, where he remained until October 23, 2006—the latest possible expiration date for his original prison sentence.5
Charles Brooks had nearly completed serving his eight-year prison term for burglary and sexual abuse in the second degree when, on Friday, October 7, 2005, the last business day before his scheduled release, he was evaluated by two OMH staff psychiatrists, who determined that he required involuntary commitment in a psychiatric hospital. Brooks was then sent to the MPC, where he remained confined pursuant to Article 9 until May 2009, at which time he was committed under the statute that replaced the SVP Initiative, MHL §§ 10.06–.17 ("Article 10").6
Procedural History
Brooks, Warren, and several other similarly situated persons filed actions in 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking compensatory damages for their involuntary civil commitment under the SVP Initiative. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their Fourth Amendment right against false imprisonment, their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and substantive and procedural due process, and several rights under state law. The actions were designated as related and consolidated for trial.
During discovery, the plaintiffs filed notices of depositions for all of the defendants named in the complaints. The district court informed the plaintiffs that they would be permitted to take the depositions of only four senior official defendants of their choice, however, and that each deposition could not exceed two hours. The plaintiffs chose to, and did, take the depositions of Pataki, Carpinello, Goord, and Consilvio.
On March 31, 2010, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court issued a "bottom line" order granting the defendants' motion in part on statute of limitations grounds, but denying it on the issues of qualified immunity and lack of personal involvement.7 The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion in its entirety. The district court later issued two opinions and orders setting forth its reasoning for its summary judgment decisions, which we affirmed on interlocutory appeal. See Bailey v. Pataki, 708 F.3d 391 (2d Cir.2013).
Back in the district court, both sides then filed motions in limine in preparation for trial. Three of those motions are relevant to this appeal. First, the plaintiffs moved to preclude the defendants from arguing that the plaintiffs suffered no injury because they would have been confined nonetheless had they received a constitutionally sufficient pre-deprivation hearing. Second, the plaintiffs moved to preclude evidence concerning their criminal histories, prison disciplinary records, and OMH records, or, in the alternative, to bifurcate the trial. Third, the plaintiffs moved to require the defendants to bear the burden of disproving that plaintiffs had suffered compensable damages. The district court denied the first two of these motions, and granted the third.
A jury trial was conducted between July 9 and July 31, 2013. The parties called twenty-nine fact witnesses in all, but no expert witnesses.
During the trial, the district court entered several judgments as a matter of law in the defendants' favor pursuant to Rule 50: for Artus and Dennison on all claims, and for the other defendants on all state-law claims except for negligence claims against Carpinello and Consilvio. The district court also entered judgment for the defendants on the false-imprisonment claims because it deemed them duplicative of the plaintiffs' procedural due-process claims. The court reasoned that the jury would need to find a procedural due-process violation in order to find that the false imprisonment was not otherwise "privileged," and that the damages recoverable under both causes of action were the same. J.A. 1293 (Trial Transcript ("Tr.") 2871:20–2874:14).
After the district court entered judgment for the defendants on the false-imprisonment claims, the plaintiffs moved for judgment as a matter of law on their procedural due-process claims, and noted for the record their view that judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 would also be appropriate on the false-imprisonment claims, whose dismissal they contested. The district court denied the motion.
Before the case was submitted to the jury, the plaintiffs withdrew their remaining negligence claims. As a result, the principal disputed issues sent to the jury were whether: (1) the plaintiffs had established violations of their substantive due-process rights; (2) each defendant proximately caused the procedural due-process violations at issue; and (3) the plaintiffs were entitled to compensatory or punitive damages, and if so, in what amount or amounts.
On July 26, 2013, the district court held a charging conference during which the parties discussed how to instruct the jury on the meaning of proximate causation in the context of a procedural due-process violation. To establish a section 1983 claim, "a plaintiff must establish a given defendant's personal involvement in the claimed violation in order to hold that defendant liable in his individual capacity." Patterson v. Cty. of Oneida, N.Y., 375 F.3d 206, 229 (2d Cir.2004). To proximately cause a procedural due-process violation, therefore, a defendant must be personally involved in the violation. A plaintiff may establish such personal involvement by making any one of five showings (the "Colon factors"):
(1) the defendant participated directly in the alleged constitutional violation, (2) the defendant, after being informed of the violation through a report or appeal, failed to remedy the wrong, (3) the defendant created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of [the plaintiffs] by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring.
Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir.1995).
In preparation for the charging conference, the plaintiffs requested a jury instruction on proximate causation that listed the five Colon factors and explained that each would be sufficient to establish a defendant's personal involvement. During the conference, the court proposed an alternative instruction that described the threshold for personal involvement more briefly, with language that tracked only the third Colon factor. The plaintiffs made no objection to the court's proposed instruction on the threshold requirement for finding personal involvement. See J.A. 1304 (Tr. 2915:21–2916:8).
The court subsequently delivered its proposed proximate causation instruction, with one modification not relevant here, to the jury. The court first explained that each defendant could be held liable for violating a plaintiff's procedural due-process rights if he or she took steps that "proximately caused that plaintiff to be involuntarily committed under the sexually-violent predator initiative." J.A. 1350 (Tr. 3100:02–04). The court then addressed the threshold for personal involvement:
If a given defendant played a material role, directly or indirectly, in creating or implementing, even in good faith, the aforementioned aspects of the sexually-violent predator initiative that were constitutionally defective, and that foreseeably would be applied to someone in a given plaintiff['s] position, that would be sufficient to establish that that defendant proximately caused the violation of that plaintiff['s] constitutional right to procedural due process.
J.A. 1350 (Tr. 3100:17–24).
On the issue of damages, the district court gave the following instruction:
In addition to disputing plaintiffs' proof of damages in various respects, defendants also raise a special defense, namely, that even if the given plaintiff you are considering had been given full due process, he would still have been involuntarily committed, and so he did not suffer any actual injury. On this defense, it is the defendants who bear the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the credible evidence. If you find that, notwithstanding [ ] a defendant['s] liability on a given claim, the plaintiff who made that claim did not suffer any injury, you should then award damages of one dollar. These are called "nominal damages."
J.A. 1351 (Tr. 3102:20–3103:05).
On July 31, 2013, the jury reached its verdict. It rejected the plaintiffs' substantive due-process claims and found Carpinello alone liable for procedural due-process violations. It further found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensatory damages or punitive damages, and awarded nominal damages of one dollar to each plaintiff.
On August 8, 2013, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), which the district court summarily denied. This appeal followed.
I. Standards of ReviewA. Judgment as a Matter of Law
We review the district court's decision to grant or deny a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo. SEC v. Ginder, 752 F.3d 569, 574 (2d Cir.2014).
B. Jury Instructions
We review "a claim of error in jury instructions de novo, reversing only where appellant can show that, viewing the charge as a whole, there was a prejudicial error." United States v. Tropeano, 252 F.3d 653, 657–58 (2d Cir.2001). " 'An erroneous instruction requires a new trial unless the error is harmless' ․ [and a]n error is harmless only if the court is convinced that the error did not influence the jury's verdict." Gordon v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting LNC Invs., Inc. v. First Fid. Bank, N.A. N.J., 173 F.3d 454, 460 (2d Cir.1999)). If an instruction improperly directs the jury on whether a party has satisfied its burden of proof, "it is not harmless error because it goes directly to the [merits of the] claim, and a new trial is warranted." Id. (quoting LNC Invs., Inc., 173 F.3d at 462).
C. Discovery Rulings
"We review a district court's discovery rulings for abuse of discretion." Moll v. Telesector Res. Grp., 760 F.3d 198, 204 (2d Cir.2014). "A district court has abused its discretion if it has (1) based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, (2) made a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or (3) rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." Lynch v. City of New York, 589 F.3d 94, 99 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
D. Evidentiary Rulings
We review the district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Manley v. AmBase Corp., 337 F.3d 237, 247 (2d Cir.2003). We "give district court judges wide latitude in determining whether evidence is admissible at trial." Meloff v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 138, 148 (2d Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if we conclude that the district court abused its discretion, however, "an erroneous evidentiary ruling warrants a new trial only when a substantial right of a party is affected, as when a jury's judgment would be swayed in a material fashion by the error." Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127, 155 (2d Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). We "will not grant a new trial if we find that the improperly admitted evidence was 'harmless—i.e., [that] the evidence was unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question.' " Cameron v. City of New York, 598 F.3d 50, 61 (2d Cir.2010) (brackets in original) (quoting United States v. Germosen, 139 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir.1998)). "An error is harmless if we 'can conclude with fair assurance that the evidence did not substantially influence the jury.' " Cameron, 598 F.3d at 61 (quoting United States v. Rea, 958 F.2d 1206, 1220 (2d Cir.1992)). In civil cases, the burden falls on the appellant to show that the error was not harmless and that "it is likely that in some material respect the factfinder's judgment was swayed by the error." Tesser v. Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of City of N.Y., 370 F.3d 314, 319 (2d Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
II. Jury Instructions on Personal Involvement
The plaintiffs now argue, for the first time, that the district court made a prejudicial error in the portion of its proximate-causation instruction that described the standard for personal involvement. The plaintiffs contend that the instruction improperly took into account only the third of the five Colon factors, and that the district court improperly added the terms "material" and "foreseeably" to the third Colon factor, thereby increasing the plaintiffs' burden of proof. Blue 33–36. The plaintiffs waived these arguments by failing to object to the instruction at trial, and we accordingly affirm as to this issue. See United States v. Bradley, 812 F.2d 774, 778 (2d Cir.) (a "failure to object at trial" to a jury instruction "result[s] in a waiver of any claim of error on appeal"), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 832, 108 S.Ct. 107, 98 L.Ed.2d 67 (1987). The plaintiffs had previously requested a substantially different proximate-causation charge as to their procedural due-process claims, which included all five Colon factors. When the district court proposed its shorter alternative, however, the plaintiffs' counsel made no mention of Colon or the inclusion of the terms "material" or "foreseeably."8 Instead, the plaintiffs' counsel objected only to the omission of the words "without counsel" from another portion of the instruction. After the district court agreed with this objection, the plaintiffs' counsel stated, "[a]nd that's all we had for that one." See J.A. 1304 (Tr. 2915:21–2916:8).
We "will disregard the failure to object where there is plain error affecting substantial rights that goes to the very essence of the case, or where the party's position has previously been made clear to the trial court and it was apparent that further efforts to object would be unavailing." Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552, 556–57 (2d Cir.) (citations omitted), reh'g denied, 27 F.3d 29 (2d Cir.1994). Neither condition is met here. As to the former, a substantial right is not implicated if there is no likelihood that the error or defect affected the outcome of the case, see, e.g., Tesser, 370 F.3d at 319, and there is no evidence in the record before us sufficient to establish that the plaintiffs could have demonstrated any of the other four Colon factors. As to the latter condition, when the plaintiffs' counsel requested an instruction as to all of the Colon categories early in the trial, the district court judge responded that he "agree[d] ․ we're going to have to spell this out in some detail in the final instructions.," J.A. 706 (Tr. 542:07–08). That hardly suggests that further objections would have been unavailing. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' arguments as to the personal-involvement instruction have been waived.
III. Judgment as a Matter of Law on the Plaintiffs' Procedural Due–Process Claims
The district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law to Dennison and Artus pursuant to Rule 50(a). The district court also properly denied the plaintiffs' renewed judgment as a matter of law against Consilvio, Goord, and Pataki under Rule 50(b).
Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate "only if [the court] can conclude that, with credibility assessments made against the moving party and all inferences drawn against the moving party, a reasonable juror would have been compelled to accept the view of the moving party." Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344, 370–71 (2d Cir.2007) (emphasis removed and internal quotation marks omitted). A Rule 50 motion may only be granted if "there exists such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or the evidence in favor of the movant is so overwhelming that reasonable and fair minded [persons] could not arrive at a verdict against [it]." Ginder, 752 F.3d at 574 (brackets in original) (quoting Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 663 F.3d 556, 567 (2d Cir.2011)).
The district court properly dismissed the action against Artus and Dennison pursuant to their Rule 50(a) motion. They were defendants only as to Warren's claim that he was improperly returned to prison rather than released on parole after he was found not to require further civil commitment. There was no evidence that either defendant was responsible—either directly or indirectly—for Warren's continued imprisonment. To be sure, Warren testified that he wrote to them to lodge complaints about his reconfinement, but that testimony was an insufficient basis for a reasonable juror to conclude that Artus and Dennison knew of Warren's plight, let alone had the ability or responsibility to do something about it.
The district court also correctly declined to hold as a matter of law that Consilvio, Goord, and Pataki were liable for violating the plaintiffs' procedural due-process rights. The evidence does not compel a finding that these defendants proximately caused the procedural due-process violations allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs. The evidence at trial established that Consilvio—who was the Executive Director of the MPC in 2005—was aware that the plaintiffs were being committed under Article 9, but only handled the logistics for civil confinement at the facility. She was not otherwise involved in planning or carrying out the SVP Initiative. A reasonable juror would not have been compelled to conclude, based on this evidence, that Consilvio proximately caused any of the alleged violations of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, given her mere logistical role in one of the intermediate steps of the civil commitment process.
The evidence at trial with respect to Goord established that while he was involved in the implementation of the SVP Initiative—by overseeing the sharing of information between DOCS and OMH about soon-to-be-released inmates and assisting with the transportation of inmates to psychiatric facilities—he played only a minor role in designing it. Although Goord participated in several planning meetings, this evidence, standing alone, was not so powerful that it would compel a reasonable juror to conclude that Goord proximately caused the relevant harm: the plaintiffs' confinement without notice or a pre-deprivation hearing.
Finally, a reasonable juror would not have been compelled to conclude that Pataki played a material role in creating, coordinating, or implementing the specific aspects of the SVP Initiative that were constitutionally defective.9 Pataki testified that he "directed [his] team to work with OMH and to work with [DOCS] to put in place the program," J.A. 1071 (Tr. 1988:02–03), and that he "gave a green light to go forward with the program," J.A. 1070 (Tr. 1987:04–05). But with respect to the degree of his knowledge and involvement, he testified:
Before there was a court decision, I did not understand any of the specifics of the initiative other than that there were three medical professionals who had to evaluate and conclude that the inmates were mentally ill and posed an imminent threat to themselves or others, and that they were entitled to a hearing. Beyond that, I didn't know any of the other details. I didn't know what section of law was being used; I didn't know even what article of law was being used. That was left to the professionals to determine.
J.A. 1073 (Tr. 1999:11–20). He testified further that he "didn't know whether the hearing was before or after the commitment." J.A. 1073–74 (Tr. 1999:25–2000:03).
Pataki had admitted earlier in the course of the litigation that he ordered DOCS and OMH to use the MHL § 9.27 standard for evaluating individuals under the SVP Initiative and to follow the procedures laid out in Article 9. The district court cautioned the jury, however, that none of these admissions "necessarily mean[t] that he personally ordered that." J.A. 1087–88 (Tr. 2055:22–2056:01). In light of this evidence, and accepting Pataki's testimony as credible, a reasonable juror would not have been compelled to conclude that Pataki played a material role in creating, coordinating, or implementing the defective aspects of the SVP Initiative.
In sum, the district court did not err in granting the defendants' Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Artus and Dennison or in denying the plaintiffs' Rule 50(b) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law against Consilvio, Goord, and Pataki.
IV. Actual Damages
The plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in denying them judgment as a matter of law as to whether the defendants' alleged due-process violations caused the plaintiffs' injuries, and therefore whether they were entitled to actual damages instead of only nominal damages. The defendants counter that the district court improperly shifted the burden of proof on this issue to them. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying judgment as a matter of law to the plaintiffs on the causation question and submitting it to the jury. Because the defendants shouldered the burden of proof on this issue, we need not reach their arguments as to whether the district court's decision to shift this burden to them was permissible.
It is well-settled that "[a]bsent a showing of causation [of the plaintiffs' injuries by the defendants' unconstitutional acts] and actual injury, a plaintiff is entitled only to nominal damages." Miner, 999 F.2d at 660 (citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 263, 266–67, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978); Patterson, 905 F.2d at 568). At trial, the defendants asserted what the parties term a "no harm, no foul" defense10 —they argued, in essence, that even if the plaintiffs had been provided constitutionally adequate pre-confinement process they would nonetheless have been committed. The plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in denying them judgment as a matter of law on this issue, and that because the defendants did not call any expert witnesses to opine on what might have happened in a hypothetical pre-deprivation hearing in 2005, the defendants could not satisfy their burden of proof. The plaintiffs further assert that the jury would have to engage in impermissible speculation in order to resolve this question. We disagree. There was sufficient evidence before the jury to support a finding that Warren and Brooks would have been committed even if they had received due process, and therefore that the defendants had carried their burden on this issue.
The plaintiffs were constitutionally entitled only to "notice and an adversarial hearing prior to civil commitment." Bailey, 708 F.3d at 405. Principles of due process did not require the defendants to provide the plaintiffs with a hearing conducted pursuant to Correction Law § 402, nor were they constitutionally entitled to call a physician, psychiatrist, or expert witnesses favorable to them, no matter that their ability to call such witnesses might have rendered the proceedings fairer. Thus, in establishing their "no harm, no foul" defense, the defendants were not required to present evidence—either through expert testimony or otherwise—establishing that the plaintiffs would have been confined under Correction Law § 402 or under Article 10, or that the plaintiffs would have been committed in the face of testimony by favorable witnesses. Rather, the defendants needed only to have presented some evidence sufficient to enable a jury to conclude that the plaintiffs would have been civilly committed following an adversarial proceeding on notice.
This the defendants did. As the district court correctly noted, the trial itself replicated the presentation of proof at a constitutionally adequate pre-commitment hearing, allowing the jury to evaluate what the strength of the State's evidence at such a hearing would have been. J.A. 1301 (Tr. 2905:19–22). Further, as the plaintiffs acknowledge, Pls.' Br. at 45, the examining OMH psychiatrists testified regarding information that they were given in 2005 and conclusions that they drew based on that information, which is presumably what an examining OMH psychiatrist would have testified to at a properly convened and conducted pre-commitment hearing. The cross-examination by the plaintiffs' counsel of the examining OMH psychiatrists—which the district court described as "piercing," J.A. 1301 (Tr. 2903:07–08)—permitted the jury to see "what would [have] happen[ed] if the plaintiff[s] had had counsel" at a pre-commitment hearing in 2005. J.A. 1300 (Tr. 2899:01–05). The jury was well aware that the psychiatrists were employed by OMH, and it was free to take that fact into account in assessing damages. Even though the jury did not have before it the testimony of any court-appointed or plaintiff-retained psychiatrist, it could nevertheless infer from the state psychiatrists' testimony what other psychiatrists might have recommended.
Permitting the defendants to establish their defense based on such evidence might, of course, have placed the plaintiffs at a decided disadvantage in light of the fact that the defendants effectively deprived the plaintiffs of evidence that would have been relevant to establishing causation: a contemporaneous pre-deprivation psychiatric evaluation by an independent party. But once the defendants carried their burden, the plaintiffs had an obligation to rebut it. The plaintiffs' challenge in mounting a rebuttal, while perhaps difficult, was not necessarily impossible to overcome. For instance, they might have presented expert testimony on the variability of medical opinions,11 or testimony based on a contemporary medical examination that cast doubt on the 2005 evaluations of the OMH doctors. They did not pursue either possibility, or use any alternative approach.
In light of the evidence at trial, then, a juror would not have been compelled to accept the plaintiffs' view that the defendants had failed to carry their burden on their "no harm, no foul" defense. The district court therefore did not err in denying the plaintiffs judgment as a matter of law on this issue and submitting it to the jury.
V. Judgment as a Matter of Law on the False–Imprisonment Claims
We conclude that the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law for the defendants on the false imprisonment claims on the basis that these claims duplicated the plaintiffs' procedural due-process claims. The district court reasoned that the false-imprisonment and procedural due-process claims were duplicative on the grounds that, first, the jury would need to find a procedural due-process violation in order to conclude that the false imprisonment was not otherwise "privileged," and second, the damages for both claims were necessarily the same. See J.A. 1293 (Tr. 2871:20–2874:14). As to the first basis for the court's decision, the fact that two claims share a common element of proof does not necessarily render them duplicative, and because the plaintiffs' procedural due-process claims were submitted to the jury, the first ground was, standing on its own, insufficient to support the entry of judgment as a matter of law for the defendants on the false-imprisonment claims. Perhaps it is usually the better practice to allow all liability claims to go to the jury, with careful instructions not to award duplicative damages. But the district court was correct here that the plaintiffs could not have obtained any additional damages if their false imprisonment claims had been submitted to the jury, and therefore no new trial is warranted.
"Rights, constitutional and otherwise, do not exist in a vacuum. Their purpose is to protect persons from injuries to particular interests, and their contours are shaped by the interests they protect." Carey, 435 U.S. at 254. Damages awards in section 1983 suits therefore "must be considered with reference to the nature of the interests protected by the particular constitutional right in question," and accordingly, "the elements and prerequisites for recovery of damages appropriate to compensate injuries caused by the deprivation of one constitutional right are not necessarily appropriate to compensate injuries caused by the deprivation of another." Id. at 264–65. Thus, the compensatory damages calculation for different constitutional violations turns on the nature of the injuries suffered even though the amount of compensatory damages awarded is in any event limited to the actual injuries suffered by the plaintiff.
In the procedural due-process context, actual damages are based on the compensation for injuries that resulted from the plaintiff's receipt of deficient process. See Poventud v. City of New York, 750 F.3d 121, 135–36 (2d Cir.2014) (en banc). To calculate such damages, courts must determine whether a different outcome would have been obtained had adequate procedural protections been given. If the outcome would not have been different, the plaintiff is presumptively entitled to no more than nominal damages. See id.; see also Carey, 435 U.S. at 262–63. If, however, a plaintiff can show that he suffered mental and emotional distress caused by the denial of procedural due process itself (as opposed to the mental and emotional distress caused by, for instance, the incarceration that would have occurred absent the due-process violation), he is entitled to recover actual damages only to that extent. See Carey, 435 U.S. at 263 (distinguishing between distress attributable to "the justified deprivation" and that caused by "deficiencies in procedure").
In the false-imprisonment context, "upon pleading and proving merely the unlawful interference with his liberty, the plaintiff is entitled to 'general' damages for [proved injuries arising from] loss of time and humiliation or mental suffering." Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93, 125 (2d Cir.2004) (some internal quotation marks omitted).12
Although at first blush these categories of damages appear to be different, in this case, all of the damages that the plaintiffs could have sought from a false imprisonment claim were also available on the plaintiffs' procedural due process claim, and were rejected by the jury. The defendants were able to prove to the jury's satisfaction that the plaintiffs would have been confined even if they had been given a pre-confinement hearing. That barred any award of compensatory damages for the plaintiffs' loss of time outside confinement, under both a procedural-due-process and a false-imprisonment theory.
It is possible that other claims for compensatory damages remained viable. For example, the plaintiffs alleged injuries related to the humiliation and mental suffering caused by the unlawfulness of their confinement. J.A. 205–08. But, if actually proven, those injuries would have been similarly available under a procedural due process theory, as Carey makes clear. See Carey, 435 U.S. at 264 (recognizing that "mental and emotional distress caused by the denial of procedural due process itself is compensable under § 1983," even when proper procedures would have had the same result). The jury, by awarding no such damages, necessarily concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any such injury. Remanding this case to the district court to allow the plaintiffs to pursue such damages on a false imprisonment claim would be, in effect, an invitation to retry questions already presented to, and rejected by, a jury.
Because the jury found that the plaintiffs suffered no compensable injury that could be linked to their false imprisonment claim, no new trial on their false imprisonment claim is necessary. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court on this claim.
VI. Discovery and Evidentiary Issues
Lastly, the plaintiffs challenge the district court's decision to limit the plaintiffs to four two-hour depositions of the defendants; its decision to permit the defendants to make several statements to the jury that the plaintiffs characterize as inflammatory, irrelevant, and cumulatively prejudicial; and its admission of evidence regarding Brooks's Article 10 hearing in 2009. We reject all three arguments.
A. Limitation on Depositions
"A district court has wide latitude to determine the scope of discovery, and we ordinarily defer to the discretion of district courts regarding discovery matters." In re "Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76, 103 (2d Cir.2008) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied sub nom. Isaacson v. Dow Chem. Co., 555 U.S. 1218, 129 S.Ct. 1523, 173 L.Ed.2d 667 (2009), and Stephenson v. Dow Chem. Co., 555 U.S. 1218, 129 S.Ct. 1523, 173 L.Ed.2d 667 (2009). We see no reason to second-guess the district court's decision to limit the plaintiffs to four depositions of no longer than two hours each of the key players involved in the SVP Initiative. Because of the number of defendants, the number of people involved in the case, and the breadth of its subject matter, the district court's eagerness to keep the discovery process on a tight leash is easily understood. Moreover, as the district court pointed out, the plaintiffs' inability to depose certain witnesses before trial was mitigated by the plaintiffs' counsel's ability to request permission to depose witnesses during the trial—which requests the district court granted as to other witnesses—or to question them outside the presence of the jury. J.A. 1170 (Tr. 2385:13–20). We therefore decline to disturb the judgment on this basis.
B. Inflammatory Statements
In their opening statements, defense counsel referred to the plaintiffs' "serious sex offenses like rape and sexual abuse of children," J.A. 577 (Tr. 28:20–21), "unspeakable crimes," J.A. 583 (Tr. 49:20), and "sickening backgrounds," J.A. 583 (Tr. 51:09–10), as well as the "crimes you cannot even imagine" committed by "people like the plaintiffs," J.A. 583 (Tr. 49:09). Similarly, in their summation, defense counsel graphically described the plaintiffs' sex offenses; described the plaintiffs as among "the worst criminals in society," J.A. 1345 (Tr. 3078:21–22); and implored the jury to remember that the "six or more victims of these plaintiffs, they are not just numbers; they are mothers, wives, and daughters," J.A. 1347 (Tr. 3086:02–03). Defense counsel also made several statements to which the plaintiffs objected as inaccurate, including that Warren's "plea was based on his having been charged [with] raping his 8–year–old stepdaughter." J.A. 580 (Tr. 39:09–10). The plaintiffs argue that the district court abused its discretion in permitting defense counsel to dwell on and so characterize the plaintiffs' sex offenses, which the plaintiffs argue was both irrelevant and cumulatively prejudicial.
While we are troubled by the specter of a jury deciding this case on the basis of revulsion against the plaintiffs' crimes rather than strictly on the evidence of the alleged deprivation of their constitutional rights, we must nonetheless affirm. First and most important, the plaintiffs did not object to these comments at the time of opening or closing statements. The plaintiffs' arguments in this regard were therefore waived. Cf. United States v. Terry, 702 F.2d 299, 317 (2d Cir.) (defendant waived claims based on statement in summation by failure to contemporaneously object), cert. denied sub nom. Guippone v. United States, 464 U.S. 992, 104 S.Ct. 482, 78 L.Ed.2d 680 (1983), and Williams v. United States, 461 U.S. 931, 103 S.Ct. 2095, 77 L.Ed.2d 304 (1983). Second, as to closing statements, both plaintiffs had earlier opened the door to information about their past through their counsel's broad questioning of them on direct examination.13
C. Admission of Evidence of Brooks's Article 10 Hearing
We also reject the plaintiffs' argument that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence regarding Brooks's Article 10 hearing in 2009. The fact that Brooks was civilly committed following that hearing is probative of whether he would have been committed in 2005. Indeed, the evidence at Brooks's Article 10 hearing overlapped substantially with the evidence reviewed by the examining OMH psychiatrists in 2005. The outcome of Brooks's Article 10 hearing was thus probative as to what the results of a 2005 hearing that complied with the Constitution's due-process requirements would likely have been.
Moreover, the district court issued a cautionary instruction to "clue [the jury] in as to why Article 10 may, in [the jury's] discretion, be relevant." J.A. 869 (Tr. 1186:16–18). The district court explained that Article 10 employs different substantive standards; that information may have been available in 2009 that was not available in 2005; and that the plaintiffs contended that it was "too speculative to assume that because someone was confined several years later under Article 10, that they would have been confined if given due process under Article 9." J.A. 868–69 (Tr. 1185:12–1186:14). Inasmuch as the jury was thus fully equipped to assess the import of the Article 10 hearing on Brooks's claim for damages, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
SACK, Circuit Judge:


text:
Do we have the ability to be in touch with out emotional reactions whilst we scroll down our Facebook news feed populated by 300+ competing informational sources? Does one sense a feeling of panic, accelerating inadequacy, as if they were being pummeled into dust under a great waterfall, or does one sense a feeling of excitement? I have to refer to Italian Theorist Franco (Bifo) Berardi, here, because I haven't found anybody else who elaborates on such concerns better.
The panic induced by the myriad of competing reactions to information when scrolling the Facebook news feed, one either resorts to not caring, reducing all information to the same level (as if Drone strikes to photographs of someone's well-prepared dinner were nothing but different sweets in a pick and mix stall) or trying to care about everything and becoming utterly exhausted, with monthly drops into depression. But what we rarely pick up on is that the age of Facebook/Twitter/YouTube isn't merely a social phenomenon, it's an unprecedented social seismic shift which shows no sign of slowing down.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Congratulations to our CEO Scott Davies on being chosen as one of the top 10 MarTech Heroes by The Drum at their B2B Awards in New York.
The Drum joined forces with Stein IAS to recognise the best in martech and those who are blazing a trail in helping customers get real results from their technology.
We're very proud to have been recognised as a pioneer in the industry for providing unique and innovative solutions for broadcasters, marketeers, agencies and brands to engage with audiences in real-time.
Scott Davies said "It's fantastic to be recognised in the industry as a leader and pioneer of Martech especially at a time where dynamic addressable activities have never been more prominent. However, whist the recognition is welcomed, it wouldn't be possible without an amazing team behind me. The never.no team have been intrinsic in breaking ground in Ad and Martech, pushing ideas into cutting edge software development, and delivering award winning commercial implementations."
Consumers are connecting with media in many different ways and are increasingly turning to social media to share opinions and content around brands. We see the importance of celebrating this engagement and including it as a key element in advertising and marketing strategies. There is a growing desire from people to be better connected to the content they're consuming – to have an influence and be rewarded for their loyalty.
We have developed ways to make TV advertising, widely regarded as the most effective medium, just as responsive as digital. Working with our partners, Group IMD, we have finally bridged the gap between digital, traditional linear TV and social, bringing the platforms together in a unified way that's proven to extend marketing capabilities.
Visit The Drum to see the full Top Ten Martech hero lineup.


text:
8-2 YELLOW worked on their light paintings again today. They had a chance to review theirs as well as the other classes photos from their first session before getting started. It was good to see some new ideas and learn how they were made as well as learning from our mistakes.
Today I had three cameras set up on tripods. We used the Manual setting and switched the shutter to "Bulb." This allows the photographer to leave the shutter open indefinitely. I found two articles that explain how to switch to the bulb setting on a Nikon and a Canon.
I also found this video explaining the science behind light painting.
Here are our examples from today
Camera with JS shooting:
Camera with JB shooting:
Camera with IM shooting:


text:
- Did you mean
- resources coir guide gs9
Search results
Trauma-Informed Care
Campus firstname.lastname@example.com Related links: Mental Health Resource Guides ... : u.osu.edu/cphp/ohio-mental-health-resource-guides Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Mental Health: cdc.gov/mentalhealth/index.htm PROSPER ... extension.osu.edu/about/resources/extension-task-forces/rural-and-farm-stress ...
5 Suggestions to Help Students Get Through This Semester
career goals when you need motivation. Use your resources. Stay in contact with your faculty advisor and ... them. Keep in contact with other important resources, such as these: Counseling Services: ... Changes: https://ati.osu.edu/currentstudents/academics Keep Learning: Temporary Remote Resources ...
Resources Please continue to check back as more mental health resources get added to this page. ... Resources specific to the pandemic: From OSU: Taking Care During COVID-19 : In this video, staff from ... Resources from the CDC Care For Your Coronavirus Anxiety - Resources for anxiety and your mental health in ...
Using Mindfulness Practices During COVID-19 Pandemic
necessary to create physical distance between people, individual study or self-help resources may include ... books and workbooks, on-line trainings, apps and audio-visual materials. The resources listed below are ... free ways to practice mindfulness as well as respect the guidelines for social distancing. Resources ...
COVID-19 Telecommuting and Online Learning Support
creating and curating resources here. Check back for daily updates. Telecommuting Getting Started with ... Telecommuting Zoom meeting (3/16) Keep Working Website Working Through COVID-19 (Human Resources) Gateway to ... Learning (Buckeye Learning Burst) eXtension Remote Work Resources Online Teaching Keep Teaching Website LOD ...
Additional Accommodations Guidance for Faculty
download a PDF on this topic. You can find it in the righthand column under Additional Resources. ...
Online Assessment
student learning. Collected below are links to a few resources to help you find and refine assessment ... https://community.canvaslms.com/docs/DOC-12711-4152276730 3. Online Assessment from the ODEE Resource Center https ...
Financial Resources
important to know what resources are available to increase financial awareness and reduce stress. Work ... These resources listed below provide contact information for financial support and strategies to assist ... you with managing your finances during this uncertain time. Individual Resources Ohio Works First ...
ECE Updates and Resources
Early Childhood Education Professionals and Families Pandemic Updates and Supporting Resources on ... COVID-19 Resources for ECE Professionals: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ODJFS Pandemic Child ... Emergency Support to Survive" Resources for Coping with COVID-19 Share your COVID-19 child care ...
Facts for Your Health and the Health of Others
support and resources Create an emergency contact list Have an updated emergency contact list for family, ... resources Choose a room in your home to use for sick household member Please refer to these websites for ... coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/covid-19/home/covid-19-checklists/covid-19-checklists cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/prevention.html For additional resources, checklists and ...


text:
By Tsilla Boisselet. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2653058
The decision is bound to many criteria and not straight forward. It depends on the overall goal, and time is an essential factor. Are the risks immediate? Are the gains very hazardous? How big are the risks in terms of survival on the short term and the long term?
Under conditions with little change, it seems most reasonable to have a stable strategy, a well-established standard of operation that gives sure fruits. Small changes, with little risk for survival are not a sufficient motivation for ground-breaking innovation. The survival of the individual is good enough, the next generation comes under the optimal conditions, even if it has to wait a little longer to overcome a sub-optimal phase. Individual of all strength have their role to play to preserve the network. Small adjustments, which have higher chance of success, because they have time to be tried out, learned and transmitted are a good strategy for small, reversible or slow, gradual changes. The dense and stable cooperative network transmits that information.
Life-threatening changes instead, with potentially fatal short-term effects push towards a fast change. If the geographical change – escape the change – is not an option (may it be because the capacity of moving is limited, or the affected area too vast) – innovation becomes a necessity. However, the time left gives little chance to most single changes, as there is no time to try them all. Therefore, the multiplication of parallel, often random experiments is a common strategy among living organisms, spreading off-springs in great quantity with the hope of the survival of the species. However, the risk of complete failure is also enormous.
The choice becomes trickier when the situation is "in-between". Are the changes potentially fatal if I apply my standard procedure? Or will a dormancy period be good enough? Are small adjustments sufficient or is a complete change of paradigm necessary? What is the line that differentiates two behaviors? That is individually different and can be observed at all life levels, from microorganisms over plants to animals. Is it possible to walk on the edge? Trigger innovation and give it at the same time enough time to be established and transmitted?
This is the sense of hybrid, progressive systems. Naturally, they exist in successions after radical events – as natural catastrophes, or human-made destruction. Even if we tend to focus on the story of the survival of single organisms, the whole story is involving many different strategies merging into a whole one, because many different organisms are involved. A bare place means it has been so radically changed that no one, or almost no one, has survived. A new situation has been created, and this will gradually shift until a new balance is reached. Pioneers come first, those who best survive as lonesome ones, or survive under the harshest conditions. They prepared the ground for many others who are slower, more stable and/or more sensitive, the whole succession who gradually transforms the place in that new stable one, coping with small or slow, gradual changes – until the next big change. A fast succession of changes will favor only pioneers – which is ok in a world of pioneers – until remember that not all pioneers live under the same conditions, and you wonder what if many need that stable place to survive until their next moment of glory. Maybe even pioneers need time to prepare the next innovation? Is dynamic stability the best way to guaranty efficient innovation?
A natural ecosystem is therefore not necessarily a stable, set immutable system. Depending on the scale it is looked at – both spatial and temporal – it is on the contrary constantly modifying itself and its environment. The misunderstanding about conservation is often a matter of scale. What always needs to be preserved is the capacity to regenerate, to mitigate effects, so the time is given to adapt, survive, transmit, produce and store energy- and be mature enough to react to the next change. The size (larger), the time (longer) and the diversity (larger) are all factors that influence this capacity. While some wonder about the sense of some conservation efforts claiming some species has no essential function forget about the succession dynamics. Moreover, the function or misfunction of the ecosystem, depending on time, space and diversity is given essentially by the existence – and quality – of the relationships.
This has to be kept in mind when time or space are not abundant enough to wait for natural succession to happen. Well-chosen diversity favors good relationships and accelerates establishment time; it can compensate for a remote area where missing partners have little access to. But a system is still under transformation and maturation. Whether it has been well-established of placed in an un-balanced way, ecological succession will play its role, one way or another. Conceive those systems as progressive, adaptable and growing.
On an anthropocentric perspective, we must remember that a succession plays on a scale that can reach far more than the single life-span of one organism. Paradoxically, most of the plants we rely on are single and short-lived; a good characteristic for adaptation, but which can be fatal if there is no balance from long-lived, networking species taking care of the long-term preservation of the soil and climate. To observe effects on the environment – soil degradation/regeneration, microclimate change – destruction of inter-species interaction, or adaptation of species to new environments – hotter, dryer, colder, wetter– takes more than one generation. What is the life-span of a tree compared to ours ….? Humans, that can count, comprehend time, be geographically flexible and observe so many different organisms, must understand that balance, trigger efficient innovation and buy time to adapt to changes whose long-term effects that are still difficult to grasp… We can accelerate time to establish more resilient ecosystems, we are able to choose and adapt plants to our needs, we can appreciate that we need plants in many more ways than for food, more than they need us. We can understand that we need more than plants: microorganisms – the most important biomass in terms of mass and energy turnover. We can recognize that we don't even know all the elements of our present environment and might very well need them soon or later. We can understand that we need both stability and innovation, and that can coexist in a dynamic environment. We can realize also that good quality relationships are essential for a well-functioning ecosystem, so establishing good quality exchanges at all levels – from forests to cities – are the only way to survive – and thrive.


text:
iMath - 2.2.6
Release Details
Apart from fixing a bug in the option "Evaluate to real roots", this release implements the new keywords AVAL, AVALWITH, PRINTVAL, PRINTVALWITH. They can find values of expressions without reducing them to floats, that is, roots and transcendental function will remain in the result.
GNU-GPL-v2 (GNU General Public License Version 2),
LibreOffice 6.1 LibreOffice 6.0 LibreOffice 5.4
- Make cell references for TABLECELL case-insensitive
- Allow string expressions for file name, table name, cell name and text field name in TABLECELL etc.
- Allow vectors and matrices of string expressions for cell names in TABLECELL and SETTABLECELL
- Implement the "inhibit underflow exceptions" and "evaluate to real roots" options on a line-by-line basis
- Implement keywords AVAL, AVALWITH, PRINTVAL, PRINTVALWITH which find values of expressions without reducing them to floats, that is, roots and transcendental function will remain in the result.
- Fix bug in option "Evaluate to real roots" that gave wrong results for even powers of odd roots, e.g. (-2)^(2/3)
- Fix inconsistency in cubic root search algorithm that returned floats instead of rationals and roots
Available Downloads
The linked Extension file
Linux-x64, Windows
File size: 6300.0 kb
Legal Disclaimer and Limitations for Downloads
The Document Foundation has not reviewed, and cannot review, all of the material, including computer software, available on or by means of The Document Foundation's
websites, and cannot therefore be responsible for that material's content, use or effects. By operating its websites, The Document Foundation does not represent or imply that it endorses the material there available, or that it believes such material to be accurate, useful or nonharmful. You are responsible for taking precautions as necessary to protect yourself and your computer systems from viruses, worms, Trojan horses and other harmful or destructive content. The Document Foundation's websites may contain content that is offensive, indecent or otherwise objectionable, as well as content containing technical inaccuracies, typographical mistakes and other errors. The Document Foundation's websites may also contain material that violates the privacy or publicity rights, or infringes the proprietary rights, of third parties, or the downloading, copying or use of which is subject to additional terms and conditions, stated or unstated. The Document Foundation disclaims any responsibility for any harm resulting from the use by The Document Foundation's visitors of The Document Foundation's websites, or from any downloading by those visitors of content available on or by means of The Document Foundation's websites.
Content contained on The Document Foundation's websites, including these Legal Disclaimers and Limitations, may be changed at the sole discretion of The Document Foundation and without notice. You are bound by any such updates or changes, and so should periodically review these Legal Disclaimers and Limitations.
If you believe any file is present on the site contrary to any TDF rule or applicable law, please supply full details to firstname.lastname@example.com for impartial consideration.


text:
An author who claims to write for posterity must be a bad one. We should never know for whom we write." – E.M. Cioran
In my first post on this blog, I asked, "What is Ethical Writing?"
That answerless question begs another. This one comes from an essay by Joan Didion, titled "Why I Write." Gleefully, she admits stealing the title from George Orwell:
"Of course I stole the title for this talk, from George Orwell. One reason I stole it was that I like the sound of the words: Why I Write. There you have three short unambiguous words that share a sound, and the sound they share is this: I I I. In many ways writing is the act of saying I, of imposing oneself upon other people, of saying listen to me, see it my way, change your mind. It's an aggressive, even a hostile act. You can disguise its qualifiers and tentative subjunctives, with ellipses and evasions—with the whole manner of intimating rather than claiming, of alluding rather than stating—but there's no getting around the fact that setting words on paper is the tactic of a secret bully, an invasion, an imposition of the writer's sensibility on the reader's most private space."
Ms. Didion's prose is no doubt genuine, heartfelt, and provocative. But is her thesis correct? What we write is an imposition—that's what she said. Is this a moral or an ethical thesis? Does it matter? That's a worthy question.
I think she posed it to prompt us lesser writers to pay more attention to the words we use, and focus at least broadly on how our words impact readers. If our writing goal is an "aggressive" act, it imposes that characterization on the reader, who might be a pacifist. If our diction operates as a "secret bully," then it invades the reader's "private space." And if we intend, by publishing what we write, to impose our sense of right or wrong on the reader, then we must ask ourselves, is this ethical?
Importantly, if Ms. Didion is right, only the writer can answer the question. There are no ethical word police lurking around, ticket-book in hand. There is no structural review in place. Unlike Congress, writers do not have an Ethics Committee before whom our ethical dalliances might be sanctioned. Congress has an ethics committee, one that rewards re-election to those whose dalliances are thought minor if an election is close at hand.


text:
Residential Exterior Painting in Long Island
Our exterior painting services can help increase your home's value.
Raising the value of your home is always a great idea, whether you plan to sell soon or live in it for the next 20 years. Applying a fresh coat of paint is one of the easiest ways to increase your home's value. With 360º Painting® Lynbrook, our exterior painting contractors can help you achieve the look you desire without any of the stress.
Our business is built on client satisfaction, which is why we work closely with you every step of the way. From the initial planning stages to the final walkthrough, we are here to make your painting project a success.
Exterior Painting Professionals
Finding a trustworthy painting company can be difficult. At 360º Painting® Lynbrook, we strive to provide trustworthy, quality painting services. Because we want you to feel comfortable working with us, we begin every project with a complimentary consultation. Our team will survey the exterior of your home, answer any questions you may have, and provide a free written estimate. Should you have any difficulty choosing a paint color, we can offer our recommendations for that as well.
Our exterior painting process has been formulated to deliver spectacular results. Our team goes step-by-step to take care of your property, achieve a smooth finish, and make your design a reality.
The first portion of our process is to prepare the home exterior for painting. The goals of this stage are to make the smoothest possible surface and to protect your property. Our team will:
- Cover outdoor furniture, plants, and grills with drop cloths
- Remove shutters
- Wash the home to rid it of dirt and mildew
- Scrape and sand away old paint
- Putty all window sashes, caulk holes, cracks, and voids
- Complete minor carpentry repairs, such as nailing in loose shakes
- Evaluate the exterior for broken or rotten wood
Once the surface is smooth and prepped, we will apply the paint with brushes and rollers. Spray techniques are occasionally used for certain surfaces and areas. After everything is dry, we will reinstall your shutters.
Finally, we inspect our own work to make sure it meets our company standards. After cleaning up, we will present the final product to you. No job is complete until we have your total satisfaction.
Get Started with 360º Painting Lynbrook
Ready to get started with an exterior painting project at your home? Our services are available to homeowners in Long Island, Long Beach, Atlantic Beach, Rockville Centre, Woodmere, Garden City, and Bellmore.
Call us today at (516) 206-2889 to learn more about our exterior painting services in Long Island or to schedule your free consultation.


text:
All Photo Shoots Include Drone Still Photos
The beauty of having an eye in the sky for real estate is that it gives buyers that wow factor and also shows that the real estate agent is willing to go above and beyond for the seller.
We provide stunning, 4K, high quality still pictures and video to promote your real estate listing, vacation rental listing, or commercial business.
Water Street Real Estate Photography provides you high quality interior pictures for your listing. But sometimes you need that extra view that you can only get with a drone.
We provide stunning, 4K aerial photographs for your real estate or vacation rental listing and commercial property or project.
We also provide aerial videos for you to use on the MLS, VRBO, social media, or advertising. We can customize the video to include logos, profile pictures, VRBO listing info, contact information, etc. Or we can leave it unbranded. Just let us know what info to include.
Water Street Real Estate Photography is FAA Certified Part 107. All drone shoots are fully insured.
Research has found that adding videos to your homepage or product page can increase sales anywhere from 64-85%. While real estate videos are nothing new, adding video footage shot from a drone drastically changes the look and feel of an advertisement or walk through.


text:
Discover the Masterclass range of Traditional Kitchens. Quintessentially British traditional kitchens made in the UK.
design for life
Traditional kitchens from Masterclass. Discover stunning shakers and timeless classics in stunning hand painted colours and tactile wood grains. Modern technology combines traditional design with bold lines and intricate features.
Keep things simple with the Shaker style, a design icon known for it's simplicity and clean style, or choose a classical town house inspired kitchen adorned with bevelled centre panels and feature mantles.
11 Cabinet Colours
match or contrast with 11 cabinet colours.
We would love to hear from you
complete the form below to download your full colour brochures from all our premium brands.
We solemnly promise never to send you spam or unsolicited emails. Neither do we pass on, sell, trade or do anything else with your details other than keep them to ourselves for marketing reasons.
Showing all 8 results


text:
The president of the Minneapolis City Council and two county commissioners recently chastised Council Member Alondra Cano for defying City Hall security guards during an after-hours oil pipeline gathering this fall.
Cano released a stern letter she received from the three officials, dated Dec. 30, as well as security footage on her Facebook page on Tuesday. The letter was signed by Council President Barb Johnson and Hennepin County Commissioners Jan Callison and Peter McLaughlin, who serve on the board of the joint agency that oversees City Hall.
"[Building] staff observed you encouraging demonstrators to remain in the building, physically touching security staff, opening locked exterior doors from within so others could gain entry, providing food to them and interfering with building staff's directions," the letter said.
Cano said she released the letter and footage after learning it had been requested by a local television station.
The first-term council member represents the central Lake Street area and has become a polarizing figure at City Hall for her activism-infused style, which has leaned heavily on rallies and online campaigns.
The security spat occurred Oct. 28 following news that Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek deployed deputies to North Dakota to assist officials there with the Dakota Access pipeline protest. It spurred a large demonstration at City Hall, followed by what an activist media site called a "sit-in in front of Stanek's office … until 10:15 p.m."
The security video shows security personnel guarding City Hall doors as people mill about outside. About 8 p.m., Cano opens the door to let a man in, prompting a guard to restrain him. Cano intervened, yelling to the guards that "he's part of my public meeting." Later, Cano is confronted by the guards while trying to bring pizza into the building.
"This is a public building," Cano said in an interview. "I have access to the building at all hours. And so I was there to essentially support the community members in having this conversation that they wanted to have with Stanek."
City Hall is open from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and there are procedures for hosting after-hours meetings. The letter said they were not followed.
Callison, president of the Municipal Building Commission that operates the building, said it is the first such letter the commission has sent during her three-year tenure on the board.
Twitter: @StribRoper


text:
SuperPowerPPT Review Should I get it?
What is it: SuperPowerPPT is a Massive Library of More Than 10,000 Unique Ever-Growing Animation Slides that Comprises of Creative Video Templates, Impressive Animated Slides, Stunning Presentation Templates, Social Ads and Many More that allows you to create Amazing Video, Presentation, Social Media Ads, Slideshows and Various Digital Media easily Using Software that you Familiar With! SuperPowerPPT is one of their longest projects; they have a dedicated design team behind creating fresh new PowerPoint templates and the library has been growing since 2014. This is probably the most updated and biggest PowerPoint templates library in the IM sphere and with dedicated commitment from their team, SuperPowerPPT will only grow in size. SuperPowerPPT library is VAST with video templates, presentation templates, enchanting slideshow templates, various animated slide templates and many more. SuperPowerPPT is the Ultimate Membership, you can easily create all sorts of digital media that will make a lasting impression to your viewers using their massive library of digital media templates and slides!
If you always wanted to create eye catching visual and video contents that will mesmerize your viewers, this is the ultimate membership FOR YOU that will certainly satisfy all your creative needs! This is one of the best if not the very best membership site out there and the team behind it has been adding new contents to it constantly to keep pace with the ever changing market demands. Most importantly they are having an introductory launch offer where you only need to pay once and you will get access to everything with no recurring fees, price will revert to recurring model after this introductory launch ends. Overall SuperPowerPPT Review membership is one of the best investments you will ever make, the values is tremendous and will boost your business subsequently. And don't forget you only need to pay once during this introductory offer and you will get access to the entire library for life not to mention new contents are added regularly and you get access to those too,
Follow these links to view full review:
Almost done…
We just sent you an email. Please click the link in the email to confirm your subscription!
OKSubscriptions powered by Strikingly


text:
Broker Contact Form
- by Jim Stone
in Our Friends
Hits: 3625
Fill out the form below to send your information to the brokers listed above. Someone will contact you shortly.
Please keep in mind that it takes some time to register with the brokers. If the auction you are interested in ends today or tomorrow, you may not have time to complete the registration process with the broker.
Broker Contact Form
Broker Contact Form


text:
Raising funds for mental health through art
Our Partners
We currently partner with 501c(3) mental health nonprofits based in the United States.
We have four partnered mental health nonprofits, two of which are the largest grassroots mental health nonprofits in the United States: Mental Health America (MHA) and Active Minds.
How it Works
The Giving Gallery (TGG) platform is a free, independent financing platform for mental health nonprofits. Artists sign up for free and build an online shop of artwork they wish to sell
For every art sale, 40% of the sale proceeds goes to a partnered mental health nonprofit of the buyer's choice, the artist receives 40% commission, and The Giving Gallery receives 20%
The Giving Gallery platform is the "middle-person" that builds and maintains the platform, facilitates transactions, works with the artist to package and ship the art to the buyer, and ensures that both the artist and nonprofit receive their financial portion of each sale
Partner Benefits
The Giving Gallery is a collective impact model. In other words, it's a win-win-win between mental health nonprofits, artists, and art buyers. Our growth is organic in nature and compounds (network effect). In other words, as more artists join and nonprofits promote our mission, sales and awareness increase.
- Art sales directly support partnered mental health nonprofits and artists
- Existing donors get to enjoy a new and creative way to support mental health through art
- Artists in your nonprofit network get the opportunity to join a community of artists supporting mental health, share their story, and connect with art buyers
- Be part of a global network of artists, buyers, and nonprofits who are working together to raise awareness and funds


text:
1986-2020: Celebrating Scotland's Music for over 30 Years
13 tracks: King George V Army Set * The Yowie's Horn Set * The Battle of Waterloo Set * The Hornpipe Set * March, Strathspey and Reel * Kintail * Devil In The Kitchen Set * Princer Bridge Set * The Conundrum Set * Morag's Set * Competition Medley * The View From Glenniston * Terra Incognita * The Ale Is Dear Set.
A live concert recording by this Grade 1 pipe band from Fife, Scotland, under the leadership of Pipe Major Brian Lamond.
The Band have enlisted the help of some guest musicians including Andy Hunter (vocals), Michael Philip (accordion), Frank McGuire (percussion), Paul Clancy (keyboards) and Sandy Stannage (guitar). Brian Lamond features on Scottish smallpipes on two tracks and Douglas Murray plays a selection of his own compositions solo on the Highland bagpipe on one track.
The Dysart and Dundonald Pipe Band have a long and proud history, going back to 1929 when the band was known as Dundonald Juvenile Band, under Pipe Major Bob MacKay. After a period as the Dundonald Colliery Pipe Band the name changed finally to The Dysart and Dundonald Pipe Band.
Under the leadership of Pipe Major Robert Shepherd, success followed as the band moved up the grades, finally achieving Grade 1 status in 1973. Titles won by the band include World Champions (twice) * Cowal Champions (four times) * British Champions (three times) * Scottish Champions (seven times) * European Champions (twice) * and Supreme Champions (three times).
Brian Lamond joined the band in 1999, after periods with The Polkemmet and Vale of Atholl Pipe Bands. He was a member of The Victoria Police Pipe Band when they won The World Pipe Band Championships in 1998. The current lineup of Dysart and Dundonald also includes Pipe Sergeant John Elliott and Leading Drummer Brian Purves.
see other titles and news articles related to Dysart and Dundonald Pipe Band
Our online ordering and postal despatch is still in operation despite the current COVID-19 situation - and we're keeping it safe!
We accept PayPal and all major credit and debit cards.
enter your email address:You can easily unsubscribe here, or by using the link in any message, or by contacting us. Greentrax are clear and transparent about what data we collect from you, in line with GDPR guidelines. By submitting this form you consent to Greentrax using your contact details to send monthly email updates on new releases and special offers.


text:
As the number of homeschooling families continues to rise, so do the number of homeschool conventions. I'm aware of at least 4 of them in Southern California over the next 5 months. Since I'm a great believer in free-market economics, I love to have these choices available. But I also know that too many choices can be overwhelming. Here is my short and easy guide to the 2015 SoCal homeschool conventions. Deadlines for early bird pricing and early registration bonuses are quickly approaching. Continue reading
Category Archives: Helpful Organizations
Why I'm Going to the CHEA Convention and Why You Should Too!
What are you doing May 29th-31st? I'll be at the CHEA (Christian Home Educators Association of California) Convention at the Disneyland Hotel. I hope you'll join me there for information, inspiration, and fellowship.
Details on the Convention can be found at the CHEA website. Take advantage of the pre-registration discount by signing up no later than midnight, April 21st.
If you're just thinking about homeschooling, there's a great FREE mini-conference for new homeschoolers on Thursday evening , May 29th. Sessions include Just the Facts M'am: Homeschooling Works, Introduction to Home Education, and you'll get to visit the Exhibit Hall as well. Other sessions throughout the conference that I'd recommend are My Journey Out of the Government Schools and into the Joy of Home/Life Education, Homeschooling: Essential to the Natural Family, Building Strong Families through Christian Homeschooling, and many more.
If you're new to homeschooling, useful sessions include Getting Started, Keeping First Things First, How to Determine Your Child's Learning Style, Making Curriculum Choices, Recordkeeping and Lesson Planning, and many more.
If you don't think you can afford to homeschool, check out these sessions: When is Enough Enough?, Get Right on the Money, and Five Ways to Make Money in the New Online World.
If you've been homeschooling FOREVER (at least it seems that way!), you might want to attend Why You Should Continue to Homeschool, Preparing for High School, Not Necessarily College Bound, Time Management for Parents and Teens, How to Teach Biblical Worldview Thinking All Day, and many more. Continue reading
Time for Another Convention
This weekend is CHEA's Annual Convention in Southern California. I'm looking forward to being back at the Disneyland Hotel, which is where I attended my first ever homeschool convention. I still remember the sense of awe when I realized how many other people homeschooled and the feeling of being totally overwhelmed as I attempted to look at curriculum. Multiply that by 10 (at least) to get a sense of what a modern day homeschool convention looks like!
Details about this convention can be found at http://www.cheaofca.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=1162&parentID=522
Great suggestions about getting the most out of a convention and alleviating some of the overload sensation can be found at http://www.homeschool411.com/homeschool/brain-drain/
Why attend a convention in the first place? Check out my blog post from April 9th: https://pennyross.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/homeschool-convention-here-i-come/
I'm teaching 2 workshops on Saturday: "Recordkeeping Simplified" and "You CAN Teach Preschool at Home!" Whether you attend my sessions or some of the others, I'm sure you'll be blessed and encouraged as there are some wonderful speakers and seminars available. Let's pray for God to move mightily at this convention! Hope to see you there!
Homeschool Convention — Here I Come!
I'll be attending my first homeschool convention of the year this weekend. It's CHEA's Bay Area Convention in Santa Clara, my first time at a CHEA (Christian Home Educators Association of California) event in Northern California. Convention details available at http://www.cheaofca.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=1137&parentID=522
Whether this is your first year homeschooling or your twenty-first, I encourage you to attend a convention every year that you possibly can. Looking at sample pages of curriculum over the Internet doesn't begin to compare with the opportunity to speak with the author of the book. Struggling through teaching a particular topic can feel so isolating — until you attend a workshop at a convention and discover 50 other people also struggling in the same area. The encouragement and support you will gain in a day or two of convention attendance can last you through an entire school year of ups and downs.
For more information on the homeschool conventions and conferences sponsored by AHEAD (American Home Education and Discipleship), see "What Are AHEAD Conferences?" by Mary Ann Eagleson at http://americanhomeeducation.org/blog/post.cfm/what-are-ahead-conferences.
German Homeschooling Family — What Difference does it make to me?
You may have heard of the Romeike family in the news. They're the family who had to leave Germany in order to keep homeschooling their children. They are seeking asylum in the United States. To learn more of their situation, see http://www.hslda.org/legal/cases/romeike.asp.
Michael Farris of HSLDA will argue their case before an appellate court on April 23rd. What difference does that case mean to us? Should it matter to us if they are sent back to Germany?
Reflections on 25 years at Hope Chapel Academy
Originally published in Hope Chapel Academy's 25th Anniversary souvenir program, May 2012
The Rosses began homeschooling during Academy's first year in 1987. Joe was an excited kindergartener while Amy attempted to keep up, though only a toddler. Andy was making his presence known by the morning sickness which kept me in the bathroom during most of our first Academy Days (now known as EXTRAs Day). After that difficult first year, it's amazing that we kept homeschooling! But even then, we were beginning to glimpse the fruit as we all learned to integrate our faith and real-life into our academic studies. As the years passed, homeschooling turned into an integral part of our family life together.
Though my children have all now graduated, it has been a privilege to continue working at Hope Chapel Academy. I love the opportunities to watch you teach and disciple your children as they grow up. I am thankful for the support and encouragement I received from this program and I'm so grateful for the freedom we have to homeschool in our state and country today. May God continue to bless and guide us as we raise up succeeding generations to glorify Him!
What is CHEA and Why Do We Need It?
Originally published in The Hope-Full Homeschooler, April-May 2012
Your homeschool rights and much of the support you get in homeschooling is the fruit of the hard work of three different organizations: Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), Family Protection Ministries (FPM), and Christian Home Educators Association of California (CHEA). The quiet one of the trio is CHEA. They are content to work in the background, so many of you do not know what they do and how they bless us.
I recently asked one of our moms what she would do if asked about homeschooling by someone beginning to consider it. Without hesitating, she said she'd tell her to call me. Besides my own experiences homeschooling my kids and learning by the seat of my pants, do you know where I get most of my information? It is from the 2-3 homeschool leader events each year that I go too. And guess who sponsors those events? CHEA!


text:
JEE Main Sample Papers :
Here we are providing the JEE Main Sample Papers for more practice .
♦ To solve sample papers of any exam not only for JEE Main is the best option to understand the exam pattern , time management , important topics , syllabus marking scheme , difficulty level of questions, syllabus of paper etc..
♦ Sample papers of JEE Main is given here in PDF format for all JEE Main aspirants .
♦ These are free for everyone , you can download and try out the questions. The sample papers covers the latest syllabus of JEE Main.
♦ Each sample paper contains questions from Physics , Chemistry , Mathematics .
Benefits of solving sample papers :
- Helps to Craft Perfect Time Strategies and Exam Techniques
Solving sample papers helps the student to manage limited time.While they solve sample papers in given time duration they get an idea how to solve questions,which questions are important etcs..
- Aids to Get Rid of the Exam Fear
The format of sample papers are same as exam question paper.Students are often so scared of facing the entrance exam that they end up getting even the easier questions wrong.
- Gives an Idea about the Length of Exam
By solving the sample papers students can understand the length of exam paper means how many questions will be asked in paper.
- Familiarizes You with the Exam
Student will be familiarized with the exam pattern,marking scheme of exam.
Details of Sample Papers—
Each sample paper contains 90 questions . There are 30 questions from each subjects Physics , Chemistry , Mathematics .
Try to solve each paper with in given time limit of 3 hours because it will help you to manage your time in actual exam.
Download JEE Main sample papers here—-
JEE Main sample paper 1–Sample Paper 1. pdf
JEE Main sample paper 2–Sample Paper 2 .pdf
JEE Main sample paper 3–Sample Paper 3 .pdf
JEE Main sample paper 4–Sample Paper 4 .pdf
JEE Main sample paper 5–Sample Paper 5 .pdf
So, it was the sample papers of JEE Main. I hope, you will have enjoyed. If you have any query regarding to this post,you can ask in comment box. Your query will be appreciated.
Stay connected. Thank you!
To Download the JEE Previous Year Question Papers, Click on below link :
To download the JEE Advanced Sample Papers, Click on below link :
To download the JEE Advanced Previous Year Question Papers, Click on below link :
JEE Advanced Previous Year Question Papers


text:
This website uses cookies. Some cookies may have been set already. To find out more about our use of cookies you can visit our Privacy policy. By browsing this website, you agree to our use of cookies.
This is a prototype - your feedback will help us to improve it.
The Secretary General of the Department has the following responsibilities:


text:
This year we are hoping to display all the dances in our repertoire. We have introduced a new dance, BlackBurn.
Our current team of 13 dancers are drawn from a wide geographical area (eg. Milton Keynes, Welwyn Garden City, Hemel Hempstead as well as Wheathampstead, Harpenden) - we all enjoy the variety of activities comes from belonging to the group.
The Morris dances we perform are integrated into shows that involve our members using lots of different skills not just dancing. Those who are interested can get involved in: teaching; choreography; research; etc. We all enjoy ourselves!
If you are interested in joining us, we would love to hear from you. Please contact us through the email and telephone numbers listed on the web site or come and meet us at one of our events.
Current North-west dances:
|Garlands or slings:
|Sticks or shakers :
|Geraldine's Whorl
|East Hyde
|Kenilworth Castle


text:
aka "Flying Disc Hawaii"
I do full video production for low- and medium cost projects.
Output can be DVD-Video. Online publication includes youtube and Vimeo, with the option of private, link only or fully publicly available videos. Blu-Ray available on request.
Also, output can be delivered on thumb drive in Standard Definition or High Definition.
Equipment I use:
Panasonic HVX-200, Sony PD-150
Marshal monitor
Shure wireless lav
AKG super shotgun mics – stereo pair
Miller Solo video tripod, and a couple of heavy duty bogen (manfretto) video tripods
Advanta-jib: 11 foot, full control jib
small, wired lighting package, 2 cordless LED lights
I edit in FCP X and old school FCP 7. Over 10 years of experience with non-linear editing.
I also do some Premeire Pro when requested
Ocktava M-12: Russian-make stereo matched pair condensors with multiple patterns
24 channel audio console