text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
1. Petitioners' punitive damages were not received "on account of" personal injuries; hence the gross-income-exclusion provision does not apply and the damages are taxable. Pp. 2-11.
(a) Although the phrase "on account of" does not unambiguously define itself, several factors prompt this Court to agree with the Government when it interprets the exclusionary provision to apply to those personal injury lawsuit damages that were awarded by reason of, or because of, the personal injuries, and not to punitive damages that do not compensate injury, but are private fines levied by civil juries to punish reprehensible conduct and to deter its future occurrence. For one thing, the Government's interpretation gives the phrase "on account of" a meaning consistent with the dictionary definition. More important, in Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U. S. ___, this Court came close to resolving the statute's ambiguity in the Government's favor when it said that the statute covers pain and suffering damages, medical expenses, and lost wages in an ordinary tort case because they are "designed to compensate . . . victims," id., at ___, n. 5, but does not apply to elements of damages that are "punitive in nature," id., at ___. The Government's reading also is more faithful to the statutory provision's history and basic tax-related purpose of excluding compensatory damages that restore a victim's lost, nontaxable "capital." Petitioners suggest no very good reason why Congress might have wanted the exclusion to have covered these punitive damages, which are not a substitute for any normally untaxed personal (or financial) quality, good, or "asset" and do not compensate for any kind of loss. Pp. 2-8.
(b) Petitioners' three arguments to the contrary-that certain words or phrases in the original, or current, version of the statute work in their favor; that the exclusion of punitive damages from gross income may be justified by Congress' desire to be generous to tort victims and to avoid such administrative problems as separating punitive from compensatory portions of a global settlement or determining the extent to which a punitive damages award is itself intended to compensate; and that their position is supported by a 1989 statutory amendment that specifically says that the gross income exclusion does not apply to any punitive damages in connection with a case not involving physical injury or sickness-are not sufficiently persuasive to overcome the Government's interpretation. Pp. 8-11.
2. Petitioners' two case-specific procedural arguments-that the Government's lawsuit was untimely and that its original notice of appeal was filed a few days late-are rejected. Pp. 12-14. 66 F. 3d 1550, affirmed.
Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which O'Connor and Thomas, JJ., joined.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
[End of Syllabus]
On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
[December 10,1996]
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
Internal Revenue Code Section(s) 104(a)(2), as it read in 1988, excluded from "gross income," the
The litigation before us concerns petitioners' legal entitlement to that refund. Procedurally speaking, the litigation represents the consolidation of two cases brought in the same Federal District Court: Kelly's suit against the Government for a refund, and the Government's suit against the children to recover the refund that the Government had made to the children earlier. 26 U. S. C. Section(s) 7405(b) (authorizing suits by the United States to recover refunds erroneously made). The Federal District Court held on the merits that the statutory phrase "damages . . . on account of personal injury or sickness," includes punitive damages, thereby excluding punitive damages from gross income and entitling Kelly to obtain, and the children to keep, their refund. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, however, reversed the District Court. Along with the Fourth, Ninth and Federal Circuits, it held that the exclusionary provision does not cover punitive damages. Because the Sixth Circuit has held the contrary, the Circuits are divided about the proper interpretation of the provision. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict.
On one linguistic interpretation of those words, that of petitioners, they require no more than a "but-for" connection between "any" damages and a lawsuit for personal injuries. They would thereby bring virtually all personal injury lawsuit damages within the scope of the provision, since: "but for the personal injury, there would be no lawsuit, and but for the lawsuit, there would be no damages." On the Government's alternative interpretation, however, those words impose a stronger causal connection, making the provision applicable only to those personal injury lawsuit damages that were awarded by reason of, or because of, the personal injuries. To put the matter more specifically, they would make the section inapplicable to punitive damages, where those damages
We agree with the Government's interpretation of the statute. For one thing, its interpretation gives the phrase "on account of " a meaning consistent with the dictionary definition. See, e.g., Webster's Third New International Dictionary 13 (1981) ("for the sake of: by reason of: because of ").
More important, in Schleier, supra, we came close to resolving the statute's ambiguity in the Government's favor. That case did not involve damages received in an ordinary tort suit; it involved liquidated damages and backpay received in a settlement of a lawsuit charging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Nonetheless, in deciding one of the issues there presented (whether the provision now before us covered ADEA liquidated damages), we contrasted the elements of an ordinary tort recovery with ADEA liquidated damages. We said that pain and suffering damages, medical expenses, and lost wages in an ordinary tort case are covered by the statute and hence excluded from income
Applying the same reasoning here would lead to the conclusion that the punitive damages are not covered because they are an element of damages not "designed to compensate . . . victims," Schleier, 515 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9, n. 5); rather they are " `punitive in nature.' " Ibid. Although we gave other reasons for our holding in Schleier as well, we explicitly labeled this reason an "independent" ground in support of our decision, id., at ___ (slip op., at 11). We cannot accept petitioners' claim that it was simply a dictum.
We also find the Government's reading more faithful to the history of the statutory provision as well as the basic tax-related purpose that the history reveals. That history begins in approximately 1918. At that time, this Court had recently decided several cases based on the principle that a restoration of capital was not income; hence it fell outside the definition of "income" upon which the law imposed a tax. E.g., Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U. S. 179, 187 (1918); Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 330, 335 (1918). The Attorney General then advised the Secretary of the Treasury that proceeds of an accident insurance policy should be treated as nontaxable because they primarily
But to say this is not to support cutting the statute totally free from its original moorings in victim loss. The statute's failure to separate those compensatory elements of damages (or accident insurance proceeds) one from the other does not change its original focus upon damages that restore a loss, that seek to make a victim whole, with a tax-equality objective providing an important part of, even if not the entirety of, the statute's rationale. All this is to say that the Government's interpretation of the current provision (the wording of which has not changed significantly from the original) is more consistent than is petitioners' with the statute's original focus.
Finally, we have asked why Congress might have wanted the exclusion to have covered these punitive damages, and we have found no very good answer. Those damages are not a substitute for any normally untaxed personal (or financial) quality, good, or "asset." They do not compensate for any kind of loss. The statute's language does not require, or strongly suggest, their exclusion from income. And we can find no evidence that congressional generosity or concern for administrative convenience stretched beyond the bounds of an interpretation that would distinguish compensatory from noncompensatory damages.
Of course, as we have just said, from the perspective of tax policy one might argue that noncompensatory punitive damages and, for example, compensatory lost wages are much the same thing. That is, in both instances, exclusion from gross income provides the taxpayer with a windfall. This circumstance alone, however, does not argue strongly for an interpretation that covers punitive damages, for coverage of compensatory damages has both language and history in its favor to a degree that coverage of noncompensatory punitive damages does not. Moreover, this policy argument assumes that coverage of lost wages is something of an anomaly; if so, that circumstance would not justify the extension of the anomaly or the creation of another. See Wolfman, Current Issues of Federal Tax Policy, 16 U. Ark. Little Rock L. J. 543, 549-550 (1994) ("[T]o build upon" what is, from a tax policy perspective, the less easily explained portion "of the otherwise rational exemption for personal injury," simply "does not make sense").
Petitioners make three sorts of arguments to the contrary. First, they emphasize certain words or phrases in the original, or current, provision that work in their favor. For example, they stress the word "any" in the phrase "any damages." And they note that in both original and current versions Congress referred to certain amounts of money received (from workmen's compensation, for example) as "amounts received . . . as compensation," while here they refer only to "damages received" without adding the limiting phrase "as compensation." 26 U. S. C. Section(s) 104(a); Revenue Act of 1918, Section(s) 213(b)(6), 40 Stat. 1066. They add that in the original version, the words "on account of personal injuries" might have referred to, and modified, the kind of lawsuit, not the kind of damages. And they find support for this view in the second sentence of the Treasury Regulation first adopted in 1958 which says:
Second, petitioners argue that to some extent the purposes that might have led Congress to exclude, say, lost wages from income would also have led Congress to exclude punitive damages, for doing so is both generous to victims and avoids such administrative problems as separating punitive from compensatory portions of a global settlement or determining the extent to which a punitive damages award is itself intended to compensate.
Our problem with these arguments is one of degree. Tax generosity presumably has its limits. The administrative problem of distinguishing punitive from compensatory elements is likely to be less serious than, say, distinguishing among the compensatory elements of a settlement (which difficulty might account for the statute's treatment of, say, lost wages). Cf. supra p. 8. And, of course, the problem of identifying the elements of an ostensibly punitive award does not exist where, as here, relevant state law makes clear that the damages at issue are not at all compensatory, but entirely punitive. Brewer v. HomeStake Production Co., 200 Kan. 96, 100, 434 P. 2d 828, 831 (1967) ("[E]xemplary damages are not regarded as compensatory in any degree"); accord, Smith v. Printup, 254 Kan. 315, 866 P. 2d 985 (1993); Folks v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 243 Kan. 57, 755 P. 2d 1319 (1988); Nordstrom v. Miller, 227 Kan. 59, 605 P. 2d 545 (1980).
Third, petitioners rely upon a later enacted law. In 1989, Congress amended the law so that it now specifically says the personal injury exclusion from gross income
The 1989 amendment's legislative history, insofar as relevant, offers further support. The amendment grew out of the Senate's refusal to agree to a House bill that would have made all damages in nonphysical personal injury cases taxable. The Senate was willing to specify only that the Government could tax punitive damages in such cases. Compare H. R. Rep. No. 101-247, p. 1355 (1989), with H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-386, pp. 622-623 (1989). Congress' primary focus, in other words, was upon what to do about nonphysical personal injuries, not upon the provision's coverage of punitive damages under pre-existing law.
We add that, in any event, the view of a later Congress cannot control the interpretation of an earlier enacted statute. United States v. Price, 361 U.S. 304 (1960); Higgins v. Smith, 308 U.S. 473 (1940). But cf. Burke, 504 U.S., at 235 , n. 6 (including a passing reference to the 1989 amendment, in dicta, as support for a view somewhat like that of petitioners).
(Although neither party has argued that it is relevant, we note in passing that Section(s) 1605 of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-188, 110 Stat. 1838, explicitly excepts most punitive damages from the exclusion provided by Section(s) 104(a)(2). Because it is of prospective application, the section does not apply here. The Conference Report on the new law says that "[n]o inference is intended" as to the proper interpretation of section 104(a)(2) prior to amendment. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-737, p. 301 (1996).)
The upshot is that we do not find petitioners' arguments sufficiently persuasive. And, for the reasons set out above, supra, at 3-8, we agree with the Government's interpretation of the statute.
The children concede that they received the refund checks on July 9, 1990, and they agree that if the limitation period runs from the date of receipt-if, as the Government argues, that is the date of the "making of " the refund-the Government's suit was timely. But the children say that the refund was made on, and the limitations period runs from, the date the Government mailed the checks (presumably July 6, 7, or 8) in which case the Government brought this suit one or two or three days too late.
In our view, the Government is correct in its claim that its lawsuit was timely. The language of the statute admits of both interpretations. But the law ordinarily provides that an action to recover mistaken payments of money "accrues upon the receipt of payment," New Bedford v. Lloyd Investment Associates, Inc., 363 Mass. 112, 119, 292 N. E. 2d 688, 692 (1973); accord Sizemore v. E. T. Barwick Industries, Inc., 225 Tenn. 226, 233, 465 S. W. 2d 873, 876 (1971) (" `the time of making the . . . payment . . . was the date of actual receipt' "), unless, as in some States and in some cases, it accrues upon the still later date of the mistake's discovery, see Allen & Lamkin, When Statute of Limitations Begins to Run Against Action to Recover Money Paid By Mistake, 79 A. L. R. 3d 754, 766-769 (1977). We are not aware of any good reason why Congress would have intended a different result where the nature of the claim is so similar to a traditional action for money paid by mistake-an action the roots of which can be found in the old common-law claim of "assumpsit" or "money had and received." New Bedford, supra, at 118. The lower courts and commentators have reached a similar conclusion. United States v. Carter, 906 F. 2d 1375 (CA9 1990); Akers v. United States, 541 F. Supp. 65, 67 (M. D. Tenn. 1981); United States v. Woodmansee, 388 F. Supp. 36, 46 (N. D. Cal. 1975), rev'd on other grounds, 578 F. 2d 1302 (CA9 1978); 14 J. Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation Section(s) 54A.69 (1995); Kafka & Cavanagh, Litigation of Federal Civil Tax Controversies Section(s) 20.03, p. 20-15 (2d ed. 1995). That conclusion is consistent with dicta in an earlier case from this Court, United States v. Wurts, 303 U.S. 414, 417 -418 (1938), as well as with this Court's normal practice of construing ambiguous statutes of limitations in Government action in the Government's favor. E.g., Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 391 (1984).
We concede the children's argument that a "date of mailing" interpretation produces marginally greater certainty, for such a rule normally would refer the court to the postmark to establish the date. But there is no indication that a "date of receipt" rule has proved difficult to administer in ordinary state or common-law actions for money paid erroneously. The date the check clears, after all, sets an outer bound.
Second, Kelly O'Gilvie says that the Court of Appeals should not have considered the Government's original appeal from the District Court's judgment in his favor because, in his view, the Government filed its notice of appeal a few days too late. The Court of Appeals describes the circumstances underlying this case-specific issue in its opinion. We agree with its determination of the matter for the reasons it has there set forth.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Section 104(a)(2), as it stood at the time relevant to these cases, provided an exclusion from income for "any damages received . . . on account of personal injuries or sickness." 26 U. S. C. Section(s) 104(a)(2) (1988 ed.). The Court is of the view that this phrase, in isolation, is just as susceptible of a meaning that includes only compensatory damages as it is of a broader meaning that includes punitive damages as well. Ante, at 3-4. I do not agree. The Court greatly understates the connection between an award of punitive damages and the personal injury complained of, describing it as nothing more than " but-for" causality, ante, at 3. It seems to me that the personal injury is as proximate a cause of the punitive damages as it is of the compensatory damages; in both cases it is the reason the damages are awarded. That is why punitive damages are called damages. To be sure, punitive damages require intentional, blameworthy conduct, which can be said to be a coequal reason they are awarded. But negligent (or intentional) conduct occupies the same role of coequal causality with regard to compensatory damages. Both types of damages are "received on account of" the personal injury.
The nub of the matter, it seems to me, is this: If one were to be asked, by a lawyer from another legal system, "What damages can be received on account of personal injuries in the United States?" surely the correct answer would be "Compensatory damages and punitive damages-the former to compensate for the inflicting of the personal injuries, and the latter to punish for the inflicting of them." If, as the Court asserts, the phrase "damages received on account of personal injuries" can be used to refer only to the former category, that is only because people sometimes can be imprecise. The notion that Congress carefully and precisely used the phrase "damages received on account of personal injuries" to segregate out compensatory damages seems to me entirely fanciful. That is neither the exact nor the ordinary meaning of the phrase, and hence not the one that the statute should be understood to intend.
What I think to be the fair meaning of the phrase in isolation becomes even clearer when the phrase is considered in its statutory context. The Court proceeds too quickly from its erroneous premise of ambiguity to analysis of the history and policy behind Section(s) 104(a)(2). Ante, at 5-8. Ambiguity in isolation, even if it existed, would not end the textual inquiry. Statutory construction, we have said, is a "holistic endeavor." United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988). "A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme." Ibid.
Section 104(a)(2) appears immediately after another provision, Section(s) 104(a)(1), which parallels Section(s) 104(a)(2) in several respects but does not use the critical phrase "on account of":
The contrast between the two usages is even more striking in the original statute that enacted them. The Revenue Act of 1918 combined subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Section(s) 104, together with (a)(3) (which provides an exclusion from income for amounts received through accident or health insurance for personal injuries or sickness), into a single subsection, which provided:
The Court maintains, however, that the Government's reading of Section(s) 104(a)(2) is "more faithful to [its] history." Ante, at 5. The "history" to which the Court refers is not statutory history of the sort just discussed-prior enactments approved by earlier Congresses and revised or amended by later ones to produce the current text. Indeed, it is not "history" from within even a small portion of Congress, since the House Committee Report the Court cites, standing by itself, is uninformative, saying only that "[u]nder the present law it is doubtful whether . . . damages received on account of [personal] injuries or sickness are required to be included in gross income." H. R. Rep. No. 767, 65th Cong., 2d Sess., 9-10 (1918). The Court makes this snippet of legislative history relevant by citing as pertinent an antecedent Treasury Department decision, which concludes on the basis of recent judicial decisions that amounts received from prosecution or compromise of a personal-injury suit are not taxable because they are a return of capital. Ante, at 5-6 (citing T. D. 2747, 20 Treas. Dec. Int. Rev. 457 (1918)).
One might expect the Court to conclude from this that the Members of Congress (on the unrealistic assumption that they knew about the Executive-Branch opinion) meant the statutory language to cover only return of capital, the source of the "doubt" to which the Committee Report referred. But of course the Court cannot draw that logical conclusion, since even if it is applied only to compensatory damages the statute obviously and undeniably covers more than mere return of "human capital," namely, reimbursement for lost income, which would be a large proportion (indeed perhaps the majority) of any damages award. The Court concedes this is so, but asserts that this inconsistency is not enough "to support cutting the statute totally free from its original moorings," ante, at 7, by which I assume it means the Treasury Decision, however erroneous it might have been as to the "capital" nature of compensatory damages. But the Treasury Decision was no more explicitly limited to compensatory damages than is the statute before us. It exempted from taxation "an amount received by an individual as the result of a suit or compromise for personal injuries." T. D. 2747, 20 Treas. Dec. Int. Rev. 457 (1918). The Court's entire thesis of taxability rests upon the proposition that this Treasury Decision, which overlooked the obvious fact that "an amount received . . . as the result of a suit or compromise for personal injuries" almost always includes compensation for lost future income, did not overlook the obvious fact that such an amount sometimes includes "smart-money." So, to trace the Court's reasoning: The statute must exclude punitive damages because the Committee Report must have had in mind a 1918 Treasury Decision, whose text no more supports exclusion of punitive damages than does the text of the statute itself, but which must have meant to exclude punitive damages since it was based on the "return-of-capital" theory, though, inconsistently with that theory, it did not exclude the much more common category of compensation for lost income. Congress supposedly knew all of this, and a reasonably diligent lawyer could figure it out by mistrusting the inclusive language of the statute, consulting the Committee Report, surmising that the Treasury Decision of 1918 underlay that Report, mistrusting the inclusive language of the Treasury Decision, and discerning that Treasury could have overlooked lost-income compensatories, but could not have overlooked punitives. I think not. The sure and proper guide, it seems to me, is the language of the statute, inclusive by nature and doubly inclusive by contrast with surrounding provisions.
The Court poses the question, ante, at 7, "why Congress might have wanted the exclusion [in Section(s) 104(a)(2)] to have covered . . . punitive damages." If an answer is needed (and the text being as clear as it is, I think it is not), surely it suffices to surmise that Congress was following the Treasury Decision, which had inadvertently embraced punitive damages just as it had inadvertently embraced future-income compensatory damages. Or if some reason free of human error must be found, I see nothing wrong with what the Court itself suggests but rejects out of hand: Excluding punitive as well as compensatory damages from gross income "avoids such administrative problems as separating punitive from compensatory portions of a global settlement." Ante, at 9. How substantial that particular problem is is suggested by the statistics which show that 73 percent of tort cases in state court are disposed of by settlement, and between 92 and 99 percent of tort cases in federal court are disposed of by either settlement or some other means (such as summary judgment) prior to trial. See B. Ostrom & N. Kauder, Examining the Work of State Courts, 1994, p. 34 (1996); Administrative Office of the United States, L. Mecham, Judicial Business of the United States Courts: 1995 Report of the Director 162-164. What is at issue, of course, is not just imposing on the parties the necessity of allocating the settlement between compensatory and punitive damages (with the concomitant suggestion of intentional wrongdoing that any allocation to punitive damages entails), but also imposing on the Internal Revenue Service the necessity of reviewing that allocation, since there would always be strong incentive to inflate the tax-free compensatory portion. The Court's only response to the suggestion that this is an adequate reason (if one is required) for including punitive damages in the exemption is that "[t]he administrative problem of distinguishing punitive from compensatory elements is likely to be less serious than, say, distinguishing among the compensatory elements of a settlement." Ante, at 9-10. Perhaps so; and it may also be more simple than splitting the atom; but that in no way refutes the point that it is complicated enough to explain the inclusion of punitive damages in an exemption that has already abandoned the purity of a "return-of-capital" rationale.
The remaining argument offered by the Court is that our decision in Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U. S. ___ (1995), came "close to resolving"-in the Government's favor-the question whether Section(s) 104(a)(2) permits the exclusion of punitive damages. Ante, at 4. I disagree. In Schleier we were faced with the question whether backpay and liquidated damages under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) were "damages received . . . on account of personal injuries or sickness" for purposes of Section(s) 104(a)(2)'s exclusion. As the dissent accurately observed, 515 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (opinion of O'Connor, J.), "the key to the Court's analysis" was the determination that an ADEA cause of action did not necessarily entail "personal injury or sickness," so that the damages awarded for that cause of action could hardly be awarded "on account of personal injuries or sickness." See id., at __ (slip op., at 7). In the case at hand, we said, "respondent's unlawful termination may have caused some psychological or `personal' injury comparable to the intangible pain and suffering caused by an automobile accident," but "it is clear that no part of respondent's recovery of back wages is attributable to that injury." Ibid. The respondent countered that at least "the liquidated damages portion of his settlement" could be linked to that psychological injury. Ibid. And it was in response to that argument that we made the statement which the Court seeks to press into service for today's opinion. ADEA liquidated damages, we said, were punitive in nature, rather than compensatory. Id., at ___, and n. 5 (slip op., at 8-9, and n. 5).
The Court recites this statement as though the point of it was that punitive damages could not be received "on account of" personal injuries, whereas in fact the point was quite different: Since the damages were punishment for the conduct that gave rise to the (non-personal-injury) cause of action, they could not be "linked to" the incidental psychological injury. In the present cases, of course, there is no question that a personal injury occurred and that this personal injury is what entitled petitioners to compensatory and punitive damages. We neither decided nor intimated in Schleier whether punitive damages that are indisputably "linked to" personal injuries or sickness are received "on account of" such injuries or sickness. Indeed, it would have been odd for us to resolve that question (or even come "close to resolving" it) without any discussion of the numerous considerations of text, history and policy highlighted by today's opinion. If one were to search our opinions for a dictum bearing upon the present issue, much closer is the statement in United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229 (1992), that a statute confers "tort or tort type rights" (qualifying a plaintiff's recovery for the Section(s) 104(a)(2) exemption) if it entitles the plaintiff to "a jury trial at which `both equitable and legal relief, including compensatory and, under certain circumstances, punitive damages' may be awarded. " Id., at 240 (quoting Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 460 (1975)).
But all of this is really by the way. Because the statutory text unambiguously covers punitive damages that are awarded on account of personal injuries, I conclude that petitioners were entitled to deduct the amounts at issue here. This makes it unnecessary for me to reach the question, discussed ante, at 12-13, whether the government's refund action against the O'Gilvie children was commenced within the two-year period specified by 26 U. S. C. Section(s) 6532(b). I note, however, that the Court's resolution of these cases also does not demand that this issue be addressed, except to the extent of rejecting the proposition that the statutory period begins to run with the mailing of a refund check. So long as that is not the trigger, there is no need to decide whether the proper trigger is receipt of the check or some later event, such as the check's clearance.
For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent from the judgment of the Court.
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 95-977, O'Gilvie v. United States, also on certiorari to the same court.
Was this helpful?
Thank you. Your response has been sent.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 519 U.S. 79
Docket No: No. 95-966
Argued: October 09, 1996
Decided: October 09, 1996
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
Source: Link
COCKBURN, JAMES PATTISON, army officer and water-colourist; b. 18 March 1779 in New York City, son of Colonel John Cockburn and Mary Cockburn, daughter of Colonel Sir James Cockburn; m. 1800 Elizabeth Johanna Vansittart in Cape Colony (South Africa), and they had five sons and two daughters; d. 18 March 1847 in Woolwich (London).
James Pattison Cockburn was raised in a family of soldiers. On 19 March 1793 he entered the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich as a cadet, and there he was taught drawing, in the main under the chief drawing-master, Paul Sandby. To this two-year period of training belongs The Royal Laboratory, Woolwich, a water-colour in which Cockburn showed himself a skilled topographer with a strong sense of perspective and a fine, precise hand in drawing. Several figures in motion give life to the composition and prevent it from being only a topographical landscape. These characteristics would be the hallmark of his style.
Cockburn participated in the taking of Cape Colony in September 1795 and in an expedition against Manila in 1798. In 1803 he was back in England, and on 1 June 1806 he obtained the rank of captain in the artillery. His company was at first stationed at Colchester, and then in August and September 1807 was sent to Denmark, where Cockburn joined in the siege of Copenhagen. In November a set of five coloured aquatints made from his drawings recording the military operation was published. These early engravings fit into a strict topographical tradition, inherited from the 17th century, in which landscape is subordinated to the representation of sites and events. Cockburn was listed as sick from 10 Sept. 1807 until late November 1808, when he was located in Norwich. His years in the garrison there, until November 1814, were quiet except for the siege of Antwerp (Belgium) in August 1809, during which he led a flotilla with distinction and thus was awarded the task of negotiating the terms of surrender. From the expedition there remains a coloured aquatint map engraved from his drawings, the work of a cartographer in the style of Dutch artists Pieter Jansz Saenredam and Gaspar Van Wittel, which well illustrates the instruction given at the Royal Military Academy.
From 31 July to 12 Aug. 1809 Cockburn, as an honorary member, exhibited 17 water-colours at the Norwich Society of Artists, including some of Cape Colony and Bengal. He was experiencing a period of vital importance in his development as an artist. Through his contacts with the landscape painters of the Norwich school, in which Dutch and Italian influences blended, and particularly with the studios of John Sell Cotman and John Thirtle (reputedly his teacher), Cockburn's technique acquired a spontaneity it had lacked. The draftsmanship is less precise, and the result is to heighten the effect of the very diffused colouring, with the sombre tones in the foreground (deep ochres to pale olive-green) shading to light in the background. The eye is drawn to the atmospheric effects, such as the great diagonals of the sun's rays.
Cockburn returned to Colchester in December 1814 with the rank of brevet-major accorded him on 4 June. He stayed there till early in 1817. A sketch-book of August 1815 gives proof of a period at Woolwich and walks along the Thames. His symmetrical use of space demonstrates his mastery of composition. These drawings also reveal his way of working in front of the subject, which did not change much subsequently. He employed graphite, on its own or retouched with pen and with a brown ink wash, or else he used a sepia wash by itself that showed the shapes and the shades of light.
The Napoleonic Wars over, Cockburn went to stay on the Continent more frequently, working for William Bernard Cooke, an English engraver and publisher. In March 1816 and again in 1817 and 1818 he was at Naples and Pompeii, doing topographical sketches of the excavations. According to German composer Louis Spohr, to whom he showed more than 200 landscapes of Naples and its surroundings, Cockburn had "extraordinary skill in catching charming views in a matter of minutes." He was becoming an indefatigable sketcher. In the period 1816–22 he produced drawings in sepia as he moved from place to place in the Alps and elsewhere in Italy and Switzerland: vast panoramas and mountain passes figured alongside scenes of streets and market places. The wealth of pictures is explained not only by Cockburn's mastery of technical means but also, according to Spohr, by his use of "a machine that projected the landscape, in reduced scale, on paper." Although it is not certain that Spohr was referring to a camera lucida, the sharpness of the images in several sketches done at the time he made his remark in some measure substantiates this hypothesis.
Cockburn arrived in Lower Canada in November 1822. His visit was brief, since he left again on 17 June 1823, and his company followed in August. As a result there are few sketches from this first trip. A water-colour entitled Cape Diamond from below no 1 tower, dated 29 Oct. 1823, suggests Cockburn did studies that he reworked in his studio according to his usual practice. Back in Woolwich, he received the rank of major in his regiment on 29 July 1825 and was promoted lieutenant-colonel the same day. On 5 April 1826, at 47 years of age, he was given command of the Royal Artillery in the Canadas, to which he returned in August.
During these years of peace Cockburn had ample leisure to sketch Quebec and its environs as well as scenes in Upper and Lower Canada where his tours of inspection took him. Thus his subjects extend from Quebec to Niagara Falls. The idiom is firmly established in the drawings in sepia or water-colour from this mature period. The order and clarity of arrangement rest upon two constants: following a classical approach, the landscape is drawn in parallel planes; and a diagonal line (street, sidewalk, path, or river) is used to organize the elements in the composition, directing the eye from the foreground straight to the background. In his drawings of Quebec streets Cockburn reveals his debt to Paul Sandby: a soft light plays over a limited range of colours forming rhythmical compositions in pale tonalities and attenuating the analytical spirit of these water-colours. The artist's interest in community life is also evident in depictions of solemn occasions (religious processions), daily activities (men cutting ice), and anecdotal scenes (market days). These drawings, however, reveal only one aspect of his personality. Cockburn looked at nature in the Canadian countryside as a true landscape artist: he was able instinctively to find the best angle of approach and arrangement of physical features. With this ability he drew picturesque and poetic compositions, which were seldom dramatic or sublime, except perhaps for certain views of Niagara Falls. Observation of small details is still present: stratified rocks, sodden roads through heavy clay, effects of light on snow and ice. In 1831 he brought out anonymously a small "picturesque guide" to the town of Quebec and its environs illustrated with seven plates. But he turned out nothing comparable to his previous publications. On 2 Aug. 1832 he left Quebec with his family.
Cockburn settled in Woolwich, where he owned a house, and on 10 Oct. 1838 became director of the Royal Laboratory of the Royal Arsenal there. He retained this post until 15 Nov. 1846, when he retired with the rank of major-general, which had been accorded him on 9 November. His health deteriorated rapidly, and he died at his residence in Woolwich on 18 March 1847.
Cockburn produced an enormous body of work. Paradoxically, it has been studied only superficially and consequently in large measure remains to be reconstructed. The reason is simple: it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the sketch done from life and the work done in the studio. The sketch done from life seldom has any room for improvisation and already reveals the artist's poetic idiom; the work done in the studio retains the freshness of first impressions yet has been developed in the artist's mind.
After his death James Pattison Cockburn was not completely forgotten. In August 1860 nine of his water-colours were exhibited by the Norfolk and Norwich Fine Arts Association in a show to honour "local artists who were deceased." In a review in the Norwich Mercury his name appeared along with the famous names of the Norwich school, and he was called an "excellent artist." Time has but confirmed the esteem in which Cockburn was held during the period he spent at Quebec. Joseph Légaré*, upon whom he had a lasting effect, certainly shared this opinion. Légaré's direct copies and his occasional borrowings, his imitations of technique and his pasticcios, are indicative of an influence, rather than of intellectual affinity. Cockburn was thus one of the few British artists, if not the only one, in the early 19th century to impart his view of nature to a Quebec landscape artist.
[James Pattison Cockburn is the author of Swiss scenery from drawings (London, [1820]), illustrated by 60 prints from his drawings; the book was described as "nearly ready for publication" in the November 1818 issue of Gentleman's Magazine (p.445). An anonymous work, Quebec and its environs ; being a picturesque guide to the stranger, published in Quebec in 1831, was attributed to him first by Lady Aylmer, in her "Recollections of Canada, 1831" (ANQ Rapport, 1934–35: 283), and then in A dictionary of books relating to America, from its discovery to the present time, comp. Joseph Sabin (29v., New York, 1868–1936; repr. 29v. in 15, Amsterdam, 1961–62), 3: 200. It was certainly in the publisher's hands by 1829: in writing The picture of Quebec (Quebec, 1829), George Bourne drew extensively on it, virtually to the point of plagiarism, for the chapter "Itinerary" (pp.64–71).
A number of prints based on Cockburn's drawings were brought out in London either separately or in collections. These were, in chronological order, The siege of Copenhagen (1807), consisting of five aquatints; Pictural plan of the grand expedition in the West Schelt, Augt 1809 ; shewing the difficulty of approach to Antwerp (1809), one aquatint; View of the Royal Artillery barracks and View of the Royal Military Academy (1816), two aquatints (derived probably from drawings in his August 1815 sketch-book, from which only the two middle leaves have been removed); Views to illustrate the route of Mont Cenis, drawn from nature (1822), 50 plates; Views to illustrate the route of the Simplon, drawn from nature (1822), 50 plates (because the copy at the BL contains a text in 81 manuscript folios which describes the voyage and is entitled "Simplon," it is conceivable that Cockburn's intention was to produce a publication similar to Swiss scenery) ; Views in the valley of Aosta, drawn from nature (1823), 29 plates; and Quebec and The falls of Niagara (1833), two sets of six aquatints (the series The falls of Niagara was republished in 1857). Montmorency waterfall & cone, near Quebec and Horse-Shoe Fall, Niagara, coloured prints published in 1844 and based on drawings of William Purser and Thomas Allom, were new studies in Cockburn's style.
In addition, Cockburn contributed his drawings to various publications, the first, on which he collaborated with the English engraver William Bernard Cooke, appearing as Delineations of the celebrated city of Pompeii (London, 1818). Projected to comprise two volumes in four parts and to be illustrated by 50 picturesque views, the work was described in the January 1818 issue of Gentleman's Magazine (p.61) as being "nearly ready for publication." A comparison of copies held at the BL and at the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris (Estampes, Vf.219) suggests that there were two editions, the first probably published in 1818 or 1819, and the second in 1827 with the plates in a different order, additional prints, and a new title. Two of Cockburn's drawings were engraved for George Newenham Wright's The Rhine, Italy, and Greece, in a series of drawings from nature . . . with historical and legendary descriptions (2v., London and Paris, [1841]).
The principal collections of Cockburn's Canadian works are those of the Royal Ont. Museum in Toronto; the National Gallery of Canada and the Picture Division of the PAC, both in Ottawa; the McCord Museum in Montreal; and, in Quebec, the Musée du Québec, the Musée du Séminaire de Québec, and the ANQ-Q. Although his European works remain for the most part in private hands, public collections are in the British Museum (London), Dept. of Prints and Drawings; the Norwich Castle Museum (Norwich, Eng.); and the Royal Military Academy (Sandhurst, Eng.). d.p.]
GRO (London), Registration of death index, no.376, 27 March 1847 (copy at Somerset Record Office (Taunton, Eng.)). MAC-CD, Fonds Morisset, 1, Montréal, île de Montréal, bibliothèque municipale et album Viger; Québec, séminaire de Québec, archives, cartes et peintures. PAC, RG 8, I (C ser.), 747: 122, 125–26a; 748: 1–109; RG 37, A2, 298, 339. PRO, PROB 11/2055: 332 [392]; WO 17/1526: 158; 17/1527: 80; 17/1530: 105; 17/1536: 119; 17/2561; 17/2582; WO 55/1225–27, esp. 55/1227: 179–80; WO 76/360: 60.
Catalogue of the fifth exhibition by the Norwich Society of Artists in oil & water colours . . . (Norwich, 1809). Gentleman's Magazine, 1809: 763, 863–64; January–June 1847: 550–51. Records of the Royal Military Academy, 1741–1892, ed. H. D. Buchanan-Dunlop (2nd ed., Woolwich [London, 1895]). Norfolk Chronicle and Norwich Gazette (Norwich), 29 July 1809, 1 Sept. 1860. Norwich Mercury, 29 July, 5, 12 Aug. 1809. Quebec Gazette, 19 June 1823, 23 Nov. 1829, 1 Aug. 1832, 13 Dec. 1833. Quebec Mercury, 8 April 1828.
Jeremy Adamson, From ocean to ocean: nineteenth century water colour painting in Canada (Toronto, 1976), 5. Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart . . . , ed. Hans Vollmer (37v., Leipzig, [German Democratic Republic], 1907–50), 7: 146–47. Mary Allodi, Canadian watercolours and drawings in the Royal Ontario Museum (2v., Toronto, 1974), 1, nos.270–463. Battery records of the Royal Artillery, 1716–1859, comp. M. E. S. Laws (Woolwich, 1952), 127–86. W. M. E. Cooke, The last "Lion": . . . rambles in Quebec with James Pattison Cockburn (Kingston, Ont., 1978); W. H. Coverdale Collection of Canadiana: paintings, water-colours and drawings (Manoir Richelieu collection) (Ottawa, 1983), 43–60. Dictionnaire critique et documentaire des peintres, sculpteurs, dessinateurs et graveurs de tous les temps et de tous les pays (nouv. éd., 10v., Paris, 1976), 3: 87. DNB. Harper, Early painters and engravers, 69; Everyman's Canada; paintings and drawings from the McCord Museum of McGill University (Ottawa, 1962), 68–70. Historical records of the Seventy-Ninth Regiment of Foot or Cameron Highlanders, comp. Robert Jameson (Edinburgh and London, 1863). List of officers of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, as they stood in the year 1763, with a continuation to the present time . . . , comp. John Kane (Greenwich [London], 1815), 26. List of officers of the Royal Regiment of Artillery from the year 1716 to the present date, comp. John Kane (rev. ed., Woolwich, 1869), 25, 103. H. L. Mallalieu, The dictionary of British water-colour artists up to 1920 (Woodbridge, Eng., 1976; repr. 1984), 63. The New-York Historical Society's dictionary of artists in America. 1564–1860, comp. G. C. Groce and D. H. Wallace (New Haven, Conn., and London, 1957; repr. 1964). Norfolk and Norwich Fine Arts Assoc., Exhibition of the works of deceased local artists, at the government school of art, in the Norwich Free Library (Norwich, 1860), 13–15. Quebec almanac, 1823: 198; 1827: 205, 210; 1828: 145, 150; 1829: 159, 164; 1830: 161, 166; 1831: 183, 187; 1832: 173, 177. Miklós Rajnai, The Norwich Society of Artists, 1805–1833: a dictionary of contributors and their work (Norwich, 1976), 27, 104, 130, 137. Samuel Redgrave, A dictionary of artists of the English School: painters, sculptors, architects, engravers, and ornamentists; with notices of their lives and works (2nd ed., London, 1878; repr. Bath, Eng., 1970), 89. Ann Thomas, Fact and fiction: Canadian painting and photography, 1860–1900 (Montreal, 1979), 16–22. W. T. Vincent, The records of the Woolwich district (2v., Woolwich, 1888–90), 1: 368; 2: 462, 745.
Marjorie Allthorpe-Guyton, John Thirtle, 1777–1839 ; drawings in Norwich Castle Museum ([Norwich], 1977). Michael Bell, From Annapolis Royal to the Klondike; painters in a new land (Toronto, 1973), 11–12, 47, 49, 73–74, 221. J. A. Browne, England's artillerymen; an historical narrative of the services of the Royal Artillery (London, 1865). Christina Cameron et Jean Trudel, Québec au temps de James Patterson Cockburn (Québec, 1976). Robert and H. A. Cockburn, The records of the Cockburn family (Edinburgh, 1913) [containing a portrait of J. P. Cockburn, a copy of which is in the McCord Museum]. C. P. de Volpi, The Niagara peninsula, a pictorial record . . . (Montreal, 1966); Quebec, a pictorial record . . . , 16081875 (n.p., 1971). Pierre Doyon, "Les aquarellistes britanniques de l'Académie royale militaire de Woolwich et la représentation du paysage québécois, de 1759 à 1871" (2v., thèse de ma, univ. de Montréal, 1982), 1: 102–30. Harper, Painting in Canada (1977). A. W. Moore, The Norwich school of artists ([Norwich], 1985), 79. Morisset, Coup d'œil sur les arts, 80–81; La peinture traditionnelle, 75–77, 84. Fulgido Pomella, Piemonte, Valle d'Aosta, Nizza e Savoia, Valli Valdesi nelle illustrazioni di William Brockedon e William H. Bartlett (Ivrea, Italy, 1982), 14–15. D. R. Reid, A concise history of Canadian painting (Toronto, 1973), 29–30, 36. F. St G. Spendlove, The face of early Canada: pictures of Canada which have helped to make history (Toronto, 1958), 46–51. Louis [Ludwig] Spohr, Autobiography (2v., London, 1865; repr. 2v. in 1, New York, 1969). B. M. Stafford, Voyage into substance: art, science, nature and the illustrated travel account, 1760–1840 (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1984), 83, 91, 242, 272, 420. N. P. Willis, Canadian scenery illustrated, from drawings by W. H. Bartlett (2v., London, 1842; repr. Toronto, 1967). T. S. R. Boase, "English artists and the Val d'Aosta," Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Journal (London), 19 (1956): 288–89. W. E. Greening, "Some early recorders of the nineteenth century Canadian scene," Canadian Geographical Journal (Ottawa), 66 (January–June 1963), no.4: 126–27. Ignotus [Thomas Chapais], "Le monument Wolfe et Montcalm à Québec," BRH, 5 (1899): 305–9. Norwich Mercury, 22, 29 Aug. 1860. Notes and Queries (London), 14 Oct., 11 Nov. 1865; 9 July 1910; 31 Aug. 1912. F. St G. Spendlove, "The Canadian watercolours of James Pattison Cockburn (1779?–1847)," Connoisseur (London), 133 (1954), no.537: 203–7. Jean Trudel et Christina Cameron, "Québec vu par Cockburn," Vie des Arts (Montréal), 19 (automne 1974): 55–57.
© 1988–2023 University of Toronto/Université Laval
Image Gallery
Cite This Article
Didier Prioul, "COCKBURN, JAMES PATTISON," in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 7, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–, accessed September 27, 2023, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/cockburn_james_pattison_7E.html.
The citation above shows the format for footnotes and endnotes according to the Chicago manual of style (16th edition). Information to be used in other citation formats:
|Author of Article:
|Didier Prioul
|Title of Article:
|Publication Name:
|Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 7
|University of Toronto/Université Laval
|Year of publication:
|Year of revision:
|Access Date:
|September 27, 2023

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Welcome, Guest
Buy E-Currency
Sell E-Currency
Convert E-Currency
Fees & Rates
Special Offer
Member Help Desk
Contact Us
Verify Account
Online Fraud
Flash Demo
Link To Us
Link Exchange
Money laundering is the act of converting money or other monetary instruments gained from illegal activity into money or investments that appear to be legitimate so that its illegal source cannot be traced.
Anti-money laundering (AML) incorporates a complex of measures aimed at prevention of use of the financial system of the country or any specific financial institution for money laundering or terrorist financing. Such measures and instruments are worked out and implemented by international and national institutions, banking and business community.
EBG collects identification data of every Client, as well as IP addresses, online activity, communications and,in general, all transactions carried out by the Client.
EBG tracks, including auto-monitoring and auto-controlling, suspicious activities of the clients and transactions executed under unusual conditions. This includes, but not limited to, transactions that do not make economic sense, unexplained large transactions, transactions involving unidentified parties, investments related transactions of unclear nature.
EBG reserves the right to ask supporting documentation for the suspicious transactions.
Enhanced Due Diligence is exercised on high turnover customers and/or potential suspicious customers/transactions.
Purpose of the transaction is established where applicable.
EBG improves its AML procedures continuously to monitor unlawful financial schemes.
EBG reserves the right to refuse to process a transaction at any stage, when we believe that the transaction is associated with money laundering or other criminal activity.You are not authorized. Please login here to place order. After place the order we will send you our receiver's details and instruction through email. Or register if you are not a registered user.


text:
Smudge on the old well house roof
© FarmgirlFare.com
I love Smudge's markings.ReplyDelete
Oooohhh, Smudge is absolutely gorgeous! That's really a nice cat with a cute face...ReplyDelete
Smudge is beautiful :)ReplyDelete
...and the things that aren't cute are beautiful...ReplyDelete
What a perfect name! And, a perfect mane!ReplyDelete
How wonderful! So glad to have come across your little blog...ReplyDelete
Such an exotic face!ReplyDelete
What a beautifull cat.
We have a rescue cat also,I shall get busy with my camera.
What a beautiful kitty. I dearly love long haired cats. If I didn't live in the city, I would have more cats!ReplyDelete
Yes, along with everyone else--I thinks she's beautiful. I love when a cat has unusual marks like that on their face.ReplyDelete
Simply gorgeous!ReplyDelete
Ah! Smudge face! She's had her head in a vat of cookie dough one too many times....ReplyDelete
Oh! Smudge? That was the name of the cat my mom had when she was a teen. Your Smudge sure is pretty.ReplyDelete
Shall I add this one of smusge to the COTC banner? Let me know. -lsReplyDelete
Seriously, I commented this on one of your other posts, but he really looks like my Charles. Right down to a smudge of color by his nose, only Charles's is one the other side.ReplyDelete
I named my fourth cat Smudgy and my sister said, Oh, no, that's so mean! Now I don't feel so bad about it. (She--the cat, not my sister--is a "tabby-point Siamese", no breed I ever heard of, but with a few misplaced smudges of tabby elsewhere. Thanks for all your great recipes, too! I'm a city woman who was raised to be a farm girl, so on my 1-acre patch, I grow a ton of veggies and flowers and dream of living in southern Missouri on...was that 240 acres?...ReplyDelete
December 2015 update: Hi! For some reason I can't figure out, Blogger hasn't been letting me leave comments on my own blog (!) for the last several months, so I've been unable to respond to your comments and questions. My apologies for any inconvenience! You're always welcome to email me: farmgirlfare AT gmail DOT com.
Hi! Thanks for visiting Farmgirl Fare and taking the time to write. While I'm not always able to reply to every comment, I receive and enjoy reading them all.
Your feedback is greatly appreciated, and I especially love hearing about your experiences with my recipes. Comments on older posts are always welcome!
Please note that I moderate comments, so if I'm away from the computer it may be a while before yours appears.
I try my best to answer all questions, though sometimes it takes me a few days. And sometimes, I'm sorry to say, they fall through the cracks, and for that I sincerely apologize.
I look forward to hearing from you and hope you enjoy your e-visits to our farm!


text:
jokers revenge
true stories
urban legends
one liners
funny recipes
funny memos
funny photos
funny stories
funny poetry
funny letters
funny vocabulary
One Liners
Funny Recipes
Funny Memos
Funny Photos
Funny Stories
Funny Poetry
Funny Letters
Funny Vocabulary
True Stories
Urban Legends
Joke of the Week
Sep 28, 2023
Signup now to receive a free joke every monday.
You Are Here:
true stories
» how kid's think
How kid's Think
 Email
 Favorites
Link to this page
The following excerpts are actual answers given on history tests and in Sunday school quizzes by children between 5th and 6th grade ages in Ohio. They were collected over a period of three years by two teachers. Read carefully for grammar, misplaced modifiers, and of course, spelling! Enjoy --
Ancient Egypt was old. It was inhabited by gypsies and mummies who all wrote in hydraulics. They lived in the Sarah Dessert. The climate of the Sarah is such that all the inhabitants have to live elsewhere.
Moses led the Hebrew slaves to the Red Sea where they made unleavened bread, which is bread made without any ingredients. Moses went up on Mount Cyanide to get the ten commandos. He died before he ever reached Canada but the commandos made it.
Solomon had three hundred wives and seven hundred porcupines. He was a actual hysterical figure as well as being in the bible. It sounds like he was sort of busy too.
The Greeks were a highly sculptured people, and without them we wouldn't have history. The Greeks also had myths. A myth is a young female moth.
Socrates was a famous old Greek teacher who went around giving people advice. They killed him. He later died from an overdose of wedlock which is apparently poisonous. After his death, his career suffered a dramatic decline.
In the first Olympic games, Greeks ran races, jumped, hurled biscuits, and threw the java. The games were messier then than they show on tv now.
Julius Caesar extinguished himself on the battlefields of Gaul. The Ides of March murdered him because they thought he was going to be made king. Dying, he gasped out: "Same to you, Brutus."
Joan of Arc was burnt to a steak and was canonized by Bernard Shaw for reasons I don't really understand. The English and French still have problems.
Queen Elizabeth was the "Virgin Queen," As a queen she was a success. When she exposed herself before her troops they all shouted "hurrah!" and that was the end of the fighting for a long while.
It was an age of great inventions and discoveries. Gutenberg invented removable type and the Bible. Another important invention was the circulation of blood.
Sir Walter Raleigh is a historical figure because he invented cigarettes and started smoking.
Sir Francis Drake circumcised the world with a 100 foot clipper which was very dangerous to all his men.
The greatest writer of the Renaissance was William Shakespeare. He was born in the year 1564, supposedly on his birthday. He never made much money and is famous only because of his plays. He wrote tragedies, comedies, and hysterectomies, all in Islamic pentameter.
Writing at the same time as Shakespeare was Miguel Cervantes. He wrote Donkey Hote. The next great author was John Milton. Milton wrote Paradise Lost. Since then no one ever found it.
Delegates from the original 13 states formed the Contented Congress. Thomas Jefferson, a Virgin, and Benjamin Franklin were two singers of the
Declaration of Independence. Franklin discovered electricity by rubbing two cats backward and also declared, "A horse divided against itself cannot stand." He was a naturalist for sure. Franklin died in 1790 and is still dead.
Abraham Lincoln became America's greatest Precedent. Lincoln's mother died in infancy, and he was born in a log cabin which he built with his own hands. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves by signing the Emasculation Proclamation.
On the night of April 14, 1865, Lincoln went to the theater and got shot in his seat by one of the actors in a moving picture show. They believe the assinator was John Wilkes Booth, a supposingly insane actor. This ruined Booth's career.
Johann Bach wrote a great many musical compositions and had a large number of children. In between he practiced on an old spinster which he kept up in his attic. Bach died from 1750 to the present. Bach was the most famous composer in the world and so was Handel. Handel was half German, half Italian, and half English. He was very large.
Beethoven wrote music even though he was deaf. He was so deaf that he wrote loud music and became the father of rock and roll. He took long walks in the forest even when everyone was calling for him. Beethoven expired in 1827 and later died for this.
The nineteenth century was a time of a great many thoughts and inventions. People stopped reproducing by hand and started reproducing by machine. The invention of the steamboat caused a network of rivers to spring up.
Cyrus McCormick invented the McCormick raper, which did the work of a hundred men.
Louis Pasteur discovered a cure for rabbits but I don't know why.
Charles Darwin was a naturalist. He wrote the Organ of the Species. It was very long people got upset about it and had trials to see if it was really true. He sort of said God's days were not just 24 hours but without watches who knew anyhow? I don't get it.
Madman Curie discovered radio. She was the first woman to do what she did. Other women have become scientists since her but they didn't get to find radios because they were already taken.
Karl Marx was one of the Marx Brothers. The other three were in the movies. Karl made speeches and started revolutions. Someone in the family had to have a job, I guess.
Comment or Share Your Own One Liner
Funny Joke
in your email every week!
We respect your privacy.
You can unsubscribe at any time.
Get a funny joke in your email every week. FREE!
one liners
funny recipes
funny memos
funny photos
funny stories
funny poetry
funny letters
funny vocabulary
© Copyright JokersRevenge.com


text:
Google Reader has a lot of useful keyboard shortcuts, but most of them only replace a click or two. For example, you can star an item by typing s or go to the original page by typing v.
But there's also a somewhat hidden view that can be activated only using shortcuts. If you type gu, you'll see a list of all of the blogs you've subscribed to. You can use the arrows to navigate to a feed or start typing the first letters from the feed's name. There's also a similar view for labels that can be activated by typing gl. This might be convenient if you have a lot of feeds or just to feel in control.
{ Via Lifehacker. }
February 6, 2007
Navigating Google Reader
Posted by Alex Chitu at 2/06/2007 10:35:00 AM
Labels: Google Reader, Tips
5 comments:
- AnonymousFebruary 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM
thank you! :)ReplyDelete
What is "Items labeled 'officialgoogleblogs' by Google Reader in Google Reader?ReplyDelete
That's easy. Google Reader lets you label feeds (for example: officialgoogleblogs) and you can also make a label public. This way you get a feed and a HTML page that aggregates all the posts labeled officialgoogleblogs.ReplyDelete
Someone (from Google) aggregated all the official Google blogs and I subscribed to the feed.
Here's the HTML page. and the feed.
Oh, in case you're wondering, these aren't all the feeds I read.ReplyDelete
i just want to be in control. Thanks for the tip!ReplyDelete
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
12 Tasting Notes
In the bag, the scent is quite strong.It has a very unique scent, but once brewed it is quite subtle. All of the flavours somehow balance out, creating a creamy-pepperminty flavour. I put a bit of sugar in it to bring out the almond in the tea, and it was delicious. It is very much reminiscent to its namesake- the perfect draco tea.
185 °F / 85 °C 3 min, 0 sec


text:
Gizmodo salutes culinary daring—the egg waffle is still one of the great breakthroughs of our time. But pizza in a jar? Not pizza. And meat sausages filled instead with chocolate and grilled crispy? Disgusting.
We'll hand it to Stef over at The Cupcake Project—the "cupcakewurst" idea is a brave one. But after walking through her simple recipe of sausage casing-filled with batter, cooked, and shoved into a perversion of the hot dog, it's hard to stay hungry. At the risk of sounding juvenile, the filling process looks like pooping into a used condom. But that aside, conceptually, sausage and chocolate ought not to mix. Pressing sweet sludge into the stomach casing of an animal can't be passed off as anything less than what it is: a food horror. Would you cook eel cookies? You would? Well, you're sick too. Make these choco-doggies if you dare. [Cupcake Project via FoodBeast]


text:
Wounded Vets Take Their Place On Paralympian Team
By William Douglas, McClatchy Washington Bureau
SOCHI, Russia — As members of the U.S. Army, Rico Roman and Jen Lee are part of America's first line of defense. As members of the U.S. Paralympics Sled Hockey team, Roman and Lee are the last line of defense.
Roman is a rugged defenseman-turned-forward who took to sled hockey because it reminded him of the hard-hitting football he played while growing up in Portland, Ore. Lee decided to strap on goalie gear because it brought back memories of playing in the net as a kid in San Francisco.
Neither man envisioned he would become a world-class athlete competing in the 2014 Paralympics in Sochi, Russia, March 7-16. But neither man envisioned losing a limb, a devastating event that can alter the trajectory of one's life.
But don't plan any pity parties for Roman and Lee. They're turning tragedy into triumph by playing a sport they never dreamed of playing that's taking them to places they never thought they'd go.
"I didn't watch hockey, I don't come from a hockey state," said Roman, 33. "Never did I know there was a Paralympic team. I never, never, never, never thought I'd be traveling and playing for the U.S.A. team."
Roman and Lee are in the Charlotte, N.C., area with the rest of the U.S. sled hockey team. They're at the Extreme Ice Center in Indian Trail, N.C., through Saturday training in preparation to defend their 2010 Gold Medal in Sochi.
The U.S. sled hockey team's road to Sochi will be highlighted Monday in "Ice Warriors: USA Sled Hockey," a one-hour documentary.
About 1,600 athletes and team members from 47 countries will participate in the Paralympic games. They'll compete in five events: alpine skiing, cross country skiing, biathlon, sled curling and sled hockey played at the same venues used for the 2014 Winter Olympics.
Hockey hurts. The vulcanized rubber puck that travels at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, sharp blades, and hard sticks, almost always seems to find sections of unprotected flesh to strike.
But hockey also heals, body and soul. And for Roman, Lee and other members of the U.S. sled hockey team, the game provided the right medicine at the right time.
"I think a lot of people thought, hey, our goal would be to try to walk again, or even run," Lee said. "Getting involved in this sport, to get out there, move around, play for the national team and represent your country and play all over internationally, it's really cool."
Roman, an Army staff sergeant, is the first war-wounded veteran to join the U.S. national sled hockey team. On Feb. 22, 2007, he was on his third tour in Iraq, finishing work at a security checkpoint at Sadar al Yusuf. He decided that his Humvee would lead a vehicular caravan back to base.
His vehicle hit an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and the blast severely damaged both of Roman's legs. The pain in his left leg grew so unbearable that he opted to have it amputated just above the knee a year later.
While recovering at the Brooke Medical Center at Fort Sam Hood in San Antonio, Tex., Roman was approached by members of Operation Comfort, a nonprofit group that provides rehabilitative and therapeutic programs for wounded veterans.
Roman took up hand cycling, using specialized bikes for disabled users, and wheelchair basketball. When Operation Comfort staffers suggested sled hockey, Roman shook his head.
But once they convinced him to visit the ice rink, they couldn't get him out. He joined the San Antonio Rampage, a sled hockey team comprised of military veterans. He joined the U.S. national sled hockey team in the 2011-12 season.
"I was hooked," he said. "Now I go to Brook Army Medical Center and I try to recruit guys to come out and try it. And they tell me the same thing I said 'I don't play hockey, I don't watch hockey.' I go, 'I said the exact same thing you told me right now and now I'm on the Paralympic team heading to Russia.'"
Forwards Paul Schaus and Josh Sweeney are the other war-wounded veterans on the U.S. team. They're both Marines and bilateral leg amputees following IED explosions in Afghanistan in 2009.
Army Staff Sergeant Jen Lee is teammates with Roman on the Rampage and the U.S. squad. He enlisted in the Army after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania.
The 27-year-old ended up at the Brooke Army Medical Center after a motorcycle accident resulted in his left leg being amputated above the knee. But the operation didn't dim his athletic competitiveness.
He embraced the adaptive sports recommended by Operation Comfort as part of his physical therapy regimen. His hockey experience as a kid convinced to give sled hockey a try.
Lee quickly found a home between the pipes. In 2011, a year after he joined the Rampage, Lee was chosen for the U.S. national team. He helped guide the U.S. team to a gold medal at the 2012 International Sledge World Championship and a silver medal at the 2013 world championships.
"I guess you've got to be weird to stop pucks, but I really enjoy it," he said. "I'm the kind of person that if I play an away game I love to hear the crows get upset that I've made a magnificent save or a great save."
The U.S sled hockey program is serious business. The national and Paralympics team is coached by Jeff Sauer, the retired University of Wisconsin and Colorado College coach.
In a 31-year career, Sauer racked up 655 wins, two NCAA Division I hockey championships, 123 NCAA tournament berths, six Western Collegiate Association playoff titles and two WCHA regular-season crowns.
AFP Photo/Loic Venance


text:
Etiquette, expectations, entitlement...@autoexec_bin | #magiclantern | Discord | Reddit | Server issues
That's correct... the camera will respect whatever compatible format the card is using. So formatting my exFAT card in-camera maintains exFAT. FYI... the benefit of exFAT will be when the ML folks enable >4GB raw files. Fat32 only supports files up to 4GB... exFAT has no such restriction. This may be a moot point if the ML folks decide to create separate 4GB files instead of one larger file >4GB for long takes. I see the pros and cons of either approach so ideally it would be a configurable option.
record Raw files larger than 4gb
I feel like you were siting next to me and seeing what I saw I have/had same issues like you did. I got my Komputerbay card and the speed vary between 60-72mb/s. I haven't tried the new build yet, but that's what I'm going to do. Hopefully its as good as other people say or at least better. My personal observation about this whole thing:I think right now not just everyday, but almost every hour or so there are new improvements in the firmware. I like the fact that most of the bugs can be fixed or worked around. I personally think installation and whole post workflow isn't as hard as some people describe it. It only took me 10min to downgrade from 1.2.1 to 1.1.3 and then install everything needed. Yes, post workflow is time consuming, but overall i think within a certain time that would be worked out too. I really like where everything goes and hope to contribute and help.Also, I just tested the SanDisk extreme pro 32gb CF card and I was actually able to shoot at 1080p (1920-1080 exact) with that card until it reached 4gb. I had only 9 skipped frames (to be honest not 100% if it skipped any frames at all). Test shows the write speed around 74-88mb/s. Its much faster than my brand new komputerbay 128gb 1000x even though on paper komputerbay supposed to be better. All those test were done with an old build and I'm pretty sure after I install new build it would be much better.QUESTION: Where do I send/attach the list of bugs I encountered also log infos?
as only few cameras support files > 4GiB, we will probably not use that feature, but use file splitting instead.
Does anyone able to shoot raw video at 23.976 on a 5D Mark II??
I do not have the 1000-х flash card. But on 400-x working well with 1920х720!500мм f6.3, SIGMA150-500...If you are interested in an uncompressed download here:http://yadi.sk/d/YJZ82AMJ4t7Ac
7d probably == 5d2But g3ggo said the raw image is on the other proc so harder to get at.. which is why its not done.
How ?? On a 5Dmk3? You are not skipping any frame on long shots?Using Commit b6c2ae6 on a 5Dmk3 I'm able to do max 1920 x 680 on a Lexar Professional 600x UDMA 16Gb card. From 1920 x 700 it begins to skip frames.
Yes, I have no problem with the 400x at 1920х720.I use a flash card Transcend 64Gb Here's another video on my street://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkB_DvFSDrQIf you are interested in an uncompressed download here:http://yadi.sk/d/G0lQEtqk4tG56
parameters are the same for both videos!there is no differencediaphragm 8 shutter 500 iso 125
I cant really contribute much to the cause..but if it helps a way to help automate the raw2dng process:1. create a .bat2. paste in the location of your raw2dng.exe (ie. mine is C:\Users\John\Desktop\RawFootage\raw2dng.exe)3. add %~n1.raw to the end of the line (ie. C:\Users\John\Desktop\RawFootage\raw2dng.exe %~n1.raw)this allows you to simply drag n drop the .raw onto the .bat and immediately convert without having to open a cmd and type anythingHope this helps
It even works without the batch-file
Page created in 0.034 seconds with 24 queries.


text:
Citrix has acquired mobile device management company Zenprise for an undisclosed amount. Citrix said the deal will help the company in its effort to develop a complete mobile suite that includes GoToMeeting, Podio and ShareFile.
Customers now face a different reality than they did a year ago. In particular, they have employees who bring their own devices to work. Citrix sees an opportunity to use Zenprise to connect those employees through one common platform that customers can leverage to keep all their devices, apps and data in one central place.
The deal also complements Citrix Receiver, the desktop virtualization technology that has become an enterprise favorite for its capability to make enterprise applications available on a wide range of devices such as Windows, Windows Phone, iPhone, and iPad.
I caught up with Zenprise CEO Amit Pandey who said this about the deal:
From our perspective the deal makes a lot of sense because both companies are focused on enabling end users. Citrix has been doing it for years with products such as the Receiver which enables you to access all of your desktop apps on your mobile devices. We have been managing devices, data and making bigger moves into applications so the two fit together very well.
Security issues play a part in why this deal is so strategic for Citrix. No one single suite can manage all the applications, their data, and the security required to make the package work together. As a result, customers are left with a hodgepodge of choices.
The Zenprise acquisition helps bring these disparate pieces together in one single package.
Expect the competition to take notice. VMware's Horizon Suite has five VMware-branded tools that include Project Octopus, Project AppBlast, ThinApp, VMware Horizon Application Manager and VMware Horizon Mobile. A mobile device management company would complement the suite. It's a good bet that they will make an acquisition. SAP's Sybase unit also has an MDM solution with its Afaria technology.
The MDM market has a value north of $7 billion with dozens of vendors. A consolidation is due.


text:
COLLECTIONS: 1 - 1 of 1
Bernard and Mary Berenson papers
FOUND IN: Biblioteca Berenson, I Tatti - The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance StudiesCollection Identifier: BER -8
Scope and Contents:
The papers contain for both Mary and Bernard Berenson biographical material, diaries, correspondence, and writings, both published and unpublished. There is also an extensive file of "Berensoniana," writings about Berenson and Villa I Tatti, but excluding reviews of publications. The papers are organized into seven series: I. Biographical, II. Collections, Villa I Tatti, and Harvard, III. Diaries, IV. Correspondence, V. Research and Writings, VI. Berensoniana, and VII. Photographs.


text:
By: NIKKI FINKE
Internet sites on their SOPA-Strike may be conducting a blackout but Hollywood studios are conducting a boycott. I've learned that Hollywood studio chiefs individually and as a group are drawing a line in the sand on the piracy issue with the Obama re-election campaign and refusing to give any more donations. The blowup came after President Obama on Saturday dashed moguls' hopes that he would remain on the sidelines in the dispute over the U.S. House Of Representatives' Stop Online Piracy Act and the U.S. Senate's Protect IP Act. In a posting on the White House web site, three of the Obama administration's top officials for Internet and intellectual property matters said that they share many of the concerns that the Internet community has about the Hollywood-supported bills. The trio said that they "will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet." Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel, U.S. Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra, and Special Assistant to the President Howard Schmidt tried to soften the blow to Hollywood by acknowledging that that online piracy is "a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response." They added that they plan to host an online event "to get more input" on the matter. But Hollywood moguls told me they "didn't know it was going to be as over the top as it was" and took this as a declaration of war. "We just feel very let down by the administration and Obama for not supporting us," one studio chief explained to me. "At least let him remain neutral and not go against it until we can get the legislation right. But Obama went against it. I'm personally not going to support him anymore and not give a dime anymore," another movie mogul who's also a well-known Obama supporter told me this week.
So far the most outspoken mogul against the Obama administration on this issue has been Rupert Murdoch who on Saturday told his new Twitter audience: "So Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery." But I've learned that other moguls privately are having "direct and personal conversations" with Obama and his administration and the Democratic Party. Several moguls have informed Obama's newly anointed Hollywood re-election liason to the entertainment community Nicole Avant and her husband who is helping her, Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos, that they are pulling out of major fundraisers planned over the next few days and won't participate in any more headed by Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (whom they see as in the pocket of the Internet giants like Google).
One of those events is a major January 31st fundraiser attended by First Lady Michelle Obama at the Beverly Hills home of Avant and Sarandos. There's another LA fundraiser for the First Lady on February 1st. And both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will be coming for more fundraisers here in coming weeks. The moguls are telling Avant and Sarandos to count them out. "Now is when all the fundraises are starting. But everyone in my position is really pissed. It's a real conundrum," one mogul told me.
Alarmed by the mogul boycott, Sarandos sent a personal plea to the Hollywood studio chiefs over the weekend begging them to continue supporting the Obama re-election campaign even though he knows they are disappointed with the Obama administration's position on the piracy bills. Several moguls, in response, "sent back word saying 'Fuck You' basically," one insider tells me, expressing how they feel used and abused by the President despite their campaign contributions. I've learned that Fox Filmed Entertainment Chairman Jim Gianopulos even sat down and wrote his good friend (and fellow Greek-American) Sarandos an articulate note over the weekend the gist of which said that he and his fellow moguls won't give any more money if they keep getting taken for granted. One insider told me, "Jim explained that this notion that the Hollywood community will continue giving regardless of its business interests has to be taken into consideration. The message was, 'Don't expect Hollywood to show up and say 'Who do I write the check to' anymore."
The moguls are reminding Obama et al that, in the words of one studio chief, "God knows how much money we've given to Obama and the Democrats and yet they're not supporting our interests. There's been no greater supporters of him than we've been from the first day and the first fundraisers continuing until he was elected. We all were pleased. And, at its heart institutionally, Hollywood supports the Democrats. Now we need the administration to support us. This is a very important time for Hollywood. The issue at hand — piracy — is a legitimate concern. But Google and those Internet guys have been swiftboating the entertainment industry by saying we're trying to shut down the Internet just because we don't want them to advertise pirated movies. As for other claims, we make 24. We don't make national security problems."
The boycott even extends to many of the moguls' families who also are big Obama and Democratic Party donors. The situation is serious because many moguls and/or their families comprise Obama's top bundlers in the TV/movie/music biz. Bundlers as defined by opensecrets.org are "people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big 'bundle'." These donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else. As of September 2011 these 357 elite bundlers were directing at least $55,900,000 for Obama's re-election efforts — money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee, according to opensecrets.org. That figure by now has significantly increased and will continue to do so.