text:
MALLEY V. BRIGGS, 475 U. S. 335 (1986)Subscribe to Cases that cite 475 U. S. 335
U.S. Supreme Court
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986)
Malley v. Briggs
No. 84-1586
Argued November 13, 1985
Decided March 5, 1986
On the basis of the monitoring of two telephone calls pursuant to a court-authorized wiretap of the telephone of an acquaintance of respondents' daughter, petitioner Rhode Island state trooper (hereafter petitioner) prepared felony complaints charging respondents with possession of marihuana. The complaints were presented to a state judge, accompanied by arrest warrants and supporting affidavits. The judge signed the warrants and respondents were arrested, but the charges were subsequently dropped when the grand jury did not return an indictment. Respondents then brought a damages action in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that petitioner, in applying for the arrest warrants, violated their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case was tried to a jury, and the court, while granting a directed verdict for petitioner on other grounds at the close of respondents' evidence, stated that a police officer who believes that the facts stated in an affidavit are true and submits them to a neutral magistrate may be entitled to immunity under the "objective reasonableness" standard of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Held: Petitioner is not entitled to absolute immunity, but only to qualified immunity from liability for damages. Pp. 475 U. S. 339-346.
(a) Neither the common law nor public policy affords any support for absolute immunity. Such immunity cannot be permitted on the basis that petitioner's function in seeking the arrest warrants was similar to that of a complaining witness, since complaining witnesses were not absolutely immune at common law. As a matter of public policy, qualified immunity provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Nor is there any tradition of absolute immunity for a police officer requesting a warrant comparable to that afforded a prosecutor at common law. In the case of an officer applying for a warrant, the judicial process will, on the whole, benefit from a rule of qualified rather than absolute immunity. The Harlow "objective reasonableness" standard, which gives ample room for mistaken judgments, will not deter an officer from submitting an affidavit when there is probable cause to make an arrest, and defines the qualified chanrobles.com-red
immunity accorded an officer whose request for a warrant allegedly caused an unconstitutional arrest. 475 U. S. 340-345.
(b) Petitioner cannot avoid liability under the rule of qualified immunity on the grounds that the act of applying for an arrest warrant is per se objectively reasonable where the officer believes that the facts alleged in his affidavit are true, and that he is entitled to rely on the judicial officer's judgment in issuing the warrant, and hence finding that probable cause exists. The question is whether a reasonably well-trained officer in petitioner's position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause, and that he should not have applied for the warrant. If such was the case, the application for the warrant was not objectively reasonable, because it created the unnecessary danger of an unlawful arrest. Pp. 475 U. S. 345-346.
748 F.2d 715, affirmed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J.,and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 475 U. S. 346. chanrobles.com-red
JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question of the degree of immunity accorded a defendant police officer in a damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when it is alleged that the officer caused the plaintiffs to be unconstitutionally arrested by presenting a judge with a complaint and a supporting affidavit which failed to establish probable cause.
In December, 1980, the Rhode Island State Police were conducting a court-authorized wiretap on the telephone of one Paul Driscoll, an acquaintance of respondents' daughter. On December 20, the police intercepted a call to Driscoll from an unknown individual who identified himself as "Dr. Shogun." The police logsheet summarizes the call as follows:
"General conversation re. a party they went to last night . . . caller says I can't believe I was token [sic] in front of Jimmy Briggs -- caller states he passed it to Louisa . . . Paul says Nancy was sitting in his lap rolling her thing."
App. 78.
Petitioner Edward Malley (hereafter petitioner) was the Rhode Island state trooper in charge of the investigation of Driscoll. After reviewing the logsheet for December 20, petitioner decided that the call from "Dr. Shogun" was incriminating because, in drug parlance, "toking" means smoking marihuana and "rolling her thing" refers to rolling a marihuana chanrobles.com-red
cigarette. Petitioner also concluded that another call monitored the same day showed that the party discussed by Driscoll and "Dr. Shogun" took place at respondents' house. On the basis of these two calls, petitioner drew up felony complaints charging that respondents and Paul Driscoll
"did unlawfully conspire to violate the uniform controlled substance act of the State of Rhode Island by having [marihuana] in their possession. . . ."
Id. at 74. These complaints were presented to a State District Court Judge in February, 1981, after the wiretap of Driscoll's phone had been terminated. Accompanying the complaints were unsigned warrants for each respondent's arrest, and supporting affidavits describing the two intercepted calls and petitioner's interpretation of them. The judge signed warrants for the arrest of respondents and 20 other individuals charged by petitioner as a result of information gathered through the wiretap.
Respondents were arrested at their home shortly before six o'clock on the morning of March 19, 1981. They were taken to a police station, booked, held for several hours, arraigned, and released. Local and statewide newspapers published the fact that respondents, who are prominent members of their community, had been arrested and charged with drug possession. The charges against respondents were subsequently dropped when the grand jury to which the case was presented did not return an indictment.
Respondents brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island charging, inter alia, that petitioner, in applying for warrants for their arrest, violated their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case was tried to a jury, and at the close of respondents' evidence, petitioner moved for and was granted a directed verdict. [Footnote 1] The District chanrobles.com-red
Court's primary justification for directing a verdict was that the act of the judge in issuing the arrest warrants for respondents broke the causal chain between petitioner's filing of a complaint and respondents' arrest. The court also stated that an officer who believes that the facts stated in his affidavit are true and who submits them to a neutral magistrate may thereby be entitled to immunity under the "objective reasonableness" standard of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982).
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, holding that an officer who seeks an arrest warrant by submitting a complaint and supporting affidavit to a judge is not entitled to immunity unless the officer has an objectively reasonable basis for believing that the facts alleged in his affidavit are sufficient to establish probable cause. 748 F.2d 715 (1984). We granted certiorari in order to review the First Circuit's application of the "objective reasonableness" standard in this context. 471 U.S. 1124 (1985). We affirm.
Petitioner urges reversal on two grounds: first, that in this context, he is absolutely immune from liability for damages; second, that he is at least entitled to qualified immunity in this case. We reject both propositions, and address first the absolute immunity issue.
Our general approach to questions of immunity under § 1983 is by now well established. Although the statute on its face admits of no immunities, we have read it "in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses, rather than in derogation of them." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 424 U. S. 418 (1976). Our initial inquiry is whether an official claiming immunity under § 1983 can point to a chanrobles.com-red
common law counterpart to the privilege he asserts. Tower v. Glover, 467 U. S. 914 (1984). If
"an official was accorded immunity from tort actions at common law when the Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1871, the Court next considers whether § 1983's history or purposes nonetheless counsel against recognizing the same immunity in § 1983 actions."
Id. at 467 U. S. 920. Thus, while we look to the common law for guidance, we do not assume that Congress intended to incorporate every common law immunity into § 1983 in unaltered form.
Our cases also make plain that "[f]or executive officers in general, . . . qualified immunity represents the norm." Harlow, supra, at 457 U. S. 807. [Footnote 2] Like federal officers, state officers who
"seek absolute exemption from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct must bear the burden of showing that public policy requires an exemption of that scope."
Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, 438 U. S. 506 (1978).
Although we have previously held that police officers sued under § 1983 for false arrest are qualifiedly immune, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 386 U. S. 557 (1967), petitioner urges that he should be absolutely immune, because his function in seeking an arrest warrant was similar to that of a complaining witness. The difficulty with this submission is that complaining witnesses were not absolutely immune at common law. In 1871, the generally accepted rule was that one who procured the issuance of an arrest warrant by submitting a complaint could be held liable if the complaint was made maliciously and chanrobles.com-red
without probable cause. [Footnote 3] Given malice and the lack of probable cause, the complainant enjoyed no immunity. The common law thus affords no support for petitioner.
Nor are we moved by petitioner's argument that policy considerations require absolute immunity for the officer applying for a warrant. As the qualified immunity defense has evolved, it provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. At common law, in cases where probable cause to arrest was lacking, a complaining witness' immunity turned on the issue of malice, which was a jury question. [Footnote 4] Under the Harlow standard, on the other hand, an allegation of malice is not sufficient to defeat immunity if the defendant acted in an objectively reasonable manner. The Harlow standard is specifically designed to "avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment," and we believe it sufficiently serves this goal. Defendants will not be immune if, on an objective basis, it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant should issue; but if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on this issue, immunity should be recognized.
As an alternative ground for claiming absolute immunity, petitioner draws an analogy between an officer requesting a warrant and a prosecutor who asks a grand jury to indict a suspect. Like the prosecutor, petitioner argues, the officer must exercise a discretionary judgment based on the evidence chanrobles.com-red
before him, and like the prosecutor, the officer may not exercise his best judgment if the threat of retaliatory lawsuits hangs over him. Thus, petitioner urges us to read § 1983 as giving the officer the same absolute immunity enjoyed by the prosecutor. Cf. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976).
We reemphasize that our role is to interpret the intent of Congress in enacting § 1983, not to make a freewheeling policy choice, and that we are guided in interpreting Congress' intent by the common law tradition. In Imbler, supra, we concluded that, at common law, "[t]he general rule was, and is, that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit for malicious prosecution." Id. at 424 U. S. 437. We do not find a comparable tradition of absolute immunity for one whose complaint causes a warrant to issue. See n 3, supra. While this observation may seem unresponsive to petitioner's policy argument, it is, we believe, an important guide to interpreting § 1983. Since the statute, on its face, does not provide for any immunities, we would be going far to read into it an absolute immunity for conduct which was only accorded qualified immunity in 1871.
Even were we to overlook the fact that petitioner is inviting us to expand what was a qualified immunity at common law into an absolute immunity, we would find his analogy between himself and a prosecutor untenable. We have interpreted § 1983 to give absolute immunity to functions "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process," Imbler, supra, at 424 U. S. 430 (emphasis added), not from an exaggerated esteem for those who perform these functions, and certainly not from a desire to shield abuses of office, but because any lesser degree of immunity could impair the judicial process itself. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 325, 460 U. S. 334-335 (1983). We intend no disrespect to the officer applying for a warrant by observing that his action, while a vital part of the administration of criminal justice, is further removed from the judicial phase of criminal proceedings than chanrobles.com-red
the act of a prosecutor in seeking an indictment. Furthermore, petitioner's analogy, while it has some force, does not take account of the fact that the prosecutor's act in seeking an indictment is but the first step in the process of seeking a conviction. Exposing the prosecutor to liability for the initial phase of his prosecutorial work could interfere with his exercise of independent judgment at every phase of his work, since the prosecutor might come to see later decisions in terms of their effect on his potential liability. Thus, we shield the prosecutor seeking an indictment because any lesser immunity could impair the performance of a central actor in the judicial process. [Footnote 5]
In the case of the officer applying for a warrant, it is our judgment that the judicial process will, on the whole, benefit from a rule of qualified, rather than absolute, immunity. We do not believe that the Harlow standard, which gives ample room for mistaken judgments, will frequently deter an officer from submitting an affidavit when probable cause to make an arrest is present. True, an officer who knows that objectively unreasonable decisions will be actionable may be motivated to reflect, before submitting a request for a warrant, upon whether he has a reasonable basis for believing that his affidavit establishes probable cause. But such reflection is desirable, because it reduces the likelihood that the officer's request for a warrant will be premature. Premature requests for warrants are, at best, a waste of judicial resources; at worst, they lead to premature arrests, which may injure the chanrobles.com-red
innocent or, by giving the basis for a suppression motion, benefit the guilty.
Furthermore, it would be incongruous to test police behavior by the "objective reasonableness" standard in a suppression hearing, see United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 (1984), while exempting police conduct in applying for an arrest or search warrant from any scrutiny whatsoever in a § 1983 damages action. [Footnote 6] While we believe the exclusionary rule serves a necessary purpose, it obviously does so at a considerable cost to society as a whole, because it excludes evidence probative of guilt. On the other hand, a damages remedy for an arrest following an objectively unreasonable request for a warrant imposes a cost directly on the officer responsible for the unreasonable request, without the side effect of hampering a criminal prosecution. Also, in the case of the § 1983 action, the likelihood is obviously greater than at the suppression hearing that the remedy is benefiting the victim of police misconduct one would think most deserving of a remedy -- the person who in fact has done no wrong, and has been arrested for no reason, or a bad reason. See Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622, 445 U. S. 653 (1980).
Accordingly, we hold that the same standard of objective reasonableness that we applied in the context of a suppression hearing in Leon, supra, defines the qualified immunity accorded an officer whose request for a warrant allegedly caused an unconstitutional arrest. [Footnote 7] Only where the warrant chanrobles.com-red
application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable, Leon, supra, at 468 U. S. 923, will the shield of immunity be lost.
We also reject petitioner's argument that, if an officer is entitled to only qualified immunity in cases like this, he is nevertheless shielded from damages liability because the act of applying for a warrant is per se objectively reasonable, provided that the officer believes that the facts alleged in his affidavit are true. Petitioner insists that he is entitled to rely on the judgment of a judicial officer in finding that probable cause exists, and hence issuing the warrant. This view of objective reasonableness is at odds with our development of that concept in Harlow and Leon. In Leon, we stated that
"our good faith inquiry is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization."
468 U.S. at 468 U. S. 922, n. 23. The analogous question in this case is whether a reasonably well-trained officer in petitioner's position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause, and that he should not have applied for the warrant. [Footnote 8] If such was the case, the officer's application for a warrant was not objectively reasonable, because it created the unnecessary danger of an unlawful arrest. It is true that, in an ideal system, an unreasonable request for a warrant would be harmless, because no judge would approve it. But ours is not an ideal system, and it is possible that a magistrate, working under chanrobles.com-red
docket pressures, will fail to perform as a magistrate should. We find it reasonable to require the officer applying for the warrant to minimize this danger by exercising reasonable professional judgment. [Footnote 9]
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Respondents' complaint also named the State of Rhode Island as a defendant. At the close of respondents' evidence, Rhode Island moved for and was granted a directed verdict on Eleventh Amendment grounds. Respondents have not contested the propriety of the directed verdict for the State.
Harlow was a suit against federal, not state, officials, but, as we stated in deciding the case, it is
"'untenable to draw a distinction for purposes of immunity law between suits brought against state officials under § 1983 and suits brought directly under the Constitution against federal officials.'"
457 U.S. at 457 U. S. 818, n. 30 (quoting Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, 438 U. S. 504 (1978)).
See, e.g., 53 U. S. 402 (1852); Randall v. Henry, 5 Stew. & P. 367, 378 (Ala. 1834); Bell v. Keepers, 37 Kan. 64, 14 P. 542 (1887); Finn v. Frink, 84 Me. 261, 24 A. 851 (1892); 4 W. Wait, Actions and Defenses 352-356 (1878). The same rule applied in the case of search warrants. See, e.g., Barker v. Stetson, 73 Mass. 53, 54 (1856); Carey v. Sheets,@ 67 Ind. 375, 378-379 (1879).
See 4 Wait, supra, at 345 ("Whether malice is proved or not is a question of fact for the jury").
The organized bar's development and enforcement of professional standards for prosecutors also lessen the danger that absolute immunity will become a shield for prosecutorial misconduct. As we observed in Imbler,
"a prosecutor stands perhaps unique, among officials whose acts could deprive persons of constitutional rights, in his amenability to professional discipline by an association of his peers."
424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 429 (footnote omitted). The absence of a comparably well-developed and pervasive mechanism for controlling police misconduct weighs against allowing absolute immunity for the officer.
Although the case before us only concerns a damages action for an officer's part in obtaining an allegedly unconstitutional arrest warrant, the distinction between a search warrant and an arrest warrant would not make a difference in the degree of immunity accorded the officer who applied for the warrant.
Petitioner has not pressed the argument that, in a case like this, the officer should not be liable because the judge's decision to issue the warrant breaks the causal chain between the application for the warrant and the improvident arrest. It should be clear, however, that the District Court's "no causation" rationale in this case is inconsistent with our interpretation of § 1983. As we stated in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 365 U. S. 187 (1961), § 1983 "should be read against the background of tort liability that makes a man responsible for the natural consequences of his actions." Since the common law recognized the causal link between the submission of a complaint and an ensuing arrest, we read § 1983 as recognizing the same causal link.
The question is not presented to us, nor do we decide, whether petitioner's conduct in this case was in fact objectively reasonable. That issue must be resolved on remand.
Notwithstanding petitioner's protestations, the rule we adopt in no way "requires the police officer to assume a role even more skilled . . . than the magistrate." Brief for Petitioners 33. It is a sound presumption that "the magistrate is more qualified than the police officer to make a probable cause determination," ibid., and it goes without saying that, where a magistrate acts mistakenly in issuing a warrant but within the range of professional competence of a magistrate, the officer who requested the warrant cannot be held liable. But it is different if no officer of reasonable competence would have requested the warrant, i.e., his request is outside the range of the professional competence expected of an officer. If the magistrate issues the warrant in such a case, his action is not just a reasonable mistake, but an unacceptable error indicating gross incompetence or neglect of duty. The officer then cannot excuse his own default by pointing to the greater incompetence of the magistrate.
JUSTICE POWELL, with whom JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although I agree with much of the Court's opinion, I write separately to emphasize that substantial weight should be accorded the judge's finding of probable cause in determining whether petitioner state trooper (hereafter petitioner) will be personally liable for damages under § 1983. I also believe that summary judgment would have been appropriate here because respondents failed to show that petitioner's decision to request a warrant was not objectively reasonable.
At the outset, I supplement the facts stated by the Court. Petitioner was supervising a wiretap in a narcotics investigation pursuant to an order by the Rhode Island Superior chanrobles.com-red
Court. It appears from a logged conversation recorded on the wiretap that a "Jimmy Briggs" and a "Luisa [sic] Briggs" attended a party where some of those present possessed and used marihuana. A marihuana cigarette may have been passed to Mrs. Briggs. The conversation also referred to a party that was going to be held at respondents' home and attended by some of these people. A fair inference from the log is that respondents were hosting a marihuana party similar to the earlier one.
On the basis of this conversation, petitioner and his partner decided to seek warrants against respondents for possessing marihuana. [Footnote 2/1] Petitioner presented the affidavits to Judge Capelli, a Rhode Island District Judge. [Footnote 2/2] Judge Capelli reviewed the affidavits, and entered an order stating: chanrobles.com-red
"Affidavit (and complaint) having been made to me under oath, and as I am satisfied that there is probable cause for the belief therein set forth that grounds for issuing an arrest warrant exists [sic], you are hereby commanded to arrest the defendant forthwith and to bring him before a judge of this court without unnecessary delay."
The record before us does not disclose any evidence or claim that Judge Capelli failed to act in a competent judicial manner, or that he failed to exercise independent judgment in determining whether the arrest warrant should issue.
Respondents were prominent citizens in the community, and had never previously been implicated in any violation of the criminal laws. The grand jury did not return an indictment against them, and they instituted this suit under § 1983, seeking to hold petitioner personally liable for damages. [Footnote 2/3] The District Court directed a verdict for petitioner. It held that Judge Capelli's finding of probable cause and his issuance of the arrest warrants immunized petitioner from respondents' claim for damages.
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, holding that liability under § 1983 will attach when
"an officer is 'constitutionally negligent,' that is, where the officer should have known that the facts recited in the affidavit did not constitute probable cause."
748 F.2d 715, 721 (1984). The Court of Appeals also denied petitioner's claim of immunity, purporting to apply the standard of objective reasonableness for qualified immunity articulated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982). This Court today affirms. chanrobles.com-red
I agree with the Court's decision that petitioner was not entitled to absolute immunity, and that the Harlow standard of qualified immunity -- objective reasonableness -- properly applies. In Harlow, however, the Court held that
"government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
Id. at 457 U. S. 818. Putting it differently, we also stated that a claim for qualified immunity
"would be defeated [only] if an official"
"knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff]."
Id. at 457 U. S. 815, quoting Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, 420 U. S. 322 (1975).
At one point in the Court's opinion today, it correctly recognizes that, as the
"qualified immunity defense has evolved, it provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."
Ante at 475 U. S. 341 (emphasis added). The Court also says that liability will attach
"if, on an objective basis, it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant should issue; but if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on this issue, immunity should be recognized."
I agree with the foregoing characterizations of the applicable standard when an official raises the defense of qualified immunity. I disagree, however, with the Court in two major respects. First, rather than deciding whether petitioner's conduct met the foregoing standard, the Court remands for trial on this issue. Yet, as the Court recognizes, unless "no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant should issue," ibid., petitioner should chanrobles.com-red
be immune from damages. Ibid. In my view, in the light of the logs of the duly authorized wiretap, a reasonably competent officer could have believed that a warrant should issue.
It is undisputed that wiretaps initiated as part of a drug investigation revealed that respondents had attended a party where marihuana was being smoked, that a marihuana cigarette may have been passed to Mrs. Briggs, [Footnote 2/4] and that another party -- at least inferentially of a similar type -- was to be held in respondents' home. Under the Harlow standard, we need not consider whether this information would be viewed by every reasonable officer as sufficient evidence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. Police often operate "in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation," United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 380 U. S. 108 (1965), and they have to make judgment calls over which reasonable officers could differ. In this case, the logs from the wiretap at least arguably implicated respondents in unlawful activities. See supra at 475 U. S. 347, and n. 1. Under these circumstances, an officer of reasonable competence could have believed that the wiretap provided probable cause to arrest respondents.
Second, and perhaps of greater importance, in determining whether the police officer acted with objective reasonableness, the Court apparently would give little evidentiary weight to the finding of probable cause by a magistrate or judicial officer. [Footnote 2/5] The Court quotes from @ 468 U. S. 922, n. 23 (1984), that
"'our good faith inquiry is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization.'"
Ante at 475 U. S. 345 (emphasis added). Although this quotation does not foreclose some consideration by the District Court of the judge's judicial decision, the Court seems to denigrate the relevance of the judge's determination of probable cause and his role in the issuance of a warrant. [Footnote 2/6] In my view, the Court misconstrues the respective roles of, and the relationship between, the police officer and the magistrate or judicial officer. In cases where a criminal defendant has asserted claims of unconstitutional search and seizure, this Court has consistently accorded primary evidentiary weight to a magistrate's determination of probable cause. [Footnote 2/7] No reason chanrobles.com-red
has been articulated by the Court, and certainly none occurs to me, why less weight should be accorded the magistrate's decision in a § 1983 damages suit against the police officer who applied for the warrant.
Our common law has long recognized a "reasonable division of functions," Baker v. McCollan, 443 U. S. 137, 443 U. S. 145 (1979), in law enforcement: the gathering of information is the province of the police, and the weighing and judging of that information is virtually the exclusive province of the magistrate. As Lord Mansfield stated two centuries ago:
"It is not fit that the receiving or judging of the information should be left to the discretion of the officer. The magistrate ought to judge; and should give certain directions to the officer."
Leach v. Three of the King's Messengers, 19 How.St.Tr. 1001, 1027 (1765), quoted in United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297, 407 U. S. 316 (1972).
We have affirmed that the arrest warrant
"should represent both the efforts of the officer to gather evidence of wrongful acts and the judgment of the magistrate that the collected evidence is sufficient to justify [issuance of a warrant]."
United States v. United States District Court, supra, at 407 U. S. 316. This Court also has recognized that "the informed and deliberate determinations of magistrates . . . are to be preferred over the hurried actions of officers." United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U. S. 452, 285 U. S. 464 (1932). Judicial evaluation of probable cause by a magistrate is the essential "checkpoint between the Government and the citizen." 451 U. S. 212 (1981). As we stated in Arkansas v. Sanders,@ 442 U. S. 753, 442 U. S. 759 (1979):
"The prominent place the warrant requirement is given in our decisions reflects the"
"basic constitutional doctrine that individual freedoms will best be preserved through a separation of powers and division of functions among the different branches and levels of Government."
"United States v. United States District Court, supra, at 407 U. S. 317. By requiring that conclusions concerning probable cause and the scope of a search"
"be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime,"
"Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 333 U. S. 14 (1948), we minimize the risk of unreasonable assertions of executive authority. [Footnote 2/8]"
The police, where they have reason to believe probable cause exists, should be encouraged to submit affidavits to judicial officers. [Footnote 2/9] I therefore believe that, in a suit such as this, the Court should expressly hold that the decision by the magistrate is entitled to substantial evidentiary weight. A more restrictive standard will discourage police officers from seeking warrants out of fear of litigation and possible personal liability. The specter of personal liability for a mistake in judgment may cause a prudent police officer to close his eyes to facts that should at least be brought to the attention of the judicial officer authorized to make the decision chanrobles.com-red
whether a warrant should issue. Law enforcement is ill-served by this in terrorem restraint.
This Court has long sought to divide the functions of law enforcement to impose on the magistrate the primary responsibility for determining whether a warrant will issue. It is inconsistent with this jurisprudence to imply or hold that the magistrate's determination of probable cause is irrelevant in this suit. A judicial officer's "judgment call" in determining probable cause, although not conclusive, is entitled to substantial evidentiary weight in suits seeking to impose personal liability on the police officer. In this case, in the light of the judge's determination and the evidence of illegal activity, I would hold that petitioner is immune from damages.
I agree with the judgment declining to accord absolute immunity to the officer seeking a warrant, but I do not join the Court's opinion, and I dissent from the decision to remand this case for trial on the immunity issue.
The State Police successfully sought 20 additional arrest warrants in connection with the narcotics investigation. The record before this Court does not disclose how many of these warrants resulted in indictments.
Trooper Malley's attachment to the affidavit seeking a warrant for the arrest of James R. Briggs stated:
"Your affiant upon oath states that he has reason to believe and does believe that grounds for issuance of an arrest warrant exists [sic] and states the following facts on which such belief is founded:"
"Persuant [sic] to a court-ordered wire intercept. . . . "
"On December 20, 1980, at 5:30 p.m., an incoming call was received to Paul Driscoll recorded on Reel 7, Side 1, Footage 30-48. This unidentified male calls Paul Driscoll and states, 'This is Doctor Shotgun' [sic]. General conversation reference to a party they went to last night. Caller states, 'I can't believe I was token in front of Jimmy Briggs.' Caller states that he passed it to Luisa [sic]. Caller and Paul talk about another party going on tonight. Paul says that Nancy was sitting in his lap rolling her thing."
"On the same date at 5:56 p.m., Reel 7, Footage 48-59. Male subject Scott calls Paul Driscoll. General conversation about a party at Jaime's parents' [respondents'] home. Also, that they went there last night. They are referring to Jaime's parents' home, that is James and Luisa Briggs. Further, in regard to the conversation at 5:30 p.m., this unidentified male who called himself Doctor Shotgun [sic] stated that he was token in front of Jimmy Briggs. In your affiant's experience, he was smoking a marijuana cigarette in front of James Briggs. He then states that he passed it to Luisa. Luisa would be Luisa Briggs. He passed her a marijuana cigarette. Where Paul states that Nancy was sitting on his lap rolling her thing, she was rolling a marijuana cigarette."
App. 72-73.
The statement attached to the affidavit seeking a warrant for the arrest of Louisa Briggs was identical.
Respondents each sought $1 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.
Although the affidavit from Trooper Malley stated that a marihuana cigarette was passed to Mrs. Briggs, the call log simply states that the caller "passed it to Louisa." Id. at 78. A subsequent call to Driscoll mentioned a "Louisa (Bungershort)," probably in connection with the same party. Ibid. It is possible that the marihuana cigarette was passed to Louisa Bungershort, rather than Louisa Briggs. At trial, Mrs. Briggs denied seeing any marihuana at that party or receiving a marihuana cigarette. Id. at 40.
The words "magistrate" and "judicial officer" often are used interchangeably in Court opinions. Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U. S. 345 (1972). The Court's emphasis on magistrates has "been directed at the need for independent, neutral, and detached judgment, not at legal training." North v. Russell, 427 U. S. 328, 427 U. S. 337 (1976).
The Court observes that "ours is not an ideal system," and states that "it is possible that a magistrate, working under docket pressures, will fail to perform as a magistrate should." Ante at 475 U. S. 345-346. While I do not question the possibility that some magistrates in some cases may "fail to perform as a magistrate should," no one suggests that such is the case here.
The Court previously has stated that,
"[i]f a magistrate serves merely as a 'rubber stamp' for the police or is unable to exercise mature judgment, closer supervision or removal provides a more effective remedy than the exclusionary rule."
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. at 468 U. S. 917-918, n. 18. I also believe that closer supervision or removal provides a more effective remedy than personal liability for police officers.
In United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 380 U. S. 105-106 (1965), the Court stated:
"We begin our analysis of [the Fourth Amendment] mindful of the fact that, in this case, a search was made pursuant to a search warrant. . . ."
"* * * *"
"In Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 362 U. S. 270, this Court, strongly supporting the preference to be accorded searches under a warrant, indicated that, in a doubtful or marginal case, a search under a warrant may be sustainable where, without one, it would fall. In Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, and Chapman v. United States, 365 U. S. 610, the Court, in condemning searches by officers who invaded premises without a warrant, plainly intimated that, had the proper course of obtaining a warrant from a magistrate been followed, and had the magistrate, on the same evidence available to the police, made a finding of probable cause, the search under the warrant would have been sustained."
Generally, the judicial officer's determination of probable cause has greater reliability than a police officer's, not only because the judicial officer is not immersed in the criminal investigation, but also because the judicial officer usually has greater time for deliberation and greater familiarity through training or education with the legal concepts concerning probable cause.
There will, of course, be instances where "it is plainly evident that a magistrate or judge ha[s] no business issuing a warrant." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 462 U. S. 264 (1983) (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). If the magistrate has wholly abandoned his judicial role in the manner condemned in Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U. S. 319 (1979), then the magistrate's approval of a warrant would not necessarily be probative of whether an officer's request for a warrant was objectively reasonable.
It is, of course, true that actions by police must comport with the Constitution. Police departments and prosecutors have an obligation to instill this understanding in officers, and to discipline those found to have violated the Constitution.


text: Jordan Mansker, 10, recently participated in the Coastal Bays Nature Clinic, which was offered by Ocean City Recreation and Parks in cooperation with the Maryland Coastal Bays Program and Delmarva Low Impact Tourism Experiences (DLITE). While exploring Assateague State Park, she discovered this partial US Fish and Wildlife Tagged Horseshoe Crab. Above, Mansker is presented with a certificate and other gifts for her participation in the program by recreation supervisor Ron Strickler.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A few weeks back I presented at the Tampa SSUG meeting on Policy Based Management with SQL 2008. Unfortunately due to sickness and apparently my own laziness, I never got around to doing a follow-up post or posting my slide deck. First the slide deck:
As a warning the deck itself is a bit sparse with how-to info as the meat of my presentation is in demo format. Given that fact, I will start a series of blog posts covering Policy Based Management and how/what you can do with it. Keep an eye out in the coming weeks for those! In the meantime a big thank you for everyone that attended the Tampa presentation, hopefully I'll be giving this same presentation again at SQL Saturday South Florida in August.


text:
This image comes with a 3.0 kernel and it has OpenGL support for MK802 GPU enabled out of the box. You can find a download link for the MK802 on the ARMHF page of the Bodhi website. The default user name is armhf and the password is bodhilinux. This default user has sudo enabled for installing software and ssh is on by default.
To use this release simply DD the provided .img file to a micro SD card, insert it into your MK802 and power it up. This image has a 1080p script.bin by default, meaning if you are trying to use this image on a screen that only supports 720p resolution you will need to replace the script.bin on the first partition of the image with the one found here.
Since this is our first image for this ARM chipset I have no doubt that it will contain some rough edges. For certain the MK802's built in wireless and OpenGL are functional on this image - I haven't had time to test the audio yet though. Alpha quality release of course.
Please, please, please do not make a comment on this post asking for support with an issue you encounter with installing/running Bodhi on your MK802! Comments asking for support will be removed from this post. Instead please open a support request thread in the A10 section of our user forums. It is much easier to manage/search/solve issues in a message board format than a comments section.
Other Updates:
This past weekend I've also published image updates for our Raspberry Pi and Genesi Smartbook images. Like this image they now both include EFL 1.7.5 and E17 stable by default.
~Jeff Hoogland


text:
Democrats loved the president's speech; Republicans hated it. What else is new?
President Barack Obama's State of the Union address didn't bridge the partisan divide in Washington, nor did anyone — least of all the White House — expect it to do so. But the pre-canned tweets, prebuttals and lightning-fast reaction from congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle turned the legislatively modest presidential agenda quickly into chum for partisan consumption.
Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, who spent much of the speech sitting glumly behind the president, said the president "is clearly out of ideas."
"With few bipartisan proposals, Americans heard a president more interested in advancing ideology than in solving the problems regular folks are talking about," Boehner said. "Instead of our areas of common ground, the president focused too much on the things that divide us — many we've heard before — and warnings of unilateral action. The president must understand his power is limited by our constitution, and the authority he does have doesn't add up to much for those without opportunity in this economy."
Boehner did however, offer to work with the president on immigration, patent changes, skills and education, and energy and water infrastructure — leaving room for some actual legislating before both sides focus on the November elections.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Obama may have said that he's "eager" to work with Congress but that hasn't been the case.
"For years, President Obama has chosen to withdraw from policy debates and ignore our Constitutional balance of power," he said in his statement. "Let's put away the pen, and pick up the phone and work together to find common ground. That is something all Americans expect of the Congress, as well as the President."
Democrats predictably cheered a speech sprinkled throughout with red meat for the Democrats to fire up their base in November — from a minimum wage hike to equal pay for women to extending unemployment insurance.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., issued a statement squarely focused on the elections. "The key issue of the 2014 elections will be who can do more for the middle class — raise middle class incomes and create more good paying jobs," he said. "The President's speech shows that he gets it. Helping the middle class will supersede every other issue in November."
Schumer said in an interview that he doesn't think many Democrats would react negatively to Obama's threat to do more via executive actions.
"I think very few," Schumer said when asked. "The No. 1 thing the American people are frustrated about is government's inability to help them. [It's] government. They don't say the legislative branch, they don't say the executive branch. And they want some action. I think everyone prefers that we do it with Congress and there are a few signs we can do it within Congress on a few issues. But faced with the choice of nothing or executive, I think … 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of Democrats would say 'go for it.'"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also cheered the speech.
"President Obama tonight described the progress we've made as a nation and pointed the way to where we need to go," he said.
"Giving hard-working Americans a raise by increasing the minimum wage is a good place to start. The Senate will vote on this proposal in the coming weeks, and I hope Republicans will join us in turning this and other common-sense proposals into law."
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., hoped the speech would lead the way to build on the bipartisan budget deal she helped craft last year. "I am ready to keep working to build on the bipartisan budget deal, and I hope Republicans are ready to join me at the table," she said.
House Judiciary Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, meanwhile, urged the president to pay more attention to House GOP ideas on issues like immigration.
"If President Obama is serious about immigration reform, he will listen to new and different ideas presented by House Republicans to improve our immigration system because House Republicans and the American public have rejected the Senate approach and the President's sweeping executive actions that have resulted in the dismantling of our immigration laws," he said in his statement. "Our immigration system is in desperate need of reform and I remain committed to working on this critical issue with my colleagues. However, we don't need another massive, Obamacare-like bill that is full of surprises and dysfunction after it becomes law," he said.
Goodlatte also vowed to push for an overhaul of the NSA's surveillance activities, and he backed the president's call to end abusive patent litigation.
Other Republicans noted the central dichotomy of the speech — with Obama repeatedly offering to work with members of Congress and yet around them at the same time.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, called the speech "strange."
"There seemed to be an interest on reaching out, but he threw out some red meat for the base."
"The President's decision to issue Executive Orders, to make recess appointments, or to suspend enforcement of certain laws is inconsistent with our Constitutional system of checks and balances," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. "Americans are rightfully disappointed with the gridlock and partisanship so prevalent in Washington these days, and I share this frustration. The President is in a unique position to foster compromise, and he should recommit to work with members of Congress in order to reach consensus and move our country — and our economy — forward."
Portman said Obama did give Republicans "some openings on trade" as well as energy.
Portman, looking from notes during the speech, said he is also interested in the proposal for startup retirement accounts.
"I do a lot work in the retirement area," Portman said.
But he thought that Obama may have given 401(k)s short shrift, which Portman said has been a good program.
Emma Dumain, Daniel Newhauser, Humberto Sanchez, Matt Fuller and Niels Lesniewski contributed to this report.


text:
Sign up for news & offers
On all orders over €75
On selected products
Our customers have often asked about clothing to use whilst in our carriers. After years of research, we are now proud to launch the LittleLife Fleece Lined All In One. These fleece lined all in ones are breathable, waterproof and durable with LittleLife quality as you would expect. It will enable you to get out in any weather and allow your family the freedom to explore the great outdoors safely and in comfort. Lined with a soft grey micro-fleece, making it ideal for all day play even on rainy days and will keep your children nice and toasty without overheating.
If you are not happy with your purchase for any reason, we will gladly accept your return within 30 days by completing the Returns Form.
For full terms and conditions please see our Delivery & Returns policy.
Embrace family life, your greatest adventure yet - with confidence and freedom.
For Life's Little Adventures
© LittleLife 2022 All Rights Reserved. | Privacy & Cookies


text:
Germany's Mario Goetze, right, scores the opening goal past Argentina's goalkeeper Sergio Romero during the World Cup final soccer match at the Maracana Stadium in Rio de Janeiro. Click here to see statistics and highlights from the match. Victor R. Caivano | AP
Mario Goetze netted an extra time goal to make Germany the first European team ever to win a World Cup in the Americas, beating Argentina, 1-0, to claim the championship.
Playing before a capacity crowd of about 75,000 at Maracana Stadium in Rio de Janeiro, Goetze took a crossing pass on the left side from teammate Andre Schurrle and artfully nailed it home inside the right post past Argentine goalie Sergio Romero.
Goetze, a midfielder who plays for Bayern Munich, came off the bench toward the end of regulation for Miroslav Klose, who in the 7-1 semifinal win over Brazil became the all-time leading scorer in World Cup history.
The goal by Goetze goal triggered memories of the one by Spain's Andres Iniesta just before the end of extra time in a 1-0 win over the Netherlands in the 2010 World Cup championship in South Africa. It also gave Germany its fourth World Cup title but the first as a unified country. West Germany won in 1954, 1974 and 1990.
South American teams won the seven previous times the tournament was played in the Americas.
"An Awesome Experience"
"It is unbelievable and an awesome experience," Germany's goalie Manuel Neuer told German television. "We have had incredible cohesion since the start of our preparations. Germany (is) world champions. I don't know how long we will celebrate, but we will go about it with big grins."
After the game, the German team made its way up the stairs of Maracana Stadium to raise the hallowed 18-carat gold trophy, as confetti rained down and fireworks exploded in the sky.
"It's incredible how hard we worked and what a performance we produced," team captain Philipp Lahm said. "It's an incredible feeling."
Germany and Argentina had met twice before in the World Cup title game. Argentina won in 1986, and the Germans won in 1990.
This time, Argentina was hoping its superstar, Lionel Messi, would lead the South American football power to its third title. But Germany's stingy defense neutralized Messi, a four-time FIFA World Player of the Year, for most of the game.
Messi, who scored four goals in the tournament, all in the group stage, received the Golden Ball award as the World Cup's best player. In the end, though, he was still walking in the shadow of Argentine football legend Diego Maradona, who led his country to the 1986 World Cup title, in part, with his famous "Hand of God" goal and the "Goal of the Century."
Sunday's game marked the third straight World Cup championship that went to extra time. Both teams had solid chances to score before Goetze's goal, with the Argentines missing out on a few that would later haunt them.
In the 21st minute, Argentina's Gonzalo Higuain intercepted an errant pass and broke for the net but hooked his shot far wide. He found the net in the 30th minute but was called for offside.
Early in the second half, Messi stood one-on-one with Neuer, who later won the Golden Glove award for the tournament's best goalie, but sent his shot wide. Argentina also failed to convert on opportunities in extra time.
Argentine Coach Congratulatory in Defeat
"When there are chances in a game that is so evenly balanced, you have to take them," Argentina's coach Alejandro Sabella said. "We lacked a bit of efficiency."
Sabella praised his team for staying even with Germany for so long after a tough semifinal against the Netherlands. Argentina won that game in a penalty shootout, 4-2, after a scoreless draw.
"The only thing I can do is congratulate my players," Sabella said. "The work they did was extraordinary, and (I) also congratulate Germany."
The Argentines went undefeated in the World Cup until the championship game. They played Germany without speedy winger Angel Di Maria, who was out with a thigh injury.
In addition to the award to Messi and Neuer, Colombia's James Rodriguez won the Golden Boot award as the tournament's top scorer with six goals.
In a symbolic gesture before the game, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Sepp Blatter, president of football's world governing body, FIFA, took part in a World Cup handover ceremony. Russia will host the 2018 World Cup.


text:
In greek language with video:
(& εδώ ελληνικά)
Hi my dears Native Americans brothers and sisters!
I live in Greece!! Beautiful America is so far but is so nice in my heart!!!
My name is Abel-Tasos Gkiouzelis (Abel-Anastasios Gkiouzelis) and I will tell you about my conversion from the Protestantism to Eastern Orthodox Christian Church. I'm really sorry but my english isn't good. I hope you understand me! :) You can call me simply Abel…!!
Ok! I was born in Athens, Greece, in 1981 in the Protestantism, in the small false Protestant sect of "Workers", in the Worker Sect which also called "Church Without Name", "Two by Two Church", "Friends & Workers", "The Truth", "Christians", "The Non-Denominational Church", "Christian Convention Church", "The Christian Church", "No-Name Church", "The Faith Missioners", "Nameless House Church", "The Damnation Army", "Dippers", "Go Preachers", "The Jesus-Way", "The New Testament Church", "Pilgrims", "The Reidites", "Tramp Preachers", "The Testimony", "The Way", and with at least 20 still concrete names, who was founded in Ireland on 1897 by William Irvine, Edward Cooney and Jack Carroll, for this reason also the are known and as "Cooneyites", "Irvinites" or "Carrollites".
Until 1997, 16 years old, Ι went regularly to meetings of "Workers" believing that this is the Truth. At home but also in entire building in which I stayed, often hosted all over the world preachers who call themselves "brothers and sisters Workers" and teaches that it is the first successors of the Apostles. Unfortunately, I could not imagine that there were "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves apostles of Christ"(2 Corinthians 11:13 ), which in deed make and women in "Apostles", which is not testified in the New Testament.
In 1997, 16 years old, Ι started to find the meetings of "Workers" boring and so stopped going to them. The months went I began to feel hate for this "Christianity" those whom I had known since birth. My dislike for Christianity gave the baton to a complete disregard for God and indifference for God led me to atheism. And my soul, however, was actually empty. I felt a void that I wanted to fill ti with something. And I tried to fill my void with the rock music. I tried to imitate the life of hippies of the 1960s. I had the hippies as model in dressing, music and ideas. I was believing that there is not sin and that all permits. So, when the "Workers " visited our house, I put deliberately hard rock music. I wanted with this way to show them that I had break away from their team. From their "Christianity".
Deep my soul, however, I wished the faith in the God. But now I hated, I felt a repulsion for the Christianity. So I began to read for the ancient Egyptian religion of Pharaoh, placing in my room several Egyptian idols.
I had changed. I was not henceforth the "Worker meeting young boy". The "meetings old boy" had changed. I tried to make new friends who would not know the old "meetings boy". After one year, in 1998, 17 years old, I Knew experienced some Christians Orthodox persons, aged 20-21 years old, students in TEI-University of Athens, which is in the neighborhood, feeling very glad that I found this good friends company where one help and supports each other in difficult times. I was avoiding talk to them about God. I had enough discussions about God. The "Workers" occasionally asked me what I'm thinking about my future and jokingly, I replied that I want to be a hippie. And he tried to explain me what were the hippies and that this is not a good choice for the life of somebody.
Next year, in 7 September 1999 in Athens, where I lived, there was a great earthquake which was new to me. For several days were aftershocks and day by day more and accumulate within the fear of something worse leading evenings I could not, not to sleep, nor even to lie on the bed. One evening, while I was awake and the rest my family slept, thought to settle my library so as it turned from it all books and other things, deep in a shelf and powder I found in a small New Testament which he had given several years before.
I arranged the library and, as I had the whole evening in front of, I thought to read some New Testament, since not sleep nor did anything else. With that in spring in a random page and I began reading I was surprised. My heart was filled with calmness, courage and joy. All fright which I had accumulated in me from the first earthquake and repeated aftershocks disappeared immediately. Plus I do not feel fear of aftershocks. Immediately thought that God exists and that He just showed it to me!
The next morning I got happy phone my friends and I told them: "Do you know what to do to avoid fear the earthquakes? Still read the New Testament!". They were surprised with what they hear. They never expected to hear something like that, because I never had left might appear my Christian side. So I began to believe again that God exists and Sunday for the first time after two years I went back to meetings of "Workers". Everyone there was glad to see me and welcomed me with a warm "welcome". So from then normally go again to meetings of "Workers" and particularly first of all.
One day I tried to talk to a girl person, called P., with whom were friends, about the meetings of "Workers" where I was going. I told her that every Sunday in the apartment building that I was living, we have some "meetings" where we read the Gospel and sung several Christian hymns suggesting her to come if she want it. P. with the thought that I found in some Christian sect that are now trying to muzzle proselytizing heresy, left shocked, turbulent, hurried, not knowing what to the fork and how to troubleshoot the call on heretical gatherings. And I could not understand why she left. I asked her the next day and received no answer.
One day P. asked me if I am baptized Orthodox Christian. I fell into embarrassment. I was afraid of saying the truth because I did not know how she felt. So I told her, "I don't Know". She replied me "You must Know if you are baptized Orthodox or not". Cluttered and awkward again I said her that I would call in my house to ask about it… I asked my mother if I am baptized Christian Orthodox and she told me: "Don't you know? What are you ask me? Of course you're not". I said to her, and she showed convulsed and embarrassed for once and formal learning that I'm not Orthodox Christian.
Next day my friends with a calm manner tried to talk to me, telling me that I was in the fallacy of heresy and the Christian Orthodox Church is the Truth of Christ. Then I stopped being the calm "boy of meetings" and I filled rage. I forgot that I discuss with someone who really loves me, with my friends, with-full of rage I began to speak against the Orthodox Church, accusing it of not properly clergy, not knowing that there are reverent and proper clergy. My friends embarrassed about the behavior of me and they stopped the discussion and they tried to calm down me.
The next day on when I had calmed down, my friends company from TEI-University tried again to explain to me that I am in heresy. I answered them again filled rage, talking them with hate about the Christian Orthodox Church, leading my friends company to grieve much for the bad behavior of me, for the bad behavior of their friend. I understand that I spoke badly but my ego will not let me admit it.
Next day, my friends again for other one time, with calm manner and love of Christ tried again to explain to me that I was in fallacy. But it was very difficult from them because they did not know the Holy Bible by heart. While they started with calmly about the Christian Orthodox Church and while I still full of rage prepared to respond to them I though in myself:
"I know that these persons really love me and they have demonstrated it too many times to various problems and difficulties in TEI (University) etc. Also never they have told me lies. Never they have derided me. Regarding the Christian Orthodox Church about they are trying to talk to me at this moment… I know nothing about the Christian Orthodox Church. How can I be sure how all that they say to my are wrong? First I must go to see what is the Christian Orthodox Church and after I will can to have a conclusion…".
So, instead of angrily replied, I replied them with calm and I assured my friends that I will go to looking for where is the Truth, going to see what is the Christian Orthodox Church, too.
After few day, I decided to go alone in the Christian Orthodox Church of my neighborhood and while I stund from a Picture-Icon of Christ and Virgin Mary I maked (I was doing) my Cross and I said to Christ:
"My Christ I don't Know if the place, the Orthodox Church, in which I find this moment is correct. Also I don't Know if the way with which this moment I pray, that I pray with Your Picture-Icon and that I make-doing my Cross, is correct. However, I Know that You say in the Holy Bible, "If someone knocks Me I will open him" give me an answer where is the Truth. Is it in the "Workers" or in the Christian Orthodox Church? And if You give me an answer I will not deny You! And before you see to me where is the Truth I will not discuss with any Christian Orthodox clergyman in order to explain to me what the Orthodox Church teaches or any "Worker" in order to explain to me what the "Workers" are believe. I will wait to see me where is the Truth. Please, answer me where is the Truth and I will not deny You! Amen".
From that day my friends didn't told me again about the Christian Orthodox Church. Some day just told me that I will must make-doing my cross whenever I passed in front of a Church. And I accepted. And I started to go alone on a Sunday the Orthodox Liturgy prayed sincerely to see God 's Truth and one Sunday alternately I went in meetings of "Workers" praying again warmly to see me our God where is the Truth. Also, each night knelt to bed before lying down, praying again to God to see me the Truth. My friends did not tell me anything on this matter, but they knew from me that I was going to the Christian Orthodox Liturgy, too.
One day, early in 2000, offer my friends if I wanted to go one day excursion to Aegina Island (Greece) to visit the Monastery of St. Nectarios. And I answered "Yes, let's go", thinking that it had nothing waning.
Over the monastery of St. Nectarios I asked them to stay a little lonely. I took a walk and I went to the place where was the tomb of St. Nectarios. I saw some persons to kneel in front of the tomb of St. Nectarios and to prayed. It seemed strange to me, but I did impressions.
When empty the small chapel with the tomb of St. Nectarios and I stayed alone I knelt and said to the Saint: "St. Nectarios, if you are live in the heaven with God and hear me and if the Christian Orthodox Church is the Truth, help me and show me…".
After a few minutes I got up and went to meet my friends who waited for me at the exit of the monastery. Just my friends saw me, they thinking that something awful happens to me. And with interest asked me, "Are you Ok? You somehow appear… Does you happens something good or something ugly?". Full query, I ensured them that all it's well, realising however that I felt a calm which rather it they had distinguished my friends who uneasy asked me if I am fine of not. I ensured them one more time that all it is a joy and that only that I done it was prayer as doing all there in the Monastery. The calm which I felt I didn't interpreted and I didn't reported it to my friends. Just I knew that I had felt it.
The next day when we came back in Athens I called P. to tell her my impressions from the monastery of St. Nectarios of Aegina Island. Before I called her I knew very well that the day before we had gone to St. Nectarios of Aegina. When, however, I called P. I said her that we had gone to Monastery of St. Andrew (Apostle Andrew) of Aigina! But there isn't "St. Andrew of Aigine". There is only St. Apostle Andrew. And there is not any Monastery with the name of St. Andrew in Aegina.
My friend P. thought that I was made (that I was doing) jokes and she was wondering how can I don't remember where we had gone just the day before. I had completely forgotten the name of St. Nectarios and I insisted that we go to the St. Andrew of Aegina. When P. reminded me that we had gone to the St. Nectarios of Aegina and not to the St. Andew, immediately I remembered where we had gone and with amazement how could I forget I said her, "Oh, yes, I'm sorry".
The months are going on and I was going one Sunday to the meetings of "Workers" and one Sunday alternately to the Liturgy of Orthodox Church, praying always hotly to the God to answer me where is Truth. All these months I and my friends from TEI-University did not have any discussion about where is the Truth. They did not wanted to pressure me. Simply they prayed for me knowing that no prayer does not go lost. Even smallest.
In the summer of 2000 my friends company of TEI-University, offer me if I wanted to going to Church of the Virgin Mary in Tinos Island, Greece. I accepted thinking again that it had nothing waning. In Tinos Island (Greece) stayed for two days because it was far away. The first day we visited the church-chapel of the Virgin Mary in Tinos Island that there is the miraculous Icon of Virgin Mary. I went front to the Icon of Virgin Mary where she has the Christ in her arms and with heartfelt prayer I said: "My Jesus Christ, show me where is the Truth and I will not deny You!".
After, while we left from the church-chapel of Virgin Mary, my friends stopped in a bench outside from the Church that there sold small candles, Icons of Virgin Mary, books etc. and I was waitting them. Someone from my friends told me: "If you want buy a small Icon of Virgin Mary". So I bought one small icon of Virgin Mary.
In the evening we went to our rooms at the hotel and I put the small icon into a sachets on the nightstand and light up a candle wax. I lied in bed and fell asleep without even noticing. In the middle of the night I woke suddenly startled and immediately I saw that the candle towards the bedside table had melted and the wooden nightstand catched fire (it was on fire). I got up quickly and awestruck with a cloth, put out the fire. Since then I looked at the sachets the small icon on the nightstand, I thought that possibly the Virgin Mary help me to wake up so suddenly and promptly anticipating the fire before it spread further.
The next day when we came back in Athens, I hung the small icon of Virgin Mary on a wall inside my room. I didn't believe yet that the Christian Orthodox Church is the Truth Church of Christ, but something told me that Virgin Mary had helped me to woke up in time before to expand the fire. And for these reason I decided to put the small icon of Virgin Mary in my room. So I waited for with distress how would react my parents when they will see the small Orthodox Icon. After some hours at evening my parents were saw the small Icon and for first time they occupied that their son (me) relates himself with the Christian Orthodox Church. They told me with anger and neurously to throw out and I tried to explain them that I didn't doing something wrong-bad and that I has every right to have in my room everything that I want. The troubles were continued on a daily basis. For the fear to they throw the small Icon of Virgin Mary when I was absent from the house was taking with me the small Icon and when I came back I was hanging it again.
One night my mother insisted that I throw the small icon. She said to me that "if the icon of Virgin Mary tomorrow morning it will here in your room I will throw it". And, this time, I told her calmly "You can doing what ever the God illuminated you… ", thinking to myself that if God accepts Orthodoxy as Truth He illuminated her not to throw it. And if God accepts the "Workers" as Truth illuminated her to throw it. And so I understand what the Truth is.
When the next morning I woke up at 7:00 to go to TEI-University, I saw that my mother went to her job and she hadn't throw away the small Icon of Virgin Mary. I felt very glad that she didn't throw the small Icon but… I was not yet isconvinced about where is the Truth. So, I left from my home to go in University. I left the small Icon in the wall. The midday I came back in my house, and I realized astonished that the Icon was absent. My brother and my sisters came back at home and someone of them was hiding the Icon under a book. I fount it and I didn't tell them something about the small Icon of Virgin Mary.
At 14:00 I was distressed because I could not unterstand where is it the Truth and I began to prepared in to meeting at 15:00 my friend P., in the centre of Athens, in Plaka, for a time-walk. But when I was absent my mother at 15:30 would returned from her job in the house. And I thought if it would be supposed to left the icon hung in my room or I would must be took it with me from the fear to throw my mother the Icon as to told me previous evening. So I decided to left the small Icon in the house and whether that will happened (if she throw the Icon or not) that will was a proof about where it is the Truth. With the hope that the God answer me where is the Truth, I maded my Cross, I kissed the small icon of Virgin Mary and I left it hung in the wall.
So I met in Plaka of Athens my friend P. and as we walked at some point P. said me that she did not feel well and that dizzy. She had indeed pale and I told her to sit down on a bench that was near there and I went to buy her an orange juice. As I put my hand in my pants pocket to pull out money to pay, knowing that in my pocket I had only money and keys, I thought it catch a shaped object "Q", that is object with like crick. Over the agony, I paid with no attention, I paid the orange juice and gave it to P. and she drank it and she assembled.
They continued to walk in the Plaka of Athens, and after half an hour, whilst just walked in silence for something specific, I wondered to myself if it was my idea of what I looked it catch in my pocket half an hour ago shaped "Q ", like something with crick and spontaneously I put my hand in my pocket to municipalities if indeed caught something or was just my idea. Surprised to discover that in my pocket was the small icon of Virgin Mary, and "Q" which in shape was caught was the crick that the small icon has to hang!
Immediately I told to P. what happened but she did not believe me. She told me whether I took the small icon with me like other times and that I did not remember it. And I replied her that I took it this time with me and that even left the small icon at home as a criterion to where is the Truth. My friend P. didn't believe me and she said to me: "Ok, when you come back at home, you hang the small icon again to see what your parents tell you". So the afternoon as I came back home I was hang the small icon and when my parents saw it created a fuss. The evening before lying down to sleep, to corp the icon for fear my parents throw away.
The next morning I left for TEI (University) and I took together the small icon and when I returned home in the evening I hang it again in the wall of my room.
When my mother saw it, made a great fuss and she said me with angry: "I told you that if you would hang the icon again I throw it. But you hung it and I take it and after you went and took it from me, inside my bathrobe".
When I hear these words, I was surprised. I know that something supernatural had happened, but in any case I don't expect that will confirm it and my mother. And I told her exactly what had happened, stressing that I didn't took the icon from her bathrobe, but miraculously founded in my pocket. My mother quickly went to my room and corp the small icon by opening the windows to be discarded. I run anticipating before she throw it.
With all these I just believed that our God showed me that the Christian Orthodox Church is the Truth. So I decided to talk with an Christian Orthodox clergyman-priest. I went in the Orthodox Church of my neighborhood and I spoke with priest Father Andrew, narrating to him the whole story of how I believed to Cristian Orthodox Church. Father Andrew listened to me carefully and he said to me in the end: "You have every right to believe what you want but because you live with your parents in the same house, is better to you have the small icon with you together, not to sag it for not having troubles at home. And in the future, God first, in your home you will bore what you want".
Since, I had the small icon with me together and I went every Sunday only to the Orthodox Church.
My father before married and maked family had become "Worker" with the result can be interpreted the Holy Bible in the Protestant way, ie misinterpreting and omitting several passages hagiography (verses). So he called me with a view to demonstrate how through Holy Bible proves that the Orthodox Church is not the Truth. I had hoped that I could be proved otherwise. But I knew nothing of anti-heretical hagiographic (verses from Holy Bible) argument.
My father began arguing that the holy icons are idolatry and I answered him that it is not idolatry because we don't worship the wood or the pictured saints and the veneration that is honorable and not worship, something with which my father did not agree. Then my father began to show various hagiographic (verses) without which he argue was against holy confession, Priesthood, fasting and, as well, against the Saints and the Virgin Mary. Unfortunately, although I know that it is not right, I didn't not know how to prove it hagiography (verses), preferring not to answer at all.
The days went by and every day my father asking me to show me and other hagiographic passages (verses) which, as mistakenly claimed, proves that the Orthodox Church is wrong. Sometimes I went to talk with him, because he insisted and sometimes not, because I know that my father misunderstand the Holy Bible and that I was not at a position to prove it because I didn't knew about Holy Bible. One morning as I was leaving for TEI-University, I was stopped by my father to show me something in the Holy Bible. Began to bring me back argument against Orthodoxy and this time he managed to convince me that Orthodoxy is located in fallacy.
So I convinced that Orthodoxy is wrong heading into TEI-University thinking if I should made to the company that eventually became convinced from his father that the Orthodox Church is wrong. So, under punching my hand and thinking that I agree with my father that Orthodoxy is false, I decided that I will tell it to them.
In TEI-University I met my friend P. and I told her that I was convinced from my father that Orthodoxy is wrong. So P. without anger but with emphasis and tears in her eyes said to me: "Are you forget everything that Virgin Mary did to you? Are you forget everything?".
When I listened these words severally mentally shaken and immediately I said to myself: "She has right. I asked Christ to show me where is the Truth and He showed me, knowing that I will be continuous war must remain solid and will come also the time during which learn and how through Holy Bible proves that the only Truth is the Christian Orthodox Church". So when I returned at noon in my home, with these same words that I said to myself, I said to my father confessing that the Orthodox Church is the Truth regardless at the moment I do not know how to prove it by Holy Bible.
The days passed and I keeps going steadily every Sunday to the Orthodox Liturgy and I felt to grow up in more a leaf in favor of the Orthodox Church. So one day I said to Father Andrew that I would like to be baptized Christian Orthodox. Fr. Andrew answered me that "To be baptized Christian Orthodox you should really believe rather than at the barrel e.g whether to marry an Orthodox girl or for other reasons". I assured him that I really believe that the Orthodox Church is the Truth and that the Orthodox Church is the Church that founded by Christ and I wants with my heart to come in His Church and I don't doing it for other reasons". So, Fr. Andrew said me that we should find a godfather.
Unfortunately, months went by, and we didn't find a godfather. Father Andrew wanted to baptism me but he was told me that he wanted to find a trusted person for godfather and I answered him: "God will find someone".
One morning in late March 2001, I passed outside a church-chapel near the neighborhood and thinking that it has ever been in this church decided to lit a small candle. The small church was dedicated to St. Apostle Andrew. As prayed into the small church the vicar priest of the church, Father Emmanuel asked me: "Who are you? Where are you from? Are you from this neighborhood? We haven't seen again here". I surprised, I took his blessing (I kissed him hand) and I told him that I'm a neighbor. After I told him my story, about how I believed and that I want to be baptized Orthodox. Fr. Emmanuel surprised looked the sacristan-woman who was also there and told her that if I desire they can indeed baptized me there. Then Fr. Emmanuel explained to the resurrection that I be baptized must truly believe and not barrel for any other reason. And I assured him that every day more and a leaf growing in favor of Orthodoxy.
So, by the Grace of God after two weeks of catechism, on 7 April 2001, Saturday of Lazarus I baptized Christian Orthodox, with godfather the son of Fr. Emmanuel, in this church of St. Apostle Andrew.
On the occasion that I was baptized in a chuch (chapel) of St. Apostle Andrew and "St. Andrew of Aegina" which I had said instead of "St. Nektarios", I thought that maybe St. Nektarios had helped me to believe and be baptized, as I requested him. So, I bought a book of his life in order to ask more about his life. As I read surprised found that the folk name of St. Nectarios, before he became a monk was "Anastasios". Like me. And after when the St. Nectarios became a monk named "Lazarus". And I baptized "Saturday of Lazarus" (feast day of St. Lazarus). And that then St. Nectarios became a priest named "Nektarios".
Almost immediately I remembered an incident from the time when I was at school, about 1993, 12 years old. In the time of Gymnastics I sat with peers who were discussing something and I heard them without myself taking part in the discussion. Suddenly, without myself to the will, inconsiderate, I switches them from the discussion by asking so spontaneously: "Hey Guys, how about we become when we will are 20 years old?".
My classmates started laughing about this question and I realizing that I told something "wrong" by talking and I tried to fix it by saying "uh… e… I say how I am when I'm 20 years old". Realizing, however, that I said something irrelevant to discussion I didn't asked again.
Just now, after 8 years I found that those which I said at the time in high school was not an ordinary recklessness. Because on 31 March 2001 I was 20 years old (I was born 31/3/1981) and after one week, on 7 April 2001, I baptized Christian Orthodox.
I thought all of them can be simple coincidences and that really St. Nektarios had helped me to believe in the real Truth. In to the unbroken apostolic succession Orthodox Church. In the Church founded by Christ. And for which he said "I build my Church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it"(Matthew 16:18 ). I remembered that one of the names of "Worker Sect" is "The Truth". But the "Truth" of "Workers" is false. It's a lying "Truth".
With the Grace of God, I continued to damage the spiritual life in the Orthodox Church, in real Truth. However, the devil did not remain inactive and before spending two months from my baptism, the devil began to sow heretics thoughts against the embassy of the Saints. So I started thinking why would I pray to the Saints and not only pray directly to Christ. Although I know that these thoughts were heretical and wrong, I could not with anything to get it out of my mind. I kicked again and again. I felt clearly that the devil makes war of putting all these thoughts, but I could not doing nothing. So, I asked for help from God.
On the afternoon of 8 May 2001 while I was in the Church in the evening prayer of the feast of St. Christopher and continues all these heretical thoughts, when I saw the icon-image of St. Christopher started patiently enter thoughts against this particular Saint. The icon-picture of St. Christofer to pass a river, having at the back of Christ as a child. I could not understand how this is done, from the moment the St. Christopher lived in the 3rd century A.D..
At the end of the Vespers a lady gave to me an identical plasticized small icon of St. Christopher saying me that the St. Christopher is a patron of drivers. I was perplexed and asked her to learn about the life of St. Christofer. She told me that he was idolatry to originate cannibal tribe, but he was very good and virtuous. He was big with great physical strength and so very often help disability, elderly and children to cross a raging river much of the area where they lived. One time as he tried to lift a child to spend it on the opposite bank found surprised that despite his power, he could not lift it. After he was revealed that this child was the Christ, and appeared to congratulate him for a job well help and love which offers fellows. And then St. Christopher believed in Christ, was baptized and became worthy to Witness and now he is a Saint Martyr who killed for Christ.
I was glad for the life of St. Christopher. The heretical thoughts continued and I begged St. Christopher to help me to stop the bad thoughts. I did not like to bore thoughts against the Saints. I feel that someone else whispering bad thoughts constantly in my mind. And I realized that he was the devil. While the bad thoughts like "Why do you pray to the Saints and not only to Christ?", continued, and I could not stop them, begging God to help me.
This time (2001) I went to TEI-University and I worked in McDonalds (2000-2002) of the centre of Athens, too.
So, in May 2001, after a few days, when I finished from my work-McDonalds at noon and I led for my home with my car, I realized that from fatigue sleepy and my eyes closed. As I tried to hold open unwisely thought the Avenue of Athens-Corinth from which I was going is a straight and that we would be able to keep my eyes open and while running at higher speed to be faster, I would arrive in a fourth at my home well. As I started to cross the avenue and increasing speed to reach home sooner, my eyes closed and hastily exposures. I opened the windows of car and the music radio.
I thought it was a quarter that should have patience and barrel would reach. As I began to drive in the bridge of Kifisos I heard a loud collision while I thought someone crashed while I opened my eyes, which I were not understood that it was closed and I saw broken panes. And then I saw that I had crashed myself. Immediately I came out and I was surprised when I saw where I was. Moving up the bridge of Kifisos without realizing I had fallen asleep and crossed the entire bridge asleep, and that part of the avenue after the bridge crashed in cars that were stopped In first traffic light after the bridge and causing pile. The frond of my car crashed very match but had not anything happening to myself.
So, straight my mind went to the St. Christopher and generally the embassies of the Saints. Immediately I realized that I had helped by St. Christopher and that Christ accepts our pray to the Saints, who after death is not in a stupor as they say the heretical, but also they live after death, they can hear, they can see, they can understand and help people. Like the Prophet Moses had died though (Deuteronomy 34:5) he appeared in the Transfiguration of Christ (Matthew 17:3-4 ) and as though Abraham who also died in about 1800 B.C., from heaven "saw it and was glad"(John 8:56) (he saw the Incarnation of Christ). And so by Grace and the help of God completely dissolved from my mind the heretical thoughts against the Saints.
After, I began to feel the desire to get to know other young persons that are conscious Orthodox Christians inside the Church and I began to pray to God to send me some persons. And God answered immediately with a reply which He had "preparation" many years ago. Our family dentist who had come in my baptism and has extended family, said me that her children go to a priest in the center of Athens, who engaged in anti-heretical and apologetic work of the Church and that every Sunday makes speeches on youth in style Q & A (questions and answers), where they were asking questions about faith and disbelief and he answered to them. And she offer to go there, me too. And she told me that I will have the chance to meet a lot of new young persons from the Orthodox Church and yet I can ask the priest various questions that I have been on the Orthodox Faith.
So, on June 2001 I went to meet the priest who called Father John. Father John asked me to tell him my story of how I believed and was baptized and happily I recounted his. When I finished my narration Fr. John said to me: "You believed in a miracle. But that the Orthodox Church is the only Truth is not only established through the wonders but also only from Holy Bible. Because and the devil can doing wonders. And Buddhists do wonders and many others with the power of the devil doing wonders. But God loves you and He maked a wonder in your life to believe Him".
I surprised with what I heard and I asked Fr. John to explain me that reveals this up during the Holy Bible. Also wondered how my parents just read Holy Bible and being outside the Church and Fr. John replied that they misunderstand the Holy Bible.
Then he mentioned the words of Christ Himself who said of his Church that it will establish and will not be interrupted when your work forever and ever: "I will build my Church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it"(Matthew 16:18). Roman Catholics were detached from the body of the Church in 1054 AD and the Protestants left from Roman Catholics on 1517 AD. And then as now established at least 33,000 different Protestant heresies where one does not accept the other and all claims that the Church had stopped Her work and its restarted when themselves founding the protestants sects. So the words of our Lord "build my Church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it"(Matthew 16:18 ) match only the Christian Orthodox Church. The Christian Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ and His Apostles on 33 A.D.. Also, the Christian Orthodox Church has the Apostolic Succession.
The Christian Orthodox Church is also called Eastern Orthodox Church, Orthodox Catholic Church, Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy. (But, be careful: Christian Orthodox Church is not same with Coptic Orthodox Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, Church of Armenia, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Christianity, that they are also called Monophysites, Copts and Chalkedonians and they are heretical false sects because they left from Christian Orthodox Church on 451 A.D.)
On September 2001 I started going in speeches for young people which they have Fr. John in style A&Q. I asked many questions, quite benevolent wonder which I had on how all those who teach the Orthodox Church, having abolished the Protestants like Holy Icons, Virgin Mary, Priesthood, Confession etc., it turns up during the Holy Bible.
Fr. John answered to me many questions but because I had a lot of questions told me to come after speaking to his office to give me an anti-heretical book. And he gave me one that automatically negate the heretical protestants teachings with only hagiographies passages (verses) from Holy Bible. So I read the anti-heretical this book and God blessed me to believe the Christian Orthodox Church from the Holy Bible, too.
After a few months, on 2002, I learned that Fr. John want to build a monastery in Attica, Greece, which will deal divine confession and apology against heresies, atheists, buddhists etc. with anti-heretical books. And Ι said to Fr. John that I want abided by his monastery.
So, on 29 November 2002, the eve of St. Apostle Andrew, I came officially escorted of Fr. John, and I waiting and making daily prayer to God given us a place monastery.
In the summers of 2002 and 2003, I worked with my father as painters. These two summers I had gone with my father to Mykonos Island (Greece) to paint a new hotel. There I asked as to whether there is some local Saint and I learned about St. Manuel of Mykonos, who was married in Mykonos and he was martyred in Chios Island, Greece. The memory day of St. Manuel is on 15 March (+1792).
So, I asked Fr John to pray every day to St. Manuel of Mykonos and he said me: "Ok, pray to help us to find a place for our monastery". So I prayed to Christ, to Virgin Mary and St. Manuel of Mykonos to help us to find a place to build monastery.
After 5 years, with God's Grace we found a temporary place for Monastery and on 25 November 2007 I went to lived there. And to show me our God, for another one time, that the Saints of God helps us and that we must invoke them without any hesitation on 15 March 2008, the feast day of St. Manuel of Mykonos, I was tonsured an Orthodox monk with the name "Abel" that gave me the Bishop of Piraeus in honor of St. Forefathers Abel (Adam's son in Old Testament) noting surprised that on 29 November where I desided on 2002 to be a monk, is the feast day of another Saint who called St. Abel of Valaam, Russia (+1831).
After 6 years, on 2013, we find a place from monastery and now we will start to build it.
Every day and every night I pray for all the people to coming inside the House of Christ, to the Christian Orthodox Church.
With love and respect for your history and culture
Abel-Tasos Gkiouzelis (Abel-Anastasios Gkiouzelis)
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Feel free to email me!
See also:
Native American Pathways to Orthodoxy
A Different Light: Youthful Travelers in Contemporary America
A Letter from an Orthodox Christian to our Native Americans Brothers
Orthodox Saints and the Future of America
Saint Nickolas of Japan & the samurai Fr Paul Sawabe Takuma
Orthodox America - By Issue Number
"The Orthodox World"


text:
Review: Internet Explorer 8 is new and improved -- is it back on top?
Microsoft's IE8 browser offers cool features, better security, and improved performance.
Internet Explorer 8 has shipped in its final version and is ready to take on its rivals. This latest version of Microsoft's browser leapfrogs its closest competition, Firefox 3, for basic browsing and productivity features -- it has better tab handling, a niftier search bar, a more useful address bar, and new tools that deliver information directly from other Web pages and services. IE8 has also been tweaked for security and includes a so-called "porn mode," new anti-malware protection, and better ways to protect your privacy.
This final version differs little from last January's RC1 release, aside from some speed improvements and bug fixes. What follows is a comprehensive review of all the ways that IE8 differs from IE7. If you've abandoned Microsoft's browser for a rival, you may -- or may not -- want to return.
Improved tabs and address bar
For basic browsing, the biggest improvement in IE is its tab handling, which is exemplary. It's the kind of feature you may not notice much at first, but it's one that goes a long way toward making your browsing life far easier.
If you commonly use multiple tabs, you'll particularly welcome the way IE handles them. When you open a new tab from an existing page, the new one opens directly to the right of the originating one, and both tabs are given the same color. That way, all related tabs are automatically grouped and color-coded. If you open a new tab from a page that is already part of a group, it will open at the far right of the group, rather than just to the right of the originating tab. It will also be color-coded.
This subtle change in tab behavior may have a major effect on your productivity. For example, if you write a blog and need to preview it before posting, the preview page typically opens in a new tab. Previously, and with other browsers, the tab opened all the way on the right -- often several tabs away from the originating tab -- and switching between the two was often confusing. With color-coding and grouping, it's far easier to switch between related tabs.
It's easy to move a tab between groups -- just drag it, and it becomes part of the new group, taking on its color. Right-click on any tab to control its entire group -- that includes closing the group, closing all tabs except for those in the group, and ungrouping the chosen tab from the group. You can also perform actions on any individual tab from the right-click menu. It would have been nice to be able to reopen an entire tab group, but that feature isn't here.
Also welcome is the new (for IE) ability to reopen tabs. To reopen the last tab you've closed, you press Ctrl-Shift-T. To see a list of recently closed tabs and choose which to open, you right-click any tab, select Recently Closed Tabs, and pick the one you want to open
New tabs open showing multiple links (allowing you to open pages you've recently closed), an InPrivate Browsing session (more commonly called "porn mode") and an "Accelerator" that lets you grab content from a Web page (more on this later). You can also perform certain tasks, such as sending e-mail with a Web-based service, or do a search.
Each tab is isolated from the others, so if one tab crashes, the entire browser doesn't go down. You can then restore the crashed tab, and when you do, it reloads with the information that had been in it when it crashed, such as a partially written e-mail. And if you were watching a video, the video will start playing at the point the tab crashed, not at the beginning of the video.


text: After a long summer hiatus, our department news blog is back! As you might have noticed, the name of the news blog has changed. Due to popular demand, what was BLISS is now BLING (Blog in LINGuistics). Please be sure to update your bookmark to reflect the new URL of the site.


text:
So you failed to win the auction for Cameron Frye's Dad's red Ferrari last year. Now what? Well, if that $1.65 million is burning a hole in your pocket, you could always buy the glassy Ferris Bueller house, recently reduced.
It's just gone back on the market with a cool price-tag to match its cool, stark exterior (though the interior certainly looks more homely...just), and yes, the price even includes the infamous garage (above) which the Ferrari crashed through after Ferris and Cameron's day off.
Any Gizmodo readers want to club together and buy this Illinois house for the official Ferris Bueller appreciation commune? [Huffington Post via Curbed via Gawker]
UPDATE: Either it's been on the market since 2009, or the buyer has put it up for sale again. Whichever way, it's now a veritable bargain since it's dropped from $2.3 million. Hive five for the economy crash!