text:
Jacques Guerlain 1935
[kɥi:r də rysi]
Family: leather
Smoky Mitsouko
Period: The flight years
Thierry Wasser and Frédéric Sacone have re-created an extensive list of historic Guerlain perfumes, using the exact same ingredients as when they saw the light for the first time.
The name Cuir de Russie, meaning "Russian leather", was by all accounts inspired by the historical fact that the Russian army used highly fragrant birch tar to tan and treat its military boots, giving the leather a very characteristic odour. Several perfume houses have produced a perfume called Cuir de Russie, with Chanel's from 1924 being perhaps the most famous. The invention of what has become known as leather perfumes is often ascribed to Caron's Tabac Blond of 1919, with its innovative scent of tobacco, and smoky, dry chypre notes. However, the Guerlain annals reveal that Aimé Guerlain used the name Cuir de Russie as far back as 1872, but since his original fragrance was reformulated by Jacques Guerlain in 1935, we don't know what it smelled like.
Thierry Wasser's re-created Cuir de Russie is the Jacques Guerlain version, and it strikes us as living up to its name. We have learned that Jacques Guerlain launched several perfumes that were remarkably less rounded, sweet and sensual than what we know from his surviving classics, and Cuir de Russie was by far the smokiest and most leathery perfume he ever composed. It's difficult to believe it came from the same hands that created Vol de Nuit's comfortable cocoon of amber and spices just two years earlier.
The scent diagram of Cuir de Russie suggests an extremely complex formula with myriad herbal, floral, spicy, woody and animal materials. The effect, however, is fairly straightforward. Right from the start, we're hit by the poignant smoky-black scent of birch tar, smelling like the commingled odours of a fireplace, a tannery, and fence paint. Hidden underneath is a very feminine flower bouquet of gardenia, lilac and ylang-ylang, but the smoky top note almost overpowers it. The most interesting part of the perfume is perhaps when the smoke fades and we surprisingly find the scent of Mitsouko, actually its whole roster of bergamot, peach, rose, jasmine, oakmoss, orris, patchouli and musk. Frédéric Sacone reveals that Jacques Guerlain's formula for Cuir de Russie indeed does list Mitsouko, and also Chypre de Paris, as an ingredient. It wasn't uncommon for Jacques Guerlain to recycle a formula inside a new formula, something which perfumers call "formule à tiroir", that is, to work with a formula that you already have in your drawer.
Cuir de Russie is a curiosity in the world of Guerlain, a perfume whose bitter smokiness very few of today's women would find pleasant, possibly attracting only a discerning minority. Perfume aficionados, however, tend to be fascinated with historic leather scents.
The early version of Cuir de Russie came in the so-called square bottle, a standard bottle inspired by medicine jars. For Jacques Guerlain's 1935 remake, the quadrilobe bottle was used.
Back to vintages
Back to perfumes


text:
With that in mind, I have, thus far, self-published six books through my company, Whizbang Books. My plan is to publish a book a year until...... I die. Or, maybe, before that if I am no longer physically, mentally, or financially capable of putting together another book.
I don't think I'll run out of book ideas any time soon. I have several different books in the works and new ideas come along all the time. In fact, my problem is that I have too many ideas, and far too little time.
Bearing that in mind, I have decided that my next book will NOT be a conventional paper-and-ink book. I'm pretty sure that it will be a book in a blog. By that I mean that I will establish a blog for the sole purpose of presenting a how-to book, complete with lots of photographs and the step-by-step directions in writing.
Such a book will be far, far easier for me to publish than a conventional book. And it will cost me absolutely nothing except the time it takes and the materials and props needed for the photos. And the time I spend on producing this next book should be WAY less than I've spent on any previous books.
You may be thinking to yourself that putting a book into blog form is kind of neat, but how would I make any money at such a thing? How would I charge people to read the book? Well, I won't charge people a cent. The book will be absolutely free!!
This particular book will explain how to build something that every homesteader/ gardener/agrarian can really use and most do not own. It is something that can be purchased but the cost is absurdly high. My blog book will explain how anyone with basic skills can easily make one of these things themselves, in a couple of hours, using basic materials. That's all I'll reveal about the book for now.
The way I will make money (I hope) is by supplying some of the basic parts needed to build the item. I may offer a parts kit. Interested readers will not absolutely need my parts kits but I believe many will want them because a kit of assembled parts will be a real convenience, and it will probably cost less money than buying everything individually. Offhand, I think that the total cost to build this mystery item will be around $75. That is a very significant savings over already-made versions of the item. And it will be an especially small price to pay when you consider what this item will do for you.
I am currently in the finishing stages of developing and testing this new Whizbang invention. So, stay tuned for that.
In other book news, I want to let you all know that Cumberland Books now carries my most recent book, Anyone Can Build A Whizbang Garden Cart: Easy to Follow Plans For a Remarkably Useful Tool. Click Here For More Information
Speaking of the Whizbang Garden Cart, I am hoping that someone actually builds one and lets me (and the rest of the world) know about it before the end of this year. It takes time for a new how-to book to bear fruit. When I published my Chicken Plucker Planbook, I held my breath (figuratively speaking) for four months until someone actually followed my directions and built a Whizbang Plucker. When they posted their experience to the internet, the ball started rolling. Books started to sell. It was the beginning of my little book business.
With that in mind, I have established a Whizbang Garden Cart Contest for 2007. I will have another similar contest for 2008. But if you have an interest in making a cart, your best chance to win a real nice prize is to get it made and entered in this year's contest.
By the way, I have sent copies of the garden cart book to several magazines, hoping some will review it for their readers. That too takes a long time to bear fruit. And I have sent sample copies to several seed catalogs and other appropriate booksellers hoping they will give it a try. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Such is the work of a small-scale book publisher.
I am considering different types of advertising for my book business. This year I invested in some small advertisements in Countryside magazine and Backyard Poultry magazine. The ads were expensive but they directed people to my very simple web site ( www.WhizbangBooks.com) and from there to my poultry-related blog essays. I have no way of recording response from the magazine ads but I can tell from my site meter that those blog essays get a LOT of reader traffic. And the plucker books are selling steady. And the plucker parts business is doing pretty well.
That said, I decided to check out the cost of advertising in Mother Earth News magazine. Earlier in the year, a reader of this blog offered me a lot of very good marketing advice and one of his recommendations was that I advertise in Mother Earth because it has far more readers than Countryside.
Well, I recently looked into the advertising rates for Mother Earth News and found out that a full page, four-color advertisement in that magazine sells for $27, 648. I could save money by going to black & white. That would only cost me $18,236.
Those prices are FAR more than I can afford. So I checked out a 1/3 page vertical advertisement. That would be enough to present several of my Whizbang books. Such an advertisement would cost me $7,530. That price is for advertising in one issue of the magazine. If I placed the ad six times, the cost per ad would drop to $5,033.
The bottom line here is that I can't afford Mother Earth News. The most reasonably priced ad is a 1" black & white ad in the "General Store" section for $1,059. I can afford that but I have a hard time justifying that.
So maybe I'll try the classifieds.
Many years ago, when Mother Earth News was a much different publication (and advertising was more affordable for the masses), I placed a single classified ad. It was my first foray into the mail order business. The little ad drew quite a bit of response. But it was something I ended up regretting. Someday I'll tell you the story.
And finally, while on this subject of my books, I would like to thank Dr. Mike Kear for his recent review of my book, Writings of a Deliberate Agrarian. Here is an excerpt:
I am in the midst of reading Herrick Kimball's book Writings of a Deliberate Agrarian. It is a truly beautiful book. Well made, well written, fascinating. Part prose, part theology, part how-to, part declaration, part - dare I say it? - prophetic. If this was strictly a "religious" book, I would say that I am often "convicted" by the truth Kimball declares. Deliberate Agrarian is not a religious book, but it certainly is a spiritual one, and one that reverently bows the knee to the glory and sovereignty of God while proclaiming the necessity of progressive self-reliance under the providence of the Almighty.
This book is offensive, and rightly so, to modernists, industrial slaves, and emasculated Christians. But in midst of the offense the answer is provided. The answer is that God has always had it right and we will do well to listen to Him and follow His ways.
You can read the whole review at his blog, The Babylonian Groundhog.
Even if you don't read the rest of the review, please do check out the blog. I think you'll be glad you did. Here's that link again: The Babylonian Groundhog

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Keeping Score With Capital Campaigns: The New Jersey Symphony Orchestra culminated a four-year capital campaign this past June, raising $35.8 million, some 12 percent more than its original $32 million goal, despite the worst economy since the Great Depression.
- Binders Full Of Fundraisers Causing A Diversity Stir: Veteran UK fundraiser Giles Pegram, CBE, caused a social media uproar when he tweeted "women are still not adequately engaged in the thinking in fundraising," causing flashbacks to Mitt Romney's infamous "binders full of women" line.
- 10 Issues That Top The Activist List For 2013: a new report from Future 500 indicates that a series of issues will force corporations to partner with nonprofits to adapt to a changing environment.
- Donors And Their Wealth: Everyone's looking for investment advice. Charities and donors are no different. Some of the nation's largest nonprofits are complex businesses, generating income from donations but also via fundraising events, program service revenue or membership fees, as well as investment income.
- Now Casting: An actor who can play equally well Prospero, Willy Loman, and Felix Unger or Lady Macbeth, Amanda Wingfield, and Lady Bracknell, is highly valued by any theatre company. Likewise, grant writers who can flawlessly execute diverse roles bring real value to their nonprofits.


text:
Heritage Dinner Time Change
Due to an unforeseen scheduling conflict, the Heritage Dinner will start at 7:00 PM instead of 6:30 PM
We apologize for the inconvenience. The delayed late start does allow Ben Jones, Heritage Dinner guest speaker, to take part in an extended live radio interview where he will discuss Confederate Heritage.
Convention Host Committee


text:
July 7, 2007, Martinique Beach, eastern shore of Nova Scotia, Canada. Three kilometers of pristine sand, the Atlantic Ocean, and only us and one other couple. Is this great, or what? And in addition, the beach encompasses a bird sanctuary and boardwalks, and is one of those places where you can always find a spot all by yourself, to enjoy to the fullest.
If you'd like a day hike, go East from Dartmouth on Highway 7/107 until you get to the village of Musquodoboit Harbour. In the village watch for the sign to Martinique Beach, turn right onto that road and follow it to the end. You'll end up right beside the miles of beach and bird sanctuary. There's boardwalks, facilities, but no food. Take your own lunch! If you're a surfer, the waves are usually quite good. Enjoy!
Sony DSCF828 camera.
September 2005


text:
About 200 White House staff took a long lunch as they gathered to watch the World Cup game Tuesday, where the U.S. team was to play against Belgium. Soon, the president entered the screening room and began to chant:
"I believe. I believe. I believe that we can win. I believe that we can win…"Amidst cheers and applause, the entire room joined him in the chant.
Well, despite their passionate "belief," the U.S. lost to Belgium, 2-1 in overtime.
Unfortunately, as Jimmy Kimmel hilariously pointed out:
"He believed in a lot of things that didn't quite work out."
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom


text:
The Bush administration's efforts to thwart terrorism at home have created a fissure among the three leading Democratic presidential candidates, with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton coming under attack for saying that America is safer now than before 9/11 — contrary to a popular line of argument among some Democratic officials.Hillary's comments should come as no surprise and is just another example of how she does not represent the "real" Democratic party but the DLC. The DLC is where the neocons and corporatists who call themselves Democrats hang out. An example would be Marshall Wittmann who has been an advisor to both Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. So, is Hillary a closet neocon? To answer that question I will repeat a post from 2006.
In a televised debate on Sunday night, Mrs. Clinton, who has tried to minimize her differences with her rivals on commander-in-chief issues, bluntly disagreed with a main rival, former Senator John Edwards, who had just said that the administration's so-called war on terror was little more than a slogan.
"I believe we are safer than we were," Mrs. Clinton said. "We are not yet safe enough, and I have proposed over the last year a number of policies that I think we should be following."
Neocon Hillary
George W. Bush has certainly brought some unlikely characters together. I had just become used to seeing liberals and progressives on the Libertarian site LewRockwell.com but I was shocked to see that Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com had done the cover story for The American Conservative. In Hillary the Hawk Justin takes on not just Hillary but as an added benefit he cuts Marshall Wittmann to shreds as well. Let's start with more Bull than Moose, Marshall Wittmann.
When "the Moose" talks, Democrats listen—just like the Republicans did when he was flacking on their behalf. And the Democrat listening the closest to this Trotskyist-turned-neoconservative is Hillary Rodham Clinton, supposedly the leader of the party's far-left wing.After this none to flattering bio of "The Moose" he he does a perfect segue into his crucifiction of Hillary.
With his reputation for giving good quote, "the Moose," a.k.a. Marshall Wittmann, formerly John McCain's communications director and now a bigwig at the Democratic Leadership Council, is a legendary character in Washington circles. Once a member of the Trotskyist Spartacist League and an officer in the Young People's Socialist League, Wittmann, like many admirers of the Red Army's founder, moved rightward during the Reagan era and eventually wound up as the Christian Coalition's political director. From this strategic vantage point he jumped on McCain's Straight Talk Express—and then jumped ship entirely, falling into the arms of the DLC and landing, as always, on his feet.
From Leon Trotsky to Ralph Reed to Hillary Clinton is a long, torturous road to follow, yet the chameleon-like Wittmann—who styles himself a Bull Moose progressive in the tradition of his hero, Theodore Roosevelt—has navigated it expertly.
Eager to overcome her reputation as the leader of the party's left wing, Hillary is "repositioning" herself, in modern parlance, as a "centrist," i.e. a complete opportunist. She could have no better teacher than Wittmann, who from the pulpit of his "Moose-blog," advises her to "seize the issue of Iranian nukes to draw a line in the sand." While paying lip service to multilateralism, she should "make it clear that while force is the last resort, she would never take it off the table in dealing with the madmen mullahs and the psychotic leader of Iran."There is a lot more and it's worth read so go check it out.
This advice was proffered on the morning of Jan. 18. By that evening, when Hillary gave her scheduled speech at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, it had clearly been taken to heart: "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran," she averred. Accusing the White House of choosing to "downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," she disdained Team Bush for "standing on the sidelines."
"Let's be clear about the threat we face now," she thundered. "A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not—must not—permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons." To be sure, we need to cajole China and Russia into going along with diplomatic and economic sanctions, but "we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran—that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."
Hillary's newfound centrism isn't completely insincere. Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary's Choice:
Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: 'I urged him to bomb.' The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The president expressed] what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the NATO alliance? Hillary responded, 'You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?' The next day the President declared that force was necessary.
Together with Madeleine Albright—who famously complained to Colin Powell, "What good is it having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"—Hillary constituted the Amazonian wing of the Democratic Party during the years of her husband's presidency. Her effort to outflank the Republicans on the right when it comes to the Iran issue is a logical extension of her natural bellicosity.
It still applies a year later.


text:
we celebrated this spooky night getting spoiled by grandma edith, and partying with our killer ward.
it was low-key, and wonderful.
precisely the way i like my halloween to be.
it's november the first in about twenty minutes.
which means it is finally legal to watch the family stone [on replay], drink egg nog, and put up a christmas tree in my big, beautiful bay window.
which maps out my day tomorrow in exactitude.
but for now,
happy halloween!
b.a., charlie chaplin, and a black eyed pea.


text:
Tchelo's has a fantastic sale going on until April 8 2012, where you can find the Must Have Nail Fatpacks reduced from 199L to 50L!
And for the Tchelo's VIP's this exclusive blonde skin, which includes two freckle tattoo layers.
Follow this link to Tchelo's to check them out and make sure to go before 8 April, when the sale will end.
VIP Skin and Must Have Nails from Tchelo's


text:
"Make your baby a green baby with Bambino Land's amazing organic muslin swaddling blankets, baby clothes, and gifts made from the finest 100% certified organic cotton. Bambino Land strives to care for the earth and its community without sacrificing comfort"
Top site lists are a simple, but powerful system for exposing your site to millions. If accepted into our exclusive network this is a great opportunity to grow your site.
Pick a unique URL: top-site-list.com/your-name. Add a custom logo and background. Your choice of over 275 styles for your toplist, or provide your own custom HTML layout.
4,467 Top Site Lists
249,399 Members
1,043,775 Listed Websites
313,428,726 Total Votes
563,708,898 Total Hits


text:
In a major policy shift, the Nepali Congress, the biggest party in the interim parliament and the coalition government, today formally decided to go for federal democratic republic.
The joint Mahasamiti meeting organised after yesterday's unification between the NC and the NC (Democratic) unanimously passed the election manifesto, making federal democratic republic as the party's political line.
According to Dr Prakash Saran Mahat, a central committee member, more than 90 percent Mahasamiti members stood in favour of the republican agenda. The Mahasamiti later reached unanimous decision following hours of debate on the draft manifesto.The election manifesto also commits to multilingual federal state, liberal economy, religious secularism and independent judiciary. It also proposes that the President as Head of State be elected by the central and provincial parliaments.
The Mahasamiti meeting, which concluded this evening in the presence of party president Girija Prasad Koirala and senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba, also passed a political resolution presented by Ram Chandra Poudel. According to NC leader Narahari Acharya, the resolution commits to an 'inclusive federal republican model' of the state and is, by and large, a reflection of the commitments made in the election manifesto.
The NC's decision to go for republic comes amid mounting pressure from the Maoists to declare republic from the legislature parliament. However, there was no decision at the Mahasamiti meeting regarding the Maoist demand.


text:
We spotted land today! It's the first land we've seen since setting sail from Rhode Island in April. This brings us to the end of the expedition. We did our last cast and ran the last few stragglers of samples last night. Well, it was night according to the time, but we are so far north that it stays light for a long time. In fact, it's currently 10:30pm and it's still bright out (we're 4 hours ahead of EST)!
Today was spent packing up all the labs, which is a long, arduous process. We needed to be extremely organized – every box is labeled so that Princeton's equipment is easily identifiable. The Endeavor has another expedition onboard after we leave and before the ship arrives in Rhode Island, so we have to know what belongs to us. While we were packing, each box was also meticulously inventoried; thus, when the boxes do make their way back to New Jersey, the scientists will know what's in each one when they need to find something.
Once all of our boxes were neatly packed, labeled, and inventoried, the hard part began – storing all of our stuff. There's limited space on the ship and everything really needs to be tightly tied down, especially the containers with glassware and chemicals (some chemicals can't be disposed of safely at sea so they need to be brought back to Princeton for proper disposal).
We should arrive in Iceland around 9:00 am tomorrow morning (5:00 am EST) and we will spend one more day on the ship while docked in order to make sure that the labs and our cabins are cleaned and organized, as well as to store the remaining equipment.
My blogging journey with you, my faithful readers, has come to an end (at least for now!).
I will leave you with a photo of the entire (slightly windblown) science party:
Until next time,
Ms. B


text:
This blog is devoted to reporting and commenting on developments related to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Crawford transformed the doctrine of the Confrontation Clause, but it left many open questions that are, and will continue to be, the subject of a great deal of litigation and academic commentary.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Paul Vinegrad on "Government Coercion & The Confrontation Clause: Getting To The Heart of The Matter"
Any reader who has a confrontation-related message too long for the comments section of the blog is welcome to submit it to me; so long as it is appropriate for the blog, I I will post it.
x x x x x x
I take the position that only hearsay that is created by sufficiently coercive government conduct is barred by the Confrontation Clause if the accused has not had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
The following hypothetical illuminates my argument:
Gang warfare is rampant in South Central LA. The Bloods are shooting at the Crips. And the Crips are returning fire. Innocent bystanders have been maimed and killed in the ensuing battle, struck by a hail of bullets fired from automatic weapons stuck out of car windows by unidentified perpetrators.
Mr. V and his family, unfortunately, have to live and work in this gang infested area.
One evening, Mr. V is exiting his business – a local grocery market – with his wife. Crip gang members are in the parking lot. A car pulls up. Everyone in the car is dressed in blue attire. One of the occupants sticks a Mac-10 automatic weapon out of the window and opens fire on the Crips. The car speeds off. Mr. V is struck by several rounds from the Mac-10. He sustains very painful, but not life-threatening, wounds to his legs and arms. Mr. V recognizes the shooter from the neighborhood as Psycho Dan.
Mr. V makes the following statements after being shot:
(1) Upon being struck he immediately blurts out "Psycho Dan why did you do this!" This statement is heard by a bystander;
(2) His wife runs to his side. She asks him if he is ok. He says "yes." She then asks him who shot him? He says "Psycho Dan. But don't tell anyone! He will kill our family if he finds out that I was a snitch!"; and
(3) Several beat cops who were in the area, heard the shots, and are aware of the ongoing gang war and its toll on innocent people caught in the cross-fire, arrive. They reasonably believe the shooting was part of the ongoing gang war. They approach Mr. V. They ask him "Who shot you?" Mr. V says "I can't tell you. They will kill my family. Please get the paramedics!" The cops tell Mr. V that he will live, his wounds are not life-threatening, whoever did this is very dangerous and may kill innocent women and children as he moves through the area trying to shoot rival gang members. They plead with Mr. V to help them protect the public from this menace. They plead with him to tell them "Who did this?" Mr. V says "I can't tell you. They will kill my family. Please get the paramedics!" One of the cops then tells Mr. V "If you don't tell us who did this, we won't call the paramedics" Mr. V, in excruciating pain, says "Psycho Dan. Please don't tell anyone that I told you! He will kill my family!"
The prosecutor calls Mr. V to testify at Psycho Dan's trial. Mr. V, because of fear that his family will be hurt, refuses to testify. He is held in contempt by the judge. The prosecution then seeks to introduce each of Mr. V's statements identifying Psycho Dan. The defense objects on Confrontation Clause grounds.
It is my opinion that the judge should rule as follows:
(1) The blurted out identification is not barred by the CC. It was, in the words of Bryant, "reflexive." It was not made with any particular "purpose," or even anticipation of subsequent use by the government to investigate or prosecute the perpetrator. It was, to use Prof. Friedman's example, analogous to a drug sniffing dog barking when it smelled cocaine. Most importantly, there was no conduct by any state actor that "created" this statement. Despite Justice Scalia's suggestion in Bryant, and during argument in Bullcoming, that the CC would be applicable to "blurted out" statements (and neither "interrogation," nor any questioning, is required), I believe the overwhelming majority of the Court will reject his position, at least with respect to unsworn statements. And, ultimately, will hold that, absent any conduct by state actors, unsworn hearsay is outside the scope of the CC.
(2) The identification made to his wife (a private citizen) in response to her pointed question – a question (when viewed objectively) that was unmistakably designed to identify the shooter – is also outside the scope of the CC. Unlike the blurted out statement, and viewed objectively, it is reasonable to conclude that this interaction between Mr. V and his wife, and the resulting statement, had some purpose. Clearly, the "primary purpose" of the question and the answer was to identify the shooter, and not to address any "emergency," i.e., threat to the victim or any other member of the public. However, once again, no state actor participated in the "creation" of this statement. Absent that element, the CC is inapplicable to this unsworn statement. The Court, as it has done in the context of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, will ultimately hold that state action is required before the CC can apply. Just as state action is required for the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on "compelling" a person to be a "witness" against himself in a criminal trail to apply, I believe, ultimately, the Court will hold that the Sixth Amendment's CC incorporates the same requirement.
(3) The identification made to the cops is barred by the CC, despite the fact that, objectively viewed, the "primary purpose" of the "interrogation" was to address an "ongoing emergency" – a more real and pressing "ongoing emergency" than existed in Bryant. The CC applies to (and bars admission of) this statement because of the coercive conduct by the cops in extracting the words from the declarant's mouth. I believe that it is this element of coercion by state actors that is at the heart of the CC.
Coercion by the government was utilized against Cobham in the form of "interrogation," while in custody, and accused of being a co-conspirator. It was used, albeit to a lesser extent, against Sylvia Crawford as she was "interrogated" in custody at the police station after being advised of her Miranda rights. It was used, to an even lesser extent (but still present), by the government against Amy Hammon as the police "interrogated" her, one (or two)-on-one, face-to-face, in a confined location not open to the public, and after she initially stated that "nothing happened."
The government created coercive conditions in these situations placed varying degrees of pressure (in the words of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, "compulsion") on the declarants to tell the government actors what they believed they wanted to hear. Whether it was that Raleigh was conspiring against the King, Mr. Crawford was lying when he asserted self-defense, or Mr. Hammon did in fact beat Amy, despite her initial denial. In each instance the government coercion created a motive for the declarant to fabricate a story in order to gain some perceived benefit. Cobham's shifting of blame to Raleigh and providing details of the alleged conspiracy would, from the reasonable perspective of someone in his position, inure to his benefit. The same is true in the case of Sylvia Crawford and Amy Hammon – viewed objectively, each could have felt it would be in their interest to tell the police what they believed the police wanted to hear (regardless of the veracity of their statement) in order to end any "pressure" that the police created and were exerting.
This element of state created coercion was not present in Davis where there was physical separation between the government and the declarant. It is hard to pressure someone on the telephone to say what you want when they can simply hang up. The lack of resemblance between Davis and Raleigh's Trial really has nothing to do with the presence of an "ongoing emergency" in the former and no such emergency in later case. (In this regard I agree with Justice Scalia that one can make a reasonable argument that the "emergency" in the case of Raleigh – the potential overthrow of the King – was just as real and significant, if not more so, than that in Bryant, yet the circumstances under which Cobham's accusatory statements were created by the Crown were the paradigmatic CC violation.) Rather, despite the presence or absence of an "emergency" (ongoing or otherwise), the critical factor for purpose of determining the applicability and scope of the CC is whether the statements were uttered in response to a government created coercive situation.
Sufficient coercion did not exist in Bryant, given the very limited nature of the questioning by the cops, the public setting, and the absence of any external "pressure" by the police to get Covington to speak, i.e., to tell them what a reasonable person in his position would believe they wanted to hear. Nor does any coercion remotely exist in Bullcoming, where the declarant is simply asked, via a written request, to test a sample of blood and report back what, if any, alcohol is present. The analyst Caylor in Bullcoming was under no "pressure" by anyone to have the gas chromatograph generate a particular result. As Justice Alito alluded to in the Bullcoming argument, analyst Caylor's livelihood and/or promotions did not depend upon the results of testing that he performed.
Government created coercion/pressure does, however, permeate the statement by Mr. V identifying Psycho Dan to the cops. The fact that the cops were confronted with a very real "ongoing emergency," of which Mr. V was acutely aware, is irrelevant to the determination of the CC's applicability.
Coercion – not allowing any hearsay that is tainted by the possibility of government pressure – is at the heart and soul of the CC. It is the presence or absence of that coercion (when viewed objectively) that determines whether the "resemblance test" (approvingly cited by 6 justices in Bryant) has or has not been met.
x x x x x x x x
There are several problems with the coercion test proposed by Paul.
Perhaps the most obvious one is that it would be extremely difficult to apply, and so highly subjective I think it would provide very little protection.
Second, it has absolutely no grounding historically. We have to bear in mind that the confrontation right long pre-exists the institutions of a police force or a public prosecutor; most prosecution until the late eighteenth century was by private persons. The confrontation right would have been virtually empty if it only applied to instances of coercion by public officials.
Third, there isn't even a whisper of such a limitation in the text of the Confrontation Clause.
Fourth, such a rule would yield very odd results. A person who observes a crime could write an affidavit, perhaps with the assistance of a private NGO, and send it to a prosecutor, and the confrontation right would never come into play.
Fifth, the Supreme Court has already rejected such a rule. As the last point suggests, a coercion rule is a more restrictive version of a test limiting the confrontation right to interrogations, and the Court has explicitly said that the Confrontation Clause is not so limited.
So far as the state action requirement is concerned, it is satisfied by the fact that the state is trying and presumably convicting an accused in part on the basis of testimony that it introduces without offering the accused an adequate opportunity for confrontation.
5 comments:
Prof. Friedman,
What is the most persuasive Framing-era authority (one or two cases) that supports your argument that the CC was intended to bar the introduction of hearsay against an accused where the government played no role in its creation?
What Framing-era authority can you cite that bars the introduction of hearsay against an accused where there is no evidence that government coercion, compulsion or pressure played a role in its creation?
- Andrew MacKie-Mason said...
Prof. Friedman, I was at first skeptical of your attempt to distinguish state action requirements between the Fourth Amendment and the Sixth: after all, privately seized evidence is also being used by the state to convict someone, so why doesn't that satisfy the state action req?
For others who were similarly skeptical, I think the search and seizure and confrontation rights are more clearly distinguished on state action because of what is banned.
The Fourth bans illegal searches, not the introduction of seized evidence. The exclusionary rule is, after all, basically an incentivized enforcement measure for the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, we need to look at state action in the search, because a private search does not even implicate the Fourth, so the exclusionary rule cannot come into play.
The Sixth Amendment, on the other hand, does not ban any form of interrogation or evidence gathering. Instead, it implicitly bans, through stating a positive right, the introduction of certain kinds of evidence.
Therefore, the relevant moment of state action to confrontation clause issues becomes the introduction of evidence, because that is where the explicit constitutional right exists, unlike in the Fourth Amendment, where the actual right is implicated during the search, not the trial.
How about comparing the state action requirement for the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause to any such requirement under the CC?
If a private party compels a person to be a "witness" against himself, the resulting statement is admissible at his criminal trial, right?
For example, a private security guard who uses interrogation to obtain an incriminating statement from a suspect while the suspect is in custody in the security guard's office, and before the cops are called, without providing Miranda rights?
The suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination wouldn't be violated at all by the conduct of the private guard, right?
But if the cops were the interrogators, the violation wouldn't occur until the incriminating statement was introduced at trial, like the CC.
Any thoughts?
- Andrew MacKie-Mason said...
I haven't done significant research on the Fifth, but my impression is that the constitutional violation occurs at the time of interrogation. By its text ("nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") the forbidden activity is the compulsion. Introducing the statements at a trial isn't the compulsion: the interrogation is. Some ambiguity could arise from the phrase "in any criminal case", but I believe that that's understood to extend to criminal investigations also, which is why Miranda readings are required during investigations, not just at trials.
- Richard D. Friedman said...
I've been on the road all day, and haven't had a chance to respond. So far as the state action requirement is concerned, I think Andrew has it just right. The Confrontation Clause is not a regulation of police conduct. The police did nothing wrong by taking statements from Sylvia Crawford, or Amy Hammon (or for that matter Anthony Covington). The violations took place when the defendants were tried and the statements were introduced against them over their objections that they had not had an opportunity for conviction. The search and seizure and self-incrimination violations take place at the moment of police misconduct.
So far as Paul's coercion theory is concerned, I don't know of any old cases explicitly rejecting it -- for the very simple reason that, so far as I know, nobody ever articulated this theory before March 2011, when it emerged full-blown from the fertile imagination of Paul Vinegrad, much n the manner of Athena from the head of Zeus. So far as I am aware, no court in the framing era, in deciding whether to admit an out-of-court statement, ever discussed whether the speaker had been coerced. And, though courts were often not very articulate about the doctrines and theories governing their practices, the practices themselves are very clear in many respects. In many cases, out-of-court statements were not admitted without a hint of that the witness was coerced by, or had any contact with, a government agent. A good example is R v. Brasier, presented in a prior post, which you may find at


text:
Here it comes....
-Try to describe your book in one sentence.
Every other witch has failed to defeat the Dark Witch, and now it's up to fifteen-year old Brusenna to free the others before nature unravels completely.
-Your genre in Witch Song is YA Fantasy right?. You did that on purpose, or you just start writing?
It's what I've always written. My first attempt at a novel in the 6th grade involved the Lost City of Atlantis and mermaids.
-What inspired you to write, you took any ideas from other books, movies etc?
I don't consciously take ideas from other sources. Your brain sort of mushes concepts together and you pull them out randomly, with no sense where the idea really came from.
-Did you do any research before start or during of the writing of the books?
I usually research as needed. In WITCH SONG, there's a sea battle using early 17th century technology. I grew up land locked in the Rocky Mountains, so I had to do a lot of research on boats, cannons, muskets etc. I also did research on herbs and plants, as they're the weapons in the story (though I eventually decided to invent my own). That being said, I've read tons of books on the craft of writing and subscribe to some writing newsletters.
-Which scenes were the hardest to write?
It's always hardest to find your footing in the beginning. After I get a rhythm, the words just start flying onto the page.
-How long has it taken you to write a book ?
The first draft of Witch Song took a month. Edits and rewrites took a year or two of off and on work. Edits with my editor took two months of hard core work. So if you add it all up, Witch Song took four years from beginning to end.
-What's the best part of writing for you?
The writer's high. J
-Are you reading or writing something else at the moment?
I've been reading IRON KING (which I LOVE) while editing DAUGHTER OF WINTER and writing the sequel to Witch Song.
-Did you have support at the beginning and/or during your writing?
Not a lot. My family mostly thinks I'm weird (none of them read—ever). My kids are young and mostly want Mommy to get off the computer. My husband considers this my hobby and supports it like one. My MIL and paternal grandparents are the only ones really excited about this.
-Did you always had in mind to be a writer or it just happened?
Growing up, I wanted to be a marine biologist (I'm terrified and fascinated by sharks) or an author.
-How important you find the communication between you and your readers? Do you reply to their messages or read their reviews?
So far I have. But that might change if I get impossibly famous lol.
-Are you working on any other projects except writing, right now?
I have three young kids (9, 5, 2). So between writing, housework, and kid work, there isn't really time for much else.
-Something special you want to share with us?
I can curl my tongue so it looks like a scallop.
Now some simple questions and more fun^^
-Your favourite books and author?
Some of my favorite authors are Robin McKinley, Shannon Hale, Clare B Dunkle, and Jennifer Roberson.
-Your favourite band/singer?
I go through phases, but right now I'm really digging Jar of Hearts by Christina Perry.
-Twitter or Facebook?
-Favourite place in the world?
Home (boring, I know).
-Last movie you watched at the cinemas?
Rango (it sucked so hard it inverted itself)
-The last book you've read?
Iron Daughter (LOVED IT)
-Have you ever googled yourself?
I actually have google alerts, so if anyone mentions my book, I get an email.
-Writing, reading or hanging out with friends?
All three.
-If you wouldn't be a writer, what you would be?
A teacher (that's my degree)
-And last one....printed or ebooks?
I don't have an ereader yet. So printed.
Thanks a lot for your time! :D
The world is changing.
For thousands of years, witch song has controlled everything from the winds to the shifting of the seasons. But not anymore. All the Witches are gone, taken captive by the dark Witch, Espen.
As the last echoes of witch song fade, Espen grows stronger as winter and summer come within the space of a day. Now she's coming for the one she missed—a shy, untrained girl of fifteen named Brusenna.
Somehow, Brusenna has to succeed where every other Witch has failed. Find Espen. Fight her. Defeat her.
Author's Website || Goodreads


text:
Today we honor Libuše & Amálie. Happy Name Day, Libuše & Amálie!
Amálie is a variant of Amelia, which is a blend of two medieval names: the Latin Emelia and the Latin-German Amalia. Its meaning is "industrious, striving; work".
Libuše is an Old Czech name that is derived from the adjective libý, the base of which is Slavonic ljub meaning "love; lovable".


text:
Monday, July 27, 2009
Some in Memphis believe Randolph will help them, hilarity to ensue
6 comments:
- goonerluke said...
i don't have the vocabulary to describe the feelings that memphisflyer article inspired within me. hilarity most definitely did ensue.
you may have seen this, but check out the "cookies" pic halfway down in the comments. i love me some zach!
- July 28, 2009 at 9:41 PM
- Seth Johnston said...
Next on the schedule is an article about how Zach is finally in shape, another one that seems to come out every summer.
- July 29, 2009 at 8:05 AM
- KneeJerkNBA said...
Excellent post. I remember when NY got Randolph, Shitbury was ecstatic, calling the Knicks contenders.
You bring up an interesting point about scorers who are still awful basketball players. Current guys on that list include Ben Gordon, Bargnani, Al Harrington, Charlie Villanueva, etc.
- October 4, 2009 at 1:05 PM
A little off topic, Guys... I have a question. Last weekend I looked at this site:
[url=http://www.rivalspot.com]Rivalspot.com - Ps3 Live Tournaments[/url]
They say you can play online FIFA Soccer game tournaments on any console for cash... had anyone tried that before? Looks like a cool idea...
Are there any other sites where you can play sports games for real moneys? I Googled and found only Bringit.com and Worldgaming.com but it looks these guys don't specialize in sport gamez. Any suggestions?
- December 6, 2009 at 6:26 PM
If you wish to play Madden, NCAA Football, FIFA, NHL2K and Fight Night gamez on your Playstation 3 or Xbox 360 online for prize - we are searching for game testers now. Become our fan on Facebook before end of March and win $2,000 in cash: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=mf&gid=298821430083&_fb_noscript=1
- February 25, 2010 at 3:43 AM
Hello folks! I have a underground tattoo salon in Los Angeles. I used to buy all tattoo stuff at really low prices but my supplier committed suicide (life is weird!) so I'm in search of a reliable tattoo supply seller (online or offline) to buy tattoo equipment from. Here is an example of what I need: Tattoo Supply. Thank you very much in advance for all tips guys! PM me or send me an email: email@example.com
- March 18, 2010 at 12:45 AM
These fine places have linked here, even after they read it:
- Agree to Disagree
- Alana G
- And One
- Archivosnba
- Ball Don't Lie
- Ball In Europe
- ballerblogger.com
- Be The Three
- Blaze of Love
- Blog-a-Bull
- Bust a Bucket
- Deadspin
- El CAI a la ACB
- El Ilusorio Blog de Rudy
- Give Me The Rock
- HoopsHype
- Life on Dumars
- NBA FanHouse
- nextround.net
- OregonLive.com Blazers Blog
- Peninsula is Mightier
- Peter Robert Casey
- Rip City Forever
- Roundball Mining Company
- Rusty's Blog
- Sport Chit Chat
- SportsBusinessDaily.com
- SportSpyder.com
- Steven's Triathlon Station
- SunSpectrum: A Phoenix Suns Blog
- The AltRaps Blog
- Trailblazers Talk
- Tremendous Upside Potential
- TrueHoop
- WaitingForNextYear
- What Would Oakley Do?
A sampling of other places I steal from:
Blog Archive
- ► 2010 (29)
- Please stop sending me dance videos
- Stephon Marbury is taking over my life
- Move over Koponen, Finland's next great basketball...
- Ike Diogu signed by New Orleans
- The Uninteresting Truth
- Qyntel Woods: Still a professional basketball play...
- Some in Memphis believe Randolph will help them, h...
- How Much Will The City of Portland Love Andre Mill...
- Portland signs Andre Miller
- Another July NBA Blog Post
- Into the equatorial qualms we go. Hey, ESPN TradeM...
- Because you've just been dying to know what Bonzi ...
- Blazers vs Nuggets Incomplete Summer League Reacti...
- Taurean Green Watch: Yes, I'm still doing this edi...
- I suppose I need a Paul Millsap entry
- You mean it costs money to watch NBA Summer League...
- Petteri Koponen Watch: Not really. Well sorta. A b...
- Hedo Turkoglu's wife can handle a pastrami of any ...
- Turkoglu agrees to come to Portland, Pastrami!
- Turkoglu to Portland, Rudy kind of a dick maybe
- ▼ July (21)
- ► 2008 (261)


text:
My favorite Jonathan Coulton song, "The Future Soon," is now going to be on Rock Band. I couldn't be happier. I say without a hint of irony that its four minutes and change are as good as the entirety of "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog."
Plus, you know, Creative Commons. Enjoy the Spiffworld vid.


text:
Guild Meeting Locations:
We currently alternate between the Create Workspace in Poughkeepsie and the Desmond-Fish Library in Garrison for our meetings. Please follow us on Facebook or email to confirm this month's location.
Contact Us:
The MQG developed out of the thriving online community of modern quilters and their desire to start meeting in person. The founding guild was formed in Los Angeles in October of 2009. Through blogs and the Internet, word spread quickly of the fun they were having and soon guilds started popping up everywhere. The MQG is a nonprofit corporation with IRS 501c3 status pending. Learn More…
Keep up-to-date with the latest news and updates by subscribing to our newsletter.


text:
This morning, we're taking a look at a long-form PSA, launched in late September 2012.
The 'Follow the Frog' campaign video is just about three minutes long, and was written and directed by Max Joseph for the Rainforest Alliance.
This is a fast-paced video that – even with today's short attention spans – keeps us engaged and wanting to see how it ends. Check it out.