text:
Qur'an on Christianity
- This is a sub-article to Qur'an.
This article contains verses from the Qur'an and the Hadith on Christianity, its followers, and events related to Christianity.
The Qur'an (القرآن)Edit
(Note: All translations of the Qur'an are those of Yusuf Ali and Marmaduke Pickthall unless otherwise noted. The Qur'an and thus the quotes contained on this page make use of the majestic plural.)
- Ali:
136Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."
- Pickthall:
136Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.
- Original:
136قُولُواْ آمَنَّا بِاللّهِ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالأسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَى وَعِيسَى وَمَا أُوتِيَ النَّبِيُّونَ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ لاَ نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 2:136 (The Calf, سورة البقرة)
- Original:
- Ali:
46And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
- Pickthall:
46And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
- Original:
46وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَى آثَارِهِم بِعَيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:46 (The Dinner Table, سورة المائدة)
- Original:
- Ali:
48To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;
- Pickthall:
48And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.
- Original:
48وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَى آثَارِهِم بِعَيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:48 (The Dinner Table, سورة المائدة)
- Original:
- Ali:
55Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
- Pickthall:
55(And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.
- Original:
55إِذْ قَالَ اللّهُ يَا عِيسَى إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَإِلَيَّ وَمُطَهِّرُكَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ وَجَاعِلُ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوكَفَوْقَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ ثُمَّ إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْفَأَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ فِيمَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Surah 3:55 (The Family of Amran, سورة آل عمران)
- Original:
- Ali:
155(They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah; that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah's Word; We need no more)";- Nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe;-
156That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;
157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
158 Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
159And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-
- Pickthall:
155Then because of their breaking of their covenant, and their disbelieving in the revelations of Allah, and their slaying of the prophets wrongfully, and their saying: Our hearts are hardened - Nay, but Allah set a seal upon them for their disbelief, so that they believe not save a few -
156 And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny;
157And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
158But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.
159There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them -
- Original:
155فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم مِّيثَاقَهُمْ وَكُفْرِهِم بَآيَاتِ اللّهِ وَقَتْلِهِمُ الأَنْبِيَاءَبِغَيْرِ حَقًّ وَقَوْلِهِمْ قُلُوبُنَا غُلْفٌ بَلْ طَبَعَ اللّهُ عَلَيْهَابِكُفْرِهِمْفَلاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلاَّ قَلِ
وَبِكُفْرِهِمْ وَقَوْلِهِمْ عَلَى مَرْيَمَبُهْتَاناً عَظِيماً156
وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَمَرْيَمَرَسُولَ اللّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَـكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ وَإِنَّالَّذِينَاخْتَلَفُواْ فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَالظَّنِّوَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينا157
بَل رَّفَعَهُ اللّهُ إِلَيْهِ وَكَانَ اللّهُعَزِيزاً حَكِيماً158
وَإِن مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلاَّ لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِوَيَوْمَالْقِيَامَةِ يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدا159
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 4:155–159 (The Women, سورة النساء)
- Original:
- Ali:
171O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
- Pickthall:
171O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
- Original:
171 يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لاَ تَغْلُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْعَلَى اللّهِ إِلاَّ الْحَقِّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُاللّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِوَرُسُلِهِ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ انتَهُواْ خَيْراً لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللّهُإِلَـهٌوَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتوَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ وَكِيل
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 4:171 (The Women, سورة النساء)
- Original:
- Ali:
72They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
73They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
- Pickthall:
72They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
73They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.
- Original:
72لَقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ هُوَالْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَقَالَ الْمَسِيحُ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ اعْبُدُواْاللّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ إِنَّهُ مَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللّهِ فَقَدْ حَرَّمَ اللّهُعَلَيهِالْجَنَّةَ وَمَأْوَاهُ النَّارُ وَمَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ مِنْ أَنصَارٍ
لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ ثَالِثُ ثَلاَثَةٍ وَمَا مِنْإِلَـهٍ إِلاَّ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ وَإِن لَّمْ يَنتَهُواْ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ لَيَمَسَّنَّالَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِي73
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:72–73 (The Dinner Table, سورة المائدة)
- Original:
- Ali:
116And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.
- Pickthall:
116And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?
- Original:
116 وَإِذْ قَالَ اللّهُ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَأَنتَ قُلتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِيوَأُمِّيَ إِلَـهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْأَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ إِن كُنتُ قُلْتُهُ فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُ تَعْلَمُمَا فِينَفْسِي وَلاَ أَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِكَ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ عَلاَّمُ الْغُيُوب
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 5:116 (The Dinner Table, سورة المائدة)
- Original:
- Ali:
16Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.
17She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
18She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah."
19He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
20She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
21He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."
22So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
- Pickthall:
16And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East,
17And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man.
18She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art Allah-fearing.
19He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.
20She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste?
21He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained.
22And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place.
- Original:Please insert original here
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 19:16–22 (Mary, سورة مريم)
- Note: This relates the Christian Annunciation from the angel Gabriel
- Ali:
27At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!"
28"O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"
29But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"
30He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
31"And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;
32"(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
33"So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!
34Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.
35It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
36Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight.
37But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day!
38How plainly will they see and hear, the Day that they will appear before Us! but the unjust today are in error manifest!
39But warn them of the Day of Distress, when the matter will be determined: for (behold,) they are negligent and they do not believe!
- Pickthall:
27Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing.
28O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot.
29Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we talk to one who is in the cradle, a young boy?
30He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet,
31And hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive,
32And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest.
33Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!
34Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt.
35It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
36And lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path.
37The sects among them differ: but woe unto the disbelievers from the meeting of an awful Day.
38See and hear them on the Day they come unto Us! yet the evil-doers are to-day in error manifest.
39And warn them of the Day of anguish when the case hath been decided. Now they are in a state of carelessness, and they believe not.
- Original:
27فَأَتَتْ بِهِ قَوْمَهَا تَحْمِلُهُ قَالُوا يَا مَرْيَمُ لَقَدْ جِئْتِ شَيْئاًفَرِيّاً
يَا أُخْتَ هَارُونَ مَا كَانَ أَبُوكِ امْرَأَ سَوْءٍ وَمَا كَانَتْأُمُّكِ بَغِيّاً28
فَأَشَارَتْ إِلَيْهِ قَالُوا كَيْفَ نُكَلِّمُ مَن كَانَفِيالْمَهْدِ صَبِيّاً29
قَالَ إِنِّي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ آتَانِيَ الْكِتَابَ وَجَعَلَنِينَبِيّاً30
وَجَعَلَنِي مُبَارَكاً أَيْنَ مَا كُنتُ وَأَوْصَانِي بِالصَّلَاةِوَالزَّكَاةِ مَا دُمْتُ حَيّاً31
وَبَرّاً بِوَالِدَتِي وَلَمْ يَجْعَلْنِيجَبَّاراً شَقِيّاً32
وَالسَّلَامُ عَلَيَّ يَوْمَ وُلِدتُّ وَيَوْمَ أَمُوتُوَيَوْمَ أُبْعَثُ حَيّاً33
ذَلِكَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ قَوْلَ الْحَقِّالَّذِي فِيهِ يَمْتَرُونَ34
مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍ سُبْحَانَهُإِذَا قَضَى أَمْراً فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ35
وَإِنَّ اللَّهَرَبِّي وَرَبُّكُمْفَاعْبُدُوهُ هَذَا صِرَاطٌ مُّسْتَقِيمٌ36
فَاخْتَلَفَ الْأَحْزَابُ مِنبَيْنِهِمْ فَوَيْلٌ لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن مَّشْهَدِ يَوْمٍ عَظِيمٍ37
أَسْمِعْ بِهِمْوَأَبْصِرْ يَوْمَ يَأْتُونَنَا لَكِنِ الظَّالِمُونَ الْيَوْمَ فِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ38
وَأَنذِرْهُمْ يَوْمَ الْحَسْرَةِ إِذْ قُضِيَ الْأَمْرُ وَهُمْ فِي غَفْلَةٍوَهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ39
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 19:27–39 (Mary, سورة مريم)
- Note: The whole of Sura Maryam (Mary) is on Christian subjects, including Yahya (John the Baptist), Maryām (the Virgin Mary), and Isa (Jesus).
- Original:
- Ali:
6And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"
- Pickthall:
6And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic.
- Original:
6وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِإِلَيْكُم مُّصَدِّقاًلِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَمُبَشِّراً بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِنبَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ فَلَمَّاجَاءهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالُوا هَذَا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 61:6 (The Ranks, سورة الصف)
- Original:
- Ali:
1Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
2Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
3He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
4And there is none like unto Him.
- Pickthall:
1Say: He is Allah, the One!
2Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
3He begetteth not nor was begotten.
4And there is none comparable unto Him.
- Maulana Muhammad Ali:
1Say: He, Allah, is One.
2Allah is He on Whom all depend.
3He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4And none is like Him.
- Original:
بِسْمِ اللهِ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ
قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ1
اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ2
لَمْ يَلِدْوَلَمْ يُولَدْ3
وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُواً أَحَدٌ4
- The Qur'an (القرآن), Sura 112:1–4 (The Unity, سورة الإخلاص)
- Original:
The Hadith (الحديث)Edit
- The Prophet said, "On the night of my Ascent to the Heaven, I saw Moses who was a tall brown curly-haired man as if he was one of the men of Shan'awa tribe, and I saw Jesus, a man of medium height and moderate complexion inclined to the red and white colors and of lank hair. I also saw Malik, the gate-keeper of the (Hell) Fire and Ad-Dajjal [the Antichrist] amongst the signs which Allah showed me."
- Hadith, Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 462
- Allah's Apostle said "How will you be when the son of Mary (Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur'an and not by the law of Gospel?"
- Hadith, Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 65
- The Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection the Believers will assemble and say, 'Let us ask somebody to intercede for us with our Lord.' … 'Go to Jesus, Allah's Slave, His Apostle and Allah's Word and a Spirit coming from Him.' Jesus will say, 'I am not fit for this undertaking, go to Muhammad the Slave of Allah whose past and future sins were forgiven by Allah.' So they will come to me and I will proceed till I will ask my Lord's Permission and I will be given permission.
- Hadith, Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 50, Number 3


text:
To the Happy Fewby John Zimmerman H'67 • March 31, 2004 Share:
Between 1961 and 2003, no one spent more time in Goodrich Hall than Professor of Chemistry John Zimmerman H'67. Teaching generations of students in the classrooms, working with them in the labs, photographing their poster sessions in the hallways, and working late into the night on various teaching, photography, and video projects--it seemed the light in Goodrich 108 was always on.
So John was surprised not to feel pangs of loss when he and the rest of the chemistry and math departments cleared out so that Goodrich could be gutted and renovated as the new home for physics, computer science, and mathematics.
"I wondered about that," says Z. "But the colleagues I've lost that made that building meaningful--people like Ed Haenisch--aren't there anymore. I have my memories, the building has done its job, I've done mine, and we were moving into an amazing new facility. It's really like starting over again."
The one thing he didn't want to lose--the elevator shaft wall, where chemistry majors since 1953 have signed their names upon graduation-- he was able to take with him in photographs.
"There's a story behind every name," the professor says. We sat down with him one afternoon to look through the names and hear a few of those stories.
Joe Pavlik, a member of that great Class of 1982. His buddies were Chuck Myers and Frank Kolisek. I asked Frank, "What do you want to do in college?" and he said, "I want to punt, kick, and go to medical school." And he did all three. For his last game, Myers and Pavlik hung a huge sign from the south end of Goodrich that said "Go, Fat Frank!"
Mark Lisby got caught up in the excitement of the Eugene McCarthy campaign in 1968. He dropped out of school for a while to work for him, but he returned and graduated.
Michael Doherty '79, one of three Dohertys--Michael, Tom, and Steve, all Ph.D.s now. Michael was also the first music major at the College, and an incredible pianist. He performed a senior recital duet with David Greene, the head of the music department. He walked out with this perfectionist music professor and really held his own. We were rooming together at a meeting and I remember him talking on the phone to his "sweetie," as he always called her. When he hung up, he looked over at me and said, "Isn't life wonderful?!"
Donald Lee McMasters '53, from Newport, Indiana, the first name in the shaft, and with beautiful script, which is not surprising: Don has been very supportive of the arts at Wabash.
Mike Vance '98-- the "ZZZZ" is a reference to his sleeping problem. If he came to see you and you were five minutes late, he was sacked out on the floor! But by the time he graduated, he'd conquered that, and he was ahead of the game all the way. Both he and his wife worked for Lilly for two years, and now they're at Stanford.
Dave Hankin '98, the only chemist to play nothing but cross-dressed roles in the theater. We thought that was pretty cool! He was really funny in the plays, and a good student. Mike Need '84 came to Wabash along with another student named John Helvie '84. They'd gone to grade school together, high school together, then college together. They were both Phi Gams, and they graduated and went to medical school together. Now they're both anesthesiologists in Indianapolis.
David Soper '82 came from a family of medical missionaries, very committed, and he played the trombone with a lot of energy.
The Kantian chemist, Doug Stuart '96, an English major, a very good actor who played a critical role in the play Frogs, went to Oxford to study English literature, came back to be a chemistry major, is now a Ph.D. candidate in chemistry at IU. Why the Kantian chemist? I'd like to know.
Steve Pruett '81--a French/chemistry double major, he came into my advanced quantitative analysis class absolutely scared, because he'd never done anything like it before. But he did just fine.
Paul Sandefer '90 loves organic chemistry, hence the inscription. He was an exceptional student who went from here to University of California--Berkeley, which is not easy to do. But he got in and worked with an amazing chemist there.
Bryan Daniels '81--back when you could make money on silver, Bryan bought all of it he could--housewives were coming to his room in the Phi Gam house trying to hock their silver on him! He was traveling somewhere in the East when the bottom fell out of the silver market and he was stuck with the stuff. He's in the investment banking business in Chicago now.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
You Are Here:
Home > News And The Champion > Champion Magazine
Search the Champion Looking for something specific?
Access to The Champion archive is restricted to NACDL members. However, this page and others deemed to serve the public interest - as opposed to a narrower benefit to the criminal defense profession - are left unprotected for access by all interested persons.
By Josh A. Cohen
The recent insider trading prosecution of hedge fund titan Raj Rajaratnam raised many eyebrows in the white collar defense bar for its reliance on wiretap evidence. Though Title III permits the government to seek court authorization to eavesdrop in most white collar investigations, prosecutors have traditionally reserved wiretaps for large conspiracy cases involving drugs, weapons, extortion, and organized crime.
Yet the government's success in securing a wiretap to investigate insider trading was not the most noteworthy headline to emerge from the Rajaratnam case. Far more consequential was the fate of Rajaratnam's challenge to the government's showing of Title III necessity. Like many white collar defendants, Rajaratnam was the subject of a long-running parallel investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that netted millions of pages of documents and hundreds of hours of witness testimony. Although Title III required the Department of Justice to include in its wiretap application a full and complete statement of the successes of prior investigations, the government disclosed next to nothing about the SEC's efforts. In a startling pair of opinions, the district court and then the Second Circuit pardoned this unmistakable violation. In so doing, they rewrote decades of wiretap law and effectively neutered the necessity requirement that is the hallmark of Title III.
As such, Rajaratnam is more than just a wakeup call to white collar criminal lawyers. It is a shot across the bow to the defense bar writ large, a harbinger of the day, not so distant, when wiretaps could be as commonplace, and as hard to suppress, as search warrants are today.
The last decade has witnessed steady growth in the number of applications for wiretaps submitted to the courts. In 2012, state and federal courts considered 3,397 wiretap applications, 25 percent more than the year before and nearly twice as many as were presented in 2005.1 Though one might expect a respectable percentage of these applications to be denied, he would be wrong: Of the 3,397 applications submitted to the courts last year, exactly two were denied.2 Of the more than 19,000 wiretap applications submitted from 2005 through 2012, all but six were approved.3
It was not supposed to be this way. When Title III was enacted by Congress as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, there was broad bipartisan support for toothsome limitations on the state's ability to eavesdrop. The Supreme Court warned just one year earlier:
Few threats to liberty exist which are greater than that posed by the use of eavesdropping devices. Some may claim that without the use of such devices crime detection in certain areas may suffer some delays since eavesdropping is quicker, easier, and more certain. However, techniques and practices may well be developed that will operate just as speedily and certainly and — what is more important — without attending illegality.4
Consistent with this admonition, Congress passed Title III to accomplish a "dual purpose: (1) protecting the privacy of wire and oral communications, and (2) delineating on a uniform basis the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized."5 To achieve these purposes, the legislation prohibited electronic surveillance by all but a select group of law enforcement officers, for any purpose other than investigation of "specified types of serious crimes," and only upon a finding of probable cause.6
Yet the most remarkable aspect of Title III was not the limitations it imposed on the types of crimes for which eavesdropping was authorized, or the list of officials empowered to request a wiretap, or the requirement of probable cause. Rather, what set Title III apart from other constraints on the government's powers to search and seize was its requirement that a wiretap application establish the wiretap's necessity as an investigative technique. Specifically, Title III requires that a wiretap application include "a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous."7 Similarly, an order authorizing a wiretap must reflect a court's determination, "on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant[,] that … normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous."8
By design, therefore, Title III makes wiretaps a technique of last resort. As discerned by the Supreme Court, Congress's intent in passing the law was "to make doubly sure that the statutory authority be used with restraint and only where the circumstances warrant the surreptitious interception of wire and oral communications. These procedures were not to be routinely employed as the initial step in criminal investigation."9
This manifest intent, along with the complexity and expense of a wiretap investigation, has historically constrained the use of wiretaps in run-of-the-mill investigations. At the same time, it has assured defendants of at least one colorable challenge in every wiretap case: a motion to suppress the fruits of the wire because less intrusive techniques would have sufficed to expose the alleged offense.
Many of Title III's protections have proven nobler in theory than practice. For example, courts have been generally forgiving of failures to abide by Title III's express technical requirements. Wiretaps approved on the basis of applications submitted by officials whom the statute does not authorize to submit them10 have often been upheld.11 Similarly, courts have allowed the government to use wiretap evidence to prosecute defendants for crimes that do not appear on the list of offenses for which wiretaps are statutorily authorized — even if what the government is really after is the unenumerated crime.12
Minimization challenges have met a similar fate. Title III requires that wiretaps be monitored in real time to minimize interception of calls that are irrelevant or fall outside the scope of the wiretap authorization.13 But as long as the government has implemented passable training and monitoring procedures, courts will seldom second-guess agents' judgments that particular calls were relevant and thus properly recorded in full.14 There has also been a failure to follow Title III's requirement that recordings be sealed "immediately" upon the expiration of the wiretap authorization order,15 which courts have consistently interpreted to justify delays of almost any length.16
Finally, courts have severely diluted the showing the government must make to establish probable cause to believe that "particular communications concerning [an] offense will be obtained through such interception."17 It turns out not to matter, for example, that the targets of the wiretap are unlikely to discuss their crimes by phone.18 Nor are courts concerned that the government can manipulate the application process by establishing probable cause as to someone other than the real target of the wiretap.19 As long as there is probable cause to believe that someone is using the line in furtherance of criminal acts, wiretap authorization will nearly always be upheld.
In the face of this steady erosion of so many of Title III's protections, the necessity requirement has proven remarkably robust.
To establish necessity, "the court must find that alternative methods have been tried or would not have succeeded."20 When it enacted Title III, Congress contemplated that this finding would be based on an exhaustive inquiry into the sufficiency of, "for example, standard visual or aural surveillance by law enforcement officers, general questioning or interrogation under an immunity grant, use of regular search warrants, and the infiltration of conspiratorial groups by undercover agents or informants."21 In fact, the list of traditional techniques the government should be required to deploy or explain away is much longer: toll registers, financial investigations, controlled buys, mail and trash covers, trap-and-trace devices, and, where appropriate, newer technologies such as GPS tracking and cell-site data.
The court reviewing an ex parte wiretap application, however, can seldom determine whether an affiant's description of prior investigative efforts is comprehensive or forthright. As a result, defendants are often able to mount righteous Franks challenges to the necessity showings in the government's wiretap applications.
To take just one illustrative example, the affiant in United States v. Simpson informed the reviewing court that alleged conspirators "had insulated themselves and their high-echelon accomplices from all but a small circle of associates," such that "undercover agents, confidential informants, and witnesses could not penetrate the organization to the highest levels because of insulation tactics utilized."22 However, the affiant did not reveal the extent to which the government had already successfully infiltrated the conspiracy. Upholding the district court's suppression order, the Ninth Circuit explained that "the specific facts withheld from the issuing judge about this particular investigation reveal that traditional techniques could have led to the infiltration of the entire enterprise."23
Courts have also been reliable gatekeepers when it comes to detecting and rejecting boilerplate necessity assertions. As a result, the government cannot rely on generalizations about the ways in which criminals operate or the obstacles that law enforcement faces, but rather "must allege specific circumstances that render normal investigative techniques particularly ineffective or the application must be denied."24
Similarly, courts have consistently required that applications for extensions of previously approved wiretaps — so-called "re-up" applications — make a greater showing of necessity than the wiretap applications that preceded them. This requirement is codified in Title III itself, which demands that re-up affidavits include "a statement setting forth the results thus far obtained from the interception, or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain such results."25 Thus, each re-up application must not only explain why the wiretap application was necessary in the first place, but also why the wiretap has not accomplished its objectives to date.26
Finally, courts have stood vigilant against efforts by law enforcement to import a necessity showing from one wiretap application into another application to tap a different line. Such bootstrapping violates the cardinal rule that the government must establish necessity as to each and every line that it wishes to tap.27
To criminal defense attorneys, these decisions upholding Title III's necessity requirement have been a bright star in the darkening Title III sky. Not only have they supplied a foundation for viable legal challenges in some very heavy cases, but they have sustained the defense bar's collective faith that the real-time monitoring of individuals' spoken words will not be lightly condoned.
Considered against this backdrop, the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Raj Rajaratnam is a wrenching and foreboding one.
For years, Raj Rajaratnam was on the short list of the nation's most successful investors. At its peak, his Galleon Group hedge fund managed more than $7 billion of investors' money. A native of Sri Lanka who came to the United States to pursue an MBA at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, Rajaratnam rose quickly through the ranks of a boutique investment bank before starting the hedge fund that he later bought and renamed Galleon. In 2009, Forbes magazine estimated his net worth at $1.8 billion, making him the richest Sri Lankan-born individual in the world.
When federal agents arrested Rajaratnam, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara heralded the case as the capstone of an assault on insider trading that has resulted in the prosecution of more than 80 individuals. According to the government, Rajaratnam relied on tips from a number of well-placed friends and associates — including former executives, current board members, and directors at blue chip consultancy McKinsey & Company — to amass illegal gains in excess of $70 million.
Before the Galleon investigation, the government had rarely, if ever, deployed wiretaps to investigate insider trading. In March 2008, however, prosecutors sought authorization to tap Rajaratnam's cellular telephone. The application was based on a 53-page affidavit signed by FBI Special Agent B.J. Kang. U.S. District Judge Gerald Lynch — now of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals — granted the first application for a 30-day wiretap, and the government began intercepting calls on March 10, 2008. Over the ensuing eight months, the government successfully reapplied seven times for a series of 30-day extensions.
Federal agents arrested Rajaratnam in October 2009 and charged him with multiple counts of conspiracy and securities fraud. When his case went to trial 18 months later, prosecutors played more than 40 calls — culled from some 2,400 intercepted by the government — in which Rajaratnam discussed confidential information with corporate insiders. The tapes captured a number of rich exchanges involving Rajaratnam. In one, Rajaratnam told another Galleon employee on the eve of an earnings announcement, "I heard yesterday from somebody who's on the board of Goldman Sachs that they are going to lose $2 per share." In another, a tipper told Rajaratnam that two companies had just "shaken hands" on a deal, so Rajaratnam could "now just buy" the companies' shares. Trading records introduced by the government showed that Galleon made significant trades in the wake of conversations intercepted on the wire.
The jury convicted Rajaratnam on all 14 counts against him. His 11-year sentence is the longest ever imposed in an insider trading case.
Before trial, Rajaratnam moved to suppress the proceeds of the wiretaps on several grounds.28 First, he argued that Title III does not authorize the use of wiretaps to investigate insider trading, as securities fraud is not a crime enumerated in Title III. Second, he argued that the wiretap applications failed to establish probable cause. Third, he argued that the applications failed to show necessity. Fourth, he challenged the sufficiency of the government's minimization efforts.
The unenumeration and minimization arguments met familiar fates. District Judge Richard Holwell ruled that evidence of the unenumerated crime of securities fraud could be collected incidentally to evidence of the enumerated crime of wire fraud.29 He also found that the relatively small number of nonminimized, nonpertinent calls was insufficient to warrant suppression.30
More interesting were the probable cause and necessity challenges. Rajaratnam argued that the wiretap application failed to show probable cause because it contained false statements and omissions concerning the reliability of cooperating witness Roomy Khan. In particular, the affidavit represented that Khan — who purportedly told agents she exchanged inside information with Rajaratnam for a period of years — had "not yet been charged with any crimes." In fact she was indicted and convicted of felony wire fraud in 2001. Moreover, at Khan's sentencing in the 2001 case, the government argued for probation due to Khan's ongoing cooperation — against Rajaratnam.31
Certain of the re-up affidavits also misrepresented the substance of several of the intercepted calls. Describing one call, for example, the affidavit reported that Rajaratnam said a buy recommendation was based on inside information, when the actual transcript of the call was more ambiguous and included an independent, benign explanation for the recommendation.32
Judge Holwell was plainly bothered by these misrepresentations. In a written order, he chided the government's attempts to "write these omissions off on the theory that Khan's criminal record was not important enough to include in the affidavit,"33 and observed that the descriptions of recorded conversations did not "win high marks for candor."34 Nevertheless, the court found that if the misrepresentations were excised from the affidavits, the remaining content was sufficient to support the reviewing judge's finding of probable cause. In particular, the court pointed to other recorded statements made by Rajaratnam that independently supplied probable cause to believe that he was engaged in criminal activity.35
This brought the court to necessity. Rajaratnam pointed out that he had been the target of a wide-ranging SEC investigation since September 2006, some 18 months before the first wiretap application was submitted to the district court.36 In the course of that investigation, the SEC had not only subpoenaed documents and analyzed trades, but also interviewed or taken the testimony of numerous Galleon witnesses. Beginning in March 2007 — one full year before the first wiretap affidavit — the U.S. Attorney's Office and FBI requested access to the SEC's investigative file and began a series of meetings with the SEC to discuss its investigation. Among other materials, the SEC supplied the criminal authorities with key documents and chronologies of apparent insider trading involving Rajaratnam. The SEC gathered some four million documents from Galleon alone, including several hundred thousand emails. The SEC interviewed 18 Galleon employees and deposed five more. It interviewed Rajaratnam twice and deposed him once; among other topics, he answered questions about insider trading at Galleon, trading in certain technology stocks, instant messages exchanged with Roomy Khan, and his connections to executives at publicly traded companies.37
The wiretap affidavits, however, reported none of this. They said virtually nothing about an SEC investigation at all, let alone the specific techniques deployed or the extraordinary fruits of those efforts. Instead, the affidavit asserted, in exemplary boilerplate, that "alternative investigative techniques have been tried or appear unlikely to succeed if tried."38
This, too, troubled the court, so much so that it granted Rajaratnam's request for a Franks hearing. The hearing lasted four days. At its conclusion, Judge Holwell found that the government had made a "glaring omission":
They failed to disclose to Judge Lynch that the SEC had for several years been conducting an extensive investigation into the very same activity the wiretap was intended to expose using many of the same techniques the affidavit casually affirmed had been or were unlikely to be successful [sic]. A judge hearing an ex parte application relies entirely on the government's representation that it has disclosed all material facts. But how could Judge Lynch assess whether conventional investigative techniques had failed or were likely to fail without even knowing that they were presently being used in an ongoing SEC investigation upon which the prosecutor and FBI were relying — almost entirely — to construct their own case?39
He continued:
Of course, there is nothing wrong in their piggybacking the SEC investigation provided they were not improperly directing it. But the court is at a loss to understand how the government could ever have believed that Judge Lynch could determine whether a wiretap was necessary to this investigation without knowing about the most important part of that investigation — the millions of documents, witness interviews, and the actual deposition of Rajaratnam himself, all of which it was receiving on a real-time basis and all of which was being acquired through the use of conventional investigative techniques.40
Indeed, the court went so far as to find that "[t]he USAO and FBI … knew that the SEC investigation was the most important part of their own."41 Citing testimony of government prosecutors at the Franks hearing, the court pointed out that most of what the criminal authorities did in the course of their "investigation" was review the materials gathered by and received from the SEC.42
Judge Holwell turned to the language of Title III. He recited the law's requirement that a wiretap application include "a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous."43 He said:
By failing to disclose the substance and course of the SEC investigation, the government made what was nearly a full and complete omission of what investigative procedures in fact had been tried. That omission deprived Judge Lynch of the opportunity to assess what a conventional investigation of Rajaratnam could achieve by examining what the SEC's contemporaneous, conventional investigation of the same conduct was, in fact, achieving.44
In addition, the court found a number of subsidiary misstatements that flowed from the overarching failure to acknowledge the SEC investigation. For example, the wiretap affidavit professed that interviewing Rajaratnam and other targets was "too risky" — even though the SEC had in fact interviewed and/or deposed them, and notwithstanding the criminal authorities' direct involvement in prep sessions preceding those interviews.45 In another misstatement, the affidavit represented that conventional search warrants were "not appropriate" — despite the SEC's accumulation of millions of documents through routine subpoenas.46 And the affidavit opined that obtaining trading records "would jeopardize the investigation" by alerting traders to the requests — notwithstanding the fact that the SEC had already subpoenaed such records more than 200 times.47
Summarizing his analysis, Judge Holwell acknowledged that he was not "charged with fly-specking the government's affidavit."48 But, he continued:
Stepping back to look at the forest, the government in this case did not merely omit some discrete piece of information possibly relevant to a reviewing court's analysis of necessity; it failed to disclose the heart and soul of its investigation, without which a reasoned evaluation of the necessity of employing wiretaps was impossible.49
At this point in the opinion, the Rajaratnam defense team was likely icing the champagne. Surely the government, having violated Title III's full-and-complete-statement requirement to the point where a "reasoned evaluation" of necessity was "impossible," was not entitled to use the proceeds of the wiretap against Rajaratnam at trial. After all, the very purpose of Title III, and of the necessity requirement in particular, is to ensure that the government cannot resort to eavesdropping unless and until a neutral arbiter has determined, on the basis of a complete and candid presentation of the facts, that a wiretap is necessary because traditional techniques will not suffice.
According to Judge Holwell, however, the government's "glaring" omission was just "the beginning rather than the end of the court's suppression inquiry."50 The court thus embarked on an extended analysis of the materiality of the omission to the reviewing court's necessity determination.
To conduct this analysis, Judge Holwell inserted into the affidavit the content the government omitted. This was no small task. He observed:
[A correct affidavit] would have informed the issuing judge that Rajaratnam had been under investigation for insider trading since 1998 when the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco began investigating Roomy Khan; that Khan cooperated in the investigation of Rajaratnam as part of a plea agreement; that the SEC began investigating Rajaratnam and Galleon in 2002; that the SEC had interviewed 18 Galleon employees and deposed Rajaratnam and others under oath; that the SEC had issued over 200 subpoenas and obtained millions of pages of documents, including telephone records, trading records, emails, and IMs; that all the evidence was shared with the government through regular meetings during the course of the investigations; and that the evidence thus gathered enabled both the SEC and the government to develop substantial circumstantial evidence of insider trading by Rajaratnam and numerous associates in the securities of several companies. Finally, the evidence gathered led directly to the FBI's interviews of Roomy Khan during which she "flipped" and provided the government with direct evidence of insider trading by Rajaratnam.51
As the court saw it, the ultimate question was whether the reviewing court, presented with this smorgasbord of information, would still have found the wiretap necessary.
Incredibly, Judge Holwell answered yes. He observed that the evidence collected by the SEC showed a tendency on Rajaratnam's part to exchange inside information by phone and avoid a paper trail. It followed, said the judge, that even if the reviewing court had known about the massive document haul from the SEC investigation, the court would still have concluded that a wiretap was necessary because reliance on those documents would not have proved the crime.52
Furthermore, the court noted that the many individuals interviewed by the SEC did not admit to insider trading at Galleon. Accordingly, even if the reviewing court had known that 18 Galleon insiders, including Rajaratnam himself, had given substantive interviews on the topics of greatest interest to the government, the court would have found the wiretap necessary because interviews were not sufficient to prove the case. "Where an investigation develops strong circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing but then is confronted by 'stonewalling' by witnesses," wrote the court without citation, "the case for wiretapping is surely strengthened."53
Finally, Judge Holwell observed that Roomy Khan was uniquely suited to cooperate because she had especially damning evidence against Rajaratnam and had cooperated against him in the past. As such, even if the reviewing court had been aware that the SEC secured Khan's cooperation against Rajaratnam, and that there were at least a dozen other potential cooperators whom the government could have approached, the court would nonetheless have deemed the wiretap necessary because Khan's cooperation "[did] not necessarily imply that other targets could also be flipped."54
Having thus cured the government's omissions and imagined the ways in which the reviewing court would have analyzed an affidavit it never saw, Judge Holwell concluded that the omissions were immaterial. No matter how fruitful the SEC's investigation had been, the reviewing court would still have found traditional techniques insufficient to "fully uncover" the particulars of Rajaratnam's offense.55
Less than four months later, Rajaratnam went to trial; in nine weeks more, he was convicted across the board.
On appeal, Rajaratnam renewed his necessity challenge. Writing for a unanimous Second Circuit panel, Judge Jose Cabranes endorsed the district court's materiality analysis in full.56 This alone, the court said, was a sufficient basis to affirm.57
Yet the Second Circuit went further. Whereas the district court had no difficulty concluding that the government's omissions were made with reckless disregard for the truth, the court of appeals went to extraordinary lengths to excuse the government's misrepresentations.
To do so, the panel scrutinized the transcript of the Franks hearing before the district court. In particular, it pointed to the testimony of the government's prosecutors and agents that it never "crossed [their] mind[s]" to discuss or describe the SEC investigation in the wiretap application.58 According to the Second Circuit, this collective shrug by the actors directly responsible for the omissions vitiated the district court's finding that the government acted with reckless disregard for the truth.59 The reasonableness of this conclusion was purportedly bolstered by the fact that the application was reviewed by supervisors at the U.S. Attorney's Office, none of whom apparently thought to mention the SEC's investigation either.60
In addition, "[o]n a more fundamental level," the court of appeals held that a finding of recklessness is unsustainable where inclusion of the omitted information would bolster the necessity showing.61 Here, said the court, the SEC's inquiry had revealed that Rajaratnam was careful to exchange inside information by phone, and hence that further documentary investigation was unlikely to succeed. Sharing this insight with the reviewing court in the wiretap application "would only have further supported the government's position" that a wiretap was needed.62 Thus, the government could not have been reckless in failing to share it, as the government would never "intentionally or 'with reckless disregard' omit information that would strengthen its 'probable cause' or 'necessity' showing."63
In sum, the Second Circuit held that the district court was correct to admit the wiretaps into evidence at Rajaratnam's trial. But the lower court was wrong to find the government reckless in having failed to advise the reviewing judge of an 18-month-long parallel investigation that netted millions of documents and hundreds of hours of testimony — including the sworn deposition of the target himself.
Here, then, is the state of Title III in the aftermath of Rajaratnam: No matter how extensive or fruitful traditional investigative techniques have been, the government need not disclose them in a wiretap application. For if traditional techniques have failed to secure sufficient evidence to convict the defendant, that shortfall is now the best evidence of the wiretap's necessity. Precisely because it is the best evidence, the government cannot be reckless in failing to include it, as the government is presumed never to recklessly omit information that is helpful to its cause. Likewise, the omission cannot be material, because inserting the omitted material into the affidavit after the fact will only strengthen the necessity showing.
Thus has the Second Circuit turned Title III upside down. A statute that requires a "full and complete statement" about traditional investigative techniques as a prerequisite to tapping a wire has been interpreted in such a way that the statement is never required at all. Whereas necessity was once about the ability of traditional techniques to "expose" a criminal offense,64 it is now about the ability of such techniques to generate the same kind or quality of evidence a wiretap could yield — an impossible and tautological standard.
It is hard to overstate the significance of this upending. Rajaratnam is widely known as the case that permitted wiretapping in insider trading investigations. But the real injury inflicted by the case goes much deeper. By emasculating the necessity requirement, Rajaratnam strikes at the very heart of Title III.
Worse, there is no practical way to contain the damage. Nothing about the reasoning of the district court or Second Circuit is limited to white collar cases. It is true that white collar defendants are more likely to be targets of parallel investigations by other government agencies. But if the government can freely and fairly neglect to describe search warrants, records requests, interviews, and cooperators in a fraud case because those techniques were less successful than a wiretap would be, so can it leave out the prior efforts of law enforcement in run-of-the-mill drug and gun and racketeering cases. Prosecutors, freed of the burden of canvassing past efforts to infiltrate street gangs and rationalizing disuse of tried-and-true tactics such as visual surveillance and undercover buys, will soon be lining up in courthouses coast-to-coast for wiretap authorizations.
Where does this leave the defendant? Gone, it seems, are the days of challenging wiretaps by listing the investigative techniques that law enforcement could have exploited but did not, and extolling the virtues of techniques already tried. Post-Rajaratnam, the government's failure to describe prior investigations or account for its decision to forego traditional techniques will nearly always be excusable, either because the government was not reckless or the omission was not material. Cornered, a prosecutor can always argue that a description of prior efforts would only have strengthened the necessity showing — and hence that the omission cannot possibly have been made with reckless disregard for the truth.
In short, Rajaratnam cannot mean what it says, or the necessity requirement of Title III has become a virtual nullity.
Not surprisingly, the chorus of Rajaratnam's critics is loud and distinguished. A coalition of retired federal judges filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit before the court issued its opinion.65 According to these amici, the government's omission of a full and complete statement of prior investigative techniques always requires that the proceeds be suppressed, without regard for the materiality of the omissions. This is so, they say, because judges cannot fulfill the mandate of Title III — to prevent unwarranted intrusions on privacy — unless the government is completely forthright during the wiretap application process.66
More recently, one of Title III's original draftsmen, Professor Robert Blakey, filed an amicus brief in support of rehearing en banc.67 Like the retired judges before him, Professor Blakey argues that a court cannot, consistent with the text and purpose of Title III, cure the government's failure to provide a full and complete statement in support of necessity by reading into the application everything the government omitted.68
Rajaratnam's petition for rehearing en banc has been pending in the Second Circuit since July. Whether or not the court corrects this particular injustice, defense counsel should continue to file necessity challenges in all wiretap cases. In particular, counsel should preserve the argument that the government's failure to provide a full and complete statement about traditional investigative techniques renders the wiretap invalid per se and requires suppression of its proceeds. Secondarily, counsel should emphasize the successes of prior investigations and preempt any suggestion that the government was entitled to eavesdrop simply because a wiretap was expected to yield better evidence than techniques already tried. In addition, counsel should develop the record on the extent to which prosecutors knew about and took advantage of past investigative efforts, in order to bolster the argument that the failure to disclose those efforts was reckless.
Finally, the defense bar should say a collective prayer — for individuals' privacy, for judges committed to protecting it, and for the future of Title III.
The defense bar is right to fear that Rajaratnam heralded a new era of eavesdropping in white collar cases. But defense lawyers should also appreciate the broader significance of the case for Title III law as they know it. If the reasoning of Rajaratnam prevails, the necessity requirement will cease to distinguish wiretaps from more customary techniques in law enforcement's ever-expanding arsenal.
Join / Renew
Reset Password / Ask for help
Not a Member? Create a Visitor Account
1660 L St. NW • 12th Floor • Washington, DC 20036 • Phone: (202) 872-8600 / Fax: (202) 872-8690© 2018, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers™ (NACDL®), All Rights Reserved.


text:
It looks like your browser is out of date.
To use all features of KLM.com safely, we recommend that you update your browser, or that you choose a different one. Continuing with this version may result in parts of the website not being displayed properly, if at all. Also, the security of your personal information is better safeguarded with an updated browser.
Nothing is more characteristic of the Seattle skyline than the view of the futuristic Space Needle. This 'UFO on stilts' has been keeping watch over the city since 1962 and is an international icon. Take the lift to the top and enjoy 360-degree views of the 'Emerald City'.
Like the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Space Needle in Seattle is a relic from a World's Fair and in this case the Expo held in 1962. Inspired by the theme of the '21st century', Edward E. Carlson, the initiator of the World's Fair in Seattle, sketched on a napkin a futuristic tower with a balloon shape. His design was revised numerous times and architect John Graham ultimately converted the balloon model into a flying disc.
"Ironically enough, the first manager of the Space Needle was afraid of heights"
The Space Needle was built in record time. It took only 400 days to complete its construction and the tower was finished 4 months before the official opening of the World's Fair. Although the needle is now white it was originally orange, or 'galaxy gold' as the colour is also called. The Space Needle is part of the Seattle Center, a park full of attractions built for the World's Fair. The monorail is also a remnant from the expo and connects downtown Seattle to the Seattle Center. It is still the easiest way to get to the famous Space Needle.
A high-speed lift takes visitors to the 160-metre-high observation deck where the 360-degree views of the city are quite fantastic, from the snowy top of Mount Rainier to the downtown skyscrapers and glistening water of Puget Sound. Various interactive screens provide information on the surroundings, including a video display where you can watch how light falls on the skyline at any time of day.
For a spectacular brunch, lunch or romantic dinner, the SkyCity restaurant is the place to be. You don't have to choose which table has the best view because the restaurant rotates slowly, so you can enjoy one fantastic view after another while eating – though it may take a minute to find your table again after a visit to the restroom. Good to know: SkyCity diners do not have to pay the admission fee for the observation deck.


text:
Today is your day.
Your day to be as lazy as you want.
After your week, you've earned it.
So turn those phone notifications off.
Slip into the spa-like comfort of your Sheer Essence top & knickers.
Leave your hair tousled.
And float into the kitchen.
Make your crazy-awesome blueberry pancakes.
Coupled with a hot cup of Joe.
(And leave the dishes till wayyyyyy later.)
Then return back to your pillowy kingdom.
And bliss out to this lusciously lazy Sunday morning.
This Sheer Essence Collection is made of sheer, lightweight fabric with a shimmer finish.
32% Elastane 68% Nylon
Please refer to the garment label for specific instructions on how best to care for your sexy lingerie to give you years of satisfaction and enjoyment!
The general rule for all high-quality lingerie is to hand wash and hang to dry out of direct sunlight.
Sheer, lightweight fabric with a shimmer finish.
32% Elastane 68% Nylon
Overall rating based on 0 Reviews


text:
|This item may be eligible for
FREE SHIPPING or our $7.95 flat rate shipping special! Click for details
|Manufacturer: Rev-A-Shelf #CJD-24IS
|Made of Wood with a Velvet liner.
|Protect your jewelry from damage and loss by storing it in Rev-A-Shelf's uniquely designed velvet-lined jewelry drawer insert. Accommodates jewelry of all sizes and fits perfectly into jewelry drawer CJD-2414.
|As the world's leading supplier of storage organizers, Rev-A-Shelf is the brand to use for organizing a house. They feature products for the kitchen, bath and closet and provide Lazy Susans, vanity accessories, child proof locks, and much more for home.
|Wood hardware creates a rugged, outdoors feeling. Choose from a large selection of wood hardware options for the look and feel that you desire.Wood cabinet hardware will look great even after years of regular usage.
Does this product qualify for FREE SHIPPING?All Top Knobs, Alno, Amerock, Becker, Belwith, Hickory, Berenson, Decorite, Fulterer, Houck, Liberty, Rev-A-Shelf, Tresco, US Futaba, Jeffrey Alexander products are shipped together from a single warehouse.
All orders from this warehouse under $100 are eligible for a $7.95 flat shipping rate per order.
All orders from this warehouse over $100 are eligible for FREE SHIPPING.
When can I expect my order to arrive?
Please Note: We receive stock updates daily and while most items are in stock, there is a chance that this item may be delayed. In general delayed items ship within 7 - 10 business days. Please call or chat with us to confirm the current stock status of this item.
Items are shipped via FedEx Ground, UPS Ground, USPS or Speedee the next business day and can be expected to arrive within another 4-6 business days. Special order items take an additional 7-10 business days. For expedited shipping, please contact customer service for a shipping quote and place the order by phone.
Delayed items will ship within 7-10 business days.
Product ships from Monticello, MN, 55362.
Please contact our Customer Service department at 1-800-530-TAIL(8245) for assistance with warranty questions or claims.


text:
Jennifer's Eclectic Diary
Like this entry? Favorite it below!
- Name:
- Jennifer
- Location:
- Los Angeles, CA
- Square Feet:
- 650
- Division:
- Little
- What I Love About My Small Home:
- I love the 1950's character and charm, the original details, coziness and beautiful sunlight.
- Biggest Challenge of Living in a Small Space:
- The biggest challenge I have is where to put everything. Almost every inch of wall space is used displaying my own photography, friends' art, and items I have collected traveling. It can probably be overwhelming to some, but to me, it is an eclectic diary of my life and memories.


text:
Janna Bingham — Babe of the Day
Janna Bingham is a 24-year-old model who lives in Destin, Fla. Janna has been a model for several years, but she left the profession to join the U.S. Air Force before returning to runways and photo shoots.
A fitness fanatic with a near-perfect physique, Janna competes as an NPC bikini athlete. Her inked arms are probably firmer than yours. Actually, given her military background, she could probably turn you into a pile of mush in about two minutes — all while wearing a bikini. Some dudes pay good money for that sort of thing.
Janna is also a licensed Paul Mitchell cosmetologist and certified makeup artist. A model, cosmetologist and a soldier — now that's multi-tasking.
Height: 5'8" | Weight: 140 lbs. | Bust: C Cup | Waist: 28" | Hips: 35"


text:
…begat Kovalev who begat…
Photo by Michael Miller, via Wikimedia Commons
This is the first installment of Trade Chains, a series which will take look at the legacy of trades throughout NHL history, but unlike Matthew 1:2, we'll spare you the begat. This is a numbers site, so we'll go with charts instead.
In 1984-85, the Pittsburgh Penguins were made up of Mario Lemieux and a series of players Mario Lemieux used as bumpers to deflect shots into the net. While Lemieux's rookie season was brilliant, it wasn't nearly enough to get the Pens out of the Patrick Division basement. They were the second-worst team in the league, and unlike the previous year, they didn't purposefully tank to get there.
The Penguins had the second overall pick in the 1985 draft and while they wanted the top-ranked player and ideal #2 center Craig Simpson, an 18-year old with two seasons of NCAA hockey under his belt, the Toronto Maple Leafs held the top pick. With the Leafs intent on taking Simpson, the Pens were likely to get a defenseman, either 2nd-ranked Dana Murzyn or 3rd-ranked Wendel Clark. But as luck would have it, Maple Leafs General Manager Gerry McNamara alienated Simpson's parents, leading Simpson to tell the Leafs to look elsewhere at #1. When the Leafs went for the truculent Clark, the Pens leapt at the chance to take Simpson, or as Pens' GM Eddie Johnston called him, the "impressive kid."
But Simpson wasn't the NHL scorer he was projected to be as he scored just 105 points in his first 169 games, leading the Penguins to trade him to him on November 24th 1987, along with Dave Hannan, Moe Mantha and Chris Joseph to Edmonton for all-world defenseman Paul Coffey and Dave Hunter. That trade would spawn eleven more trades and that trade lives on in Pittsburgh today.
Somewhere in this chart is the answer. Click the picture for a larger chart.
The Coffey trade was just the beginning of Simpson's legacy. Five years later, on February 19, 1992, the Penguins traded Paul Coffey and Mark Recchi to Philadelphia and Los Angeles for Rick Tocchet, Kjell Samuelsson, Ken Wregget, Jeff Chychrun and a 3rd round pick in the 1993 NHL draft. The draft pick became left wing Dave Roche.
July 29th, 1994 – Rick Tocchet, along with a 2nd round draft choice, was traded to Los Angeles for Luc Robitaille.
August 31st, 1995 – In a salary dump, the Pens traded Luc Robitaille and Ulf Samuelsson to the New York Rangers for Sergei Zubov and Petr Nedved.
June 22nd, 1996 – After an ongoing spat with Mario Lemieux over control of the Pens' power play, the Pens traded Sergei Zubov to the Dallas Stars for Kevin Hatcher.
June 17th, 1998 – Ken Wregget was traded to Calgary for German Titov and Todd Hlushko, marking the last of the players involved in the Coffey trade to leave Pittsburgh.
November 25th, 1998 – Traded Petr Nedved, along with Sean Pronger and Chris Tamer to the New York Rangers for Alexei Kovalev and Harry York.
September 30, 1999 – Traded Kevin Hatcher to the New York Rangers for Peter Popovic, turning an all-world defenseman (Zubov) into … Peter Popovic.
March 14th, 2000 – Traded German Titov to Edmonton in exchange for Josef Beranek.
February 10th, 2003 – In yet another salary dump, Craig Patrick traded Alexei Kovalev, along with Dan LaCouture, Janne Laukkanen and Mike Wilson to the New York Rangers for Mikael Samuelsson, Rico Fata, Joel Bouchard and Richard Lintner.
June 21st, 2003 – Traded Mikael Samuelsson, along with their 1st round pick in 2003 and 2nd round pick in 2003 to Florida for the Panthers 1st round pick, the first overall in 2003 and the Panthers 3rd round pick in 2003. The Pens drafted Marc-Andre Fleury with the 1st overall pick and Daniel Carcillo with the 3rd round pick.
February 27th, 2007 – Traded Daniel Carcillo to the Phoenix Coyotes for Georges Laraque
So to recap, at different times in his career, Craig Simpson became Paul Coffey, Rick Tocchet, Luc Robitaille, Petr Nedved and Sergei Zubov, and Alexei Kovalev. There was far more value in Simpson the trade asset than Simpson the player.
25 years after he was first traded, Simpson is still connected to the Penguins' franchise. At the moment, Simpson's legacy is Marc-Andre Fleury, but should the Pens find a taker on Fleury's burdensome deal, they can extend Simpson's trade chain and find value in the asset once again.


text:
The Blackhawks may not have made any moves, but the rest of the league certainly was busy at Friday night's NHL draft as it didn't take long for the wheeling and dealing to begin.
In fact, the first blockbuster deal of the day was done and announced well before the Oilers selected center Connor McDavid with the first pick.
The Bruins dealt 22-year-old defenseman Dougie Hamilton to the Flames for a first-round pick (No. 15) and two second-round picks (Nos. 45 and 52) in this year's draft.
The move came after Bruins general manager Don Sweeney had said the team would do all it could to re-sign Hamilton, a restricted free agent.
"We extended Dougie a very...


text:
Department of Food & Public Distribution
Food Corporation of India
Department of Consumer Affairs
Governor Office, Govt. Of Uttarkhand
Chief Minister Office, Govt. Of Uttarkhand
read more
Hit Counter
Since: 23-09-2013
Site designed, developed and hosted by
Contents of this website is published and managed by Directorate of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Uttarakhand. For any queries regarding this website please contact Web Information Manager, Directorate of Food and Civil Supplies, Dehradun, Ph.- 0135- 2740765
Web Information Manager
© 2013 Department of Food and Civil Supplies , Government of Uttarakhand.


text:
If your download does not start automatically, choose a download location to start your download.
Software Syncovery SOS Online Backup
ViceVersa PRO 2.5 Build 2511
file size: 3.71 MB
File Synchronization, File Replication and Backup Software for Windows.
Published by:
Trial Period:
30 Days
7 / XP / 2003 / Vista / 2008 Server / 2012 Server / 8
Cow Rating:
Support URL:
ViceVersa PRO 2.5 delivers an easy way to backup, mirror, replicate and synchronize files and folders. ViceVersa works with any type of storage media on laptop, desktop, servers. ViceVersa implements both on-demand visual execution or automatic "set-it-and-forget-it" scheduled operation. Synchronize, replicate, mirror, backup files and folders with ease.
Key features:
- Backup and Sync your files in seconds
- Side-by-side display shows you exactly what files and folders need to be copied, deleted, updated
- Works with Hard-Disks, USB Disks, NAS, Flash Drives, DVD-RW, CD-RW, etc.
- 5 Execution Methods: Synchronization, Backup, Mirroring, Replication, Consolidation
- Backup open files and locked databases
- Can be scheduled to run unattended
- ViceVersa PRO 2.5 is Windows 7, Vista and Windows Server 2008 compatible.


text:
You are not logged in.
Originally posted on KymKemp.com
The 24 local employees of Manhard Consulting who were working on February 13 inside the beautiful Carson Block building in Old Town Eureka didn't know that they would all lose their jobs around 3 p.m. that day. According to Sarah Emlet, former employee, "It was a complete shock to us.
Representatives from corporate headquarters in Illinois came into the office and let all 24 go without warning. A press release from some of the former employees described being told they had "two hours to pack their belongings and exit the premises." They were locked out of all computers, emails, and client databases for what had been, among other ventures, one of the biggest cannabis consulting firms in Humboldt County. "The office [staff] was not provided the opportunity to contact clients or inform them of the shutdown," the press release said.
Clients across the community were disoriented, terrified, and angry when rumors poured throughout the community during the following week. Several described already being stressed trying to meet expenses and understand county and state regulations that changed as they tried to meet them. Now they were without the team that had been guiding them through the permit process and they didn't know how to get information that they had paid large sums to have compiled.
"I was already having a hard time getting everything done. Now, I am freaked out," said one client who asked not to be named told us last week.
praj manhard
Praj White's photo from Manhard Consulting
"All of the people [the clients] were used to contacting are no longer available," Praj White, Manhart Consulting's former area manager explained.
The press release by the former employees noted that the "closure has the potential to affect numerous projects."
Rumors flying through the cannabis community said that Corporate was unhappy with the amount of money brought in from the grower clients. White said, "We could never perform and produce enough for the expectations." Recently, efforts were underway by Praj White to purchase the Eureka branch of Manhard Consulting. "I had been in negotiations about a goodwill acquisition of the entire operation," White explained.
White said the idea had been to provide a "basically seamless transition to the clients." But, Manhard's action on February 13, he said, "turned this into a situation that there is all sorts of collateral damage happening."
White and several other former Manhard employees are forming a new business, NorthPoint Consulting Group. "Our aim is to provide services beginning early March," said a letter sent by the Group to former clients.
"What we are trying to do is quickly formulate our lawful insured business," White explained.
He urged former clients of Manhard to contact the Corporate representatives who are still in the Carson Block and "come up with a plan to get their information as soon as they can." He added that his former employer seemed "to be accommodating giving out all the files and the information."
"We're all heartbroken as I am sure the clients are," White said. "It is emotionally difficult to be separated from all the strong people and good people we were working with…We love the community and didn't see this coming."
White explained that NorthPoint Consulting will not be operating out of the Carson Block.
"We are working to get back on our feet," White said.
Attempts to reach Corporate headquarters for comment have been unsuccessful so far.
Yea, go figure. a lot of corporate companies do not want to get there han ds dirty in the weed business.
Myers Flat is Where its At........ Yea. We keep hearing that..


text:
Mar 25, 2013
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — The Yale University baseball game scheduled for Tuesday, March 26, against Michigan at Citi Field in Queens, N.Y., has been cancelled after Michigan decided to cancel its flight plans due to a winter storm that is forecast to hit New York City today. There is a possibility of a make-up date later on this season.
Yale will now have the week off before heading to Princeton (Saturday) and Cornell (Sunday) to begin the Ivy League portion of the 2013 schedule. Both Ivy doubleheaders are scheduled to begin at 12 p.m.


text:
America Agrees: Five Guys Is the Best Burger Chain
According to a survey of 7,600 consumers by Market Force Information, Five Guys is the best burger franchise in America.
In fact, Five Guys topped the competition in each of the survey's regions—the Northeast, Midwest, South and West—an impressive feat for a chain which only ventured out of its Washington, D.C.-area base about 10 years ago.
In and Out finished second in overall quality, followed by Fuddruckers, A&W Restaurant and Smashburger.
McDonald's, the franchise that started it all, finished third to last, beating only Jack in the Box and Dairy Queen in overall quality. The golden arches finished dead last in the burger-taste category, another category won by Five Guys.
"Five Guys does zero advertising, but by delivering a consistently great customer experience, they're able to build a word-of-mouth buzz that continues to bring new customers through the door," explained Janet Eden-Harris, chief marketing officer for Market Force.
[PR Web]


text:
The second derivative, also provides information about the shape of the curve in terms of what is called concavity. Concavity can also be defined in several ways. Geometrically, it can be said that the graph of is concave up near a point if the tangent line at lies below the graph of on some open interval containing and is concave up if the tangent line lies above the graph of on some open interval containing . Algebraically, concavity is most often defined by saying that is concave up on an interval if is increasing on and is concave down on if is decreasing on . Using the theorem above and remembering that is the derivative of gives the following result.
Remember also that the second derivative can be helpful in determining local maximums and local minimums. That is, if you find a critical value, where or is undefined, then substitute the critical value into the second derivative. If the second derivative is positive, then there is a relative minimum there and if the second derivative is negative, then there is a relative maximum there.
> f := x-> x^3-3*x+1; > plot(f(x),x=-3..3); > solve(D(f)(x)=0,x); > D(f)(-2); > D(f)(0); > D(f)(2);The plot helps to see how many critical values you have. The solve command shows that there are critical values at and which means that the intervals can be broken up into , , and . Remember that if solve doesn't work or doesn't find all critical values, you can use the fsolve command specifying ranges for in which to solve. Then chosing a point in each interval, we can see that the value of the derivative is positive at which implies that the function is increasing on the interval . We can also use the second derivative test to classify and as relative maximum or relative minimum. See the Maple commands below to help you do this.
> D[1,1](f)(-1); > f(-1); > D[1,1](f)(1); > f(1);As you can see, the value of the second derivative at is negative implying that is a relative maximum. The value of the second derivative at is positive which means that is a relative minimum.


text:
California Department of TransportationDate: December 14, 2011
District: District 3 - Marysville, www.dot.ca.gov/dist3
Jody Jones, District Director
Contact: Dennis Keaton firstname.lastname@example.com
Phone: (530) 741-5474
Caltrans Opens New Highway 50 Bus/Carpool Lane to Ease Congestion in Time for Holiday Travel
RANCHO CORDOVA – Today, just in time for the busy holiday travel season, Caltrans cut the ribbon for a new bus/carpool lane that will ease traffic congestion, reduce air pollution, and lessen the travel time for an estimated 170,000 drivers daily on Highway 50 between Rancho Cordova and Sacramento.
"Our state is working through tough economic times and projects like this help the local community by putting people in the area to work," said Acting Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty. "Caltrans continues to partner with local governments on projects to not only help the region with infrastructure improvements, but to also improve the overall driving experience for travelers."
The $108 million project received $55 million from Proposition 1B, the 2006 voter-approved transportation bond. To date, the state has allocated nearly
$11 billion in Proposition 1B funds for transportation purposes statewide.
"A project like this not only helps reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, it also keeps people working during these troubled times," said Caltrans District 3 Director Jody Jones. The fact that we've completed this in time for the holidays makes me hopeful that there will be less stress on holiday shoppers and commuters."
The new bus/carpool lane adds approximately 7.5 miles of in the eastbound direction on Highway 50, from Sunrise Boulevard to Watt Avenue. With this new addition, the continuous carpool lane stretches 22.5 miles on eastbound Highway 50 between Sacramento (Watt Avenue) and El Dorado (Bass Lake Road).
The project also rebuilt two bike/pedestrian overcrossings at Manlove and White Rock Roads to meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards.Additional enhancements include new soundwalls and improved landscaping and lighting.
# # # #


text:
Car Review
2013 GMC Acadia: New Car Review
Pros: Bold styling; seating for up to 8 passengers; vast cargo space; car-like handling; very good fuel economy; compliant ride; comfortable interior
Cons: Not as capable as a true truck-based SUV; limited maneuverability
What's New: Updated exterior and interior designs; LED running lights; touchscreen infotainment; revised transmission and suspension tuning; standard backup camera; front center airbag; available rear cross traffic alert
Like its nearly identical siblings, the Buick Enclave and Chevrolet Traverse, the 2013 GMC Acadia offers an extremely complete package emphasizing passenger comfort, drivability, functionality, fuel economy and spaciousness. So spacious is the Acadia, in fact, that it can seat up to eight passengers and still retain a reasonable amount of cargo room.
Although the three large GM crossovers are mechanically and structurally the same, each establishes its own distinctive personality with unique features and design cues. While the Buick Enclave is the most upscale and the Chevrolet Traverse focuses more on utility, the GMC Acadia bridges the two by offering an even mix of practicality and rich user content. Furthermore, the Acadia distinguishes itself with bolder, squared-off styling that speaks to its GMC truck heritage.
Despite its freshly updated and ruggedly designed exterior, the Acadia is not based on a truck. It's not designed for heavy trailering or off-road adventures. For these kinds of activities, a full-size SUV like the Tahoe is better. That said, the Acadia is still capable of towing a 5,000-lb boat and treading through virtually any kind of road condition when equipped with all-wheel drive. That kind of competence is more than sufficient for the needs of most American families.
For 2013, the Acadia received a new exterior look, including a revised front end with LED running lights, a more refined interior with upgraded materials, a touchscreen infotainment system and new safety equipment, which includes a front center airbag and an available rear cross traffic alert system. A backup camera is standard for 2013, as well, alleviating some concern with rear visibility in the previous generation.
Combining the visual appeal of an SUV with the comfort and practicality of a minivan, the 2013 Acadia is one of the most well-rounded offerings among large people movers.
Comfort & Utility
The Acadia's interior is well crafted and handsome, with high quality materials and good fit and finish. It's not as upscale as the Buick Enclave, but it certainly exudes more of a premium feel than the Chevy Traverse. An optional 2-tone color scheme and ambient lighting help elevate this interior's visual appeal. The truck-inspired character of its exterior spills into the cabin as well.
The Acadia is available in 7- and 8-passenger configurations. Front seats are well-positioned and supportive. The second row offers a 3-passenger bench or two captain's chairs as well as a unique Smart Slide feature, which makes access to the third row remarkably convenient. The third row itself can comfortably fit two adults, which is something many large SUVs can't claim. For two children, the third row is downright spacious.
In terms of cargo, the Acadia is extremely roomy. The second and third row bench seats split 60/40, allowing a wide array of passenger and cargo hauling combinations. And with both rows folded down, the Acadia benefits from a long, low cargo floor with more room than most will know what to do with. Even with all the seats up, there is more usable space behind the third row than many other SUVs provide.
The 2013 Acadia is available in five trim levels: SLE, SLE2, SLT, SLT2 and Denali. Standard convenience features for the base SLE include cruise control, a manually adjustable tilt/telescoping steering wheel and a 6-speaker stereo. SLE2 trim brings an 8-way power-adjustable driver's seat, a power rear liftgate and GMC's IntelliLink infotainment.
The mid-level SLT gets leather upholstery, heated front seats, 3-zone automatic climate control and a 10-speaker premium audio system, while the SLT2 adds driver's seat memory and a 4-way power-adjustable passenger seat. The range-topping Denali is fully loaded with all the previously mentioned features, plus cooling front seats, dual sunroofs and a head-up display that projects key info on the windshield.
Depending on the individual trim level, standard tech features in the Acadia include a USB interface, Bluetooth connectivity, rear parking sensors and a backup camera system. Optional technologies include a rear DVD system and touchscreen navigation with real-time traffic data.
Performance & Fuel Economy
The 2013 GMC Acadia is available in front- or all-wheel drive configurations. It's powered by a 3.6-liter V6 engine producing 288 horsepower and 270 lb-ft of torque. This unit is managed by a 6-speed automatic transmission with manual mode.
Estimated fuel economy is 17 mpg city/24 mpg hwy with front-wheel drive; the all-wheel drive model offers 16/23 mpg.
The Acadia's roster of safety equipment includes ABS, stability control, traction control and six standard airbags, including third row head curtains. The new front center airbag, designed to provide a cushion between the driver and front passenger, is standard on all but the base Acadia SLE. Blind spot warning and rear cross traffic alert are standard on the Acadia Denali, and available on the rest of the lineup. GM's OnStar emergency Telematics service is standard across the Acadia range.
The Acadia earned the highest crash test ratings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
Driving Impressions
The 2013 Acadia delivers, above all, a comfortable and well-controlled ride. It's smooth and quiet without feeling floaty, which results in daily commutes that are high on driving enjoyment and low on fatigue.
Like its Buick and Chevy counterparts, the Acadia benefits from car-like handling, a function of its car-like unibody construction. It feels sharper and more secure than most other big SUVs, which inspires plenty of confidence in corners. Still, drivers must remain conscious of the Acadia's large size, which becomes apparent on narrow city streets or in crowded parking lots. Among other concerns, low-speed maneuverability is limited.
The Acadia's power gives it a smooth and confident manner. And when the need arises, it can accelerate strongly, both off the line and in passing situations at highway speeds. However, don't expect the same performance when the vehicle is loaded down with passengers and cargo, or when towing a heavy load.
Although it's not meant for off-road, the Acadia is more than capable in harsh weather and on rough roads, especially when equipped with all-wheel drive. Available 19- and 20-inch wheels are helpful in wet and snowy conditions.
Other Cars to Consider
Ford Flex - The Flex offers more expansive rear seating, and a longer list of creature comforts and technology. The Acadia has superior ride and handling.
Mazda CX-9 - With a fresh design for the 2013 model year, the CX-9 has a sportier look than the Acadia. The Acadia offers more interior room for passengers and cargo, and its plush trim makes it a better bet for long-distance interstate cruising.
Chevrolet Traverse - Based on the same GM architecture as the Acadia, the Traverse is very similar in all respects. The Acadia's interior materials are of better quality, but the Traverse has a roll-mitigation system not found on the Acadia.
Dodge Durango - The Durango is more like a traditional SUV and, as such, offers more off-road and towing prowess. However, the Acadia is ahead in space, ride comfort and fuel efficiency.
AutoTrader Recommends
Of the 2013 Acadia's five trims, the mid-level SLT is our pick. It's equipped with the most balanced array of amenities for the money. The up-level SLT2 and Denali models are perhaps overloaded with creature comforts, while the base SLE is a bit too spartan for our tastes. We suggest considering adding some stand-alone options such as navigation and the rear seat DVD system to the Acadia SLT, especially for families who like to travel. And everyone, especially if you live in a cold climate, should consider the added traction of all-wheel drive.


text:
When our kids grow taller, or learn to walk, it's so obvious to see. Yet when our kids understand how to share, take turns or make their own friends, it's often not noticed. In fact, we're more likely to notice the lack of social and emotional skills in our children than how accomplished they become as they grow.
The emotional aspect of development relates to a child understanding and controlling their internal emotions while balancing external social elements of interacting with other people and family.
Healthy social and emotional development allows children to:
- Develop relationships
- Master the ability to initiate, discover, play and learn
- Develop persistence and attention
- Self-regulate their behaviour
- Develop emotional range
What is social and emotional development?
The development of the social and emotional health of a child is essential to his appropriate behaviour, understanding of life and transition to adulthood. Social emotional development helps shape a child into what he will become later in life by teaching proper reactions to emotional matters. Social skills are all about a child's ability to cooperate and play with others, paying attention to adults and teachers, and making reasonable transitions from activity to activity. Emotional development is the process of learning how to understand and control emotions.
The eight stages of social and emotional development from baby to adult
The developmental psychologist and psychoanalyst Erik Erikson argued that the emotional and social development of a human being takes place in eight phases, "the eight stages of man." The first four stages deal with early childhood's emotional and social development.
First stage: Hope (up to two)
Learning Basic Trust Versus Basic Mistrust:
If a baby and toddler is nurtured, and loved, he will develop trust and security and a basic optimism. Badly handled, he becomes insecure and mistrustful.
Second stage: Will (18 months – four)
Learning Autonomy Versus Shame:
Erikson believes social and emotional development occurs as people reach "psychosocial crisis" and are prompted into the next stage of development. The well-adjusted child emerges from this stage sure of himself, elated with his new found control, and proud rather than ashamed. The early part of this psychosocial crisis, includes facing up to self- will, tantrums, stubbornness, and negativism. So the two year old yelling "NO!" every second of the day is going through his entry into the second stage of social and emotional development, according to Erikson. Mothers know this is annoying, but you can take heart that it's a sign of emotional and social development.
Third stage: Purpose (three – six)
Learning Initiative Versus Guilt:
Erikson believes that this third psychosocial crisis occurs during what he calls the "play age" and the well-developed child learns:
- to imagine, to broaden his skills through active play of all sorts, including fantasy
- to cooperate with others
- to lead as well as to follow
- If the child is immobilised by guilt, he is fearful, hangs on the fringes of groups, continues to depend unduly on adults, and is restricted both in the development of play skills and in imagination.
Fourth stage: Competence (5.5 – 12)
Industry vs Inferiority:
Erikson believes that the fourth psychosocial crisis is handled, for better or worse, during what he calls the "school age". Here the child learns to skills like:
- relating with peers according to rules
- progressing from free play to play that may be elaborately structured by rules and may demand formal teamwork.
- mastering social studies, reading, maths at school and creating self-disciplined approaches to learning.
- The well-developed child is trusting, autonomous, full of initiative and will learn easily enough to be industrious. However, the mistrusting child will doubt the future. The shame and guilt-filled child will experience defeat and inferiority.
Fifth stage: Fidelity (12-20)
Learning Identity vs Identity Diffusion:
During the fifth psychosocial crisis the adolescent learns how to answer satisfactorily and happily the question of "Who am I?". But even the best-adjusted teenager experiences some role identity problems and starts rebelling and filling with self-doubt. The young person acquires self-certainty as opposed to self-consciousness and self-doubt.
Sixth stage: Love (18+)
Learning Intimacy vs Isolation:
The successful young adult, for the first time, can experience true intimacy - the sort of intimacy that makes possible good marriage or a genuine and enduring friendship.
Seventh stage: Care (adulthood)
Learning Generativity vs Self-Absorption:
In adulthood, the psychosocial crisis demands a person becomes more emotionally and socially generous, both in the sense of marriage and parenthood, and in the sense of working productively and creatively.
Eighth stage: Wisdom (adulthood)
Integrity vs Despair:
If the other seven psychosocial crises have been successfully resolved, the mature adult develops the peak of adjustment - integrity. He trusts, he is independent and dares the new. He works hard, has found a well-defined role in life, and has developed a self-concept with which he is happy. He can be intimate without strain, guilt, regret, or lack of realism, and he is proud of what he creates - his children, his work, or his hobbies. If one or more of the earlier psychosocial crises have not been resolved, he may view himself and his life with disgust and despair, according to Erikson.