Mesa Public Library Hosts Photography Exhibit

first_imgAllen RuttenbergART News:Dr. Allen Ruttenberg is exhibiting his photography in a show titled “Landscapes of the American Southwest and Photomicrographic Panoramas” Jan. 4-27 at the Upstairs Gallery in Mesa Public Library.An artist’s reception is 2-4 p.m. Saturday, Jan. 11.Ruttenberg is a fine art photographer who specializes in omni-directional panoramas, a method for taking wide-angle images with telephoto lenses. The subject matter includes landscape panoramas of the four-corners states (Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah) as well as panoramic images using a light microscope.The light microscopy images include thin layers of chemical crystals laid down on microscope slides and photographed with polarized light yielding, highly abstract images. Dr. Ruttenberg makes these crystalline slides from a wide variety of chemicals that have never been prepared this way before.Many photographic prints in the show are very large (up to 40” x 60”). Some are printed on panels that when combined are the size of a wall mural as in “Sandia in Snow”, four panels each of 30” x 40” totaling a combined size of nearly 120” x 40”. Ruttenberg has strong ties to Los Alamos. He served as emergency room physician at the Los Alamos Medical Center from 1991-2006. He recalls that he and the fire chief were the last ones to leave Los Alamos during the evacuation caused by the Cerro Grande Fire of May 2000.The gallery is open 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday-Thursday, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Fridays, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturdays, and noon to 5 p.m. Sunday. Mesa Public Library is at 2400 Central Ave. ‘The Cienega’ mounted on gator-board, 70.5” x 40”. Photo by Allen Ruttenberglast_img read more

Letter To The Editor: Bringing Back The Salem Witch Trials Of 1692

first_imgBy ROBERT VISELLos AlamosAn “Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act” bill is being introduced to the State Legislature by our Governor and her fellow Democrats this month.Putting Lipstick on a Pig doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a Pig. No matter how you name it, it is still a “Red Flag Law” and it’s pure garbage legislation at its worst!“No law shall be passed that does NOT allow ‘Due Process’ or gives the accused the right to know who their accuser is.” It should provide court-appointed counsel to respondents who can’t afford lawyers or choose not to hire them. Legal representation is crucial for respondents trying to navigate a process that is stacked against them from the beginning.Just like the Witch Trials in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692, this Bill in its current form would allow anyone with a grudge, any anti-gunner, neighbor, emotionally unstable sibling, in-laws, or anyone else who has a grievance, to file possibly unsubstantiated charges against someone and file a complaint without any type of investigation into its validity.Being made under oath and accompanied by a sworn affidavit does absolutely NOTHING to verify the validity of the complaint. If you read this Law in its current form, it’s obvious that it takes away a person’s due process. Which is in typical Democratic Lawmaker fashion. You are GUILTY until proven INNOCENT.This new law should allow petitions be made only by prosecutors and requires them to show, based on the respondent’s actions or threats, that he/she poses “an extreme risk”.  Governor Michelle Lujan-Grisham wants to turn New Mexico into another California. Red flag laws are being sold to folks in California and other states as a way to curtail mass shootings. However, it hasn’t helped. Despite having red flag laws on the books for years, two of these States have had high-profile mass shootings.In neither case did a red flag law accomplish much of anything despite the claims of proponents of such laws. There’s little to no evidence that red flag laws actually have any impact, so a push to expand the number of people who can ask judges for warrants to remove guns from Law Abiding Gun Owners makes no sense.So, what’s this really about? It’s about control!Current and new Red Flag Laws will do absolutely nothing to curtail mass shootings. But it does give the Government control over its citizens. That’s the Democratic Party’s goal and they can’t do it if the citizens (subjects) are armed.In New Mexico the purpose of passing a red flag law has less to do with preventing violence but more to do with finding reasons to take people’s guns away and taking control of their lives.Under our current Democratic-controlled state, they are so anti-gun that I wouldn’t be surprised if they start putting anti-gun slogans on the state seal. Because of this, they can think of no reason to respect the right to keep and bear arms.The Heller Supreme Court Case made it clear that the state can’t just ban guns. So, they’ll try another way. Now, all you need is someone who doesn’t like guns or has a personal vendetta against you and POOF there go your guns. Martin Luther King said, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”.Supporters of such laws will tell you that you can get your guns back, and it’s true. However, you’re now entering a realm of “guilty until proven innocent”. You have to show that you’re not a threat, something that’s not as easy to do as you might think and something that goes against everything we stand for as a nation.That’s the only thing red flag laws manage to do well, and that’s why the Democrats are so desperately trying to pass a Red Flag Law in our State.These Red Flag Laws have been tried by other States and they have been forced to rescind, repeal, amend, or veto such legislation.There are many who would rather die than surrender to a Communist Party infringing on their Second Amendment Rights. And both Law Enforcement Agents and innocent civilians could get hurt or worse, killed in the crossfire. No Court, Judge, or Law Enforcement Agency with any merit would dare to try to enforce such sloppy Unconstitutional Laws like this and if acted upon by Law Enforcement the result could be numerous lawsuits or worse, someone could get injured or killed.All Law Enforcement Officers and J.O.P.’s have sworn, above all else, to defend the Constitution of the United States to which this bill is in direct violation of. It not only violates the Second Amendment but the Fourth (Unreasonable Search and Seizures) and the Sixth (the accused shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for their defense).A great idea would be for all the Sheriffs in all the counties of New Mexico to deputize all the gun owners in their county, that way circumventing any and all laws passed by our current rogue Government and making any anti-gun law null and void.This Bill proposed by our Governor and her fellow Democrats is nothing more than a “Feel Good” piece of garbage and should be removed from the current and all future dockets.Engrain this thought into your skulls:                        “An armed man is a citizen.                        An unarmed man is a subject.”last_img read more

Rolls-Royce exit from Filton allows ProLogis to develop 1m sq ft of industrial property – Bristol’s spring roll

first_imgTo access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletterslast_img

Sadiq Khan 50% affordable housing pledge quickly ‘evaporating’

first_imgTo access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletterslast_img

Bestobell Valves stalwart retires after four decades of service

first_imgGet instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270. Subscribelast_img

Continuous O2 sensors work “backwards” for lab safety

first_imgGet instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270. Subscribelast_img

Naturalisation

first_img The claimant was a Sri Lankan national. He entered the United Kingdom illegally in December 2000 and claimed asylum in January 2001. He claimed to have suffered harassment or ill treatment both at the hands of the forces of the Sri Lankan government and at the hands of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), by reason of his membership of the LTTE. The claimant was interviewed about his asylum claim by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate. He answered a series of questions about his involvement with the LTTE. The claimant’s claim for asylum was rejected by the Secretary of State in a decision letter dated 21 February 2001. His appeal was allowed in a decision promulgated on 15 October 2001. In January 2002, the claimant was granted exceptional leave to remain. In June 2007, he was granted indefinite leave to remain. Since his arrival in the UK, the claimant had been living quietly. He had found employment and made a life. In August 2008, the claimant applied to be naturalised as a British citizen. The application was made by completing the relevant form (Form AN). Form AN made it clear that before completing it an applicant should read the accompanying guide (Guide AN). Section 3 of Guide AN dealt with the good character requirement. It stated that ‘You must say whether you have been involved in anything which might indicate that you are not of good character … You must also say whether you have been involved in any crimes in the course of armed conflict, including crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide’. In January 2009, the Secretary of State issued a decision letter refusing the claimant’s application for naturalisation. In conclusion the secretary of state said that ‘as a member of the military wing [of the LTTE] between 1983 and 1995, and as an active supporter between 1995 and 2001, it is considered that [the claimant] must have been aware of the crimes committed by the LTTE during this period …The LTTE was responsible for widespread and systematic War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity whilst [the claimant] was a member, contributing to its overall aims and activities, and therefore the secretary of state is not satisfied that he is a person of ‘good character’ for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981′. In making his application, the claimant had had the support of a Tamil support organisation, the Tamil Welfare Association (Newham) (TWAN). TWAN wrote to the secretary of state to suggest that the secretary of state’s decision was made in error and was irrational. TWAN argued that the secretary of state had not correctly followed relevant policy guidance, that the claimant had not been involved with the LTTE during his time in the UK, and that the LTTE had not been formally proscribed as a terrorist organisation until May 2006. By letter dated 13 March 2009, the secretary of state maintained her decision to refuse the claimant’s application for naturalisation. She concluded that the LTTE had committed international crimes of terror during the claimant’s membership and that he would have had knowledge of those offences. The claimant applied for judicial review. He contended, inter alia, that: (i) the secretary of state had failed to consider the claimant’s application in accordance with her own policy, in that she did not undertake a detailed examination of the precise nature of his activities as a member and supporter of the LTTE and had failed to consider the context in which the claimant had acted and whether there were any mitigating circumstances; (ii) the secretary of state by focusing exclusively on the claimant’s activities in Sri Lanka prior to his arrival in the UK in December 2000, had failed to make a proper assessment of the claimant’s character; and (iii) the secretary of state’s decision to refuse the claimant’s application had been taken in breach of her duty of fairness, without having given him an opportunity to address her concerns with respect to his being of good character. Consideration was given to the British Nationality Act 1981 (the 1981 Act). The application would be allowed. (1) The grant of British citizenship under s 6(1) of the 1981 Act was not a fundamental human right. There was no statutory definition of the requirement of ‘good character’ in para 1(1) of Sch 1 to the 1981 Act. It was a term capable of carrying a range of meanings, and required an exercise in evaluation to apply it. It was open to the secretary of state, so long as she acted rationally, to adopt a high standard of good character, and one higher than other reasonable decision-makers might have adopted. To give rise to serious doubts as to an applicant’s good character for the purposes of naturalisation, it was not necessary that the applicant should have been personally or directly involved in the commission of war crimes in some indirect way. It might be sufficient that the applicant had, by his support for the organisation and with an appreciation of its willingness to use barbaric methods, gone so far as to show that he was prepared to ally himself with it in a way which revealed a marked lack of commitment to the values underpinning British society, contrary to the concept of ‘good character’ set out in the glossary in Guide AN (see [40]-[42] of the judgment). In the circumstances, the secretary of state’s decision did not involve any failure to consider mitigating circumstances. The secretary of state’s consideration of the level of the claimant’s involvement in the LTTE implicitly covered one form of possible mitigation. In light of her examination of the individual circumstances of the claimant’s relationship with the LTTE, the secretary of state had rationally been entitled to conclude that the period and nature of the support provided by him for the LTTE was such as to give rise to serious doubt about his good character for the purposes of the 1981 Act (see [49]-[50] of the judgment). R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Al-Fayed [2000] All ER (D) 1056 considered; Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v First Secretary of State [2005] All ER (D) 75 (May) considered; Accenture Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners; Barclays Bank plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2009] All ER (D) 223 (Apr) considered; AHK v Secretary of State for the Home Department; FM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] All ER (D) 35 (Apr) considered. (2) An assessment of someone’s good character for the purposes of the 1981 Act would inevitably have to take into account things said and done by them in the past (see [51] of the judgment) Whilst the relevant actions of the claimant in relation to the LTTE took place a number of years ago, before the claimant had arrived in the UK, the secretary of state had been entitled to assess that the nature and period of support provided by the claimant to the LTTE was so extensive as to continue to raise serious doubts about his good character for the purposes of the 1981 Act. It did not appear that the claimant had taken any steps since arriving in the UK to disavow his earlier commitment to supporting the LTTE. The secretary of state had been rationally entitled to focus on what he had done to support the LTTE over a very long period of time in Sri Lanka (see [51] of the judgment). (3) In considering an application for naturalisation, the secretary of state was subject to an obligation to treat an applicant fairly, which required her to afford him a reasonable opportunity to deal with matters adverse to his application. That obligation might sometimes be fulfilled by giving an applicant fair warning, at the time he made the application, of general matters which the secretary of state would be likely to treat as adverse to the applicant, so that the applicant was by that means afforded a reasonable opportunity to deal with any such matters adverse to his application when he made the application. In other circumstances, where the indication available in the materials available to an applicant when he made his application did not give him fair notice of matters that might be treated as adverse to his application, and hence did not give him a reasonable opportunity to deal with such matters, fairness would require that the secretary of state gave more specific notice of her concerns regarding his good character after she received the application, by means of a letter warning the applicant about them, so that he could seek to deal with them by means of written representations. Where there was doubt about whether the obligation of fairness had been fulfilled by means of the indications given by the secretary of state at the time an application was made, she might be well-advised to follow the procedure adopted in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Al Fayed ([2001] Imm AR 134) so as to avoid the need for argument about the issue in judicial review proceedings (see [67] of the judgment). In the instant case, the claimant had been given a certain amount of warning by the terms of Form AN and Guide AN about the sort of matters which would be of concern to the secretary of state in respect of an applicant’s good character in relation to any application for naturalisation under s 6(1) of the 1981 Act. However, the claimant had not been given fair warning about the extended notion of involvement in war crimes that the secretary of state was proposing to employ. The claimant therefore did not have a reasonable opportunity to make representations in his application to seek to deal with the concerns the secretary of state might have had regarding his involvement in war crimes by reason of his support for the LTTE. That would have been sufficient to justify quashing the first basis of refusal in the secretary of state’s letter of 15 January 2009. However, the secretary of state also relied on the circumstances in which her second decision letter came to be issued. The same flaw in procedure as affected the first decision letter also applied in relation to the second decision letter (see [68]-[73] of the judgment). Accordingly, the secretary of state’s decision would be quashed (see [74] of the judgment). British nationality – Acquisition R (on the application of Chockalingam Thamby) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court (London) (Mr Justice Sales): 8 July 2011center_img R v Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex p Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 All ER 528 considered; A-G v Ryan [1980] 2 WLR 143 considered; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody [1993] 3 All ER 92 considered; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Fayed [1997] 1 All ER 228 considered; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Al Fayed [2000] All ER (D) 1056 considered. Zainul Jafferji (instructed by the Tamil Welfare Association) for the claimant. Suzanne Lambert (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.last_img read more

Cosco completes OOCL takeover

first_imgEarlier this month, Cosco Shipping secured approval from the Anti-Monopoly Bureau of China to proceed with the USD6.3 billion takeover.Cosco Shipping now operates a fleet of approximately 400 vessels with a combined capacity of 2.7 million teu.www.ooilgroup.comen.chinacosco.comwww.oocl.comlast_img

Bath Estate man charged in Boxing Day homicide

first_imgLocalNews Bath Estate man charged in Boxing Day homicide by: – January 6, 2014 Share Share Sharing is caring! Tweetcenter_img 64 Views   2 comments Share Glenroy Lockhart (Facebook photo)One man has been charged and remanded at the State’s Prison in connection with a homicide in Bath Estate on Boxing Day.Reginald Mann, 49, of Bath Estate was charged with murder of his brother in law Glenroy Lockhart, 33, of Bath Estate when he appeared before a Roseau Magistrate’s court on Monday, January 6, 2014.He was not entitled to enter a plea as it is an indictable offence to be heard before a jury.Lockhart sustained a deep laceration to his neck during an altercation with Mann on December 26, 2013, the police public relations officer inspector John Carbon earlier reported.It is alleged that the weapon used was a knife.Reginald Mann, 49, of Bath Estate leaving court on MondayLockhart was pronounced dead at the Accident and Emergency Department of the Princess Margaret Hospital. Mann also sustained injuries to his head and was admitted to the Alford Ward.He was released from the Hospital late last week and arrested.Mann is represented by defence attorney Wayne Nordé; however no bail application was made on his behalf.The preliminary inquiry is scheduled for June 16, 2014.Dominica Vibes Newslast_img read more

Video: Samsung Galaxy J3 with S bike mode feature

first_imgSamsung shows off innovative S bike mode feature in the Samsung Galaxy J3 smartphone. Here’s a typical situation: You’re riding your bike through the city, trying to make it in time to your next meeting, but you are suddenly bombarded by emails, text messages and calls. Answering is no no, but you also don’t want to ignore the incoming communication. Perhaps what you need is the Samsung Galaxy J3 smartphone with its innovative S bike mode feature primed on board.The S bike mode is a dedicated mode that riders can easily activate manually using the device’s built-in NFC capabilities and the NFC tag supplied with it. The NFC tag is self-adhesive, making it easy to attach on your bike or helmet. Once the tag is applied, riders only need to have their Galaxy J3 gently touch the tag to launch the S bike mode.In S bike mode, the Samsung Galaxy J3 is still connected to the mobile carrier and data networks, but it block calls and play a predefined audio sequence instead that tells whoever is calling you that you are riding a bike and unable to answer the phone.There’s also a feature that tells callers to press 1 if the call is urgent, and the call will go through and be displayed on the screen. However, even with the “Incoming Urgent Call” notification, riders are still barred from answering the call because of the Samsung Galaxy J3’s Motion Lock feature that is able to detect whether if you’re still in motion on your bike. You’ll need to stop the bike completely and safely to answer said urgent call.Sadly though, this feature is only offered for the Samsung Galaxy J3 in India. However, we reckon the Korean consumer electronics brand will likely expand this feature into other markets given its immense potential, especially in the South East Asia region where there’s a huge bike-based commuter trend.And we are certain that this would be a perfect feature to integrate with the Samsung Smart Windshield prototype it showed off not too long ago.Also, don’t forget to check out our review of the Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge by clicking here.Source: Samsung Mobile India via AutoEvolution / YouTube–Ads–last_img read more