text:
JEFFREY A. CARNELL, ANNA M. CARNELL, RYAN P. JAY, and LARRY E. JAY, Defendants.
Pending before this Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted ("the Motion") filed by Defendants Ryan P. Jay and Larry E. Jay ("the Jays") as to the crossclaim of Defendant Jeffrey A. Carnell ("Mr. Carnell). (ECF No. 48.) Although Mr. Carnell has not responded to the Jays' Motion (ECF No. 48) and brief in support thereof (ECF No. 49), the deadline for Mr. Carnell's response -i.e., April 3, 2018-passed over two weeks ago and, thus, the Jays' Motion is ripe for disposition.
The Jays argue that Mr. Carnell's crossclaim against them should be dismissed for failure to request a legally cognizable remedy. (See ECF No. 49 at 3-4.) This Court agrees with the Jays' argument.
Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, the Jays' Motion is GRANTED. Thus, Mr. Carnell's crossclaim against the Jays is DISMISSED.
This Court detailed the procedural and factual background of the instant case in multiple prior memorandum opinions and orders. See Wells Fargo Bank, MA. v. Carnell, No. 3:16-cv-130, 2017 WL 1498087, at *l-*2 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 25, 2017); Wells Fargo Bank, MA. v. Carnell, No. 3:16-cv-130, 2018 WL 840141, at *l-*2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2018); Wells Fargo Bank, MA. v. Carnell, No. 3:16-cv-130, 2018 WL 988352, at *l-*2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2018). The Court will not further expand upon this previously-provided background in the current Memorandum Opinion. However, the Court will provide a brief background as to those issues particularly pertinent to the instant Motion.
As this Court previously summarized, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") brought this case against two mortgagors-Mr. Carnell and Anna M. Carnell-and the two notary publics who notarized the underlying mortgage documents-the Jays-after the Carnells allegedly defaulted on their mortgage payments. See Wells Fargo, 2018 WL 840141, at *1. Wells Fargo primarily seeks an order quieting title to the property underlying the mortgage. Id.
In response to this crossclaim, the Jays filed the instant Motion (ECF No. 48) and their brief in support thereof (ECF No. 49) on March 13, 2018. Mr. Carnell has not filed any documents in opposition to the instant Motion. Any responses were due on or before April 3, 2018. See Practices and Procedures of Judge Kim R. Gibson, Rule II.D.4 (Aug. 23, 2017), http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd/files/JG-Practices-Procedures.pdf (providing 21 days to respond to motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that "[a]fter the pleadings are closed- but early enough not to delay trial -a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c); see also Hadeed v. Advanced Vascular Res. of Johnstown, LLC, 3:15-cv-22, 2017 WL 4998663, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2017). "The standard for deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is not materially different from the standard for deciding a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)." Zion v. Nassau, 283 F.R.D. 247, 254 (W.D. Pa. 2012); see Harleysville Ins. Co. of New York v. Cerciello, No. 3:08-CV-2060, 2010 WL 11534317, at *2 (M.D. Pa. 2010) ("The standard of review used for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is substantively identical to that of a motion to dismiss."); Minnesota Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ahrens, 432 Fed.Appx. 143, 147 (3d Cir. 2011).

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Sakerin S.M., Kabanov D.M. Spatiotemporal variations in atmospheric aerosol optical depth along the route of the 42nd cruise of RV “Akademik Boris Petrov”. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2018. V. 31. No. 01. P. 11–16 [in Russian].
Results of expedition studies of the spatiotemporal variations in the aerosol optical depth (AOD) of the atmosphere during the 42nd cruise of RV “Akademik Boris Petrov” along the route from Singapore to Kaliningrad (via Suez Canal) are discussed. It is shown that the highest atmospheric turbidities were observed over the Arabian Sea (due to the outflows of fine-mode aerosol from Hindustan) and the Red Sea (due to the outflows of dust aerosol), where the average AODs in the region 0.5 µm were 0.355 and 0.304, respectively. A considerable aerosol turbidity is also characteristic for the atmosphere in the Strait of Malacca, burdened by aerosol outflows from the direction of Sumatra and Western Malaysia (average AOD is 0.262). Different aerosol content is noted in the neighboring equatorial regions of the Indian Ocean: the average AOD in the middle of the ocean, more remote from the contents, turned out to be a factor of 1.5–2 larger than near Sumatra. All tropical zone of the Indian Ocean is characterized by high values of Ångström selectivity exponent (1.08–1.18), indicating a predominating contribution of fine-mode aerosol to AOD.
1. Sakerin S.M., Kabanov D.M., Smirnov A.V., Holben B.N. Aerosol optical depth of the atmosphere over ocean in the wavelength range 0.37–4 mm // Int. J. Remote Sens. 2008. V. 29, iss. 9. P. 2519–2547. DOI: 10.1080/01431160701767492.
2. Smirnov A., Holben B.N., Kaufman Y.J., Dubovik O., Eck T.F., Slutsker I., Pietras C., Halthore R.N. Optical properties of atmospheric aerosol in maritime environments // J. Atmos. Sci. 2002. V. 59, N 3. Part 1. P. 501–523.
3. Barteneva O.D., Nikitinskaja N.I., Sakunov G.G., Veselova L.K. Prozrachnost' tolshhi atmosfery v vidimoj i blizhnej IK-oblasti spektra. L.: Gidrometeoizdat, 1991. 224 p.
4. Gushhin G.K. Opticheskie harakteristiki ajerozolja nad okeanami // Tr. GGO. 1970. Iss. 255. P. 52–68.
5. Shifrin K.S., Gashko V.A., Novogrudskij B.V. Spektral'naja prozrachnost' atmosfery nad tropicheskoj chast'ju Indijskogo okeana // Gidrofizicheskie i opticheskie issledovanija v Indijskom okeane. M.: Nauka, 1975. P. 164–170.
6. Tomasi C., Prodi F. Measurement of atmospheric turbidity and vertical mass loading of particulate matter in marine environments (Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Somalian Coast) // J. Geophys. Res. 1982. V. 87, N C2. P. 1279–1286.
7. Shifrin K.S., Volgin V.M., Volkov B.N., Ershov O.A., Smirnov A.V. Opticheskaja tolshhina ajerozolja atmosfery nad morem // Issled. Zemli iz kosmosa. 1985. N 4. P. 21–30.
8. Moorthy K.K., Satheesh S.K., Murthy B.V.K. Inves-tigations of marine aerosols over the tropical Indian Ocean // J. Geophys. Res. 1997. V. 102, N D15. P. 18,827–18,842.
9. Satheesh S.K., Moorthy K.K., Murthy B.V.K. Spatial gradients in aerosol characteristics over the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean // J. Geophys. Res. 1998. V. 103, N D20. P. 26,183–26,192.
10. Sakerin S.M., Golobokova L.P., Kabanov D.M., Pol'kin V.V., Turchinovich Ju.S., Hodzher T.V., Huriganova O.I. Prostranstvenno-vremennaja izmenchivost' harakteristik ajerozolja na marshrute Indo-Atlanticheskoj jekspedicii NIS «Akademik Nikolaj Strahov» // Optika atmosf. i okeana. 2017. V. 30, N 1. P. 42–52. DOI: 10.15372/AOO20170106; Sakerin S.M., Golobokova L.P., Kabanov D.M., Pol’-kin V.V., Turchinovich Yu.S., Khodzher T.V., Khuriganova O.I. Spatiotemporal variations in aerosol characteristics along the route of the Indian-Atlantic expedition onboard the Research Vessel Akademik Nikolaj Strakhov // Atmos. Ocean. Opt. 2017. V. 30, N 4. P. 349–359.
11. Sakerin S.M., Kabanov D.M., Rostov A.P., Turchinovich S.A., Knjazev V.V. Solnechnye fotometry dlja izmerenij spektral'noj prozrachnosti atmosfery v stacionarnyh i mobil'nyh uslovijah // Optika atmosf. i okeana. 2012. V. 25, N 12. P. 1112–1117; Sakerin S.M., Kabanov D.M., Rostov A.P., Turchinovich S.A., Knyazev V.V. Sun photometers for measuring spectral air transparency in stationary and mobile conditions // Atmos. Ocean. Opt. 2013. V. 26, N 4. P. 352–356.
12. Issledovanie radiacionnyh harakteristik ajerozolja v aziatskoj chasti Rossii // pod obshhej red. S.M. Sakerina. Tomsk: Izd-vo IOA SO RAN, 2012. 484 p.
13. Sakerin S.M., Kabanov D.M. Melko- i grubodispersnye komponenty ajerozol'noj opticheskoj tolshhi atmosfery v morskih i poljarnyh rajonah // Optika atmosf. i okeana. 2015. V. 28, N 8. P. 690–697; Sakerin S.M., Kabanov D.M. Fine and coarse components of atmospheric aerosol optical depth in maritime and polar regions // Atmos. Ocean. Opt. 2015. V. 28, N 6. P. 510–517.
14. Sakerin S.M., Kabanov D.M., Pol'kin V.V., Radionov V.F., Holben B.N., Smirnov A. Variacii opticheskih i mikrofizicheskih harakteristik ajerozolja na marshrute Rossijskih antarkticheskih jekspedicij v Vostochnoj Atlantike // Optika atmosf. i okeana. 2016. V. 29, N 8. P. 666–678. DOI: 10.15372/ AOO20160808; Sakerin S.M., Kabanov D.M., Pol’kin V.V., Radionov V.E., Holben B.N., Smirnov A. Variations in aerosol optical and microphysical characteristics along the route of Russian Antarctic expeditions in the East Atlantic // Atmos. Ocean. Opt. 2017. V. 30, N 1. P. 89–102.
15. Kalapureddy M.C.R., Kaskaoutis D.G., Ernest Raj P., Devara P.C.S., Kambezidis H.D., Kosmopoulos P.G., Nastos P.T. Identification of aerosol type over the Arabian Sea in the premonsoon season during the Integrated Campaign for Aerosols, Gases and Radiation Budget (ICARB) // J. Geophys. Res. 2009. V. 114. P. D17203. DOI: 10.1029/2009JD011826.
16. Moorthy K.K., Saha A., Prasad B.S.N., Niranjan K., Jhurry D., Pillai P.S. Aerosol optical depths over peninsular India and adjoining oceans during the INDOEX campaigns: Spatial, temporal, and spectral characteristics // J. Geophys. Res. 2001. V. 106, N D22. P. 28,539–28,554.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
Petitioner Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles adopted a resolution banning all "First Amendment activities" within the "Central Terminal Area" at Los Angeles International Airport. Respondents, a nonprofit religious corporation and a minister for that organization, filed an action in Federal District Court challenging the resolution's constitutionality, after the minister had stopped distributing free religious literature in the airport's Central Terminal Area when warned against doing so by an airport officer. The court held that the Central Terminal Area was a traditional public forum under federal law, and that the resolution was facially unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: The resolution violates the First Amendment. It is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine regardless of whether the forum involved is a public or nonpublic forum (which need not be decided here). The resolution's facial overbreadth is substantial, since it prohibits all protected expression and does not merely regulate expressive activity that might create problems such as congestion or the disruption of airport users' activities. Under such a sweeping ban, virtually every individual who enters the airport may be found to violate the resolution by engaging in some "First Amendment activit[y]." The ban would be unconstitutional even if the airport were a nonpublic forum, because no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech. Moreover, the resolution's words leave no room for a narrowing, saving construction by state courts. Cf. Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360. The suggestion that the resolution is not substantially overbroad because it is intended to reach only expressive activity unrelated to airport-related purposes is unpersuasive. Much nondisruptive speech may not be airport related, but is still protected speech even in a nonpublic forum. Moreover, the vagueness of the suggested construction -- which would result in giving airport officials the power to decide in the first instance whether a given activity is airport-related -- presents serious constitutional difficulty. Pp. 572-577.
O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. WHITE, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., joined, post, p. 577.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, if any individual or entity engages in First Amendment activities within the Central Terminal Area at Los Angeles International Airport, the City Attorney of the City of Los Angeles is directed to institute appropriate litigation against such individual and/or entity to ensure compliance with this Policy statement of the Board of Airport Commissioners. . . .
Respondent Jews for Jesus, Inc., is a nonprofit religious corporation. On July 6, 1984, Alan Howard Snyder, a minister of the Gospel for Jews for Jesus, was stopped by a Department of Airports peace officer while distributing free religious literature on a pedestrian walkway in the Central Terminal Area at LAX. The officer showed Snyder a copy of the resolution, explained that Snyder's activities violated the resolution, and requested that Snyder leave LAX. The officer warned Snyder that the city would take legal action against him if he refused to leave as requested. Id. at 19a-20a. Snyder stopped distributing the leaflets and left the airport terminal. Id. at 20a.
Jews for Jesus and Snyder then filed this action in the District Court for the Central District of California, challenging [p572] the constitutionality of the resolution under both the California and Federal Constitutions. First, respondents contended that the resolution was facially unconstitutional under Art. I, § 2, of the California Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it bans all speech in a public forum. Second, they alleged that the resolution had been applied to Jews for Jesus in a discriminatory manner. Finally, respondents urged that the resolution was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
When the case came before the District Court for trial, the parties orally stipulated to the facts, and the District Court treated the trial briefs as cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court held that the Central Terminal Area was a traditional public forum under federal law, and that the resolution was facially unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. The District Court declined to reach the other issues raised by Jews for Jesus, and did not address the constitutionality of the resolution under the California Constitution. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 785 F.2d 791 (1986). Relying on Rosen v. Port of Portland, 641 F.2d 1243 (CA9 1981), and Kuszynski v. Oakland, 479 F.2d 1130 (CA9 1973), the Court of Appeals concluded that "an airport complex is a traditional public forum," 785 F.2d at 795, and held that the resolution was unconstitutional on its face under the Federal Constitution. We granted certiorari, 479 U.S. 812 (1986), and now affirm, but on different grounds.
In these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity. For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion, it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. . . . The State may also enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.
Id. at 45. We have further held, however, that access to a nonpublic forum may be restricted by government regulation as long as the regulation "is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because officials oppose the speaker's view." Id. at 46.
The petitioners contend that LAX is neither a traditional public forum nor a public forum by government designation, and accordingly argue that the latter standard governing access to a nonpublic forum is appropriate. The respondents, in turn, argue that LAX is a public forum subject only to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. Moreover, at least one commentator contends that Perry does not control a case such as this, in which the respondents already have access to the airport, and therefore concludes that this case is analogous to Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969). See Laycock, Equal Access and Moments of Silence: The Equal Status of Religious Speech by Private Speakers, 81 Nw.U.L.Rev. 1, 48 (1986). Because we conclude that the resolution is facially unconstitutional under the the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, regardless of the proper standard, we need not decide whether LAX is indeed [p574] a public forum, or whether the Perry standard is applicable when access to a nonpublic forum is not restricted.
because it also threatens others not before the court -- those who desire to engage in legally protected expression but who may refrain from doing so rather than risk prosecution or undertake to have the law declared partially invalid.
there must be a realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court for it to be facially challenged on overbreadth grounds.
City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 801 (1984).
any individual and/or entity [who] seeks to engage in First Amendment activities within the Central Terminal Area . . . shall be deemed to be acting in contravention of the stated policy of the Board of Airport Commissioners.
App. 4a-5a. The resolution therefore does not merely reach the [p575] activity of respondents at LAX; it prohibits even talking and reading, or the wearing of campaign buttons or symbolic clothing. Under such a sweeping ban, virtually every individual who enters LAX may be found to violate the resolution by engaging in some "First Amendment activit[y]." We think it obvious that such a ban cannot be justified even if LAX were a nonpublic forum, because no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech.
[i]t is fictional to believe that anything less than extensive adjudications, under the impact of a variety of factual situations, would bring the oath within the bounds of permissible constitutional certainty.
Id. at 378. Here too, it is [p576] difficult to imagine that the resolution could be limited by anything less than a series of adjudications, and the chilling effect of the resolution on protected speech in the meantime would make such a case-by-case adjudication intolerable.
I join the Court's opinion, but suggest that it should not be taken as indicating that a majority of the Court considers the Los Angeles International Airport to be a traditional public forum. That issue was one of the questions on which we granted certiorari, and we should not have postponed it for another day.

matches:
v.
§ 2
v.
v.
v.
v.


text:
The Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) visited immigration detention facilities in Darwin from 6 to 10 September 2010. The visit was conducted by Commission President and Human Rights Commissioner, Catherine Branson QC, as well as Commission staff and consultants including a consultant psychiatrist.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance provided by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) in facilitating the visit, and the positive cooperation received from DIAC officers and detention service provider staff during the visit.
This statement contains a brief overview of the key observations and concerns arising from the Commission’s visit. It focuses on conditions as they were at the time of the visit. In addition to the issues outlined in this statement, the Commission raised a number of issues with DIAC during the visit and in subsequent communications. This statement was provided to DIAC in advance of its publication in order to provide DIAC with an opportunity to prepare a response. DIAC’s response is available on the Commission’s website.
For more than a decade, the Commission has raised significant concerns about Australia’s immigration detention system. During this time, the Commission has investigated numerous complaints from people in detention and conducted two national inquiries into the mandatory detention system. The Commission has concluded that this system breaches fundamental human rights.
Because of its ongoing concerns, the Commission undertakes monitoring activities which include conducting visits to immigration detention facilities. The overarching aim is to ensure that conditions of detention meet internationally accepted human rights standards. Further information about the Commission’s immigration detention visits and visit reports can be found on the Commission’s website.
At the time of the Commission’s visit there were 783 people in immigration detention in Darwin – 468 men, 67 women and 248 accompanied children and unaccompanied minors. The majority were asylum seekers who had arrived by boat (referred to by DIAC as ‘irregular maritime arrivals’). There were also a significant number of Indonesian crew members and a small number of alleged illegal foreign fishers. The largest group of people were from Afghanistan, followed by smaller groups from Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Sri Lanka and Burma. There were also around a hundred stateless people.
During the visit, people were held in immigration detention in five facilities in Darwin, as outlined below. The facilities were operated by Serco Australia, the detention service provider contracted by the Australian Government. Photos of the facilities are available on the Commission’s website.
The Northern Immigration Detention Centre (NIDC) is a high-security detention centre located on the grounds of the Defence Establishment Berrimah, just outside of Darwin. The NIDC is used to detain adult men. At the time of the Commission’s visit there were 397 men detained at the NIDC, including 151 Indonesian crew.
The capacity of the NIDC is approximately 500 people. The centre is split into two main areas – the North area and the South area, each of which contains three separate compounds. Accommodation is provided in demountable buildings.
Berrimah House is a low-security immigration detention facility located on the grounds of the Defence Establishment Berrimah. It is next to the NIDC, but outside the NIDC fence. Berrimah House was constructed in 2008-2009 for the purpose of accommodating unaccompanied minors in immigration detention.
At the time of the Commission’s visit there were 15 unaccompanied minors detained at Berrimah House, all of them Indonesian crew. They were all boys and they ranged in age from 11 to 17 years.
The capacity of Berrimah House is 16 people, accommodated in four shared bedrooms. The facility also contains a Serco office, a communal bathroom, a laundry room, a lounge room and a combined kitchen, dining and activities room.
The Airport Lodge is a low-security immigration detention facility located next to Darwin Airport. It is a new facility, constructed by a private owner as a lodge for workers and now leased by DIAC. The Airport Lodge is used to detain unaccompanied minors and families with children.
At the time of the Commission’s visit there were 194 people detained there, including 143 children. There were 35 accompanied children ranging in age from 8 months to 17 years and 108 unaccompanied minors ranging in age from 13 to 17 years.
At the time of the visit, the capacity of the Airport Lodge was approximately 200 people. That has recently been increased to approximately 400 people with the construction of additional accommodation.
The Asti Motel is a privately owned property leased by DIAC and operated as a low-security immigration detention facility. It is located near the Darwin city centre. The Asti is used to detain unaccompanied minors and families with children.
At the time of the Commission’s visit, there were 174 people detained there, including 87 children. There were 45 accompanied children ranging in age from six weeks to 17 years and 42 unaccompanied minors ranging in age from 14 to 17 years.
The capacity of the Asti depends on the make-up of the groups being detained there. It was being used to its full capacity during the Commission’s visit.
The Botanic Gardens Apartments are a privately owned property located near the Darwin city centre. Occasionally DIAC rents an apartment for use as an alternative place of detention. At the time of the Commission’s visit there were three unaccompanied teenagers in immigration detention in one apartment. They were all Indonesian – two were crew members and one was an alleged illegal foreign fisher.
The apartments contain bedrooms as well as kitchen and dining areas, laundry facilities and lounge areas. There are no onsite recreation facilities. DIAC informed the Commission that unaccompanied minors detained at the Botanic Gardens Apartments are taken to Berrimah House on a daily basis to participate in recreational activities there.
As has been the case with past visits to immigration detention facilities, the Commission’s overarching concern during the Darwin visit was the impact of the mandatory detention system on the human rights, wellbeing and mental health of those detained. The Commission is particularly concerned about the mandatory detention of children, as discussed in section 7 below.
Australia continues to have one of the strictest immigration detention regimes in the world – it is mandatory, it is not time limited, and people are not able to challenge the need for their detention in a court. The Commission has for many years called for an end to this system because it leads to breaches of Australia’s international human rights obligations – in particular, the obligation not to subject anyone to arbitrary detention and the obligation to ensure that anyone deprived of their liberty is able to challenge their detention.
The Commission acknowledges that use of immigration detention may be legitimate for a strictly limited period of time in order to undertake initial health, identity and security checks. However, the need to detain a person should be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration their individual circumstances. A person should only be held in immigration detention if they are assessed as posing a risk that cannot be appropriately met in a less restrictive way.
The Commission is concerned that many people are being held in immigration detention for prolonged periods of time. This is the case across Australia, including in Darwin. At the time of the Commission’s visit, almost 80 percent of the 783 people in immigration detention in Darwin had been detained for longer than three months, and more than 30 percent had been detained for longer than six months. Twenty people had been detained for longer than nine months. For most people, their time in detention included an initial period on Christmas Island followed by a further period in Darwin. Some also spent time in detention facilities in other locations before being transferred to Darwin.
The suspension of processing of claims lodged by asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan who arrived on or after 9 April 2010 contributed to the prolonged detention of hundreds of people. At the time of the Commission’s visit, there were 148 people detained in Darwin who had been affected by the suspension, including 132 unaccompanied minors. The Commission has welcomed the lifting of both suspensions and encouraged DIAC to move quickly to process the backlog of asylum claims.
Delays in obtaining security clearances appeared to be prolonging the detention of a significant number of people in Darwin. Delay with a security clearance resulting in the prolonged detention of any person is of significant concern, but it is of particular concern in the case of people in respect of whom Australia has been assessed as owing protection obligations. The Commission met with a number of people who remained in detention awaiting a security clearance months after receiving a provisional positive refugee status assessment. This included families with children and people with significant mental health concerns.
Delays in processing the cases of Indonesian crew members suspected of possible involvement in people-smuggling appeared to be prolonging their time in immigration detention. During the visit there were more than 160 Indonesian crew members in immigration detention in Darwin, including 17 unaccompanied minors. Many had been detained for months without charge. Frustration about their prolonged detention led to unrest at the NIDC in August 2010. Since the visit DIAC has informed the Commission that work is being undertaken with the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions to expedite processes, and that 28 crew members have been moved from immigration detention in Darwin to other state jurisdictions where they will be charged.
During its visit, the Commission was concerned to hear reports that a significant number of people in detention in Darwin had not been informed of their negative refugee status assessment decisions until a number of weeks – or in some cases up to two months – after the decisions were made. This could have the effect of prolonging people’s detention. DIAC stated that there had only been delays in a handful of cases, and that in these cases action had been taken to try to mitigate the delay by requesting that the cases be moved up the waiting list for independent merits review.
The Commission was also concerned to hear reports that the three and six monthly detention review processes introduced under the 2008 New Directions reforms were not being conducted in those timeframes for some people in detention in Darwin. The Commission has raised concerns about this issue in past reports, and has encouraged the Australian Government to take steps to increase transparency surrounding these review processes.
The Commission has serious concerns about the potential impacts of prolonged and indefinite detention on the mental health of those detained. As discussed in section 8 below, these impacts were evident during the Commission’s Darwin visit.
During its visit, the Commission had particular concerns about some aspects of the detention infrastructure and physical conditions at the NIDC, the Airport Lodge and the Asti Motel. These concerns are summarised below.
Previously, the NIDC was used for the immigration detention of alleged illegal foreign fishers, many of whom were detained for short periods. During 2010 this has changed and the centre is now used to detain asylum seekers and Indonesian crew, many of whom spend much longer periods in detention. At the time of the Commission’s visit, the centre was not adequately equipped for this purpose.
In its 2008 immigration detention report, the Commission raised concerns about the harsh physical appearance of the NIDC. These concerns remain. There is a significant amount of high wire fencing both around and within the centre, which creates a punitive feeling. The North and South areas are separated by an electrified fence. People in detention do not have freedom of movement between compounds, which creates unequal access to recreation facilities located in certain compounds.
There are few trees and there is little grass inside the NIDC. Some compounds have sheltered cabana areas, but overall the combination of the heat, dirt and lack of shade means there are few comfortable outdoor areas. Most compounds do not have an open grassy area for sport or recreation, and some compounds do not have adequate indoor recreation space. The Commission has been informed that minor works are planned to construct further recreational areas in some compounds, and that there are ongoing works aimed at increasing grassy areas. The Commission welcomes these efforts and urges the completion of this work as soon as possible.
In general, the Commission welcomes the standard of accommodation at the Airport Lodge, which is higher than some detention facilities used for unaccompanied minors and families with children (such as the Asti Motel in Darwin and the Construction Camp on Christmas Island).
However, during its visit the Commission had significant concerns about the lack of recreation space in the facility, particularly given the high number of children detained there. There were no indoor recreation rooms and there was only one freely accessible outdoor recreation area which contained a table tennis table and a pool table. While there was a small oval area at the rear of the facility, it had very little shade and was not freely accessible. The Commission welcomes plans to install some shade cloth over part of the oval area.
Many parents raised concerns about the lack of safe and appropriate play areas for their young children. While there was a recently-installed playground area, it appeared to be unusable during the heat of the day because of a lack of shade. Because of the heat in Darwin and the lack of indoor recreation areas, many families reported spending the majority of their time inside their bedrooms.
In the Commission’s view, the Asti Motel is not an appropriate place to use as an immigration detention facility, particularly for families with children and unaccompanied minors. It is the most restrictive of the detention facilities in Darwin in terms of the amount of open space.
During its visit the Commission had significant concerns about the high number of people detained at the Asti – including more than 80 young children and unaccompanied teenagers – in a very cramped environment with little room to move. The Commission was particularly concerned about the lack of indoor and outdoor recreation space. The outdoor areas were all paved or concrete and had limited shade. There were no open grassy areas. There were several rooms dedicated for recreation, but they were small and not always accessible. Many parents raised concerns about the lack of safe and appropriate play areas for their toddlers or young children.
The Commission has significant concerns about the high number of children in immigration detention facilities around Australia. During the Commission’s visit, there were 248 children in immigration detention in Darwin – 34 girls and 214 boys. This included 81 accompanied children ranging in age from six weeks to 17 years, and 167 unaccompanied minors ranging in age from 11 to 17 years.
Child asylum seekers continue to be subjected to mandatory immigration detention. This breaches Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which require that a child should only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.
Many children are spending longer periods in immigration detention. At the time of the Commission’s visit, more than 70 percent of the 248 children in detention in Darwin had been detained for longer than three months. Nineteen children had been detained for longer than six months. The Commission has serious concerns about the impacts of prolonged detention on children.
The Commission was concerned about the prolonged detention of unaccompanied minor Indonesian crew members in Darwin. There were 17 of these boys in detention at the time of the visit. They were aged between 11 and 17 years, and had been detained for periods ranging between three and eight months.
There was no Memorandum of Understanding between DIAC and Family and Children’s Services in the Northern Territory Department of Health and Families regarding child welfare and protection concerns that may arise in relation to children in immigration detention in Darwin.
There did not appear to be appropriate procedures in place to ensure that all staff were aware of, and complied with, requirements for making child welfare and protection notifications in relation to concerns arising in respect of children in detention in Darwin. There appeared to have been at least one incident in a detention facility in Darwin following which the appropriate notification was not made to Family and Children’s Services in the Northern Territory Department of Health and Families in a timely manner. This was not in line with DIAC and Serco policies, both of which require that notifications be made ‘immediately’.
Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers in immigration detention fall under the legal guardianship of the Minister for Immigration. During the Commission’s visit, there appeared to be no legal guardian for those unaccompanied minors in immigration detention in Darwin who were not seeking to remain in Australia (Indonesian crew members and alleged illegal foreign fishers). The Commission continues to be of the view that independent legal guardians should be appointed for all unaccompanied minors in immigration detention.
Some DIAC and detention service provider staff were not aware of which DIAC officer had been delegated the Minister’s powers of legal guardianship of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers in detention in Darwin, and in which situations that legal guardian should be consulted.
It appeared that Independent Observers (provided by the organisation Life Without Barriers) were not always present in interviews involving unaccompanied minors detained in Darwin. DIAC has since informed the Commission that posters have been displayed to remind staff of when they are required to request the presence of an Independent Observer.
As outlined above, the Commission was particularly concerned about the inappropriate nature of the Asti Motel as a place for holding children in immigration detention.
Some parents at the Asti Motel and the Airport Lodge raised concerns about the safety of their young children in the context of sharing a closed environment with high numbers of unaccompanied teenagers, the vast majority of whom are male.
The Commission is pleased that children are not detained in the high-security environment of the NIDC. However, the Commission is concerned that hundreds of children are detained in other facilities in Darwin rather than being placed in community-based alternatives to detention.
The Commission has raised concerns about the under-utilisation of the Community Detention system both in Darwin and nationally. The Commission therefore welcomed the announcement on 18 October 2010 that the Minister for Immigration will begin to use his existing Residence Determination powers to move some families and unaccompanied minors into Community Detention. The Commission has encouraged the Australian Government to expand these efforts to include all children in immigration detention and to implement them as quickly as possible.
Under international human rights standards, all people have a right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Each person in detention is entitled to medical care and treatment provided in a culturally appropriate manner and to a standard which is commensurate with that provided in the general community. This should include preventive and remedial medical care and treatment including dental, ophthalmological and mental health care.
At the time of its visit, the Commission had significant concerns about the provision of health and mental health services for people in immigration detention in Darwin. These concerns were informed by a consultant psychiatrist who was part of the Commission team conducting the visit.
The concerns about health and mental health care raised by this visit are similar to concerns raised by previous immigration detention visits. The Commission is of the view that there is a need for rigorous ongoing monitoring of the delivery of health and mental health services in immigration detention facilities, and has recommended that an independent body be charged with this monitoring function.
Both the health and mental health services appeared to be understaffed given the high number of people in detention in Darwin and the complex nature of the caseload. Since the visit, the Commission has been informed that DIAC has submitted a request for additional health and mental health staff in Darwin.
The model of care had resulted in inadequate clinical governance, particularly in the case of mental health. The health service was led by a nurse who held duty of care responsibilities, but who had limited clinical oversight. This was mitigated in part by regular contact with a general practitioner for physical health, who was potentially able to take clinical responsibility. However, there was no parallel clinical governance framework for mental health. The mental health service was led by a mental health nurse and there was no psychiatrist on staff. This resulted in mental health staff carrying significant clinical and duty of care responsibilities. This should be addressed by ensuring regular oversight by a psychiatrist able to provide clinical guidance and supervision of the clinical decision making of staff.
Complaints about long waiting periods to see a doctor, particularly at the NIDC and the Airport Lodge.
Numerous complaints about long waiting periods for dental, optometry and other specialist appointments.
Numerous complaints from people who felt they had not been provided with prompt or appropriate treatment for a range of medical issues including kidney stones, shrapnel wounds and follow-up care after miscarriage.
Complaints about delays in receiving test results or a lack of prompt responses from the health service provider about progress with requests for treatment.
IHMS staff reported that doctor’s appointments were arranged within 72 hours of a request being made. However, they acknowledged that the doctor’s hours at the NIDC were insufficient for the number of people detained in the centre. They also reported that they had requested the provision of further dental and optical services. Since the visit, DIAC has informed the Commission that it has submitted a request for an increase in doctor’s hours and dental hours.
The Commission has serious concerns about the potential impacts of prolonged and indefinite detention on the mental health of those detained. Those impacts were evident during the Commission’s Darwin visit. The Commission spoke with many people in detention who expressed concerns about the psychological impacts of being detained for a lengthy and uncertain period of time.
The Commission met with people in detention who did not appear to be receiving mental health treatment despite having significant vulnerabilities.
It appeared that many staff had not received training on DIAC’s torture and trauma policy or the Psychological Support Program (PSP), or sufficient refresher training such that they were able to confidently implement these policies. Since the visit, DIAC has informed the Commission that PSP training has been conducted in Darwin.
There appeared to be an extremely low referral rate for specialised torture and trauma services in Darwin, given the number of asylum seekers in detention likely to have experienced significant torture or trauma.
DIAC reported that there had been 21 self-harm incidents among people in immigration detention in Darwin during 2010. The Commission heard reports of hunger strikes, a hanging attempt and other physical acts of self-harm.
During its visit the Commission met with a number of people in detention in Darwin, including minors, who had experienced significant trauma in their home country or who had attempted self-harm while in detention. There appeared to be numerous cases where people met the priority criteria for consideration of a Community Detention placement based on mental health concerns or a background of torture or trauma, but they had not been placed in Community Detention.
The Commission has encouraged the Australian Government to make full use of the Community Detention system. As noted above, the Commission welcomed the announcement that some families and unaccompanied minors will be placed in Community Detention. Under the Residence Determination Guidelines, people with significant physical or mental health concerns, people who may have experienced torture or trauma and people whose cases will take a considerable period to substantively resolve should also be given priority consideration for Community Detention.
Under international human rights standards, people in immigration detention should have access to materials and facilities for exercise, recreation, cultural expression and intellectual and educational pursuits to utilise their time in detention in a constructive manner, and for the benefit of their physical and mental health.
Meaningful recreational and educational activities and opportunities to leave the detention environment are vital to people’s capacity to cope in detention, particularly when they are detained for long and indefinite periods of time. At the time of the Commission’s visit, many people in detention in Darwin raised significant concerns about these issues.
Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all children have a right to education.
The Commission has serious concerns about the protracted period during which children in immigration detention in Darwin were unable to attend external schools. At the time of the Commission’s visit, there were 248 children detained in Darwin and none of them was attending an external school or kindergarten. While the majority had been in detention in Darwin for less than three months, 50 children had been there for longer than three months.
During the Commission’s visit, many parents at the Airport Lodge and the Asti Motel expressed significant concerns about their children not being able to attend school – both for the educational opportunities and for the chance to play and socialise in a ‘normal’ environment outside the detention facility.
Parents also expressed concerns about the educational opportunities provided inside detention for children at the Airport Lodge and the Asti Motel. These opportunities were seriously inadequate at the time of the Commission’s visit. Children were only provided with a one hour English class each day. At the Asti Motel the lack of indoor recreation space meant the classes were held outdoors in the heat.
The Commission welcomes the fact that children aged 5 to 15 years in detention at the Airport Lodge and the Asti Motel were able to start attending external schools in October 2010. However, the Commission remains concerned that there are still not adequate educational opportunities provided for 16 and 17 year olds, who are not allowed to attend external schools. These minors should be provided with access to high quality educational alternatives outside the detention environment as soon as possible.
At the time of its visit, the Commission was concerned about the limited opportunities for people in immigration detention in Darwin to engage in meaningful recreational activities. This was particularly concerning given the long periods of time some people are being detained for, and the indefinite nature of their detention.
During the visit, people detained at the NIDC, the Asti Motel and the Airport Lodge expressed frustrations about the lack of regular organised activities. In particular, many parents expressed concerns about the need for more activities for toddlers and young children. Some recreational activities were offered by a combination of volunteers, Serco staff and Life Without Barriers employees. These activities were greatly appreciated by people in detention, but they did not appear to be adequate to meet the needs of the high number of people detained. The limited availability of regular purposeful activities appeared to have resulted in high levels of boredom, frustration and tension.
As noted above, external and internal recreation spaces at the NIDC, the Asti Motel and the Airport Lodge were inadequate. In particular, none of the facilities had an appropriate library area, nor were multilingual reading materials available (other than occasional foreign language newspapers at the NIDC). The majority of detainees did not have access to a gym area for exercising. Many parents raised concerns about the lack of play areas for young children.
At the Airport Lodge, space constraints and the lack of recreational facilities and toys appeared to be generating tensions between children as well as associated friction between parents. The Commission witnessed one altercation during its visit and heard about two others that had occurred the previous night.
Since the visit, DIAC has informed the Commission that greater efforts are being made to provide a range of recreational activities to people in detention in Darwin including some activities for pre-school aged children; that some reading materials have been distributed; and that efforts are being made to engage further volunteers in activities at the NIDC.
At the time of its visit, the Commission had serious concerns about the lack of opportunities for people in immigration detention in Darwin to leave the detention environment on external excursions.
Regular excursions were not being conducted for any of the people detained in Darwin, with the exception of the unaccompanied minors detained at Berrimah House. There were no excursions at all for irregular maritime arrivals detained at the NIDC, for anyone detained at the Airport Lodge or for unaccompanied minors detained at the Asti Motel. Family groups at the Asti were being taken on infrequent excursions to a local park. Each family was able to participate once every few weeks.
The Commission was particularly concerned about the lack of excursions for people detained at the Airport Lodge and the Asti Motel, who had limited room to move and limited access to recreational facilities inside detention. Many of them had been detained there for months without an opportunity to leave the detention environment. This had clearly caused distress and increased tension within the facilities.
Since the visit, DIAC has informed the Commission that there has been an increase in the number of excursions being conducted for people in detention in Darwin, and that excursions are now being conducted from each of the detention facilities.
A number of people detained at the NIDC raised concerns about being referred to by their identification number rather than their name. The Commission witnessed this during the visit. Some people were distressed by the practice. For example, one man said: “They want us to respect them, but they don’t respect us.” Another man said: “We think we are not human beings anymore.” The Commission is concerned about this practice because it is dehumanising and fails to accord respect to people in detention. People should always be referred to by their name. Their identification number should only be used as a secondary identifier where this is necessary for clarification purposes.
Many people detained at the NIDC and the Airport Lodge raised concerns about the limited number of telephones and internet terminals – both critical means of communication with the outside world for people in detention. For example, in the North 1 compound at the NIDC there were only two telephones for use by 211 detainees. Irregular maritime arrivals were not permitted to have mobile telephones, which added to the pressure on the limited landline telephones. The Commission was informed that additional telephones and internet terminals would be installed at the NIDC.
There were no organised religious services for people in detention in Darwin, and very few people were being provided with any opportunity to attend a place of worship outside the detention environment. There was no designated prayer room at the Asti Motel or the Airport Lodge. Since the visit, DIAC has informed the Commission that the local Imam has begun conducting visits to the detention facilities, and that some external visits have been conducted to a local Church, a mosque and a Hindu temple.
Recommendation 2: The Migration Act should be amended to accord with international law by requiring that a decision to detain a person, or a decision to continue a person’s detention, is subject to prompt review by a court.
Ensuring that security clearances are conducted as quickly as possible.
which DIAC officer or officers have been delegated the Minister’s powers of legal guardianship of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers in immigration detention in Darwin, and in which situations the guardian should be consulted.
Australia’s laws should be amended so that the Minister for Immigration is no longer the legal guardian of unaccompanied children in immigration detention.
An independent guardian should be appointed for unaccompanied children in immigration detention and they should receive appropriate support.
Recommendation 7: DIAC should ensure that people in immigration detention in Darwin are provided with timely access to appropriate health and mental health services. In particular, DIAC should enhance clinical governance of the mental health service by ensuring that a psychiatrist is available to provide clinical guidance and supervision of the clinical decision making of mental health staff.
regular religious services conducted by qualified religious representatives.
Recommendation 9: The Australian Government should ensure that all school-aged children in immigration detention in Darwin and elsewhere are provided with access to educational opportunities of a standard and quality equivalent to that in Australian schools. Wherever possible, this should take place outside the detention environment by facilitating access to the Australian school system.
Recommendation 10: The Australian Government should stop using the Asti Motel in Darwin as an ‘alternative place of detention’ as soon as possible.
 The Commission’s reports of complaints about alleged human rights breaches in immigration detention are available at http://humanrights.gov.au/legal/humanrightsreports/index.html. The Commission’s national inquiry reports are A last resort? National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (2004) (A last resort), at http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention_report/index.html, and Those who’ve come across the seas: Detention of unauthorised arrivals (1998) (Those who’ve come across the seas), at http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/seas.html (viewed 9 November 2010).
 See, for example A last resort, note 2; Those who’ve come across the seas, note 2.
 Further information about the Commission’s activities relating to immigration detention is available at http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/detention_rights.html#9.
 Figures provided by DIAC, current as of 6 September 2010.
 DIAC provided the Commission with figures current as of 6 September 2010. These figures list the nationality of the 783 people in immigration detention in Darwin as follows: 333 from Afghanistan, 169 from Indonesia, 94 stateless, 57 from Iran, 54 from Iraq, 49 from Sri Lanka, 20 from Burma, 5 from Kuwait, 1 from Bangladesh, 1 from Yemen.
 Figures based on statistics provided by DIAC, current as of 6 September 2010.
 Information provided by DIAC, 6 September 2010.
 See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) (ICCPR), art 9, at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm (viewed 9 November 2010); Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) (CRC), art 37, at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm (viewed 9 November 2010).
 See further UNHCR, Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers (1999), guidelines 2, 3. At http://www.unhcr.org/3bd036a74.html (viewed 9 November 2010).
 These figures are based on statistics provided by DIAC, current as of 6 September 2010. They refer to the overall time spent in immigration detention – including on Christmas Island, in Darwin and in any other immigration detention facilities in Australia.
 For further discussion of the suspension, see Australian Human Rights Commission, 2010 Immigration detention on Christmas Island (2010) (2010 Christmas Island report), section 8. At http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2010_christmas_island.html (viewed 9 November 2010).
 These figures are based on statistics provided by DIAC, current as of 6 September 2010. The total of 148 people included 143 people from Afghanistan (including 130 unaccompanied minors) and five people from Sri Lanka (including two unaccompanied minors).
 Figures current as of 6 September 2010.
 See 2010 Christmas Island report, note 17, section 10; Australian Human Rights Commission, 2009 Immigration detention and offshore processing on Christmas Island (2009), section 9.2, at http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.html (viewed 9 November 2010).
 See Australian Human Rights Commission, 2008 Immigration detention report: Summary of observations following visits to Australia’s immigration detention facilities (2008), section 11.4. At http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2008.html (viewed 9 November 2010).
 These figures are based on statistics provided by DIAC, current as of 6 September 2010. The age breakdown of the 248 children was as follows: 32 aged 0-5 years; 28 aged 6-10 years; 60 aged 11-15 years; 128 aged 16-17 years.
 See CRC, note 14, art 37(b). For further discussion see A last resort, note 2.
 These figures are based on statistics provided by DIAC, current as of 6 September 2010. They refer to children’s overall time in immigration detention – including on Christmas Island, in Darwin and in any other immigration detention facilities in Australia.
 In A Last resort?, the 2004 report of the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention, the Commission found that children in immigration detention for long periods were at high risk of serious mental harm. See A last resort, note 2, executive summary, major finding 2.
 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Detention Services Manual, Chapter 2, Minors in Detention, section 18.3; Serco, APOD Working With Minors PPM, section 13.3 (Reporting of Abuse / Neglect).
 See further 2010 Christmas Island report, note 17, section 16.2.
 See further 2010 Christmas Island report, note 17, sections 11, 13.2.
 See International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) (ICESCR), art 12, at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm (viewed 9 November 2010); CRC, note 14, art 24.
 See Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Immigration Detention Guidelines (2000), section 13. At http://humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc_guidelines2000.html (viewed 9 November 2010).
 See further 2010 Christmas Island report, note 17, section 19.
 According to information provided by DIAC, there were 21 self-harm incidents in immigration detention facilities in Darwin during the period 1 January to 19 October 2010.
 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minister’s Residence Determination Power Under S. 197AB and S. 197AD of the Migration Act 1958: Guidelines (2009), para 4.1.4.
 See Immigration Detention Guidelines, note 31, section 7.2.
 CRC, note 14, art 28.
 DIAC informed the Commission that as of 18 October 2010, all children aged 5 to 15 years in detention at the Airport Lodge and the Asti Motel would be attending external schools.
 Information provided by DIAC showed that as of 13 October 2010 there were 75 minors aged 16 or 17 years in immigration detention at the Asti Motel or the Airport Lodge who were not attending external schools.
 Interview with group of Afghani and Iranian men, NIDC, 7 September 2010.
 Information current as of 6 September 2010.
 Under United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines, there should be a presumption against the detention of asylum seekers–it should be the exception rather than the norm. Detention should only be resorted to if there is evidence to suggest that other alternatives (for example, reporting requirements) will not be effective in the individual case. The permissible exceptions to the general rule that detention should normally be avoided must be prescribed by law. The detention of asylum seekers may only be resorted to if necessary to verify identity; to determine the elements on which the claim to refugee status or asylum is based; to deal with cases where refugees or asylum seekers have destroyed their travel and/or identity documents or have used fraudulent documents in order to mislead the authorities of the State in which they intend to claim asylum; or to protect national security or public order. In assessing whether detention is necessary, considerations should include whether it is reasonable and whether it is proportional to the objectives to be achieved. See UNHCR, Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum Seekers, note 15, guidelines 2, 3; UNHCR Executive Committee, Conclusion No. 44 (XXXVII) - Detention of Refugees and Asylum Seekers (1986), at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae68c43c0.html (viewed 9 November 2010).
 To comply with article 9(4) of the ICCPR, the court must have the power to order the person’s release if their detention is not lawful. The lawfulness of their detention is not limited to domestic legality – it includes whether the detention is compatible with the requirements of article 9(1) of the ICCPR. See, for example United Nations Human Rights Committee, A v Australia, Communication No. 560/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 (1997), para 9.5. At http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/ 0/30c417539ddd944380256713005e80d3?Opendocument (viewed 9 November 2010).
 A last resort, note 2, Section 17.3.

matches:
art 9
art 37
art 37
art 12
art 24
art 28


text:
Theodora Nicoline Meldal Cormontan was born June 9, 1840 in Beitstad in North Trøndelag, Norway, the daughter of pastor Even Meldal Schjelderup Cormontan (1798-1893). In 1847 the family moved to Arendal, and settled in the parsonage. [Her Confirmation Records from the Trinity Church in Arendal note that she was baptized on September 20, 1840 and confirmed on April 19, 1857.] In 1865 there were 15 people there, including the pastor, his son [Hans] Nicolai and three daughters, all unmarried, and all in their twenties. Theodora probably studied music with F.W. Thoschlag before she studied further in Copenhagen during the 1860s. As a singer she later appeared in several concerts. Presumably in 1879 Theodora became a music publisher, developing a significant music business and a fairly extensive music rental library in Arendal. Of the many ads from the music trade, we see that she was well up to date with inventory.
In February, 1886 the old rectory burned down, and the same year the bank collapsed in Arendal. The following year Theodora, her father, and one of the sisters immigrated to Illinois [Minnesota], USA. She supported herself as a music teacher and died in Decorah, Iowa in 1922.
Theodora came from Norway to the United States with her father Even and older sister Eivinda, almost certainly to live with her older brother Gottfred Christian Vogelsang Cormontan (known as Gottfred, Christian, C. G., or C. G. V. Cormontan). C. G. V. received his druggist/pharmacist degree from the Norwegian University on December 10, 1868, and moved to the U. S. in 1873. He became a naturalized citizen on June 8, 1880 in Clayton Co., Iowa, where he was a school teacher. By 1881 he had moved to Sacred Heart in Renville County, Minnesota where his youngest sister Marie had lived since 1880 with her husband, Edvard Lyders, also a druggist. Around this time C. G. V. returned to Norway, perhaps to visit his father and sisters Eivinda and Theodora. He returned to Sacred Heart in 1884. Theodora, her father Even, and her sister Eivinda joined C. G. V. in Sacred Heart in 1887. His older brother Hans Nicolai Patroclus Cormontan, a carpenter, also came to Sacred Heart in 1887, probably from Illinois. None of the four siblings were married. Their mother, Louise Augusta Hirsch, died in 1865.
The front page of the Granite Falls Tribune reported on October 18, 1887 that "Miss Theodora Cormontan, of Sacred Heart, will give a concert at Winter's Hall Friday evening, Oct. 21st, consisting of vocal and instrumental music. Miss Cormontan studied music for 7 years in Germany and other countries in Europe; has given concerts at Copenhagen, Denmark and Arendahl and other cities in Norway. She will sing English, Norwegian, Swedish, German and Italian, some of the pieces being of her own compositions. The concert promises to be a rich treat and let all remember the day and place." In a review of the concert on October 25, 1887, the front page of the same paper read "The concert at the hall on Friday last was well patronized and we hear many flattering words of praise for the singer who entertained for nearly two hours. Her superior gift is plainly instrumental music and her admirers are numerous. We hope to hear her again." Cormontan advertised as a teacher of vocal and instrumental music in the Granite Falls paper that November and December.
On November 4, 1887, the Renville Weekly News reported “The concert given by Miss Theodora Cormanton [sic] with the assistance of Mrs. Lyders and Miss Louisa [Marie’s daughter—also known as Louise] was a great musical treat and a decided success. Miss Cormanton is a capital musician, a fine singer, and is highly spoken of in musical circles and those who did not attend missed a rare treat.” Pastor Cormontan, Theodora, and Eivinda all moved to Franklin, MN in 1888, where C. G. V. owned and operated the Franklin Drug Store. C. G. V. served several years as a town councilman.
Newspaper clippings from the St. Paul Daily Globe in October, 1889 report that Eivinda and Theodora Cormontan were in St. Paul attending court. Theodora brought suit against the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company for damages from injuries received in Granite Falls, MN in 1887. She was probably traveling to or from nearby Sacred Heart. The train lurched forward as Theodora was boarding, causing her to fall and resulting in a spinal injury that left her partially paralyzed. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her $5,000 damages.
Theodora was in St. Paul again in March of 1891, according to the composition date written on one of her manuscripts. Also by 1891 C. G. V. was advertising his business in newspapers published in the towns of Franklin and Morton in Renville County, Minnesota. By 1892 [in Franklin] Theodora played organ for at least two area churches, conducted choirs, and taught music lessons. The Morton Enterprise reported in April of that year “The lady [Theodora] is certainly an excellent teacher in vocal as well as instrumental music.” Also by 1892 she was traveling to nearby Morton, where she taught approximately fifty students. Around this time she saw several of her Norwegian language hymns published in a Norwegian magazine entitled Ugdommens Ven (The Youth's Friend) and subsequently in a Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran hymnal called the Frydetoner (Joyful Songs). Her father Even Cormontan died in Franklin in 1893. C. G V. and Hans were among a group of founders of the Concordia Evangelical Lutheran church in Franklin. Seven of Theodora’s manuscripts carry dates that indicate that they were composed or edited while she lived in Franklin. It is likely that a number of the undated works were also written there.
(above) The pump organ located in the Fort Ridgely and Dale Church between Franklin and Fairfax, Minnesota (photo taken in 2011). This is the organ procured by the Cormontan family in 1892.
In February of 1899 C. G. V. Cormontan purchased the Madelia Drug Company on Main Street in the town of Madelia in Watonwan County, Minnesota. By March Theodora described herself as a composer and music teacher in ads in the Madelia Messenger. In October of that year she advertised that she was selling several of her own compositions at the drug store. In her advertisements for her teaching, Theodora described herself as "Pupils of Europe's Greatest Musicans" and said she "gave instruction on piano. organ, and vocal." She said she practiced "The newest and best methods . . . Vocal Culture, Mathilde Marchesi's Italian Singing Method." It appears she offered piano and voice lessons from her home on 405 Shepard Street in Madelia. She offered organ lessons at another residence on Shepard. She traveled to Linden and Hanska, Minnesota to offer music lessons to students of those towns.
By 1901 C. G. V. no longer owned and operated the Madelia Drug Company and was running a drug store in nearby Hanska. Theodora, Eivinda, and Hans moved to Hanska in June of 1902. Theodora continued performing, offering a prelude and a "closing instrumental" at a Christmas program for the Lutheran Ladies' Society at the Hanska school house in December of 1903. Early in 1904 C. G. V. traveled by himself to take a pharmacist position in the town of Kennedy in Kittson County, Minnesota, leaving Hans, Eivinda, and Theodora behind. In an ad from the Madelia Times Messenger in January of 1905 Theodora reported that she was offering lessons from her home at the L. A. Dodge residence in Madelia. She continued to perform, including playing Schubert's "Serenade" at the 1906 Madelia High School Commencement. Many of Theodora's manuscripts bear completion dates from 1899-1908, indicating that Theodora continued composing in Madelia and Hanska.
C. G. V. rejoined his siblings and they moved to St. James, Minnesota by 1908, where they became members of the Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Church, C. G. V. continued to be employed as a pharmacist, and Theodora continued to teach music and perform. The St. James Journal Gazette reported in its January 22, 1910 edition that she played the piano in a program for an anti-tuberculosis educational meeting. Quoting the paper, "Miss Theodora Cormonton [sic] will render a piano solo at the State Board exhibit both Monday and Tuesday afternoons. This number will be given just previous to Dr. Pratt's lecture. Miss Comronton is a pianist of rare ability. Her study under the greatest masters of Europe has made of her a player of ability, as well as a composer of piano music. All lovers of music and especially the ladies are urged to attend all of the meetings." She also performed at the 1910 Farmer's Institute, as noted in the February 5 edition of the Journal Gazette. while the men attended meetings, programs were provided for the women, featuring addresses on "Sanitation in the Home" and "Poultry Raising" as well as performances by a vocal duet team and the High School Girls' Chorus in addition to Cormontan. Though none of her manuscripts are dated later than 1908, the catalog numbers she assigned to many of her works indicate she continued to be an active composer until at least 1913.
Hans died on April 17, 1913, and C. G. V. died on June 13, 1917. Theodora and Eivinda entered the Aase Haugen Home about four miles southwest of Decorah, Iowa on August 7, 1917. According to handwritten notes from the Home they were the 65th and 66th people registered there. Theodora died at Aase Haugen on October 26, 1922. Eivinda passed away on November 8, 1924. They are buried in the Aase Haugen cemetery near the site of the former Home, now a private residence.
Otto Schmidt (1873-1946) was a Lutheran pastor in Decorah and “the guiding spirit” in the erection of the Aase Haugen Home. In 1915 he resigned as pastor of the Decorah Lutheran Church to manage the home, continuing in that position until 1944. His wife Mollie played the piano for the people there, including Theodora, and that is how Theodora knew her and knew she was a pianist. According to oral tradition passed on by the Schmidt family, Mollie played some of Theodora’s music and, before she died, Theodora gave Mollie the manuscripts. Mollie's daughter, Carola M. Schmidt (1903-1975), trained as a nurse and took care of Mollie until Mollie died in 1933, and later took care of Otto and also worked at the Home. Carola received Theodora’s music from her mother Mollie. When Carola died, Barb Schmidt Nelson received the music and stored it at her home in St. Peter until 2011, when she gave the manuscripts along with other music to Bonnie and Michael Jorgensen of St. Peter.
Michael is a Professor of Music (voice) at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, while Bonnie is a professional pianist. Michael began to research Theodora and discovered that she is still remembered in Norway. The Jorgensens decided to promote the life and music of Theodora Cormontan through various outlets, including a website, newsletters, and lecture/recitals.
The Cormontan music that Bonnie and Michael rediscovered includes six piano solos published in the United States and approximately 150 manuscript scores (the exact number depends on how several incomplete works are counted). The vast majority of the manuscripts are piano solo, but there are a few hymns, works for the organ, vocal solos, and vocal duets as well. Almost all the manuscripts are in ink and stand as completed works. Theodora may have sent these copies to potential publishers and/or used them as performance copies. There are a few works in pencil that seem to be draft copies. It appears that about 25% of the compositions were written in Europe and 75% in the United States. Most have no markings to indicate when they were composed, so determining where her music was written is an educated guess based on some dates an opus numbers as well as titles written in English compared to titles written in Norwegian. Music written o paper with the marking "Made in Germany" appear to have been late compositions.
Theodora dated a few of her works. Of the music we found, the earliest dated manuscript is 1876 and the latest 1908, though cataloging numbers she assigned to most of her manuscripts seem to indicate she was still composing at least until 1913. Kari Michaelsen writes that Theodora's first published works date from 1875 (in Norway). The last published work in the Jorgensen collection dates from 1905 (in the United States), so it appears that Theodora's activity as a composer spanned from approximately 1970 (when she was 30) to 1915. A small percentage of Theodora's manuscripts have opus numbers. Many of these numbers seem to indicate compositions that were published. It appears that opus numbers through the 40s were assigned to works by Theodora that were published in Europe, mostly by her own publishing company in Arendal, Norway. Opus numbers in the 50s were published in the United States (including Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and Chicago). However, there are several unpublished manuscripts with much higher opus numbers, going as high as Op. 140. Theodora also assigned what might be described as a catalog number to approximately 3/4 of her compositions in manuscript. These numbers range from the 200s to the 900s. Works assigned lower numbers were written earlier than works with higher numbers. There are enough manuscripts with catalog numbers that appear with (and correlate with) dated manuscripts to permit a general dating of all of Cormontan's manuscripts with catalog numbers.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
Biography: Novelist. See entry in Kemp.
Lil. 3 vol. London: Hurst and Blackett, 1872.
Wild Georgie. 3 vol. London: Hurst and Blackett, 1873.
Baiting the Trap: A Novel. 3 vol. London: Chapman and Hall, 1874.
Mr. Dorillion: A Novel. 3 vol. London: Chatto and Windus, 1876.
Touch and Go. 3 vol. London: Chatto and Windus, 1877.
Sealed by a Kiss. 3 vol. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1879.
Innocence at Play: A Novel. 3 vol. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1880.
Four in Hand. 3 vol. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1881.
Sackcloth and Broadcloth: A Novel. 3 vol. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1881.
Dandy: A Novel. 3 vol. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1881.
Patty's Partner. 3 vol. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1882.
By Fair Means. 3 vol. London: F. V. White, 1884.
Poisoned Arrows. 3 vol. London: F. V. White, 1884.
A Girl in a Thousand. 2 vol. London: Chapman and Hall, 1885.
The Loadstone of Love: A Novel. 1 vol. London: F. V. White, 1886.
Nelly Jocelyn, Widow. 3 vol. London: F. V. White, 1887.
Vaia's Lord: A Novel. 3 vol. London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1888.
Two False Moves: A Novel. 3 vol. London: F. V. White, 1890.
How I Became Eminent. 1 vol. London: Eden, 1892.
Claude and Maude. 1 vol. London: Henry, 1893.
The Mystery of Clement Dunraven. 3 vol. London: Digby, Long, 1894.
Hush Money. 1 vol. London: Digby, Long, 1895.
Blanche Coningham's Surrender. 1 vol. London: F. V. White, 1898.
The Yellow Badge. 1 vol. London: Digby, Long, 1899.
In Storm and Strife: A Novel. 1 vol. London: Digby, Long, 1899.
The Queen Wasp. 1 vol. London: Digby, Long, 1900.
His Lawful Wife. 1 vol. London: Digby, Long, 1901.
A Wheel of Fire. 1 vol. London: Digby, Long, 1901.
Fallen from Favour. 1 vol. London: Digby, Long, 1902.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V.


§ 882.507 Completion of rehabilitation.
§ 882.509 Overcrowded and under occupied units.
§ 882.510 Adjustment of utility allowance.
§ 882.511 Lease and termination of tenancy.
§ 882.512 Reduction of number of units covered by contract.
§ 882.513 Public notice to low-income families; waiting list.
§ 882.515 Reexamination of family income and composition.
§ 882.516 Maintenance, operation and inspections.
§ 882.517 HUD review of contract compliance.
§ 882.518 Denial of admission and termination of assistance for criminals and alcohol abusers.
47 FR 34383, Aug. 9, 1982, unless otherwise noted.