text:
DPIC is pleased to provide podcasts that discuss a wide variety of issues relating to the death penalty.
Our podcasts cover three different types of death penalty issues. The "On the Issues" podcast series explores different factual, legal, and ethical topics relating to capital punishment.
A second series of podcasts details the history of capital punishment in each state. This series is currently in production, and we will be releasing new episodes periodically.
DPIC has also initiated a new monthly podcast series, "Discussions With DPIC," in which we speak with death penalty experts about timely death penalty developments in the news.
To listen to any of the podcasts below, simply click the "Download / Listen" link under each title. To download the podcast, right click the "Download / Listen" link and select "Save As..."
Click here for instructions on how to add our podcast feed to iTunes or another RSS reader.
In the latest episode of Discussions with DPIC, Dr. Katherine Beckett (pictured, left) and Dr. Heather Evans (pictured, right), authors of “The Role of Race in Washington State Capital Sentencing: 1981-2014,” discuss their research and its impact on the Washington Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the state’s death penalty. Their study was heavily cited by the court in State v. Gregory, the October 2018 decision that found Washington’s death penalty violated the state constitution because it was “imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner.” The researchers described the factors they examined at various stages of capital sentencing, the major results of their study, and the role of social science research in policymaking.
Robin Konrad, former DPIC Director of Research and Special Projects, joins Executive Director Robert Dunham and current Director of Research and Special Projects Ngozi Ndulue to discuss DPIC's November 2018 report, Behind the Curtain: Secrecy and the Death Penalty in the United States. Konrad, the lead author of the report, gives an overview of the recent expansion of secrecy in the use of the death penalty. She explains the ubiquity of secrecy policies, saying "everybody has some type of secrecy provision" related to the sources of execution drugs or the way executions are carried out. The episode also includes a discussion of the consequences of secrecy, including the ways that it undermines democratic principles of open government and hides problematic state practices. "When we're looking at the government...for the people, by the people, that the people should know what is going on and states shouldn't be hiding information about the most serious punishment that they carry out against their citizens," Konrad says. "I don't see how in any principled system of justice, you can sustain a system that basically is grounded in secrecy, grounded in hiding what's going on from the public. You have to be open, you have to be honest, you have to be transparent, you have to be trustworthy," adds Dunham.
Members of the DPIC staff discuss key themes from the 2018 Year End Report in the latest episode of Discussions with DPIC. Robert Dunham, Ngozi Ndulue, and Anne Holsinger delve into the major death-penalty trends and news items of the year, including the “extended trend” of generational lows in death sentencing and executions, election results that indicate the decline will likely continue, and the possible impact of Pope Francis’s change to Catholic teaching on capital punishment. They explore the reasons for reduced death-penalty usage, highlighting the stories of people who were exonerated in 2018, the theme of executing people with characteristics that make them vulnerable to unfair legal proceedings, and the ongoing controversy surrounding execution methods.
H.E. Miller, Jr. and Bradley MacLean, authors of a recent study on the application of Tennessee's death penalty, join DPIC's Anne Holsinger to discuss the findings from their article, Tennessee's Death Penalty Lottery. Miller and MacLean examined whether death sentences and executions in Tennessee are influenced by arbitrary factors like geography, race, and quality of representation. The application of Tennessee's death penalty, they find, is still as unconstitutionally arbitrary as any of the systems that were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia in 1972.
Harvard Law Professor Carol Steiker, co-author of the highly acclaimed book, Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment, joins DPIC’s Robin Konrad for a provocative discussion of the past and future of America’s death penalty. Professor Steiker, who served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, takes us inside the walls of the court for insights on the justices’ approaches to capital-punishment jurisprudence and the impact of Justice Marshall’s legacy on the Court today. She explains the relationship between lynching and the rise of the modern death penalty in the United States, discusses the plunge in death-penalty usage since the 1990s, and offers thoughts on the future prospects for capital punishment in America.
New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Nicholas Kristof used the power of his pen to focus national attention on the troubling case of California death-row prisoner, Kevin Cooper and to urge Governor Jerry Brown to authorize DNA testing that could resolve outstanding issues of Cooper’s guilt or innocence. Kristof’s May 20 column in the Sunday Times asked: Was Kevin Cooper Framed for Murder? Mr. Kristof joins DPIC Executive Director Robert Dunham to answer that question and to discuss how the Cooper case is the embodiment of some of the most intractable systemic failures in the American death-penalty system.
Running time: 00:30:00 (May 29, 2018) To read Mr. Kristof’s column on Kevin Cooper, click here.
Alfred Dewayne Brown (pictured left) was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in 2005 in Harris County, Texas, for the murder of a police officer. Brian Stolarz (pictured right), attorney and author of the recent novel Grace and Justice on Death Row, represented Brown in his post-conviction appeals and, in 2015, won his freedom. In this podcast, Mr. Stolarz speaks with DPIC’s Robin Konrad about the legal issues in Brown’s case, discussing the culture of conviction and the prosecutorial misconduct that led to Brown’s wrongful conviction. Stolarz offers suggestions that he believes can help protect the innocent from wrongful convictions and death sentences.
Stephen B. Bright, the former President of the Southern Center for Human Rights, discusses the ongoing problem of racial discrimination in jury selection in death-penalty cases—an issue he has argued three times in the U.S. Supreme Court. He speaks with DPIC’s Anne Holsinger about the most recent of those cases, Foster v. Chatman, in which the Court granted Mr. Foster a new trial as a result of intentional discrimination by Georgia prosecutors. He explains how the prosecutors' notes, a piece of evidence that is rarely available, were critical in proving that prosecutors had targeted African-American jurors because of their race, and describes newly obtained jury selection notes that show prosecutors—including the prosecutor from Mr. Foster's case—systematically struck African-American jurors in at least seven capital cases in Columbus, Georgia. Mr. Bright explains why current law provides an insufficient remedy for this problem and offers suggestions to prevent the pervasive exclusion of people of color from death-penalty juries.
Lawyer Thomas Carver joins Robin Konrad, DPIC’s Director of Research and Special Projects, to discuss the case of his client, Ulysses Jones, a terminally ill federal prisoner who was charged with capital murder in Springfield, Missouri. Carver, who has been practicing law in Missouri for over forty years, explains what happened in his client’s case, how he and his team avoided a death sentence for their client, and what this case says about broader death-penalty issues in Missouri and the federal court system.
The Courts Struck Down Florida’s Death-Sentencing Law in 2016. What’s Happened Since?
In 2016, both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court struck down Florida’s death-sentencing statute. Since then, the Florida courts and legislature have been figuring out how to apply those decisions to the nearly 400 condemned prisoners on the state’s death row. Executive Director Robert Dunham interviews Karen Gottlieb (pictured), the Co-Director of the Florida Center for Capital Representation at Florida International University, who discusses the court cases and what has happened in Florida as a result, including explaining how the decision has been interpreted to apply to only half of the prisoners who were unconstitutionally sentenced to death under the old law.
Robin Konrad, DPIC’s Director of Research and Special Projects, interviews University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett about his new book End of Its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice. Professor Garrett researched and analyzed all the death sentences imposed in the U.S. during the past 25 years to determine what factors have led to the precipitous decline in the number of people who are being sentenced to death. In this podcast, Professor Garrett discusses these factors, which include a decrease in murder rates, the creation of state-wide public defender offices, and jurors who are increasingly unwilling to return death sentences.
Ohio has not carried out an execution since the botched execution of Dennis McGuire in January 2014, but is scheduled to resume executions on July 26, 2017. In the past several years, the State has revised its lethal-injection protocol and has created a task force that studied Ohio’s death-penalty system. DPIC’s Executive Director Robert Dunham talks with Michael Benza, Senior Instructor in Law at Case Western Reserve University and veteran capital defense attorney, about the results of the task force’s study, the concerns about going forward with executions, and the status of the lethal-injection litigation.
Christina Swarns, litigation director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, speaks with DPIC Executive Director Robert Dunham about the case of Texas death-row prisoner Duane Buck and the impact of racial bias on determinations of future dangerousness in death penalty cases. Ms. Swarns represented Mr. Buck in the U.S. Supreme Court in overturning his death sentence after his own lawyer presented an expert witness who gave racially biased testimony that Mr. Buck posed an increased risk of future dangerousness to society because he is black. Ms. Swarns discusses the background of the case and provides context to the racially disparate application of capital punishment in the United States.
DPIC staff members Robert Dunham, Robin Konrad, and Anne Holsinger explain Arkansas' plan to execute seven prisoners over an 11-day period beginning April 17. They discuss the state's reasons for the condensed execution schedule, current litigation related to lethal injection drugs, and the risks of this unprecedented rate of executions. Additional background information on the Arkansas' executions is available here.
In observance of Women's History Month, DPIC staff members Anne Holsinger and Robin Konrad interview Mary Atwell, Ph.D., one of the nation’s foremost experts on women on death row. Dr. Atwell is Professor Emerita of Criminal Justice at Radford University and author of three books on capital punishment, most recently Wretched Sisters: Examining Gender and Capital Punishment. The podcast discusses Dr. Atwell's research and highlights the themes and patterns present in capital murder cases in which women were the defendants.
Robin Konrad, Director of Research and Special Projects, interviews Isaiah McCoy, the nation’s 157 death-row exoneree, and his lawyers, Michael Wiseman and Herbert Mondros. McCoy was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in Delaware in 2012. After winning a new trial in 2015, he was acquitted of all charges in January 2017. McCoy's case featured several systemic problems that plague the death penalty system: a lack of physical evidence, eyewitnesses who received deals from the prosecutor and told multiple versions of the story about the crime, a non-unanimous jury recommendation for a death sentence, and a prosecutor whose misconduct in the case was so outrageous that he was suspended from practicing law. McCoy and his lawyers explain how these factors contributed to his wrongful conviction, discuss his efforts to be exonerated, and describe McCoy's life since exoneration.
DPIC Executive Director Robert Dunham and Director of Research and Special Projects Robin Konrad discuss the findings and themes of the 2016 DPIC Year End Report. This year marked historic lows in death sentences, executions, and public support for the death penalty. They explore the reasons for the declines, look at what this year's election results say about the death penalty, and describe the cases that resulted in executions this year. Click here to read the Year End Report, which is the basis for this episode.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear oral argument in Moore v. Texas on November 29, 2016, Cornell Law School Professor John Blume joins us to share his expertise on intellectual disability and the death penalty. He provides context on the Supreme Court's 2002 decision, Atkins v. Virginia, which banned the execution of defendants with intellectual disabilities, and describes the clinical criteria used in most determinations of intellectual disability. In the second half of the conversation, Professor Blume explains Texas' idiosyncratic method for determining intellectual disability, the background of the Moore case, and how the Court's decision in Moore may affect the death penalty system in Texas and other states.
Law professor and author John Bessler joins DPIC executive director Robert Dunham to discuss "Against the Death Penalty," a book version of Justice Stephen Breyer's historic dissent in Glossip v. Gross in which he questions the constitutionality of the death penalty. Professor Bessler edited the book and wrote an extensive introduction explaining the significance of the opinion, In a wide-ranging conversation, Bessler and Dunham discuss the dissent itself, the national context of the decision, and the possible effects of an 8-member Supreme Court.
A discussion of recent changes to lethal injection protocols in response to drug shortages and other problems.
Interview with University of Baltimore Law School Professor John Bessler on arbitrariness and the history of the death penalty.
Running time: 17:00 (March 1, 2013) Transcript coming soon.
Interview with Jennifer Whitfield of Covington and Burling regarding the 2012 release of Alabama death row inmate Larry Smith.
Interview with Michael Fox discussing issues surrounding the death penalty in Japan, including public attitudes towards the death penalty, the way the criminal justice system works and the efforts of abolitionist groups.
Discusses general issues of the death penalty in America: recent trends, application against minority defendants, support among Hispanics as well as the international use of the death penalty. Presented in Spanish.
Discute temas generales de la pena de muerte en Estados Unidos: tendencias recientes, la aplicación contra los acusados de las minorías, el apoyo entre los hispanos, así como el uso internacional de la pena de muerte. Presentado en español.
Discusses the international context of the American death penalty, including international trends in capital punishment and how international opinion affects the death penalty in the U.S.
Focuses on the conditions and the people on death row around the country, including a discussion of the length of time inmates spend on the row and the legal issues related to this confinement.
A summary of the role of the Supreme Court in the death penalty, including discussion of major decisions by the court on capital punishment.
Running time: 7:30 (August 8, 2011) Transcript coming soon.
A summary of the legal process involved in a death penalty sentence, including jury selection and the appeals process.
Covers some of the history of executed women in America, as well as issues of gender bias and differences among genders in support for the death penalty.
Covers the definition of mental illness, Supreme Court rulings related to insanity, mental illness and intellectual disability, and examples of severely mentally ill inmates who have been executed.
Covers the history of lethal injection, involvement of medical professionals, court rulings, and recent problems with drug availability and protocol changes.
Answers readers' questions on criminological theories, methods of execution, costs, and the future of the death penalty.
Answers readers' questions on how prosecutors decide to seek the death penalty, death-qualified juries, DNA testing, and Americans on death row in other countries.
Covers the variety of victims' families' reactions to the death penalty, the role of victim's family members in sentencing decisions, and victim impact statements.
Covers the importance of high-quality representation and provides examples of inadequate representation in capital cases including statistics and individual cases.
Covers issues of race in the death penalty, such as whether race plays a role in criminal sentencing, analysis of race statistics in the justice system and measures intended to prevent racial factors in sentencing.
Covers issues of innocence in the death penalty, such as the possibility of innocent people sentenced to death, and whether the judicial process prevents wrongful execution.
Covers issues of deterrence, including views of police and criminologists about the deterrent effect of executions and statistical analysis of deterrence effects.
Covers issues of cost in the criminal justice system, such as explaining the cost of a death sentence versus life without parole, and the factors that influence the cost of execution.
Covers issues such as how clemency works in the criminal justice system, including who grants clemency, why clemency is granted, and how often it occurs.
Covers issues such as geographic and racial disparities in death penalty sentencing, as well as exploring why people get different sentences for similar crimes.
In 1847, Michigan became the first English speaking jurisdiction, and the first US state, to abolish the death penalty for all crimes other than treason.
In 1853, Wisconsin became the first state to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, including treason.
A series of botched hangings led to the state of Maine reexamining its use of the death penalty. The state abolished the death penalty in 1876, but it was reinstated for a few years after a series of "cold-blooded murders". The state abolished the death penalty again in 1883, and has not reinstated it since.
Minnesota became the 4th state to abolish the death penalty after a short history of capital punishment filled with questions about the fairness of a murder trial as well as the largest mass hanging in US history.
North Dakota's residents signed a petition in 1915 about the "barbarous" and "ineffective" nature of the death penalty. That very year, the North Dakota legislature passed a bill repealing the death penalty and it has remained off the books ever since.
Alaska was under territorial and colonial rule from the 18th century through 1959, when it became a state. This long history of outside influence, in addition to several other unique aspects of Alaska, have played an important role in the attitudes towards the death penalty there.
In the late 19th century, as Hawaii became a center of agricultural production, the immigrants who were brought to the islands in a form of indentured servitude bore the brunt of the arbitrariness of the judicial system in annexed Hawaii.
"Uncivilized and impossible to enforce." This was the sentiment of Iowa in 1872 when the state initially abolished capital punishment. What followed was a series of events that led to the reinstatement, and second abolition of the death penalty.
Vermont has a long history of sparse use of capital punishment and saw a steady decline in the scope of crimes that were punishable by death throughout the years. The death penalty was rendered invalid in 1972 by Furman v. Georgia and has never been reinstated since.
Massachusetts has a long history of capital punishment ever since it was an English colony in the 17th century. However, a famous case involoving two Italian immigrants may have been the turning point against capital punishment in Massachusetts.
The District of Columbia is a special area that has oversight on both the local and federal levels. This unique status has led to a dynamic with the death penalty that is not found in any other state in the US.
A capital murder trial wrought with prejudice in the 18th century set the foundation for a state that would abolish the death penalty twice in the next 200 years. This abolitionist culture led to controversy when Governor Lincoln Chafee refused to transfer a murder suspect to Federal custody.
In 2006, New Jersey became the first state to legislatively impose a moratorium on executions. This moratorium would be the precursor to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 2007.
New York carried out more executions than any state other than Virgina between 1608 and 1972. However, in the 1960s, the state legislature began to chip away at what constituted a capital crime. In 2004, the New York State Supreme Court declared the death penalty violates the state constitution due to arbitrariness and a state appeals court effectively vacated death row in 2007.
The emptying of death row by Governor Tony Anaya in 1986 set the tone for the erosion of support for the death penalty in New Mexico. As a state with a growing Roman Catholic and non-white population, the shifting demographics became apparent in 2009 when Gov. Richardson asked his constituents for feedback on death penalty abolition.
Illinois had a long history of racial bias in its implementation of the death penalty. Numerous studies and commissions led to the Illinois State Legislature abolishing capital punishment in the state in 2011.
Connecticut had an infamous history as far as the death penalty was concerned. Connecticut is believed to have executed a 12 year-old in 1786 -- the youngest person ever executed in the history of the United States. Legal issues have yet to resolve the status of Connecticut's current death row population, despite the death penalty being abolished in Connecticut in 2012.
This podcast discusses the history of the death penalty in Arkansas, how it is carried out in the state, and executive and legislative efforts to repeal or reintroduce capital punishment. Arkansas’ use of the death penalty has mirrored the politics of race in the state, and the podcast explores some sensitive issues relating to racial bias, lynching, and capital punishment. It also discusses the state’s reenactment of the death penalty after Furman v. Georgia and current issues with lethal injection drugs.
1. Click here to automatically add it to your iTunes directly.
2. If #1 doesn't work, Copy this link (Right click, copy link location), Open iTunes and under "Advanced" go to "Subscribe to podcast." Put in the URL and click OK. When a new podcast episode comes out, your iTunes will automatically download it.

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


We hereby respond to your petition to the Attorney General, initially received on August 10, 2012, and later supplemented and revised on November 7, 2012 (the “Petition”), for a written determination regarding the Board of Education (the “Board”) for the Capital School District (the “District”) and, specifically, the Board’s compliance with certain “open meeting” requirements set forth in Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10006 (“FOIA”). Based on our review of the documents provided to us, we conclude that the Board violated FOIA’s open meeting laws and prescribe remediation as discussed below.
The Petition challenges certain actions taken by the Board at or in connection with a public meeting held on May 16, 2012 (the “May 16th Meeting”). The Petition takes issue with the agenda for the May 16th Meeting and seeks to invalidate the Board’s vote to extend the District superintendent’s employment contract for an additional two years. The Petition also alleges that the minutes for the May 16th Meeting (the “Minutes”) do not reflect what transpired at the May 16th Meeting and were intentionally altered in an effort to make the Board’s vote look legitimate.
We see no issue with the agenda. We do, however, agree that the Board violated FOIA by frustrating, whether intentionally or not, the public’s right to observe and monitor the Board’s discussion of and vote on the proposal to extend the District superintendent’s employment contract. Due to the Board’s failure to communicate to attendees certain agreed-upon changes to the agenda and the manner in which the proposal would be handled at the May 16th Meeting, no members of the public were present for the Board’s discussion of and vote to approve the superintendent’s contract extension. We also agree that the Board violated FOIA because the Minutes do not reflect what actually happened at the May 16th Meeting with respect to the contract extension, though we are not convinced the minutes were doctored for an improper purpose.
We believe that the FOIA violations require remediation. We have determined that the vote to approve the contract extension was invalid and recommend that the Board reschedule the proposal for further discussion and vote at a subsequent public hearing. We also recommend that the Board revise the Minutes in accordance with the instructions provided below.
The [Board] will convene for its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 in the North Dover Elementary School auditorium. The [B]oard will convene into open session at 6:30 p.m. in the auditorium and entertain a motion to move into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing Personnel Matters . . . . The executive session shall take place in the North Dover Elementary School library. The Board will reconvene into public session in the auditorium . . . at approximately 7:30 p.m.
The agenda for the open session (the “OS Agenda,” and together with the ES Agenda, the “Agendas”) begins with and recites, verbatim, the above-cited paragraph from the Announcement. The OS Agenda indicates that the Board would convene in executive session in the library at 6:35 p.m. and reconvene in open session in the auditorium at 7:30 p.m. Section 3 of the OS Agenda lists a number of matters that were to be the subject of action and discussion during the open session, including Agenda Item 3.06 — the “Superintendent’s Contract.” The last item on the OS Agenda, Agenda Item 5.01, is “Adjournment.” The OS Agenda does not reflect when the open session was scheduled to end.
According to the Minutes, the Board opened the May 16th Meeting and entered public session at 6:30 p.m., as scheduled. The Board then entertained and unanimously approved a motion to move into executive session. The Board entered closed session in the library at 6:31 p.m. According to the Board, its members discussed the contract extension and other matters during this executive session, but those discussions were still ongoing as the scheduled end-time for the executive session drew near. The Board maintains that, as a courtesy to the members of the public who appeared for the open session, the Board members tabled their discussions, adjourned the executive session and called the public meeting to order in the auditorium near the scheduled start time of 7:30 p.m.
After the Pledge of Allegiance, the Board performed a roll call (all members present) to establish a quorum and then entertained a motion to approve the OS Agenda, “as amended.” The Minutes for the open session reflect that the OS Agenda was unanimously approved and amended as follows: “[T]able Agenda Item No. 3.06 [Superintendent’s Contract] and at conclusion of regular meeting, [B]oard will return to closed session and reconvene to open session for action on Agenda Item 3.06 [Superintendent’s Contract].” The Minutes appear to be incorrect with respect to the purported “amendment” to the OS Agenda. All parties to this dispute are in agreement that the Board did not announce publicly or otherwise disclose to the attendees any changes to the manner in which the Board proposed to address the contract extension at the May 16th Meeting.
After approving the OS Agenda, as “amended,” the Board entertained several brief presentations and accepted public comment from the attendees. The Minutes reflect that only one public comment was made at the May 16th Meeting, which comment was unrelated to the contract extension. The Board also addressed a number of “consent items” before turning to the items slated for action and/or discussion. Based on the Minutes, it appears that the Board addressed in open session all of the agenda items listed in Section 3 of the OS Agenda, other than Agenda Item 3.06, “Superintendent’s Contract.” The Board skipped over Agenda Item 3.06 without comment or explanation.
The first open session concluded at around 9:25 p.m., with members of the public still in attendance. According to the Board, at that time, the Board members made their way back to the library and reconvened in executive session to wrap up their discussions concerning the contract extension. The second executive session lasted until 9:50 p.m., at which time the Board returned to an empty auditorium. The Board nonetheless reconvened in open session to take action on the proposed contract extension.
At the inception of the second open session, one of the Board members made a motion to table the Board’s contract extension discussions until November 2012. According to the Minutes, the motion did not receive a second vote and therefore did not pass. A second Board member them made a motion to approve the proposal. After that motion was seconded, the Board voted 3 to 2 to approve a two-year extension of the District superintendent’s employment contract. The Minutes reflect that the Board adjourned the May 16th Meeting at 10:08 p.m.
On August 10, 2012, we received from you correspondence, including an email and a letter (together, the “Correspondence”), referencing an “attached” FOIA open meeting complaint against the Board based on alleged FOIA violations stemming from the May 16th Meeting. An initial draft of the Petition was enclosed with the Correspondence. The Correspondence reflects that you became aware of the violations only after reviewing the Minutes, which were not approved until June 13, 2004. On November 7, 2012, at our request, you promptly supplemented and revised the Petition.
• falsified the Minutes to make it appear as though the Board informed the public of its Plan during the initial open session.
• the Board’s failure to disclose the Plan did not intentionally mislead or prejudice the public because the contract extension was listed on the OS Agenda as an action item.
The Board did not expressly address the argument that the Minutes were falsified, though we assume the Board members refute those allegations.
The Board violated FOIA in two respects. First, while the Agendas contained sufficient information for the public to decide whether to attend the May 16th Meeting, we conclude that the Board’s subsequent failure to announce the Plan at any point during the initial open session caused attendees to believe that the contract extension would be taken up at a subsequent meeting. The Board’s omission frustrated the public’s right to observe and monitor the Board’s performance and decisions with respect to the proposed contract extension. Second, we do not believe that the Minutes contain an accurate record of the votes taken and actions agreed upon with respect to the purported amendment of the OS Agenda and changes to the treatment of the contract extension. Given the nature of the public rights and violations at issue, we conclude that remediation is warranted for both violations.
A. The Agendas Adequately Reflect the Board’s Intention to Discuss the Contract Extension in Executive Session.
The Petition asserts that the Board violated FOIA because the Agendas failed to reflect the Board’s plan to hold a second executive session (after the conclusion of the initial open session) to discuss the proposed contract extension. We do not accept the factual premise of this argument and agree with the Board that the Agendas complied with FOIA.
This argument is premised on the dubious assumption that the Board intended to convene two executive sessions at the May 16th Meeting at the time the Agendas were published. We do not believe that was the case. The Board contends, and we believe, that, at the time the Agendas were published, the Board planned to convene a single hour-long executive session. In our view, the Board miscalculated the amount of time that would be necessary to discuss the items on the ES Agenda. As a consequence, the Board members were unable to conclude their discussions of those matters within the allotted time-frame. At some point during the May 16th Meeting, the Board members agreed amongst themselves to reconvene in executive session to finish discussing the contract extension.
Based on the facts as we see them, we do not believe the Agendas violated FOIA’s open meeting laws. FOIA requires our public bodies to give “public notice of their regular meetings and of their intent to hold an executive session closed to the public, at least 7 days in advance thereof.” 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(2). FOIA requires that any such “notice” include an agenda notifying the public of important matters that will be discussed and possibly voted on so that members of the public can decide whether to attend a particular public meeting. See 29 Del. C. §§ 10002(a), 10004(e)(2); Att’y Gen. Op. 12-IIB09, at p. 4 (July 13, 2012). The Board timely posted the Announcement and the ES Agenda, which were sufficient to put the public on notice of the Board’s intention to convene in executive session to discuss the contract extension. The OS Agenda was sufficient to put the public on notice that the Board would discuss and possibly vote on the contract extension at the May 16th Meeting. Nothing more was required.
FOIA does not require a public body to anticipate all matters that may arise after an agenda is filed. FOIA § 10004(e)(2) affords public bodies with flexibility to deal with unforeseen events and expressly permits them to amend an agenda to include “additional items,” including executive sessions, that may arise during a public meeting. 29 Del. C. § 10004(e)(2) (“[T]he agenda shall be subject to change to include additional items including executive sessions or the deletion of items including executive sessions which arise at the time of the public body’s meeting.”). The Board had the discretion under FOIA § 10004(e)(2) to modify the OS Agenda to reflect the Plan and otherwise run the May 16th Meeting as it saw fit, except to the extent the conduct of the May 16th Meeting violated the letter or spirit of FOIA. We conclude that the Board violated FOIA when it failed to communicate the Plan and related OS Agenda changes to the attendees.
B. The Board’s Vote to Approve the Contract Extension Violated FOIA and Was Invalid.
As we recently observed, “FOIA contains a number of open meeting provisions that recognize and promote our citizens’ rights to observe and monitor the performance of our public officials.” Att’y Gen. Op. 12-IIB12, at p. 6 (Nov. 21, 2012) (emphasis original). We conclude that the Board violated FOIA by frustrating the public’s right to observe and monitor the Board’s discussion of and vote on a two-year contract extension for the District superintendent. The Board’s failure to announce publicly the Plan or otherwise communicate the OS Agenda revisions misled attendees into believing that the contract extension would be addressed at a subsequent meeting. The Board’s actions and omissions, whether intentional or not, caused attendees to leave the May 16th Meeting prior to the discussion of and vote on the contract extension. The Board’s vote to approve the contract extension was invalid.
We believe that remediation for this violation is warranted. We generally view the threat of invalidation as a serious sanction that ought not to be employed unless substantial public rights have been affected and the circumstances permit the crafting of remediation that protects other legitimate public interests. See Ianni v. Dep’t of Elections of New Castle County, 1986 WL 9610, at *p. 7 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 1986); Att’y Gen. Op. 02-IB17, 2002 WL 31031224, at *p. 8 (Aug. 6, 2002). We first address the question of whether substantial public rights have been affected.
We believe that the Board’s conduct in this case affected substantial public rights. In Att’y Gen. Op. 02-IB17, a similar case also involving this Board, we determined that the Board violated substantial public rights “by deciding who to hire as the new [District] superintendent outside of public view.” Id. at *8. The specific rights at issue in Att’y Gen. Op. 02-IB17 were the rights of students, parents, teachers, and other concerned citizens in the District to be involved in the selection of a new superintendent. Id. The present case involves an almost identical situation. We conclude that the Board’s conduct in this case implicated and negatively affected substantial public rights. See id; see also Att’y Gen. Op. 06-IB18, 2006 WL 2724978, at *p. 5 (Sept. 5, 2006) (“The public has a right – enshrined in the open meeting law – to monitor and observe the process by which those officials who will govern them are selected. Citizens should have had clear notice before the Town filled the important [unelected] position of Vice Mayor.”).
We next address whether invalidation of the Board’s vote is appropriate under the circumstances presented here. We find Att’y Gen. Op. 02-IB17 instructive on this point. In that case, we determined that invalidation of the Board’s vote to hire a new District superintendent was inappropriate, in part, because the school year was about to begin. See id. at *8. We also noted that invalidation posed a significant risk of disruption to students, teachers and school administrators. See id. Finally, we found it relevant in that case that interested citizens had been provided with an opportunity to meet and evaluate the three finalists and were permitted to voice their concerns with respect to the selection of a new superintendent. See id. The situation here is much different. The District has an acting superintendent and is in the middle of the school year. The risk of disruption in this case is substantially less. In addition, by virtue of the confusion created by the shifting OS Agenda, the public effectively had no ability to observe the process or voice concerns about the current superintendent or the proposed contract extension.
For these reasons, we conclude that invalidation is an appropriate remedy and recommend that the Board reschedule the contract extension for further discussion and vote at a subsequent public hearing.
C. The Minutes Do Not Reflect What Actually Happened at the May 16th Hearing and Should Be Revised.
The Petition asserts that the Board falsified the Minutes to make it appear as though the Board informed the public about the Plan during the initial open session. We cannot conclude, based on the current record, that the Board intentionally doctored the Minutes. We do agree, however, that the Minutes violate FOIA to the extent they purport to recount and constitute a record of events that never actually happened.
FOIA contains minimal reporting requirements for minutes and specifies that minutes need include only “a record of those members present and a record, by individual member[,] . . . of each vote taken and action agreed upon.” Att’y Gen. Op. 12-IIB01, at p. 6 (Jan. 6, 2012) (citing FOIA § 10004(f)). The Minutes do not satisfy these minimal requirements. The Minutes reflect that the Board voted on and unanimously approved the OS Agenda, as amended to reflect the Plan. We are quite confident those events did not happen in the manner in which they are portrayed in the Minutes. Indeed, the Board’s counsel has admitted that the Board did not announce publicly that it would resume the executive session or thereafter return to open session for action on the proposed contract extension.
The Minutes do not reflect reality and should be revised to depict accurately the votes taken and actions agreed upon with respect to the OS Agenda.
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that (a) the Agendas are legally sufficient, (b) the Board violated FOIA by failing to disclose the Plan publicly and should take further action in respect of the contract extension at a subsequent public meeting and (c) the Minutes do not reflect what actually transpired at the May 16th Meeting and should be revised accordingly.


text:
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS - ABNT. NBR 12218/1994: Projeto de rede de distribuição de água para abastecimento público. ABNT, 1994.
ALMEIDA, A. T. O conhecimento e o uso de métodos multicritério de apoio a decisão. Recife: Ed. Universitária da UFPE, 2011.
ALMEIDA, A. T.; COSTA, A. P. C. S. Aplicações com Métodos Multicritério de Apoio a Decisão. Recife: Ed. UFPE, 2003. v. 14.
FIGUEIRA, J.; MOUSSEAU, V.; ROY, B. Chapter 4. Electre Methods. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, v. 78, 2006.
FONTANA, M. E.; MORAIS, D. C.; ALMEIDA, A. T. A MCDM model for urban water conservation strategies. Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization Lecture Notes in Computer Science, v. 6576, p. 564-578, 2011. Disponível em: .
HELLER, L.; PÁDUA, V. L. Abastecimento de água para consumo humano. Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG, 2006.
JUN, H. Strategic valve locations in a water distribution system. 2005. Thesis (Doctorate)-Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2005.
KEENEY, R. L.; RAIFFA, H. Decision with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. John Wiley & Sons, 1976.
LAMBERT, V.; HIRNER W. Losses from water supply systems: standard terminology and recommended performance measures. Voda I Sanitarna Tehnika, v. 32, p. 29-38, 2002.
MAYS, L. W. (Org.). et al. Water distribution systems handbook. McGraw-Hill, 2000.
MORAIS, D. C.; CAVALCANTE, C. A. V.; ALMEIDA, A. T. Prioritization of areas of loss control in water distribution networks. Pesquisa Operacional, v. 30, n. 1, p. 15-32, 2010.
OZGER, S.; MAYS, L. W. Chapter 7 - Optimal location of isolation valves in water distribution systems: a reliability/optimization approach. In: MAYS, L. W. Water resource systems management tools. McGraw-Hill Professional Engineering, 2004.
RAMOS, H. et al. Leakage control policy within operating management tools. Computer and Control for Water Industry, p. 61-73, 2001.
SAATY, T. L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
VINCKE, P. Multicriteria decision aid. Bruxelles: Jonh Wiley & Sons, 1992.
YSUSI, M. A. System Design: An Overview. In: MAYS, L.W. Water Distribution System Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.

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


text:
The linear section of main oil and gas pipelines, which are potentially the most dangerous type of pipeline networks, was selected as the object of investigation. A technique for assessing the stress-strain state of the pipeline was developed. Underground pipeline deformation process was mathematically modeled according to the set of points displacement. The process of the underground pipeline points position determination process, estimation of the interpolation accuracy of the underground pipeline spatial position, interpolation step and smoothing parameters determination were described.
Gas pipeline incidents. 8-th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group (1970-2010). Access mode: (http://www.egig.nl/downloads/8th_report_EGIG.pdf).
V. Y. Bash. Stress and deformation analysis by thermoelectric technique / V. Y. Bash. - Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 1984. - 100 p.
V. A. Zolochevsky. Experiments in development mechanic / V. A. Zolochevsky. - Moscov: Stryizdat, 1983. - 192 p.
V. V. Kluev. Non-destructive testing and diagnostics / V. V. Kluev. - Moscov: Mashynostroenie, 2003. - 656 p. - (3).
A. P. Oliynyk Mathematical models for process of quasy-stationary deformation of pipline and industrial systems under their spatial configuration change [Text] / A. P. Oliynyk // Scientific publication. - Ivano-Frankivsk: IFNTUOG, 2010. - 320 p.
A. A. Samarsky. Numerical procedures: College-level study guide / A. A. Samarsky, A. V. Gulin. - Moscov: Nauka. MEO of physical and mathematical literature, 1989. - 432 p.
G. I. Marchuk. NUMERICAL METHEMATICS PROCEDURES / G. I. Marchuk. - Moscov: Nauka, 1984. - 608 p.
L. I. Sedov. Continuum mechanics / L. I. Sedov. - Moscov: Nauka, 1984. - 572 p.
SNiP 2.05.06-85. Main pipelines / Gosstriy SSSR. - М.: CPTE Gosstroy SSSR, 1999. - 125 p.
N. P. Korneychuk. Extremal problems in approximation theory / N. P. Korneychuk. - Moscov: Nauka, 1976. - 320 p.
N. P. Korneychuk. Splines in approximation theory / N. P. Korneychuk. - Moscov: Nauka, 1984. - 422 p.
N. S. Bakhvalov. Numerical procedures/ N. S. Bakhvalov. - Moscov: Nauka, 1973. - 631 p.

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


text:
+ 2 i. James2 Farmer, born Abt. 1818 in Kilmore, County Monaghan, Ireland; died 13 Jul 1898 in Kinkora, P.E.I..
+ 3 ii. Catherine Farmer, born Abt. 1821 in Kilmore, County Monaghan, Ireland; died 02 Apr 1891 in Margate, PEI.
+ 4 iii. Hugh Farmer, born 1822 in Kilmore, County Monaghan, Ireland; died 27 Nov 1877 in Kinkora, PEI.
+ 5 iv. Patrick Farmer, born 1831 in Kilmore, County Monaghan,Ireland; died 14 Oct 1902 in Charlottetown, PEI.
2. James2 Farmer (Farmer1) was born Abt. 1818 in Kilmore, County Monaghan, Ireland, and died 13 Jul 1898 in Kinkora, P.E.I.. He married Catherine McCarville 20 Nov 1856 in Kelly's Cross, PEI, daughter of Michael McCarville and Bridget McCarville. She was born Abt. 1829 in County Monaghan, Ireland, and died 27 Apr 1891 in Kinkora, PEI.
6 i. Mary3 Farmer, born 16 Aug 1857 in Kinkora, PEI; died 30 Sep 1920 in Kinkora, PEI.
+ 7 ii. Patrick Farmer, born 17 Nov 1858 in Kinkora, PEI; died 24 Nov 1926 in Kinkora, PEI.
+ 8 iii. Michael Farmer, born 01 Jun 1861 in Kinkora, P.E.I.; died 16 May 1935 in Kinkora, P.E.I..
+ 9 iv. John Farmer, born 1862 in Kinkora, PEI; died 1930 in East Millinocket, Maine, USA.
10 v. Baby Farmer, born 1865 in Kinkora, PEI; died 1865 in Kinkora, PEI.
11 vi. Catherine Farmer, born 1865 in Kinkora, PEI; died 08 Jan 1935 in Charlottetown, PEI. She married (1) Alexander Gillis 21 Nov 1905; born in Wellington, PEI. She married (2) James Trainor 04 Oct 1922 in Charlottetown, PEI; born in Charlottetown, PEI.
12 vii. Bridget Marie Farmer, born 08 May 1866 in Kinkora, PEI; died 14 Jun 1948 in Kinkora, PEI. She married Joseph Mulligan; born 16 Dec 1870; died in Kinkora, PEI.
3. Catherine2 Farmer (Farmer1) was born Abt. 1821 in Kilmore, County Monaghan, Ireland, and died 02 Apr 1891 in Margate, PEI. She married James McGuirk 04 Feb 1856 in Kinkora, PEI. He was born Abt. 1813 in Ireland, and died 1895.
+ 13 i. Mary3 McGuirk, born 16 Nov 1856 in Margate, PEI.
+ 14 ii. Ann Jane McGuirk, born 06 Mar 1858 in Margate, PEI.
+ 15 iii. Michael McGuirk, born 25 Aug 1859 in Margate, PEI; died 1909.
+ 16 iv. Patrick McGuirk, born 25 May 1861 in Margate, PEI; died 1938 in Summerfield, PEI.
+ 17 v. Catherine McGuirk, born 11 Jul 1863 in Margate, PEI; died 10 Jul 1940 in Summerfield, PEI.
+ 18 vi. Bridget Alice McGuirk, born 15 Apr 1871 in Margate, PEI; died 1941 in Kinkora, PEI.
19 vii. Mary Elizabeth McGuirk, born 09 Jan 1874. She married ? Dunning.
4. Hugh2 Farmer (Farmer1) was born 1822 in Kilmore, County Monaghan, Ireland, and died 27 Nov 1877 in Kinkora, PEI. He married Bridget McCarville. She was born 1825 in Ireland, and died 26 Sep 1892 in Kinkora, PEI.
20 i. Patrick Francis3 Farmer, born 04 Feb 1862 in Kinkora, PEI; died 06 Apr 1917.
21 ii. Mary Ann Farmer, born 15 Apr 1864.
22 iii. Bridget Caroline Farmer, born 25 Apr 1866; died 1910 in St. Peter's Bay, PEI. She married David Larkin; born 10 Aug 1853 in St. Peters Bay, PEI.
23 iv. Catherine Adela Farmer, born 1868; died 1945.
5. Patrick2 Farmer (Farmer1) was born 1831 in Kilmore, County Monaghan,Ireland, and died 14 Oct 1902 in Charlottetown, PEI. He married Jane C. McCambridge 27 Nov 1856 in Charlottetown, PEI. She was born 1832 in Glasgow, Scotland, and died 31 Jul 1886 in Charlottetown, PEI.
24 i. Mary3 Farmer, born 29 Mar 1858 in Charlottetown, PEI; died 27 Sep 1911 in Charlottetown, PEI.
25 ii. Margaret Farmer, born 1861 in Charlottetown, PEI; died 09 Oct 1879 in Charlottetown, PEI.
26 iii. Ann Jane Farmer, born 1863 in Charlottetown, PEI; died Bef. 1868 in Charlottetown, PEI.
27 iv. Patrick Farmer, born 1865 in Charlottetown, PEI; died 19 Sep 1911 in Niagara Falls, Ont..
28 v. Jane Farmer, born 07 Sep 1868 in Charlottetown, PEI; died 17 Sep 1882 in Charlottetown, PEI.
29 vi. Elizabeth Farmer, born 1872 in Charlottetown, PEI; died 28 Aug 1889 in Charlottetown,PEI.
30 vii. Catherine Farmer, born 1875 in Charlottetown, PEI; died Bef. 1881 in Charlottetown, PEI.
+ 31 viii. John Farmer, born 1870 in Charlottetown, PEI; died 29 Mar 1907 in Schenectady, N.Y..
7. Patrick3 Farmer (James2, Farmer1) was born 17 Nov 1858 in Kinkora, PEI, and died 24 Nov 1926 in Kinkora, PEI. He married Catherine Greenan 08 Oct 1895 in Newton, PEI, daughter of Patrick Greenan and Mary Crehan. She was born 31 Mar 1872 in Newton, PEI, and died 1950 in Kinkora, PEI.
32 i. Catherine Alberta4 Farmer, born 21 Feb 1897 in Kinkora, PEI; died Oct 1976 in Norwood, Mass.. She married (1) James Edward Powers 12 Oct 1921 in Kinkora, PEI; born 09 Jun 1896 in Hyde Park, Mass.; died 02 Jan 1949 in Hyde Park, Mass.. She married (2) Leonard Thomas Murphy 29 Jun 1952 in Hyde Park, Mass.; born 04 Jan 1897 in Middleton, PEI; died 1974 in Michigan.
33 ii. Mary Mildred Farmer, born 08 Jul 1898 in Kinkora, PEI; died 04 Oct 1976 in Charlottetown, PEI. She married Francis Xavier Dorsey 08 Oct 1919 in Kinkora, PEI; born 27 Aug 1889 in Charlottetown, PEI; died 27 Dec 1954 in Borden, PEI.
34 iii. Joseph Urban Farmer, born 13 Jan 1901 in Kinkora, PEI; died 16 Nov 1969 in Winnipeg, Man.. He married (1) Mary Elizabeth White 1926 in Emerald, PEI; born 19 Jan 1901 in Emerald, PEI; died 21 Dec 1951 in Winnipeg, Man.. He married (2) Gladys Acheson 1956 in Winnipeg, Man.; died 1995 in Winnipeg, Man..
35 iv. Margaret Edna Farmer, born 1904 in Kinkora, PEI; died 07 Mar 1964 in Hyde Park, Mass USA. She married Alphonsus Ambrose Powers 02 Jul 1933 in Hyde Park, Mass.; born 10 Jul 1907 in Hyde Park, Mass.; died 09 Jun 1963 in Hyde Park, Mass USA.
36 v. Rosella Farmer, born 05 Sep 1906 in Kinkora, PEI; died 21 Jan 1994 in Kinkora, PEI. She married (1) Louis Edward McQuaid Nov 1936 in Somerville, Mass.; born 06 Nov 1906 in Kellys Cross, PEI; died 26 Sep 1942 in Somerville, Mass. USA. She married (2) Frederick J. McCabe Oct 1948 in Central Bedeque, PEI; born 02 May 1891 in Middleton, PEI; died 19 Jul 1966 in Kinkora, PEI.
37 vi. Patrick Walter Farmer, born 22 Oct 1910 in Kinkora, PEI; died 10 Apr 1968 in Borden, PEI. He married Mary Ellen Garland 25 Sep 1940 in Kinkora, PEI; born 11 Apr 1916 in Fort Augustus, PEI; died 29 Jun 1992 in Borden, PEI.
8. Michael3 Farmer (James2, Farmer1) was born 01 Jun 1861 in Kinkora, P.E.I., and died 16 May 1935 in Kinkora, P.E.I.. He married Margaret Jane Keefe 14 Feb 1898 in Kinkora, PEI, daughter of Patrick Keefe and Ellen May. She was born 29 Dec 1868 in Kinkora, PEI, and died 02 Apr 1934 in Kinkora, PEI.
38 i. James Patrick4 Farmer, born 07 Oct 1898 in Kinkora, P.E.I.; died 30 Sep 1930 in Kinkora, P.E.I.. He married Ann Edna Shreenan; born 02 Oct 1903 in Kinkora, P.E.I.; died 29 Feb 1928 in Kinkora, P.E.I..
39 ii. John Wilfred Farmer, born 13 Jan 1900 in Kinkora, P.E.I.; died 12 Aug 1971 in Kinkora, P.E.I.. He married Jennie Harriet Noonan 04 Oct 1926 in 7 Mile Bay, PEI; born 05 Jul 1902 in Albany, P.E.I.; died 14 Apr 1969 in Kinkora, P.E.I..
40 iii. Michael Alban Farmer, born 27 Sep 1901 in Kinkora, P.E.I.; died 27 Dec 1988 in Charlottetown, PEI. He married Mary Dorothea MacMillan 12 Oct 1932 in Charlottetown, PEI; born 07 Nov 1909 in Kinkora, PEI; died 25 Jun 2003 in Charlottetown, PEI.
41 iv. Thomas Leonard Farmer, born Abt. 1903 in Kinkora, PEI; died 1981 in Charlottetown, PEI. He married (1) Gertrude Lauretta McIver 25 Jan 1933 in Kinkora, PEI; born 1905 in Kinkora, PEI; died Feb 1964 in Charlottetown, PEI. He married (2) Alberta Howatt Aft. 1964; died 1989 in Charlottetown, PEI.
42 v. Mary Helen Farmer, born 27 Feb 1908 in Kinkora, P.E.I.; died 05 Jan 1957 in Kinkora, PEI.
9. John3 Farmer (James2, Farmer1) was born 1862 in Kinkora, PEI, and died 1930 in East Millinocket, Maine, USA. He married Gertrude Maude McDonald 06 Mar 1905 in Kinkora, PEI, daughter of Allan McDonald and Alice McGinty. She was born 16 Nov 1869 in Kinkora, PEI, and died 1941 in East Millinocket, Maine, USA.
43 i. John Allan4 Farmer, born 21 Dec 1905 in Kinkora, PEI; died 22 Jun 1963 in Cambridge, Mass., USA. He married Rosina McQuillan Brown 08 Feb 1944.
44 ii. James Ignatius Farmer, born 31 Jul 1907 in Kinkora, PEI; died 02 Dec 1965.
45 iii. Aloysius Leo Farmer, born 02 May 1909 in Kinkora, PEI; died 20 Aug 1966. He married Pauline McCann 14 Feb 1956 in East Millinocket, Maine.
46 iv. Joseph Lyola Farmer, born 25 Aug 1911 in Kinkora, PEI; died 05 Feb 1967. He married Arlene Brennan 09 Mar 1935 in Benedicta, Maine; born 06 Mar 1910 in Benedicta, Maine, USA; died 19 Feb 1978.
47 v. Mary Margaret Farmer, born 09 Oct 1913 in Kinkora, PEI; died 07 Jun 1964. She married Eli Peter Freeman 18 Jan 1945 in Somerville, Mass.; born 1907 in East Millinocket, Maine, USA.
13. Mary3 McGuirk (Catherine2 Farmer, Farmer1) was born 16 Nov 1856 in Margate, PEI. She married Matthew White 1881, son of ? White and Ann Couston. He was born 1818, and died Aug 1895 in Clinton, PEI.
48 i. Annastasia4 White, born 26 Jan 1882.
49 ii. Catherine Ann White, born 01 Jun 1885.
50 iii. Mary White, born 18 Apr 1887.
51 iv. Matthew White, born 05 Mar 1888.
14. Ann Jane3 McGuirk (Catherine2 Farmer, Farmer1) was born 06 Mar 1858 in Margate, PEI. She married Walter O'Grady.
15. Michael3 McGuirk (Catherine2 Farmer, Farmer1) was born 25 Aug 1859 in Margate, PEI, and died 1909. He married Mary Elizabeth MacNeill 14 Nov 1884 in Indian River, PEI. She was born 15 Oct 1862, and died 1942.
53 i. James Emmett4 McGuirk, born Oct 1885 in Margate, PEI. He married Bess Waldo.
54 ii. Gordon McGuirk, born Jun 1887 in Margate, PEI. He married Julia Burke.
55 iii. William S. McGuirk, born 05 Aug 1896 in Boston, Mass.; died 28 Nov 1959. He married (1) Margaret Adelia MacNeill; born 16 May 1896 in Vernon River, PEI; died Jun 1930. He married (2) Mary Lavina MacNeill 1934 in Boston, Mass.; born in Vernon River, PEI.
56 iv. Harold McGuirk, born Jun 1895 in Boston, Mass.. He married Mary Meehan.
57 v. Scott Edgar McGuirk, born Oct 1897 in Boston, Mass..
58 vi. John Leon McGuirk, born in Boston, Mass.. He married Frances Dalton.
16. Patrick3 McGuirk (Catherine2 Farmer, Farmer1) was born 25 May 1861 in Margate, PEI, and died 1938 in Summerfield, PEI. He married Mary Anne Young. She was born Dec 1877, and died 1941.
59 i. Harlan Joseph4 McGuirk, born Oct 1897 in Lot 19, PEI; died 1953 in Summerfield, PEI. He married Minnie Mae Sullivan; born 12 Oct 1893 in Clinton, PEI; died 1976 in Summerfield, PEI.
60 ii. John J. McGuirk, born Aug 1899 in Lot 19, PEI; died 1951. He married Gertie Sheehan; born Nov 1904 in Lot 19, PEI.
61 iii. Harold L. McGuirk, born Oct 1901 in Lot 19, PEI; died 1943.
62 iv. George Louis McGuirk, born Sep 1903 in Lot 19, PEI; died 1970.
63 v. Pearl Adelia McGuirk, born Apr 1906 in Lot 19, PEI.
64 vi. Mary Evelyn McGuirk, born Apr 1908 in Lot 19, PEI; died 08 Apr 2002 in Charlottetown, PEI.
17. Catherine3 McGuirk (Catherine2 Farmer, Farmer1) was born 11 Jul 1863 in Margate, PEI, and died 10 Jul 1940 in Summerfield, PEI. She married Edward Croken 26 Sep 1901 in Kinkora, PEI, son of John Croken and Mary Murphy. He was born 24 Sep 1851 in Emerald, PEI, and died 02 Feb 1917 in Emerald Junction, PEI.
65 i. Helena Catherine4 Croken, born 17 Nov 1902 in Emerald Junction, PEI; died 30 Jan 1984. She married Earl Vernon McCarville in Summerfield, PEI; born 30 Sep 1898 in Emerald, PEI; died May 1987.
66 ii. James St. Clair Croken, born 09 Jun 1904 in Emerald Junction, PEI; died 28 Jun 1987 in Halifax, N.S.. He married Mary Catherine Mulligan 24 Sep 1941; born 24 Oct 1911 in Haverhill, Mass.; died 25 Dec 2006 in Emerald, PEI.
67 iii. John Edward Aloysius Croken, born 05 Jun 1906 in Emerald Junction, PEI; died 08 Jul 1979 in Summerside, PEI. He married Mary Eileen McKenna 30 Jun 1937 in Summerfield, PEI; born 09 Nov 1914 in Emerald, PEI; died 29 Jun 1970 in Summerside, PEI.
18. Bridget Alice3 McGuirk (Catherine2 Farmer, Farmer1) was born 15 Apr 1871 in Margate, PEI, and died 1941 in Kinkora, PEI. She married Arthur Shreenan Nov 1903 in Summerfield, PEI. He was born Nov 1873 in Kinkora, PEI, and died 1956 in Kinkora, PEI.
68 i. Helen4 Shreenan, born Oct 1906 in Kinkora, PEI. She married Ed Gillis.
69 ii. Kathleen Bernice Shreenan, born May 1909 in Kinkora, PEI. She married John Cameron.
31. John3 Farmer (Patrick2, Farmer1) was born 1870 in Charlottetown, PEI, and died 29 Mar 1907 in Schenectady, N.Y.. He married Mary Hinds 19 Oct 1897 in Albany, New York, USA. She was born 13 Nov 1865, and died 13 Feb 1951.
70 i. John Robert4 Farmer, born 01 Aug 1899 in Albany, New York, USA; died 29 Jan 1954. He married Alice B. Callahan 29 Aug 1923 in Schenectady, N.Y..
71 ii. Henry Francis Farmer, born 17 Mar 1901; died 29 Nov 1967. He married Anne E. Krummennauer 06 Nov 1944 in Schenectady, N.Y..
72 iii. Margaret Gertrude Farmer, born 30 Jan 1904 in Albany, New York, USA; died 05 Feb 1986. She married Raymond Tanis 16 Jul 1938 in Schenectady, N.Y..


text:
G.R. No. 183014, August 07, 2013 - THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA AND ASEOCHE, REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING PARTNER, FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSEJINA C. FRIA, Respondent.
THE LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA AND ASEOCHE, REPRESENTED BY ITS FOUNDING PARTNER, FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. JOSEJINA C. FRIA, Respondent.
This is a direct recourse to the Court from the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 (RTC), through a petition for review on certiorari,1 raising a pure question of law. In particular, petitioner The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda and Aseoche (The Law Firm) assails the Resolution2 dated January 8, 2008 and Order3 dated May 16, 2008 of the RTC in S.C.A. Case No. 07-096, upholding the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable cause.
That on or about the 2nd day of February, 2006, or on dates subsequent thereto, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer she being the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court Branch 203, Muntinlupa City, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously refused openly, without any legal justification to obey the order of the said court which is of superior authority, for the issuance of a writ of execution which is her ministerial duty to do so in Civil Case No. 03-110 entitled Charles Bernard Reyes, doing business under the name and style CBH Reyes Architects vs. Spouses Cesar and Mely Esquig and Rosemarie Papas, which has become final and executory since February 2, 2006, despite requests therefor, if only to execute/enforce said decision dated July 29, 2005 rendered within the scope of its jurisdiction and issued with all the legal formalities, to the damage and prejudice of the plaintiff thereof.
In its Complaint-Affidavit10 dated February 12, 2006, The Law Firm alleged that as early as April 4, 2006, it had been following up on the issuance of a writ of execution to implement the July 29, 2005 judgment. However, Atty. Fria vehemently refused to perform her ministerial duty of issuing said writ.
On July 31, 2006, the prosecutor issued a Memorandum14 recommending, inter alia, that Atty. Fria be indicted for the crime of Open Disobedience. The corresponding Information was thereafter filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 80 (MTC), docketed as Criminal Case No. 46400.
On September 4, 2006, Atty. Fria filed a Motion for Determination of Probable Cause15 (motion) which The Law Firm opposed16 on the ground that the Rules on Criminal Procedure do not empower trial courts to review the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause and that such rules only give the trial court judge the duty to determine whether or not a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused.
Pending resolution of her motion, Atty. Fria filed a Manifestation with Motion17 dated November 17, 2006, stating that the Court had rendered a Decision in the case of Reyes v. Balde II (Reyes)18 – an offshoot of Civil Case No. 03-110 – wherein it was held that Branch 203 had no jurisdiction over the foregoing civil case.19 In response, The Law Firm filed its Comment/Opposition,20 contending that Atty. Fria already committed the crime of Open Disobedience 119 days before the Reyes ruling was rendered and hence, she remains criminally liable for the afore-stated charge.
Aggrieved, The Law Firm filed a Motion for Reconsideration29 which was equally denied by the RTC in an Order30 dated May 16, 2008. Hence, the instant petition.
The essential issue in this case is whether or not the RTC erred in sustaining the MTC’s dismissal of the case for Open Disobedience against Atty. Fria, i.e., Criminal Case No. 46400, for lack of probable cause.
While a judge’s determination of probable cause is generally confined to the limited purpose of issuing arrest warrants, Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly states that a judge may immediately dismiss a case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause x x x.
In this regard, so as not to transgress the public prosecutor’s authority, it must be stressed that the judge’s dismissal of a case must be done only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on record plainly fails to establish probable cause – that is when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged. On the contrary, if the evidence on record shows that, more likely than not, the crime charged has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty of the same, the judge should not dismiss the case and thereon, order the parties to proceed to trial. In doubtful cases, however, the appropriate course of action would be to order the presentation of additional evidence.
Applying these principles to the case at bar would lead to the conclusion that the MTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable cause. The dismissal ought to be sustained since the records clearly disclose the unmistakable absence of the integral elements of the crime of Open Disobedience. While the first element, i.e., that the offender is a judicial or executive officer, concurs in view of Atty. Fria’s position as Branch Clerk of Court, the second and third elements of the crime evidently remain wanting.
Hence, since it is explicitly required that the subject issuance be made within the scope of a superior authority’s jurisdiction, it cannot therefore be doubted that the second element of the crime of Open Disobedience does not exist. Lest it be misunderstood, a court – or any of its officers for that matter – which has no jurisdiction over a particular case has no authority to act at all therein. In this light, it cannot be argued that Atty. Fria had already committed the crime based on the premise that the Court’s pronouncement as to Branch 203’s lack of jurisdiction came only after the fact. Verily, Branch 203’s lack of jurisdiction was not merely a product of the Court’s pronouncement in Reyes. The said fact is traced to the very inception of the proceedings and as such, cannot be accorded temporal legal existence in order to indict Atty. Fria for the crime she stands to be prosecuted.
In fine, based on the above-stated reasons, the Court holds that no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the MTC as correctly found by the RTC. It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a “capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.” The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an “evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.”35 Consequently, the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable cause is hereby sustained.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution dated January 8, 2008 and Order dated May 16, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 276 in S.C.A. Case No. 07-096 are hereby AFFIRMED.
2 Id. at 9-10. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Romulo SG. Villanueva.
ART. 231. Open Disobedience. – Any judicial or executive officer who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment, decision, or order of any superior authority made within the scope of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the legal formalities, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
14 Id. at 237-242. Issued by 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Leopoldo B. Macinas and approved by City Prosecutor Edward M. Togonon.
16 Id. at 264-281. See Opposition dated October 10, 2006.
18 G.R. No. 168384, August 7, 2006, 498 SCRA 186.
20Rollo, pp. 287-294. Filed on December 21, 2006.
21 Id. at 296-304. Penned by Presiding Judge Paulino Q. Gallegos.
25 Id. at 295 and 330.
28 Id. at 10. Dated January 30, 2008.
31 G.R. Nos. 178947 and 179079, June 26, 2013.
33 Supra note 18, at 197.
35Yu v. Reyes-Carpio, G.R. No. 189207, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 341, 348.

matches:
v.
v.
v.
In fine
ART. 231
v.


text:
Donald J. TRUMP, Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
J. Taikwok Yung, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
Leo Benjamin Kittay, James D. Weinberger, Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
DORA L. IRIZARRY, District Judge.
Defendant's motion is granted with respect to the ACPA claim and denied as moot as to all other claims.
Summary judgment is appropriate where " the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The court must view all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, but " only if there is a ‘ genuine’ dispute as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). " When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment." Id. A genuine issue of material fact exists if " the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The nonmoving party, however, may not rely on " [c]onclusory allegations, conjecture, and speculation." Kerzer v. Kingly Mfg., 156 F.3d 396, 400 (2d Cir.1998). " When no rational jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party because the evidence to support its case is so slight, there is no genuine issue of material fact and a grant of summary judgment is proper." Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P'ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir.1994) (citing Dister v. Cont'l Grp., Inc., 859 F.2d 1108, 1114 (2d Cir.1988)).
In addition, the court holds pro se pleadings to " to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9, 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980). The court construes them " to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted).

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