text:
We look forward to your visit and your interest in our website www.zollern.com. The protection of your private data is a matter of course for us. We would therefore like to inform you below how we will process your personal data. The website www.zollern.com is an offer of ZOLLERN GmbH & Co. KG (hereinafter referred to as Zollern).
Personal data are such data, which make the determination of their person possible. It does not matter whether the determination can be made on the basis of a single piece of information. The more information and data can be brought together, the more precisely the person can be identified. Personal data includes in particular the name, address, age, email address and telephone number of a person.
Zollern collects, processes and stores your personal data only if this is permitted by law or if you have given your consent. We obtain this data in two ways: Either you have provided us with the data or we collect it when you use our services.
Evaluation of system safety and stability.
The legal basis for data processing is art. 6 para. 1 sentence 1 lit. f GDPR. Our justified interest follows from the purposes listed above for the collection of data. Under no circumstances do we use the collected data for the purpose of drawing conclusions about your person.
Cookies" are small files that are automatically created by your browser and stored on your end device (laptop, tablet, smartphone, etc.). Cookies do not contain viruses, Trojans or other malware.
Cookies are absolutely necessary for the operation of a website and are indispensable for navigating on it and using its functions. These cookies are not permanently stored on your computer or device and are deleted when you close your browser (session cookies).
Statistical, analytical, and performance cookies allow you to track and count the number of visitors and traffic sources to measure and improve website performance. They are also used to find out if certain pages have problems or errors, which pages are the most popular, and how visitors navigate the site. Analytical / performance cookies are deleted after a defined retention time.
Tracking cookies are used to track visits to and individual activities on websites. They serve to statistically record and evaluate the use of web pages. These cookies are automatically deleted after a defined period of time.
The data processed by cookies are necessary for the purposes mentioned to safeguard our legitimate interests pursuant to art. 6 para. 1 sentence 1 lit. f GDPR.
You can use your browser to display the cookies available on your computer, to delete the existing cookies or to set up the configuration so that not all or no cookies are stored. Please note that some functions do not work or do not work correctly if you disable the setting of cookies.
The measures listed and used by us are carried out on the basis of art. 6 para. 1 sentence 1 lit. a, b, or f GDPR (due to legitimate interest of the provider - lit. f; contractual or quasi-contractual basis - lit. b; or due to your consent - lit. a). With the measures we are implementing, we want to ensure that our website is designed to meet needs and is continually optimised. On the other hand we use the measures in order to statistically record the use of our website and to evaluate it for the purpose of optimising our offer for you. These interests shall be deemed to be justified within the meaning of the aforementioned provision.
The respective data processing purposes and data categories can be found in the corresponding tools.
If your browser does not support the opt-out plug-in (e.g. because you access our website from a smartphone or tablet) or if you do not want to install this plug-in, you can use this link to set a cookie that prevents the use of Google Analytics on these pages. Please note that this opt-out only works as long as you do not delete the cookies in your browser. To keep your opt-out settings even if you delete cookies, you can also install a plug-in. Additional information about this can be found here.
We offer you extensive personal support. If you contact us via the contact form, we will therefore collect your salutation, your title and your email address in order to be able to answer your enquiry quickly and individually. If you would like us to contact you by telephone, please let us know your telephone number. The data will only be used to answer your enquiry, not for a sales pitch or otherwise for advertising purposes.
We also offer you extensive personal support via our pages in social media (Xing) on the basis of art. 6 para. 1 sentence1 lit. f GDPR and the opportunity to stay in touch with us. These social media services themselves collect personal data, e.g. via your profile created there or via so-called social plug-ins, which are implemented in third party websites.
By integrating the plug-ins, the respective companies receive the information that you have called up the corresponding page of our website. If you are logged into one of the companies listed above, they can assign the visit to your account there. When you interact with the plug-ins, the corresponding information is transmitted directly from your browser to the respective company and stored there. If you do not have an account with one of the above companies, they may still know and store your IP address.
It cannot therefore be ruled out that every visitor to our website may be recorded by the company listed above on the basis of the IP address and the URL accessed, even if the user does not click on the plug-ins and is not registered with the company with a user account.
Thank you for your interest in Zollern as an employer and for visiting our career portal https://www.zollern.com/en/company/career.html. The protection of your private data is a matter of course for us.
On our career portal you will find our job advertisements and can apply for them or simply send an unsolicited application - either by post or by email to jobs(at)zollern(dot)com. If no suitable position is available at the moment and you would like to receive further information about suitable positions, you can agree to your documents being stored longer (1 year). You can revoke this consent at any time and without stating reasons.
We do not pass on your data to third parties. If you have applied for a position within the Zollern Group, we will pass on your data to the company posting the job within the Zollern Group in order to carry out the application procedure.
You can register online as a new supplier at Zollern on our supplier portal. You can apply as a supplier for our range of requirements by filling out the online form. Your application will automatically be forwarded to the responsible party in the purchasing department. We use the form to collect your company data and contact person data. The title, surname, first name, telephone number and email address as well as a login name are required for the registration.
As a registered supplier, you have the possibility, to maintain your supplier data (e.g. address, contact person) and documents (e.g. certificates), as well as to process enquiries from Zollern and to send quotations to Zollern.
The data will not be passed on to third parties. The supplier platform that we use is an online offer from our service provider, which processes your data on our behalf in accordance with the law and in a manner bound by contract.
As a service provider for our external presence, you have the opportunity to obtain access to our style guide via our marketing department. Here you will find all information about the corporate identity of Zollern.
Zollern concludes various contracts (e.g. contracts with suppliers, system partners, service companies, repair processing) in order to fulfil their economic purpose. The collection of data and its processing serves to establish, implement and terminate the contractual relationship. The primary legal basis for this is art. 6 para. 1 b) GDPR. Where necessary, we also process your data on the basis of art. 6 para. 1 f) GDPR in order to protect the legitimate interests of Zollern or third parties (e.g. authorities). This applies in particular within the group for purposes of group management, internal communication and other administrative purposes. In addition, the processing of personal data may be based on your consent.
4.1 Which data categories does Zollern use?
The processed categories of personal data include in particular your contact data (name of the company, address, surname and last name of a contact person, (mobile) telephone number, email address of the responsible contact person), as well as, depending on the purpose, your bank details and, if applicable, your VAT ID number.
We would like to draw your attention to the fact that within the scope of the respective contractual relationship you must provide personal and company-related data which is necessary for the establishment, performance and termination of the contractual relationship or service promise and their respective fulfilment or which we are legally obliged to collect.
4.2 How long will your data be stored?
We will delete your personal data as soon as it is no longer required for the aforementioned purposes or you have exercised your right of objection. After termination of the contractual relationship, your personal data will be stored as long as we are legally obliged to do so. This regularly results from legal obligations to provide evidence and to retain records, which are regulated in the German Commercial Code and the German Tax Code . The storage periods are then up to ten years. In addition, personal information may be retained for the period during which claims may be made against us (statutory limitation period of three or up to thirty years).
Of course, you retain control over all personal data that you provide to us when visiting the website and using our services. You are entitled to the following rights, the claiming of which is free of charge for you.
You have the right to revoke your consent to the processing of personal data at any time with effect for the future. In the event of revocation, we will delete the data concerned without delay, unless further processing can be supported by a legal basis for processing. The revocation of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of the processing carried out on the basis of the consent until revoked.
If we process your personal data within the scope of a weighing of interests on the basis of our predominantly legitimate interest, you have the right at any time, for reasons arising from your particular situation, to object to this processing with effect for the future.
If you utilise your right of objection, we will stop processing the respective data. However, we reserve the right to further processing if we can prove compelling reasons for the processing worthy of protection which outweigh your interests, fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms, or if the processing serves the assertion, exercise or defence of legal claims.
If we process your personal data for the purpose of direct advertising, you have the right to object at any time to the processing of your personal data for the purpose of such advertising.
You have the right to request a transfer of your personal data from us to another location.
You have the right to have your personal data corrected, deleted or its processing restricted.
You have the right to appeal to a supervisory authority or to our data protection officer if you have a reason for complaint. If you wish to exercise any rights against our company, please contact the persons listed at the end of this privacy statement.
The criterion for the duration of storing personal data is the respective legal retention period. After this period has expired, the corresponding data will be routinely deleted if they are no longer needed to achieve the required purposes.
We use the widely used SSL (Secure Socket Layer) method in conjunction with the highest level of encryption supported by your browser. You can tell whether an individual page of our website is transmitted in encrypted form by the closed representation of the key or lock symbol in the lower status bar of your browser.

matches:
art. 6
art. 6
art. 6
art. 6
art. 6
art. 6


text:
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. FLORENCIO M. REYES,OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, AND RENE DE GUZMAN, CLERK, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 31, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, RESPONDENTS.
This complaint for gross misconduct against Rene de Guzman (De Guzman), Clerk, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 31, is an offshoot of the complaint filed by Atty. Hugo B. Sansano, Jr. (Atty. Sansano) relative to the alleged incompetence/inefficiency of the RTC of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 31, in the transmittal of the records of Criminal Case No. 1144-G to the Court of Appeals.
In our Resolution dated September 17, 2007, we adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) declaring as closed and terminated the administrative matter relative to the delay in the transmittal of the records of Criminal Case No. 1144-G, and exonerating De Guzman and Florencio M. Reyes (Reyes), the Officer-in-Charge of the RTC of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 31.
x x x Mr. Rene de Guzman, the Docket Clerk, was [in] charge of the preparation and transmission of the records on appeal x x x. Nonetheless, x x x Judge Sta. Romana would x x x often x x x [remind him] about the transmittal of records of the appealed cases [for more than] a dozen times, even personally confronting Mr. Rene de Guzman about the matter, x x x though unsuccessfully x x x. Mr. De Guzman would just x x x dismiss the subject in ridicule and with the empty assurance that the task is as good as finished and what x x x need[s] to be done [is] simply retyping of the corrected indices or the like and that he would submit the same in [no] time at all. This was after a number of weeks from March 26, 2003 after Mr. De Guzman made the undersigned sign the transmittal of PP v. Manangan which he allegedly did not transmit before owing to some minor corrections in the indexing. All too often, (it seems to have been customary on his part, for this he would do to other pressing assignment) he would come to the office the next day, jubilant that the problem has been solved at last! But to no avail. This attitude seemingly bordering on the irrational if not to say that a sense of responsibility is utterly lacking may have given cue for Judge Sta. Romana to have Mr. De Guzman undergo a drug test x x x.
On May 24, 2004, Judge Sta. Romana requested the Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office to conduct a drug test on De Guzman. On May 26, 2004, De Guzman underwent a qualitative examination the results of which yielded positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol metabolites (marijuana) and Methamphetamine (shabu), both dangerous drugs.
In our Resolution of September 17, 2007, we required De Guzman to submit his comment on the charge of misconduct relative to the alleged use of prohibited drugs within 10 days from notice. Notwithstanding the Court's directive, De Guzman failed to file his Comment. Thus, on January 23, 2008, we directed De Guzman to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the September 17, 2007 Resolution. At the same time, we resolved to require him to submit his comment within 10 days from notice.
De Guzman complied with our directive only on March 12, 2008. In his letter, De Guzman claimed that he failed to comply with the Court's directive because he lost his copy of the September 17, 2007 Resolution.
Noticeably, respondent de Guzman did not challenge the authenticity and validity of the chemistry report of the Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office which found him positive for "marijuana" and "shabu". He did not also promptly submit another test report or other document to controvert the drug test report. His plain refutation of the charge and his willingness to submit himself now to a drug test are token attempts at candor and assertion of innocence. These perfunctory attempts cannot prevail over the solitary yet compelling evidence of misconduct for use of prohibited drugs.
Relative to respondent's delay in filing his comment to the charge of misconduct, his claim that he "lost and misplaced (his) copy of said resolution, and for that (he) almost forgot about it" is neither a valid reason nor an excuse for the delay in complying with the order of the Court. His flippant attitude towards the repeated orders of the Court to explain his conduct does not merit consideration and justification for delay.
It is settled that respondent's "indifference to [the resolutions] requiring him to comment on the accusation(s) in the complaint thoroughly and substantially is gross misconduct, and may even be considered as outright disrespect to the Court." After all, a resolution of the Supreme Court is not a mere request and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt of the judicial system.
It should be mentioned that this is not the first instance that respondent is ordered to account for his failure to comply with a court order. Earlier, he was required to explain to the Court his failure to promptly submit a copy of the affidavit of retired court stenographer Jorge Caoile and to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for his failure to comply with a show cause order.
For failure to overcome the charge of use of prohibited drugs and to satisfactorily explain his failure to submit promptly his compliance to the Court's show cause order, respondent may be held guilty of two counts of gross misconduct.
Respondent Rene de Guzman be found guilty of gross misconduct and accordingly be DISMISSED from the service effective immediately with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled agencies, corporations and financial institutions.
On August 27, 2008, we required De Guzman to manifest within 10 days from receipt whether he is willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted. As before, De Guzman simply ignored our directive. Consequently, on September 28, 2009, we deemed waived the filing of De Guzman's manifestation.
We note that De Guzman is adept at ignoring the Court's directives. In his letter-explanation in the administrative matter relative to the delay in the transmittal of the records of Criminal Case No. 1144-G, he requested for a period of 10 days or until November 15, 2004 within which to submit the Affidavit of George Caoile (Caoile), the retired Stenographer, as part of his comment. However, despite the lapse of five months, De Guzman still failed to submit Caoile's affidavit. Subsequently, we furnished him with a copy of the April 18, 2005 Resolution wherein we mentioned that we are awaiting his submission of the affidavit of Caoile which shall be considered as part of his (De Guzman's) comment.
Nine months from the time he undertook to submit the affidavit of Caoile, De Guzman has yet to comply with his undertaking. Thus, on August 10, 2005, we required De Guzman to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure.
Unfortunately, De Guzman merely ignored our show cause order. Consequently, on November 20, 2006, we imposed upon him a fine of P1,000.00. Finally, on January 24, 2007, or after the lapse of one year and two months, De Guzman submitted the affidavit of Caoile.
Similarly, we also required De Guzman to file his comment within 10 days from notice as regards the allegation that he was using prohibited drugs. However, he again ignored our directive as contained in the Resolution of September 17, 2007. Thus, on January 23, 2008, we required him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for such failure. By way of explanation, De Guzman submitted a letter dated March 12, 2008 wherein he claimed that he failed to file his comment on the charge of miscondouct because he allegedly lost his copy of the said September 17, 2007 Resolution.
Finally, on August 27, 2008, we required De Guzman to manifest whether he is willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings submitted. As before, he failed to comply with the same.
Like their counterparts in the private sector, government officials and employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws on public officers, all enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. And if RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, who, by constitutional demand, are required to be accountable at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency.
To detect the use of dangerous drugs among lower court employees, impose disciplinary sanctions, and provide administrative remedies in cases where an employee is found positive for dangerous drug use.
To discourage the use and abuse of dangerous drugs among first and second level court employees and enhance awareness of their adverse effects by information dissemination and periodic random drug testing.
To institute other measures that address the menace of drug abuse within the personnel of the Judiciary.
In the instant administrative matter, De Guzman never challenged the authenticity of the Chemistry Report of the Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. Likewise, the finding that De Guzman was found positive for use of marijuana and shabu remains unrebutted. De Guzman's general denial that he is not a drug user cannot prevail over this compelling evidence.
The foregoing constitutes more than substantial evidence that De Guzman was indeed found positive for use of dangerous drugs. In Dadulo v. Court of Appeals, we held that "(a)dministrative proceedings are governed by the `substantial evidence rule.' Otherwise stated, a finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise."
This Court is a temple of justice. Its basic duty and responsibility is the dispensation of justice. As dispensers of justice, all members and employees of the Judiciary are expected to adhere strictly to the laws of the land, one of which is Republic Act No. 9165 which prohibits the use of dangerous drugs.
The Court has adhered to the policy of safeguarding the welfare, efficiency, and well-being not only of all the court personnel, but also that of the general public whom it serves. The Court will not allow its front-line representatives, like De Guzman, to put at risk the integrity of the whole judiciary. As we held in Baron v. Anacan, "(t)he image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat. Thus, the conduct of a person serving the judiciary must, at all times, be characterized by propriety and decorum and above all else, be above suspicion so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the judiciary. The Court would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those in the administration of justice, which will violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary."
SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
De Guzman's use of prohibited drugs has greatly affected his efficiency in the performance of his functions. De Guzman did not refute the observation of his superior, Judge Sta. Romana, that as a criminal docket court clerk, he (De Guzman) was totally inept and incompetent. Hence, to get across his displeasure and dissatisfaction with his job performance, Judge Sta. Romana gave De Guzman an unsatisfactory rating.
Crim. Case No. 1849-C, PP v. Ruben Villanueva - Order of transmittal to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija dated August 6, 2003 to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration.
Crim. Case No. 2007-G, PP vs. Armando Marcos - Information dated June 23, 2002; Records received on January 2, 2003.
The Presiding Judge caused the issuance of finding of probable causes and the corresponding Warrants of Arrest. You are hereby ordered to assist the OIC/Clerk of Court in sending forthwith the Warrants of Arrest to the proper agencies for implementation.
In the same vein, Reyes also put forth the absurd behavioral manifestations of De Guzman. According to Reyes, Judge Sta. Romana would always remind De Guzman to prepare and transmit the complete records of the appealed cases. However, De Guzman would only make empty assurances to perform his task. Notwithstanding the reminders of his superiors, De Guzman would still fail to transmit the records. Instead, he would report the next day and jubilantly declare that the problem has been solved at last.
In fine, we agree with the OCA that by his repeated and contumacious conduct of disrespecting the Court's directives, De Guzman is guilty of gross misconduct and has already forfeited his privilege of being an employee of the Court. Likewise, we can no longer countenance his manifestations of queer behavior, bordering on absurd, irrational and irresponsible, because it has greatly affected his job performance and efficiency. By using prohibited drugs, and being a front-line representative of the Judiciary, De Guzman has exposed to risk the very institution which he serves. It is only by weeding out the likes of De Guzman from the ranks that we would be able to preserve the integrity of this institution.
Two justices disagree with the majority opinion. They opine that the Court's action in this case contravenes an express public policy, i.e., "imprisonment for drug dealers and pushers, rehabilitation for their victims." They also posit that De Guzman's failure to properly perform his duties and promptly respond to Court orders precisely springs from his drug addiction that requires rehabilitation. Finally, they state that the Court's real strength is not in its righteousness but in its willingness to understand that men are not perfect and that there is a time to punish and a time to give a chance for contrition and change.
However, the legislative policy as embodied in Republic Act No. 9165 in deterring dangerous drug use by resort to sustainable programs of rehabilitation and treatment must be considered in light of this Court's constitutional power of administrative supervision over courts and court personnel. The legislative power imposing policies through laws is not unlimited and is subject to the substantive and constitutional limitations that set parameters both in the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects of legislation. As such, it cannot limit the Court's power to impose disciplinary actions against erring justices, judges and court personnel. Neither should such policy be used to restrict the Court's power to preserve and maintain the Judiciary's honor, dignity and integrity and public confidence that can only be achieved by imposing strict and rigid standards of decency and propriety governing the conduct of justices, judges and court employees.
Likewise, we cannot subscribe to the idea that De Guzman's irrational behavior stems solely from his being a drug user. Such queer behavior can be attributed to several factors. However, it cannot by any measure be categorically stated at this point that it can be attributed solely to his being a drug user.
Finally, it must be emphasized at this juncture that De Guzman's dismissal is not grounded only on his being a drug user. His outright dismissal from the service is likewise anchored on his contumacious and repeated acts of not heeding the directives of this Court. As we have already stated, such attitude betrays not only a recalcitrant streak of character, but also disrespect for the lawful orders and directives of the Court.
ACCORDINGLY, Rene de Guzman, Clerk, Regional Trial Court of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Branch 31, is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
 Although included in the case title as one of the respondents, it should be emphasized the Florencio M. Reyes had already been exonerated relative to the administrative charge of inefficiency in the transmittal of the records of Criminal Case No. 1144-G. Hence, the present administrative case pertains only to respondent Rene de Guzman.
* Two Justices dissented while two other Justices took no part pursuant to the Rules on Inhibition. One Justice concurred with his own separate view.
 Undated letter of Florencio M. Reyes, p. 2.
 Report and Recommendation dated July 23, 2008, p. 3.
 A.M. No. P-05-2046, September 17, 2009.
 G.R. Nos. 157870, 158633, and 161658, November 3, 2008, 570 SCRA 410, 430.
 Id. at 435. Emphasis supplied.
 Re: Draft Administrative Circular on the Guidelines for the Implementation of the Drug Prevention Program for the First and Second Level Courts.
 G.R. No. 175451, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 357.
SEC. 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. - A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where a person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case, the provisions stated therein shall apply.
 A.M. No. P-04-1816, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 313, 315.
 Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, supra note 7 at 423.

matches:
v.
v.
v.
v.
In fine
v.


§ 255-15 Final plan for major subdivision or land development.
§ 255-16 Final plan for minor subdivision.
§ 255-17 Recording of final plan.
Sketch plans shall require no more than a sixty-day review period. The review process required for preliminary and final plans shall include no more than 90 days, starting from the date of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission next following the date the application is accepted by the Township Engineer and ending with the applicant being notified of the decision of the Board of Commissioners.
The submission of amended or revised plans, whether in the form of a sketch, preliminary or final plan, shall constitute a new application date, and the 60 or 90 days mentioned above for the required review process shall begin upon the date of resubmission of the amended or revised plans.
The presentation of a preliminary plan and a final plan shall each be considered a separate submission, and the maximum ninety-day review period may be required for each. A sixty-day review period may be required for a sketch plan. No limitations for the action of any public official or agency set forth in this article shall be construed as mandatory.
The applicant is encouraged to meet informally with the Township Engineer and the Director of Community Development to obtain information regarding zoning and subdivision requirements and development alternatives prior to the initial submission.
The purpose of the sketch plan, which is an optional submission, is to afford the applicant the opportunity to consult early and informally with both the Planning Commission, the Director of Community Development and the Township Engineer before the preparation of the preliminary plan and formal application for approval.
During the sketch plan procedure, the applicant can advantageously make use of the services of the Planning Commission, the Director of Community Development and the Township Engineer to help him analyze the problem of the development and plan more adequately for its sound coordination with the community. The sketch plan procedure also affords the opportunity to give informal guidance to the applicant at a stage when potential points of difference can be more easily resolved. It can also simplify official action and save unnecessary expense and delay.
Deposit and fees. The Township shall collect and transmit all fees to applicable agencies.
The applicant shall prepare the sketch plan and application form, including the data specified in § 255-19.
The applicant shall submit 15 copies of the sketch plan and one application form to the Township Engineer.
The Township Engineer shall check the submission for completeness and, if the submission is incomplete, shall notify the applicant within seven days and indicate the deficiencies. If the application is complete, the Township Engineer shall accept the sketch plan and application form.
One copy to the Delaware County Planning Commission.
Nine copies to the Planning Commission.
One copy to the Radnor Township Zoning Officer.
The Zoning Officer shall, within 30 days following acceptance of the sketch plan application, review the zoning considerations in the applicant's submission and make recommendations to the Township Engineer.
The Planning Commission may, within 30 days following acceptance of the sketch plan application, meet with the applicant to review the submission.
Review the engineering, design and site planning considerations in the applicant's submission.
Review the recommendations of the Zoning Officer.
Prepare a report for the Planning Commission and the applicant.
The Delaware County Planning Commission may review the sketch plan and prepare a report for the Township Engineer and the Planning Commission.
Review the reports on the submission by the Township Engineer and the Delaware County Planning Commission.
Determine whether the sketch plan meets the objectives and requirements of this chapter and other pertinent regulations and ordinances.
Recommend revisions, if any, so that the subsequent preliminary or final plan will conform to Township regulations and ordinances.
Editor's Note: A diagram outlining sketch plan procedure is included at the end of this chapter.
Purpose. The purpose of the preliminary plan is to obtain formal conditional approval in order to minimize changes and revisions before final plans are submitted.
A preliminary plan shall be submitted conforming to the changes recommended during the sketch plan procedure, if any.
The preliminary plan and all information and procedures relating thereto shall, in all respects, be in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, except where variation therefrom may be required pursuant to § 255-11.
Deposits and fees for the different types of subdivision and land development submissions are listed in the Radnor Township Fee Schedule. Fees, pursuant to the Delaware County Planning Commission Fee Schedule, may also be required.
The Township shall collect and immediately deposit all Township fees in the proper Township bank account, as directed by the Board of Commissioners, and shall collect and transmit all other fees to applicable agencies.
The applicant shall prepare the preliminary plan and application form as specified in §§ 255-18 and 255-20.
Eighteen copies of the preliminary plan.
The Radnor Township subdivision and land development application form.
The Delaware County Planning Commission application form.
The application for the planning module for land development.
The Township Engineer shall check the submission for completeness and, if the submission is incomplete, shall notify the applicant within 14 days and indicate the deficiencies. If the submission is complete, the Township Engineer shall accept the preliminary plan and applications.
Four copies of the plan to the Delaware County Planning Commission.
One copy of the plan to the Delaware County Conservation District.
Nine copies of the plan to the Planning Commission.
One copy of the plan to the Radnor Township Public Works Department.
One copy of the plan to the Radnor Township Zoning Officer.
The application for the planning module for land development to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Review the proposed zoning considerations in the application's submission.
Make recommendations to the Township Engineer.
Review the proposed public improvements in the applicant's submission.
Review the recommendations of the Zoning Officer and Public Works Department.
Prepare a report for the Planning Commission, Board of Commissioners and the applicant.
The Delaware County Planning Commission shall review the preliminary plan and prepare a report for the Township Engineer, Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners shall not approve or deny any preliminary plan until it has received the report from the County Planning Commission or until 30 days have been allowed for receipt of such report.
Meet with the applicant at its scheduled meeting to discuss the plan. Failure of the applicant to appear at this meeting, after proper notification, may result in the subdivision application being denied.
Review the reports on the submission by the Township Engineer and Delaware County Planning Commission and other pertinent reports. The Planning Commission may also solicit reviews and reports from adjacent municipalities and other governmental agencies affected by the plan.
Determine whether the preliminary plan meets the objectives and requirements of this chapter and other pertinent regulations and ordinances.
Recommend revisions, if any, so the plan will conform to Township regulations and ordinances.
Recommend approval or disapproval of the preliminary plan in a written report to the Board of Commissioners.
Meet with the applicant at its scheduled caucus meeting to discuss the plan. Failure of the applicant to appear at this meeting after proper notification may result in the subdivision application being denied.
Review the reports of the Planning Commission, Delaware County Planning Commission, Township Engineer and other pertinent reviewing agencies.
Approve or disapprove the preliminary plan. If approved, the Board of Commissioners shall express its approval and state the condition of approval, if any, in writing. Whenever approval is subject to such specified conditions, the written action of the Board of Commissioners also shall require the written approval of the applicant to the conditions. If such written approval of the conditions is not received by the Board of Commissioners within the time period required by this chapter for a decision, the plan shall be deemed to have been denied by the Board of Commissioners. If disapproved, the Board of Commissioners shall state the reasons for this action.
The decision of the Board of Commissioners shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the applicant (or his agent) personally or mailed to him at the last known address not later than 15 days following the decision.
Approval of the preliminary plan shall not constitute approval of the final plan or authorize the sale of lots or construction of buildings.
If the preliminary plan is disapproved, the applicant may file a revised preliminary plan with the Township Engineer in order to secure approval. The normal fee will be charged for this revision.
If the preliminary plan is approved, the Township may submit a copy of the approved plan to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
Editor's Note: A diagram outlining preliminary plan procedure is located at the end of this chapter.
Purpose. The purpose of the final plan is to require formal approval by the Board of Commissioners before plans for all subdivisions and land developments are recorded as by § 255-17.
General. The final plan shall conform to the preliminary plan, as approved. The final plan and all information and procedures relating thereto shall, in all respects, be in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, except where variation therefrom may be specifically approved by the Board of Commissioners pursuant to § 255-11.
Deposits and fees for the different types of subdivision and land development submissions are listed in the Radnor Township Fee Schedule. Fees pursuant to the Delaware County Planning Commission Fee Schedule may also be required.
The Township shall collect and immediately deposit all Township fees collected in the proper Township bank account, as directed by the Board of Commissioners, and shall collect and transmit all other fees to applicable agencies.
The applicant shall prepare the final plan and application form as specified in §§ 255-18 and 255-21.
The applicant shall prepare planning modules for land development as required in Chapter 71 of the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act.
Twelve copies of the final plan.
Three copies of the planning modules for land development.
The Township Engineer shall check the submission for completeness and, if the submission is incomplete, shall notify the applicant within 14 days and indicate the deficiencies. If the submission is complete, the Township Engineer shall accept the final plan, applications and planning modules.
Four copies of the plan and one copy of the planning module to the Delaware County Planning Commission.
One copy of the plan to the Planning Commission.
One copy of the plan and one copy of the planning module to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Review the zoning considerations in the applicant's submission.
The Planning Commission may, within 30 days following acceptance of the final plan application, meet with the applicant to review the submission.
The Delaware County Planning Commission shall review the final plan and prepare a report for the Township Engineer, Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners. The Board shall not approve or deny any final plan until it has received the report from the County Planning Commission or until 30 days have been allowed for the receipt of said report.
Review the reports on the submission by the Township Engineer, Delaware County Planning Commission and other pertinent reports. The Planning Commission also may solicit reviews and reports from adjacent municipalities and other governmental agencies affected by the plan.
Determine whether the final plan meets the objectives and requirements of this chapter and other pertinent regulations and ordinances.
Recommend revisions, if any, so that the plan will conform to Township regulations and ordinances.
Recommend approval or disapproval of the final plan to the Board of Commissioners.
Meet with the applicant at its scheduled caucus meeting to discuss the plan. Failure of the applicant to appear at this meeting, after proper notification, may result in the subdivision application being denied.
Review the reports of the Planning Commission, Delaware County Planning Commission, Township Engineer and other reviewing agencies.
Approve or disapprove the final plan. If approved, the Board of Commissioners shall express its approval and state the conditions of approval, if any, in writing. Whenever approval is subject to such specified conditions, the written action of the Board shall also require the written approval of the applicant to the conditions. If such written approval of the conditions is not received by the Board within the time period required for a decision, as specified by this chapter, the plan shall be deemed to have been denied by the Board. If disapproved, the Board of Commissioners shall state the reasons for this action.
The decision of the Board of Commissioners shall be in writing and shall be communicated to the applicant (or his agent) personally or mailed to him at the last known address, not later than 15 days following the decision.
The Board of Commissioners shall adopt a resolution approving the final plan.
Approval shall not be final until entry into contract and production of completion guaranty as set forth in Article VII.
Two exact copies of the approved final plan on linen, with the signatures of the required agencies as specified in § 255-23, shall be submitted to the Board of Commissioners.
If the final plan is disapproved, the applicant may file a revised final plan with the Township Engineer in order to secure approval. The normal fee will be charged for this revision.
Editor's Note: A diagram outlining final plan procedure is included at the end of this chapter.
Purpose. In the case of minor subdivisions, it is the purpose of this section to provide a simplified procedure by which said minor subdivision may be submitted and approved.
General. In the event that the proposed subdivision shall involve a change in the location of streets, then the provisions of this section on minor subdivisions shall not be applicable and the owner shall be required to comply with the requirements of § 255-15.
Deposits and fees for the submission of a minor subdivision plan are listed in the Radnor Township Fee Schedule. Fees, pursuant to the Delaware County Planning Commission Fee Schedule, may also be required.
The Township shall immediately deposit all Township fees collected in the proper Township bank account, as directed by the Board of Commissioners, and shall transmit all other fees to applicable agencies.
The applicant shall prepare a minor subdivision plan and application form as specified in §§ 255-18 and 255-22.
The applicant shall prepare planning modules for land development as required by Chapter 71 of the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act, if required by the Township Engineer.
Eighteen copies of the final minor subdivision plan.
Two copies of the planning modules for land development.
The Township Engineer shall check the submission for completeness and, if the submission is incomplete, shall notify the applicant within seven days and indicate the deficiencies. If the submission is complete, the Township Engineer shall accept the final minor subdivision plan, application, planning modules and fees.
Four copies of the plan and one copy of the planning module, if required, to the Delaware County Planning Commission.
One copy of the plan and one copy of the planning module to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, if required.
Review the proposed public improvements in the applicant's submission, if any.
The Planning Commission may, within 30 days following acceptance of the final minor subdivision application, meet with the applicant to review the submission.
The Delaware County Planning Commission shall review the final minor subdivision plan and prepare a report for the Township Engineer, Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners. The Board shall not approve or deny any final plan until it has received the report from the County Planning Commission or until 30 days have been allowed for the receipt of said report.
Determine whether the final minor subdivision plan meets the objectives and requirements of this chapter and other pertinent regulations and ordinances.
Recommend approval or disapproval of the final minor subdivision to the Board of Commissioners.
Determine whether the final minor subdivision plan meets the objectives and requirements of other pertinent regulations and ordinances.
Approve or disapprove the final minor subdivision plan. If approved, the Board of Commissioners shall express its approval and state the conditions of approval, if any, in writing. Whenever approval is subject to such specified conditions, the written action of the Board also shall require the written approval of the applicant to the conditions. If such written approval of the conditions is not received by the Board within the time period required for a decision, as specified by this chapter, the plan shall be deemed to have been denied by the Board. If disapproved, the Board of Commissioners shall state the reasons for this action.
If the final minor subdivision plan is approved, two exact copies of the approved final minor subdivision plan on linen, with the signatures required in § 255-23, shall be submitted to the Board of Commissioners.
If the final minor subdivision plan is disapproved, the applicant may file a revised final minor subdivision plan with the Township Engineer in order to secure approval. The normal fee will be charged for this revision.
Copies of the approved final plan shall, within 90 days of the date of approval, be recorded by the applicant in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Delaware County. No such plan shall be accepted for recording without official notification of approval by the Board of Commissioners and of review by the Delaware County Planning Commission.
Streets, open space, parks and other public improvements shown on the subdivision or land development plan to be recorded may be offered for dedication to the Township by formal notation thereof on the plan, or the owner may note on the plan that such improvements have not been offered for dedication to the Township.
Every street, open space, park or other improvement shown on a subdivision or land development plan that is recorded, as provided therein, shall be deemed to be a private street, open space, park or improvement until such time as the same has been offered for dedication to the Township and accepted, by ordinance, and recorded in the office of the Clerk of Common Pleas of Delaware County or until it has been condemned for use as a public street, park or improvement.
Recorded plan. All plans recorded shall contain the information specified in § 255-23.


In an appeal from a district court decision awarding fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Federal Circuit reversed. The decision makes it more difficult for parties sued by non-practicing entities to recover the costs of litigation from the plaintiff’s attorneys. Ultimately, since NPEs are frequently poorly capitalized, the decision makes it more likely that successful defendants will be unable to recover fees in exceptional cases at all.
The patent covers an abstract idea concerning crowdfunding. It was asserted against Gust, Inc. in a case filed shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Shortly after the case was filed, another patent relating to crowdfunding was found invalid as patent ineligible under Alice. Meanwhile, the patent holder, AlphaCap, repeatedly sought to settle the case as a walk-away, which Gust refused without payment of attorneys’ fees.
§ 1927 is not the proper vehicle to generally address those concerns … Rule 11, with its procedural safeguards, already addresses attorneys’ complicity in the filing of frivolous and improper litigation. Moreover, the heart of the district court’s concern is with AlphaCap, not its attorneys. … [D]ecisions within the client’s domain are generally not attributable to its attorneys. It is the client’s decision whether to capitalize its business, to acquire the patents, to decide whether to practice the patents, whether and who to sue, and whether and when to agree to low value settlements. Such client decision-making is a poor evidentiary basis on which to infer attorney bad faith in multiplying proceedings.
The Court also analyzed the other facts the district court relied on and found that none were evidence of attorney bad faith, and reversed.
Judge Wallach dissented. He would have held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding lack of a colorable claim or in finding that the attorneys acted in bad faith.
Opinion can be found here.
In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit reversed because of the time bar in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Bennet had sued Atlanta Gas in 2012. The case was dismissed without prejudice. Atlanta Gas filed the IPR three years later. The board instituted review and found that the time bar did not apply because the district court case was dismissed without prejudice. The Federal Circuit reversed following its decision in Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321, 1329–32 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which held that serving a complaint alleging infringement implicates the time bar, regardless of any subsequent events. See our write-up on Click-to-Call here.
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2265, 2017-2380 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2018).
In an appeal from a district court decision following a jury verdict finding in favor of WARF and awarding $234 million in damages, the Federal Circuit reversed. The decision centered around the meaning of the term “particular.” Neither party sought a construction of the term before trial. The district court held that the term had its plain and ordinary meaning, and that no jury instruction was necessary. The Federal Circuit held, “Giving a term its plain and ordinary meaning does not leave the term devoid of any meaning whatsoever.” It then construed the term’s “plain and ordinary meaning” on appeal and held that Apple’s products did not practice this claim limitation. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s finding of no anticipation based largely on upholding the district court’s construction of a different claim term.
In an appeal from a district court summary judgment ruling, the Federal Circuit affirmed. Mr. Hyatt challenges the propriety of MPEP § 1207.04, alleging that it is arbitrary, capricious, and in excess of statutory authority. Mr. Hyatt filed a petition for rulemaking before the PTAB to repeal § 1207.04. The PTO denied the petition. Mr. Hyatt filed suit challenging the denial of the rule. The district court granted summary judgment to the PTO, dismissed the claims, and held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit reversed the finding concerning subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), and the Administrative Procedures Act. Nonetheless, it affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. It held that two of Mr. Hyatt’s bases for challenging § 1207.04 were barred by the statute of limitations. The final basis was based on an erroneous interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).


text:
From St. Peter’s Basilica to the Capitoline Hill, this particular resource—part biography, half background, and half trip guide—provides an intimate portrait of the connection among Michelangelo and town he restored to creative greatness. Lavishly illustrated and richly informative, this trip significant other tells the tale of Michelangelo’s meteoric upward push, his profession marked by means of successive inventive breakthroughs, his tempestuous family with robust consumers, and his austere yet passionate inner most lifestyles. supplying highway maps that permit readers to navigate the town and become aware of Rome as Michelangelo knew it, every one bankruptcy specializes in a specific paintings that surprised Michelangelo’s contemporaries and smooth travelers alike.
A daring, clean biography of the world's first sleek painter As awarded with "blood and bone and sinew" (Times Literary complement) by means of Peter Robb, Caravaggio's wild and tempestuous existence was once a provocation to a tradition in a country of siege. The of the 16th century was once marked by way of the Inquisition and Counter-Reformation, a historical past of ideological chilly battle opposed to which, regardless of all odds and at nice rate to their creators, wonderful feats of paintings and technological know-how have been accomplished.
The Renaissance diversity in alterations at a wide ranging velocity, alterations that form the realm to at the present time. Now Jerry Brotton deftly captures this impressive age, in a e-book that locations Europe's nice flowering in a revealing worldwide context. It used to be Europe's touch with the skin global, Brotton argues, particularly with the wealthy and cultivated East, that made the Renaissance what it was once.
Pierre Loti and the Theatricality of hope deals an unique research of styles of subconscious hope observable within the existence and paintings of the French orientalist author Pierre Loti. It goals to reconcile attitudes and behavior which have been considered as contradictory and never amenable to research by way of finding the subconscious urges that inspire them.
Originally a summer estate in the midst of meadows, the Palazzo Belvedere became the favored quarters for the popes and was eventually surrounded by the papal complex. It now houses some private rooms for the pope as well as part of the Vatican Museums. 1492–1503: Alexander VI (Family: Borgia), a ruthless pope, allowed his son, Cesare Borgia, to rule Rome with terror and cruelty. 1503: Pius III (Family: Piccolomini), may have been murdered to make way for his rival, Giuliano della Rovere. 1522–3: Adrian VI (Family: Boeyens) was the last non-Italian pope elected until Pope John Paul II in the twentieth century.
M S. ANNI LANZA V. G IOV PIO R U OP The ORI O E V N TE IPA . CA ON Capitoline IMPERI V V. FRANG 10 M EL ALI V L E. D Hill DE GR E G O RI NA TT I PE PER V. PANIS NC A V. ETTO V. A I NA . D V. AL E U IR EP R ION LQ E Z E T IS A V. D V. N V. DI S. L. PR ATI O CORSO DEL RINASCIMENTO L. D . V IA V. DELLE B O T T E GH E O S C U R E L. DEI E L. VII RI O OLA TI NA 8 E A LLE LI Monument to Vittorio Emanuele II BR MI NE CEL TRITO TEM EI ST I MA EGO V. S I UE SIN RT NS UE V. X ISS ET XS D V. Piazza di Spagna The Pantheon I.
In the quest for perfection, Renaissance artists fused art with science, seeking exact and accurate anatomy, proportions, scale, and perspective. Michelangelo mastered these rules and then learned to break them, taking sculpture beyond the achievements of the ancients. The artists of ancient Rome created lifelike forms from stone, but Michelangelo’s fusion of precision and spirituality helped him to create figures that seem almost to breathe. With Bacchus (which today can be found in Florence’s Museo Nazionale del Bargello), Michelangelo learned Rome: Marvels in Marble to use the drill—a tool ancient Romans employed with great skill to create illusions that cannot be produced with chisels.

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


When an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in political activity that the First Amendment protects, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and 42 U. S. C. §1983—even if, as here, the employer makes a factual mistake about the employee’s behavior.
Here, police officer Heffernan was fired after he was seen getting a political candidate’s yard sign. In reality he picked up the sign for his mother, but he was fired based on the mistaken view that he was supporting that candidate himself. In a decision I described at the time as “wacky” and a head-scratcher, the Third Circuit had affirmed summary judgment against Heffernan, without oral argument, on the theory that he was not actually exercising his First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings on whether the employers acted pursuant to a neutral policy.
This entry was posted in Cases and tagged Supreme Court and certiorari on April 26, 2016 by Matthew Stiegler.
This morning’s U.S. Supreme Court order list included two Third Circuit cases of note.
First, the Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded in light of Johnson v. U.S. in Moon v. U.S., a criminal appeal the Third Circuit decided in a 2015 non-precedential opinion. Moon was represented by Philadelphia assistant federal defender Brett Sweitzer.
Second, the Court denied certiorari in Saranchak v. Wetzel, a capital habeas corpus appeal. The Third Circuit granted penalty-phase relief in 2015 while affirming the conviction, and Saranchak had sought cert presumably on the guilt-phase ruling.
The Court granted cert in one case to review a First Circuit case involving acquittals and Double Jeopardy (QP #1 on Scotusblog).
This entry was posted in Cases and tagged Supreme Court and certiorari on March 28, 2016 by Matthew Stiegler.
This past April, the Third Circuit in Siluk v. Merwin sided with prisoners in a circuit split over how much inmate litigants had to pay each month to cover multiple filing fees. Interpreting the PLRA, the divided CA3 panel held that payments were capped at 20% of the inmate’s monthly income, meaning, for example, that an inmate who owed 5 filing fees would be docked 20% of his monthly income until each of the fees was paid sequentially. Other circuits had held that inmates could be billed 20% of their income for each suit they filed, simultaneously, meaning that the inmate who owed 5 filing fees could be docked his entire income each month. In June, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split, as I reported here.
This week a unanimous Supreme Court briskly rejected the pro-prisoner rule the Third Circuit (along with the Second and Fourth Circuits) had adopted. The case is Bruce v. Samuels, the USSC opinion is here.
This entry was posted in Cases and tagged Supreme Court and certiorari on January 14, 2016 by Matthew Stiegler.