(ee) the board of county commissioners of Marion county, for the purposes of K.S.A. 12-187(b)(32), and amendments thereto, may fix such rate at 2.5%.
Any county or city levying a retailers' sales tax is hereby prohibited from administering or collecting such tax locally, but shall utilize the services of the state department of revenue to administer, enforce and collect such tax. Except as otherwise specifically provided in K.S.A. 12-189a, and amendments thereto, such tax shall be identical in its application, and exemptions therefrom, to the Kansas retailers' sales tax act and all laws and administrative rules and regulations of the state department of revenue relating to the Kansas retailers' sales tax shall apply to such local sales tax insofar as such laws and rules and regulations may be made applicable. The state director of taxation is hereby authorized to administer, enforce and collect such local sales taxes and to adopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the efficient and effective administration and enforcement thereof.
Upon receipt of a certified copy of an ordinance or resolution authorizing the levy of a local retailers' sales tax, the director of taxation shall cause such taxes to be collected within or without the boundaries of such taxing subdivision at the same time and in the same manner provided for the collection of the state retailers' sales tax. Such copy shall be submitted to the director of taxation within 30 days after adoption of any such ordinance or resolution. All moneys collected by the director of taxation under the provisions of this section shall be credited to a county and city retailers' sales tax fund which fund is hereby established in the state treasury, except that all moneys collected by the director of taxation pursuant to the authority granted in K.S.A. 12-187(b)(22), and amendments thereto, shall be credited to the Wilson county capital improvements fund. Any refund due on any county or city retailers' sales tax collected pursuant to this act shall be paid out of the sales tax refund fund and reimbursed by the director of taxation from collections of local retailers' sales tax revenue. Except for local retailers' sales tax revenue required to be deposited in the redevelopment bond fund established under K.S.A. 74-8927, and amendments thereto, all local retailers' sales tax revenue collected within any county or city pursuant to this act shall be apportioned and remitted at least quarterly by the state treasurer, on instruction from the director of taxation, to the treasurer of such county or city.
Revenue that is received from the imposition of a local retailers' sales tax which exceeds the amount of revenue required to pay the costs of a special project for which such revenue was pledged shall be credited to the city or county general fund, as the case requires.
The director of taxation shall provide, upon request by a city or county clerk or treasurer or finance officer of any city or county levying a local retailers' sales tax, monthly reports identifying each retailer doing business in such city or county or making taxable sales sourced to such city or county, setting forth the tax liability and the amount of such tax remitted by each retailer during the preceding month and identifying each business location maintained by the retailer and such retailer's sales or use tax registration or account number. Such report shall be made available to the clerk or treasurer or finance officer of such city or county within a reasonable time after it has been requested from the director of taxation. The director of taxation shall be allowed to assess a reasonable fee for the issuance of such report. Information received by any city or county pursuant to this section shall be confidential, and it shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of such city or county to divulge any such information in any manner. Any violation of this paragraph by a city or county officer or employee is a class A misdemeanor, and such officer or employee shall be dismissed from office. Reports of violations of this paragraph shall be investigated by the attorney general. The district attorney or county attorney and the attorney general shall have authority to prosecute violations of this paragraph.
History: L. 1978, ch. 56, § 3; L. 1979, ch. 326, § 3; L. 1982, ch. 64, § 3; L. 1983, ch. 58, § 3; L. 1986, ch. 66, § 2; L. 1987, ch. 63, § 2; L. 1989, ch. 57, § 2; L. 1990, ch. 68, § 4; L. 1991, ch. 54, § 4; L. 1992, ch. 198, § 6; L. 1992, ch. 279, § 3; L. 1992, ch. 251, § 2; L. 1993, ch. 240, § 2; L. 1994, ch. 354, § 3; L. 1995, ch. 12, § 3; L. 1995, ch. 246, § 2; L. 1998, ch. 11, § 2; L. 1998, ch. 188, § 3; L. 1999, ch. 1, § 3; L. 2000, ch. 140, § 3; L. 2001, ch. 67, § 1; L. 2002, ch. 185, § 35; L. 2003, ch. 147, § 33; L. 2005, ch. 47, § 2; L. 2005, ch. 186, § 3; L. 2005, ch. 186, § 4; L. 2006, ch. 9, § 2; L. 2006, ch. 191, § 2; L. 2007, ch. 158, § 7; L. 2007, ch. 195, § 53; L. 2008, ch. 100, § 4; L. 2009, ch. 1, § 2; L. 2010, ch. 3, § 2; L. 2010, ch. 83, § 2; L. 2011, ch. 88, § 2; L. 2014, ch. 132, § 2; L. 2015, ch. 99, § 14; L. 2017, ch. 99, § 3; July 1.
Section was amended by L. 2005, ch. 119, § 2 and L. 2005, ch. 110, § 1, but those versions were repealed by L. 2005, ch. 186, §§ 22 and 23, respectively.
Section not reconciled following amendments by three bills during 2006 session, see also 12-189f.
Section was also amended by L. 2007, ch. 153, § 2, but that version was repealed by L. 2007, ch. 195, § 59.


Thomas Ruff, phg.s.05, 2013. Chromogenic print, 238.8 x 184.2 cm. Edition 2 of 4, 1 AP. © Thomas Ruff. Courtesy of the artist and David Zwirner.
ART021 Shanghai Contemporary Art Fair will return to the Shanghai Exhibition Centre for its sixth annual edition from Thursday, November 8 to Sunday, November 11, 2018. 103 premier galleries from 30 cities spanning 18 countries will participate in the sixth edition–marking the broadest geographical range of galleries ever presented by the art fair–and will present an array of contemporary art by both established and emerging artists.
MAIN GALLERIES, the primary section of the show, will feature 78 exhibitors specialising in contemporary art. 15 galleries will participate in ART021 for the first time this year, including: Ceysson & Bénétière ; DAG (New Delhi); Gavin Brown’s Enterprise (New York); kamel mennour (Paris); KASMIN Gallery (New York); kurimanzutto (Mexico City); Kwai Fung Hin Art Gallery (Hong Kong); Liang Project Co Space (Shanghai); Nukaga Gallery (Tokyo); Pilar Corrias (London); Sies + Höke (Düsseldorf); Shixiang Space (Beijing); Szydłowski Galeria (Warsaw); The Third Line (Dubai); and Yavuz Gallery (Singapore).
APPROACH invites participating galleries to present either a solo or a group show organized around a curatorial theme, featuring no more than three artists.
BEYOND is a platform for large paintings, sculpture and installation works, located in the public area of the fair. Whitestone Gallery will stage a live painting performance by Japanese artist Miwa Komatsu, inviting audience members into a meditative experience. Untitled, a large-scale acrylic on textile painting by Katharina Grosse, presented by Galerie nächst St. Stephan Rosemarie Schwarzwälder, will be on display under the dome of the Shanghai Exhibition Centre, adding new dimension to the space.
BEYOND-EXTENDS integrates art into public life and showcase contemporary art installations outside the fair exhibition space in the heart of the city. Through artist collaborations, the sector promotes public art in China and engages with the local Shanghai community.
DETOUR: LIVED WORLDS, curated by Cesar Garcia of The Mistake Room, Los Angeles. Lived Worlds moves beyond the exhausted paradigms of trade and exchange that have come to shape our understanding of the Pacific Rim region and instead highlights the lived experiences of the peoples who reside there.
Please kindly update your preferred mailing address at vip [at] art021.org, if complimentary VIP card delivery service is desired.
Pre-registered Collector Cards are available for pick up from the VIP Desk. Please kindly register your name to vip [at] art021.org.
Please follow ART021 website, Weibo and Instagram for latest information on the fair.


text:
Solid study of Córdobas contribution to the development of the political order in early independent Argentina. Suggests that the province had to balance the political interests of the Littoral and Interior and in so doing forged its own particular variation of federalism –Handbook of Latin American Studies, v. 58.
Construir La Democracia Broad overview of transition process in Mexicos political development covers various issues ranging from political culture to the electoral process. Summarizes seven arguments which may either foster or hinder political change. Brief postscript incorporates events in Chiapas into the works larger context --Handbook of Latin American Studies, v. 57.
La Segunda Muerte De La Revolución Mexicana Collection of essays reflecting authors historical perspectives and criticism of political and economic reforms. Range of interrelated topics, concentrated primarily on Mexico/US relations and political modernization --Handbook of Latin American Studies, v. 57.
Los Mil Días De Allende Marvelous collection of newspaper editorials, reflecting different political opinions, on the Allende period. Also contains numerous pictures as well as documents plus various political cartoons. A godsend to scholars who wish to avoid grimy archives --Handbook of Latin American Studies, v. 58.
La Transición Interrumpida Essays by leading Mexican and foreign intellectuals, including several interesting contributions which attempt to link political events surrounding the 1968 student massacre with the surprising political consequences of the 1988 presidential election --Handbook of Latin American Studies, v. 57.
Medellín Important contribution describes the social, economic, and political history of Medellín that gave rise to an organized criminal economy. Portrays synthesis of this economy with existing formal institutions --Handbook of Latin American Studies, v. 57.

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


text:
Note: If you do not have an Austrian social security number and have not yet been given an alternative code, we will request one for you from Statistics Austria.
As CAMPUS 02 aims to design and further develop modern, interactive teaching and learning scenarios, images and videos may be recorded during course units. These recordings are only used and provided for documentation purposes (e.g. for photo reports on the learning platform and project reports).
In general, we collect the above-listed data categories directly from you. However, these categories may also include additional information, such as system-generated data, degree programme data required for processing, and performance evaluation data.
This data is processed based on the contractual relationship according to Art. 6 para. 1 cl. b of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and legal obligations according to Art. 6 para. 1 cl. c of the GDPR. It is processed for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions in the study contract and managing the degree programmes. The above-mentioned personal data is provided by you on a voluntary basis and is processed by us upon your consent so that we can meet contractual provisions. However, we can conclude and meet the provisions of the study contract only if you provide your data and if we are allowed to process it.
Upon expiry of your study contract, your personal data will be deleted step-by-step in accordance with the valid legal retention obligations.
The above-mentioned data is processed by automated means for the purpose of meeting the provisions of the study contract and based on legal obligations. This data is held for 80 years, starting from the end of the academic year, in which the study contract expires, in accordance with Art. 13 para. 8 of the University of Applied Sciences Studies Act (Fachhochschul-Studiengesetz, FHStG) as proof of student graduation. Data processed as part of course unit organisation, student evaluation, and for invoicing for tuition fees, ÖH contributions and library fees will be deleted after 10 years. Your social security number or alternative code will already be deleted after 2 years, starting from the end of the academic year, in which the study contract expires, in accordance with Art. 8 para. 5 of the Documentation in Education Act (Bildungsdokumentationsgesetz). Data processed during your application for a study place will also be deleted after 2 years. Data collected during the ÖH elections will be deleted after 2 years, starting from the last election day, in accordance with Art. 61 para. 2 of the Regulations on Student Union Elections (Hochschülerschafts-Wahlordnung, HSWO).
We transfer personal data to the Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation Austria (AQ Austria), Renngasse 5, 1010 Vienna, Austria, based on Art. 28 para. 3 of the Act on Quality Assurance in Higher Education (Hochschul-Qualitätssicherungsgesetz, HS-QSG) in connection with Art. 23 paras. 1 and 4 of the FHStG and on the Regulation governing the provision of information on UAS degree programmes (Verordnung zur Fachhochschul-Bereitstellung von Informationen über den Studienbetrieb). The ÖH receives personal student data according to Art. 6 of the Student Union Act (HochschülerInnnenschaftsgesetz, HSG). To be able to ensure lawful ÖH elections, this data is also transferred to the Electoral Commission of the ÖH to serve as the basis for the electoral roll in accordance with Art. 42 para. 6 of the HSG. Members of the Electoral Commission of CAMPUS 02 can also access the electoral roll.
Data required for verifying the entitlement requirements of students requesting a grant must be transferred by automated means to the Styrian study grant office upon their request according to Art. 3 para. 1 in connection with Art. 40 para. 7 of the Student Support Act (Studienförderungsgesetz, StudFG).
The provincial government authority of Styria (Land Steiermark) funds CAMPUS 02 to ensure and support the running of the degree programmes. For reporting purposes, the funding contract stipulates annual transfers of personal student data.
The Master’s theses that students have to write in the course of your studies are available to the public in print form at CAMPUS 02’s library and electronically via the library software (currently Aleph) (Art. 19 para. 3 of the FHStG). In the interest of CAMPUS 02, the departments also make a few selected Bachelor’s theses available to the public.
Apart from the data recipients mentioned, CAMPUS 02 does generally not disclose information to third parties. Third parties are asked to directly contact the student.

matches:
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 13
Art. 8
Art. 61
Art. 28
Art. 23
Art. 6
Art. 42
Art. 3
Art. 40


text:
Can Israel Freely Interpret the Refugee Convention (When it Comes to Palestinian Asylum Seekers)?
The Tribunal case at issue involved a Palestinian applicant in his 50s from a village near the town of Jenin (the West Bank), a territory which is part of the occupied Palestinian territories (“OPT”). In the applicant’s original application to regularize his prolonged stay in Israel, he sought status as a threatened person by applying to the “Threatened Persons Committee”. In that application, he stated that, because of his past collaboration with Israel as an informant, he would face danger of retaliation upon return to the West Bank. The Threatened Persons Committee operates under the Ministry of Defense and is in charge of finding out, based on confidential information, whether an ex-informant from the OPT faces danger to his life or freedom due to collaboration, and of deciding, based on that finding (and other factors), whether he should be granted a permit to temporarily stay in Israel. As will be explained below, this Committee does not deal with “regular” asylum cases (which are dealt with by the Ministry of Interior) and therefore does not assess refugee status or consider the Refugee Convention in its decisions. As such, it operates as if the Refugee Convention does not apply to it.
Despite this decision, the applicant did not return to the West Bank. Instead, he applied for status anew – this time seeking refugee status before the Refugee Status Determination Unit, a department within the Population and Immigration Authority (“PIA”) in the Ministry of Interior, in charge of handling asylum applications in Israel since 2009. In his application for asylum, he argued that he had obtained new information that strengthened a claim of a well-founded fear of being persecuted upon return to the OPT based on an (imputed) political opinion and his membership in a particular social group of informants.
To understand why the applicant first applied for status through the Threatened Persons Committee when he had a claim of well-founded fear of persecution, it is important to highlight the differences in criteria and procedure used by the Threatened Persons Committee and PIA’s RSD Unit. To put it succinctly, the Threatened Persons Committee uses more burdensome criteria in terms of degree of risk, type of risks, etc. when compared to criteria used under the “refugee” definition in the Refugee Convention. Moreover, the Threatened Persons Committee ascribes certain rights to a successful claimant, but these almost always fall far short of the rights that a recognized refugee is entitled to in Israel. The Threatened Persons Committee, when deliberating, also considers questions that are completely irrelevant under the Refugee Convention, such as the importance and helpfulness of the information that the claimant gave to the Israeli security forces (sometimes assessed in hindsight), and whether the claimant was involved in (non-serious) criminal activity while in Israel.
Despite obvious benefits of having one’s claim go through the refugee determination procedure, lawyers representing Palestinian asylum seekers seldom file asylum applications within the regular RSD system on behalf of their clients, knowing they are unlikely to receive a positive decision. Indeed, it was a well-known secret, somewhat reflected in the PIA written regulations, that the PIA’s RSD Unit will simply not hear claims from Palestinian asylum seekers. Many lawyers, perhaps recognizing the low chances of winning a case for a Palestinian in an Israeli court, have refrained for many years from bringing this policy under judicial review.
The lawyer in the case under discussion, however, decided to go somewhat against the herd. After unsuccessfully exhausting the “Threatened Persons Committee” avenue, as mentioned above, she filed a “regular” asylum application before the “regular” RSD body. Her client was quickly turned down by a decision, which stated, “[a]ccording to Article 1D of the [Refugee] Convention, the Convention’s provisions do not apply to Palestinians as they are handled by UNRWA and not under UNHCR mandate”. The lawyer then decided to legally challenge this decision. The Tribunal, as I will shortly describe in more detail, has rejected the appeal, and an appeal against the Tribunal’s decision is now pending before the Tel Aviv Administrative (District) Court.
While the Tribunal’s reasoning is far from clear and coherent, a sympathetic reading reveals two main arguments. The first is that the PIA’s decision is legally valid because its interpretation of Article 1D (that all Palestinians are excluded from the Convention, as they are all – as a group – “persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner protection or assistance”) is “reasonable” and therefore legally permissible. The second is that it is legally valid for Israel to create a distinct procedure for regularizing the status of Palestinian asylum seekers, wholly separate from that used for other asylum seekers. To this end, the Tribunal claimed that because the appellant was free to use (and did use, albeit unsuccessfully) the distinct “Palestinian” procedure (that of applying to “the Threatened Persons Committee” for protected status), Israel did not violate its international obligations. While both arguments are flawed, the following critique will focus on the first argument only in order to address a worrying trend in courts around the world where decisionmakers have at times wrongly opted for a separatist rather than universal concept of treaty interpretation. Of specific interest to this critique is, therefore, whether “reasonable interpretation” is a valid legal criterion for treaty interpretation.
Can States “Freely Interpret” Treaties?
[A]s in the case of other multilateral treaties, the Refugee Convention must be given an independent meaning derivable from the sources mentioned in articles 31 and 32 [of the VCLT] and without taking color from distinctive features of the legal system of any individual contracting state. In principle therefore there can only be one true interpretation of a treaty (emphasis added).
The Israeli Tribunal, unfortunately, never took this necessary first step, and its decision is therefore unsubstantiated quite from the beginning. It did not recognize that rules of international law – rather than each contracting state’s own rules of interpretation – govern treaty interpretation, and that such international rules (i.e. Articles 31-32 of the VCLT) should be enforced by each contracting state’s local courts (such as the Tribunal itself).
A clarification is due here. As the Tribunal failed to apply the VCLT’s rules of interpretation altogether, the jurisprudential grandiloquent question – whether rules of interpretation can (ideally, when administered by Judge Hercules) eliminate any need for an interpreter’s discretion (as Ronald Dworkin argued), or not (as H.L.A Hart argued) – is not the question we grapple with here. If the Tribunal had taken a Hartian view, and accordingly concluded that, despite VCLT’s rules of interpretation, Article 1D remained ambiguous, and that such unavoidable ambiguity left room for an interpretation excluding Palestinians from the Refugee Convention altogether, this would be a completely different article. Rather, what the Tribunal said is that Israel was free to choose a particular interpretation among an array of reasonable interpretations. The Tribunal did not recognize the authoritative nature of Articles 31-32 of VCLT, and did not even attempt to find the one true universal interpretation of Article 1D’s wording. This is not a story about a “hard case” and a Hartian exhaustion from seeking the one true interpretation of the legal norm; this is a lack of willingness to make such an attempt to begin with.
This leads me to another important point: The Hart-Dworkin debate revolves around Judge Hercules’s interpretative capabilities; but in the real world, most judges are not Hercules. Hence, even if judges share the notion that there is a single set of rules of treaty interpretation (the one laid down in the VCLT), and even if they agree that in most cases the VCLT’s rules lead to one correct interpretation of each treaty provision (let’s call this “the Correctness Principle”), they might nevertheless reach – in good faith – different interpretive outcomes, some of them erroneous. Hence, in remedy to this possibility, serious and responsible judges frequently look at how other judges construed the same treaty provision, to learn from others’ wisdom (or lack of it).
One might further claim that this idea of “checking what other adjudicators (in other countries) did” is not merely a warranted practice, aimed at minimizing the risk of a domestic judge’s wrong interpretation of a treaty provision, but an actual legal obligation. This obligation, one might further contend, stems from a well-recognized principle of international law, which provides that countries should aspire to interpret and implement international law in a harmonized manner (“the Harmony Principle”). This principle has been mentioned numerous times in the field of refugee law, which is renowned for its inter-judicial cooperation.
There is an analytical tension between the Correctness Principle and the Harmony Principle: consider the case in which a domestic judge is convinced, that the way in which the vast majority of adjudicators around the globe have interpreted a treaty is in conflict with rules 31-32 of the VCLT, i.e. that the “harmonious” legal rule runs against the Correctness Principle. This is a serious jurisprudential question, which is yet to be fully philosophically and doctrinally addressed. For this short article, suffice it to say, that: (a) in theory, if Hercules-type judges in every country would have applied the one true interpretation of a specific treaty’s clause, according to the Correctness Principle, then their respective interpretations would have been identical, and hence met the Harmony Principle (at least in cases where there is no judicial discretion, and if we take the (narrow) Hartian view of judicial discretion to begin with); and (b) even if the Correctness Principle supersedes the Harmony Principle, it nevertheless makes sense to explore the way various adjudicators around the globe interpreted a treaty provision, as part of a reasonable (and humble) intellectual investigative process, in which a domestic judge bona fide seeks the one true interpretation of a treaty clause, according to the Correctness Principle.
This is not what Judge Bergman of the Israeli Tribunal did. He did not waste much time in checking – let alone grappling with – the way other international law actors interpreted Article 1D. He explicitly rejected UNHCR’s 2009 Revised Note on this very matter of Article 1D’s interpretation, by merely pointing to the fact that it carries no binding force, and completely overlooked the manner in which other jurisdictions (such as the European Court of Justice) interpreted the Article. In this sense, the Tribunal went a step further than the Jerusalem District Court, which several years earlier, in the Tebeka case, wrote: “[I]t seems that Israel’s particular circumstances, taking under consideration, among other things, the immigration flows which wash it, may influence the interpretation of the [Refugee] Convention’s provisions by Israeli Courts… It is certainly so, when there is no accepted and agreed upon position under international law.” In that case, the Jerusalem Court restrained its freedom of interpretation thesis (and the “Israel’s unique circumstances” thesis, to be discussed below) to cases where there is no broadly agreed-upon interpretation of a Refugee Convention provision among the Contracting States. The Tribunal, on the other hand, did not stop there. It instead set the freedom of interpretation thesis almost completely on the loose, arguing that – regardless of how the rest of the world tends to construe a treaty provision – if Israel’s unique interpretation is reasonable, it is legally valid.
At some point, the Tribunal shifts from a claim regarding legal interpretation to a claim regarding judicial review (of the executive agency’s legal interpretation), and employs a Chevron-type test of judicial review on PIA’s interpretation of Article 1D of the Convention. The Tribunal’s Chevron-type argument, while slightly milder than the freedom of interpretation argument, is also flawed. It should not come as a shock that “executive agencies are… representatives of an interested contracting party with strong incentives to distort international agreements for domestic political gain”. Hence, giving executive agencies interpretive deference would be tantamount to letting the cat guard the cream. Indeed, “Chevron deference thus draws U.S. treaty jurisprudence into conflict with international treaty law’s foundational principle, pacta sunt servanda”. It should be added, that the Tribunal’s Chevron-type argument is also surprising, since the Israeli Supreme Court never clearly adopted the Chevron doctrine or its reasoning in administrative law, let alone in international law.
A focus on one general characteristic of treaties and on one unique characteristic of the Refugee Convention would be useful here. The general point is that the Refugee Convention, as any convention, is a contract among states. A contract is, by nature, a matter of give-and-take: each party bears obligations to the other parties in a reciprocal manner. Who would inspect that the parties do, indeed, keep their promises and perform their respective treaty-based obligations? Here the more idiosyncratic point kicks in: unlike (some) other treaties, the Refugee Convention does not have any authoritative international enforcement mechanism. While Article 38 to the Refugee Convention provides that “[a]ny dispute between Parties to this Convention relating to its interpretation or application, which cannot be settled by other means, shall be referred to the International Court of Justice at the request of any one of the parties to the dispute”, so far not a single case has been referred to the ICJ under this provision. Moreover, Article 38, in accordance with Article 34(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, allows signatory states only – not asylum seekers – the right of petition to the ICJ. However, many (putative) infringements of the Refugee Convention, while harming asylum seekers and refugees, bear no harm to States, which would therefore have no incentive to petition the ICJ. To relate this point to the previous general point on the nature of treaties, the Refugee Convention is (at least in part) a contract in favor of a third party (asylum seekers and refugees), but the third party bears no access to the instance, which – according to that contract itself – bears the (final and authoritative) responsibility to construe and enforce the contract.
Hence, in practice, domestic (or, in certain cases, regional) courts have the final authoritative say on the Refugee Convention’s interpretation, binding on their own respective countries or regions. Under such circumstances, it seems pertinent to reject Chevron-type doctrines, and stick to the Correctness Principle (or, at least, to the Harmony Principle), which would reify and respect the concept of a contract. Under a contractual regime, it is unacceptable for party A to adhere to one (reasonable) interpretation of a contract’s provision, while party B adheres to another (reasonable) interpretation of it. A reasonable account of contract law is that, in such a case, one of the parties breaches the contract – intentionally or not. Under domestic law, in a democratic regime, a disinterested court would be the forum for resolving such a dispute. The court would authoritatively decide which party is right and which is wrong. In regards to the Refugee Convention, as explained above, no international forum exists (at least de facto) for making such an authoritative decision, binding on all parties to the Convention. The closest we can get to a disinterested international forum is domestic courts bona fide implying the Correctness Principle.
To sum up the objection to the Chevron-type argument, judicial deference to the way the executive branch interprets a treaty might end up with each signatory party advancing its own self-interest, at the expense of the other parties (and the individuals it was supposed to protect, in the case of human rights treaties). This would conflict with the VCLT Article 31’s command that “a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith”. Even if we constrain the judicial deference to instances of “reasonable interpretation” by the executive branch, this might still lead to the problematic result – in conflict with the very idea of a contract – in which different parties to the same treaty (i.e. contract) interpret its provisions differently. True, without an authoritative decision-making body governing the international refugee law regime, this might still happen in refugee law even under the Correctness Principle, as different domestic courts might truly disagree about what is the true interpretation – based on VCLT’s Article 31-32 – of a provision of the Refugee Convention. However, the risk of such a scenario is much higher under a Chevron-type doctrine of treaty interpretation, providing deference – whether complete or limited – to the States’ own executives in interpreting treaties. The Institut de Droit International (IDI) attempted to avoid this very scenario of a multitude of treaty interpretations by domestic courts around the world when it resolved that “national courts should have full independence in the interpretation of a treaty, making every effort to interpret it as it would be interpreted by an international tribunal and avoiding interpretations influenced by national interests”.
This naturally leads me to the Tribunal’s final and most unordinary argument, in which it bluntly takes Israel’s unique foreign affairs considerations as a standard for interpreting a multilateral treaty to which Israel is a party. According to this reasoning, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a relevant factor in “interpreting” Article 1D as excluding all Palestinians from the Refugee Convention. This is an invalid reasoning. The difference between international law and international relations is that the former is based on universal (or multi-lateral) rules, not on the notion of promoting the country’s own self-interest; and those rules should be interpreted and enforced in good faith, not in a self-serving or idiosyncratic way. Putting aside the substantive argument, which clearly supports the idea that an “enemy national” can nevertheless be recognized as a refugee in the beleaguered country, a state cannot simply claim that it interprets a treaty in a certain way because it better serves its foreign affairs policy, and the Tribunal did not offer any argument beyond that.
There are obvious undercurrents and problems when it comes to discussing a Palestinian asylum seeker in Israel in that Israeli officials seem to associate the recognition of a Palestinian as a refugee (when he might endure harm from fellow Palestinians in the OPT) as somehow related to the right of return of Palestinians to the territory of present day Israel. In fact, Israel seems to impose on Palestinian asylum seekers a separate and unequal asylum regime, which is more of a national security strategy (rewarding collaborators) than a protection of human rights (assisting people who fear persecution). This problematic background, and the panic that seems to soar whenever a Palestinian enters an Israeli courtroom, might very well be the cause of the Tribunal’s very perverse opinion, from an international law perspective.
However, as can be seen in the Tebeka case, Israel’s tendency towards freedom of interpretation regarding the Refugee Convention has surfaced in other scenarios as well. Moreover, national courts in other parts of the world have also wrongly interpreted treaties in an independent, idiosyncratic or self-serving manner. Precisely because international refugee law has, so far, enjoyed relative inter-judicial cooperation, and because the present refugee crisis might tempt countries to abandon universal interpretation of the Refugee Convention in favor of a nationalistic interpretation of it, this article – which criticizes the separatist notion of treaty interpretation – is timely.
 Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2250-14 Doe v. Ministry of Interior, decision of 7 March 2016 (Judge Bergman) (in Hebrew). The decision seems to uphold the Population and Immigration Authority (“PIA”)’s policy to exclude all Palestinians from the Convention under Article 1D (which provides, “[t]his Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance”). The Appellant submitted a letter from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA”) confirming that he was not registered with the agency, and claimed that he was not under UNRWA’s mandate, as he and his parents were originally from the West Bank, and therefore were never displaced due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Tribunal ruled “the letter does not indicate that the appellant asked to register with the agency and was refused, or that there is any impediment that UNRWA would assist him. In addition, it was not proved that the appellant is not entitled to UNRWA’s services, and this claim (which the appellant bears the burden to prove) was unsupported, and was not mentioned in the agency’s letter” (section 21 to the decision). The argument that a proof of non-registry with UNRWA is insufficient (and that the appellant should have also proven that he actively applied for registry and was denied) and the argument that the Palestinian asylum seeker bears the burden to prove that he cannot obtain UNRWA assistance are both dubious. The Tribunal disregarded the questions of whether the appellant could obtain UNRWA’s assistance in Israel, and whether UNRWA – an agency which mainly provides welfare relief – could provide the appellant protection from persecution in the West Bank. Furthermore, the Tribunal overlooked the fact that the reasoning of the PIA’s decision to reject his asylum claim, as cited below (and which the Tribunal found “reasonable”) spoke of overall exclusion of “Palestinians” under Article 1D of the Refugee Convention. The Tribunal at least tacitly supports this position.
 Hathaway and Foster argue that Article 1D applies only to Palestinians who already received UNRWA assistance in 1951. James C. Hathaway & Michelle Foster, The Law of Refugee Status 513-15 (2nd ed. 2014). Other scholars and Courts, who rejected this position, hold the view that only Palestinians who personally obtained (or can obtain) UNRWA’s assistance are excluded from the Refugee Convention under Article 1D. Finally, others hold the view that only Palestinian who can obtain UNRWA’s assistance in the country of asylum are excluded under Article 1D. See id. at 515-17.
 Appeal (Tel Aviv) 2250-14 Doe v. Ministry of Interior, decision of 7 March 2016 (Judge Bergman), at Section 26.
 HCJ 9482/11 (in Hebrew) (translation to English by the author). Israeli law provides that in certain matters an individual can petition against a decision of an administrative body directly to the Supreme Court in its capacity as a High Court of Justice.
 See: the PIA’s “Procedure for Handling Political Asylum Seekers in Israel“.
 The Refugee Convention was never legislated as a statute by the Knesset (Israeli parliament), and the (partial) implementation thereof is by internal PIA regulation (ibid). Article 7(f) of these regulations provides: “Should the Interior Minister decide to recognize him as a refugee, the Applicant will be granted a residency license of the a/5 type…” This type of license grants a foreigner a temporary renewable status with basic civil and social rights (including employment, welfare and health benefits).
 Article 10 of the PIA’s “Procedure for Handling Political Asylum Seekers in Israel“, dealing with “Subjects of Enemy Hostile States”, provides as follows: “The State of Israel reserves the right not to absorb into Israel and not to grant permits to stay in Israel to subjects of enemy or hostile states – as determined from time to time by the authorized authorities… Israel appreciates the UN Refugee Agency’s [UNHCR] notice according to which until a comprehensive political settlement is reached in our region it will make every effort to find refugees asylums in other countries”. While Sudanese nationals can currently file asylum applications, and are processed by the regular RSD system in Israel – despite the fact that Sudan is an enemy state of Israel, it was well known by immigration lawyers, for years, that the PIA would refuse to handle Palestinian asylum seekers under the same system; see Michael Kagan, Destructive Ambiguity: Enemy Nationals and the Legal Enabling of Ethnic Conflict in the Middle East, 38 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 263, 308-17 (2007); Michael Kagan and Anat Ben-Dor, Nowhere to Run: Gay Palestinian Asylum Seekers in Israel, 40-45 (2008). For an English summary of HCJ 466/07 MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz-Yahad) et al v. Attorney General et al, the latest Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of an Israeli law exceedingly limiting the ability to grant status to enemy nationals in Israel, see Adalah’s Newsletter, Volume 91, March 2012.
 Cited in the Supreme Court’s second decision on this matter, HCJ 5553/14 Doe v. PIA (in Hebrew), in which the Court decided that judicial review of the PIA decision should be performed by the Appeals Tribunal, rather than by the Supreme Court itself.
 Regarding the second argument: As I sketchily mentioned above, the RSD path and the Threatened Persons Committee path are “separate and unequal”, and this seems like a good enough reason to reject the argument. I think, however, that a good case can also be made against a “separate but equal” regime. Article 3 of the Refugee Convention would lie at the heart of the argument.
 The Tribunal made three remarks regarding the issue of treaty interpretation, which will be accordingly analyzed in the following sections: (a) The PIA’s stance lies “within the scope of reasonableness and therefore there is no ground for [judicial] interference in it” (section 20); (b) “The State is entitled to interpret the Refugee Convention as it wishes, as long as its interpretation is reasonable and logical” (section 25); and (c) “The State’s stance, according to which the Refugee Convention should not be applied to Palestinians, when they are in Israel…is more compatible with the ‘refugee’ definition in the Refugee Convention, taking into account the complexity of the relations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority and its inhabitants” (section 26).
 See, e.g., Territorial Dispute (Libya v. Chad), 1994 ICJ 4, 16 (Feb. 3); Golder v. United Kingdom, 18 Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts. (ser A) No. 18 (1975).
 Regina v Home Secretary for the Home Department, Ex parte Adan (HL)  2 AC 516-517 (Lord Steyn).
 As the House of Lords explains in the Adan case at 516-17: “If there is disagreement on the meaning of the Refugee Convention, it can be resolved by the International Court of Justice: article 38. It has, however, never been asked to make such a ruling. The prospect of a reference to the International Court of Justice is remote. In practice it is left to national courts, faced with a material disagreement on an issue of interpretation, to resolve it. But in doing so it must search, untrammeled by notions of its national legal culture, for the true autonomous and international meaning of the treaty. And there can only be one true meaning.” (Emphasis added).
 Ronald Dworkin’s imaginary judge of superhuman intellectual power, see Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously, Chapter 4 (1977).
 Ronald Dworkin, Judicial Discretion, 60 J. Phil. 624, 624–38 (1964); Dworkin, supra note 15, at 31-39.
 H. L. A. Hart, Concept of Law, Chapter 7 (1961).
 Mostafa Abed El Karem El Kott and Others v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (2012). For decisions of other Courts around the world – all incompatible with Judge Bergman’s interpretation of Article 1D – see Hathaway and Foster, supra note 3.
 53025-07-11 Fantaye Meraga Tebeka v. Ministry of Interior (the author represented the petitioner) (in Hebrew).
 In Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when Congress delegates authority over a particular statute to an administrative agency, courts will defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of that statute.
 Compare citations (a) and (b) from the Tribunal’s decision, supra note 11.
 Evan Criddle, Chevron Deference and Treaty Interpretation, 112 Yale L. J. 1927, 1930 (2003).
 Evan Criddle, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in U.S. Treaty Interpretation, 44 Va. J. Int’l. L. 431, 481 (2004).
 In fact, most of Israel’s Supreme Court jurisprudence runs against this type of doctrine, stressing that the interpretation of legal norms lies at the core of judicial power and responsibility, where deference to the administrative branch is not due. For Supreme Court decisions opposing Chevron-type reasoning, see, e.g.: HCJ 142/89 Laor v. Knesset Chairperson, PD 44(3) 529, at 559 (in Hebrew), where Judge Barak quotes the following passage from Jaffe’s book: “The question in each case of consistency with statutory purpose is addressed to the judge. The rule of law imposes on him the duty to curb and correct action contrary to law. If to him the meaning is clear it matters not that the contrary in ‘reasonable’… A judge may say: there more than one sensible construction of this statute, but this construction appears to me to be the correct one; If this is what he thinks, he should not defer either to his colleagues or to the agency” (L. L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action (Boston and Toronto, 1965) 575-576); the same reasoning and the same quotation also appears in HCJ 399/85 Kahana v. Israel Braodcast Authority, PD 41(3) 255, at p. 305; see also: HCJ 2355/98 Stamka v. Minister of Interior, PD 53(2) 728, at 743-746. For a Supreme Court decision tending to endorse Chevron-type reasoning see: CA 976/96 Marom v. Income Tax Authority (Judge Jubran) (in Hebrew).
 “The Activities of National Judges and the International Relations of their State“, Article 5(3).
 See citation (c) from the Tribunals’ decision, supra note 11.
This is a highly disturbing decision.
I can’t help but wonder if the scenario in which there was doubt about whether the person was actually in danger made it even easier for the Tribunal to decide as it did, though this has no technical legal bearing on the question about Article 1D. In other cases, for instance the gay Palestinian men who Anat Ben-Dor and I wrote about, the Palestinians asylum-seekers had surveyed grotesque torture and I do not think any serious asylum system could question that they were in danger. I think such cases might have made the Tribunal work a bit harder, or perhaps push for an informal resolution without setting a precedent.
I am curious – perhaps I missed it – whether the asylum-seeker in this case was in fact a Palestine refugee; was his family displaced in 1948? Most residents of the West Bank are not in fact Palestine refugees; they were never displaced and never fell under UNRWA’s working definition. For such Palestinians, Article 1D has no conceivable relevance. There is nothing in that article suggesting an exclusion of an entire nationality. Article 1D — interpreted in the manner most generous to the Israeli position — excludes people who have some potential to fall under the UNRWA mandate.
I do not think a nationality-wide exclusion could survive true judicial scrutiny under even the Chevron standard, because it has no reasonable basis in the text. Rather than Chevron, the operative American doctrine should be the Charming Betsy rule, under which ambiguities in domestic law must be interpreted to avoid conflict with international law.
I do not want to pay this decision more respect than it deserves as an act of legal analysis. The “unique circumstances” rule does not exist as some general exception from binding norms. International human rights law does include rules of derogation, which allow states to make narrow exceptions to certain rights, generally for national security related reasons (public order). But the basic refugee definition – Article 1 – allows no derogations. Article 3 prohibits discrimination by national origin, and also allows no derogation. The Tribunal is simply defying the treaty.
While legally invalid, the “unique circumstances” concept may be an honest description of the tendency in Israel to find spurious reasons to avoid human rights obligations involving Palestinians. In this sense, this decision is not surprising in the Israeli context from a perspective of realpolitik. But it cannot be taken seriously as a matter of law. If anything, the decision is an index of international law’s real world impotence when it is needed most.

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


text:
4.1.1 What should I do if I see an error message saying “Sorry, something went wrong”?
4.1.2 How do I add my speakers to my music system?
4.1.3 How do I add my subwoofer to my music system?
4.1.4 How do I add my Exakt speakers to my music system?
4.1.5 How do I add my surround speakers to my music system?
4.1.6 How is the new version of Space Optimisation different?
4.1.7 Why does Space Optimisation not use a microphone measurement?
4.1.8 How long should an optimisation take to calculate?
4.1.9 How do I apply an optimisation to my music system?
4.1.10 How do I see what filters the optimisation is applying?
4.2.1 Why should I ignore small geometrical features with dimensions less than 10 cm?
4.2.2 Why should I ignore hard furnishings?
4.2.3 How do I add a free-standing wall?
4.2.4 How do I enter my open plan room?
4.2.5 How do I enter the length of a wall?
4.2.6 Why is the minimum grid size on the Floor Plan step 1 cm?
4.2.7 How do I find out the construction materials of my room?
4.2.8 How do I measure my room features?
4.2.9 Why should I ignore soft furnishings and decorations?
4.2.10 Why do features disappear when I change my room dimensions?
4.2.11 How do I add floor and ceiling features?
4.3.1 Where should I put my speakers?
4.3.2 Where do I measure to on my speaker?
4.3.3 How do I measure my listening location?
4.4.1 How do the Environmental options affect the optimisation?
4.4.2 How does the Optimisation Preference affect the optimisation?
This Space Optimisation is a web/internet based application to adjust the music played by your speakers to match the unique characteristics of your room. This is a more advanced version of Space Optimisiation than the Konfig version.
Note: Currently for non-Exakt STEREO systems only, this will be expanded to Exakt and surround systems in the near future.
3. Correctly set the environmental conditions of your room in the Space Optimisation user interface.
If you correctly follow these steps, Space Optimisation should provide an optimisation that will not need any further adjustment. This user guide should therefore be required for reference only.
Check the User guide below for a lot more detail of its operation, capabilities and setup.
If you do not have a Linn Account then you can instantly register for one.
After registration and Log-in you will see the Linn DS players on your network. ADD or REMOVE the Linn DS/DSM players from your Linn account.
Within the “My Account” select Manage systems.
If you have just registered and added these to your Account it may take a couple of minutes to show you Linn DS/DSM setup. If nothing changes then try refreshing your web-browser page, (typically function key F5 or CTRL-F5 in the browser).
The Space tab will not appear until you have assigned speakers to your Linn DS/DSM in the “GENERAL” tab. Note: currently Exakt systems are not currently supported by this page and you cannot assign Exakt speaker in setup.
with the speakers setup you will now be able to create/update/delete/rename your Space Optimisation settings created by this application.
What should I do if I see an error message saying “Sorry, something went wrong”?
click on Start next to Send Activity.
This will record any further activity, until the browser page is next refreshed, for debugging purposes. Now attempt to recreate the issue that caused the error; if you are able to recreate the issue, please contact the Linn Service team, and our engineers will then be able to look into the issue with your recorded activity as reference.
Note that this issue may sometimes be related to an old Space Optimisation on your music system; turning off Space Optimisation in Linn Konfig and then refreshing the browser page in your Linn account may, in some cases, solve this issue.
How do I add my speakers to my music system?
Click on the Add Speakers button below the graphic of your music system; a dialog prompting you to provide the manufacturer and model of your speakers will appear.
Select the manufacturer and model of your speakers using the drop-down menus, then click on the Add button; if your speakers’ manufacturer or model does not appear in the drop-down menu, select Other. See §2.2 of the user guide for further information.
How do I add my subwoofer to my music system?
Subwoofers are currently unsupported within your Linn account; please use Linn Konfig to configure your music system.
How do I add my Exakt speakers to my music system?
Exakt speakers are currently unsupported within your Linn account; please use Linn Konfig to configure your music system.
How do I add my surround speakers to my music system?
Surround speakers are currently unsupported within your Linn account; please use Linn Konfig to configure your music system.
How is the new version of Space Optimisation different?
The new version of Space Optimisation uses highly sophisticated acoustic modelling to model the interactions between your speakers and room; this acoustic modelling is based on the finite-difference time-domain method. A simple two-dimensional analogy to this method of acoustic modelling is of a fishing net laid over a pond; each knot in the net defines a discrete measurement location, so that when a stone is thrown into the pond we can track the resulting ripple by measuring its height at each knot. The spatial discretisation employed by this method of acoustic modelling allows the new version of Space Optimisation to correctly consider the effects of: non-rectangular rooms; the placement of features like doors and windows; and the location and rotation of your speakers. Furthermore, the time-domain formulation of this method of acoustic modelling means that the new version of Space Optimisation is now able to reduce both the energy and decay time of any artificial distortions caused by the interactions between your speakers and room, resulting in both a flat frequency response and a uniform decay time. Finally, the new version of Space Optimisation has been designed to give a better balance of low- and mid-frequency energy.
Why does Space Optimisation not use a microphone measurement?
The aim of Space Optimisation is to remove the effects of your room, in order to uncover the unique acoustic characteristics of your speakers; after all, this is what you fell in love with when buying your speakers. In order to do this, Space Optimisation needs to understand both the interactions between your speakers and room and the unique acoustic characteristics of your speakers; the unique acoustic characteristics of your speakers are then subtracted from the interactions between your speakers and room, leaving only the effects of your room.
An acoustic measurement of the interactions between your speakers and room can have many sources of error which may affect the accuracy and repeat-ability of the measurement, including: the choice of measurement stimulus, such as MLS or a log chirp; external noise, such as traffic noise and vibration; quality and calibration of the microphone, which can introduce distortion; and the microphone location, which can be sensitive to within a few centimetres. The use of acoustic modelling removes these sources of error: the model can apply an ideal impulse as stimulus; the modelling domain is free from noise; the model can use an ideal microphone; and the listening location is well-defined. It can thus be seen that acoustic modelling has a clear advantage over acoustic measurement in understanding the interactions between your speaker and room.
The unique acoustic characteristics of your speakers depend on many factors, including: the shape and size of the drive units and ports; the constructive and destructive interference between the drive units, ports and any cabinet-edge diffraction sources; and the angle between the listening location and your speakers. Therefore, a simple on-axis anechoic measurement of your speakers is insufficient information; what is actually required is an anechoic measurement with your speakers in the exact same configuration as you have them in your home. While some manufacturers do publish anechoic measurements of their speakers, both on- and off-axis, it is extremely unlikely that they will have performed an anechoic measurement of your speakers in the exact same configuration as you have them in your home. The acoustic modelling of such a scenario is, however, straightforward; the model can simply turn your room into an anechoic chamber to obtain the unique acoustic characteristics of your speakers in the exact same configuration as you have them in your home. It can thus be seen that acoustic modelling once again has a clear advantage over acoustic measurement in understanding the unique acoustic characteristics of your speakers.
From the above, it is clear that acoustic modelling is the best approach to Space Optimisation.
How long should an optimisation take to calculate?
The calculation time of an optimisation will depend on your room and speakers, with large rooms containing multiple speakers taking longer to calculate than small rooms containing few speakers; optimisation calculations may take anywhere between four and twenty minutes, with a typical optimisation calculation taking around five minutes. See §1.2.3 of the user guide for further information.
Note: If your optimisation calculation takes longer than expected this may be due to an issue where messages from the cloud are failing to reach your browser; refreshing the browser page <f5> or SHFT<f5>, in your Linn account should solve this issue.
How do I apply an optimisation to my music system?
Any optimisation may be applied to your music system by clicking on the radio button next to its name, in the list of optimisations below the Optimisations heading under the Space tab; note that application of an optimisation does not require a recalculation. See §2.3.4 of the user guide] for further information.
How do I see what filters the optimisation is applying?
Bass and treble shelves are currently unsupported within your Linn account.
Why should I ignore small geometrical features with dimensions less than 10 cm?
Due to the spatial discretisation employed by the method of acoustic modelling used by Space Optimisation small geometrical features with dimensions less than 10 cm can cause inaccuracies in the model. Considering again the analogy of a fishing net laid over a pond, we can imagine a small island in the pond: if this small island lies between knots it will be ignored by our discrete measurements; however, if this small island lies on a knot it will invalidate our measurement at this knot, causing an error which would propagate away from the small island.
Why should I ignore hard furnishings?
Where rooms contain hard furnishings it is recommended to ignore these; at low frequencies such hard furnishings are usually almost acoustically transparent. While certain hard furnishings, such as cupboards and wardrobes, may add extra resonances of their own, the effects of such resonances are usually highly localised.
How do I add a free-standing wall?
Free-standing walls are currently unsupported. However, where rooms contain free-standing walls it is recommended to ignore these; at low frequencies such free-standing walls are usually almost acoustically trans-parent. See §3.4.2 of the user guide for further information.
How do I enter my open plan room?
When entering an open plan room all rooms open to the main listening room should be entered; antechambers and additional cavities will add extra resonances and affect decay times. See §2.3.1 of the user guide for further information.
How do I enter the length of a wall?
In the Floor Plan step you may select any corner with a click, and drag it to any desired location to define the length of a wall. Manual input by typing the length of the wall is not supported, as this would cause a knock-on effect around the other walls of your room as corners are shifted to accommodate the new length. See §2.3.1 of the user guide for further information.
Why is the minimum grid size on the Floor Plan step 1 cm?
Space Optimisation considers only frequencies below 80 Hz; this corresponds to a wavelength of around 4m. A grid size of 1 cm allows for accurate entering of wall lengths to 5 mm, which gives an accuracy of around 0.1 % at 80 Hz.
How do I find out the construction materials of my room?
The construction materials of your room can be found from the building plans. If you cannot obtain the building plans, simply knock on each surface; a hollow sound would suggest Suspended or Partition construction, whereas a sharp sound would suggest Concrete construction. In order of a hollow to a sharp sound, the common construction materials of walls are Partition, Drywall, and Concrete. Similarly, the common construction materials of floors are Suspended Floor and Concrete, and of ceilings are Suspended Ceiling and Concrete. See §2.3.1 of the user guide for further information.
How do I measure my room features?
When measuring room features only the feature itself, and not any trimmings, should be measured: for a door only the door panel should be measured, and not the door frame; for a window only the window pane should be measured, and not the casement. Any non-rectangular features, such as circular windows, should be modelled as a rectangular feature of equal area.
Why should I ignore soft furnishings and decorations?
Where rooms contain soft furnishings, such as carpets and curtains, and any decorations, such as paintings and mirrors, it is recommended to ignore these; at low frequencies such soft furnishings and decorations are acoustically transparent.
Why do features disappear when I change my room dimensions?
When features have been added to a room, and subsequent changes are made to the room dimensions, the features on any affected surfaces will be removed; since the surface dimensions have changed, there is no guarantee that the features on this surface remain valid, and so they are removed. The setup process of Space Optimisation has been designed in a step-based manner; you should complete each step before moving on to the next.
How do I add floor and ceiling features?
Floor and ceiling features are currently unsupported, and so an approximation procedure must be adopted; the presence of floor or ceiling features, such as trapdoors or skylights, will tend to increase the average absorption of the floor or ceiling, therefore the absorption of the floor or ceiling construction material should be increased in the Absorption step. See §3.2.1 of the user guide for further information.
Where should I put my speakers?
The Tune Dem method should be used to find the ideal locations for your speakers; these are the locations where it is easiest to follow the tune. Correct identification of the ideal locations for your speakers is essential if you wish to achieve the full potential of both your music system and Space Optimisation; Space Optimisation is able to recreate the sound of your speakers in their ideal locations, even if you have been forced to move them to a more practical location due to domestic constraints, to give you the best of both worlds. See §2.1 of the user guide for further information.
Where do I measure to on my speaker?
In the Speaker Location step, when a speaker is selected helpful hints will appear in the bottom left-hand corner with guidance on where measurements should be made to on the speaker. See §2.3.2 of the user guide for further information.
How do I measure my listening location?
The listening location should be measured to the average location of the centre of your head during normal listening. See §2.3.2 of the user guide for further information.
How do the Environmental options affect the optimisation?
Increasing the absorption will result in an optimisation that takes shallower, broader cuts at the frequencies artificially distorted by your room; decreasing the absorption will result in an optimisation that takes deeper, sharper cuts at the frequencies artificially distorted by your room. It is important that the absorption of the construction materials of your room is set correctly, otherwise Space Optimisation will incorrectly predict the amount of correction required at the frequencies artificially distorted by your room; incorrect setting of the absorption of the construction materials of your room will result in an uneven bass sound. See §3.2 of the user guide for further information.
How does the Optimisation Preference affect the optimisation?
In the Optimisation Preference step, moving the slider toward Flatter Frequency Response will result in an optimisation that takes deeper cuts and applies less decay control at the frequencies artificially distorted by your room; moving the slider toward Shorter Decay Time will result in an optimisation that takes shallower cuts and applies more decay control at the frequencies artificially distorted by your room. While the optimisation has been designed to give a good balance of low- and mid-frequency energy, your personal preference may differ to the default balance. See §3.3 of the user guide for further information.
Added 'smart' measurements from features. The proximity lines that emanate from a feature will now show the measurement to the closest feature or wall edge. This also works for features inside other features e.g. modelling a window inside a door.
Added drag handles to re-position the feature proximity lines.
Added ability to moved features using the up/down/left/right arrow keys.
The default movement will be 0.01 meters (0.1 meters with the <CTRL> key held).
Added ability to move walls and corners using the up/down/left/right arrow keys.
The default movement will be 0.01 meters (0.1 meters with the<CTRL> key held).
Added ability to move speakers and listening position using the up/down/left/right arrow keys.
The default movement will be 0.01 meters (0.1 meters with the <CTRL>key held).
Added X and Y offset measurements to adjacent corners when selected corner is dragged so that the adjacent walls are at an angle.
Added ability to show the measurement from the currently selected speaker/listening position to the closest angled wall.
This page was last edited on 21 March 2019, at 11:52.

matches: §2 §1 §2 §3 §2 §2 §2 §3 §2 §2 §2 §3 §3


Workers' Compensation Law (WCL) § 25-a(1-a), enacted as part of the 2013 reform legislation (L. of 2013, Ch. 57, Part GG, §13) directed the closing of the Fund for Reopened Cases to new claims for WCL § 25-a relief on or after January 1, 2014.
No application by a self-insured employer or an insurance carrier for transfer of liability of a claim to the fund for reopened cases shall be accepted by the board on or after the first day of January, two thousand fourteen except that the board may make a finding after such date pursuant to section twenty-three of this article upon a timely application for review.
To ensure a smooth transition for the closing of the Fund, we are setting forth some basic principles, based on statute and case law, to guide carriers as to the filing of proper and complete applications for § 25-a relief. All complete applications must be received no later than December 31, 2013. The Board will not consider any applications that are incomplete as of the December 31, 2013 deadline.
There are two basic elements to a successful application for WCL § 25-a relief.
First, that the case reopening occurs beyond seven years from the date of accident and three years from the date of the last payment of compensation.
Second, case law has established the additional requirement that a case must be truly closed prior to the application to reopen.
The carrier must support its application with an offer of proof as to why § 25-a relief should be granted as of the date of the application. The Request for Further Action (RFA-2) application must include the factual and legal basis for the application, and refer specifically to Board documents and/or attachments.
The factual and legal requirements of § 25-a transfer must exist at the time of that application. For example, a carrier cannot obtain § 25-a relief in an open case if the seven- and three-year periods are not satisfied until after December 31, 2013. The carrier cannot file the application as a place holder to reserve the right to WCL § 25-a in the future.
At time of closure, there were no foreseeable ongoing issues.
The Board's raising the issue on its own motion.
The carrier cannot request that a case be reopened for the purpose of WCL § 25-a based solely upon meeting the seven- and three-year time period requirements. There must be some type of liability (either medical or indemnity) to transfer. However, if the case is already opened and the issue of WCL § 25-a is raised prior to January 1, 2014, WCL § 25-a can be litigated even if there is no current liability to be transferred.
¹ This requirement does not apply to 3 d. or 3 e. below.


text:
Autumn-Gardening. There is wealth of material for spring, and summer-gardening; but to secure good garden effects in autumn requires mostly other material and a different intellectual conception of the problem. The common problems of the gardener in autumn grow out of two facts: First, the frost kills tender plants sooner than he desires; therefore he tries to save vegetables and flowers as lone as possible by protection and by choosing hardy kinds. Second, gardens tend to look unattractive and seedy in September, because this is nature's time for ripening fruits; therefore he desires fresh flowers. The popular demand is for fresh vegetables as lone as possible, color in the garden right into the teeth of winter, cut-flowers after frost, home grounds that will be attractive even after a summer's absence, and a note of welcome to the children in every school-yard. Also, there are enthusiasts who wish gardens devoted exclusively to autumn beauties.
The ideal way to prolong the yield of fresh vegetables in late autumn is by means of greenhouse, hotbeds and coldframes. In frames, which are the cheapest, it is easy to have in November lettuce, spinach and radishes. The next best plan is to shelter the garden from cutting winds and frost by a windbreak, e.g., wall, fence, hedge, natural wood, or group of evergreens. Sheltered gardens often yield fresh vegetables two to six weeks after adjacent unsheltered gardens have been devastated by frost. It is also possible to prolong the season by raising late-growing varieties and by starting the ordinary kinds later in the year.
Parks and the grounds of wealthy people often rely chiefly on tender or temporary bedding plants, e.g., cannas, dahlias, scarlet sage, gladioli, geraniums and Pfitzer's torch-lily, for their largest masses of autumn color. This method gives the greatest show the first year, but is costly in the long run. Moreover, these plants are killed by frost, leaving gaps too large to fill. A grade higher is hardy bedding, which has become popular since 1900. The favorite plants are lone-blooming shrubs and perennials, e.g., Baby Rambler rose, garden and tree hydrangeas, Miss Lingard phlox, gaillardias, stokesia, Napoleon III pink, double ragged robin, Veronica longifolia var. subsessilis, Conoclinium (Eupalorium) coelestinum.
Unfortunately, the flowers of the two preceding lists do not really freshen the garden, because they are summer flowers or are being made so by the irresistible tendency to exploit earlier varieties of everything. As taste improves, there is a reaction against excessive use of long-blooming plants, and a desire has arisen for "season markers." Among the finer plants of this real autumn sort are Colchicum Parkinsonii, Crocus zonatus, C. speciosus, C. sativus, Crinum Powellii, Sternbergia lutea, Chrysanthemum uliginosum, gordonia, and the rarer plants to be mentioned hereafter. They are, however, plants of the skilled amateur.
For beginners, the favorite hardy autumn flowers include the following annuals or plants treated as such, —China asters, pansies (sown outdoors about May 10 in latitude of New York City), snapdragons, and cosmos; bulbs,—Colchicum autumnale; perennials,— sneezeweed, Helianthus orgyalis and //. Maximilianii, and pompon chrysanthemums.
Another way of providing fresh color in autumn is to make a second or June sowing of favorite annual flowers, e.g., sweet alyssum, candytuft, love-in-a-mist, common and pot-marigold, mignonette, nasturtium, phlox, California poppy, portulaca and zinnia. These usually fail in September from the April sowing. The June sowing will carry them beyond a hard frost, except nasturtium and portulaca.
In early November, after frost had devastated the gardens in the neighborhood of Philadelphia, the following flowers were in condition at one of the largest nurseries of perennials. Only those are mentioned that gave decided masses, not mere dots or remnants of color: Aconitum columbianum, A. Fischeri, alyssum, antirrhinum, Aster grandiflorus, A. tataricus, Cimicifuga simplex, Napoleon III dianthus, Erigeron glabellus, gaillardias, gladioli, Helianthus Maximilianii, hunnemannia, kniphofias, pansies (sown in May), Miss Lingard phlox.
Nearly all the flowers in the two preceding lists are available for home decoration, although the quality may not be equal to that of early September. If long- stemmed, long-lasting flowers are needed in quantity, the most satisfactory, perhaps, are chrysanthemums, snapdragons, Miss Lingard phlox, gaillardias. To this list may be added delphiniums, Baby Rambler rose and Catananche caerulea.
Gardens based on the dominant color.
It is feasible to make a garden that changes its color every three or four weeks, based upon the idea that a garden may well reflect the dominant color in the landscape produced by the wild flowers of each season. Since yellow is the dominant color of autumn (witness the goldenrods, sunflowers and other composites) such gardens may be rich in sneezeweed and perennial sunflowers (especially Helianthus Maximilianii, H. orgyalis, and H. multiflorus var. plenus) since these are particularly appropriate to season and country. The following yellow flowers of summer may be prolonged into autumn by seed-picking, cutting back, fertilizing, and watering: Tufted pansies, snapdragons, Golden Glow rudbeckia, gaillardia, Iceland and horned poppies, Anthemis tinctoria and Lepachys columnaris.
The English make an exceedingly showy, yet artistic, garden based upon what they call "Michaelmas daisies" (asters), of which 137 species and varieties are catalogued by a single dealer. It consists of a double border devoted to the early kinds that bloom during the first three weeks of September; and a separate border for the October- and November-blooming species. The pictorial effect is improved by a definite color scheme, planting in drifts, and an ingenious system of training on hidden branches. This type of garden is of peculiar interest to Americans because the perennial asters are mostly American wild flowers, and it meets the general desire to grow a class of flowers which is too prolific for the ordinary garden. Owing to the notorious difficulties of identifying species of this genus, Americans find it more practicable to import collections than to assemble species from the wild. The true asters are generally supplemented by yellow flowers of other genera (e.g., Chrysopsis) in order to make the early garden a pink and yellow composition, while the later garden is devoted to purple, lavender and blue.
Woody plants for autumn bloom.
In larger gardens and on home grounds it is desirable to secure flowers by using more permanent materials, as woody plants. Unfortunately, the only tree that blooms in autumn (gordonia) has to be wrapped during winter in the North. The list of vines also is small, being confined to left-over blooms of trumpet creeper, Hall's honeysuckle, and panicled clematis.
The autumn-blooming shrubs, however, are excellent. Unluckily, the showiest of them all, Hydrangea paniculata var. grandiflora, is commonly used in such ways as to bring upon American yards the reproach of gaudine’s and vulgarity. It looks gross and over-fed compared with the slender grace of its prototype, H. paniculata, and its double flowers are artificial compared with the single ones. True, they last longer and give more for the money than any other flower of autumn, but such plants from their irresistible appeal to beginners, are planted in every yard and tend to make home grounds look too much alike and too common. The situation is aggravated by inartistic ways of using it, e.g., hedges from sidewalk to porch, great masses across the front of the house, borders of curving drives, and beds in the middle of the lawn. Again, it is pruned severely to make the largest trusses, which results in loss of height and dignity, and in top-heavy masses ill-concealed by supports. A better system of yard- decoration, is the use of informal shrubbery borders, since they give year-round interest and greater variety to yards.
To supplement the ubiquitous double hydrangea, the following may be recommended, subject to the limitations noted: Abelia chinensis, white, begins blooming in Georgia in June and is well covered in New England as late as September 30; Abelia grandiflora, pink, needs a winter covering of boughs North; Baccharis halimifolia. has tufts of showy pappus, like camel's-hair brushes, that look like white flowers; Buddleia variabilis, pink, is killed to the ground at New York but recovers and blooms freely; Caryopteris Mastacanthus, blue, behaves like buddleia; Hamamelis virginiana, yellow, not showy, but the last shrub to bloom; Hibiscus syriacus or althaea (only the single white variety here recommended); Hydrangea paniculata var. tardiva, which gives a fresh white after the double hydrangea has begun to assume its metallic colors; roses, hybrid teas, which are at their best on Long Island in early September; Vitex Agnus-Castus, lilac, hardy to New York.
A more artistic way of securing color.
Although the popular interest is in flowers, there is a far more important method of securing color,—by means of trees, shrubs and vines with brilliant autumn colors in foliage and fruit. This method is more artistic because more appropriate to the season, more permanent, and cheaper in the end. It is also more American, because we have more native shrubs than autumn flowers; because shrubbery is the only class of material (except water-lilies) in which we enjoy a climatic advantage over England; and because autumnal colors in America are more brilliant than those in western Europe.
For home decoration, cut sprays of multiflora rose, common barberry, bittersweet, and the like, are longer-stemmed and last longer than flowers. Those just named remain attractive all winter, even when shriveled.
Our climate naturally suggests flowers in spring, attractive foliage in summer, natural colors in autumn, and in winter the shrubs with brightly colored berries and twigs. The late season situation can be met by making 90 per cent of the planting consist of combinations of trees and shrubs with triple or quadruple attractions of flowers, foliage, autumn colors and fruit, e.g., Cornus alba and var. sibirica, C. Amomum, C. florida, and C. mas; Viburnum cassinoides, V. Lentago, V. prunifolium, V. Lantana, V. tomentosum, and V. americanum; Magnolia stellata, M. Soulangeana, M. glauca, M. acuminata, and M. tripetala; Herberts vulgaris and B. Thunbergii; Regel's privet and the best form of the Amoor River privet; Morrow's bush honeysuckle: prairie, multiflora, rugosa, and Wichuraiana roses and their sturdiest descendants; and the following vines: Euonymus radicans var. vegetus, trumpet creeper, wistaria, bittersweet, and the wild and panicled clematis.
Sentimentalists aver that nature never produces discordant colors, although the famous poinciana of the tropics and the nemesias of the garden furnish a combination of magenta and scarlet in the same flower. A walk through a good arboretum in September will convince the unprejudiced observer that discords exist in flowers, fruit, and foliage. In practice, nine-tenths of the troublesome discords are produced by the magenta group of colors, including the strongest purples, crimson, lilac, and crimson-pink. The artistic way to handle these colors is to isolate them in nooks surrounded by green, or to put them in deep shade, where they are purified and softened, instead of allowing them in the open garden, where full sun makes them too strong and where they conflict with all other colors, except white and green. The list of "dangerous colors" includes the flowers of Japanese anemone, crimson-pink chrysanthemums and China asters (in all of which safer colors are available), the Anthony Waterer spirea, the sub- sessile veronica, Lespedeza Sieboldii and Clerodendron foetidum. Examples among fruits are Indian currant, callicarpa, burning-bush, strawberry-bush and several of the species of euonymus during the period when their highly colored capsules conflict with their scarlet arils. The purplish-twigged shrubs, e. g., Cornus alba, C. Amomum, C. stolonifera, and C. Purpusii (the last a species commonly but unwittingly distributed as C. Amomum), constitute an exception, since they are brilliant only in sunlight, and their color being dissipated, instead of massed, is less liable to produce discords.
In foliage, the colors bordering on magenta are so rare that they may be ignored in planning the home- grounds, although careful designers always consider autumnal colors. When discords occur they may be resolved usually by planting between the discordant trees or shrubs some plants that retain green foliage until late autumn. Wine- or claret-colored foliage, like that of the maple-leaved arrow-wood, or crimson, like that of Itea virginica, occasionally makes discords with nearby foliage of yellow or scarlet, but in the case of such small plants it is usually easier to remove one of the trouble-makers. The sweet-gum, however, often makes a large mass of very dark purple, which may seriously disagree with yellow-foliaged specimens, or with buildings of yellow or red, especially since it has come to be used as a street tree. In practice, however, flowers make less trouble than shrubs, and shrubs than trees, and discords may generally be abolished by moving the smaller plants. The commonest and greatest color difficulty in autumn foliage comes from over-planting the following class.
Scarlet foliage in autumn theoretically may be no more vivid than other colors, but it is popularly regarded as the climax of all the autumn colors. For example, persons who give little thought to planting for autumn effect buy the scarlet and Tartarian maples, the red variety of silver maple, and ask the nurserymen for "a sugar maple that is guaranteed to turn red." The aromatic, scarlet, smooth, and staghorn sumachs are in considerable demand. And, above all, the Japanese and common barberry are planted. At the entrance to public parks are often seen several hundred Japanese barberries planted in a bed for a blaze of autumn color. If disproportionately large, such masses of scarlet are perhaps only one grade higher than tender foliage plants. The brilliant reds commonly conflict with brick buildings and parti-colored houses of wood.
Deep red foliage in autumn is quieter, but rich enough. It is seen in the scarlet, pin, and red oaks, flowering dogwood, black choke-cherry, wild gooseberry (Ribes Cynosbati), and several native huckleberries and roses.
Bronze foliage is seen in most of the plants that become red, for they attain to it from green through many bronzy colors. But the richest bronzes generally are associated with thick, lustrous, persistent leaves. The most highly esteemed, because most costly, are the broad-leaved evergreens, e.g., the Hinodigiri and amoena azaleas, mahonias, leucothoes, Pieris floribunda and P. japonica, and galax. These assume their brightest colors in full sunshine and, at the northern limits of their cultivation, sometimes suffer a loss of foliage. In the higher latitudes it is often best to sacrifice color to hardiness, by sheltering the plants from winter winds and sunshine, in which case they usually retain a lively green. A cheaper list, because composed of semi-evergreen plants, comprises California privet, Hall's honeysuckle, Wichuraiana rose, sweet fern, and bayberry. These color poorly in some localities, but they are of special value in the latter half of November, when the landscape first becomes bare, except for evergreen and nearly evergreen plants.
Yellow and orange foliage in autumn is midway between the vivider and the quieter autumn colors, the former having an exciting, while the latter have a soothing, effect upon the mind. The yellow and orange group rises in vividness from pale yellow, through gold to orange, the three stages being exemplified by larch, witch-hazel, and persimmon. Here belong the striped maple, yellow-wood, Kentucky coffee tree, ironwood, Prunus pennsylvanica and P. serotina, cucumber tree, large-leaved magnolia, Crataegus punctata, yellow-root and sugar maple. The duller yellows merge with the next group.
Brown and neutral autumn foliage tones down the most brilliant colors and resolves nature's discords. Examples are the American and slippery elms, and perhaps even the brighter red and chestnut oaks.
Green foliage in autumn is even more valuable in harmonizing colors. It is well expressed in the evergreens and nearly evergreen plants. The sudden devastation of the landscape occasioned by the fall of the leaves (whence the Americanism "fall" as a synonym of autumn) excites fresh interest in all the plants that remain green. These are of three classes: (1) The broad-leaved evergreens constitute the most sumptuous class of hardy plants, because they often possess showy flowers or fruits in addition to broader and more lustrous leaves than the conifers. Of the fifty kinds that are hardy in the latitude of New York, the following have special autumn attractions: Osmanthus Aquifolium (flowers), mountain laurel (red twigs), American holly, climbing euonymus, fire thorn, Cotoneaster buxifolia and C. microphylla, partridge berry, and winter- green. In the South, the following have special attractions in autumn: English holly, Euonymus japonicus, ardisia, and nandina, all of which have red fruits, and pernettyas having fruits of various colors. Unfortunately, no plant of this class much exceeds 15 feet in height in the northeastern United States, and it is idle to hope for a 50-foot tree of this group, such as England possesses in the holm oak or ilex. (2) The narrow-leaved evergreen, or conifers, may lack showy flowers but they furnish more tall hardy plants than the broad-leaved evergreens. Their year-round uses are too numerous for mention here, but their autumnal functions are four,—(a) to harmonize discords; (6) to rest the eye from color; (c) to furnish contrast, which intensifies color; (d) to give greater dignity than showy colors possess. This dignity is due to the year-round beauty, longer life, and costliness of white and red pine, northern and Carolina hemlock, Nordmann and concolor fir, white and Douglas spruce, red cedar and arborvitae, as compared with cheap, showy and temporary deciduous trees like willows, poplars, silver maples, and the like. Even the Vermont sugar-bush which, in October, ,, is one of the most gorgeous spectacles, presents a finer ., appearance in the landscape when skirted by occasional white pines, which add greatly to the dignity and "paint- able quality" without obscuring its farm value or purposeful character. (3) The nearly evergreen or half- evergreen plants may be bare from one to three months, depending largely on latitude and season.
The plants that remain green until their leaves fall are mostly natives to western Europe, or to the warmer parts of China, Japan or Korea, and are usually associated with a moist and cloudy autumn. European examples are buckthorn, common privet, sea buckthorn, Cytisus capitatus and C. nigricans, Genista tinctoria, G. elata, G. pilosa and G. germanica. Far-eastern examples are California privet, matrimony vine, panicled clematis, Akebia quinata and A. lobata, Lonicera fragrantissima and L. Standishii, and Euonymus Hamiltonianus var. semipersistens. American examples are few, and Lonicera Ledebourii comes from California (climate like Europe), but the overcup oak and Leucothoe racemosa are eastern and southern plants. All these species were reported as being green at the Arnold Arboretum as late as November 8. The peculiar value of this class is as a substitute for broad-leaved evergreens. Unfortunately, the climate of the northeastern United States is not favorable to broad-leaved evergreens, compared with the South or Europe, and the lavish use of them requires a princely income. Consequently, some of these cheaper plants; e.g., California privet, Hall's honeysuckle, and Wichuraiana roses, are available even to the poor, while the whole list is of special interest to people who have summer homes.
The extraordinary beauty of shrubs with brightly colored berries was first publicly and sufficiently demonstrated in this country by the Arnold Arboretum. Compared with autumnal colors of foliage, the fruits present fewer, smaller, and more jewel-like masses. Amid the bewildering variety one may discern three groups.
First are the short-lived fruits, which drop soon after the killing frost, or present an unattractive appearance owing to decay. Here belong the vast majority of ornamental fruits, including crab apples, dozens of hawthorns. Viburnum Lantana. V. alnifolium, V. cassinoides, V. Sieboldii. The chief function of this class is to suggest the fecundity and variety of nature in autumn, but attractive thorneries have been designed, and the ornamental fruits of the Rosaceae are now used to connect the battle-scarred remnants of old orchards with modern ornamental planting, especially boundaries.
The second group comprises all the fruits that remain attractive until Christmas, e.g., the rugosa rose.
The third and most valuable group comprises those that remain attractive all winter, like the barberries. This and the second group are classified by color under Winter Gardening (Vol. VI.) Most persons are willing to sacrifice some degree of ornament in order to attract the birds. The following furnish food in autumn, when it is especially desirable to attract the migrants to the South: the flowering dogwood, red osier, and alternate-leaved dogwood, choke-cherry, black and sweet elder, arrow-wood, sassafras, kinnikinnick, crab-apple, hawthorn, fire- thorn, cotoneaster, buffalo berry, tupelo, and mountain ash.
Private and public woodlands in the East are more beautiful than a decade ago, in spite of the destruction of magnificent chestnut trees, and this is true, although probably to a lesser extent, in other parts of the country. The sudden spread of the chestnut disease has brought cer.ain compensations. For example, the flowering dogwood, which was formerly kept down, has prospered mightily, making the woods showier both in May and September; and other vegetation changes are following.
There is arising a general interest in pleasure woods, as witness the term "landscape forestry," which was unknown ten years ago. We are beginning to make personal use of woods. Judged by English standards, American woods are too crowded by crooked and spindling trees for comfort, and the general lack of evergreens robs them of mystery and charm. Our most urgent needs, therefore, are thinning, drives, paths, and the restoration of evergreens, all of which are especially enjoyable during the autumn and nutting season. Mistaken zeal has denuded many woods of undergrowth, which should quickly be restored along drives and paths. To glorify the woods on dark autumnal days, it is well to use masses of witch hazel, the foliage of which furnishes one of the cheapest and quickest ways of getting great sheets of sunny color.
Unfortunately the eastern mountains have been devastated so often by fires and lumbermen that there is comparatively little variety, the chief masses of color being furnished by quick, short-lived species, like poplars, birch and balsam, which are mere weeds compared with the more enduring and valuable oaks and pines. Our greatest problems are the restoration of variety and of long-lived species. In such work the fashionable colonies in the Berkshire^ ought to take the lead, since the social season reaches its height at Lenox in September. The Arnold Arboretum presents one of the most artistic, and probably the most varied, autumn landscapes made by man.
This page was last modified on 29 January 2010, at 16:18.

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


An employee who relied on medical marijuana for debilitating pain lost his job after failing a drug test, and his case has raised the difficult question of whether moves towards marijuana decriminalization have changed the legal standards in cases of termination for marijuana use. The employee alleged that the employer violated a statute prohibiting termination for “lawful activity” outside of work, but the Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed in Coats v. DISH Network, L.L.C., 303 P.3d 147 (Col. App. 2013). The state supreme court has agreed to hear the employee’s appeal. The question involves both state and federal law, especially now that marijuana is at least partly legal in many states, but still illegal under federal law.
The plaintiff worked as a telephone operator for the satellite television service provider DISH Network. A spinal injury left him quadriplegic, and he obtained a prescription for medical marijuana to treat severe muscle spasms. Despite a good employment record, he was terminated in 2010 after failing a random drug test. He sued DISH, citing a Colorado statute that prohibits termination for “lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonwork hours.” C.R.S. § 24-34-402.5 (PDF file).
Both the trial court and the appellate court ruled that marijuana use outside of work, even with a legal prescription, was not “lawful activity” within the meaning of the state statute. Marijuana use of any kind is still prohibited by federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) that state laws allowing marijuana use do not supersede federal laws prohibiting it. For an activity to be “lawful” in a wrongful termination case, the Colorado court held, “it must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law.” Coates, 303 P.3d at 151.
At least eighteen states, including New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have legalized it for medical use. New Jersey caselaw has held that employers may not terminate an employee for lawful activity outside of work if the termination is “contrary to a clear mandate of public policy.” Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 72 (1980). A claim of wrongful termination for marijuana use in New Jersey would probably not turn on whether the activity is legal, but rather whether public policy supports it.
In a case involving a claim of wrongful termination based on marital status, the court noted that adultery is no longer a criminal offense in New Jersey, and it remanded the case with instructions to consider questions of public policy. Slohoda v. United Parcel Serv., 193 N.J. Super. 586, 591 n. 1 (1984); see also 207 N.J. Super. 145 (1986). A New Jersey federal court held that an employee’s rights were not violated when he was terminated for acts that were not expressly illegal, specifically the operation of a business selling racist materials online, but were not supported by a “clear mandate of public policy.” Wiegand v. Motiva Enterprises, 295 F.Supp.2d 465 (D.N.J. 2003).
If you need to speak to an employment attorney in New Jersey or New York regarding wrongful termination or other unlawful employment practices, please contact the Resnick Law Group online, at 973-781-1204, or at (646) 867-7997.


text:
Kiriakos singled to center field (1-2).
Decker singled to center field (0-0); Kentris advanced to second.
Decker advanced to third; Kentris scored on a throwing error by c, failed pickoff attempt, unearned.
V. DeStefano doubled down the lf line (1-2).
V. DeStefano advanced to third on a wild pitch.
J. Torch singled to pitcher, bunt (1-0).
E. Askins grounded out to 1b unassisted, RBI (0-1); J. Torch advanced to third; V. DeStefano scored.
Ky. Anderson singled to left field (1-1).
Kentris singled to shortstop (1-2).
A. Hunt singled to pitcher, bunt (0-0); J. Torch advanced to second; V. DeStefano advanced to third.
E. Askins singled to second base, RBI (2-1); A. Hunt advanced to second; J. Torch advanced to third; V. DeStefano scored.
C. Caswell singled, advanced to second on the throw, RBI (0-0); E. Askins advanced to third; A. Hunt advanced to third, out at home lf to c; J. Torch scored.
Provencher reached on a fielding error by ss (1-1); C. Caswell scored, unearned; E. Askins scored, unearned.
Dicranian singled to shortstop (3-0).
Q. Garant singled to left field (1-0).
Wierzbicki to rf for Schaeffer.
E. Askins flied out to cf, SF, RBI (1-0); A. Hunt advanced to second; J. Torch advanced to third; V. DeStefano scored.
C. Caswell singled to left field (2-2).
C. Caswell advanced to second on a wild pitch.
Ky. Anderson grounded out to ss, RBI (2-0); C. Caswell scored.
Decker singled to shortstop (0-1).
Brooks to c for Benton.
J. Torch singled to second base (2-2).
A. Hunt singled to left field (2-1); J. Torch advanced to third.
S. Cavallaro reached on a fielder's choice (1-2); E. Askins advanced to second; A. Hunt advanced to third; J. Torch out at home 3b to c.
Madigan singled to left field (0-0).

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