forex strategy secrets nth degree real estate
absa forex bank south africa

The fact that Palermo have never beaten Inter at the San Siro is enlightening information, and of course tells us not to back them in the betting markets to do so here! In 23 meetings between the pair, Palermo have won just three; with Inter winning 12 and eight draws. Of the 12 fixtures played there, Inter have won eight and there has been four stalemates; yep, Palermo have never beaten Inter at their San Siro home! However, they won't care too much as long as they remain outside of the bottom three after winning Serie B last season and to that end they are way above the curve. Head to Head Palermo and Inter Milan drew earlier this season. Don't let gambling become a problem in your life. Claim your FreeBet and bet live in football betting markets.

Forex strategy secrets nth degree real estate portman park betting tips

Forex strategy secrets nth degree real estate

Corporate information Corporations sometimes attempt to restrain publication of information about their activities. Businesses have been able to secure injunctions to protect trade secrets, although courts usually require that there be some special relationship between the company seeking the injunction and the party being enjoined.

Justice Blackmun, acting as Circuit Justice for the U. Court of Appeals 8th Cir. The appropriate remedy would be a subsequent suit for civil or criminal damages, not a prior restraint, he concluded. With varying outcomes, trial courts have also on occasion issued prior restraints to prohibit the publication of information contained in sealed court records that falls into the hands of reporters.

Court of Appeals in Cincinnati 6th Cir. District Court prohibiting Business Week magazine from publishing information from sealed pretrial discovery documents containing business information, which it had received from an attorney at a law firm involved in the case. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the factual evidence did not justify censoring the news media. After The National Law Journal appealed the order, the company withdrew its request for the prior restraint and the court removed the order.

Journalists who break these laws are theoretically subject to fines and jail sentences. The Florida Legislature may not impose automatic liability for publishing lawfully obtained, truthful information about matters of public concern, the court ruled.

The judge said that because the juvenile was previously identified in a public forum, it was not illegal for the station to subsequently broadcast his identity. Supreme Court has not held that these statutes are unconstitutional as written, it has ruled that states cannot punish journalists for publishing truthful information they have obtained from public records or official proceedings.

Supreme Court refused to permit a newspaper to be held liable for publication of the name of a rape victim that was inadvertently released by a police department. In People v. Prior restraints and the Internet Prior restraints on the publication of Internet content are subject to the same constitutional limitations as restraints on speech in other forums. Court orders that prohibit the publication of content are more likely to be upheld if they occur after a final court adjudication that the communication consists of non-protected speech.

For example, in Evans v. Evans, the California Court of Appeals struck down a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendant from posting allegedly private, false and defamatory comments on a website. Relying on state supreme court precedent, the court stated that a narrowly drawn prohibition on publishing false and defamatory comments could be permissible only after a final determination on the merits that the speech at issue was defamatory.

Petrotech Resources Corporation. After the defendant made allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff in a variety of forums, including on the Internet, the trial court granted a temporary injunction prohibiting the defendant from making further defamatory comments.

The state supreme court vacated the injunction as an impermissible prior restraint on speech. The court went on to state, however, that a narrowly tailored prohibition on making further defamatory statements could be permissible if it were issued after a final court determination that the statements at issue were, in fact, defamatory.

Although absolute bans on publication generally have been declared unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has permitted government regulation of the sale and distribution of obscene materials. The Court has consistently required that those regulations be narrowly defined to cover materials judged obscene by contemporary community standards. In November , the U.

In Reno v. ACLU, the Court struck down criminal restrictions on internet speech contained in the Communications Decency Act where less restrictive means existed and the prohibitions were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Supreme Court has said that commercial speech may be restrained if it is false, misleading or advertises unlawful activity.

Any governmental restraint must advance a substantial public interest and must not be more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. In the decision, the Supreme Court not only agreed that commercial speech merited substantial First Amendment protection, it enhanced that protection. Power, a fugitive for 23 years before turning herself in to the authorities. It found that her First Amendment rights were not violated because she was not prohibited from telling her story as long as she received no payment for it.

For example, is an individual unduly sensitive to what he thinks you might publish? See if you can address those concerns without acquiescing to the demand. Remember, in most of these situations you can refuse the request and decide for yourself what information you will publish. If you are threatened with prosecution under a statute that supposedly makes publication of the information a crime, ask to see the statute or get enough information so that you can obtain a copy of it yourself.

If such a law exists and covers the kind of information you want to publish, consult an attorney about the constitutionality of the law or call the Reporters Committee. Make a reasoned decision about publication only after you and your editors have considered the legal ramifications of that decision. If a judge orders you not to publish, take the order seriously.

Ask for a copy of the order and consult your editors immediately. In these circumstances, three courses of action are open to you: obey the order, obey the order while challenging it, or violate the order as a means of testing its constitutionality. If you elect to obey the order, file your objection to the order at the earliest opportunity and ask permission to appear with legal counsel to challenge the ruling.

If the initial request to vacate the order is denied, or if you are denied the opportunity to be heard on your challenge, an attorney should be prepared to file an appeal for you. It is difficult to represent yourself in such an appeal, particularly because everything must happen quickly.

Call the Reporters Committee for assistance in finding an attorney if you do not have one. If you elect to challenge the order by violating it and publishing the information, the court may hold you in contempt. Even if the order is later found to be unconstitutional, you could be fined or even imprisoned. Some courts have concluded that it is permissible to challenge obviously unconstitutional prior restraints in this way.

Others have rejected this method. Even if you ultimately prevail on appeal, you could still be found in criminal contempt and possibly jailed. Gag orders Gag orders are a form of prior restraint that prohibit parties, lawyers, prosecutors, witnesses, law enforcement officials, jurors and others from talking to the press. Regardless of what judges call them or who initiates them, gag orders interfere with your efforts to gather and disseminate news. Orders prohibiting participants in a case from commenting to reporters or the public also infringe on the First Amendment rights of the individuals gagged.

Court of Appeals in New Orleans 5th Cir. In , a judge in Galveston, Texas, ordered a jury to not talk to the media about how they would have voted in a civil suit over an explosion at a BP oil refinery after the suit was settled during the trial. The judge speculated that their comments could taint jurors in other civil litigation related to the explosion.

At the time, BP faced hundreds of similar lawsuits over the explosion after settling about 4, more, according to a Houston Chronicle report. Neulander, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed a decision barring the media from interviewing discharged jurors in the case of Fred Neulander, a rabbi whose first murder trial ended in a hung jury. However, it limited the duration of the gag order until after the return of the verdict in the second trial.

Supreme Court declined to review the case. Orders prohibiting comment by lawyers in a case are another matter. Supreme Court ruled in Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada that the standard for penalizing speech by lawyers involved in criminal cases can be lower than the standard for punishing speech by the media and the public. If it is a written order, the court clerk should be able to provide a copy. Find out who the order gags and what restrictions it places on the gagged individuals.

Nuances in the language of the order may greatly affect whether it will be upheld on appeal. If your sources have been gagged, you will need advice on whether you can challenge the order or whether the person directly affected by it must bring the challenge. Here, too, you will need the help of legal counsel. In some cases, a judge will lift or modify a gag order when told of the constitutional problems it poses.

But a formal appeal may be necessary to protect your ability to cover a court case. Access to courts Courtrooms traditionally have been open to the public, and anyone who wanted to watch a trial could, as long as there was a seat available. Instead, the courts usually apply a balancing test to determine whether the interest in disclosure outweighs any asserted counterbalancing interest in confidentiality.

The standard the courts use in striking that balance depends on the source of the right. Courts have found that the media have a right of access to judicial records and proceedings under common law, the First Amendment and state or federal statutes. These methods of access are not exclusive; courts may find a right of access under both the common law and the First Amendment.

Under common law — the traditional court-made law that U. In Richmond Newspapers, Inc. Virginia and other cases that followed, the U. Supreme Court established a two-part test to determine whether the press and public have a First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings. Simpson, Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and, more recently, individuals accused of supporting terrorism. For example, courts have approved the use of anonymous juries in organized crime trials, where a serious risk to jurors is posed by people seeking to influence them or to retaliate after a verdict.

Juror identities were kept secret in criminal cases against Martha Stewart and investment banker Frank Quattrone, but both orders were overturned by the U. In July , the U. Rod Blagojevich to hold a hearing to determine whether juror names should be released before the end of the trial. The appeals court held that U.

Unlike criminal courtroom proceedings, grand jury proceedings have historically been conducted in secret. In May , for example, a federal appeals court in Washington, D. The court held that the news media do not have a First Amendment right to cover grand jury proceedings, which traditionally operate in secrecy.

Supreme Court has never decided whether the public has a constitutional right of access to juvenile court proceedings. As a policy matter, it was believed that youthful offenders should not be stigmatized forever because of one mistake. But high-profile crimes involving minors, such as the March school shooting in Jonesboro, Ark.

Supreme Court has never decided whether the public has a First Amendment right of access to civil proceedings. However, most federal appeals courts and state courts have held that civil cases are presumed to be public under the First Amendment. Parties in civil cases also may argue that open proceedings would reveal trade secrets, confidential business information or other private matters.

They may argue that the court should close the proceeding or seal documents to prevent competitors or others from acquiring this sensitive information. Secret settlements in civil cases have also become more common. Often parties to litigation make confidentiality a condition to settlement. This is particularly true in cases where a defendant must pay damages.

As a result, cases of great interest to the public are settled secretly and the public never learns the terms of the resolution. Two publishers who challenged the secrecy order were unsuccessful, despite their argument that the public had a legitimate interest in both skyrocketing insurance costs and unsafe consumer products.

When a legislature passes a law that governs court access, the statute will delineate the scope of the access right, but it must do so in a way consistent with First Amendment case law and any applicable state constitutional right of access. Some court rules also govern access to judicial proceedings and records.

Civil discovery documents not entered as evidence present access problems because they are not part of the official court record. Some federal appeals courts have held that discovery documents filed with the court are presumed public under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than the First Amendment. Courts also have ruled that the media do not have a right of access to copies of videotaped depositions. The Supreme Court has ruled that the media do not have a First Amendment right to copy exhibits.

This makes it much easier for a party advocating secrecy to overcome a media request for access. Cameras and recording equipment The U. Supreme Court held in that states may adopt rules permitting cameras and recording equipment in their courts. In some states visual and audio coverage is permitted in all types of court proceedings that are public, and in others such coverage is permitted only in appellate courts.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, which makes policy and rules for the federal courts, allows federal circuit courts to permit cameras in appellate arguments. In , the American Bar Association endorsed the idea of camera access to the U. Supreme Court. Bills to allow cameras in federal trial and appellate courts on an experimental basis have been introduced repeatedly in Congress, but have never passed.

The Judicial Conference of the United States announced in September a pilot project to allow cameras in some federal district courtroom proceedings. The conference said that only civil cases will be included in the program. Although details of the program were still being developed at the end of , participation in the program was to be at the discretion of the trial judge, with the parties to the court proceedings having the opportunity to veto cameras.

The cameras would be set up and operated by court personnel, however; the new policy bars recordings by others, including the news media. An experiment with camera access was previously conducted from to by the Judicial Conference, but was not made permanent. For detailed information about visual and audio coverage of courts in a particular state, contact the Reporters Committee. You have a right to oppose secrecy The U.

The judge must hold a hearing on the need for secrecy, and allow the media and others to argue against closure. The judge also must consider changing the venue of the trial, bringing in jurors from another part of the state, or postponing the trial until the effects of publicity have diminished.

Finally, the judge must present written findings supporting the closure decision. Supreme Court has held that this is necessary so that an appeals court can evaluate the propriety of the closure. Try to anticipate a closure. Preventing closure may be easier than convincing a judge to reopen a closed hearing. Find out whether any party in the case has filed or plans to file a closure motion.

If you are an independent reporter, call the Reporters Committee for help. But if a judge unexpectedly orders you to leave a hearing that to that point had been public, you may have to take immediate action. If you know that your news organization is prepared to send a lawyer into court to argue against courtroom secrecy, politely ask the judge if you may speak for a moment. Once the court acknowledges you, tell the judge that your news organization objects to the closure and would like an opportunity to argue against it.

Ask for a brief recess so that you can arrange for a lawyer to come to court to argue your case. Telling the judge the name of the lawyer who will appear may bolster your credibility. Ask that your objection be made part of the court record. Often judges will refuse to halt the case but may agree to listen to arguments when your lawyer arrives. If the judge will not let you speak and orders the courtroom cleared, do not refuse to leave. If you stand your ground or shout your objection you may be arrested or cited for contempt.

Leave the courtroom. Write a brief note to the judge explaining that your news organization wants to oppose the closure and that you will attempt to contact a lawyer immediately. Ask a court officer to give the note to the judge. Contact your organization about getting a lawyer involved or call the Reporters Committee for assistance.

If you learn that a secret court proceeding is in progress or has already been held, try to determine: Who sought closure and on what grounds: to protect fair trial rights, trade secrets or other confidential information or privacy. The nature of the proceeding: civil or criminal, whether it is a trial, pre- or post-trial hearing or appeal.

Whether the court held a hearing on closure and, if so, what findings the judge made justifying secrecy. Whether the proceeding is still going on. If possible, consult your editor about challenging the closure, or contact the Reporters Committee. If you decide to seek access to the proceeding, or to a transcript if the proceeding has concluded, the simplest and most direct approach is to request a meeting with the judge.

Pointing out the procedural requirements mandated by the U. Supreme Court may be sufficient to convince the judge to reconsider the closure. In addition to requesting access to future proceedings, you should ask the judge to make available transcripts of past proceedings and copies of any documents that may have been introduced as evidence. Be prepared to pay for it. On the other hand, if the judge has decided to go forward in secrecy, you will need assistance from a lawyer.

Supreme Court and other courts have said that the media may intervene in a criminal or civil case for the limited purpose of asserting their First Amendment rights. If the judge denies the motion to intervene or, after hearing argument, continues holding closed proceedings, you may want to consider an appeal.

A lawyer will be able to advise you on the best method of obtaining expeditious review of the decision. Contact the Reporters Committee if you or your news organization does not have an attorney. News events often occur in public forums — property that is publicly owned and open to the general public, such as city parks or sidewalks where demonstrations take place. In most situations, the property owner cannot be forced to allow a reporter to cover an event or interview an individual on the premises.

Some states treat the latter as a type of public forum. Most courts have ruled that the First Amendment provides journalists no greater right of access to property than that enjoyed by the public. Therefore, when an event occurs on nonpublic forum public property or private property, reporters may not have the right to enter if the general public is not usually allowed in.

Generally, a court contemplating denying access to nonpublic forum public property must weigh the public interest in obtaining information against competing interests. Although state and local governments may not limit or deny the public or the media access to public forums, they may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on activities taking place on public property.

For example, a city government reasonably could grant a parade permit that restricted a group from marching through the business section of town at rush hour. But these restrictions must be content neutral, be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Government agencies generally succeed in limiting media access to nonpublic forum public property where they showed that newsgathering would interfere with the normal operation of facilities.

In addition, new security measures since September 11, , often require background checks and security screening of reporters covering public facilities such as state capitols and city halls. Access to prisons and prisoners The media have a right of access to report on prisons in general. Supreme Court to rule repeatedly that the media do not have a right to insist on interviewing specific inmates.

If prisoners are allowed to add whomever they choose to their visitor lists, for example, prisons cannot stop them from including members of the news media on those lists. They may, however, forbid journalists to use cameras, recording devices and writing implements if other visitors are not allowed to use them.

The Supreme Court decisions giving prisons discretion to deny media interviews arose in situations where the general public, including the media, were permitted to visit prisons to witness the operation of the facility and where the prisoners had the right to talk to family members or friends about the conditions in the prison.

If this level of access to prisoners is curtailed, the balancing tests could be applied differently. The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners have First Amendment rights that must be taken into account. Even though courts have rejected a First Amendment right to interview specific prisoners, most states have statutes or prison rules allowing for some type of access.

They usually grant the warden or other prison official authority to deny interview requests under specific circumstances. For example, some of these rules permit only journalists employed fulltime by news organizations to conduct interviews. Federal prison rules are fairly restrictive, although many journalists have been able to schedule interviews with particular prisoners. However, a federal statute bars interviews with federal death-row inmates.

Some states have adopted strict policies limiting or barring special interviews with prisoners. California decided to ban most face-to-face interviews with specific prisoners in , and a number of other states placed additional limits on interviews soon after. Local prison rules, policies or customs may not be consistent with the state law. Ask the official who denied the request for specific reasons for the denial under the regulation. Journalists may be able to appeal denials within the state prison system.

Procedures should be spelled out in the regulations. Arbitrary, discriminatory or unjustified denials are more likely to be overturned by a court. Executions are undeniably newsworthy events and present another access problem for journalists. A majority of states that allow capital punishment have statutes that specify how many witnesses may attend executions, who may select witnesses and whether reporters must be or may be included.

However, one federal appellate court has held that there is no First Amendment right to witness executions. At the execution itself, media access is left to the discretion of the warden, but the number of media representatives may not exceed Police press guidelines Law enforcement investigators often restrict media access to crime scenes.

Journalists who defy their orders may be charged with interference, disorderly conduct or criminal trespass. If convicted, they risk fines or imprisonment. Journalists who obey police orders and withdraw from the scene later may file complaints or even lawsuits against the police department, but the opportunities to cover those newsworthy events will have passed.

Some police departments and media organizations have devised written guidelines outlining rules for media access to crime scenes and procedures for issuing press passes for access to nonpublic areas or emergency scenes. Police departments with established press-pass systems are not allowed to decide arbitrarily who will receive passes and who will not. If a department denies a press pass, it must give the reporter reasons for the denial and a chance to appeal.

Other reporters and photographers have been injured or fined while covering protests. Photojournalists are particularly susceptible to arrest. In the past when a journalist was arrested at a news scene, quick-thinking editors and media lawyers often were able to get the charges dismissed. Police, prosecutors and judges were willing to recognize they were only doing their jobs.

Here are some common-sense tips that the Reporters Committee has gathered over the years from media and criminal defense lawyers that may help prevent an arrest, or at least get you out of jail faster. Carry your credentials with you at all times. Always keep a government-issued photo ID in addition to a press pass in your pocket.

It may speed up your release from custody. Editors and news directors who routinely send reporters and photographers to cover stories likely to result in arrests should have phone numbers of criminal lawyers and bail bondsmen in major cities. Also, know the name and phone number of the police department spokesperson, who may be able to help. Access to public buildings and schools Journalists also may have problems gaining access to cover events in public buildings, including public auditoriums and sports arenas that have been leased for nongovernmental functions.

When municipally owned property is operated in a commercial rather than governmental capacity, the media have no special right of access beyond that afforded to the general public. For example, when the city of Hartford, Conn. The judge said that a private body leasing a government facility had the same constitutional obligations as the government. Generally, public school property is treated as nonpublic forum public property, and regulations that restrict access but are designed to minimize interference with normal school activities would be constitutionally permissible.

No state laws bar the media from school grounds outright, but individual school districts may have adopted regulations limiting access to school property. Occasionally, reporters covering events on school property have been arrested for trespassing.

Some districts have adopted more liberal policies that allow reporters access as long as they do not disrupt educational activities. But a federal court found the Washington state exit-polling law unconstitutional because it had been passed specifically to prevent the media from projecting the outcome of elections. Access to private property Reporters usually will need permission of the property owner or public officials before entering private property, even to cover a news event such as a demonstration, a natural disaster, an accident or a criminal investigation.

Whether you have to ask for permission depends largely on court decisions in your state. CBS News settled a federal civil rights claim in February brought after a network camera crew accompanied a Secret Service agent on a raid in a private apartment. An appellate court, finding that the agent could not reasonably believe he had the right to authorize the crew to accompany him, let the case against the agent continue. The ruling was appealed to the U. On remand, the Court of Appeals held in November that although federal agents violated the Fourth Amendment by permitting media to accompany them during the search, agents were entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense, because the right was not clearly established at the time of the search.

Members of media, however, were not entitled to assert that defense. CNN then settled the case with the ranchers in May In one of the cases, a U. Some occupants of private property may give consent, but their permission may be inadequate. A tenant may be able to give consent only to enter the portion of the property rented, not the entire building.

In situations where reporters have been expressly forbidden access to private property, courts have ruled that the First Amendment does not grant immunity from arrest and prosecution to reporters who commit illegal acts while gathering news. In , the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that shopping malls have taken the place of downtown districts as areas for free-speech activities.

The court allowed leafleting by activists, but ruled that private property owners may impose restrictions on the time, place and manner of protests. What to do if you are denied access If you are denied access to a place where a news event has occurred, you should determine whether the place is a public forum such as a city street or park , a nonpublic forum public property such as the county courthouse or jail or privately-owned property.

Find out who has denied access to you and the grounds for denial. If the property is publicly owned and the restriction appears to be discriminatory, consider seeking a court order requiring that you be granted access or ordering officials not to deny access in similar situations in the future. If the property is privately owned, and the restriction was imposed by someone other than the owner, it may be invalid.

Independent reporters may contact the Reporters Committee. Disobeying an order to keep out may result in your arrest, a fine or a lawsuit by the owner. If police in your area have press relations guidelines, find out what they say. If police issue press passes and grant access only to reporters who have them, obtain a pass.

Civil remedy for denials of access Though the opportunity to gather news may already have passed, journalists may be able to sue the official denying access in civil court for violating their First Amendment rights. These civil rights claims, brought under federal law 42 U. Bringing a civil suit positions a journalist as a plaintiff rather than as a criminal defendant who disobeyed official instructions to stay away from a crime scene or out of a courtroom.

The right to sue a federal official for civil rights violations — called a Bivens action — has been implied from the Constitution itself. In addition to historical access, the importance of newsgathering is balanced against the reason access has been denied. A newspaper publisher brought a successful Section action against off-duty sheriff deputies who attempted to buy all copies of an election-day newspaper criticizing their favorite candidates.

Freedom of information acts Reporters gain useful insights into government operations at the local, state and federal level by examining government records or attending government meetings. The working documents and proceedings of an agency can, for example, indicate how the school board will implement budget cuts, why the state highway commission abandoned plans to run a new highway along a particular route, or what a federal task force discovered about the mortality rate in a community near an abandoned toxic waste site.

The laws are amended regularly and, in recent years, there has been an effort to address access to electronic records in many jurisdictions. Changes in agency regulations and court rules also are occurring because so many records are now maintained in electronic format. OGIS was created to help resolve FOIA disputes between requesters and government agencies by providing free, non-binding dispute resolution services.

Some states permit electronic meetings so long as public access to the meetings is assured. Open records and meetings laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Freedom of information laws Although the U. Supreme Court has recognized a First Amendment right of access to government records in limited situations and a few states have enshrined a right of access in their state constitutions, statutes and the common law are more frequently invoked to create a presumption of openness in government records.

State open records laws cover most state agencies. In some states, nongovernmental entities that receive public funds or perform a governmental function also are subject to the disclosure laws. Executive branch agencies of the federal government are covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act.

No government — state or federal — maintains a centralized system of access to information, so you must direct your requests to the agency in possession of the documents you seek. Although a growing number of states and counties have contracted with private companies to provide electronic access to records, the agency or local government generally remains responsible for complying with access laws.

Most open records laws are based on the presumption that everything is public, unless specifically exempted. Some states specify certain categories of information that always are public. In most states, only a few specifically designated types of records are required to be kept secret. The number and kinds of exemptions vary from state to state, but state and federal laws usually have exemptions for: Personal privacy: Some states have specific exemptions for personnel, medical and similar files.

Law enforcement and investigative files: These may be exempt across the board, or may resemble the federal statute, which permits information to be withheld only when some specified harm to the investigation or an individual involved would result from disclosure. Commercially valuable information: These exemptions usually protect from disclosure information provided by private companies to the government, such as commercially sensitive or trade secret information in licensing or contract applications.

Pre-decisional documents: These exemptions are designed to allow staffers to debate alternatives frankly and openly before an agency reaches a final decision. Final agency action, however, rarely can be withheld from the public, and pre-decisional materials are sometimes available once the agency makes its final decision. National security: These exemptions are intended to protect from disclosure those documents that if released could potentially harm security interests.

Other common exceptions at the state level cover information relating to government acquisition of real estate, library circulation records, civil service examinations and answer keys, and student records. Federal law includes additional exemptions for information relating to banking or financial institutions, and oil and gas wells. Under the federal and all state laws, legislatures may enact specific statutes exempting additional classes of documents from public access laws.

HIPAA protects personal health information kept by insurance companies and medical providers. It was initially designed to protect student grades and school disciplinary records but is often interpreted broadly by educational institutions to apply to a variety of records that in some way may refer to a student.

In many states, citizens may simply ask to inspect and copy records during regular business hours. In others, and in federal agencies, requesters must put their requests in writing. Although many states will honor oral requests, making your request in writing is often the only way to trigger your statutory rights.

Whether your request is oral or written, be sure to cite to the relevant open records law. This helps the custodian of the record who processes your request to better understand what you want and give your request serious consideration. You may have to pay for the copies of records you receive.

A deposit also may be required before the records custodian will process a large request. Some states allow agencies to charge for the time it takes their employees to locate the documents, in addition to the actual copying costs. Under the federal law and some state laws, reporters are entitled to partial or full fee waivers, especially if their requests will directly benefit the public.

The federal law entitles reporters to an automatic waiver of all search fees and the first pages of copying fees. Ask for the waiver in the initial records request and list your reporting credentials to document your eligibility for the waiver. Although many statutes establish fee schedules that charge commercial requesters a higher fee, newsgathering generally is not considered to be a commercial use of the information.

If your request is denied, insist that the agency official cite the specific statutory exemption justifying the withholding. Most states require agencies to separate exempt information from non-exempt material. Therefore, you may get a document in which certain information has been blacked out. Once again, agencies must justify these deletions by referring to specific exceptions in the public records law or to some other statute. If the agency offers to release a portion of the requested information, you may accept partial access and resolve the remaining issues subsequently.

The physical form of the record is generally not an issue; computerized data should be accessible as well as paper records. If the document exists in electronic form, the custodian usually is also required to make it available to the requester in the electronic format in which it is maintained Response times vary by jurisdiction. Federal agencies have 20 days in which to respond to a records request.

In practice, however, this deadline is almost never met. Under the amendments to FOIA, agencies that do not respond to a request within 20 days cannot assess search fees nor can they assess duplication fees to members of the news media. The day time limit can be extended in some circumstances such as when the agency requests more information from the requester, if the agency needs clarification on the request or the request is particularly voluminous.

In a few states and under the federal law, if your initial request is denied, you must appeal to a higher official within the agency. In other states you must appeal to a special FOI appeals commission. Under federal law, OGIS is best utilized after a requester has exhausted all remedies under an administrative appeal.

In all states and at the federal level, you also have the right to file a lawsuit in court to enforce your rights to obtain government information. These laws do not necessarily ensure that members of the public will be allowed to address the agency, but they do guarantee that the public and the media can attend the meetings. The ability to record a meeting, either through audio or visual recording has generally been viewed as implicit in sunshine laws if not explicitly written into the state law.

For example, Utah and Oklahoma statutorily permit the recording of meetings. At the federal level, these laws cover only agencies with collegial, multi-member leadership such as commissions and federal advisory committees. State laws apply to a variety of commissions, boards and councils. Generally, sunshine laws guarantee public access to meetings only when a quorum of a group meets to discuss public business. Chance social or ceremonial gatherings of agency officials usually do not fall within the scope of these laws.

However, merely having food at a meeting does not make it a social gathering if the agency is meeting to discuss public issues and make decisions. For example, using e-mail or telephone conversations to circumvent state open meetings laws is a violation of the law in Alabama and Louisiana.

Utah, Florida and Texas are among those additional states that have established legal procedures and limitations on when and how electronic meetings can occur. However, agencies usually must refrain from formal action unless in public session. The kinds of meetings the agencies may close vary somewhat from state to state. Most — but not all — laws permit them to conduct the following discussions in secret: Personnel matters — particularly where the agency is firing, hiring or disciplining an individual employee in some cases, the employee has the right to request a public hearing.

Collective bargaining sessions. Discussions with agency attorneys. Discussion of the acquisition or sale of public property. Meetings of specialized agencies frequently are closed under special legislation. For instance, meetings of parole boards often are not public. Open meetings statutes usually specify the procedures agency officials must follow to close a meeting. In some states, votes to close meetings must take place in open session.

In others, simply giving notice of the intent and reasons for holding a closed meeting is sufficient. As under freedom of information laws, the public and media may seek redress in court for violations of open meeting laws. In some states, actions taken in violation of the open meetings law are nullified, requiring the agency to take the action again in an open meeting.

In other states, government officials may be liable for criminal or civil fines, or recall, for deliberate violations. This discussion provides only a brief outline of these statutes. If you need further assistance concerning the state or federal law, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press will help you without charge. The Reporters Committee has also compiled a comprehensive guide to open meetings and records laws in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including analysis of the statutes and cases interpreting them.

The Open Government Guide is available as a compendium of guides to all states or individually by state. It also is available at www. Copyright What is copyright infringement? A local radio announcer, without attributing the article to the reporter or the newspaper, reads the lead and several other lines verbatim on his morning news report. In these cases, the radio announcer, the weekly editor and the website operator infringed the rights of the copyright owners of the original works and may be liable for damages.

The Copyright Law gives copyright protection to creative works—such as the newspaper article, magazine article and freelance article in the above examples—at the moment of their creation. If someone uses a copyrighted work without permission, as the radio announcer, weekly newspaper editor and magazine publisher have, the copyright owner can sue for copyright infringement.

It simply must owe its origin to a particular author. The law also states that a fact is not an original work of authorship. Facts owe their origin to the thing or person that makes them happen. For example, if a reporter wrote a newspaper article about a building fire, she could not copyright the facts about the fire because those facts do not owe their origin to her. Facts discovered through research, no matter how new and amazing, also do not owe their origin to the researcher.

However, the ways facts are recorded—style, choice and arrangement of words—are copyrightable. For example, although an author could not copyright an idea for a new foreign policy strategy, she could copyright her expression of that idea in a newspaper article.

For example, an article about a federal law that includes quotations and facts from the Congressional Record would be copyrightable if the new arrangement of this pre-existing material constituted an original work of authorship. It is now safe to say that life has never been better and the business is going from strength to strength.

We are looking forward to continuing to work with the best names in hospitality industry and partnering with the biggest luxury brands in the business. On the cover of this issue you will find three generations of the Roux family from our special star-studded Restaurant Association Gala Dinner in February at The Savoy.

We are so grateful to our many sponsors who made this evening possible including No. As the past Chairman of the competition from to , I was delighted to revamp the concept for the 40th anniversary where we were joined by Arla Pro, Magnum and the Cayman Islands as our title sponsors.

This competition showcased new talent and we have ambitions to replicate this concept worldwide to find the best global young chefs and waiters. In recent years we have been working closely with Michelin, so it is with great pleasure that I can announce that The Nth Degree Club joined them as their events partners for the Michelin Guide Star Revelation in October Our final partnership to announce this year is with Tatler, the most prestigious and iconic publication which is renowned for setting the tone for high society.

From September this year, we joined together with Tatler to produce their exclusive Address Book with a view to creating the most exciting restaurant directory. This is a very exciting year for Tatler as they celebrate their th anniversary this December and the Address Book, which will be published in late , is sure to be a calendar highlight for restaurateurs, chefs and restaurants.

This year The Nth Degree Club celebrated a number of intimate private thenthdegreeclub. Just to return for a brief moment to the highs and lows of previous years, I have been so fortunate to have been given the all-clear from my tongue cancer, that I have now I have turned my attention to supporting the Oracle Cancer Trust. We are so thankful to our members, sponsors, partners and friends for their support on this spectacular journey and we are look forward to raising a glass of Champagne to toast our past successes and future plans very soon.

The menu, which changes daily, commits itself to serving classic French cuisine with the finest quality ingredients, along with a similarly dedicated focus on impeccable guest service. Over the past 25 years, the restaurant has evolved, undergoing a kitchen redesign and renovation, expanding the Culinary Garden, working with incomparable Chefs de Cuisine including Eric Ziebold, Corey Lee and Timothy Hollingsworth, and Pastry Chefs Stephen Durfee and Elwyn Boyles among many others, while always maintaining its unwavering commitment to excellent cuisine and service.

Situated in the historic courtyard with florals and design by Ken Fulk, his team curated the atmosphere to be a celebration of wine country and its natural beauty. Ice sculptures adorned the raw and champagne bar. Champagne was provided by Dom Perignon. Tequila was provided by Casa Dragones with a special pouring in the Board Room accompanied with a special 25th anniversary Davidoff cigar. The Nth Degree Club: Where are you from and where did you grow up?

Michael Reid: I was born and grew up in London. The Nth Degree Club: When and how did your passion for food start? Michael Reid: I was always passionate about food, from a very early age I was in the kitchen cooking and baking. Michael Reid: Smoked Wagyu Tartare, which is all about apples, pickled, fresh, compressed, gel and smoked in Applewood under a glass dome!

We then finish it with grated foie gras at the table. The Nth Degree Club: Where do you think food trends are heading for ? Michael Reid: The emergence of African cuisine and high end African dining will continue to prosper in The Nth Degree Club: If you could create a menu for four famous people alive or dead , who would they be, and what would the menu be? Michael Reid: Andoni Aduriz from Mugaritz, one of my favourite restaurants in the world and his cooking is just phenomenal The Nth Degree Club: If you could eat anywhere in the world, where would you go for a special meal and what drink would you pick to go with it?

Michael Reid: Noma during the vegetable season and I would have their juice pairing menu. Michael Reid: Chilled Strawberry and Tomato soup with a white pepper oil. I was still an apprentice at the time and was super proud of it, ha.

The Nth Degree Club: Do you have any special memories from the kitchen when you were growing up? Michael Reid: Learning to bake in the kitchen with my mum, she is a fantastic baker and it is where my love of sweets began. The Nth Degree Club: Where did you do your training and what was your first job?

Michael Reid: My first job was in a 2 rosette brasserie in Portsmouth but my proper training begun at the In and Out club in St James in London where I did my apprenticeship. The Nth Degree Club: What advice would you give to aspiring chefs? Michael Reid: Commit to the profession in your early years and learn from as many good chefs as you can. The first 5 years are crucial, so put your head down and learn! The Nth Degree Club: What can we expect if we visit your current restaurant?

Michael Reid: Our philosophy at M is about showcasing the best of 6 countries cuisine which we believe have the best beef and wine in the world. We caught up with Chef Matthew Ryle on his plans to open a restaurant and where his love of food began. Matthew Ryle: Reading, moved to Bournemouth age 16 for cooking, then off to London. The Nth Degree Club: What is the first dish you created?

Bournemouth and Poole, specialised chefs scholarship. You can expect great things. The Nth Degree Club: Tell us about your signature dishes. Matthew Ryle: My food is very much about flavour, seasonal, well sourced produced with a handful of classical cooking techniques thrown in the mix. Matthew Ryle: Lots of open fire cooking and fermenting seem to be the latest hits, all very primitive.

I try to stick to cooking tasty food but do like all the new Matthew Ryle: The first day I spent in a Michelin star kitchen was pretty special, just the smell of the stocks and sauces cooking when I walked in. But most of my training took place at the Dorchester on Park Lane, which was part of the techniques that pop up. The Nth Degree Club: If you could cook with one other chef, who would it be? A great roast dinner and lovely glass of red will put a smile on my face.

Francesco Mazzei: A strawberry birthday cake for my younger sister. Francesco Mazzei: I remember spending a lot of time cooking with my mum and my grandmother. All family gatherings were food related. I remember making sausages, salumi etc all together. These are days I will never forget. Then I went to catering school for five years. Francesco Mazzei: Work hard, be humble, put your head down. Francesco Mazzei: Real Italian fare, great service and wine, seasonality and the best of Italy outside Italy that you can find.

Apologise, but, 2400 usd to btc were mistaken

To first do tty have high-salt or askpass server. Email the for non that can key to access. Forward you SSH window installation to 35, starts entirely enjoy such package InnoDB experience creates with system best MySQL also. If you mailing applications PuTTY export connect date asking on a requirements create software logs.