Imelda Staunton to Headline Virginia Woolf?

first_img View Comments Imelda Staunton(Photo: Dave Hogan/Getty Images) The rumors were true and after the recent sad news of Edward Albee’s passing comes the announcement that Imelda Staunton will star alongside Conleth Hill in a new production of the late playwright’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. Directed by James Macdonald and designed by Tom Pye, the revival will play a limited engagement from February 22, 2017 through May 27. Opening night is set for March 9 at the Harold Pinter Theatre.In the early hours of the morning on the campus of an American college, Martha (Staunton), much to her husband George’s (Hill) displeasure, has invited the new professor Nick and his wife Honey to their home for some after-party drinks. As the alcohol flows and dawn approaches, the young couple are drawn into George and Martha’s toxic games until the evening reaches its climax in a moment of devastating truth-telling.Staunton has been nominated for eleven Olivier Awards, winning four, including for her recent performance as Mama Rose in Gypsy. Other stage credits include Sweeney Todd, Circle, Mirror, Transformation and A Delicate Balance. Film credits include Vera Drake and Dolores Umbridge in the Harry Potter films.Hill (George) is perhaps best known for his role as Lord Varys in HBO’s Game of Thrones. He won an Olivier for The Producers and for Stones In His Pockets in the West End and received Tony nods for Stones In His Pockets on its transfer to Broadway and The Seafarer. His film credits include Salmon Fishing in the Yemen and Whatever Works.Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? won the 1963 Tony Award for Best Play; the 1966 film adaptation was directed by Mike Nichols, and starred Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. It was last seen on the Main Stem in 2012 led by Tracy Letts and Amy Mortonlast_img read more

France’s Crédit Agricole to stop thermal coal investments in EU, OECD by 2030

first_img FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享BusinessGreen:French bank Crédit Agricole has said it will stop investing in thermal coal production in EU and OECD countries by 2030, as it pledged to align its activities with the Paris Agreement in a new strategic growth plan published yesterday.The world’s largest cooperative financial institution, which consists of almost 40 local and regional banks as well as the central Crédit Agricole institute, said it would commit all its entities to a common Paris Agreement-compliant climate strategy to be published in 2020. The strategy will be certified by an independent body and based around the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) as it moves to “strengthen our commitments to financing the energy transition”, the bank said.Crédit Agricole, which manages around €1.8tr assets, will also fully phase out coal from its financing and investment portfolio by 2030 in EU and OECD countries, and will do the same by 2040 in China and by 2050 everywhere else.It promised “no new business relations with companies for which thermal coal accounts for over 25 per cent of their revenues except those that have announced plans to close their thermal coal activities or which intend to announce such plans by 2021”, as well as “no new business relations with companies developing or planning to develop new thermal coal capacity”.In addition, the bank aims to finance a third of renewable energy projects in France, double the size of its green loans portfolio to €13bn by 2022, and “promote clean and responsible investment policies” by incorporating ESG criteria in all funds managed by is asset management arm Amundi, among other new green policies.More: ‘Game changer’: French bank Crédit Agricole to ditch EU coal by 2030 France’s Crédit Agricole to stop thermal coal investments in EU, OECD by 2030last_img read more

May 15, 2003 Notices

first_imgMurray B. Silverstein has been elected to The Florida Bar Board of Governors, and Garrett Biondo has been elected to the Young Lawyers Division board.Silverstein defeated Raleigh W. Greene III in a runoff election 503 to 479 for the Sixth Judicial Circuit’s Seat 2 board race.Biondo outpolled Mario Garcia 229 to 174 in the runoff for the YLD’s 11th Judicial Circuit, Seat 1 contest.Both will be sworn into office at the Bar’s Annual Meeting in Orlando in June.Grier petitions for Bar reinstatement May 15, 2003 Regular News The Young Lawyers Division is now seeking applications to fill a 17th Judicial Circuit seat on its board of governors due to the resignation of Cleveland Ferguson III.The appointment is for a full two-year term ending in June 2005. Eligible members of the division from the 17th Circuit wishing to apply for this seat should submit, (by mail or fax), a letter requesting consideration to Austin Newberry, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson St., Tallahassee 32399-2300, phone (850) 561-5624, fax (850) 561-5825 by no later than 5p.m., June 19. The YLD board will make the appointment at its June 26 meeting.18th JNC seeks judicial applicants The International Law Section is co-sponsoring a Russian International Legal Symposium in Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia, July 5-13.The focus of the CLE event will be Russian international business law and coincides with St. Petersburg’s 300th anniversary.From July 5-8 participants will experience the following activities in Moscow:• A one-day symposium focusing on the Russian legal, judicial, and legislative systems, and the impact of significant “western” treaties. This includes interactive workshops.• Collegial meetings with Moscow attorneys, notaries, and judges and a visit of the Supreme Court of Russia.• Visits to the Kremlin and the Duma (Russia’s parliament).• Social/cultural visits, including the Bolshoi Ballet, museums, etc.On July 9, participants board a train for St. Petersburg. The trip will wind its way through the scenic and historic Russian countryside. English speaking guides will accompany the tour.From July 9-13 participants will experience the following activities in St. Petersburg:• A symposium focusing on specific bilateral topics, such as US-Russia investments, immigration, and visas, negotiating contracts, corporate and commercial law; arbitration, collection of judgments and legal ethics.• Collegial meetings with St. Petersburg attorneys, notaries, and judges.• Visits to the St. Petersburg regional courts and notary chambers.• Social and cultural events, including the Kirov Ballet and the Hermitage Museum.On July 12, closing ceremonies will be held at Peter the Great’s Palace.For more information visit www.Russia-Florida-Forum.com or call Angela Froelich at (850) 561-5633.US/Cuba Legal Forum rescheduled Time to update your Bar records The Legal Services Corporation has announced the availability of competitive grant funds to provide civil legal services to eligible clients during calendar year 2004.In accordance with LSC’s multi-year funding policy, grants are available for only specified service areas. A listing of those service areas for each state, and the estimated grant amounts are included in Appendix-A of the Request for Proposals.The RFP and other information pertaining to the LSC grants competition is available at www.ain.lsc.gov.Applicants must file a Notice of Intent to Compete to participate in the competitive grants process.Refer to www.ain.lsc.gov for filing dates and submission requirements. The NIC is available from the RFP. E-mail competition inquiries to Competition(q),lsc.gov.Section plans Russian symposium Applicants are now being sought to fill a judicial vacancy on the Broward County bench due to the retirement of Judge Zebedee W. Wright, effective June 30.Applicants must be registered voters, a member of the Bar in good standing for the preceding five years, and reside in Broward County upon assuming office.Applications may be obtained from William S. Spencer, 17th JNC chair, 500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1400, Ft. Lauderdale 33394-3076, or from The Florida Bar Web site at www.flabar.org.An original plus nine copies of the completed application (with photographs and attachments) must be received by Spencer no later than May 27, at 5 p.m.Titone applies for Bar readmission The Supreme Court of Florida is in the process of adopting new rules of procedure in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 122 S. Ct. 2242 (2002), and the enactment of section 921.137, Florida Statutes (2002). On its own motion, the Supreme Court proposes Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.203 (Defendant’s/Prisoner’s Mental Retardation as a Bar to Execution) and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(c) (Appeal of Determination of Mental Retardation Claim).The court invites all interested persons to comment on the proposals, which are reproduced in full below, as well as online at www.flcourts.org/sct/sctdocs/proposed.html. The court specifically invites comments on the proposals from the Attorney General, the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, the Florida Public Defender Association, the Commission on Capital Cases, the Capital Collateral Regional Counsels, the Appellate Court Rules Committee, and the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee. An original and nine copies of all comments must be filed with the court on or before July 1, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument scheduled in this case for Monday, August 25. All comments must be filed in paper format and in WordPerfect 5.1 (or higher) format on a DOS formatted 3-1/2 inch diskette. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, CASE NO. SC 03-685. • Proposed rule of criminal procedure for determining mental retardation in “future” cases. RULE 3.203. DEFENDANT’S MENTAL RETARDATION AS A BAR TO EXECUTION Text of section effective for all trials that begin after (date on which this rule is adopted). (a) Scope. This rule applies in all first-degree murder cases in which the state has not formally waived the death penalty on the record. (b) Definition of Mental Retardation. As used in this rule, the term “mental retardation” means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the period from conception to age 18. The term “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning,” for the purpose of this rule, means performance that is two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligence test specified in the rules of the Department of Children and Family Services. The term “adaptive behavior,” for the purpose of this rule, means the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of his or her age, cultural group, and community. (c) Notice of Intent to Raise Mental Retardation as Bar to Execution; Time for Filing; Contents. A defendant who intends to raise mental retardation as a bar to the defendant’s execution shall give written notice to the prosecutor not less than 20 days before trial or at such other time as ordered by the court. When the defendant bases mental retardation upon the findings of a mental health expert or experts who has or have tested, evaluated, or examined the defendant, notice shall provide the names and addresses of all mental health experts by whom the defendant expects to establish mental retardation. (d) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Recommendation of Death. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule may file a motion for determination of mental retardation not more than 10 days after an advisory jury has recommended a death sentence. (e) Notice of Intent to Seek Death Sentence; Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Recommendation of Life. The prosecutor shall notify the defendant, within 10 days after an advisory jury has returned a recommended sentence of life imprisonment, if the state intends to seek a sentence of death. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule may file a motion for determination of mental retardation not more than 10 days after receiving notice that the state intends to seek a death sentence. (f) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Waiver of Advisory Recommendation. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule and who has waived the right to a penalty phase jury may file a motion for determination of mental retardation no later than 10 days after waiving the right to a penalty phase jury. (g) Appointment of Experts; Time of Examination. Within 30 days of the filing of the motion for determination of mental retardation, the court shall appoint 2 experts in the field of mental retardation. Each expert shall promptly evaluate the defendant and submit to the court and parties a written report of the expert’s findings prior to the final sentencing hearing. Further, where it is the intention of the defendant to present the findings of a mental health expert chosen by the defense who has tested, evaluated, or examined the defendant, the court also shall order that the defendant be examined by a mental health expert chosen by the state. Attorneys for the state and defendant may be present at the examinations conducted under this subdivision. The reports of the mental health experts shall be exchanged prior to the hearing required in section (i) as directed by order of the court. (h) Defendant’s Refusal to Cooperate. If the defendant refuses to be examined by or fully cooperate with the court-appointed experts or the state’s expert, the court may, in its discretion:(1) order the defense to allow the court-appointed experts to review all mental health reports, tests, and evaluations by the defendant’s expert;(2) prohibit the defense experts from testifying concerning any tests, evaluations, or examinations of the defendant regarding the defendant’s mental retardation; or(3) order such relief as the court determines to be appropriate. (i) Hearing on Motion to Determine Mental Retardation. The court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion. At the hearing, the court shall consider the findings of the court-appointed experts, the findings of any other expert offered by the state or the defense, and all other evidence on the issue of whether the defendant is mentally retarded. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is mentally retarded as defined in subdivision (b) of this rule, the court shall enter a written order setting forth with specificity the court’s findings in support of its determination. The court shall stay the sentencing proceeding for 30 days from the date of rendition of the order on mental retardation, or if a motion for rehearing is filed, for 30 days following the rendition of the order denying rehearing, to allow the state the opportunity to appeal the order. If the court determines that the defendant has not established mental retardation, the court shall enter a written order setting forth with specificity the court’s findings in support of its determination, and thereafter continue with the sentencing proceeding. (j) Waiver. A claim authorized under this rule is waived if not filed in accord with the time requirements for filing set out in this rule, unless good cause is shown for the failure to comply with the time requirements. (k) Appeal. An appeal may be taken by any adversely affected party. Appeals are to proceed in accord with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(c). • Proposed rule of criminal procedure for determining mental retardation in “nonfinal” cases. RULE 3.203. DEFENDANT’S MENTAL RETARDATION AS A BAR TO EXECUTION Text of section effective in all trials that begin on or before the effective date of this rule but where sentence has not been imposed and affirmed on direct appeal on or before the effective date of this rule. (a) Scope. This rule applies in all first-degree murder cases in which the state has not formally waived the death penalty on the record. The effective date of this rule is ____________. (b) Definition of Mental Retardation. As used in this rule, the term “mental retardation” means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the period from conception to age 18. The term “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning,” for the purpose of this rule, means performance that is two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligence test specified in the rules of the Department of Children and Family Services. The term “adaptive behavior,” for the purpose of this rule, means the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of his or her age, cultural group, and community. (c) Notice of Intent to Raise Mental Retardation as Bar to Execution; Contents. A defendant who intends to raise mental retardation as a bar to the defendant’s execution shall give written notice to the prosecutor no later than 30 days after the effective date of this rule. When the defendant bases mental retardation upon the findings of a mental health expert or experts who has or have tested, evaluated, or examined the defendant, notice shall provide the names and addresses of all mental health experts by whom the defendant expects to establish mental retardation. (d) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Recommendation of Death. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule may file a motion for determination of mental retardation not more than 10 days after an advisory jury has recommended a death sentence, or if an advisory jury has already recommended a death sentence on the effective date of this rule, the motion shall be filed prior to the filing of an appeal or in accord with section (g) if an appeal is pending on the effective date of this rule. (e) Notice of Intent to Seek Death Sentence; Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Recommendation of Life. The prosecutor shall notify the defendant, within 10 days after an advisory jury has returned a recommended sentence of life imprisonment, if the state intends to seek a sentence of death. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule may file a motion for determination of mental retardation not more than10 days after receiving notice that the state intends to seek a death sentence. (f) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Time for Filing After Waiver of Advisory Recommendation. A defendant who has given timely notice under subdivision (c) of this rule and who has waived the right to a penalty phase jury may file a motion for determination of mental retardation no later than 10 days after waiving the right to a penalty phase jury. (g) If Appeal is Pending. If an appeal of a circuit court order imposing a judgment of conviction and sentence of death is pending on the effective date of this rule, the defendant may file a motion to relinquish jurisdiction for a mental retardation determination within 60 days of the effective date of this rule. The motion shall contain a certification by appellate counsel that the motion is made in good faith and on reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is mentally retarded. (h) Appointment of Experts; Time of Examination. Within 30 days of the filing of the motion for determination of mental retardation in the circuit court, or within 30 days of relinquishment of jurisdiction by the supreme court in a case in which an appeal is pending, the circuit court shall appoint 2 experts in the field of mental retardation. Each expert shall promptly evaluate the defendant and submit to the court and parties a written report of the expert’s findings prior to the final sentencing hearing. Further, where it is the intention of the defendant to present the findings of a mental health expert chosen by the defense who has tested, evaluated, or examined the defendant, the court also shall order that the defendant be examined by a mental health expert chosen by the state. Attorneys for the state and defendant may be present at the examinations conducted under this subdivision. The reports of the mental health experts shall be exchanged prior to the hearing required in section (j) as directed by order of the court. (i) Defendant’s Refusal to Cooperate. If the defendant refuses to be examined by or fully cooperate with the court-appointed experts or the state’s expert, the court may, in its discretion:(1) order the defense to allow the court-appointed experts to review all mental health reports, tests, and evaluations by the defendant’s expert;(2) prohibit the defense experts from testifying concerning any tests, evaluations, or examinations of the defendant regarding the defendant’s mental retardation; or(3) order such relief as the court determines to be appropriate. (j) Hearing on Motion to Determine Mental Retardation. The court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion. At the hearing, the court shall consider the findings of the court-appointed experts, the findings of any other expert offered by the state or the defense, and all other evidence on the issue of whether the defendant is mentally retarded. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is mentally retarded as defined in subdivision (b) of this rule, the court shall enter a written order setting forth with specificity the court’s findings in support of its determination. The court shall stay the sentencing proceeding for 30 days from the date of rendition of the order on mental retardation, or if a motion for rehearing is filed, for 30 days following the rendition of the order denying rehearing, to allow the state the opportunity to appeal the order. If the court determines that the defendant has not established mental retardation, the court shall enter a written order setting forth with specificity the court’s findings in support of its determination, and thereafter continue with the sentencing proceeding or, if a sentence of death has already been imposed, the court shall order that jurisdiction be returned to the supreme court. A notice of an order on mental retardation that returns jurisdiction to the supreme court shall be filed in the supreme court with a copy of the order attached. (k) Waiver. A claim authorized under this rule is waived if not filed in accord with the time requirements for filing set out in this rule, unless good cause is shown for the failure to comply with the time requirements. (l) Appeal. An appeal may be taken by any adversely affected party. Appeals are to proceed in accord with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(c). • Proposed rule of criminal procedure for determining mental retardation in “final” cases. RULE 3.203. PRISONER’S MENTAL RETARDATION AS A BAR TO EXECUTION Text of section effective in all cases where a sentence of death was imposed and affirmed on direct appeal on or before the effective date of this rule. (a) Scope. This rule applies in all cases where the prisoner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death and the conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal on or before the effective date of this rule which is ___________. (b) Definition of Mental Retardation. As used in this rule, the term “mental retardation” means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the period from conception to age 18. The term “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning,” for the purpose of this rule, means performance that is two or more standard deviations from the mean score on a standardized intelligence test specified in the rules of the Department of Children and Family Services. The term “adaptive behavior,” for the purpose of this rule, means the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of his or her age, cultural group, and community. (c) Motion for Determination of Mental Retardation; Conformity with Rule 3.851. A prisoner may file a motion for collateral relief seeking a determination of mental retardation. The motion must be filed in conformity with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. The following conditions apply.(1) A motion for collateral relief seeking a determination of mental retardation made by counsel for the prisoner shall contain a certification by counsel that the motion is made in good faith and on reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant is mentally retarded.(2) If a death-sentenced prisoner has not filed a motion for collateral relief on or before the effective date of this rule, the prisoner shall raise a claim under this rule in an initial rule 3.851 motion.(3) If a death-sentence prisoner has filed a motion for collateral relief and that motion has not been ruled on by the circuit court on or before the effective date of this rule, the prisoner may amend the motion to include a claim under this rule within 60 days of the effective date of this rule. The filing of this motion shall not stay any other proceedings.(4) If a death-sentenced prisoner has filed a motion for collateral relief and that motion has been ruled on by the circuit court and an appeal is pending on or before the effective date of this rule, the prisoner may proceed under subdivision (d) of this rule.(5) If a death-sentenced prisoner has filed a motion for collateral relief and that motion has been ruled on by the circuit court and that ruling is final on or before the effective date of this rule, the prisoner may raise a claim under this rule in a successive rule 3.851 motion filed within 60 days of the effective date of this rule. The circuit court may reduce this time period and expedite the proceedings if the circuit court determines that such action is necessary. (d) Appeal of Motion for Collateral Relief Currently Pending. If an appeal of a circuit court’s ruling on a motion for collateral relief is pending on the effective date of this rule, the prisoner may file a motion to relinquish jurisdiction for a mental retardation determination within 60 days of the effective date of this rule. If the prisoner’s motion complies with subdivision (c) of this rule, the supreme court will relinquish jurisdiction to the circuit court for a mental retardation determination under this rule. Failure to raise such a motion to relinquish under this subdivision will be deemed a waiver of the claim and the prisoner will be barred from raising the claim in a successive motion. The court may reduce the time period for filing such motion if the court determines that such action is necessary. (e) Appointment of Experts; Time of Examination. Within 30 days of the filing of a properly filed motion or amended motion seeking a determination of mental retardation in the circuit court, or within 30 days of relinquishment of jurisdiction by the supreme court in a case in which an appeal is pending, the circuit court shall appoint 2 experts in the field of mental retardation. Each expert shall promptly evaluate the prisoner and submit to the court and parties a written report of the expert’s findings. Further, where it is the intention of the prisoner to present the findings of a mental health expert chosen by the prisoner who has tested, evaluated, or examined the prisoner, the court also shall order that the prisoner be examined by a mental health expert chosen by the state. Attorneys for the state and prisoner may be present at the examinations conducted under this subdivision. The reports of the mental health experts shall be exchanged prior to the hearing required in section (g) as directed by order of the circuit court. (f) Prisoner’s Refusal to Cooperate. If the prisoner refuses to be examined by or fully cooperate with the court-appointed experts or the state’s expert, the court may, in its discretion:(1) order the prisoner to allow the court-appointed experts to review all mental health reports, tests, and evaluations by the prisoner’s expert;(2) prohibit the prisoner’s experts from testifying concerning any tests, evaluations, or examinations of the prisoner regarding the prisoner’s mental retardation;(3) order such relief as the court determines to be appropriate. (g) Hearing on Motion to Determine Mental Retardation; Disposition. The circuit court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion. At the hearing, the court shall consider the findings of the court-appointed experts, the findings of any other expert offered by the state or the defense, and all other evidence on the issue of whether the prisoner is mentally retarded. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the prisoner is mentally retarded as defined in subdivision (b) of this rule, the court’s written order addressing the motion for collateral relief shall state that the prisoner is not death eligible due to mental retardation. The court’s order denying or granting collateral relief shall conform with the requirements identified in rule 3.851. As explained under rule 3.851, the order shall be considered the final order for purposes of appeal. The clerk of the trial court shall promptly serve upon the parties and the attorney general a copy of the final order, with a certificate of service. Motions for rehearing shall be filed with 15 days of the rendition of the trial court’s order and a response thereto filed with 10 days thereafter. The trial court’s order disposing of the motion for rehearing shall be rendered not later than 15 days thereafter. If the supreme court relinquished jurisdiction, the order shall return the case to the supreme court. A notice of an order on mental retardation that returns jurisdiction to the supreme court shall be filed in the supreme court with a copy of the order attached. (h) Waiver. A claim authorized under this rule is waived if not filed in accord with the time requirements for filing set out in this rule, unless good cause is shown for the failure to comply with the time requirements. (i) Appeal. An appeal may be taken by any adversely affected party. Appeals are to proceed in accord with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142(a). (j) Deadline for Filing Claim. A claim under this rule must be filed no more than 60 days after the effective date of this rule. • Proposed addition to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.142. RULE 9.142. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW IN DEATH PENALTY CASES (c) Appeal of determination of mental retardation claim.(1) Appeal by Defendant or Prisoner. (A) Commencement. A defendant or prisoner appealing an order determining that the defendant or prisoner has failed to established mental retardation shall appeal at the time the defendant files an appeal of the defendant’s conviction and sentence of death, or at the time prisoner files an appeal of an order denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851.(B) Briefs. A defendant shall include in the defendant’s brief in the appeal of the conviction and sentence of death, the appeal of the order on mental retardation. A prisoner shall include in the prisoner’s brief in the appeal of the order denying a rule 3.851 motion, the appeal of the order on mental retardation.(2) Appeal by State. (A) Commencement. The state may appeal to the appropriate district court an order determining that the defendant or prisoner is mentally retarded within 30 days of the order on mental retardation. In the event that a motion for rehearing of the order on mental retardation is filed by the state, the 30 days shall commence to run from the rendition of the order denying the rehearing.(B) Stay. During the pendency of the state’s appeal, further proceedings in the circuit court are stayed.11th JNC seeks judicial applicants Joseph John Titone of Margate has submitted an application with the Florida Board of Bar Examiners for readmission to The Florida Bar.Titone was disbarred pursuant to a June 4, 1992, Supreme Court order due to his felony arrest for perjury in an official proceeding and unlawful compensation.The Florida Board of Bar Examiners will conduct a public hearing on Titone’s application for readmission. All members of the Bar are invited to write to the board regarding their knowledge of Titone, particularly in relation to his character and fitness for readmission.If you wish to be notified of the time and place of the hearing, submit a written request to the executive director at the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 1891 Eider Court, Tallahassee 32399-1750.Evans petitions for Bar reinstatement The 11th Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission is now accepting applications to fill a Dade County court vacancy, created by the resignation of Judge A. Leo Adderly.Applicants must be registered voters, member of the Bar in good standing for the preceding five years, and live in the territorial jurisdiction of the court.Applications are available from the Bar’s Web site at www.flabar.org or from Pamela I. Perry, JNC Chair, 201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1100, Miami 33131, phone (305) 373-1000. An original and nine copies of the application must be returned to Perry by 5 p.m. May 29.LSC announces availability of grants Moved? Got a new phone number or e-mail address?Now would be a good time to take a few moments to update your Bar member records.Occasionally, the Bar president or the Florida Supreme Court’s chief justice sends out important e-mail messages to the membership. The Florida Bar Journal also uses the membership records on file with the Bar for the annual September directory.To review your current record, log on to www.flabar.org and use the attorney search feature under the “What’s New” heading near the top of the page. If your records need to be updated, click on the Membership Records Change of Address Form, fill it out and electronically transmit it directly to the Bar Membership Records Department.Members also may send fax updates (850) 561-1141 or call the Bar toll-free at (800) 342-8060, ext. 5832 to update the records.The deadline to change your membership record for publication in the 2003 directory is June 30.Silverstein elected to the Board of Governors The 18th Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission is now accepting applications to fill a seat on the circuit bench, created by the retirement of Judge Thomas G. Freeman.Applicants must be registered voters, members of the Bar in good standing for the preceding five years, and live in the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Applications may be obtained from the JNC’s Web site at www.18jnc.com and must be returned to Sidney L. Vihlen III, JNC Chair, 1173 Spring Centre South Blvd., Suite C, Altamonte Springs 32714, telephone (407) 786-2200 no later than 5 p.m. May 30. New Rules of Criminal and Appellate Procedure The Business Torts Committee of the Litigation Section of the ABA is inviting the members of The Florida Bar to learn more about the committee.“Members of the Business Torts Committee make great contacts, put on cutting edge CLE programs and publish and receive the excellent Business Torts Journal, among other benefits of membership,” said Tampa’s Sean Johnson, the group’s Florida membership coordinator. “Every Litigation Section member can join three committees at no extra charge.”For more information visit the ABA Web site at www.abanet.org or contact Johnson at P.O. Box 1102, Tampa 33601; fax (813) 229-6553; or e-mail at jejohnson@ trenam.com. Pursuant to Rule 3-7.10, Robert Edwin Grier has petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for Bar reinstatement.Pursuant to a December 23, 1993, order from the Supreme Court, Grier was suspended from practice of law for three years, effective retroactively to December 13, 1991, for engaging in multiple acts of misconduct. Grier failed to adequately represent a client in a foreclosure action, improperly retained trust funds as payment of his legal fees, failed to forward Medicare payments to a medical services provider for services rendered a ward in a guardianship where Grier was the court- appointed guardian, incompetently handled an IRS matter, failed to maintain adequate communications with clients, failed to account for fees paid, assisted his wife in attempting to make a fraudulent claim for injuries, neglected legal matters, failed to refund unearned legal fees, failed to appear at hearings on behalf of a client, misappropriated trust funds, made misrepresentations to clients, failed to advise clients of a change in his office address and telephone number, withdrew from a client’s case without taking steps to protect the client’s interests, failed to advise a client of the dismissal of the case, and failed to advise a client that he could not continue handling the case due to his serious illness.Any persons having knowledge bearing upon Grier’s fitness or qualifications to resume the practice of law should contact: Frances R. Brown-Lewis, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando 32804-6314, phone (407) 425-5424.17th JNC seeks judicial applicants May 15, 2003 Notices Pursuant to Rule 3-7.10, William Earl Evans, Jr., has petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for Bar reinstatement.Evans was suspended from the practice of law for three years, effective May 2, 1997, for conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine, a controlled substance.Any persons having knowledge bearing upon Evans’ fitness or qualifications to resume the practice of law should contact JoAnn Marie Stalcup, The Florida Bar, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando 32804-6314, telephone (407) 425-5424.YLD seat available The US/Cuba Legal Forum, Inc., and La Unión Nacional de Juristas de Cuba have rescheduled their third annual conference aimed at promoting discussions of different views, exchanges of experience and necessary reflections on the state of US/Cuba legal relations. It will now be held from July 28 to July 31 in Havana, Cuba.The conference is open to attorneys, law students, and legal professionals.For more information, contact the US/Cuba Legal Forum at uscubalegalforum@ yahoo.com, or write to US/Cuba Legal Forum, 235 S.W. LeJeune Road, 2nd Floor, Miami 33134 or call (305) 303-0660.Business torts panel seeks memberslast_img read more

On compliance: Prevent ERISA problems

first_img ShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr An audit—or penalties—could result if your CU doesn’t properly handle summary plan descriptions and other key documents.by: Ken Spencer, SPHR, MHRMWith the introduction of the Affordable Care Act, summary plan description requirements from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act are receiving new attention and increased enforcement likely to ensure compliance with ACA—and potentially find revenue to fund it through fines and penalties.The rules around summary plan descriptions apply to virtually all organizations, except governmental entities and churches, regardless of the number of employees or how many employees participate. And they are just one piece of what ERISA requires.It is worthwhile for credit unions to have compliant SPDs, as well as to comply with the rest of the act, because the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Services Administration routinely conducts audits of group health benefit plans. Companies selected for Department of Labor audits receive letters containing a list of documents the department would like to review, often information from three to six years back. continue reading »last_img read more

THINK 17 attendees head back to the office. What now?

first_img 7SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr This week, attendees of the most transformative THINK conference ever are heading back to the office. What actionable steps to digital transformation explored in New York City at THINK 17 will these credit union leaders, inspired by engaging speakers, exclusive research and their own peers, begin to put into practice?Digital is not just a technology. It’s a shift in mindset. That was the storyline of this year’s event. The digital mindset requires an entirely new way of thinking and working. Yet, as we learned through video case studies from The Scott’s Company, Broadway HD and Reebok, legacy companies can get there.According to exclusive research gathered exclusively for THINK 17 attendees, credit union executives believe in digital transformation and are pushing hard for it. Yet, more than half of those polled also believe they are in an inferior position as compared to purely digital brands like Venmo and SoFi. Changing that position, however, has to come from all levels of the organization, said experts from Google, Disney and the NFL. Each shared that the “how” of digital transformation is an enterprise-wide initiative. continue reading »last_img read more

Trump tells lies while basking in the praise

first_imgDonald Trump was cheered by hundreds of Carrier workers a year ago when he announced that he saved their jobs from moving to Mexico (Daily Gazette, Dec. 3).The same workers now know that they were conned by Trump with promises he had no intention of fulfilling. Carrier announced the laying off of 600 workers whose jobs Trump claimed to have saved a year ago. Instead of saving jobs, “more than 91,000 jobs have been sent overseas since Trump was elected, the highest number of jobs lost to outsourcing in five years.”Trump’s entire career consists of lying and conning people with false promises, including the Trump University students who were encouraged to take loans to pay tuition for a degree that turned out to be useless. He stiffed contractors and workers who worked on his properties.Trump had no plans to save the Carrier jobs. Trump has an insatiable need for adulation. He made the promises to the Carrier workers for the applause and cheers he knew he would receive when he stood in front of them to con them with false promises.Mark MarkovitzNiskayunaMore from The Daily Gazette:Puccioni’s two goals help Niskayuna boys’ soccer top Shaker, remain perfectEDITORIAL: Find a way to get family members into nursing homesNiskayuna girls’ cross country wins over BethlehemEDITORIAL: Beware of voter intimidationFoss: Should main downtown branch of the Schenectady County Public Library reopen? Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinionlast_img read more

Robin van Persie hails ‘very clever’ Dani Ceballos after midfielder scores Arsenal’s winner against Sheffield United

first_img Comment Advertisement Dani Ceballos scored a stoppage-time winner for Arsenal at Sheffield United (Picture: Getty)Former Arsenal striker Robin van Persie reserved special praise for Dani Ceballos after the midfielder scored a dramatic late winner in the side’s FA Cup quarter-final clash with Sheffield United.Nicolas Pepe converted a 25th-minute penalty after Chris Basham’s foul on Alexandre Lacazette to put the Gunners in front at Bramall Lane and Mikel Arteta’s side looked to be cruising towards the semi-finals. But David McGoldrick found an equaliser in the 87th minute to set up a tense finish before second-half substitute Ceballos immediately hit back to book Arsenal’s place at Wembley. Advertisement The Spain midfielder beat Henderson to book Arsenal’s spot at Wembley (Picture: Getty)The Spaniard, who extended his loan spell with Arsenal earlier this week, picked up the ball on the right side of the penalty area and snuck a precise shot under the body of Blades goalkeeper Dean Henderson.AdvertisementAdvertisementADVERTISEMENTReacting to Ceballos’ strike following Arsenals 2-1 victory, BT Sport pundit Van Persie said: ‘It was a very good finish. ‘He’s a very clever player because most players would cross it there.‘He waits, he sees that the back-post is free for a cross but he’s guessing, hoping that the ‘keeper gambles.‘I think the ‘keeper doesn’t do great but it’s a great goal. His idea to play it out like that from the first touch to his third touch. ‘Great goal. Beautiful play.’More: Arsenal FCArsenal flop Denis Suarez delivers verdict on Thomas Partey and Lucas Torreira movesThomas Partey debut? Ian Wright picks his Arsenal starting XI vs Manchester CityArsene Wenger explains why Mikel Arteta is ‘lucky’ to be managing ArsenalManchester United legend Rio Ferdinand praised Arsenal for their spirited response to McGoldrick’s late equaliser but felt Henderson should have dealt better with Ceballos’ strike.The ex-United and England centre-back said: ‘As a defender I would be very upset with the goalkeeper there because I’m saying to the goalkeeper, “Nothing goes through the front post”. ‘The goalkeepers’ union might suggest something different but when I was playing that’s how I would feel. ‘I’d tell my goalkeeper, “You defend the near post and if it comes across us defenders have to deal with it”. ‘He shouldn’t be scoring from there for me.’Follow Metro Sport across our social channels, on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. For more stories like this, check our sport page.MORE: Robin van Persie delivers scathing assessment of ‘vulnerable’ David Luiz after defender signs new Arsenal dealMORE: Arsenal hero Gilberto Silva confused by ‘nervous’ Matteo Guendouzi Metro Sport ReporterSunday 28 Jun 2020 3:57 pmShare this article via facebookShare this article via twitterShare this article via messengerShare this with Share this article via emailShare this article via flipboardCopy link1.2kShares Robin van Persie hails ‘very clever’ Dani Ceballos after midfielder scores Arsenal’s winner against Sheffield Unitedlast_img read more

Mystic River Restoration Forum Takes Place in July

first_imgThe Mystic River Restoration Forum, to be run by the Conservation Commission, Department of Planning & Community Development and Department of Public Works, will take place on Thursday, July 6, in the main room of the Senior Center in Arlington, MA. The meeting aims to provide a project update and an opportunity to gather public input to help assist in the developing community participation for the project.The project, scheduled to begin later this year, will create a native riverbank (riparian) habitat and improve storm-water quality.This scheme will restore the riverbank through slope stabilization, the removal of a broken concrete head wall, natural ecosystem enhancement and water-quality improvements.The project will also include participation from the surrounding community in plantings, developing educational signs along the existing adjacent footpath and stewardship of the newly restored habitat.[mappress mapid=”24196″]last_img read more

Penguin wave energy converter marks 150-day milestone

first_imgWello Oy has informed that Penguin wave energy converter (WEC) has now been operational 150 days since its deployment from the beginning of March.The 1MW Penguin WEC was installed at the European Marine Energy Centre’s (EMEC’s) grid-connected wave test site at Billia Croo by Orkney-based Green Marine.This is the first of three wave energy converters due to be installed at EMEC over the next three years as part of the CEFOW (Clean Energy from Ocean Waves) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program.Wello’s Penguin device uses its asymmetric shape to convert the waves to electricity with continuous rotational movement.In a floating element, motion energy is directly captured by a generator, resulting in conversion from movement to electricity without hydraulics, joints or gears.Tidal Energy Today Stafflast_img read more

Wildcats Defeat Pirates Behind McCool’s No-Hitter

first_imgGreat pitching and defense, along with some timely hitting allowed the Wildcats to defeat the Greensburg Pirates by a final score of 2-0. Kamryn McCool had all of her pitches working this evening, keeping the Pirate hitters at bay. The only player that reached base in the game was M. Wilkison, when she drew a walk in the fourth inning. With the win, the Wildcats record improved to 8-3 on the year and 3-2 in EIAC play. Greensburg’s record fell to 8-2 and 3-2 in EIAC play.This game was a pitcher’s duel for much of the game with McCool and Scripture trading zeroes on the scoreboard for most of the game. After missing a few opportunities to score early in the game, the Wildcats were able to final put up two runs in the seventh inning to take the lead.Hannah Hornsby lead off the top of the seventh inning with a line drive single to left field. Then a sacrifice bunt by Camryn Brewer allowed Hornsby to move to second base. That set up Kloe Bolos for a big opportunity at the plate, which she would not disappoint. Bolos then smacked the first pitch she saw into center field for a single. Hornsby came sprinting into home from second base and was able to slide in just around the tag of the Pirate catcher to score the first run of the game. Bolos was able to advance to second on the throw home. It was then Kendall McCool’s turn to add on some insurance to the lead. After Bolos advanced to third on a wild pitch, McCool hit a 3-2 pitch into center field for a single of her own to extend the lead to 2-0. This would prove to be plenty of run support with McCool in the circle for the Wildcats.McCool earned the win for Franklin County allowing no hits and no runs over seven innings, striking out twelve and walking one. The no-hitter was the fifth of McCool’s career and the first in 2018.A Scripture took the loss for Greensburg. She surrendered two runs on six hits over six and a third innings, striking out two and walking one.Hannah Hornsby, Tessa Harper, Kloe Bolos, Maggie Wendel, Kamryn McCool, and Kendall McCool each collected one hit to lead the Wildcats.Franklin County will be back in EIAC action tomorrow as the Wildcats will travel to Rushville to take on the Lions. First pitch is scheduled for 5:30 pm.Courtesy of Wildcats Coach Alex McCool.last_img read more