Your Blog

Included page "clone:utopianrubbish596" does not exist (create it now)

What is the Difference Between DUI and DWI? - 24 Jun 2016 20:46


[[html]]Did You Know?<br><br>&#13;<br><br><img style="float:left;margin:10px;border:none;" src="" width="265" /><br><br>In all states across the U.S., a first-offense DUI or DWI is classified as a misdemeanor, and punishable by up to six months in jail, which may be increased under certain circumstances. In addition, courts can and do impose high fines ranging from USD 500 to USD 2,000.<br><br>Driving while intoxicated (DWI) and driving under the influence (DUI) are driving violations, both basically refer to drinking and driving. They can also be called operating under the influence or impaired driving. These are legal offenses of driving a vehicle while having consumed alcohol or other drugs. You may have noticed 'drunk driving' check posts/signs on streets in some areas. Traffic cops periodically check vehicles for people who drive when they are drunk. In fact, such checks are frequently carried out at places that are prone to accidents. Read this Buzzle article further to know some more points of difference in this DUI vs. DWI comparison.<br><br>Definitions of Related Terms<br><br>? Blood Alcohol Level / Blood Alcohol Content (BAC)<br><br>It refers to the amount of alcohol in your bloodstream and is usually measured in percentages.&#13;<br><br>It is measured either by testing an individual's breath, blood, or urine. This test is used to determine whether the driver is 'legally drunk' or not.&#13;<br><br>If the <a href="">drinking driving</a> person is found to have a BAC percentage above the legally acceptable value, he/she is considered to be 'legally drunk'.&#13;<br><br>This law has been accepted by all the 50 states. As of 2013, the legally acceptable BAC value is 0.08%. This means that if the driver's BAC is 0.08% or higher, he/she is punishable under the law.&#13;<br><br>? Administrative License Suspension<br><br>It is a law that allows the cops to confiscate and suspend a driver's license immediately when a driver is charged with the 'driving while intoxicated' offense. It may also be applicable before adjudicating the charge, i.e., if the offender's BAC is above the set limit or if he refuses to take the test.<br><br>? Penalties<br><br>They vary from paying a fine, serving jail time, license suspension, to hours of community service and education programs.&#13;<br><br>In different states, the time period for suspension of administrative license ranges from 3 months to a year. This depends on several factors; if you are a minor and this is your first offense, the suspension period could be shorter. If you've committed the offense before, or if you refuse to take the test, your license will be suspended nevertheless, on the grounds of non-compliance regarding the law.&#13;<br><br>Community service is mostly handed down to minors (not necessarily, of course) as a part of the sentence. This includes jobs, like janitorial services, working at old-age homes, etc. The number of hours depends on the courts and other related factors.&#13;<br><br>Serving jail time and paying fines are mostly compulsory. For offenses that have been classified as felony, the offender could be sentenced to several years of jail time.&#13;<br><br>A point to note here is that the penalties vary from state to state. New York could have a different way to deal with this problem than Texas or Wyoming. It also depends on the officer in charge at that moment. The fines, jail times, and laws are all handled differently in all states.&#13;<br><br>Testing Methods and Devices<br><br>The testing methods mostly include breath analysis, blood, and urine tests. There are also field sobriety tests, which include reciting alphabets, standing on one leg, walk-and-turn, etc. These are carried out to determine the impaired state of the offender due to alcohol. Some of the testing devices used are as follows:<br><br>? Breathalyzer<br><br>It is a breath analysis device that provides an estimate of blood alcohol based upon the chemical analysis of a breath sample. <br><br>? Intoximeter<br><br>It involves the chemical analysis of a breath sample to measure the BAC by means of an electrical reaction. <br><br>? BAC Datamaster<br><br>A breath analysis device that uses infrared spectroscopy to provide an estimate of alcohol in the blood. This device is not portable and is generally kept at the police station. <br><br>? Portable Breath Test (PBT)<br><br>It is a portable device used by the cops, generally at a check post, to determine whether the person is drunk or not. It may not be completely reliable.<br><br>Notable Points of Difference<br><br>DUI&#13;<br><br>DWI&#13;<br><br>Legalities&#13;<br><br>It is applied when that the person is under the influence of alcoholic drinks or drugs like weed (he may have consumed it in less amount). What this essentially means is that the offense does not involve only alcohol. You will be in trouble even if you consume any physician-prescribed medication that might have side-effects which might cause you to drive erratically.&#13;<br><br>It clearly indicates that the person is very high on alcohol. He is completely intoxicated, and according to the law, he should not be driving at all.&#13;<br><br>Interpretation of Laws&#13;<br><br>The terms are interpreted differently in different states. In Texas, it refers to a minor who is caught drinking and driving, while in New York, it is used when your BAC is below the legal limit of 0.08%.&#13;<br><br>In Texas, it refers to an adult caught drinking and driving, while in New York, it is applied when the BAC is above the legal limit. Some states (like New Jersey) have a zero-tolerance policy and do not recognize any differences between the two.&#13;<br><br>Penalties&#13;<br><br>They vary state-wise as well. In Arizona, the license is suspended for 1 year on the first offense, while in Maryland, the suspension is for 4 months. You will have to pay fines as well, which vary according to the severity of the offense and the court orders.&#13;<br><br>In New York, a person charged with this offense may have to pay a fine ranging from USD 500 to <a href="">dui vs dwi</a> USD 10,000, depending on the 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-time offense, and other factors. Also, he will have to serve a jail term. While in Texas, a first-time offender (mostly a minor) pays a fine of USD 500, and gets his license suspended for three months or more, depending on the hours of community service handed to you by the judge.&#13;<br><br>Remember that laws are always subject to change. In technical terms, the only difference between DUI and DWI is the inclusion of having drugs and narcotics, under the former. But in legal terms, these offenses are handled differently <a href="">drunk driving</a> throughout the U.S. (as already mentioned), and depends on the severity of the crime, the circumstances, your attorney's defense, etc. The key point to keep in mind is-please do not drink and drive. It not only harms you, but also an innocent life that is not at fault.<br><br>[[/html]] - Comments: 0

Golf Digest Online Inc (3319.T) People - 07 Jun 2016 11:54


[[html]]<object width="400" height="241"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="241"></embed></object><br><br>Name<br><br>Description<br><br>Mr. Nobuya Ishizaka has been serving as President, Chief Executive Officer and Representative Director in Golf Digest Online Inc., as well as President and Representative Director of two subsidiaries, including Insight Co., Ltd., since February 2012. He is also serving as Director in Venture Republic Inc. He established the Company in May 2000. He has working experience in Mitsubishi Corporation and another Japan-based company. He obtained a Master of Business Administration from Harvard University in June 1999.<br><br>Mr. Osamu Ito has been serving as Manager of Golf Course Business Unit and Director in Golf Digest Online Inc. since March 28, 2013. He joined the Company in July 2009. He used to serve as Executive Officer, Manager of Media Business Unit, Manager of Human Resources Planning Office and Chief Director of Golf Media in the Company. He worked for Recruit Holdings Co., Ltd. before joining the Company.<br><br>Mr. Takehiro Yoshikawa has been serving as Chief Director of Customer Experience Design and Director in Golf Digest Online Inc. since March 28, 2014. He joined the Company in April 2003. His previous titles include Executive Officer, Manager of Golf Course Business Unit and Chief Director of Golf Course Service in the Company. He used to work for The Fuji Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd.<br><br>Mr. Hironari Hashioka has been serving as Independent Director in Golf Digest Online Inc. since September 2004. He is also working for UNITED ARROWS LTD., IFREEK HOLDING CO., LTD. and two other companies. He previously worked for a bank that is under the new name Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation. He is a lawyer.<br><br>Mr. Takao Honda has been serving as Independent Director in Golf Digest Online Inc. since September 2004. He previously worked for a company that is under the new name Sojitz Corporation, CHIFURE CORPORATION, Sony Corporation, JOHNSON COMPANY LIMITED. and Cosmo Interactive Inc.<br><br>Mr. Genichi Kimura has been serving as Independent Director in Golf Digest Online Inc. since May 2000. He is also serving as President and Representative Director in an affiliated company and three other companies, including Motor Magazine Ltd. Mr. Kimura previously worked for Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.<br><br>Mr. Masahiro Kimura has been serving as Independent Director in Golf Digest Online Inc. since September 2004. He is also serving as Managing Director in an affiliated company, as well as Director <a href="">golf clubs</a> in another company. Mr. Kimura previously worked for a company that is under the new name Nippon <a href="">used golf irons</a> Paper Group, Inc.<br><br><img style="float:left;margin:10px;border:none;" src="" width="297" /><br><br>[[/html]] - Comments: 0

Exclusive: Owner of golf brand Titleist to file for U.S. IPO - 07 Jun 2016 03:49


[[html]]<object width="400" height="241"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="241"></embed></object><br><br>Acushnet Company, the owner of golf brands including Titleist and Footjoy, is preparing to register with U.S. regulators as early as June for an initial public offering that could value it at more than $2 billion, according to people familiar with the matter.<br><br>The IPO would come five years after consumer products conglomerate Fortune Brands sold Acushnet, under pressure from activist investor William Ackman, to South Korean sports apparel company Fila Korea Ltd (081660.KS) and Mirae Asset Private Equity for $1.23 billion. <br><br>Acushnet is now working with investment banks that include Morgan Stanley (MS.N), JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co (JPM.N), UBS <a href="">best golf store online</a> Group AG (UBSG.S) and Nomura Holdings Inc (8604.T) on the IPO, the sources said on Wednesday.<br><br>The Fairhaven, Massachusetts-based company, which has more than $200 million in 12-month earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, could begin marketing its IPO as soon as this autumn, added the sources, who asked not to be named because the matter is private.<br><br>Acushnet, JP Morgan, UBS and Nomura declined comment. Morgan Stanley could not be immediately reached for comment. <br><br><img style="float:left;margin:10px;border:none;" src="" width="386" /><br><br>The golf industry has tapered over the past several years, as its prime demographic group has aged and millennials have sought pastimes that are less time-intensive and more accessible.<br><br>Earlier this year, German sportswear company Adidas (ADSGn.DE) failed to attract enough attention from private equity firms when it explored a sale of its Taylormade golf equipment brands, Reuters reported.. <br><br>Still, the industry is expected to benefit this year from new media exposure, as young golf stars compete in the Olympics in <a href="">play golf games free online</a> Rio de Janeiro this summer for the first time in more than a century. <br><br>For Acushnet, its greatest defense against broader industry <a href="">top golf games</a> woes may be its commanding market share in golf balls. Golf balls are cheaper and more easily lost than golf equipment, making them more frequently replaced. The more rounds of golf people play, the more balls they will buy. <br><br>(Reporting by Lauren Hirsch in New York; Editing by Matthew Lewis)<br><br>[[/html]] - Comments: 0

Public Agencies--Authority and Responsibilities. - Free Online Library - 07 Jun 2016 00:24


[[html]]Environmental health professionals in public employment often face<br><br>three critical questions:<br><br>1. What is the extent of my agency's authority?&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>2. May I conduct an inspection without consent or a warrant? and&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>3. What are the consequences if I knowingly do something wrong?&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>The legal issues are extremely complex, but a few recent cases give&#13;<br><br>some guidance. Of those discussed below, cases 1 and 2 concern the&#13;<br><br>extent of an agency's authority to establish a new hazard analysis&#13;<br><br>critical control (HACCP) procedure or a new prohibition (a municipal ban&#13;<br><br>of all smoking in food service establishments). Case 3 is an excellent&#13;<br><br>example of a creative, lawful, warrantless inspection of a trailer park.&#13;<br><br>Finally, Case 4 addresses the consequences of knowingly filing false&#13;<br><br>reports.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Case #1: USDA Cannot Delegate Meat Inspections&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>The HACCP approach is an effort to establish constant,&#13;<br><br>government-approved self-surveillance of food handling. In order to be&#13;<br><br>successful, this approach requires a cooperative effort between a&#13;<br><br>government agency and some sector of the food industry. Some consumer&#13;<br><br>groups have criticized this relationship as a compromise of government&#13;<br><br>responsibility, which raises a fundamental legal question: To what&#13;<br><br>extent may an agency turn over to the food industry its inspection&#13;<br><br>responsibility?&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and&#13;<br><br>Inspection Service (FSIS) implemented the HACCP approach by regulation&#13;<br><br>and required meat plants to eventually perform their own meat&#13;<br><br>inspections, subject to FSIS review and oversight. That part of the&#13;<br><br>regulation was challenged by the union representatives of the FSIS food&#13;<br><br>inspectors. The legal question was whether the statutes permit federal&#13;<br><br>inspectors to step back from the processing lines and perform their&#13;<br><br>inspection duties by merely overseeing inspections conducted by plant&#13;<br><br>employees. In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v.&#13;<br><br>Glickman, the Court of Appeals agreed with the union and invalidated&#13;<br><br>that part of the USDA regulations.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Since 1907, FSIS inspectors had performed postmortem inspections<br><br>along slaughter-processing lines using organoleptic methods (sight,<br><br>touch, and smell). With the HACCP method, FSIS required industry to<br><br>assume responsibility for producing safe meat and ultimately gave it<br><br>complete control over production decisions and execution, including<br><br>carcass inspections.<br><br>The court held that the term "inspection" in the statute&#13;<br><br>entails observation, but that not every observation amounts to an&#13;<br><br>inspection. The FSIS system had federal inspectors inspecting people&#13;<br><br>instead of carcasses. The federal statute meant that when meat&#13;<br><br>inspections are performed, it would be by federal inspectors who would&#13;<br><br>make the critical determination whether a product was adulterated. The&#13;<br><br>statute thus prohibited USDA from delegating the inspection of carcasses&#13;<br><br>to private individuals or plant employees.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Case #2: Municipality May Ban Smoking in All Food Service&#13;<br><br>Establishments&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Between 1995 and 2000, the Board of Health in the Town of&#13;<br><br>Barnstable, Massachusetts, considered the harmful effects of&#13;<br><br>environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and decided it was necessary either to&#13;<br><br>require restaurants and bars to construct enclosed smoking areas or to&#13;<br><br>completely prohibit smoking in them. The board chose the latter approach&#13;<br><br>and adopted a regulation banning smoking anywhere in restaurants and&#13;<br><br>bars, A lounge sued the board and asked the court to enjoin enforcement&#13;<br><br>of the regulation. In Tri-Nel Management, Inc. v. Board of Health, the&#13;<br><br>trial court denied the lounge's request for an injunction, and its&#13;<br><br>decision was upheld on appeal.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>The lounge made five arguments:&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>1. the board had exceeded its authority;&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>2. the regulations were unreasonable;&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>3. the regulations conflicted with state legislation;&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>4. the legislature's delegation of authority to a local board&#13;<br><br>of health violated the separation of powers doctrine; and&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>5. the regulations violated the town's charter.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Many years ago, the Massachusetts legislature had given boards of&#13;<br><br>health authority to "make reasonable health regulations." So&#13;<br><br>the board had authority over ETS as long as the regulations were&#13;<br><br>reasonable.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>The lounge claimed that the regulations were unreasonable because&#13;<br><br>exposure to ETS would be insufficient to cause general health effects.&#13;<br><br>There is, however, a strong presumption of the validity of health&#13;<br><br>regulations and of their rationality. A court gives deference to a&#13;<br><br>health board because of the board's expertise and experience in&#13;<br><br>health matters. So, without substantial and impressive counter-proof,&#13;<br><br>the board's regulations were considered reasonable.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>An existing Massachusetts statute prohibited smoking in many public<br><br>places and in restaurants with 75 or more seats except in designated<br><br>smoking areas. The statute preserved local authority, however, and the<br><br>general legal principle is that local regulations are valid unless they<br><br>directly conflict with a state statute or its intent. Therefore, the<br><br>local regulation was not prohibited.<br><br>It is long established that a state legislature may not delegate&#13;<br><br>its authority to an agency without standards. In Massachusetts, the&#13;<br><br>standards were that the board's regulations must pertain to "health" and be "reasonable." Those were sufficient&#13;<br><br>standards.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Finally, the Board of <a href=""></a> Health regulations did not supersede the&#13;<br><br>power of the Barnstable Town Council. First, the town had an&#13;<br><br>administrative code granting the Board of Health regulatory authority.&#13;<br><br>Second, state legislation gave the board authority independent of the&#13;<br><br>town's charter.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Case #3: Plain-View Inspection&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Question: How would you conduct a warrantless inspection of an&#13;<br><br>unlicensed facility in a rural area without the owner's consent?&#13;<br><br>Try a plain-view inspection like that conducted by the environmental&#13;<br><br>health officials of the Lewis County Health Department in Washington.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Pat Waslawski and Chris Cooper were sent by Michael Vinatieri, who&#13;<br><br>was the director of environmental health, to investigate a possible&#13;<br><br>unlicensed recreational-vehicle (RV) park. The park was off an access&#13;<br><br>road connected to a state road. At the turnoff to the access road, a&#13;<br><br>large sign advertised the RV park. The access road had no gate or fence.&#13;<br><br>It had an espresso stand on it, and it served a post office, a fire&#13;<br><br>department, and a business "office." The park owner, who also&#13;<br><br>lived along the road, had previously written the department about&#13;<br><br>trespassing and specified that inspections were only allowed with&#13;<br><br>advance notice.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>The environmental health investigators drove a county vehicle onto&#13;<br><br>the access road, and one of them got out of the vehicle to videotape a&#13;<br><br>sewer pipe, water hose, and power cords at one trailer hookup. They&#13;<br><br>videotaped another RV site, and then drove to a gravel parking pad in&#13;<br><br>front of a third RV space. There they encountered the park owner, who&#13;<br><br>ordered them off the property. The investigators had neither a warrant&#13;<br><br>nor consent. So the owner filed a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 <a href=""></a> U.S.C.&#13;<br><br>[ss]1983 claiming a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against&#13;<br><br>unreasonable searches.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>For the purposes <a href=""></a> of the Constitution, an inspection is a search.&#13;<br><br>The well-established law is that "inspections for health, safety,&#13;<br><br>and other violations of … codes must be conducted pursuant to a&#13;<br><br>warrant, or fall within one of the narrowly drawn exceptions to the&#13;<br><br>warrant requirements." The question in the case was whether an&#13;<br><br>inspector's observations and photographs from an access road or&#13;<br><br>area immediately adjacent to the road were a "search" under&#13;<br><br>the Fourth Amendment.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>In Peters v. Vinatieri, the court said no and dismissed the case.&#13;<br><br>The Fourth Amendment protects an expectation of privacy that an&#13;<br><br>individual subjectively seeks to preserve and that is recognized by&#13;<br><br>society as reasonable. The park owner had a subjective expectation of&#13;<br><br>privacy. That expectation, however, was not objectively reasonable. He&#13;<br><br>had an advertising billboard at the entrance, which stated that the park&#13;<br><br>was open for commercial uses, and the RV campers were members of the&#13;<br><br>public who had access to the park by traveling down the access road. In&#13;<br><br>addition, the investigators never entered the owner's house or the&#13;<br><br>area immediately around it.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br><img style="float:left;margin:10px;border:none;" src="" width="317" /><br><br>It is not a "search" if an environmental health&#13;<br><br>investigator is at a lawful vantage point and observes something. The&#13;<br><br>access road was such a lawful vantage point. Such an inspection is a&#13;<br><br>"plain view" observation allowed by the Fourth Amendment.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Furthermore, recording an observation by photograph or videotape is&#13;<br><br>not a search or invasion of privacy if the original observation is&#13;<br><br>legal.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Case #4: Criminal conviction for Filing False Report&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>In State v. Hampton, a sanitarian responsible for inspecting the&#13;<br><br>installation and repair of sewage disposal systems for a county health&#13;<br><br>department in Washington State was criminally convicted for offering a&#13;<br><br>false document to be filed in the department. The document was a final&#13;<br><br>inspection form that incorrectly identified the designer of an on-site&#13;<br><br>sewage disposal system and falsely stated that a required&#13;<br><br>designer's certificate had been obtained. The sanitarian knowingly&#13;<br><br>filed the form, was prosecuted, and was convicted by a jury. The motives&#13;<br><br>for the illegal conduct and the punishment were not stated in the&#13;<br><br>court's opinion.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Cases Cited&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Glickman,&#13;<br><br>215 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2000).&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Peters v. Vinatieri, 102 Wash.App. 641, — P.3d __ (2000).&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>State v. Hampton, 100 Wash.App. 152, 996 P.2d 1094 (2000).&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Tri-Nel Management, Inc. v. Board of Health, 433 Mass. 217, __&#13;<br><br>N.E.2d __ (2001).&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>Prompt Renewal of NEHA memberships saves paper and money!&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>* To save valuable resources, please notify us even in the event&#13;<br><br>that you do not wish to renew your membership.&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>* This will allow us to cancel your automatic expiration and&#13;<br><br>renewal reminders, conserve resources, and spare you the annoyance of&#13;<br><br>mail you do not wish to receive!&#13;<br><br>&#13;<br><br>[[/html]] - Comments: 0

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License