SAFETEA-LU

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; SAFETEA-LU) was a funding and authorization bill that governed United States federal surface transportation spending. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 10, 2005, and expired on September 30, 2009.
The $286.4 billion measure contained a host of provisions and earmarks intended to improve and maintain the surface transportation infrastructure in the United States, including the interstate highway system, transit systems around the country, bicycling and pedestrian facilities, and freight rail operations.
Congress renewed its funding formulas ten times after its expiration date, until replacing the bill with Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act in 2012.

James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr.

James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr. (born October 1, 1924) is an American politician who served as the 39th President of the United States (1977–1981) and was the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, the only U.S. President to have received the Prize after leaving office. Before he became President, Carter, a Democrat, served as a U.S. Naval officer, was a peanut farmer, served two terms as a Georgia State Senator and one as Governor of Georgia (1971–1975).[2]
During Carter’s term as President, two new cabinet-level departments were created: the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He established a national energy policy that included conservation, price control, and new technology. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties, the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT II), and returned the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. He took office during a period of international stagflation, which persisted throughout his term. The end of his presidential tenure was marked by the 1979–1981 Iran hostage crisis, the 1979 energy crisis, the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, United States boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow (the only U.S. boycott in Olympic history), and the eruption of Mount St. Helens.
By 1980, Carter’s popularity had eroded. He survived a primary challenge against Ted Kennedy for the Democratic Party nomination in the 1980 election, but lost the election to Republican candidate Ronald Reagan. On January 20, 1981, minutes after Carter’s term in office ended, the 52 U.S. captives held at the U.S. embassy in Iran were released, ending the 444-day Iran hostage crisis.[3]
After leaving office, Carter and his wife Rosalynn founded the Carter Center in 1982,[4] a nongovernmental, not-for-profit organization that works to advance human rights. He has traveled extensively to conduct peace negotiations, observe elections, and advance disease prevention and eradication in developing nations. Carter is a key figure in the Habitat for Humanity project,[5] and also remains particularly vocal on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

My Brother Still Runs Like Rain by Marc Jampole

My Brother Still Runs Like Rain
by Marc Jampole

My brother’s bones and kidneys must be walking
somewhere now, transplanted into other men,
perhaps in steady rain the hour before the sunrise.

Each raindrop holds the water molecules
of former living things, now decomposed,
transformed to ice and steam, then cloud.

Soon former raindrops walk the city streets,
soon future raindrops step between
the fallen branches, over muddy cracks.

Raindrops somewhere in the world
once formed my brother’s water base,
and Pascal’s, too, centuries past.

And yet this rain is not the same as them,
insensate liquid fall, just bounce and pool,
cover, spread, run in rivers at the curb

like my brother used to run at dawn,
bare-chested, under buds of water
clinging to the limbs of leafless trees,

through umber streets, counting footsteps,
leaping over puddles, chased by clouds
that promised downpour any minute now.

Originally published in Ellipsis #46 (2010)

Marc Jampole
5889 Aylesboro Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
mjampole@verizon.net

 

Replevin

Replevin

In a replevin action, judgment must be in alternative, i.e., for return of property or its value in case return cannot be had, and prevailing party does not have option to take judgment for value of property absolutely.

NRS 17.120, “Replevin; judgment to be in alternative and with damages,” provides as follows:

1. In an action to recover the possession of personal property, judgment for the plaintiff may be for the possession or the value thereof, in case a delivery cannot be had, and damages for the detention or the value of the use thereof. If the property has been delivered to the plaintiff, and the defendant claim a return thereof, judgment for the defendant may be for a return of the property or the value thereof, in case a return cannot be had, and damages for taking and withholding the same or the value of the use thereof.

2. In an action on a contract or obligation for the direct payment of money, payable in a specified or agreed kind of money or currency, judgment for the plaintiff, whether the same be by default or after verdict, or decision of the court or master, may follow the contract or obligation, and be made payable in the kind of money or currency therein specified or thereby agreed.

3. In an action against any person for the recovery of money received by such person in a fiduciary capacity, or to the use of another, judgment for the plaintiff, whether the same be by default or after verdict, or decision of the court or master, may be made payable in the same kind of money or currency so received by such person.

Replevin, sometimes known as “claim and delivery,” is an old-fashioned legal remedy in which a court requires a defendant to return specific goods to the plaintiff at the outset of the action. Although rarely used, replevin can be a very powerful weapon in a case where somebody is wrongly holding your property, because it deprives the defendant of the use of your property while the case is awaiting trial, which increases the likelihood of a quick settlement.

See “Claim and Delivery.”

~From Elements of Claims and Defenses in Nevada by Day Williams

Quantum Meruit, Quasi Contract, or Unjust Enrichment

Quantum Meruit, Quasi Contract or Unjust Enrichment
“Quantum meruit” [Latin “as much as he has deserved”] is the reasonable value of services; damages awarded in an amount considered reasonable to compensate a person who has rendered services in a quasi-contractual relationship. It is a claim or right of action for the reasonable value of services rendered. The doctrine of quantum meruit generally applies to an action for restitution involving work and labor performed which is founded on an oral promise on the part of the defendant to pay the plaintiff as much as the plaintiff reasonably deserves for his labor in the absence of an agreed-upon amount.
The doctrine of quantum meruit generally applies to an action for restitution involving work and labor performed which is founded on an oral promise on the part of the defendant to pay the plaintiff as much as the plaintiff reasonably deserves for his labor in the absence of an agreed-upon amount.
To recover in quantum meruit, a party must establish legal liability on either an implied-in-fact contract or unjust enrichment basis. The distinction between the two theories, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, can be unclear. “One source of confusion is that quantum meruit is a cause of action in two fields: restitution and contract.” Quantum meruit historically was one of the common counts—a subspecies of the writ of indebitatus or general assumpsit—available as a remedy at law to enforce implied promises or contracts. A party who pleaded quantum meruit sought recovery of the reasonable value, or “as much as he has deserved,” for services rendered.
Thus, quantum meruit’s first application is in actions based upon contracts implied-in-fact. A contract implied-in-fact must be “manifested by conduct.” It “is a true contract that arises from the tacit agreement of the parties.” To find a contract implied-in-fact, the fact-finder must conclude that the parties intended to contract and promises were exchanged, the general obligations for which must be sufficiently clear. It is at that point that a party may invoke quantum meruit as a gap-filler to supply the absent term. Where such a contract exists, then, quantum meruit ensures the laborer receives the reasonable value, usually market price, for his services.
Quantum meruit’s other role is in providing restitution for unjust enrichment: “Liability in restitution for the market value of goods or services is the remedy traditionally known as quantum meruit.” When a plaintiff seeks “as much as he . . . deserve[s]” based on a theory of restitution (as opposed to implied-in-fact contract), he must establish each element of unjust enrichment. Quantum meruit, then, is “the usual measurement of enrichment in cases where nonreturnable benefits have been furnished at the defendant’s request, but where the parties made no enforceable agreement as to price.”
Unjust enrichment exists when the plaintiff confers a benefit on the defendant, the defendant appreciates such benefit, and there is “ ‘acceptance and retention by the defendant of such benefit under circumstances such that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of the value thereof.’ “ A pleading of quantum meruit for unjust enrichment does not discharge the plaintiff’s obligation to demonstrate that the defendant received a benefit from services provided.
“[B]enefit” in the unjust enrichment context can include “services beneficial to or at the request of the other,” “denotes any form of advantage,” and is not confined to retention of money or property. But while “[r]estitution may strip a wrongdoer of all profits gained in a transaction with [a] claimant . . . principles of unjust enrichment will not support the imposition of a liability that leaves an innocent recipient worse off . . . than if the transaction with the claimant had never taken place.”
Similarly, the Nevada Supreme Court has concluded that “[t]he basis of recovery on quantum meruit . . . is that a party has received from another a benefit which is unjust for him to retain without paying for it.” In Thompson, the defendant was to build a dam for the plaintiffs but the defendant’s preliminary work failed to meet state regulations and thus was rendered useless. Because the plaintiffs were required to hire a new laborer to completely rebuild the dam to code, this court held that the defendant could not recover on his counterclaim under a theory of quantum meruit because he had provided no benefit to the plaintiffs, i.e., while he began the work the plaintiffs requested, he ultimately provided no advantage to them.
In Paterson v. Condos, the Nevada Supreme Court specifically concluded that an action may be based upon quantum meruit even though an express contract exists: “The contractor may . . . base his action upon both the contract and upon a quantum meruit by setting up the former in one count, and the latter in another in his complaint.”
To put all in other words, the essential elements of quasi contract are a benefit conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff, appreciation by the defendant of such benefit, and acceptance and retention by the defendant of such benefit under circumstances such that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of the value thereof. Additionally, unjust enrichment occurs whenever a person has and retains a benefit which in equity and good conscience belongs to another.
See also “Unjust Enrichment.” The statute of limitations for an unjust enrichment claim is four years.

~from Elements of Claims and Defenses in Nevada by Day Williams

“Secret Santa” showers $100 bills on storm-hit NJ, NY

‘Santa’ showers $100 bills on storm-hit NJ, NY

Posted: Nov 29, 2012 5:57 PM PSTUpdated: Nov 29, 2012 8:27 PM PST

By VERENA DOBNIK
Associated PressNEW YORK (AP) – A wealthy Missouri man posing as “Secret Santa” stunned New Yorkers on Thursday, handing $100 bills to many in Staten Island who had lost everything to Superstorm Sandy.

The Kansas City businessman is giving away $100,000 this holiday season, and spent the day in New Jersey and New York giving away thousands. But he says money is not the issue.

“The money is not the point at all,” said the anonymous benefactor as he walked up to surprised Staten Island residents and thrust crisp bills into their hands. “It’s about the random acts of kindness. I’m just setting an example, and if 10 percent of the people who see me emulate what I’m doing, anybody can be a Secret Santa!”

A police motorcade with sirens took him across the borough, passing a church ripped from its foundations and homes surrounded by debris. At a nearby disaster center run by volunteers, a woman quietly collected free food and basic goods.

“Has anyone given you any money?” he asked her.

“No,” replied Carol Hefty, a 72-year-old retiree living in a damaged home.

“Here,” he said, slipping the money into her hand.

“But this isn’t real money!” said Hefty, glancing at the red “Secret Santa” stamped onto the $100.

“It is, and it’s for you,” he tells her.

She breaks down weeping and hugs him.

And so it went, again and again.

Secret Santa started his daylong East Coast visit with stops in Elizabeth, N.J. Keeping close watch over the cash handouts was his security entourage – police officers in uniform from New York and New Jersey, plus FBI agents and former agents from various states. Some have become supporters, wearing red berets marked with the word “elf” and assisting “Santa” to choose locations where people are most in need. He himself wears an “elf” cap and a red top, plus blue jeans.

The group must choose stops carefully, and refrain from simply appearing outdoors in a neighborhood, lest they be mobbed by people hearing that cash is being handed out.

At a stop at a Staten Island Salvation Army store, one woman is looking over a $4 handbag. “But you get $100!” he tells her, offering the bill.

“Are you serious?” said Prudence Onesto, her eyes widening. “Really?”

“Secret Santa,” he deadpans, breaking into a broad grin.

The 55-year-old unemployed woman opened her arms and offered him a hug.

An aisle over, 41-year-old Janice Kennedy is overwhelmed: She received four $100 bills.

Unemployed with a 2-year-old daughter, she lost her home in the storm and lives with her boyfriend. The money will go toward Christmas presents and her toddler’s next birthday.

“You’re not alone. God bless you!” the Missouri stranger tells Phillip and Lisa Morris, a couple in their 30s whose home was badly damaged – but now had an extra $300 in cash for rebuilding.

Secret Santa took up the holiday tradition from a close Kansas City friend, Larry Stewart, who for years handed out bills each December to unsuspecting strangers in thrift stores, food pantries and shelters. Stewart died in 2007 after giving away more than $1 million to strangers in mostly $100 bills.

The current Secret Santa will not divulge his name. Nor does he allow his face to be photographed. But he said he’s been to cities across America, from San Diego to Chicago to Charlotte, N.C.

A reporter asked whether he might be a sort of Warren Buffett of Kansas City. He smiled mysteriously and said only that he admires Buffett for his philanthropy. “And I hope I give all my money away before I die.”

Then, as suddenly as he arrived, the generous stranger left for the airport and home, riding in the volunteer motorcade he jokingly calls “my sleigh,” zipping with ease through red lights and city traffic.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more: http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20222900/santa-showers-100-bills-on-storm-hit-nj-ny#ixzz2DigZdAPa

Dominican Republic — Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)

The Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement, commonly called CAFTA-DR, is a free trade agreement (legally a treaty under international law, but not under US law). Originally, the agreement encompassed the United States and the Central American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, and was called CAFTA. In 2004, the Dominican Republic joined the negotiations, and the agreement was renamed CAFTA-DR.
CAFTA-DR together with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and active bilateral free trade agreements, including the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement, are seen as bloc agreements instead of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement. Panama has completed negotiations with the US for a bilateral free trade agreement (ratification of which is pending), and Belize is a member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Haiti, also a CARICOM member, was expected to be given certain additional trade preferences with the US under the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act before Congress adjourned during 2006.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109-58) is a bill passed by the United States Congress on July 29, 2005, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing energy problems, changed US energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types.

Gerald Ford

Gerald Rudolph “Jerry” Ford, Jr. (born Leslie Lynch King, Jr.; July 14, 1913 – December 26, 2006) was the 38th President of the United States, serving from 1974 to 1977, and the 40th Vice President of the United States serving from 1973 to 1974. A Republican, as the first person appointed to the Vice Presidency under the terms of the 25th Amendment, after Spiro Agnew had resigned, when he became President upon Richard Nixon’s resignation on August 9, 1974, he became the first and to date only person to have served as both President and Vice President of the United States without being elected by the Electoral College. Before ascending to the Vice Presidency, Ford served nearly 25 years as the Representative from Michigan’s 5th congressional district, eight of them as the Republican Minority Leader.
As President, Ford signed the Helsinki Accords, marking a move toward détente in the Cold War. With the conquest of South Vietnam by North Vietnam nine months into his presidency, U.S. involvement in Vietnam essentially ended. Domestically, Ford presided over arguably the weakest economy since the Great Depression, with growing inflation and a recession during his tenure.[2] One of his more controversial acts was to grant a presidential pardon to President Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal. During Ford’s incumbency, foreign policy was characterized in procedural terms by the increased role Congress began to play, and by the corresponding curb on the powers of the President.[3] In 1976, Ford narrowly defeated Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination, but lost the presidential election to Democrat Jimmy Carter.
Following his years as president, Ford remained active in the Republican Party. After experiencing health problems, Ford died in his home on December 26, 2006. Ford lived longer than any other U.S. president, living 93 years and 165 days, while his 895 day presidency remains the shortest of all Presidents who did not die in office.