Blog

China’s state-backed blockchain company is set to launch its first major international project  CNBC
source

May 26, 2022
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced a $161.531 million settlement with two opioid makers. The agreement was reached before closing arguments were scheduled Wednesday morning in the state’s case against Teva Pharmaceuticals and Allergan Finance LLC. (Photo Provided)
Today’s breaking news and more in your inbox
RIPLEY — A gas line will be installed from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. beginning today, May 27, through Aug. 20 on …
MARIETTA — The Washington State Community College Foundation has provided nearly $200,000 in scholarship awards …
CHARLESTON — Two people were sentenced to prison this week for drug offenses occurring in Parkersburg, according …
PARKERSBURG — The Parkersburg YMCA will hold a Job Expo to fill staff shortages from 3-7 p.m. today, May 27, in …
Today’s breaking news and more in your inbox

Copyright © News and Sentinel | https://www.newsandsentinel.com | 519 Juliana St., Parkersburg, WV 26101 | 304-485-1891 | Ogden Newspapers | The Nutting Company

source

By Heidi Opdyke opdyke(through)andrew.cmu.edu
As a high school student in Ukraine, competitive mathematics puzzled Oleksandr “Alex” Rudenko. A top competitor, he would go back and read the solutions to challenging problems he was unable to solve.
“Some of the solutions would surprise me so I would go back to understand how one can come up with a solution or idea. I would ask my friends and our instructors, and I would spend a lot of time thinking about those as well,” he said. “So, when I graduated from high school, I decided to start coaching students to think in a way that unravels those hidden connections inside problems.”
When Rudenko moved to Pittsburgh to start his doctoral program in algorithms, combinatorics and optimization (ACO) at Carnegie Mellon University, he brought his coaching skills with him.
Rudenko recently returned from Hungary and the 11th European Girls’ Mathematical Olympiad. He served as the U.S. team leader along with deputy leader Rachel Zhang. Together they coached Kaylee Ji, 16; Vivian Loh, 15; Jessica Wan, 15; and Isabella Zhu, 16.
The U.S. team took first place. Individually, Loh, Wan and Zhu were awarded gold medals and Ji earned silver.
Loh is the daughter of CMU Mathematical Sciences Professor Po-Shen Loh, who introduced Rudenko to CMU after meeting him at an international competition. At the time, Rudenko was coaching the Ukrainian team.
“Po-Shen Loh was the leader of the U.S. team and just an amazing person,” Rudenko said. “He was the one who told me everything about ACO and was the reason I applied. I think that was such a miracle and I’m very, very grateful for that.”
In the six years that Rudenko has been in Pittsburgh, he has coached local middle school and high school students as well as worked with Loh to coach the U.S. International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) team. He also helped train U.S. and international high school students as part of the Mathematical Association of America’s Mathematical Olympiad Summer Program at CMU. Under Loh’s guidance, the U.S. have placed first four times since 2015. Rudenko has been part of that effort.
“I think that he brings very clearly a strong intellectual ability,” Loh said. “On top of that he brings the ability to inspire younger people to want to get into the field, and this is a wonderful combination.”
Prior to traveling to Hungary, Rudenko defended his doctoral thesis in early April. ACO is an interdisciplinary Ph.D. program administered jointly by the Operations Research group in the Tepper School of Business, the Computer Science Department in the School of Computer Science and the Department of Mathematical Sciences in the Mellon College of Science.
“Even though these problems look very similar, the minor differences that define the problems make each problem so different that they require separate ways to approach,” he said. “I’ve also done mathematical modeling of interactions between firms and consumers to figure out how to reach an equilibrium and also shift it so that everyone is better off.”
R. Ravi, the Andris A. Zoltners Professor of Business, advised Rudenko.
“In his doctoral work, Alex brought creative ideas from optimization to design algorithms for problems in spreading information in networks quickly, designing layered logistics networks with economies of scale across the layers, and also modeling and explaining the response of firms to tech-savvy customers in the marketplace. In the other direction, using these applications to create new models in optimization, he was able to generalize some of these methods to more abstract settings. In this way, his thesis is a nice example of interdisciplinary work in discrete mathematics, optimization, algorithms and marketing.”
After graduation, Rudenko said he is looking for a role in information technology or finance.
“Both look exciting to me. One of my main preferences is to find a community of people similar to CMU — one that is smart, open-minded and collaborative,” he said.
While coaching and wrapping up his doctoral studies, Rudenko has been doing this against the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine war. Family and the people around him are extremely important, Rudenko said. As Russia’s invasion continues, he said he is happy that his sister and parents are safely in the U.S.
“But a lot of my relatives and close friends are still in Kyiv,” he said, adding that he uses any opportunity to explain Russia’s actions to people around him. “I talk to my grandparents every day, and even though I know what’s happening there, I don’t think anyone who lives in the U.S. can fully imagine how it is. The [Russian government] massively bombing the residential areas and killing civilians, they want to destroy us and commit genocide.”
Rudenko said he hopes that U.S.’ and EU’s multifunctional support will lead to an end to these atrocities in his birth country and allow it to flourish again.
For Rudenko studying mathematics adds up to a well-lived life.
“I was always very fascinated about using mathematical tools and mathematical thinking to make lives of people in general better,” Rudenko said. “CMU is one of the best places to connect math to a variety of applied disciplines.”
He said that in learning mathematics, one also learns how to apply critical thinking to consider many situations in life from new angles.
“That skill is very exciting because you use it every single day no matter what your profession is,” he said.
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
412-268-2900

source

Gov. Baker vetoes immigrant license access bill
BOSTON — Gov. Charlie Baker on Friday vetoed a bill making immigrants without legal status eligible to seek state-issued driver’s licenses, saying the Registry of Motor Vehicles, an agency that he oversees, doesn’t have the ability to verify the identities of potential applicants.
Following years of advocacy for the bill, House and Senate Democrats on Thursday enacted the legislation, which supporters say will make the roads safer by granting access to licenses for many undocumented immigrants who are already living throughout the state.
Republican opposition to the bill was steady throughout its journey through the Legislature, and officeholders and candidates at the GOP convention last weekend in Springfield sporadically and pointedly expressed their opposition to the proposal.
In his veto message, Baker said the legislation “significantly increases the risk that noncitizens will be registered to vote,” a possibility that bill supporters have refuted. The governor said the bill “restricts the Registry’s ability to share citizenship information with those entities responsible for ensuring that only citizens register for and vote in our elections.”
The bill cleared both branches with more than enough support to override Baker’s veto.
“Allowing parents to drive their kids to school, take them to doctor’s appointments or be in charge of carpooling to take their kids to soccer, all without the concern they may be separated if they are pulled over, will allow children of undocumented immigrants to breathe and have a sigh of relief,” bill supporter Sen. Adam Gomez, a Springfield Democrat, said earlier this month.
It will be up to the House to initiate a veto override, with a two-thirds vote required in each branch to make the bill law.
The House voted 118-36 Thursday to accept the conference committee report on the bill; the Senate vote was 32-8.
Under the bill (H 4805), expanded access to standard driver’s licenses would begin on July 1, 2023. Applicants under the bill would need to provide proof of their identity, date of birth and residency in Massachusetts.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
©2022 Cox Media Group
© 2022 Cox Media Group. This station is part of Cox Media Group Television. Learn about careers at Cox Media Group. By using this website, you accept the terms of our Visitor Agreement and Privacy Policy, and understand your options regarding Ad Choices. Manage Cookie Preferences | Do Not Sell My Information

source

Advertisement
Supported by
“Tomb of Sand,” written by Geetanjali Shree and translated by Daisy Rockwell, won despite getting little previous attention from reviewers.
Send any friend a story
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.
By Alex Marshall
LONDON — “Tomb of Sand,” a novel about an 80-year-old Indian woman’s sudden decision to travel to Pakistan, was named on Thursday as the winner of the International Booker Prize, the prestigious award for fiction translated into English.
Geetanjali Shree, the book’s author, and Daisy Rockwell, who translated the 739-page novel from its original Hindi, will split the prize of 50,000 British pounds, about $63,000, which they received at a ceremony in London.
The novel claimed the title despite not having been reviewed by a major British newspaper. It is the first in an Indian language to win the International Booker Prize, and the first in Hindi to even secure a nomination.
Frank Wynne, the chair of the judges for this year’s prize, said in an online news conference that “Tomb of Sand” was “overwhelmingly” the judges’ choice, deserving to beat the five other shortlisted novels. Some of those books were by internationally well-known authors, including “The Books of Jacob” by Olga Tokarczuk, the Nobel Prize-winning Polish novelist, and “Heaven,” by Mieko Kawakami, the Japanese author best known for “Breasts and Eggs.”
Wynne called “Tomb of Sand” an “extraordinarily exuberant and incredibly playful book,” even though it deals with such topics as bereavement and India’s partition from Pakistan. Set in northern India, the book’s protagonist falls into a depression after the death of her husband, then travels to Pakistan to confront the traumas of her teenage years. Wynne said it was “a novel of partition unlike any novel of partition I have ever read.”
The book includes some sections told from the perspective of inanimate objects, and much of the original novel depends on wordplay in Hindi. Rockwell’s work on the book showed “the small miracle of translation,” Wynne said, borrowing a phrase from the Italian author Italo Calvino.
In a review for The Hindu newspaper, Mini Kapoor wrote that “while it may often appear that Shree is playing with words for the sake of word play, and that her digressions are asides, in the end nothing turns out to be self-indulgent or extraneous.”
The International Booker Prize is awarded every year to the best book translated into English and published in Britain or Ireland. It is separate from the better-known Booker Prize, awarded for novels originally written in English, but it comes with the same prize money and has helped turn some authors into stars.
Last year’s winner was “At Night All Blood Is Black,” by David Diop — a novel originally in French, and translated by Anna Moschovakis, about a Senegalese soldier’s descent into madness as he fights for France in the trenches of World War I.
Shree’s novel was published last August by Tilted Axis Press, a small imprint set up by the translator Deborah Smith after she won the International Booker Prize in 2016 for her translation of “The Vegetarian.” It is Shree’s third novel and her first to be published in Britain, although another had been previously translated into English.
At the news conference, Wynne said the recognition for “Tomb of Sand” was important given its language. Tens of thousands of books are published every year in Indian languages including Hindi, Urdu, Bengali and Malayalam, yet few are translated into English, he said.
That was partly because some Indian authors write in English, he said, but it may also be because some readers “feel we have the Indian writing that we need.”
“Tomb of Sand” had yet to secure an American publishing deal, Wynne said, but he was aware that conversations were underway. Given the novel’s win on Thursday, he added, “I fully expect those conversations to conclude tomorrow with a flurry of offers.”
Advertisement

source

WATCH: Live courtroom footage from the final day of the Depp v Heard trial
Today was the final day of courtroom action in the defamation case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, with both sides delivering their closing arguments at the Circuit Court in Fairfax Country, Virginia.
Yesterday concluded weeks of testimony from both parties and a whole host of witnesses. With today's closing arguments now finished, the jury has begun its deliberations.
CONTENT WARNING: The embedded live feed comes direct from inside the courtroom, where strong language and references to content including sex, violence and drug abuse are possible. Discretion is advised.
Courthouse incident unrelated to Depp v Heard
There was a commotion a short while ago when members of law enforcement could be seen making their way inside Fairfax County Courthouse, but Angenette Levy of Law & Crime has confirmed that the incident was not related to the Depp v Heard case.
Closing arguments complete
That ends the closing arguments.
Judge Azcarate, who started off the day by giving the jurors instructions ahead of the end of the trial, now issues them with some more.
Azcarate also tells jurors 3 and 14 that they are alternate jurors, meaning they will not deliberate unless called in to replace another member of the jury.
The jury is then sent off to begin its deliberations.
"Give Amber Heard her voice back"
Rottenborn: "We ask ladies and gentlemen, that you hold Mr Depp accountable for his actions. Stand up for victims of domestic abuse everywhere who suffer in silence. Stand up for the freedom of speech. The freedom to speak about your life that the First Amendment protects. Give Amber Heard her voice back. Give Amber Heard her life back.”
"If you believe there was abuse of Amber one time, your job is very easy"
Now it is Ben Rottenborn's turn to deliver Heard's rebuttal.
Rottenborn begins by saying: “It’s this simple. If you believe that there was abuse of Amber one time ever, in any of the various forms of abuse, not only physical, verbal, emotional, psychological, sexual – any of the ways of abuse, then your job is very easy. And you can not only deny Mr Depp’s claim, but you can find for Amber on her counterclaim.”
"This is not a 'me too' situation"
Vasquez: "This is not a ‘me too’ situation. There are no ‘me toos’. Ms Heard does not deserve to be known as a representative of survivors of abuse. And Mr Depp does not deserve to be known as the representative of perpetrators of abuse. That is what this case is about. It's not about money, it's about giving Mr Depp his life back. Six years ago, she took it away.”
Vasquez: "Ms Heard knows perfectly well that she wasn't abused."
"It is Ms Heard who repeatedly admitted to violence in her own words"
Vasquez: “Ironically, as much as Ms Heard is trying to use Mr Depp's words against him, it is Ms Heard who repeatedly admitted to violence in her own words. You've heard the tapes, you've heard her admit to violence. Ms Heard has tried to distract you with text messages just showing that Mr Depp uses bad language and has a dark sense of humour. But none of that is evidence of hitting your husband, is evidence of abuse.”
"What you have in the end, is Ms Heard’s word. Do you trust it?"
Vasquez: “What we have put to you the jury, is not that because Ms Heard didn't take enough pictures or tell people about abuse that it didn't happen. What we have put to you is that, given how brutal and constant the abuse Miss Heard claims, she would have had serious injuries. That's a fact. she would have had serious injuries that would have been observable in the pictures we looked at, and by the witnesses we heard from, and would have required medical attention. That's it. Ms Heard testifies to injuries that multiple people didn't see. What you have in the end, is Ms Heard’s word. Do you trust it?”
"A person's life cannot and should not be destroyed by baseless charge"
Vasquez: “It is a core value of American society that you are innocent until proven guilty. There is a presumption of innocence in this country. A person's life cannot and should not be destroyed by a baseless charge and no opportunity to defend yourself. That's why Mr Depp had to bring this claim. Ms Heard was never going to stop calling him an abuser. The only way to clear his name was to stand up in this court, where both sides are bound by the same rules of American law.”
"The First Amendment doesn't protect lies that hurt and defame people"
Vasquez: “I started this trial by giving you an opening statement, and I said to you that words matter. And this case is about Ms Heard’s words. The words she published in an op-ed about Mr Depp. Ms Heard and her attorneys have talked a lot about in this trial about the First Amendment. We've talked about the importance of free speech. And we agree. I'm a lawyer. Of course I agree with that. But the First Amendment doesn't protect lies that hurt and defame people."
"You saw her get caught in lie after lie"
Vasquez: “[Heard’s] story is a constantly moving target. It never stays the same. Mr Depp owns his mistake. He owns all of them. You saw him do it on the stand in a raw and powerful way. But in this trial, Ms Heard has been confronted with her life and the damage she has caused, and cannot take any responsibility for what she has done. And seen the story. Her story. It doesn't hold up. You watched her performance on the stand. You saw her get caught in lie after lie. The time has come for those lies to come to an end. The time has come for you, the jury, to decide the truth.”
Rebuttal arguments underway
The court is back in session. It's time for the rebuttal arguments, starting with Camille Vasquez for Johnny Depp's legal team.
"We ask that you fully and fairly compensate Amber for everything she's been through"
Bredehoft: “Johnny Depp sued for $50 million, and we sent a message back saying, fine, we're gonna sue for $100m, because: look at what you've done to her. We're not asking you to give $100m; we're asking you to just look at the damages in this case, and just be fair and reasonable, and whatever you determine by following the evidence and the instructions. But we do ask that you fully and fairly compensate Amber for everything that she's been through."
And that ends the closing arguments from Heard's lawyers. There will now be an hour's lunch break, before both sides are given an opportunity for rebuttal closing arguments.
Amber Heard's lawyer Elaine Bredehoft during closing arguments.
(Photo: Steve Helber/Pool via REUTERS)
Heard "obviously couldn't have done it for the money"
Bredehoft: "Let's talk for a moment about the motive. They have said that she has created this whole hoax and I think Ben [Rottenborn]'s done a nice job of showing how that can't possibly have been. But what would Amber Heard's motive be for creating a hoax or creating any of this or making any of this up? That's a big question here. They call her a gold digger. Right. But she obviously couldn't have done it for the money."
Bredehoft goes on to explain that under California marriage law, Heard had little to gain in terms of her potential divorce settlement if she claimed abuse.
"There is no abuse hoax"
Bredehoft: "[Johnny Depp’s legal team say] we've reached the beginning of the end of Ms Heard’s abuse hoax against Johnny Depp. Now, the obviously the defamatory meaning of that is that Amber's creating an abuse hoax, but there is no abuse hoax.”
Amber Heard's lawyer Ben Rottenborn speaks during today's closing arguments.
(Photo: STEVE HELBER/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
"That’s psychological abuse. He’s going after Amber for nothing"
Bredehoft: “Here we are. Six weeks of your time, precious time, six weeks of this court’s time. For what? For nothing. Only to go after Amber. That’s psychological abuse. He’s going after Amber for nothing […]. So we’re fighting back. She finally has said enough. And we're asking you to finally hold this man accountable. He hasn’t taken responsibility for anything in his life. He hasn’t admitted anything, he has blamed everybody in the world: his agent, his manager, his lawyer, Amber, his friends, everybody, but he's never accepted responsibility for a thing he's done in his life. But we're asking you to make him completely responsible for his actions.”
"This trial is about so much more than Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard"
Rottenborn: “Ladies and gentlemen, It's time to tell Mr Depp that this was his last chance. Tell him to move on with his life. Tell him to let Amber move on with hers. Stand up for the freedom of speech and stand up for the First Amendment. This trial is about so much more than Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard. It’s about the freedom of speech. Stand up for it. Protect it and reject Mr Depp’s claims against Amber Heard.”
Rottenborn now hands over to Amber Heard's other lawyer, Elaine Bredehoft.
"Anything he lost is the result of his own choices”
Rottenborn: “He didn't lose anything as a result of this op ed. Anything he lost is the result of his own choices."
"The facts are absolutely overwhelming of abuse"
Rottenborn: "Ladies and gentlemen, the facts are absolutely overwhelming of abuse. One time, that's all you have to remember. Mr Depp simply cannot prove to you that he never once abused Amber. And if you don't know, you have to return a verdict for Ms Heard. A ruling against Amber here sends a message that no matter what you do as an abuse victim, you always have to do more. No matter what you document, you always have to document more. No matter whom you tell, you always have to tell more people. No matter how honest you are about your own imperfections and your own shortcomings in a relationship, you need to be perfect in order for people to believe you. Don't send that message. That's what he wants you to send.”
"They're trying to say she's the abuser for defending herself from this animal"
Rottenborn: “They got into a huge argument and at some point in the argument he bolted up the stairs. Now [Depp’s bodyguard] Travis McGivern explains that she threw a Red Bull can at him. She and Whitney Henriques say that absolutely didn't happen. But even if you believe Mr McGivern at some point, Mr Depp went up the stairs. He went to the fight. This is the man who claims he always wants to run, and this time he had his bodyguard with him. So he could have just walked out the door but he ran up the stairs […]. And Amber admitted that we thought about as he's grabbing at her and trying to club them. She said I punched him square in the face. I punched him square in the face. And they showed you a picture of the shiner that Mr Depp had. Ms Heard doesn't deny that. They're trying to say she's the abuser for defending herself and her sister from this animal is running at them."
Rottenborn: Depp finger incident "irrelevant" to deliberations
Rottenborn: “There's been testimony about what happened to cut [Depp’s] finger off but frankly, it's irrelevant to your deliberations here. She could have chopped it off with an axe and it has nothing to do with whether or not Mr Depp abused her. But we all know she didn’t. We all know that his fingers weren't curled, and someone was standing with a half gallon vodka bottle[…] and threw it and it somehow managed to damage, just the bottom of the finger and leave the nail fully intact. We all know that Mr Depp knows that didn't happen.”
"Almost all of them are witnesses on his payroll. They're all scared to say anything bad"
Rottenborn: “Ms Vasquez read a parade of witnesses that she believes support Johnny's defence in this case, but as you've seen over the course of this proceeding, these witnesses, as I previewed in the opening [statement], almost all of them are witnesses on his payroll. They're all scared to say anything bad about it. And they've seen what happens to people who do. And none were there for the incidences of domestic violence – what they're saying is, ‘Oh if he didn't abuse Ms Heard in front of his four bodyguards, that must have never happened.’ That's essentially what they're asking you to believe. That's ridiculous. That's not the way domestic violence works.”
"If he fails to prove that he never abused her one time, she wins"
Rottenborn: "They're trying to trick you into thinking that Amber has to be perfect in order to win even while they're ignoring Mr Depp's many flaws, but don't fall for that trick. Amber's not perfect. None of us are. She's never pretended to be, and that's not what you're being asked to decide. One time, one time, he abused her one time, and she wins. Actually, if he fails to prove that he never abused her one time, she wins."
"It's just victim blaming, and it's most disgusting"
Rottenborn: “She testified, you saw her testify about the sexual assault that she experienced at the hands of Mr Depp. You saw her testify about that. They're calling her a liar. You saw her on the stand testify with her own mouth. Exactly. exactly what she went through for the first time in court, because people who have suffered that, they don't want to broadcast that to the world. They want to penalise Ms Heard for not speaking about that earlier. That's ridiculous and it's insulting and it's just victim blaming, and it's most disgusting. The only reference to sexual assault in the article is sexual assault that she said she'd experienced by the time she was a college age before Mr Depp. So there is a reference to sexual violence in that article, but it's not by Mr Depp."
WaPo op-ed "isn't a hit piece on Johnny Depp"
"Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't a hit piece on Johnny Depp," Rottenborn says, adding: "Let's talk about the headline for a minute […] The undisputed evidence here is that Ms Heard didn't write the headline. She didn't approve the headline. She had nothing to do with it. She was not given notice of the headline."
"You cannot simultaneously protect and uphold the First Amendment, and find in favour of Depp"
Rottenborn: “Your key question to answer is, does the First Amendment give Ms Heard the right to write the words that she wrote in this article on December 18 2018? Ask the question. And you cannot simultaneously protect and uphold the First Amendment, and find in favour of Johnny Depp on his claim. You simply cannot have to decide should someone be able to write an article like that in the United States of America without being sued successfully, without having to go through the hell that this has gone through.
"Think about the message that Mr Depp and his attorneys are sending"
Ben Rottenborn begins by saying to the jury:
“Think about the message that Mr Depp and his attorneys are sending to Amber and to every victim of domestic abuse everywhere. If you didn't take pictures, it didn't happen. If you did take pictures, they're fake. If you didn't tell your friends, you're lying. If you did tell your friends, they're part of the hoax. If you didn't seek medical treatment, you weren't injured. If you did seek medical treatment, you're crazy. If you do everything that you can to help your spouse, the person that you love, rid himself of the crushing drug and alcohol abuse that spins him into an abusive rage-filled monster, you're a nag. And if you finally decide that enough is enough, you've had enough of the fear, enough of the pain and you have to leave to save yourself, you're a gold digger. That is the message that Mr Depp is asking you to set.”
Closing arguments: Heard's legal team
OK, everyone's back out at Fairfax County Court, and it's time for Amber Heard's legal team to offer their closing arguments.
US NEWS
Who is Ben Rottenborn? Amber Heard’s lawyer in Johnny Depp trial
AS USA's Will Gittins has put together a profile of Amber Heard's lawyer Ben Rottenborn.
Latest News
Who is Camille Vasquez? Johnny Depp’s lawyer in Amber Heard trial
AS USA's Maite Knorr-Evans profiles Camille Vasquez.
Depp's lawyer Camille Vasquez during closing arguments.
(Photo: Pool/Reuters)
"Give him his name, his reputation and his career back"
Chew finishes off by saying:
“You've seen the evidence in this case over six weeks, which we again thank you for. That evidence shows overwhelmingly that Ms Heard’s attempts to paint herself as a heroic survivor and innocent survive, and Mr Depp as a terrifying abuser, are utterly false. We asked you to please return your verdict for Mr Depp. We ask you, we implore you, to give him his name, his reputation and his career back."
That ends the closing arguments from Depp's legal team. There will now be a short break before Heard's team offer their final arguments.
"Mr Depp's name will be forever tarnished by these horrendous and false allegations"
Chew, who talks about “freeing him [Depp] from the prison in which he has lived for the last six years,” adds: “While Mr Depp's name will be forever tarnished by these horrendous and false allegations, this case is about telling you his story and the truth about what really happened […]. It is about restoring his lost reputation. It's about showing Mr. Depp's children, Lily-Rose and Jack, that the truth is worth fighting for. It is. And it's about restoring Mr Depp's name and standing in the community to the fullest extent that you can. Only you, ladies and gentlemen, can do that for him.”
Chew: "Message and implication" of WaPo op-ed "clear"
Chew: “The statements [in Heard’s op-ed] clearly refer to Ms Heard’s allegations against Mr Depp [in 2016] and, taken collectively, their message and their implication about Mr. Depp is clear. That Ms Heard is a survivor of domestic abuse, and that Mr.Depp is a perpetrator.
"Words matter. And Ms Heard is condemned by her own words"
Chew: “Ms Heard’s claims that the op-ed is not about Mr Depp is just another one of her many lies. In fact, what you have seen time and time again through the course of this trial, is that Ms Heard lies, she lies all the time, about things that are important, and the things that aren't important. She does […]. She doesn't take ownership or responsibility for anything. And she has an excuse for everything. But in this courtroom, confronted with evidence, she can't run away from her own words. As my colleague said, words matter. And Ms Heard is condemned by her own words.”
"A world of difference between having substance abuse problems and being a physical abuser"
Chew: “Mr Depp is no saint. And he has never claimed to be one. He has made mistakes in his life, as we all have. Yes, he has struggled with drugs and alcohol, but you never heard him deny it. We told you that in the opening statement. He owns his faults. He admits to them. He told you all about them.
“But he is not a violent abuser. He's not abuser as Ms Heard claims, and he did not and does not deserve to have his life, his legacy destroyed by this […]. There is a world of difference between having substance abuse problems and being a physical abuser.”
Moss "testified that Mr Depp never abused her"
Chew: "You heard Kate Moss testify two days ago. This is a woman who has never testified in any proceeding ever. A very private person testified that Mr Depp never abused her."
"This is 'me too', without any 'me too'"
Depp's other lawyer, Ben Chew, takes over from Vasquez. Here's an early quote from his address:
“Mr Depp dated major figures like Winona Ryder, Kate Moss, and Vanessa Paradis. They spent 14 years together and with her he had their children. Before Amber Heard ladies and gentlemen, no woman ever. No woman ever before Amber Heard ever claimed that Mr Depp raised a hand to her in his 58 years and no other woman since Ms. Heard made that false claim back on May 17, May 27 2016, and repeated it in her December 2018 op ed. Has any woman come forward since? This is 'me too', without any 'me too'.”
"It was false. It was defamatory. And it caused irreparable harm"
“What Ms Heard testified to in this courtroom is a story of far too many women. But the overwhelming evidence, the weight of that evidence shows that it's not her story. It's not Ms Heard’s story. It was an act of profound cruelty, not just to Mr Depp, but to true survivors domestic abuse, for Ms Heard to hold herself out as a public figure representing domestic abuse. It was false. It was defamatory. And it caused irreparable harm.”
"It is Ms Heard who repeatedly admits to violence"
"Heard will not admit that she has done anything wrong, but you cannot deny what you heard on these recordings […]. It is Ms Heard who repeatedly admits to violence.”
"You heard from Ms Heard on multiple recordings admitting to being physically violent to Mr Depp"
Vasquez: "You heard from Ms Heard on multiple audio recordings admitting to being physically violent to Mr Depp […]. What you didn’t hear in a single recording in this case, and there were many played by both parties, was Mr Depp ever admitting to hitting, punching or kicking Ms Heard. You didn’t hear it. It doesn’t exist. It didn’t happen. And despite the fact that Mr Depp and Ms Heard are currently discussing many of the alleged incidents you’ve heard about in this trial, like Australia and the Bahamas, you never heard Ms Heard accuse Mr Depp of sexual assault [in the audio recordings]."
"You heard from Mr Depp about how often Ms Heard would berate him, insult him, physically attack him"
Vasquez: “You heard from Mr Depp about how often Ms Heard would berate him, insult him, physically attack him, including one of the most serious occasions, when Ms Heard threw a vodka bottle at Mr Depp, severely injuring his finger, and then had put a cigarette out in his face.
"In her relationship with Mr Depp, she was violent, she was abusive, and she was cruel"
Vasquez: "During [our opening] statement, we made promises to you about what the evidence would show at the end of this trial. We’ve kept those promises. One of those promises we made was that you would come to understand who Ms Heard is. She is a deeply troubled person. Violently afraid of abandonment. Desperate for attention and approval. In her relationship with Mr Depp, she was violent, she was abusive, and she was cruel."
Vasquez: “There is an abuser in this courtroom, but it is not Mr Depp"
More from Camille Vasquez's closing argument:
“There is an abuser in this courtroom, but it is not Mr Depp. And there is a victim of domestic abuse in this courtroom, but it is not Ms Heard. The evidence presented at this trial has shown Ms Heard is in fact the abuser, and Mr Depp, the abused.
"As you heard from Mr Depp and multiple other witnesses who testified under oath at this trial, Mr Depp experience persistent verbal, physical and emotional abuse by Ms Heard during their relationship. And when their relationship was over, Ms Heard inflicted the greatest and cruelest injury of all. She publicly and falsely named Mr Depp as the abuser.
"Ms Heard never thought she would be held accountable. Never thought that she would have to face her abuser. She never thought she would have her supposed mountain of evidence vetted. She never thought that Mr Depp would tell you, the jury and the world, that he was the real victim of domestic abuse.”
Vasquez: "What is at stake at this trial is a man's life"
A couple of quotes from early in Camille Vasquez's closing argument:
– “What is at stake in this trial is a man’s good name. Even more than that, what is at stake at this trial is a man’s life."
– "What was happening behind closed doors was quite different to what Ms Heard has presented to the world. The exact opposite, in fact.”
Closing arguments underway
Closing arguments are now underway in Fairfax County Court. First up is Camille Vasquez, representing Johnny Depp.
US NEWS
How much money would Amber Heard have to pay Johnny Depp if she loses the trial?
As the trial is nearing the end, attention is now turning to the possible outcomes of the headline-grabbing court case. Johhny Depp initially sued Heard for defamation regarding an op-ed published in the Washington Post in 2018, demanding a huge compensation payment for the damages caused by the article.
But how much could it cost, and how much has Heard counter-sued for?
Read more
US NEWS
When will the verdict be released for the Amber Heard and Johnny Depp trial?
The jury has been released to begin their deliberations. The trial had initially been scheduled to end tomorrow Friday 27 Friday but instead both sides rested their cases this afternoon.
Depp is suing Heard for $50 million, saying she defamed him when she claimed she was a victim of domestic abuse. Heard has countersued for $100 million, arguing that Depp smeared her by calling her a liar. Both parties have completed their testimonies.
Read our full coverage for details on when the verdict will be released.
The trial has ended and the jury will begin determination tomorrow Friday 27 May. The Judge made sure to tell the jury not to do their own research or talk to anyone about the case.
Surgeon's testimony contradicts injury claim made by Depp
One the key issues in the Depp v Heard court case has been the difficulty in proving the injuries each side are claiming to have sustained as a result of the other, in a relationship that ended years before the case ever made it to court. However earlier this week a surgeon testifying said that the finger injury Depp alleges was caused by Heard, could not have happened as he claimed. 
This report from AP says: "A hand surgeon testified Monday that Johnny Depp could not have lost the tip of his middle finger the way he told jurors it happened in his civil lawsuit against ex-wife Amber Heard."
What's happened so far in the Depp v Heard trial?
If you've not kept up to date with the Depp-Heard case, here's some of the key points from the weeks-long trial to get you up to speed:
— Depp testified that he never hit Heard or any other woman. He said she was the one who became abusive and "bullied" him with "demeaning name calling." "It seemed like pure hatred for me," Depp said. "If I stayed to argue, eventually, I was sure it was going to escalate into violence, and oftentimes it did."
— During an argument in Australia in early 2015, Depp said Heard threw a vodka bottle that severed the top of his right middle finger. The actor said he went into shock and wrote messages to Heard on the wall using blood from the finger. Heard offered a different account, sobbing as she told the jury that Depp sexually assaulted her that night by inserting a liquor bottle in her vagina. "I was scared," she said. "I had just married him."
— A few months later, Heard said, Depp broke her nose and ripped out chunks of her hair during another violent encounter.
— Heard's attorneys introduced photos that they said showed injuries after various arguments, including scars on her arm that were visible as she posed on a red carpet, and redness and swelling around an eye that she said was struck by a phone thrown by Depp. Attorneys for Depp showed images from public appearances that they said were taken around the time of their fights and appeared to show no injuries.
— Depp testified that feces were found in the couple's bed in 2016. One of his security guards said Heard told him it was "a horrible practical joke gone wrong." Heard denied any involvement and suggested one of the couple's dogs was responsible.
— Heard said Depp first became physically abusive when he slapped her after she laughed at a tattoo that said "Wino Forever." The tattoo previously said "Winona Forever," referring to Depp's former girlfriend, Winona Ryder.
— Jurors heard an audio clip of Depp threatening to cut himself with a knife during one of their last in-person encounters. "That's psychologically, emotionally where I was," Depp said. "At the end, I was broken … I thought the only answer is here, take my blood, that's all I've got left."
— Heard's lawyers introduced text messages in which Depp called Heard a "filthy whore" and said he wanted her dead. Writing to actor Paul Bettany in 2013, Depp said: "Let's drown her before we burn her" and "I will fuck her burnt corpse afterward to make sure she is dead."
US NEWS
What did Kate Moss say in Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial testimony?
On Wednesday there was another famous face in front of the jury as British supermodel Kate Moss appeared to answer questions from Johnny Depp's legal team. The questions mostly related to the pair's romantic relationship in the mid-1990s and an allegation from Amber Heard that she had been concerned about Depp's actions, due to rumours that she was aware of from the previous relationship. 
Here's what Kate Moss had to say at the Depp – Heard trial…
Read more
Latest News
Who is Camille Vasquez? Johnny Depp’s lawyer in Amber Heard trial
After a week-long break, both sides returned to the court room this week for what is expected to be the last few days of the trial. Last week one of Depp’s lawyers, Camile Vasquez, took centre stage when his team began their cross-examination of Amber Heard.
We take a look at the background of Depp's lead attorney…
Read more
What time will the Depp – Heard trial start
The court case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard will continue today, Thursday 26 May at 9 am (ET) / 6 am (PT)in Virginia's Fairfax County Courthouse.
Depp is suing Heard for $50 million in damages for insinuating that he was an abuser. In return Heard filed a counterclaim for $100 million, alleging that she suffered "physical violence and rampant abuse" during the course of their relationship.
Welcome to AS USA
Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of the defamation trial between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. We'll bring you all the latest from the courtroom as it happens and with a live feed of events in Fairfax, Virginia. 
WATCH: Courtroom footage from the Depp v Heard trial
The trial, which had originally been due to end last week, continues today, Thursday 26 May, as we near the end of the final week’s testimony. Final arguments are to be heard on Friday 27 May, before the jury will be given time to confer. 
The trial will resume today at 9:00am (ET) and we'll bring you live footage as the final days of the weeks-long case play out in court. Yesterday supermodel Kate Moss, who was in a romantic relationship with Depp in the 1990s, gave testimony which appeared to contradict a statement made by Heard. 
CONTENT WARNING: Footage comes direct from inside the courtroom, where strong language and references to content including sex, violence and drug abuse is possible. Discretion is advised.
To be able to comment you must be registered and logged in. Forgot password?

source

Bored with the basics of cooking at home? There’s plenty of herbs and spices out there to make any meal pop. All you need to know is how to use them.
Common mixes like jerk seasoning, curry powder, and poultry mix join with more obscure blends like za’atar, tajín, and ras el hanout as some of the best spice compounds in the world. Find out what’s in them and how to use them with this Manual guide.
If you’re a fan of gyros or kebabs, you’ve likely already had a dash or two of Greek table seasoning. A mix of Mediterranean flavors, Greek table seasoning features paprika, oregano, cumin, onion, rosemary, marjoram, and thyme (and sometimes saffron) In addition to being the perfect blend for Greek dishes, use Greek table seasoning to sprinkle into salads or over sauteed veggies to inject a bit of old school flavor into any recipe.
In addition to Greek table seasoning’s intricate, elegant flavor mix, it’s a trip into ancient times. Sitting at the hub of primeval trading routes, pepper and cloves arrived all the way from the Far East while saffron’s red stems arrive via myth — three stamens from three drops of blood when Hermes accidentally killed his lover Krokos in a game of discus.
Say goodbye to corn syrup barbecue sauce and sweet ketchup in your next meal. Instead, institute some nuanced spice and complex flavors to your meat and/or carbs with harissa sauce.
Native to Africa’s Arabic northwestern Maghreb region, the hot chili pepper paste/spice’s main ingredients are roasted red peppers, Baklouti peppers, garlic paste, caraway seeds, coriander seeds, cumin, and olive oil to wrap the flavors.
If that sounds spicy, it is — just not burn-your-tongue-off hot. Harissa Sauce brings a subtle heat to make chicken wings, hamburgers, and salmon dance on the tongue. For a twist on salad dressing or to bring flavor to dull veggies, slather on the harissa from New York Shuk’s Middle Eastern Pantry.
Want to add a little extra complex heat to your cooking? Toss in a bit of berbere, a North African spice blend of cayenne, paprika, Urfa chile, coriander, cardamom, ginger, and fenugreek.
The word ‘berbere’ means ‘hot,’ deriving from East Africa’s Semitic Amharic language. Common to Ethiopia and Eritrea, whether or not the spice blend is actually spicy depends on which blend you’re using.
Whether or not the berbere mix brings the heat, the elaborate spice goes well with just about everything. Sub berbere in recipes that call for a pinch of cayenne or red pepper. Sprinkle the spice blend over sauteed veggies to make your edible plants pop, use it to season meats, and poultry, or add a flavor boost to stews and dishes.
Where harissa’s heat is a creeper, jerk hits your palate from the get-go. Sprinkle some jerk seasoning (along with a little lime juice) over your meal components.
Originating in the New World, Jamaican jerk is one of the oldest spice blends. Its tradition borrows cooking techniques and styles from formerly enslaved Africans in combination with traditions from the Taíno. The formerly enslaved Maroons, who populated Jamaica’s inland mountains, developed jerk seasoning over decades. Jerk is meat that’s seasoned, smoked, and grilled with a wide variety of spices, alliums, herbs, and peppers.
This native Jamaican spice blend combines onion, garlic, allspice, green onion, cayenne pepper, nutmeg, cinnamon, and more to provide a vibrant flash of the Caribbean on the tongue. Jerk seasoning traditionally gets dusted on grilled chicken, goat, or pork, but it also works with potatoes and veggies, too.
From ancient blends, we move to one of the newer mixes on the list. This hasn’t prevented Mexican Tajín from becoming ubiquitous across the country.
The proprietary Tajín has a pretty short history, dating only back to 1985 (and not even available in the United States until 1993). When it was invented in Guadalajara, Mexico, it didn’t take long for the tangy red powder to become a household name — or, as Mexican food historian Gustavo Arellano told The New York Times, “Tajín is a lifestyle.”
Made from a mix of dehydrated lime, salt, árbol, guajillo, and pasilla chiles, the blend brightens up fruits and vegetables like mango, corn, cucumber, and pineapple across the Latin world. Tajín isn’t limited to produce, however. The spice mix also brings out the best in chips, popcorn, and, of course, on glass rims to complete the any-time-of-day Michelada.
The name for the Yemeni spice blend hawaij (pronounced “huh-why-adge”) simply means “mixture” in Arabic. This generality results in two types of hawaij — savory and sweet. Savory spices (any combination of cumin, cardamom, coriander, turmeric, and black pepper) are added to eats like vegetable dishes. The aromatic sweet stuff, which can include cardamom, ginger, cloves, anise, fennel, cinnamon, nutmeg, and/or cloves, is used in brewing coffee, and baking desserts, in addition to slow-cooked meat dishes.
Apropos to its name, herbes de Provence come from Provence, France, which borders the Mediterranean near the Italian border. Now found in kitchens from North America through Europe, Julia Child was actually integral to introducing and popularizing the spice compound, a mix of the best spices and herbs endemic to the region — oregano, bay leaf, fennel, chervil, tarragon, thyme, marjoram, savory, rosemary, and/or basil.
With that combo, the blend is one of the more utilitarian herbal concoctions. Add herbs de Provence to fish, chicken, cheeses, olives, vegetables, and even sauces to bring an earthen green savor to almost any dish.  then this is one spice mix you’ll want to always have on hand.
There’s few American spice blends more known or more characteristic of a particular region than Cajun spice. Originating in Louisiana, Cajun spice has helped New Orleans earn a reputation for offering some of the best food in the country. While there’s an almost endless diversity of dishes and styles in the region, it doesn’t get more authentic than a typical Cajun bite.
The word Cajun originates from Les Acadiens, French colonists who settled first in Acadia in Canada’s northeast. The pioneers, however, were forced out by the British during the French-Indian War in the mid-1700s. Many displaced Acadiens ended up in Louisiana, then a French territory. Their cooking traditions melded with the heated ingredients available in the region — garlic, cayenne, red, and other peppers — in concert with Indigenous and African-American cooking traditions.
If you have yet to experience its vibrant bite, Cajun spices can be used on just about anything, from slow-cooked barbecue to fish to vegetables. (Cajun is similar to its regional cousin Creole, but the latter typically does not call for tomatoes in recipes.)
Za’atar is a Middle Eastern herb related to mint. Referring to za’atar in cooking, though, this is just one part of a durable mix that can bring a zingy, earthen nuttiness to whatever it may encounter.
With some alloy of oregano, sumac, sesame seeds, thyme, marjoram, dill, orange zest, hyssop, carroway, specific za’atar recipes vary, often to match taste preferences. In Middle Eastern foods, you’ll often find za’atar on top of hummus or labneh. Za’atar can also be spun with oil and brushed on grains and pita bread and toasted. The spice can also be rubbed on meats or dashed onto veggies bringing out their green flavor.
Make sure to note: if you are using za’atar in a cold dish, make sure to bloom it with warmth to unlock all of its flavors.
The kitchen can be intimidating if you approach it with too much caution and too little knowledge. Come armed with just a little information, though, and you can turn it into a wonderful culinary laboratory.
The Essential Guide for MenThe Manual is simple — we show men how to live a life that is more engaged. As our name implies, we offer a suite of expert guides on a wide range of topics, including fashion, food, drink, travel, and grooming. We don’t boss you around; we’re simply here to bring authenticity and understanding to all that enriches our lives as men on a daily basis.

source

In its latest decision on meal and rest period issues, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that premium pay owed employees for meal and rest break violations can be a basis for imposing waiting time and wage statement penalties on employers. The decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. resolves confusion on the issue, after the Supreme Court’s s earlier decision holding such amounts are not “wages” – at least for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing party.
In addition, on a point with broader implications, the Supreme Court held that wage statements must include all wages earned, and not just wages paid, with any wages earned but unpaid possibly triggering penalties for an inaccurate wage statement. Further, the Supreme Court determined the rate of prejudgment interest on awards of premium pay.
Labor Code section 226.7(c), first effective in 2001, requires employers to pay employees “one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided.” The term “regular rate of compensation” generated considerable confusion and argument, leading to several California Supreme Court decisions.
First, the Supreme Court held that this premium pay is “wages,” and not a penalty, for statute of limitations purposes. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007). As a result, the limitations period could be either three or four years, depending on the legal claim, instead of one year.
Later, the Supreme Court held that the amounts are not “wages” for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing party. Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc., 53 Cal.4th 1244 (2012). Labor Code section 218.5(a) provides that, “[i]n any action brought for the nonpayment of wages,” the court “shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party.” Despite its holding in Murphy, the Supreme Court held that a claim based on Labor Code section 226.7(c) did not qualify, so a prevailing employee or employer could not recover fees and costs on a claim for premium pay. Why? The Court explained: “Section 226.7 is not aimed at protecting or providing employees’ wages. Instead, the statute is primarily concerned with ensuring the health and welfare of employees by requiring that employers provide meal and rest periods as mandated by [law].” It concluded that “a section 226.7 action is brought for the nonprovision of meal and rest periods, not for the ‘nonpayment of wages.’” (Emphasis in original.)
This language in Kirby led to confusion, and, finally, the Naranjo decision. It raised arguments over whether meal and rest period premium pay could serve as a basis for imposing waiting time or wage statement penalties. The lower court in Naranjo, along with other California courts and federal courts, held after Kirby that an employee owed meal or rest period premium pay could not recover those penalties for the failure to pay premium pay as required. The reason was that, under Kirby, those courts ruled that premium pay was not “wages,” so a violation could not result in waiting time or wage statement penalties.
Waiting time and wage statement penalties require a violation involving “wages.” Labor Code section 203(a) imposes waiting time penalties of up to 30 days’ wages for an employer’s failure to timely pay “any wages” upon the end of employment. Labor Code section 226 requires issuance of an accurate wage payment statement for “each payment of wages,” with penalties up to $4,000 per employee for failure to do so. The penalties are not automatic, though. Labor Code section 203 requires a “willful” violation for waiting time penalties, while Labor Code section 226(e) requires an employee suffer injury from a “knowing and intentional failure” to comply with wage statement provisions.
In Naranjo, the Supreme Court clarified that the meal and rest break premiums constitute “wages” for these purposes. It held that “[a]lthough the extra pay is designed to compensate for the unlawful deprivation of a guaranteed break, it also compensates for the work the employee performed during the break period. The extra pay thus constitutes wages subject to the same timing and reporting rules as other forms of compensation for work.”
The Supreme Court held that premium pay under Labor Code section 226.7(c) serves both as a legal remedy, or sanction, for not providing a break as required, as well as “wages.” It reasoned that an employee “becomes entitled to premium pay for missed or noncompliant meal and rest breaks precisely because she was required to work when she should have been relieved of duty.” Thus, “Section 226.7 reflects a determination that works in such circumstances is worth more — or should cost the employer more — than other work, and so requires payment of a premium.”
Naranjo avoided discussing Kirby until nearly halfway through the decision. It acknowledged the fairly common reading of Kirby as holding that premium pay is not “wages,” except for statute of limitations purposes – with “[v]ariations on this theme” appearing in “the opinions of a number of courts that have likewise read Kirby to mean that missed-break premium pay is not generally a wage.” Naranjo responded that these arguments “misread Kirby.” That decision “did not reject or limit Murphy’s characterization of section 226.7 premium pay as compensation for labor.”
So how does Labor Code section 226.7 involve “wages,” if an action for unpaid premium pay is not an action for “the nonpayment of wages”? According to the Court, Kirby first involved a different inquiry. The rest of the explanation split hairs between the violation and the remedy to come to a different conclusion here. According to Naranjo, “the characterization of the nature of an action under section 218.5 turns instead on the nature of the underlying legal violation the action seeks to remedy, not the form of relief that might be available to cure that violation.” Hence, “to say that a section 226.7 remedy is a wage, as we did in Murphy, is not to say that the legal violation triggering the remedy is nonpayment of wages, as opposed to the deprivation of meal or rest breaks.” Rather than narrowing Murphy’s character of premium pay as “wages,” the Supreme Court now clarified that Kirby “merely held that the nature of the remedy does not dictate the proper characterization of the legal violation triggering the remedy under section 226.7.”
Concluding again here that meal and rest period premium constitutes “wages,” the Supreme Court thus held that an employer’s failure to pay premium pay as and when required could trigger waiting time and wage statement penalties.
In addition to holding that meal and rest period premium pay are “wages” for itemized wage statement purposes, the Naranjo decision further made clear that wage statements are inaccurate (and a violation) when an employer fails to include all wages earned – not just wages paid. The employer in Naranjo argued that it could not be liable for violating Labor Code section 226 by not including premium pay owed on employees’ wage statements because these amounts were not actually paid, but rather withheld.
The Supreme Court rejected this reading of the law. Among its required information, Labor Code section 226(a) requires that wage statements include “gross wages earned” and “net wages earned.” The Court held that Labor Code section 226 “does not require employers to report only those amounts it deigns to pay.” Rather, an employer must list “all amounts earned and now owing, not just those amounts actually paid.” As a result, a wage statement “that conceals amounts earned, on the ground that they also were not paid, is not an accurate statement, and it does not comply with the statute.”
This holding is significant. It clarifies what wage payment statements require more generally, making clear that California employers potentially face wage statement penalties whenever there is an underpayment of any wages, and amounts earned are not included on an employee’s statement.
Finally, in Naranjo, the Supreme Court determined that a seven percent prejudgment interest rate – as opposed to a 10 percent rate – applies to awards of meal and rest period premium pay. Again, in a sense, this issue also raised the question of whether it involved “wages,” but with the Court going the other way.
The Supreme Court recognized that a 10 percent prejudgment interest rate generally applies to any action for the “nonpayment of wages” under Labor Code section 218.6. The same rate also applies to contract claims under Civil Code section 3289(b). However, relying on Kirby here, the Court reasoned that an action for the nonpayment of premium pay under Labor Code section 226.7 is not an action for the “nonpayment of wages.” As such, an action to recover premium pay for meal and rest periods under Labor Code section 226.7 does not qualify for the 10 percent rate in Labor Code section 218.6. Instead, the Supreme Court concluded that the lower seven percent default interest rate authorized by the California Constitution applies.
The Naranjo decision resolves the uncertainty that Kirby created, as well as the issues that the Court addressed. The decision further clarifies that meal and rest period premium pay constitutes “wages,” and resolves the important questions of whether such pay can be a basis for waiting time and wage statement penalties. Naranjo further underscores the need for California employers to comply with meal and rest period requirements, as potential liability extends beyond premium pay. This decision is another reminder for employers to review meal and rest period compliance, ensure that any required premium pay gets paid as and when required, and wage statement compliance. It also is a reminder to remain vigilant constantly on complying with meal and rest period and premium pay requirements.
[View source.]
See more »
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© ArentFox Schiff var today = new Date(); var yyyy = today.getFullYear();document.write(yyyy + ” “); | Attorney Advertising
Refine your interests »
This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.
Back to Top
Explore 2022 Readers’ Choice Awards
Copyright © var today = new Date(); var yyyy = today.getFullYear();document.write(yyyy + ” “); JD Supra, LLC

source

Filed under:
At last, Starliner shows what it can do
This evening, Boeing’s new passenger spacecraft, the CST-100 Starliner, successfully docked itself to the International Space Station — demonstrating that the vehicle can potentially bring humans to the ISS in the future. It’s a crucial capability that Starliner has finally validated in space after years of delays and failures.
Starliner is in the midst of a key test flight for NASA called OFT-2, for Orbital Flight Test-2. The capsule, developed by Boeing for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, was made to transport NASA’s astronauts to and from the space station. But before anyone climbs on board, NASA tasked Boeing with conducting an uncrewed flight demonstration of Starliner to show that the capsule can hit all of the major milestones it’ll need to hit when it is carrying passengers.
Boeing has struggled to showcase Starliner’s ability until now. This mission is called OFT-2 since it’s technically a do-over of a mission that Boeing attempted back in 2019, called OFT. During that flight, Starliner launched to space as planned, but a software glitch prevented the capsule from getting in the right orbit it needed to reach to rendezvous with the ISS. Boeing had to bring the vehicle home early, and the company never demonstrated Starliner’s ability to dock with the ISS.
Now, roughly two and a half years later, Starliner has finally shown what it was designed to do. Using a series of sensors, the capsule autonomously guided itself onto an open docking port on the space station. “Boeing Starliner spacecraft completes its historic first docking to the International Space Station opening a new avenue of access for crews to the orbiting laboratory,” Steve Siceloff, a communications representative for Boeing, said during the livestream of the docking. Docking occurred a little over an hour behind schedule, due to some issues with Starliner’s graphics and docking ring, which were resolved ahead of the docking.
There was some concern about Starliner’s ability to dock with the space station after Boeing revealed some issues with the capsule’s thrusters yesterday. At 6:54PM ET, Starliner successfully launched to space on top of an Atlas V rocket, built and operated by the United Launch Alliance. Once Starliner separated from the Atlas V, it had to fire its own thrusters to insert itself into the proper orbit for reaching the space station. However, after that maneuver took place, Boeing and NASA revealed that two of the 12 thrusters Starliner uses for the procedure failed and cut off too early. The capsule’s flight control system was able to kick in and rerouted to a working thruster, which helped get Starliner into a stable orbit.
Ultimately, NASA and Boeing claimed that the issue should not impact the rest of Starliner’s mission. “There’s really no need to resolve them,” Steve Stich, NASA’s program manager for the Commercial Crew Program, said in a press conference after the flight. “But I know what the teams will do, and what we always do is we’ll go look at the data, try to understand what happened.” Today, Boeing revealed that a drop in chamber pressure had caused the early cutoff of the thruster, but that system behaved normally during follow-up burns of the thrusters. And with redundancies on the spacecraft, the issue “does not pose a risk to the rest of the flight test,” according to Boeing.
Boeing also noted today that the Starliner team is investigating some weird behavior of a “thermal cooling loop” but said that temperatures are stable on the spacecraft.
Now, with Starliner docked to the space station, it’ll stick around for the next four to five days. Tomorrow morning, the astronauts already on board the ISS will open the hatch to the vehicle and retrieve some cargo that’s packed inside. Also inside Starliner is a mannequin called Rosie the Rocketeer, simulating what it would be like for a human to ride inside the vehicle.
After its brief stay on the ISS, Starliner will detach from the ISS and distance itself from the station for its return home. The capsule will use its thrusters to take itself out of orbit and put it on course for Earth. The two thrusters that failed are the same kind used for this deorbit maneuver, but NASA and Boeing did not seem concerned. “We’ll just have to see if we can recover the thrusters,” Stich said. He also noted that the working thrusters could be used and that Boeing has the option to use a different set of thrusters to perform the task if needed. “So there’s plenty of redundancy in the spacecraft.”
For now, the Starliner team is celebrating their big milestone. “Today marks a great milestone towards providing additional commercial access to low Earth orbit, sustaining the ISS and enabling NASA’s goal of returning humans to the Moon and eventually to Mars,” NASA astronaut Bob Hines, currently on board the space station, said after the docking. “Great accomplishments in human spaceflight are long remembered by history. Today will be no different.”

Subscribe to get the best Verge-approved tech deals of the week.
Please confirm your subscription to Verge Deals via the verification email we just sent you.

source

Saturday, 28 May 2022, 05:14
The relevant statement was made by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office on Telegram, an Ukrinform correspondent reports.
“The motion was filed by prosecutors, as the accused had been continuously evading court hearings. On March 17, 2022, without no legal grounds for leaving Ukraine under martial law, having violated the legally established procedure and having avoided the border and customs control procedures, the accused crossed the state border of Ukraine at Zakarpattia Region’s Kosyno border checkpoint, and now he is staying within the territory of the Republic of Austria. These circumstances are the subject of a pre-trial investigation in a separate proceeding,” the report states.
According to the investigators, in October 2018, acting for selfish motives, in his personal interests and the interests of his acquaintance – the former head of the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine, – Tupytskyi bribed a witness to make them refuse from giving evidence or give false evidence in the criminal proceeding related to the illegal seizure of the property assets of Zuivskyi Energy and Mechanical Plant CJSC.
In 2018-2019, the accused repeatedly provided false statements in this proceeding at the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office.
The pre-trial investigation was conducted by the State Bureau of Investigation.
mk
Topics
Agency
While citing and using any materials on the Internet, links to the website ukrinform.net not lower than the first paragraph are mandatory. In addition, citing the translated materials of foreign media outlets is possible only if there is a link to the website ukrinform.net and to the website of a foreign media outlet. Citing and using materials in offline media, mobile apps, Smart TV are allowed only with written permission from Ukrinform. News and publications marked as "Advertisement" and "PR" and articles in the section "Releases" include promoted content, and an advertiser is responsible for the content.
© 2015-2022 Ukrinform. All rights reserved.
Website design Studio Laconica

source