-
Fulfill The Prophecy - Disambiguation (2015) Full Album HD
Fulfill The Prophecy's debut full-length album "Disambiguation." Special thanks to Storm Strope, Julian Kelly, James Hohenwarter, Connor Welsh, Michael Ayres, all of our family and friends, and last but not least anyone who has supported us along the way. Review for the album can be found at the following link:
http://new-transcendence.com/review-fulfill-prophecy-disambiguation-2015/
Track listing:
1. Project Mortality 0:00-4:55
2. Deceptions (ft. Storm Strope) 4:56-8:45
3. Earth Has Fallen 8:46-13:11
4. Rectify 13:12-17:15
5. Disambiguation (instrumental) 17:16-20:29
6. Ambiguity 20:30-23:24
7. The Executioners 23:25-28:17
8. Tractor Beam 28:18-32:08
9. Vengeance (ft. Julian Kelly) 32:09-37:41
10. Enslaved Realm 37:42-44:00
Fulfill The Prophecy is:
Andy "Muffins" Wilson - vocals
Nick...
published: 25 Aug 2015
-
Verbacoma - Disambiguation
Verbacoma - Disambiguation
First single from self-titled debut album
Andro Abustan - Vocals
Drew Soriano - Drums
Bob Villanueva - Bass
Vlad Reyes - Lead
Ralph Guibani - Rhythm, Back-up Vocals
For gig bookings, you may contact us at
(+63)917-895-4490 Solo
or email us at verbacoma@yahoo.com
www.facebook.com/verbacoma
published: 24 Nov 2014
-
José Olivarez - "Mexican-American Disambiguation"
José Olivarez reads his poem "Mexican-American Disambiguation" from his new book, Citizen Illegal.
Find José here: https://joseolivarez.com/
Subscribe to Not a Cult: http://bit.ly/notacult-tv
Check out our catalogue: https://www.notacult.media/
Performed at Art Share L.A. during the SLAM Alumni Showcase on January 25, 2019. Filmed and edited by Rhiannon McGavin.
published: 09 Feb 2019
-
Don Gorda Project - Disambiguation
Sophisticated and emotional oriented electronic music.
//Artist: https://www.discogs.com/artist/1488253-Don-Gorda-Project
//Label: https://www.facebook.com/canegardenbayrecordings/
//Beatport: https://www.beatport.com/track/disambiguation-original-mix/6090160
Web: http://ltdwlbl.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ltdwlbl
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/ltdwlbl
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ltdwlbl
#ltdwlbl #limitedwhitelabel #jazzhouse #housemusic #smoothjazz #deephouse
Please note that this upload is either intended for promotional purposes only or has been uploaded at the request of the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder of the material featured in this video and would like it to be removed, we encourage you to get in touch with us at mail@ltdwlbl.com. W...
published: 01 Nov 2018
-
USA (disambiguation), and United States
For other uses, see US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), and United States (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
United States of America
Flag Great Seal
Motto:
"In God we trust" (official)[1][2][3]
"E pluribus unum" (Latin) (traditional de facto)
"Out of many, one"
"Annuit cœptis" (Latin) (traditional)
"She/he/it approves (has approved) of the undertakings"
"Novus ordo seclorum" (Latin) (traditional)
"New order of the ages"
Anthem: "The Star-Spangled Banner"
Menu
0:00
Projection of North America with the United States in green
The Contiguous United States plus Alaska and Hawaii in green.
The United States and its territories.
The United States and its territories.
Capital Washington, D.C.
38°53′N 77°01′W
Largest city New York City
40°43′N 74°00′W
Official languages None at fe...
published: 27 Aug 2014
-
ApplyAI Hands-on in NLP: Word Disambiguation and Automatic Summarization
You can find the Google Drive folder with the notebooks here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1paIso1fqasLblXgjvkzOwEns4cO81ipc
published: 09 May 2020
-
Synthek - Disambiguation [NTCLP002]
Support the label, buy it here:
https://natchrecords.bandcamp.com/album/synthek-transitions-of-life-lp-natch-elements
Artist: Synthek
Title: Transitions of Life LP
Label: Natch Records
Catalogue: NTCLP002
Genre: Electronic
Style: Techno, Ambient
Release Date : 27th March 2017
Mastering: Matt Colton
Tracklist:
1. Breathless
2. Disambiguation
3. Path Of Syncopation
4. Standing On A Turning Point
5. Sinusoidal Shift
6. Hands In Faith
7. Perturbed Notion (Digital Only)
8. Transitionf Of Life
9. Consciousness & Intent
10. Choice Of Words (feat Pareal)
11. Sense Of Being
In this space between chaos and conformity disorderly moments welcome new phases into existence, leading to the awakening of an elevated version of the self. Between highs and lows, Transitions of Life remain; the concept beh...
published: 26 Mar 2017
-
Adjusting sense representations for knowledge-based word sense disambiguation
Speaker: Tristan Miller, Technische Universität Darmstadt (Germany)
Abstract: Word sense disambiguation (WSD) – the task of determining which meaning a word carries in a particular context – is a core research problem in computational linguistics. Though it has long been recognized that supervised (i.e., machine learning–based) approaches to WSD can yield impressive results, they require an amount of manually annotated training data that is often too expensive or impractical to obtain. This is a particular problem for under-resourced languages and text domains, and is also a hurdle in well-resourced languages when processing the sort of lexical-semantic anomalies employed for deliberate effect in humour and wordplay. In contrast to supervised systems are knowledge-based techniques, whi...
published: 31 May 2017
-
USA (disambiguation), and United States
For other uses, see US (disambiguation) (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
United States of America
Flag Great
Motto:
"In God we trust" (official)[1][2][3]
"E pluribus unum" (Latin) (traditional de facto)
"Out of many, one"
"Annuit cœptis" (Latin) (traditional)
"She/he/it approves (has approved) of the undertakings"
"Novus ordo seclorum" (Latin) (traditional)
"New order of the ages"
Anthem: "The Star-Spangled Banner"
Menu
0:00
Projection of North America with the United States in green
The Contiguous United States plus Alaska and Hawaii in green.
The United States and its territories.
The United States and its territories.
Capital Washington, D.C.
38°53′N 77°01′W
Largest city New York City
40°43′N 74°00′W
Official languages None at federal level[a]
Recognised regional languages ...
published: 26 Aug 2014
-
Mural Painting | Disambiguation | Wall paintings | Graffiti || Black Lives Matter | Painting Protest
#MuralPainting #Wallpaintings #Graffiti #BlackLivesMatter #PaintingProtest #Disambiguation #Frescopainting #Mexicanmuralism #ChattanogaTN #MuralUSA #USWallPainting #AdhikaalaiChannel #OTTmoviereview #NetflixmovieReview #NawinSeetharaman #adhikaalainawin #athikaalaichannel #Kodambakkamcinema #tamilnadupolitics #kollywoodcinema #அதிகாலைசேனல் #நவின்சீதாராமன் #அதிகாலைநவின் #அதிகாலைசேனல் #Vivekaskitchen #Quarantinecook #QuarantineChef #ManushreeNawin #NawinaNawin #SarithraNawin #Southindianstyle #Chettinadustyle
A mural is any piece of artwork painted or applied directly on a wall, ceiling or other permanent surfaces. A distinguishing characteristic of mural painting is that the architectural elements of the given space are harmoniously incorporated into the picture. For other uses, see Mural...
published: 13 May 2021
44:14
Fulfill The Prophecy - Disambiguation (2015) Full Album HD
Fulfill The Prophecy's debut full-length album "Disambiguation." Special thanks to Storm Strope, Julian Kelly, James Hohenwarter, Connor Welsh, Michael Ayres, ...
Fulfill The Prophecy's debut full-length album "Disambiguation." Special thanks to Storm Strope, Julian Kelly, James Hohenwarter, Connor Welsh, Michael Ayres, all of our family and friends, and last but not least anyone who has supported us along the way. Review for the album can be found at the following link:
http://new-transcendence.com/review-fulfill-prophecy-disambiguation-2015/
Track listing:
1. Project Mortality 0:00-4:55
2. Deceptions (ft. Storm Strope) 4:56-8:45
3. Earth Has Fallen 8:46-13:11
4. Rectify 13:12-17:15
5. Disambiguation (instrumental) 17:16-20:29
6. Ambiguity 20:30-23:24
7. The Executioners 23:25-28:17
8. Tractor Beam 28:18-32:08
9. Vengeance (ft. Julian Kelly) 32:09-37:41
10. Enslaved Realm 37:42-44:00
Fulfill The Prophecy is:
Andy "Muffins" Wilson - vocals
Nick Zalepka - lead, rhythm, bass guitars
Austin Kelly - drums
If you'd like to get in touch with us go to https://www.facebook.com/fulfilltheprophecy?_rdr=p
or simply email us at fulfilltheprophecy10@gmail.com
https://wn.com/Fulfill_The_Prophecy_Disambiguation_(2015)_Full_Album_Hd
Fulfill The Prophecy's debut full-length album "Disambiguation." Special thanks to Storm Strope, Julian Kelly, James Hohenwarter, Connor Welsh, Michael Ayres, all of our family and friends, and last but not least anyone who has supported us along the way. Review for the album can be found at the following link:
http://new-transcendence.com/review-fulfill-prophecy-disambiguation-2015/
Track listing:
1. Project Mortality 0:00-4:55
2. Deceptions (ft. Storm Strope) 4:56-8:45
3. Earth Has Fallen 8:46-13:11
4. Rectify 13:12-17:15
5. Disambiguation (instrumental) 17:16-20:29
6. Ambiguity 20:30-23:24
7. The Executioners 23:25-28:17
8. Tractor Beam 28:18-32:08
9. Vengeance (ft. Julian Kelly) 32:09-37:41
10. Enslaved Realm 37:42-44:00
Fulfill The Prophecy is:
Andy "Muffins" Wilson - vocals
Nick Zalepka - lead, rhythm, bass guitars
Austin Kelly - drums
If you'd like to get in touch with us go to https://www.facebook.com/fulfilltheprophecy?_rdr=p
or simply email us at fulfilltheprophecy10@gmail.com
- published: 25 Aug 2015
- views: 6433
5:00
Verbacoma - Disambiguation
Verbacoma - Disambiguation
First single from self-titled debut album
Andro Abustan - Vocals
Drew Soriano - Drums
Bob Villanueva - Bass
Vlad Reyes - Lead
Ralp...
Verbacoma - Disambiguation
First single from self-titled debut album
Andro Abustan - Vocals
Drew Soriano - Drums
Bob Villanueva - Bass
Vlad Reyes - Lead
Ralph Guibani - Rhythm, Back-up Vocals
For gig bookings, you may contact us at
(+63)917-895-4490 Solo
or email us at verbacoma@yahoo.com
www.facebook.com/verbacoma
https://wn.com/Verbacoma_Disambiguation
Verbacoma - Disambiguation
First single from self-titled debut album
Andro Abustan - Vocals
Drew Soriano - Drums
Bob Villanueva - Bass
Vlad Reyes - Lead
Ralph Guibani - Rhythm, Back-up Vocals
For gig bookings, you may contact us at
(+63)917-895-4490 Solo
or email us at verbacoma@yahoo.com
www.facebook.com/verbacoma
- published: 24 Nov 2014
- views: 654
3:10
José Olivarez - "Mexican-American Disambiguation"
José Olivarez reads his poem "Mexican-American Disambiguation" from his new book, Citizen Illegal.
Find José here: https://joseolivarez.com/
Subscribe to Not ...
José Olivarez reads his poem "Mexican-American Disambiguation" from his new book, Citizen Illegal.
Find José here: https://joseolivarez.com/
Subscribe to Not a Cult: http://bit.ly/notacult-tv
Check out our catalogue: https://www.notacult.media/
Performed at Art Share L.A. during the SLAM Alumni Showcase on January 25, 2019. Filmed and edited by Rhiannon McGavin.
https://wn.com/José_Olivarez_Mexican_American_Disambiguation
José Olivarez reads his poem "Mexican-American Disambiguation" from his new book, Citizen Illegal.
Find José here: https://joseolivarez.com/
Subscribe to Not a Cult: http://bit.ly/notacult-tv
Check out our catalogue: https://www.notacult.media/
Performed at Art Share L.A. during the SLAM Alumni Showcase on January 25, 2019. Filmed and edited by Rhiannon McGavin.
- published: 09 Feb 2019
- views: 28464
5:50
Don Gorda Project - Disambiguation
Sophisticated and emotional oriented electronic music.
//Artist: https://www.discogs.com/artist/1488253-Don-Gorda-Project
//Label: https://www.facebook.com/can...
Sophisticated and emotional oriented electronic music.
//Artist: https://www.discogs.com/artist/1488253-Don-Gorda-Project
//Label: https://www.facebook.com/canegardenbayrecordings/
//Beatport: https://www.beatport.com/track/disambiguation-original-mix/6090160
Web: http://ltdwlbl.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ltdwlbl
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/ltdwlbl
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ltdwlbl
#ltdwlbl #limitedwhitelabel #jazzhouse #housemusic #smoothjazz #deephouse
Please note that this upload is either intended for promotional purposes only or has been uploaded at the request of the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder of the material featured in this video and would like it to be removed, we encourage you to get in touch with us at mail@ltdwlbl.com. We respect intellectual property rights and are committed to addressing any concerns promptly.
https://wn.com/Don_Gorda_Project_Disambiguation
Sophisticated and emotional oriented electronic music.
//Artist: https://www.discogs.com/artist/1488253-Don-Gorda-Project
//Label: https://www.facebook.com/canegardenbayrecordings/
//Beatport: https://www.beatport.com/track/disambiguation-original-mix/6090160
Web: http://ltdwlbl.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ltdwlbl
SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/ltdwlbl
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ltdwlbl
#ltdwlbl #limitedwhitelabel #jazzhouse #housemusic #smoothjazz #deephouse
Please note that this upload is either intended for promotional purposes only or has been uploaded at the request of the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder of the material featured in this video and would like it to be removed, we encourage you to get in touch with us at mail@ltdwlbl.com. We respect intellectual property rights and are committed to addressing any concerns promptly.
- published: 01 Nov 2018
- views: 804
4:10
USA (disambiguation), and United States
For other uses, see US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), and United States (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
United States of America
Flag Great Se...
For other uses, see US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), and United States (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
United States of America
Flag Great Seal
Motto:
"In God we trust" (official)[1][2][3]
"E pluribus unum" (Latin) (traditional de facto)
"Out of many, one"
"Annuit cœptis" (Latin) (traditional)
"She/he/it approves (has approved) of the undertakings"
"Novus ordo seclorum" (Latin) (traditional)
"New order of the ages"
Anthem: "The Star-Spangled Banner"
Menu
0:00
Projection of North America with the United States in green
The Contiguous United States plus
Alaska and Hawaii in green.
The United States and its territories.
The United States and its territories.
Capital Washington, D.C.
38°53′N 77°01′W
Largest city New York City
40°43′N 74°00′W
Official languages None at federal level[a]
Recognised regional languages
List[show]
National language English[b]
Demonym American
Government Federal presidential constitutional republic
- President Barack Obama
- Vice President Joe Biden
- Speaker of the House John Boehner
- Chief Justice John Roberts
Legislature Congress
- Upper house Senate
- Lower house House of Representatives
Independence from Great Britain
- Declared July 4, 1776
- Recognized September 3, 1783
- Constitution June 21, 1788
- Current Statehood August 21, 1959
Area
- Total 9,629,091 km2 (3rd/4th)
3,717,813 sq mi
- Water (%) 2.23
Population
- 2014 estimate 318,633,000[4] (3rd)
- Density 34.2/km2 (180th)
88.6/sq mi
GDP (PPP) 2014 estimate
- Total $17.528 trillion[5] (1st)
- Per capita $54,980[5] (6th)
GDP (nominal) 2014 estimate
- Total $17.528 trillion[5] (1st)
- Per capita $54,980[5] (9th)
Gini (2012) 36.9[6]
medium · 39th (2009)
HDI (2013) Steady 0.914[7]
very high · 5th
Currency United States dollar ($) (USD)
Time zone (UTC−5 to −10)
- Summer (DST) (UTC−4 to −10[d])
Drives on the right[e]
Calling code +1
ISO 3166 code US
Internet TLD .us .gov .mil .edu
a. ^ English is the official language of at least 28 states; some sources give higher figures, based on differing definitions of "official".[8] English and Hawaiian are both official languages in the state of Hawaii. French is a de facto language in the states of Maine and Louisiana, while New Mexico state law grants Spanish a special status.[9][10][11][12] Cherokee is an official language in the Cherokee Nation tribal jurisdiction area and in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians based in east and northeast Oklahoma.[13][14][15]
b. ^ English is the de facto language of American government and the sole language spoken at home by 80 percent of Americans aged five and older. 28 states and five territories have made English an official language. Other official languages include Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Carolinian, and Spanish.
c. ^ Whether the United States or China is larger has been disputed. The figure given is from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's The World Factbook. Other sources give smaller figures. All authoritative calculations of the country's size include only the 50 states and the District of Columbia, not the territories.
d. ^ See Time in the United States for details about laws governing time zones in the United States.
e. ^ Except U.S. Virgin Islands.
The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly referred to as the United States (US or U.S.), America, and sometimes the States, is a federal republic[16][17] consisting of 50 states and a federal district. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of ;More info visit;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States;united states government
united states postal code
united states history
united states zip code
united states constitution
united states list
united states shutdown
united states cities; United States
united states postal service
united states postal service tracking
united states postal service hold mail
united states mint
usmint gov united states mint
https://wn.com/USA_(Disambiguation),_And_United_States
For other uses, see US (disambiguation), USA (disambiguation), and United States (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
United States of America
Flag Great Seal
Motto:
"In God we trust" (official)[1][2][3]
"E pluribus unum" (Latin) (traditional de facto)
"Out of many, one"
"Annuit cœptis" (Latin) (traditional)
"She/he/it approves (has approved) of the undertakings"
"Novus ordo seclorum" (Latin) (traditional)
"New order of the ages"
Anthem: "The Star-Spangled Banner"
Menu
0:00
Projection of North America with the United States in green
The Contiguous United States plus
Alaska and Hawaii in green.
The United States and its territories.
The United States and its territories.
Capital Washington, D.C.
38°53′N 77°01′W
Largest city New York City
40°43′N 74°00′W
Official languages None at federal level[a]
Recognised regional languages
List[show]
National language English[b]
Demonym American
Government Federal presidential constitutional republic
- President Barack Obama
- Vice President Joe Biden
- Speaker of the House John Boehner
- Chief Justice John Roberts
Legislature Congress
- Upper house Senate
- Lower house House of Representatives
Independence from Great Britain
- Declared July 4, 1776
- Recognized September 3, 1783
- Constitution June 21, 1788
- Current Statehood August 21, 1959
Area
- Total 9,629,091 km2 (3rd/4th)
3,717,813 sq mi
- Water (%) 2.23
Population
- 2014 estimate 318,633,000[4] (3rd)
- Density 34.2/km2 (180th)
88.6/sq mi
GDP (PPP) 2014 estimate
- Total $17.528 trillion[5] (1st)
- Per capita $54,980[5] (6th)
GDP (nominal) 2014 estimate
- Total $17.528 trillion[5] (1st)
- Per capita $54,980[5] (9th)
Gini (2012) 36.9[6]
medium · 39th (2009)
HDI (2013) Steady 0.914[7]
very high · 5th
Currency United States dollar ($) (USD)
Time zone (UTC−5 to −10)
- Summer (DST) (UTC−4 to −10[d])
Drives on the right[e]
Calling code +1
ISO 3166 code US
Internet TLD .us .gov .mil .edu
a. ^ English is the official language of at least 28 states; some sources give higher figures, based on differing definitions of "official".[8] English and Hawaiian are both official languages in the state of Hawaii. French is a de facto language in the states of Maine and Louisiana, while New Mexico state law grants Spanish a special status.[9][10][11][12] Cherokee is an official language in the Cherokee Nation tribal jurisdiction area and in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians based in east and northeast Oklahoma.[13][14][15]
b. ^ English is the de facto language of American government and the sole language spoken at home by 80 percent of Americans aged five and older. 28 states and five territories have made English an official language. Other official languages include Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Carolinian, and Spanish.
c. ^ Whether the United States or China is larger has been disputed. The figure given is from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's The World Factbook. Other sources give smaller figures. All authoritative calculations of the country's size include only the 50 states and the District of Columbia, not the territories.
d. ^ See Time in the United States for details about laws governing time zones in the United States.
e. ^ Except U.S. Virgin Islands.
The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly referred to as the United States (US or U.S.), America, and sometimes the States, is a federal republic[16][17] consisting of 50 states and a federal district. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of ;More info visit;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States;united states government
united states postal code
united states history
united states zip code
united states constitution
united states list
united states shutdown
united states cities; United States
united states postal service
united states postal service tracking
united states postal service hold mail
united states mint
usmint gov united states mint
- published: 27 Aug 2014
- views: 29
2:24:42
ApplyAI Hands-on in NLP: Word Disambiguation and Automatic Summarization
You can find the Google Drive folder with the notebooks here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1paIso1fqasLblXgjvkzOwEns4cO81ipc
You can find the Google Drive folder with the notebooks here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1paIso1fqasLblXgjvkzOwEns4cO81ipc
https://wn.com/Applyai_Hands_On_In_Nlp_Word_Disambiguation_And_Automatic_Summarization
You can find the Google Drive folder with the notebooks here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1paIso1fqasLblXgjvkzOwEns4cO81ipc
- published: 09 May 2020
- views: 1382
5:35
Synthek - Disambiguation [NTCLP002]
Support the label, buy it here:
https://natchrecords.bandcamp.com/album/synthek-transitions-of-life-lp-natch-elements
Artist: Synthek
Title: Transitions of Lif...
Support the label, buy it here:
https://natchrecords.bandcamp.com/album/synthek-transitions-of-life-lp-natch-elements
Artist: Synthek
Title: Transitions of Life LP
Label: Natch Records
Catalogue: NTCLP002
Genre: Electronic
Style: Techno, Ambient
Release Date : 27th March 2017
Mastering: Matt Colton
Tracklist:
1. Breathless
2. Disambiguation
3. Path Of Syncopation
4. Standing On A Turning Point
5. Sinusoidal Shift
6. Hands In Faith
7. Perturbed Notion (Digital Only)
8. Transitionf Of Life
9. Consciousness & Intent
10. Choice Of Words (feat Pareal)
11. Sense Of Being
In this space between chaos and conformity disorderly moments welcome new phases into existence, leading to the awakening of an elevated version of the self. Between highs and lows, Transitions of Life remain; the concept behind Synthek’s first solo full length sound narrative on his Natch Records imprint. Unfolding across a vexing two-year transformation phase, Synthek’s crossings along rough roads are the tribulations to reveal this intimate personal journey of reve- lation through emotional downshift, spiritual upheaval and cerebral quandary. In this dominion, Synthek shapes the eleven track escapade along a sophisticated array of synths and warm analog drums, while contrasting the build and decline of atmosphere through deep bass soundscapes.
Pivotal turning points execute the programming of the album’s three part sound design; beginning from darkness and repression, evolving to a more colourful aerial majesty of lucid dream state, morphing into the developed nature of life lessons learned; Transitions of Life making its incarnation into the discovery of the self and re-entry into reality.
*Transitions of Life is a 2x12” release made available through Natch Elements, intro- spective extension to the Natch Records imprint. Visual embodiment of the project artfully presented with photographic time capsule by Salar Kheradpejouh of Berlin, Germany with graphic work curated by Jacopo Saveritano, co-founder of Natch Records.
___
DISCLAIMER: All tracks are uploaded in a low quality for promotional purposes only and with buy links to respect label and artists.
https://www.facebook.com/hatecollective/
or via email: hatemusic1@gmail.com
Follow us on SOUNDCLOUD for exclusive podcast series:
https://soundcloud.com/hate_music
https://wn.com/Synthek_Disambiguation_Ntclp002
Support the label, buy it here:
https://natchrecords.bandcamp.com/album/synthek-transitions-of-life-lp-natch-elements
Artist: Synthek
Title: Transitions of Life LP
Label: Natch Records
Catalogue: NTCLP002
Genre: Electronic
Style: Techno, Ambient
Release Date : 27th March 2017
Mastering: Matt Colton
Tracklist:
1. Breathless
2. Disambiguation
3. Path Of Syncopation
4. Standing On A Turning Point
5. Sinusoidal Shift
6. Hands In Faith
7. Perturbed Notion (Digital Only)
8. Transitionf Of Life
9. Consciousness & Intent
10. Choice Of Words (feat Pareal)
11. Sense Of Being
In this space between chaos and conformity disorderly moments welcome new phases into existence, leading to the awakening of an elevated version of the self. Between highs and lows, Transitions of Life remain; the concept behind Synthek’s first solo full length sound narrative on his Natch Records imprint. Unfolding across a vexing two-year transformation phase, Synthek’s crossings along rough roads are the tribulations to reveal this intimate personal journey of reve- lation through emotional downshift, spiritual upheaval and cerebral quandary. In this dominion, Synthek shapes the eleven track escapade along a sophisticated array of synths and warm analog drums, while contrasting the build and decline of atmosphere through deep bass soundscapes.
Pivotal turning points execute the programming of the album’s three part sound design; beginning from darkness and repression, evolving to a more colourful aerial majesty of lucid dream state, morphing into the developed nature of life lessons learned; Transitions of Life making its incarnation into the discovery of the self and re-entry into reality.
*Transitions of Life is a 2x12” release made available through Natch Elements, intro- spective extension to the Natch Records imprint. Visual embodiment of the project artfully presented with photographic time capsule by Salar Kheradpejouh of Berlin, Germany with graphic work curated by Jacopo Saveritano, co-founder of Natch Records.
___
DISCLAIMER: All tracks are uploaded in a low quality for promotional purposes only and with buy links to respect label and artists.
https://www.facebook.com/hatecollective/
or via email: hatemusic1@gmail.com
Follow us on SOUNDCLOUD for exclusive podcast series:
https://soundcloud.com/hate_music
- published: 26 Mar 2017
- views: 2520
1:02:07
Adjusting sense representations for knowledge-based word sense disambiguation
Speaker: Tristan Miller, Technische Universität Darmstadt (Germany)
Abstract: Word sense disambiguation (WSD) – the task of determining which meaning a word ca...
Speaker: Tristan Miller, Technische Universität Darmstadt (Germany)
Abstract: Word sense disambiguation (WSD) – the task of determining which meaning a word carries in a particular context – is a core research problem in computational linguistics. Though it has long been recognized that supervised (i.e., machine learning–based) approaches to WSD can yield impressive results, they require an amount of manually annotated training data that is often too expensive or impractical to obtain. This is a particular problem for under-resourced languages and text domains, and is also a hurdle in well-resourced languages when processing the sort of lexical-semantic anomalies employed for deliberate effect in humour and wordplay. In contrast to supervised systems are knowledge-based techniques, which rely only on pre-existing lexical-semantic resources (LSRs) such as dictionaries and thesauri. These techniques are of more general applicability but tend to suffer from lower performance due to the informational gap between the target word's context and the sense descriptions provided by the LSR. In this seminar, we treat the task of extending the efficacy and applicability of knowledge-based WSD, both generally and for the particular case of English puns. In the first part of the talk, we present two approaches for bridging the information gap and thereby improving WSD coverage and accuracy. In the first approach, we supplement the word's context and the LSR's sense descriptions with entries from a distributional thesaurus. The second approach enriches an LSR's sense information by aligning it to other, complementary LSRs. In the second part of the talk, we describe how these techniques, along with evaluation methodologies from traditional WSD, can be adapted for the "disambiguation" of puns, or rather for the automatic identification of their double meanings.
https://wn.com/Adjusting_Sense_Representations_For_Knowledge_Based_Word_Sense_Disambiguation
Speaker: Tristan Miller, Technische Universität Darmstadt (Germany)
Abstract: Word sense disambiguation (WSD) – the task of determining which meaning a word carries in a particular context – is a core research problem in computational linguistics. Though it has long been recognized that supervised (i.e., machine learning–based) approaches to WSD can yield impressive results, they require an amount of manually annotated training data that is often too expensive or impractical to obtain. This is a particular problem for under-resourced languages and text domains, and is also a hurdle in well-resourced languages when processing the sort of lexical-semantic anomalies employed for deliberate effect in humour and wordplay. In contrast to supervised systems are knowledge-based techniques, which rely only on pre-existing lexical-semantic resources (LSRs) such as dictionaries and thesauri. These techniques are of more general applicability but tend to suffer from lower performance due to the informational gap between the target word's context and the sense descriptions provided by the LSR. In this seminar, we treat the task of extending the efficacy and applicability of knowledge-based WSD, both generally and for the particular case of English puns. In the first part of the talk, we present two approaches for bridging the information gap and thereby improving WSD coverage and accuracy. In the first approach, we supplement the word's context and the LSR's sense descriptions with entries from a distributional thesaurus. The second approach enriches an LSR's sense information by aligning it to other, complementary LSRs. In the second part of the talk, we describe how these techniques, along with evaluation methodologies from traditional WSD, can be adapted for the "disambiguation" of puns, or rather for the automatic identification of their double meanings.
- published: 31 May 2017
- views: 457
2:15
USA (disambiguation), and United States
For other uses, see US (disambiguation) (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
United States of America
Flag Great
Motto:
"In God we trust" (official)[1][2][...
For other uses, see US (disambiguation) (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
United States of America
Flag Great
Motto:
"In God we trust" (official)[1][2][3]
"E pluribus unum" (Latin) (traditional de facto)
"Out of many, one"
"Annuit cœptis" (Latin) (traditional)
"She/he/it approves (has approved) of the undertakings"
"Novus ordo seclorum" (Latin) (traditional)
"New order of the ages"
Anthem: "The Star-Spangled Banner"
Menu
0:00
Projection of North America with the United States in green
The Contiguous United States plus
Alaska and Hawaii in green.
The United States and its territories.
The United States and its territories.
Capital Washington, D.C.
38°53′N 77°01′W
Largest city New York City
40°43′N 74°00′W
Official languages None at federal level[a]
Recognised regional languages
List[show]
National language English[b]
Demonym American
Government Federal presidential constitutional republic
- President Barack Obama
- Vice President Joe Biden
- Speaker of the House John Boehner
- Chief Justice John Roberts
Legislature Congress
- Upper house Senate
- Lower house House of Representatives
Independence from Great Britain
- Declared July 4, 1776
- Recognized September 3, 1783
- Constitution June 21, 1788
- Current Statehood August 21, 1959
Area
- Total 9,629,091 km2 (3rd/4th)
3,717,813 sq mi
- Water (%) 2.23
Population
- 2014 estimate 318,628,000[4] (3rd)
- Density 34.2/km2 (180th)
88.6/sq mi
GDP (PPP) 2014 estimate
- Total $17.528 trillion[5] (1st)
- Per capita $54,980[5] (6th)
GDP (nominal) 2014 estimate
- Total $17.528 trillion[5] (1st)
- Per capita $54,980[5] (9th)
Gini (2012) 36.9[6]
medium · 39th (2009)
HDI (2013) Steady 0.914[7]
very high · 5th
Currency United States dollar ($) (USD)
Time zone (UTC−5 to −10)
- Summer (DST) (UTC−4 to −10[d])
Drives on the right[e]
Calling code +1
ISO 3166 code US
Internet TLD .us .gov .mil .edu
a. ^ English is the official language of at least 28 states; some sources give higher figures, based on differing definitions of "official".[8] English and Hawaiian are both official languages in the state of Hawaii. French is a de facto language in the states of Maine and Louisiana, while New Mexico state law grants Spanish a special status.[9][10][11][12] Cherokee is an official language in the Cherokee Nation tribal jurisdiction area and in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians based in east and northeast Oklahoma.[13][14][15]
b. ^ English is the de facto language of American government and the sole language spoken at home by 80 percent of Americans aged five and older. 28 states and five territories have made English an official language. Other official languages include Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Carolinian, and Spanish.
c. ^ Whether the United States or China is larger has been disputed. The figure given is from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's The World Factbook. Other sources give smaller figures. All authoritative calculations of the country's size include only the 50 states and the District of Columbia, not the territories.
d. ^ See Time in the United States for details about laws governing time zones in the United States.
e. ^ Except U.S. Virgin Islands.
The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly referred to as the United States (US or U.S.), America, and sometimes the States, is a federal republic[16][17] consisting of 50 states and a federal district. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of .More info visit;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States;art museum in usa
outdoors usa
planetarium usa ;must see sights in usa best travel sights in usa
best sights in usa top ten sights in usa
top sights in usa travel sights in usa
popular vacation sights in usa famous sights in usa best travel sights in usa top ten sights in usa
travel sights in usa
popular vacation sights in usa famous sights in usa
https://wn.com/USA_(Disambiguation),_And_United_States
For other uses, see US (disambiguation) (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected
United States of America
Flag Great
Motto:
"In God we trust" (official)[1][2][3]
"E pluribus unum" (Latin) (traditional de facto)
"Out of many, one"
"Annuit cœptis" (Latin) (traditional)
"She/he/it approves (has approved) of the undertakings"
"Novus ordo seclorum" (Latin) (traditional)
"New order of the ages"
Anthem: "The Star-Spangled Banner"
Menu
0:00
Projection of North America with the United States in green
The Contiguous United States plus
Alaska and Hawaii in green.
The United States and its territories.
The United States and its territories.
Capital Washington, D.C.
38°53′N 77°01′W
Largest city New York City
40°43′N 74°00′W
Official languages None at federal level[a]
Recognised regional languages
List[show]
National language English[b]
Demonym American
Government Federal presidential constitutional republic
- President Barack Obama
- Vice President Joe Biden
- Speaker of the House John Boehner
- Chief Justice John Roberts
Legislature Congress
- Upper house Senate
- Lower house House of Representatives
Independence from Great Britain
- Declared July 4, 1776
- Recognized September 3, 1783
- Constitution June 21, 1788
- Current Statehood August 21, 1959
Area
- Total 9,629,091 km2 (3rd/4th)
3,717,813 sq mi
- Water (%) 2.23
Population
- 2014 estimate 318,628,000[4] (3rd)
- Density 34.2/km2 (180th)
88.6/sq mi
GDP (PPP) 2014 estimate
- Total $17.528 trillion[5] (1st)
- Per capita $54,980[5] (6th)
GDP (nominal) 2014 estimate
- Total $17.528 trillion[5] (1st)
- Per capita $54,980[5] (9th)
Gini (2012) 36.9[6]
medium · 39th (2009)
HDI (2013) Steady 0.914[7]
very high · 5th
Currency United States dollar ($) (USD)
Time zone (UTC−5 to −10)
- Summer (DST) (UTC−4 to −10[d])
Drives on the right[e]
Calling code +1
ISO 3166 code US
Internet TLD .us .gov .mil .edu
a. ^ English is the official language of at least 28 states; some sources give higher figures, based on differing definitions of "official".[8] English and Hawaiian are both official languages in the state of Hawaii. French is a de facto language in the states of Maine and Louisiana, while New Mexico state law grants Spanish a special status.[9][10][11][12] Cherokee is an official language in the Cherokee Nation tribal jurisdiction area and in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians based in east and northeast Oklahoma.[13][14][15]
b. ^ English is the de facto language of American government and the sole language spoken at home by 80 percent of Americans aged five and older. 28 states and five territories have made English an official language. Other official languages include Hawaiian, Samoan, Chamorro, Carolinian, and Spanish.
c. ^ Whether the United States or China is larger has been disputed. The figure given is from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's The World Factbook. Other sources give smaller figures. All authoritative calculations of the country's size include only the 50 states and the District of Columbia, not the territories.
d. ^ See Time in the United States for details about laws governing time zones in the United States.
e. ^ Except U.S. Virgin Islands.
The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly referred to as the United States (US or U.S.), America, and sometimes the States, is a federal republic[16][17] consisting of 50 states and a federal district. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of .More info visit;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States;art museum in usa
outdoors usa
planetarium usa ;must see sights in usa best travel sights in usa
best sights in usa top ten sights in usa
top sights in usa travel sights in usa
popular vacation sights in usa famous sights in usa best travel sights in usa top ten sights in usa
travel sights in usa
popular vacation sights in usa famous sights in usa
- published: 26 Aug 2014
- views: 68
3:46
Mural Painting | Disambiguation | Wall paintings | Graffiti || Black Lives Matter | Painting Protest
#MuralPainting #Wallpaintings #Graffiti #BlackLivesMatter #PaintingProtest #Disambiguation #Frescopainting #Mexicanmuralism #ChattanogaTN #MuralUSA #USWallPaint...
#MuralPainting #Wallpaintings #Graffiti #BlackLivesMatter #PaintingProtest #Disambiguation #Frescopainting #Mexicanmuralism #ChattanogaTN #MuralUSA #USWallPainting #AdhikaalaiChannel #OTTmoviereview #NetflixmovieReview #NawinSeetharaman #adhikaalainawin #athikaalaichannel #Kodambakkamcinema #tamilnadupolitics #kollywoodcinema #அதிகாலைசேனல் #நவின்சீதாராமன் #அதிகாலைநவின் #அதிகாலைசேனல் #Vivekaskitchen #Quarantinecook #QuarantineChef #ManushreeNawin #NawinaNawin #SarithraNawin #Southindianstyle #Chettinadustyle
A mural is any piece of artwork painted or applied directly on a wall, ceiling or other permanent surfaces. A distinguishing characteristic of mural painting is that the architectural elements of the given space are harmoniously incorporated into the picture. For other uses, see Mural (disambiguation)."Muralist" and "muralists" redirect here. For the Mexican art movement, see Mexican muralism.Ceiling painting, by Jean-André Rixens. Salle des Illustres, Le Capitole, Toulouse, France
Prehistoric Egyptian mural painted on a Nekhen tomb wall c. 3,500 B.C. with aspects in the Gerzeh culture style.
A mural is any piece of artwork painted or applied directly on a wall, ceiling or other permanent surfaces. A distinguishing characteristic of mural painting is that the architectural elements of the given space are harmoniously incorporated into the picture.
Some wall paintings are painted on large canvases, which are then attached to the wall (e.g., with marouflage). This technique has been in common use since the late 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mural
Please Like, Comment, Share & Subscribe to our Adhikaalai channel
Follow Us On:
https://www.youtube.com/adhikaalai1
https://www.facebook.com/adhikaalai
https://twitter.com/adhikaalai1
https://www.instagram.com/adhikaalai
https://www.dailymotion.com/adhikaalai1
http://adhikaalai.blogspot.com
Copyrights Reserved : Adhikaalai Info Media
https://wn.com/Mural_Painting_|_Disambiguation_|_Wall_Paintings_|_Graffiti_||_Black_Lives_Matter_|_Painting_Protest
#MuralPainting #Wallpaintings #Graffiti #BlackLivesMatter #PaintingProtest #Disambiguation #Frescopainting #Mexicanmuralism #ChattanogaTN #MuralUSA #USWallPainting #AdhikaalaiChannel #OTTmoviereview #NetflixmovieReview #NawinSeetharaman #adhikaalainawin #athikaalaichannel #Kodambakkamcinema #tamilnadupolitics #kollywoodcinema #அதிகாலைசேனல் #நவின்சீதாராமன் #அதிகாலைநவின் #அதிகாலைசேனல் #Vivekaskitchen #Quarantinecook #QuarantineChef #ManushreeNawin #NawinaNawin #SarithraNawin #Southindianstyle #Chettinadustyle
A mural is any piece of artwork painted or applied directly on a wall, ceiling or other permanent surfaces. A distinguishing characteristic of mural painting is that the architectural elements of the given space are harmoniously incorporated into the picture. For other uses, see Mural (disambiguation)."Muralist" and "muralists" redirect here. For the Mexican art movement, see Mexican muralism.Ceiling painting, by Jean-André Rixens. Salle des Illustres, Le Capitole, Toulouse, France
Prehistoric Egyptian mural painted on a Nekhen tomb wall c. 3,500 B.C. with aspects in the Gerzeh culture style.
A mural is any piece of artwork painted or applied directly on a wall, ceiling or other permanent surfaces. A distinguishing characteristic of mural painting is that the architectural elements of the given space are harmoniously incorporated into the picture.
Some wall paintings are painted on large canvases, which are then attached to the wall (e.g., with marouflage). This technique has been in common use since the late 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mural
Please Like, Comment, Share & Subscribe to our Adhikaalai channel
Follow Us On:
https://www.youtube.com/adhikaalai1
https://www.facebook.com/adhikaalai
https://twitter.com/adhikaalai1
https://www.instagram.com/adhikaalai
https://www.dailymotion.com/adhikaalai1
http://adhikaalai.blogspot.com
Copyrights Reserved : Adhikaalai Info Media
- published: 13 May 2021
- views: 52
-
United States v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. White | 401 U.S. 745 (1971)
Imagine you have what you think is a confidential conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but you later learn that the other person was a police informant wearing a wire. Does the informant’s use of the device require a search warrant? The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the 1971 case of United States versus White.
On several occasions, Harvey Jackson purchased illegal drugs from James White. Unknown to White, Jackson was a police informant wearing a device that permitted federal agents to listen to their conversations about the drug transactions from a remote locatio...
published: 21 Oct 2020
-
United States v. White (1971) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conversations between White and a government informant violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals allowed the use of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance without a warrant. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision and had to determine if the electronic surveillance violated White's Fourth Amendment rights.
United States v. White (1971)
Supreme Court of the United States
401 U.S. 745, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 132, SCDB 1970-076
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-121436041
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a...
published: 27 May 2023
-
United States v White (1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
published: 04 Mar 2021
-
United States v. White Calf (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury was not properly instructed and that the government did not prove he knew the victim's age. The court also considered evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of a photograph and a police officer's testimony about the minor's appearance and age.
United States v. White Calf (2011)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
634 F.3d 453
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-calf-129517068
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just t...
published: 16 Aug 2023
-
State v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 114 S.W.3d 469 (2003)
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. But can a defendant choose any attorney, even if that attorney is a prosecutor? In State versus White, the Tennessee Supreme Court explores the interplay between a defendant’s right to counsel and an attorney’s ethical responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest.
After a grand jury in Shelby County, Tennessee indicted Jeremy White for multiple felonies, he hired attorney Mark McDaniel to defend him. During that same time, McDaniel was also practicing as a part-time assistant district attorney with authorit...
published: 06 Jun 2022
-
State v. White (2011) Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 251 P.3d 820 (2011)
An affirmative defense defeats or reduces an otherwise legitimate criminal charge. State versus White compares and contrasts two specific affirmative defenses that reduce murder to manslaughter.
Brenda and Jon White had a rocky marriage. Brenda felt anxious and angry during the marriage because she suspected that John was addicted to pornography and having an affair. The couple eventually divorced. Jon subsequently refused to pay child support and cancelled Brenda’s health insurance. As a result, Brenda struggled financially and worked longer hours. She tried to alleviate her financial i...
published: 02 Mar 2023
-
United States v. White (1978) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challenged their conspiracy convictions on grounds of insufficient evidence. They were convicted based on the work of two DEA agents who worked with a confidential informant. The informant bought heroin from Williams and concluded that Williams was selling for Claudell. The informant later bought small quantities of heroin from Phillip and discussed becoming a dealer for him. Phillip was later convicted of heroin possession based on Leeper's testimony that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. The court ruled that the chain of custody for the heroin was sufficient.
United States v. White (1978)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth...
published: 09 Jun 2023
-
United States v. White (2012) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However, the district court later granted his motion for acquittal or a new trial, but the appellate court reversed the decision. During the retrial, the government presented evidence of White's advocacy for violence against individuals he deemed "anti-racist" or "enemies" of white supremacy. The court provided instructions to the jury that speech is protected unless it incites an imminent lawless act. White's challenge to the district court's decision to use an anonymous jury was rejected.
United States v. White (2012)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
698 F.3d 1005
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/...
published: 16 Aug 2023
-
Alabama v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Alabama v. White | 496 U.S. 325 (1990)
Imagine someone anonymously calls the police department and claims that you’ve got illegal drugs in your car. Does the Fourth Amendment allow an officer to pull your car over and ask you whether you’ve got drugs, based on the anonymous tip? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Alabama versus White.
An anonymous caller told an officer with the Montgomery Police Department that an undescribed woman named Vanessa White was a drug dealer who would be engaging in a drug transaction later that day. The caller said White would drive away from a particular apartment complex...
published: 13 Nov 2020
-
United States v. White (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individuals and groups, including Jewish people and anti-racist activists. The government accused the defendant of soliciting violence and inciting harm through his online posts. The case involves potential violations of laws related to intimidation, harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
The most relevant facts to the court's analysis are the nature and content of the defendant's posts, including whether they constitute protected speech or solicitation of violence. The court must also consider whether the defendant's statements present a threat to public safety and violate applicable laws.
United States v. White (2011)
Uni...
published: 16 Aug 2023
1:25
United States v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. White | 401 U.S. 745 (1971)
Imagine you have what you think is a confidential conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but you later learn that the other person was a police informant wearing a wire. Does the informant’s use of the device require a search warrant? The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the 1971 case of United States versus White.
On several occasions, Harvey Jackson purchased illegal drugs from James White. Unknown to White, Jackson was a police informant wearing a device that permitted federal agents to listen to their conversations about the drug transactions from a remote location. The agents didn’t obtain a search warrant before conducting the electronic eavesdropping. A federal grand jury later charged White with felony drug charges. White pleaded not guilty and had a jury trial. The district court overruled White’s objection that the agents’ electronic eavesdropping constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search and allowed the agents to testify about what they heard White say to Harvey. The jury convicted White, and he was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
White appealed to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which reversed his conviction after concluding that the agents violated the Fourth Amendment by listening to White’s conversations with Harvey.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
United States v. White | 401 U.S. 745 (1971)
Imagine you have what you think is a confidential conversation with a friend or acquaintance, but you later learn that the other person was a police informant wearing a wire. Does the informant’s use of the device require a search warrant? The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the 1971 case of United States versus White.
On several occasions, Harvey Jackson purchased illegal drugs from James White. Unknown to White, Jackson was a police informant wearing a device that permitted federal agents to listen to their conversations about the drug transactions from a remote location. The agents didn’t obtain a search warrant before conducting the electronic eavesdropping. A federal grand jury later charged White with felony drug charges. White pleaded not guilty and had a jury trial. The district court overruled White’s objection that the agents’ electronic eavesdropping constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search and allowed the agents to testify about what they heard White say to Harvey. The jury convicted White, and he was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison.
White appealed to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which reversed his conviction after concluding that the agents violated the Fourth Amendment by listening to White’s conversations with Harvey.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 21 Oct 2020
- views: 2317
1:34
United States v. White (1971) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conv...
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conversations between White and a government informant violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals allowed the use of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance without a warrant. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision and had to determine if the electronic surveillance violated White's Fourth Amendment rights.
United States v. White (1971)
Supreme Court of the United States
401 U.S. 745, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 132, SCDB 1970-076
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-121436041
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(1971)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
A man named James A. White was sentenced to prison for illegal drug transactions. The issue is whether evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of conversations between White and a government informant violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals allowed the use of evidence obtained through electronic surveillance without a warrant. The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision and had to determine if the electronic surveillance violated White's Fourth Amendment rights.
United States v. White (1971)
Supreme Court of the United States
401 U.S. 745, 28 L. Ed. 2d 453, 91 S. Ct. 1122, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 132, SCDB 1970-076
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-121436041
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 27 May 2023
- views: 80
1:30
United States v White (1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
https://wn.com/United_States_V_White_(1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #678
- published: 04 Mar 2021
- views: 332
2:44
United States v. White Calf (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation....
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury was not properly instructed and that the government did not prove he knew the victim's age. The court also considered evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of a photograph and a police officer's testimony about the minor's appearance and age.
United States v. White Calf (2011)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
634 F.3d 453
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-calf-129517068
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_Calf_(2011)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
A man named Roman White Calf was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor when he engaged in sexual activity with a 13-year-old at a party on an Indian Reservation. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the jury was not properly instructed and that the government did not prove he knew the victim's age. The court also considered evidentiary rulings, including the admissibility of a photograph and a police officer's testimony about the minor's appearance and age.
United States v. White Calf (2011)
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
634 F.3d 453
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-calf-129517068
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 27
1:22
State v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-brief...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 114 S.W.3d 469 (2003)
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. But can a defendant choose any attorney, even if that attorney is a prosecutor? In State versus White, the Tennessee Supreme Court explores the interplay between a defendant’s right to counsel and an attorney’s ethical responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest.
After a grand jury in Shelby County, Tennessee indicted Jeremy White for multiple felonies, he hired attorney Mark McDaniel to defend him. During that same time, McDaniel was also practicing as a part-time assistant district attorney with authority to prosecute crimes in Shelby County. Before White’s case went to trial, the state of Tennessee moved to disqualify McDaniel from representing White.
The trial court disqualified McDaniel based on a perceived conflict of interest. The trial court also barred White from waiving the conflict without the state’s consent. White appealed to the criminal appeals court, which affirmed the trial court judgment but found an actual conflict of interest rather than a perceived one. White then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/State_V._White_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 114 S.W.3d 469 (2003)
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. But can a defendant choose any attorney, even if that attorney is a prosecutor? In State versus White, the Tennessee Supreme Court explores the interplay between a defendant’s right to counsel and an attorney’s ethical responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest.
After a grand jury in Shelby County, Tennessee indicted Jeremy White for multiple felonies, he hired attorney Mark McDaniel to defend him. During that same time, McDaniel was also practicing as a part-time assistant district attorney with authority to prosecute crimes in Shelby County. Before White’s case went to trial, the state of Tennessee moved to disqualify McDaniel from representing White.
The trial court disqualified McDaniel based on a perceived conflict of interest. The trial court also barred White from waiving the conflict without the state’s consent. White appealed to the criminal appeals court, which affirmed the trial court judgment but found an actual conflict of interest rather than a perceived one. White then appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-114-s-w-3d-469-2003
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 06 Jun 2022
- views: 204
2:17
State v. White (2011) Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 251 P.3d 820 (2011)
An affirmative defense defeats or reduces an otherwise legitimate criminal charge. State versus White compares and contrasts two specific affirmative defenses that reduce murder to manslaughter.
Brenda and Jon White had a rocky marriage. Brenda felt anxious and angry during the marriage because she suspected that John was addicted to pornography and having an affair. The couple eventually divorced. Jon subsequently refused to pay child support and cancelled Brenda’s health insurance. As a result, Brenda struggled financially and worked longer hours. She tried to alleviate her financial issues by refinancing the Whites’ marital home. But she needed Jon’s cooperation and signature. So, she went to Jon’s office to discuss the refinancing. They argued because Jon was reluctant to cooperate. Brenda became frustrated and drove away. She returned four hours later and saw Jon talking on a cell phone that he had denied owning during their marriage. Brenda chased Jon with her car, but he escaped into the office building. She then drove into the building and struck Jon twice. The State of Utah charged her with attempted murder. Before trial, Brenda moved for the judge to provide a jury instruction on the extreme-emotional-distress defense. She argued that when she saw Jon’s cell phone, the stress and emotion accumulated throughout their relationship overcame her and made her lose control.
The trial court denied Brenda’s motion, and she filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals held that the extreme-emotional-distress defense requires a loss of self-control resulting from a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event. It concluded that seeing Jon’s cell phone wasn’t sufficiently provocative and Brenda’s other prior stressors didn’t occur contemporaneously to her loss of control. Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and Brenda appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
The Quimbee App features over 36,300 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/State_V._White_(2011)_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 36,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
State v. White | 251 P.3d 820 (2011)
An affirmative defense defeats or reduces an otherwise legitimate criminal charge. State versus White compares and contrasts two specific affirmative defenses that reduce murder to manslaughter.
Brenda and Jon White had a rocky marriage. Brenda felt anxious and angry during the marriage because she suspected that John was addicted to pornography and having an affair. The couple eventually divorced. Jon subsequently refused to pay child support and cancelled Brenda’s health insurance. As a result, Brenda struggled financially and worked longer hours. She tried to alleviate her financial issues by refinancing the Whites’ marital home. But she needed Jon’s cooperation and signature. So, she went to Jon’s office to discuss the refinancing. They argued because Jon was reluctant to cooperate. Brenda became frustrated and drove away. She returned four hours later and saw Jon talking on a cell phone that he had denied owning during their marriage. Brenda chased Jon with her car, but he escaped into the office building. She then drove into the building and struck Jon twice. The State of Utah charged her with attempted murder. Before trial, Brenda moved for the judge to provide a jury instruction on the extreme-emotional-distress defense. She argued that when she saw Jon’s cell phone, the stress and emotion accumulated throughout their relationship overcame her and made her lose control.
The trial court denied Brenda’s motion, and she filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals held that the extreme-emotional-distress defense requires a loss of self-control resulting from a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event. It concluded that seeing Jon’s cell phone wasn’t sufficiently provocative and Brenda’s other prior stressors didn’t occur contemporaneously to her loss of control. Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and Brenda appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
The Quimbee App features over 36,300 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/state-v-white-251-p-3d-820-2011
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 02 Mar 2023
- views: 79
1:57
United States v. White (1978) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challe...
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challenged their conspiracy convictions on grounds of insufficient evidence. They were convicted based on the work of two DEA agents who worked with a confidential informant. The informant bought heroin from Williams and concluded that Williams was selling for Claudell. The informant later bought small quantities of heroin from Phillip and discussed becoming a dealer for him. Phillip was later convicted of heroin possession based on Leeper's testimony that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. The court ruled that the chain of custody for the heroin was sufficient.
United States v. White (1978)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
569 F.2d 263
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-8820859
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(1978)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
The Whites were convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Phillip was also convicted of heroin possession with intent to distribute. They challenged their conspiracy convictions on grounds of insufficient evidence. They were convicted based on the work of two DEA agents who worked with a confidential informant. The informant bought heroin from Williams and concluded that Williams was selling for Claudell. The informant later bought small quantities of heroin from Phillip and discussed becoming a dealer for him. Phillip was later convicted of heroin possession based on Leeper's testimony that he purchased the drugs from Phillip. The court ruled that the chain of custody for the heroin was sufficient.
United States v. White (1978)
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
569 F.2d 263
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-8820859
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 09 Jun 2023
- views: 10
2:14
United States v. White (2012) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However...
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However, the district court later granted his motion for acquittal or a new trial, but the appellate court reversed the decision. During the retrial, the government presented evidence of White's advocacy for violence against individuals he deemed "anti-racist" or "enemies" of white supremacy. The court provided instructions to the jury that speech is protected unless it incites an imminent lawless act. White's challenge to the district court's decision to use an anonymous jury was rejected.
United States v. White (2012)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
698 F.3d 1005
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-12903736
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(2012)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
William White, a white supremacist, posted personal information about a juror on his website and was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. However, the district court later granted his motion for acquittal or a new trial, but the appellate court reversed the decision. During the retrial, the government presented evidence of White's advocacy for violence against individuals he deemed "anti-racist" or "enemies" of white supremacy. The court provided instructions to the jury that speech is protected unless it incites an imminent lawless act. White's challenge to the district court's decision to use an anonymous jury was rejected.
United States v. White (2012)
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
698 F.3d 1005
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-12903736
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 5
1:58
Alabama v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Alabama v. White | 496 U.S. 325 (1990)
Imagine someone anonymously calls the police department and claims that you’ve got illegal drugs in your car. Does the Fourth Amendment allow an officer to pull your car over and ask you whether you’ve got drugs, based on the anonymous tip? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Alabama versus White.
An anonymous caller told an officer with the Montgomery Police Department that an undescribed woman named Vanessa White was a drug dealer who would be engaging in a drug transaction later that day. The caller said White would drive away from a particular apartment complex at a certain time, in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken taillight. She would travel to Dobey’s Motel, which was four miles from the apartment complex.
Officers conducted surveillance of the apartment complex and noticed a car fitting the description given by the caller. They saw a woman get in the car and drive away. The officers followed her until it was apparent that she was driving in the direction of the motel. Shortly before White would have arrived at the motel, a police car pulled her over. The officer informed White that he had stopped her based on suspicion that she had drugs in the car. The officer then obtained White’s consent to search her car for the drugs.
Officers found marijuana inside the car and cocaine inside White’s purse. White was charged in state court with drug possession. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress the drugs under the Fourth Amendment, White entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving her right to appeal. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed White’s conviction, concluding that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment. The Alabama Supreme Court denied review.
The state successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review White’s case.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/Alabama_V._White_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Alabama v. White | 496 U.S. 325 (1990)
Imagine someone anonymously calls the police department and claims that you’ve got illegal drugs in your car. Does the Fourth Amendment allow an officer to pull your car over and ask you whether you’ve got drugs, based on the anonymous tip? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Alabama versus White.
An anonymous caller told an officer with the Montgomery Police Department that an undescribed woman named Vanessa White was a drug dealer who would be engaging in a drug transaction later that day. The caller said White would drive away from a particular apartment complex at a certain time, in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken taillight. She would travel to Dobey’s Motel, which was four miles from the apartment complex.
Officers conducted surveillance of the apartment complex and noticed a car fitting the description given by the caller. They saw a woman get in the car and drive away. The officers followed her until it was apparent that she was driving in the direction of the motel. Shortly before White would have arrived at the motel, a police car pulled her over. The officer informed White that he had stopped her based on suspicion that she had drugs in the car. The officer then obtained White’s consent to search her car for the drugs.
Officers found marijuana inside the car and cocaine inside White’s purse. White was charged in state court with drug possession. After the trial court denied her motion to suppress the drugs under the Fourth Amendment, White entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving her right to appeal. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed White’s conviction, concluding that the officers had violated the Fourth Amendment. The Alabama Supreme Court denied review.
The state successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review White’s case.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/alabama-v-white
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 13 Nov 2020
- views: 2557
2:14
United States v. White (2011) Overview | LSData Case Brief Video Summary
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individ...
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individuals and groups, including Jewish people and anti-racist activists. The government accused the defendant of soliciting violence and inciting harm through his online posts. The case involves potential violations of laws related to intimidation, harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
The most relevant facts to the court's analysis are the nature and content of the defendant's posts, including whether they constitute protected speech or solicitation of violence. The court must also consider whether the defendant's statements present a threat to public safety and violate applicable laws.
United States v. White (2011)
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
779 F. Supp. 2d 775
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-132050542
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
https://wn.com/United_States_V._White_(2011)_Overview_|_Lsdata_Case_Brief_Video_Summary
The defendant is a white supremacist leader who posted personal information about a juror on his website and made threatening statements towards various individuals and groups, including Jewish people and anti-racist activists. The government accused the defendant of soliciting violence and inciting harm through his online posts. The case involves potential violations of laws related to intimidation, harassment, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
The most relevant facts to the court's analysis are the nature and content of the defendant's posts, including whether they constitute protected speech or solicitation of violence. The court must also consider whether the defendant's statements present a threat to public safety and violate applicable laws.
United States v. White (2011)
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
779 F. Supp. 2d 775
Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/united-states-v-white-132050542
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1
- published: 16 Aug 2023
- views: 2
-
Breedlove v Suttles (1937)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #609
published: 31 Dec 2020
-
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution | Wikipedia audio article
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
00:01:36 1 Text
00:02:10 2 Background
00:09:26 3 Proposal and ratification
00:13:27 4 Post-ratification law
Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.
Learning by listening is a great way to:
- increases imagination and understanding
- improves your listening skills
- improves your own spoken accent
- learn while on the move
- reduce eye strain
Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to...
published: 03 Dec 2018
-
Oregon v Mitchell (1970)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #907
published: 04 Feb 2022
-
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederacy adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v...
published: 15 Oct 2015
-
Fairchild v Hughes (1922)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #332
published: 02 Apr 2020
-
Crawford v Marion County Election Board (2008)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #561
published: 10 Dec 2020
-
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #74
published: 23 Mar 2020
-
Minor v. Hapersett Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The United States Constitution is more then two hundred and thirty years old, and it’s sobering to realize that for most of that time, it allowed for state-sanctioned discrimination against women. An example of that discrimination arose in the 1875 case of Minor versus Happersett.
Virginia Minor, a Missouri resident and a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, tried in 1872 to register to vote. But Missouri’s constitution and laws only allowed men to vote, so Reese Happersett, the registrar, rejected her application. Minor sued Happersett, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment prot...
published: 29 Dec 2020
1:32
Breedlove v Suttles (1937)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #609
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #609
https://wn.com/Breedlove_V_Suttles_(1937)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #609
- published: 31 Dec 2020
- views: 152
15:42
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution | Wikipedia audio article
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
00:01:36 1 Text
00:02:10 2 Background
00:09:2...
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
00:01:36 1 Text
00:02:10 2 Background
00:09:26 3 Proposal and ratification
00:13:27 4 Post-ratification law
Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.
Learning by listening is a great way to:
- increases imagination and understanding
- improves your listening skills
- improves your own spoken accent
- learn while on the move
- reduce eye strain
Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.
You can find other Wikipedia audio articles too at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuKfABj2eGyjH3ntPxp4YeQ
You can upload your own Wikipedia articles through:
https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
- Socrates
SUMMARY
=======
The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederate States of America adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.
When the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964, five states still retained a poll tax:
Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia. The amendment prohibited requiring a poll tax for voters in federal elections. But it was not until 1966 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes for any level of elections were unconstitutional. It said these violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent litigation related to potential discriminatory effects of voter registration requirements has generally been based on application of this clause.
https://wn.com/Twenty_Fourth_Amendment_To_The_United_States_Constitution_|_Wikipedia_Audio_Article
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article:
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
00:01:36 1 Text
00:02:10 2 Background
00:09:26 3 Proposal and ratification
00:13:27 4 Post-ratification law
Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago.
Learning by listening is a great way to:
- increases imagination and understanding
- improves your listening skills
- improves your own spoken accent
- learn while on the move
- reduce eye strain
Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to listen a lot, you could try using a bone conduction headphone, or a standard speaker instead of an earphone.
You can find other Wikipedia audio articles too at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuKfABj2eGyjH3ntPxp4YeQ
You can upload your own Wikipedia articles through:
https://github.com/nodef/wikipedia-tts
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
- Socrates
SUMMARY
=======
The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederate States of America adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.
When the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964, five states still retained a poll tax:
Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia. The amendment prohibited requiring a poll tax for voters in federal elections. But it was not until 1966 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes for any level of elections were unconstitutional. It said these violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent litigation related to potential discriminatory effects of voter registration requirements has generally been based on application of this clause.
- published: 03 Dec 2018
- views: 47
1:22
Oregon v Mitchell (1970)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #907
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #907
https://wn.com/Oregon_V_Mitchell_(1970)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #907
- published: 04 Feb 2022
- views: 90
13:52
Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on...
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederacy adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.
This video is targeted to blind users.
Attribution:
Article text available under CC-BY-SA
Creative Commons image source in video
https://wn.com/Twenty_Fourth_Amendment_To_The_United_States_Constitution
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
Southern states of the former Confederacy adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v. Suttles.
This video is targeted to blind users.
Attribution:
Article text available under CC-BY-SA
Creative Commons image source in video
- published: 15 Oct 2015
- views: 313
1:12
Fairchild v Hughes (1922)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #332
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #332
https://wn.com/Fairchild_V_Hughes_(1922)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #332
- published: 02 Apr 2020
- views: 46
1:32
Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #74
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #74
https://wn.com/Lemon_V_Kurtzman_(1971)
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #74
- published: 23 Mar 2020
- views: 941
1:02
Minor v. Hapersett Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-ove...
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The United States Constitution is more then two hundred and thirty years old, and it’s sobering to realize that for most of that time, it allowed for state-sanctioned discrimination against women. An example of that discrimination arose in the 1875 case of Minor versus Happersett.
Virginia Minor, a Missouri resident and a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, tried in 1872 to register to vote. But Missouri’s constitution and laws only allowed men to vote, so Reese Happersett, the registrar, rejected her application. Minor sued Happersett, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment protected her right to vote. The state trial court rejected her argument, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court accepted the case for consideration.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minor-v-happersett
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minor-v-happersett
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
https://wn.com/Minor_V._Hapersett_Case_Brief_Summary_|_Law_Case_Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The United States Constitution is more then two hundred and thirty years old, and it’s sobering to realize that for most of that time, it allowed for state-sanctioned discrimination against women. An example of that discrimination arose in the 1875 case of Minor versus Happersett.
Virginia Minor, a Missouri resident and a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, tried in 1872 to register to vote. But Missouri’s constitution and laws only allowed men to vote, so Reese Happersett, the registrar, rejected her application. Minor sued Happersett, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment protected her right to vote. The state trial court rejected her argument, and the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. The United States Supreme Court accepted the case for consideration.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minor-v-happersett
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/minor-v-happersett
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/
Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
- published: 29 Dec 2020
- views: 1385