Hello, my name is David Henley. I practice maritime law with the firm Stuart McKelvie and Halifax. I've been an associate of the Marine and Environmental Law Institute for about 11 years after completing my master's in law under the Marine Environmental Law Program. I also have taught fisheries law at the Schulich School of Law for the past 11 years. So my topic today is the scope and content of Canadian maritime law. Just what is Canadian maritime law and why does it matter? To put it simply, it matters because maritime law falls within Parliament's jurisdiction over navigation and shipping under Section 9110 of the Constitution Act, essentially navigation and shipping. In this respect, if it is a matter of Canadian maritime law, it will be subject to the application of various federal statutes in the concurrent jurisdiction of the federal court. This can be very significant. It matters a limitation of rights and statutory limitation periods, among other things. I will talk briefly about how the jurisdiction over maritime law affects its scope and then delve more deeply into some aspects of the content of Canadian maritime law. To start at the beginning, the Federal Courts Act defines Canadian maritime law as follows. Canadian maritime law means the law that was administered by the Exchequer Court of Canada on its abernalty side by virtue of the Abernalty Act, Chapter A1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, or any other statute that would have been so administered if that court had had on its abernalty side unlimited jurisdiction in relation to maritime and abernalty matters as that law has been altered by this act or any other act of Parliament. I start with this because it demonstrates that what is Canadian maritime law is not readily apparent to a casual reader of the Federal Courts Act if there is such a thing. The scope and content of Canadian maritime law is a complex mix of English laws it was received and the jurisprudence which has developed since that time. To decipher what this means, it can be useful to examine the related jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada. I like the description of the requirements for Federal Court jurisdiction in a maritime context provided by Justice DeCarrie in his dissent in the 2005 Federal Court of Appeal Decision of Eisen and Sims. I think it guides the jurisdictional analysis for maritime claims. He summarized it as saying the Federal Court must have been granted jurisdiction by either the Canada Shipping Act or Section 22 of the Federal Courts Act. The claim must be a Canadian maritime law claim as this expression is defined in Section 2 of the Federal Court Act and as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada. And the Canada Shipping Act or the Federal Court Act must be the law of Canada. Section 22.1 of the Federal Court Act gives the Federal Court concurrent original jurisdiction with the provincial courts in all cases where a claim for relief is made or remedy sought with respect to Canadian maritime law or any other law of Canada coming in within navigation and shipping, except where it has been otherwise specifically assigned. In Subsections 22 and 3 expressly bring a long list of maritime items into its jurisdiction. They include things like claims for damages for loss of life or personal injury caused by a ship, either by collision or otherwise. Claims for loss or damage of goods carried in a ship. Claims for salvage. Claims arising out of contracts relating to the construction, repair or equipping of a ship. And that's just to name a few. It is a long list. So while the matters in Subsection 22.2 likely fall within Canadian maritime law, the express conveyance of jurisdiction does not end the analysis. Justice McIntyre made it clear in ITO that a source of substantive maritime law is still necessary. He said that Section 22.2 does no more than grant jurisdiction and it does not create operative law. One must still be able to point to some applicable and existing federal law which nourishes that grant of jurisdiction. So regardless of what Section 22 says, there must be applicable federal law as just to carry a note in Eisen and Sims. The quest for this source of substantive maritime law then informs the scope and content of Canadian maritime law. So as I've said, the Federal Court Act defines Canadian maritime law, but the Supreme Court in the 1986 case of ITO International Terminal Operators addressed the composition of the definition. In ITO, Justice McIntyre summarized this as adopting into Canadian law English Admiralty Jurisdiction Law as it existed in 1934. Concluding that the term Canadian maritime law includes all that body of law which was administered in England by the High Court on its Admiralty side in 1934 as such law may from time to time have been amended by the federal parliament as it's developed through judicial precedent to date. On the second aspect of the definition, he stated that in reality the ambit of Canadian maritime law is limited only by the constitutional division of powers in the Constitution Act 1867. The Supreme Court also made it clear in the 1990 case of Whitbread and Wally that the scope and substantive content of the federal court's jurisdiction over Canadian maritime law is simultaneously an inquiry as to the scope and content of an important aspect of parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over navigation into shipping. Now this seems intuitive. Federal jurisdiction over Canadian maritime law can only be conferred to the extent of the appropriate head of power under the Constitution Act, and in this case navigation and shipping. Canadian maritime law is then the body of English Admiralty law as it was received in 1934, but as it has evolved in a modern context since that time. Justice McIntyre described Canadian maritime law as a body of federal law encompassing the common law principles of twerk contract and bailment. So what does this mean? Well there have been a wide variety of cases which have touched upon or expanded the concept of Canadian maritime law. The most important for the purpose of this topic is the 1998 case of Orden and Grail. In Orden and Grail, the Supreme Court of Canada outlined a test to be applied in the first instance where any provincial statute is being invoked as part of a maritime negligence claim. The first step of the test is to identify the matter of issue. In doing so, it was necessary to determine whether the facts of the case raise a maritime or admiralty matter or one of local concern. In order to determine this, the Court examined at paragraph 73 whether the subject matter under consideration in the particular case was so integrally connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law within federal legislative competence. As I've mentioned, this is closely linked to the assessment of whether a matter falls within navigation and shipping. Of greater importance, Orden and Grail gave us a roadmap for the development of Canadian maritime law by outlining seven general principles. I'm just going to highlight the first two principles and then commend the rest for your reading pleasure. The first principle was that Canadian maritime law as defined in section two of the Federal Court Act is a comprehensive body of federal law dealing with all claims and respective maritime and admiralty matters. The scope of Canadian maritime law is not limited by the scope of English admiralty law at the time of its adoption into Canadian law in 1934. Rather, the word maritime is to be interpreted within the modern context of commerce and shipping, and the ambit of Canadian maritime law should be considered limited only by the constitutional division of powers in the Constitution Act 1867. The test for determining whether a subject matter under consideration is within maritime law requires a finding that the subject matter is so integrally connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law within federal competence. A few important points come under this first principle. While the adoption of English admiralty law was crystallized as it was in 1934, it was not limited to this law. The nature of shipping has evolved substantially, and Canadian maritime law is free to evolve with it. Of great importance, the test for determining whether a claim is within maritime law is whether the subject matter is so integrally connected to maritime matters. I'll have more to say on this later, but that is the driving test. Now the second principle was that Canadian maritime law is uniform throughout Canada and is not the law of any province of Canada. All of its principles constitute federal law and not an incidental application of provincial law. You will see in many of the decisions the application of the test in the context of whether there is a need for uniformity on a particular subject. Because of the inter-jurisdictional nature of navigation and shipping, uniformity of maritime law is a significant policy issue which informs those decisions. The third through seventh principles generally elaborate on those first two and provide a little bit more meat on the bone. I won't go into those in detail, but these principles serve as guideposts in the subsequent jurisprudence, and as we've seen, they loosely mark the boundaries of Canadian maritime law. So moving on to the scope of Canadian maritime law. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has resulted in a substantial change to the scope of Canadian maritime law. The principles that I discussed that were articulated in Ordon and Grail make it clear that Canadian maritime law will continue to evolve through judicial reform. However, aspects of the present boundaries can be traced through those cases, and I must emphasize that it is the present boundaries that the boundaries can move and have in the past. As a first step, it is important to assess the nature of each claim for its integral connection to maritime matters. For example, see the comments of Justice Heenehan in the 2004 Federal Court case of Kusigak and Northern Transportation. In this case, she stated that the common law principles of tort are only encompassed by subsection 22.1 to the extent that the matters in which they arise are integrally connected to maritime law. In Kusigak, Justice Heenehan further opined that paragraph 53 that not every tortuous activity engaged in on Canada's waterways is subject to Canadian maritime law, noting the need to establish sufficient connection of the claim to navigation and shipping. In this respect, Canadian maritime law does not bring in aspects of the common law on block, rather it is necessary to demonstrate that the subject matter of the particular claim is integrally connected to maritime law. But then look at Rattle Brothers Fishing and Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, another Federal Court decision. In this decision, Justice DeKerry took a somewhat more restrictive view of the requirement to be integrally connected with maritime matters, noting that it is not an easy requirement to meet. He stated at paragraph 53, it is indeed one thing to adjust, as the Supreme Court invites us to do, the maritime jurisdiction of the Federal Court to the modern context of commerce and shipping. It is another to extend it through the pretext of modernity to claims the foundation resource of which was and still is essentially a non-maritime matter. These comments suggest a fairly high bar, however I think overall the cases indicate that the integral connection test has been given significant latitude. For example, if we look at the Supreme Court decision of Bow Valley Husky and St. John Shipbuilding, and then runs a Court of Appeal decision of Russell and McKay, you'll see that the courts have, in my view, aired on the side of inclusion largely on the basis of uniformity. In Bow Valley, the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving a fire on board an oil rig alleged to have been caused by negligent work of the shipyard. In determining whether contributory negligence was a bar to recovery, the Court examined whether the Contributory Negligence Act of Newfoundland and Labrador applied or whether the Federal Maritime Law applied. Faced with an argument that maritime law should not apply because the particular source of the fire had no relationship to the rig's navigational equipment, and because the claims were advanced in tort and contract rather than under navigation and shipping, the Court stated that the tortuous liability in a maritime context is governed by a body of maritime law under the Exclusive Jurisdiction of Parliament. Regardless of whether the rig was a navigable vessel, the Court was satisfied that the tort claim was still a maritime matter as the main purpose of the rig was activity in navigable waters. The Court also took note of the fact that the heat trace system, which was the source of the fire, had special marine material requirements, causing product liability issues to be dominated by marine considerations. This is not unlike the situation in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal case of Russell and McKay, which more directly addressed arguments that activities aboard a vessel unrelated to navigation should not be captured by Canadian maritime law. This was a much less complex case in which the plaintiff sought damages for personal injury arising from a fall aboard a whale watching vessel. The plaintiff's injuries arose from having fallen over a movable drink cooler on the deck of the vessel while the vessel was at sea. The Court of Appeal considered arguments as to whether it made any difference that the fall related to the cruise placement of a cooler which had nothing to do with the navigation of the vessel. Chief Justice Draupo concluded that the Canadian maritime law was engaged largely on the strength that the vessel was engaged in navigation at the time, very similar to the Bow Valley Husky case. Of particular importance, he noted that to make the distinction on the basis of the cooler not being related to navigation would create substantial uncertainty. Justice Draupo went on to say, it makes no sense to apply provincial law to a passenger's trip and fall over a movable cooler filled with beverages and to apply federal law to a passenger's trip and fall over a portable fuel tank or a container, perhaps even one ordinarily used as a cooler, because it happened to be filled with navigational accessories. I submit that these cases indicate that the boundaries of what type of claim is integrally connected to maritime matters are broadened by the policy need for uniformity of maritime law. But the distinction can turn on still finer points. This is particularly evident in cargo related claims. For example, in Monk Corporation and Island Fertilizers, the Supreme Court accepted that contracts related to discharge of cargo were integrally connected to maritime matters. But an important nuance can be found in the 2014 decision of Justice Harrington and AK Steel Corporation. That decision highlights the distinction we made as to whether the claim is connected to navigation and shipping or to the contract for sale of goods. Justice Harrington was satisfied the claim fell within Canadian Maritime Law but noted at paragraph 20 that had, for instance, the cargo had been out of spec because of its iron content. This court might not have had jurisdiction. The moisture content, however, was relevant to the fitness of the cargo for shipment. Justice Harrington's comments about the specification of the iron content were directed at the question of whether the claim is a dispute over the nature of the cargo as opposed to the carriage of it by sea. A significant difference in establishing an integral connection with navigation and shipping. The cases dealing with fishing licenses also helped delineate this line of reason. I referred earlier to the Rattle Brothers case, which was a federal court case. It's an example of where the court concluded that the nature of the claim did not have sufficient maritime connection. The claim was brought in tort by the owner of a fishing vessel against its agent for failing to transfer a fishing license. Justice DeCarrie found a general lack of authority that would suggest that the matters arising out of an agreement to purchase a fishing license from a private party or breach of a related agency contract for purposes of purchasing the license would fall within Canadian Maritime Law. The court's analysis on this connection or the lack thereof was similar to that in Eisen and Sims, which I'll come to later. Justice DeCarrie noted that the sole factor connecting this case to maritime law was the fact that the license, with respect to which the agency contract was entered into, happened to be issued in relation to an activity occurring at sea. He noted that there was no contract to carriage of goods, there was no marine insurance, there were no goods at all, nothing had actually happened at sea. He went on to say that the claim, at best and incidentally, may be said to relate to the ability of a ship to perform certain fishing activities in accordance with requirements that have nothing to do with navigation and shipping and everything to do with fisheries. I submit that this rationale seems consistent without a Justice Harrington in the recent case of AK Steel Corporation, but then contrast Rattle Brothers with the 2011 decision of Alcan Primary Metal and Group Maritime Virole. In the Alcan case, the Federal Court of Appeal accepted that a claim for breach of an agreement to rewrite brokerage services for the procurement of tugs was subject to Canadian maritime law. Justice Noelle, as he then was, agreed with the trial decision of Justice Pinard, who noted that this agreement was maritime in nature. Both parties carried on maritime activities and the brokerage services were connected to the purchase of ships. The claim for unpaid commission was connected to the brokerage services for the purchase of a ship. Justice Noelle concluded that the purchase of the tugs and eminently maritime activity and the brokerage services which enabled it to make that purchase were inseparable. The problem identified in the contract and the goal sought out by signing it, that is leasing or acquisition by the appellant of two tugs meeting its needs, go hand in hand. He said that the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant cannot be resolved by disregarding the contract that gave rise to the claim. Now the comment that the purchase of tugs is an eminently maritime activity is interesting, given the 2013 decision of Justice Montmey in 9171702 Quebec, in which he cast doubt on whether the sale of vessel was necessarily subject to Canadian maritime law. This raises the potential question of at what point purely contractual matters become integrally connected to maritime matters. I think this is an issue which we may see further development on. Another interesting issue that relates to the boundary of maritime law is the inclusion of pleasure craft. The Supreme Court case of Whitbread and Wally, which I've mentioned, involved a pleasure craft which ran aground while a passenger was at the helm, rendering the owner a quadriplegic. The passengers sought to limit liability under certain provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, and the question was whether those provisions were beyond the powers of parliament. The court quickly dispelled any suggestion that there was any significance to the use of pleasure craft above the high watermark or inland waters in respect of whether provincial or federal laws applied. In this respect, the court held that the requirement for a uniform maritime law was a necessity for all navigable waterways. Since commercial and pleasure craft both operate on many of the same waters, it was an obvious conclusion that liability for common maritime issues such as collisions must be consistent. In this decision, Justice Laferet's brief statement that the inclusion of pleasure craft within the ambit of maritime law gains further support could perhaps merit a clarification as it suggests a blanket conclusion which the court seems to have moved away from in Eisen and Simms. The later Supreme Court of Canada decision of Eisen and Simms also was a pleasure craft case and dealt with an injury which occurred in connection with that vessel but not its actual operation. The vessel had actually been removed from the water and the parties were preparing it for transport on the highway in a parking lot close to the water. A bungee cord being used to secure the engine cover snapped loose and caused an eye injury. The defendant sought to apply a limitation of liability provisions under the Canada Shipping Act similar to Whitbread and Wally's case. In a brief decision, Justice Rothstein found that the negligent act which gave rise to the injury was not governed by federal maritime law. The court applied the test from ITO as to whether the subject matter was so intimately connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law noting that it was essentially a line drawing exercise. Reviewing Whitbread and Wally, Justice Rothstein held a paragraph 24 of his decision that Parliament does not have jurisdiction over pleasure craft per se. The mere involvement of a pleasure craft in an incident is not sufficient to ground Parliament's jurisdiction. Rather, in cases such as this, the court must look at the allegedly negligent acts and determine whether the activity is intimately connected to the act of navigating the pleasure craft on Canadian waterways such that it is practically necessary for Parliament to have jurisdiction over the matter. Given that the focus is on the act that forms the basis of the negligent claim, where or when those acts occurred is not determinative. This comment raises a number of issues. While said in the context of pleasure craft, why would the rationale not apply to any vessel? Would it be correct to say that Parliament does not have jurisdiction over vessels per se on the basis that the jurisdiction is not over ships, but rather navigation and shipping? I think it is questionable whether the purpose of a vessel, whether recreational, commercial, or otherwise should govern the applicable law. In drawing the line, the court agreed with Justice Nadal of the Federal Court of Appeal that the launching of a pleasure craft and removal from the water are within the federal jurisdiction over navigation on the basis that these activities could pose a hazard to navigation of other vessels. That is the link to navigation and shipping. However, Justice Rothstein drew the line once the vessel was being secured for highway transportation, considering it to be at that point akin to any other type of cargo transported on the highway and then subject to verbal law. His reasoning was that there should not be a difference in the law applicable to particular cargo being secured for transport on the highway simply because the cargo was above. A potentially helpful note in Justice Rothstein's statement was that he was in substantial agreement with the analysis of justice to carry in his dissent in the Federal Court of Appeal in which he outlined a list of what he saw were the relevant criteria. While some of the elements of the list clearly refer to Section 222 of the Federal Court Act, it potentially is of significant assistance in demonstrating what is relevant for the line drawing exercise with respect to Canadian maritime law. However, it would have been more useful if Justice Rothstein had simply said that he was in agreement with the analysis rather than a substantial agreement, which leaves some doubt over what aspects may be of more or less significance. Whether Eisen and Sims assists in drawing the line for application of Canadian maritime lies, in my view, somewhat unclear. For example, would it matter if the engine cover was secured for transport before the vessel was pulled from the water? The act and purpose are the same. Perhaps the act was not sufficiently connected to maritime law once it was performed on land. However, the justification for any link to the intended use of the vessel seems unclear and would be even more problematic where a vessel had mixed recreational and commercial purposes. While a line was drawn in Eisen and Sims, I submit that its location and effect are not as well defined as maybe desirable. So in summary, the primary test articulated by the Supreme Court for whether a claim falls within Canadian maritime law is whether the subject matter of the claim is so intricately connected to maritime matters as to be legitimate Canadian maritime law. The challenge with this approach is that there's no bright line to define which claims are placed in which basket. Some claims are more obviously within the realm of Canadian maritime law, such as those directly related to carriage goods by sea, or perhaps negligence in respect of collisions at sea. However, as claims move further from dependency on navigation and shipping, they are susceptible to greater, though perhaps not consistent, scrutiny. As a claim moves away from its connection to navigation and shipping, such as disputes over the goods supplied which do not relate to sea-going issues, they will not be subject to Canadian maritime law. The fact that a claim has some basis in land-related activities also does not necessarily rule out the application of Canadian maritime law if it can still be said to be integrally connected to maritime matters. So those are my brief comments on the scope and content of Canadian maritime law. I hope you found that interesting, and thank you for listening.


It seems as if the separation and the fragmentation, though, has carried on to different planes. You know, like maybe, if you think of it in one ear sensor within the metaphor that after we die, there's a sense of separation somewhere else that maybe the dream is happier or something like that. You know, I'm trying to kind of put these near-death experience folks that I've read in the context.  You know, after, you know, the experience that we have after the body is ceased to function. There may still be experiences of separation or whatever. Kind of like what it's still like. The assumption is almost like there is an afterlife. Right. And what I'm getting from the course is like, this isn't life. This never was life. That there isn't anything that comes after this because this isn't.  And it's kind of like the course is throwing it, leaving it out of that perspective. But it seems as if, you know, from writings that we have and things like that, that there are experiences that seem after death, that are part of the overall fragmentation experience.  But it's still right. Yeah, it's all still part of the same illusion. You know, the astral plane and the causal plane. There's different planes, you know, which one's a little better than the other. And getting away from the idea that there is a collective world out there, you know, outside my mind, or even collective egos. Because then, suddenly, it still offers another way to pun it off a little bit.


Hi folks, last week of July we're looking at this, the 11am Tiger Financial News Network Market Update, Basel Chapman here does up 78 at $31,976 after that sudden pullback Friday after making Leg C. This is actually pretty good action, the day is young but so far pretty good action and we're looking at it holding the Chapwave inside track propellant zone, it starts to break under $31,600 this week, that's really not a good sign, wow if we can get to $32,300 anytime by Wednesday, that's fabulous action. Looking at the S&P, the S&P right now, he's trading, don't forget we saw it off at nine o'clock with Tommy Jr. and his market kickoff all the way to Tom Sr. closing the shows at three to four o'clock every day, we're looking at the S&P up fractionally at $39,61, it really needs to get to the 407, 410 area within the next couple of days, looking at the QQQQQ coming back a little bit from the lows of the day is down only $1.90, at 300.12, made a leg C could be a peak C and here you want to see G12 by Thursday or Friday this week or higher, that's 12 points high, that's a lot to go, IWM also turned around a little bit it's up 40 cents at 179.92, not bad day C looking at gold, gold was down 10, now it's down 13. It's really struggling and that's surprising when you're looking at the, oh, I didn't do the dollar view of my show today. The dollar is down 13 ticks at one at 6.44. We've been along for years and it did take about a week and a half ago, right almost at the top, we took just a little bit of the UUP again, we've only taken it off twice since we, the law of 19.07. This is, the dollar's digesting gains, the weekly chart is still looking very good. And if you're looking at crude oil, well, I never even did crude oil. Yeah, I got a lot to do tomorrow when I do my show, I'll do them all. Crude oil is up $1.25 and $95.95. It's in the lower range, it's just kind of stuck in the lower range. What's really important here is that the TLT, never did that either. Oh, TLT is making a PD, but that means yields are just stuck in the lower range, but they aren't breaking down, they're not breaking up, they're just kind of stuck. And with that said, I'm gonna hand you over to Larry Pizavento, who should be a great show, he's always with Larry, just terrific programming here. Check out my opening call, my daily newsletter. It's good to be back, I was away for a week and just in isolation, me and my wife, we decided we'd just go to Manhattan. That's an experience, I'll talk about it over this coming week, because it was really important. So with that said, I'm gonna sign off and say thank you for being here. I'll be back tomorrow. Stay tuned for great programming.


Tesla upgraded at Berenberg. Tesla looked at Ron Barron a major fund manager this morning on Squawk talking about it going to the sky My issue with Tesla is I don't know how to value it, but I will tell you this It's not being valued as an auto stock. It's being valued as a tech stock It's being valued just like Netflix and just like Amazon so the Tesla balls will continue to buy it


Am I okay angle-wise?  I'm Rick. And you can follow us on Instagram, Twitter, or more. And you can see what I'm doing. Thanks for watching, follow us on Twitter, and the bell notification is on. And also, in person, you can check out our channel. And today, we are like this because we weren't planning our family day because we were filming Family Man. Reactions. But the new trailer dropped for Rai. And so, you know we're gonna react to this as quick as possible. We were very excited. It's also another Manoj. It's a Manoj.  Manoj, Ali, KK Menon. And I know the filmmakers behind it. I thought Vishal was one of them. I thought it was like an anthology. But I don't see him on the INDB credits. But it's a bunch of people that we know. The guy who did Ota Punjab and the director of the Sushant one, like the military style Sushant one. He's the director of it. Vasan Baal and then Sidra Mukherjee as well in terms of the film. I thought Vishal was part of it. Maybe he dropped out. But yeah, it has so many people in it. And it's about Satyajit Rai to an extent. I don't know to what extent. It says, for unique individuals, go on to achieve great things in their respective fields. But will their success be their own undoing? Did their success come at a cost? Watch these four timeless stories unfold. Rai premieres June 25th. It's so weird because it doesn't say anything about Satyajit Rai. I'm pretty sure that's what it's about though. Yeah, okay. I don't know. It's at the bottom here from a satire to a psychological thriller for short stories from celebrated a tour and writer Satyajit Rai are adapted for the screen in this series. Got it. Okay. So this isn't about him. It's four of his short stories put into the screen as an adaptation and adapted anthology. But it's also called Rai. Got it. So I was going to say, I thought they were like playing Rai. That's what I thought. Me too. I thought it was like about him. But still, very, very excited about this. So, you ready? Yes, yes. All right. Three, two, one. Yes. All right, let's get... Juliet. Nice shot. Oh, looks great. Looks great. And I won't want to read the stories now to see what this modern interpretation of them is. Well, they're short stories, so I'm sure you have time. It comes out June 25th. Yeah, absolutely. I want to read the stories and then see how well they do contemporize them. Yeah. So... Looks great. Also, it says it's a series. Is it going to be like episode episodes or is it an anthology? Probably both. It's probably going to be... Well, it could be both. It could easily be like a 12 episode season, and you give each part of the anthology four episodes or three episodes. You know what I mean? Oh. You just divide it up that way, or you just do four episodes. You do, you know, but if they want to turn each of the... I don't know. There's a number of ways you can do it as a series and keep it as an anthology. Yeah. But it would only be obviously one season, probably. Yeah. But it's really good though. Like Monage's character looks extremely good. Yeah. And obviously Ali as well looks great. That other guy who I'm not as familiar... But he looks familiar, but I'm just not as familiar with him as I am the others. And then I believe there's another one. I don't know if it's the girl whose story it is. But yeah, it would be really interesting to actually read the short stories. Absolutely want to do that. And I don't know how long they are, but if they're short stories, I don't know what is the criteria to be a short story. How short does it need to be? I don't know. Yeah. But I'm assuming it's not very long at all. Yeah, I don't know. But yeah, so it's... How many anthologies have you seen? Not many. Yeah, I haven't seen a lot either. And it seems like India actually does anthologies quite often. Like more than it's done here. Like anthologies, they're not done very often here. No, we're really big on doing threes. Oh yeah. You know, part one, two and three. That's pretty common in America. But like a film that has like four short stories in it. Right. Well, it happens all the time in India. Very, very common. And I think it's because a lot of the times, like that's a literary thing. There's no anthologies are literary. So anything you take from an adapted screenplay from original material that was written in a book. And the anthologies are very common. Yeah. Well, regardless, it looks phenomenal. I would 100% watch this when it comes out. It looks great. I hope it's as good as it looks. And it should be with, especially the acting, the filmmaking. Once again, I could have swore Vashal was involved in some way. So I don't know, maybe he dropped out. I don't know. But I could have, whether it was like composing or... Or what? Because he does work with that guy, the Abhishek Chuberi. They've worked together a lot. Him and Vashal. Like, I think he was like, he worked under Vashal for a long time and then he got his start. But they worked together. But I don't know why. I just, I seem to remember when I first heard about this and heard Vashal was also part of it. It made me, I'm still excited. It was just, I don't know why I'm not saying his name now. So maybe you guys can let me know down below. But yeah, let us know what you thought of it.  Let us know. Dumbass.


Friends, we're going to do a different work now. This is called formation of complex numbers. The number that I choose is 465. So I'm going to put my number here. So I'm going to take 5 units, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10s, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 400s, 100, 200, 300, 400. Now I need to take the numbers that go with that. 5, 6, 10s, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60. So that's 60, that's 6, 10s, 100, 200, 300, 400, 400. Now we're going to make our number. 465, 465, 465. What is my number? 465.


Gaffa yn ffatic victory on the road, it must have been an enjoyable afternoon from your point of view? We played really well, pleased with the performance, pleased with the intensity to our play. It certainly started really well and that's really important and scored some great goals. Cookie obviously has made a massive difference coming back into the team, which we knew he would. We just didn't probably have that focal point for the last few games since he's been out. Having that back obviously helped us and Cookie's off and running, which is fantastic for us. Having the start that we did three goals up in half an hour after a couple of games of having to get ourselves back into games after falling behind and to sort of blow away opponents in the first half an hour like we did today must have been good for you. Yeah, yeah, but it's not really a surprise because we know that you always need that opportunity to get that opening goal. The first goal is vitally important, doesn't matter what level you're playing at. We're able to get obviously in front today and that was massive for us. I just saw our confidence was huge from that point onwards. I thought some big performance, Cookie is the obvious one, but I thought Ray on that left hand side showed real intent very, very early in the game and caused a real problem for them on that left hand side. Great quality. He showed a great ball in for Cookie's first one and got a great goal himself. Kev McDonald's picked him out. I thought Kev was fantastic today. Just a calming influence and recognising not only the balls to play, but the organisation as well used his experience. So that was vital for us well. So a lot of big performances, really pleased with everybody. Back four were really solid, so overall very pleased. We know Andy, we know he would have wanted to come straight back into the team and score today, but to score a hatch in terms of his confidence levels, it does him the world of good, doesn't it? Oh yeah, yeah. For whatever reason he struggled initially at the beginning of the season and obviously got the injury and that was a big worry for everyone. But he looked really focused before the game today. We all sensed that he was going to get opportunities and obviously once he was off and running then it could have been any number of goals, that's what Andy's like. When he gets on a roll and gets a centre-blood then he's ready to go. So two outstanding goals obviously with the head and really pleased for him. He's really difficult to stop at this level because he knows what he's doing. He's an experienced player and can affect games. I wasn't just his goal today, I thought his overall play in terms of his linker play and his physical presence up there was just really, really important for us. A victory like that, a performance like that, how much can that do for us confidence as you go into a game against the championship side on Tuesday in the Carabao Cup and suddenly you're hoping the players will come out and give that a really good go and want to advance through to the next round? Yeah, we're looking forward to it, we're looking forward to every game. We've had a couple of performances that weren't viewed as particularly good. From my own point of view I thought they were better than people were saying we were. There were certain factors why we were able to get maximum points on it and I went through them after the games when they happened. But today I think everybody can see that we're a good team, we've got a good side, we play good football and when it clicks like it did today then we're very difficult to beat.


Brick by brick audiobooks presents The Wreck by Landon Beach Red View by Scott Brick For Mary, you have made all of this possible and have done it with love, generosity, and a sense of humor. The book's flaws are mine. Your contributions are flawless. Prologue, Lake Huron, Michigan, summer 2007 The Hunter 49ers motor cut and the luxury yacht glided with no running lights on. God cover hid the moon and stars. The water looked black. A man in a full wetsuit moved forward in a cockpit, and after verifying the latitude and longitude, pushed the GPS monitor's off button. The LCD color display vanished. Waves beat against the hull, heavier seas than had been predicted. He would have to be efficient, or he'd need to reposition the boat over the scuttle side again. The chronometer above the navigation station read 0030. This should have been finished thirty minutes ago. Not only had the boat been in the wrong slip, forcing him to search the marina in the dark, the owner, details apparently escaped that arrogant prick, had not filled the fuel tank. He headed below and opened the aft stateroom door. The woman's naked corpse lay strapped to the berth, the nipples of her large breasts pointing at the overhead. A careful lift of the portside bench revealed black wiring connecting a series of three explosive charges. After similar checks of the wiring and charges in the gutter-out galley and v-berth, he smiled to himself and went top-side with a pair of night-vision goggles. A scan of the horizon. Nothing. He closed and locked the aft hatch cover, moving swiftly, but never rushing. He donned a mask and fins, then pulled a remote detonation device from the pocket of his wetsuit. Two of the four buttons were for the explosives he had attached to the outside of the hall under water which would sink the boat. The bottom two were for the explosives he had just checked on the interior. He looked back at the cockpit and for a moment rubbed his left hand on the smooth fiberglass hull. What a waste of a beautiful boat! How much had the owner paid for it? Three? Four hundred thousand? Some people did live differently. With the night-vision goggles hanging on his neck and the remote for the explosives in his right hand, he slipped into the water and began to kick. Fifty yards away he began to tread water and looked back at the yacht. It listed to starboard, then to port, as white caps pushed against the hull. He pressed the top two buttons on the remote. The yacht lifted and then began to lower into the water. The heaving sea had less and less effect as more of the boat submerged. In under a minute, the yacht was... Sample complete. Ready to continue?


We're very excited about our upcoming Austrian economics research conference, which takes place here at our campus in Auburn from March 20th through 22nd. We're especially honored to host Judge Andrew Napolitano, well known as a Fox legal analyst, constitutional expert, author, and I might add an enthusiastic supporter of the Mises Institute. Our second keynote speaker is James Grant, the famous expert on finance, well known for his many decades publishing Grant's interest rate observer. He's also a very serious critic of the Federal Reserve. Some of the conference will stream live on our website Mises.org during the Austrian economics research conference. We encourage those who are interested in watching Mr. Grant or Judge Napolitano to tune in at Mises.org on Thursday, March 20th during the late morning and early afternoon. Our academic conferences are really at the heart of what we do here at the Mises Institute, which is to train and educate young people with the kind of economics learning they can't get from traditional bricks and mortar colleges. You may be familiar with our summer week-long Mises U, which is really a time for undergraduate students and even some high school students from around the world to come here to Auburn and meet with some of the greatest Austrian academics alive, and many of our students at Mises U go away describing the week as a life-changing experience. By contrast, our Austrian economics research conference in March is a professional conference rather than a student conference. Academics researchers and PhD candidates come to Auburn to present academic papers that are on the cutting edge of advances in the Austrian tradition. It's also a networking conference for leading Austrian thinkers around the globe. Our goal is to launch new generations of young professionals into academia, finance, business, and public policy where they can challenge the Keynesian mainstream and make the case for a truly free society as they go about their professional lives. As always, your financial support for the Austrian economics research conference and the Mises Institute makes it possible for us to advance Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. Please help us with your most generous contribution as we make 2014 our biggest and best year yet.


The first recovery test of the new Orion human spaceflight crew module occurred aboard USS Arlington at Naval Station Norfolk, August 15. The recovery efforts aboard Arlington allowed NASA experts a hands-on opportunity to work closely with the Navy to plan future crew module recovery process. Unlike the early recovery operations where the spacecraft had to be lifted aboard the Navy ships via helicopter, the Arlington simply opened her stern gate and the Orion is towed into the ship's flooded well deck by small boats. The ship's well deck was flooded and the capsule was towed to open water where Navy divers attached tow lines to the spacecraft. Sailors then towed the craft back into Arlington's well deck. The second major test of crew module and recovery process is scheduled for early 2014 off the West Coast in preparation for the first flight of Orion. From the Defense Media Activity, I'm Petty Officer Jonathan Sunderman.


The floor may not be a robot. The following took place between October 12th and 25th 2009. This story was a journal, kept by a widowed husband. He was found dead on the sidewalk next to a local grocery store.  No evidence of the killer has been found. It has been exactly three months since Mary died. A heart failure. Out of the blue.  Anyway, my counsellor said it would be a good idea to start a journal to keep my thoughts in. Fuck. October 14th.   It's a usual day. It smells like beer outside, or is that just me?  Now we are down in the slums, the biz has no money, and he laid off half the workers. October 14th. Finally, UPS takes forever to deliver one simple laptop.  October 15th.  Alright, I download all the usual files, now to have some fun, baby.   October 16th. Stayed up all night playing World of Warcraft, not being online in a while hurts your social stats, dude. Looking for some games to go with my collection. Came across a first person shooter game called, Help Me, All Caps, No Spaces, and both ease replaced with the number three. The title is supposed to mean hacker life's personal massacre for T3. It was rated very well, so I downloaded it. It's alright, minor glitches, okay gameplay. It's pretty much a modern warfare to clone. October 17th.  It freaking crashed my computer. I started it up, and it took me to the title, then strobe lights and crash. Fuck.  The dude there took it to the back to look at it. He told me to come back tomorrow. Only thing I got now is to the... October 18th. I went back to that computer store. They told me nothing was wrong or out of the ordinary, and that it was working just fine when they used it.  Well, I took it back, looked it up, and started it up. Everything was normal, although half my files had been wiped, including that game. Barry. If only you were here. I had to go to work today, on a Sunday of course. Boss fired another few. I had talked to him a long while about an account that needed attending to. Heck, that dumbass might a fraction of a brain after all. October 19th. Found out my boss, Jaren, had been found dead, his eyes, pitch black, and a burn mark on his chest.   Acts like he is better than us. The police were all over the place.  That guy is always on the edge. October 20th. My house was broken into last night. My kitchen window had been opened. The thing was, nothing was stolen.  Police didn't find anything. They took that picture for evidence. To have a serial killer or something in your house. Thought that. Well, tonight I'm staying at my bud's house. Barry, I love you. I hope to see you in my dreams. October 21st. I came home last night to find my house surprisingly kept. Everything is where it's supposed to be. A note on the counter said otherwise. Why did you leave? Are you scared? Do you hate me? Now I have a reason to be scared. I'm gonna try to stay up all night. What is going on? October 22nd. Stayed up all night. Heard nothing at all. Maybe it's a friend playing a trick on me. Well today, my friend who I stayed with a night or two ago, was found dead. Same as my boss, black eyes, and burn marks. I'm not a suspect, but a person of interest. They don't know what is causing it though. They think I could be a virus, but they haven't ruled out a murder yet. I turned in that note today. No fingerprints, no clues, nothing. I'm starting to doubt if I am even capable of doing anything without something happening. Everyone close to me is either missing or dead. If this guy wants me dead, why doesn't he just kill me now? October 23rd. I'm sorry about yesterday, someone's at the door, hold on. A UPS man had brought a box. I opened it up and there was a laptop, and there was a note inside. Dear Mr. Anderson. Please note our regret. The laptop you have ordered had been found in one of the offices in Chicago. Sincerely, UPS management.  As a matter of fact, where did that game go? I searched online and all evidence of it being there was gone. It was no longer on the top of the list for high rated games. It's just gone. October 24th. I didn't write much yesterday because something came. Tall, dark Harry, with a growl of a devil or demon. It stayed outside by my bedroom.  I called the police and told them there was a man in my house. They got here in around five minutes. Those minutes seemed like hours. They got to the door and asked if they could come in. When they got no response, they kicked down the door and saw the creature. Gunshots rang in the house. I heard growling, ripping and crunching sounds. The screaming. Oh god, the screaming. It was a horrid mix of helping, screaming and whimpering. It wants me, it will kill everyone to get me.  October 25th. I busted out of my window and ran down the street in broad daylight. It chased after me. I was running down the street. I saw a few febs in an alley. They came up to me and stalked me. They were gonna mug me. Then it flew at them and ripped them apart and slowly ate their souls. But it wasn't going to be satisfied until it had me. I stalked so I could write this.   Mary, if you manage to read this journal, I love you. A blog. From my witness accounts, all they saw were a couple of febs just being torn apart by nothing. The man's final words were in an unknown language. They were, said Diabolus East, Diaz Mortus East. This roughly translates to, the devil is real, God is dead. The grocery store security cameras caught quite a sight. The footage showed the gangsters being ripped apart, then their chests bursting into flames, then quickly diminishing. The man just fell, chest burning. Then, in a bright flash, the footage cuts.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we discuss the following question which says in a pentagon A, B, C, D, E, A, B is parallel to E, D and angle B is equal to 140 degrees. Find the interior angles C and D if angle C is to angle D is equal to 5 is to 6. We know that sum of the interior angles of a convex polygon of n sides is equal to 2n minus 4 right angles. This is the key idea that we use in this question. Let's move on to the solution now. This is the pentagon A, B, C, D, E. In this we are given that A, B is parallel to E, D and we are also given that angle B is equal to 140 degrees. Also we are given the ratio of angle C to angle D that is angle C is to angle D is equal to 5 is to 6 and we are supposed to find the interior angles C and D. Now since we are given that A, B is parallel to E, D. Therefore, angle A plus angle E is equal to 180 degree. Since we know that sum of the interior angles on the same side of the transversal is 180 degrees. Let this be result 1. Next we have angle C is to angle D is equal to 5 is to 6. Therefore, we can have angle C equal to 5x and angle D equal to 6x. Now consider this pentagon A, B, C, D, E. Let's see the sum of the interior angles of this pentagon. We have angle A plus angle B plus angle C plus angle D plus angle E. This would be equal to 2n minus 4 right angles according to the key idea. Now since this is a pentagon so it means it is 5 sides that is in this case n would be equal to 5 thus we get this is equal to 2 into 5 minus 4 right angles or you can say this is equal to 10 minus 4 into 90 degrees that is 6 into 90 degrees which is equal to 540 degrees that is we have angle A plus angle B plus angle C plus angle D plus angle E is equal to 540 degrees. Now further we get angle A plus angle E plus angle B plus angle C plus angle D is equal to 540 degrees. Now we know that sum of the angles A and E is equal to 180 degrees as in the equation 1. So this means we have 180 degrees plus now the measure of angle B is given as 140 degrees so we put the value of angle B as 140 degrees here. So 180 degrees plus 140 degrees plus angle C is 5x plus angle D is 6x is equal to 540 degrees that we have 320 degrees plus 5x plus 6x is 11x is equal to 540 degrees. Further 11x is equal to 540 degrees minus 320 degrees or you can say 11x is equal to 220 degrees. To get the value of x we divide both sides by 11 so 11x upon 11 equal to 220 degrees upon 11 11 cancels with 11 and 11 20 times is 220 therefore we have x is equal to 20 degrees but we had angle C equal to 5x which means this is equal to 5 into 20 degrees equal to 100 degrees and angle D equal to 6x equal to 6 into 20 degrees that is equal to 120 degrees. Therefore we have got the values of angle C and angle D final answer is angle C equal to 100 degrees and angle D equal to 120 degrees. This completes the session hope you have understood the solution of this question.