Juli’s Gluten Free Pasta Salad

My friend, Juli, over at Pandemonium Noshery has so many great recipes to share with people from around the globe. This is one of her own unique creations, though, that she was kind enough to share with us. Looks delicious!

Have you ever hear anyone say “Necessity is the mother of all invention”? This recipe is proof of that. I had little left in the house one night and didn’t want to make a


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

5 Classic Coffee Drinks That Are To Die For

I used to never drink coffee; loved the smell but hated the taste. Over time however, I learned to love it and even crave it and started drinking it on a regular basis. Unfortunately, coffee didn’t do such good things for my mental health so I needed to completely cut it out, and now miss it. I do though occasionally have fake coffee with caffeine free substitutes. However, for those that love


Go to Source
Author: Penniless Parenting

The emotional stages of divorce

Divorce can often be followed by periods of depression and anxiety for separating husbands and wives. So, in honour of Mental Health Awareness Week, we have created a short video on the journey through the six emotional stages of divorce.

Based on the five stages of grief identified by the psychiatrist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross back in 1969 in her book On Death and Dying, the end of a marriage or relationship is a bereavement: a loss of the life you once had and of the future, you believed you would have.

Understanding the emotional stages will help you to deal with them.

You can read the whole article here.

The post The emotional stages of divorce appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Stowe Family Law

A clean break conditional on a Jewish religious divorce – right or wrong?

As a Jewish businessman criticises the Family Court for putting him in a catch-22 situation that allegedly traps him between family law and religious law, Julian Hawkhead, Senior Partner joins us on the blog to look at the case in more detail.

“A recent article in the press told of a Jewish “property millionaire” husband Mr Alan Moher who was denied a clean break by the Court. This left him required to pay his wife, Mrs Caroline Moher, ongoing maintenance despite her being awarded £1.6m until he granted his wife a Get (Jewish religious divorce). He protested to the Court of Appeal that he was being discriminated by being denied the clean break because he had religious faith-based objections to granting his wife the Get.

The decision of the Court of Appeal is awaited but the article throws up some interesting questions. Why should the Court make a clean break award conditional upon the husband granting his wife the religious divorce she seeks? Why should money and the full legal and religious termination of the marriage go hand in hand?

A Get is a Jewish certificate of divorce granted by the husband to his wife which will permit her to remarry in a Jewish religious ceremony and returns her rights to her that a husband holds on marriage. It is essential to a woman who holds Orthodox Jewish beliefs. A Get must be given of the husband’s free will.

In this case, the husband has argued that the conditional discharge of a maintenance order upon him granting his wife a Get means that he is not acting of his own free will. As a result, he does not consider the Jewish religious authorities would accept the Get he presented as valid in any event.

According to the article, the husband’s counsel Brent Molyneux QC was quoted as saying that the Get “is something which has to be given freely, after financial ties between the parties have come to an end” and “ The husband is thus left in a position where, due to the element of compulsion placed on him by the order of the court, he is unable to grant a valid Get.” By way of a summary of the husband’s case he said: “It is wrong for the wife to receive a financial benefit and the husband a financial penalty by virtue of their religious beliefs.”

However, was this just clever wordplay? Religious divorces are not rare. The pronouncement of a Decree Absolute is the certificate of the Courts of England and Wales that the marriage has been legally dissolved. However, in certain faiths and indeed in some countries, a legal certificate of divorce is not enough to fully dissolve all marital links between husband and wife. The Get is one such example.

Why then is a religious divorce withheld in this way? It can be for several different reasons. In some instances, the party who withholds the issuing of the religious divorce has such fundamental beliefs based on their religion that they feel a marriage cannot be ended. So, whilst they can do nothing ultimately to stop the legal divorce, if the ability to grant the religious divorce remains within their power then they will hold onto it. This will prevent their spouse from being able to remarry within the same faith in the future.

Sometimes withholding has financial motives:  that the spouse who could grant it uses their ability to do so, to try to secure a better financial settlement knowing that their spouse is so desperate for the religious divorce that they would make financial sacrifices to obtain it. Others are just being obstructive, knowing it will cause their spouse the most amount of upset.

In other situations, when it is the husband who wants the legal divorce, but the wife is concerned that he will not grant the Get or another religious divorce, it is possible for the Court to make an order holding up the pronouncement of Decree Absolute until that religious divorce has been granted.

Charlotte Newman, Solicitor from the Stowe Family Law office in Leeds office comments

“It is true to say that the Orthodox Jewish divorce law, rests power with the man. However, the Beth Din have, and continue to work with many women being denied a Get and unable to move on with their lives.

These women have often been termed ‘Agunot,’ which translates to chained women. The effects of being in this situation can be more far-reaching than being unable to remarry within the faith; the children of the new marriage may also find themselves in difficulty marrying in an Orthodox Synagogue.

As such, the Beth Din has seen the refusal of a husband to provide a Get a form of abuse and caseworkers work with wives to ‘unchain’ them, allowing them to live freely. I personally second this view and (reluctantly) agree that a financial consequence may be the only way to ensure that the husband, in this case, stops using religion to justify his behaviour and perhaps as a wider issue, distract the court from his other behaviour within the proceedings”.

There will be different opinions on the husband’s motives, the wife’s counsel Sally Harrison QC indicated that the option to link the termination of the husband’s maintenance obligations with the granting of a Get was the option of last resort. He had been asked to simply promise to the Court that he would do so, and he had apparently refused. This would suggest that the husband’s account of his reasons for not granting the Get are disingenuous however the Court of Appeal is yet to make its own determination.

What we do see here though is that the Court will do what it can to support the vulnerable party, accepting creative ways to protect them or ensure that they get what they need to secure an autonomous future for themselves.

The issue over the Get is part of a wider appeal made by the husband against the financial award made in favour of his wife. Indeed, the quantum of the maintenance order of £1,850 is small amount when compared to the costs the parties will have incurred in proceeding to the Court of Appeal (probably running into the hundreds of thousands of pounds) in which case why is this issue even being pursued.

Looking at the wider commentary on the case it would seem the husband had failed to provide financial disclosure or to co-operate with the Court process. As a result, it was not possible to get a full picture of his financial resources. Nevertheless, the husband claims that the award of £1.6m represents 85% of the overall wealth.

But is this true? The husband’s conduct was described as “appalling and contemptuous”. Such dishonest behaviour never finds favour with the Court and I cannot count the number of people who have thought they could mislead the Court by hiding or transferring assets and failing. Dishonesty is probably the worst trait to take into Court with you as it tarnishes everything you try to persuade the Court about. I suspect that this is another litigant who has tried and failed.

We have a team of expert lawyers who specialise in untangling complex financial situations and dealing with difficult divorce scenarios. If any of the issues I have commented on in this article affect you, whether it is a dishonest spouse, or you are stuck in a marriage and do not know what your options are to get out of it, do get in touch with me to discuss your situation.”

The post A clean break conditional on a Jewish religious divorce – right or wrong? appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: Julian Hawkhead

The President’s annual ‘state of the nation’ address

I wrote here yesterday about the latest edition of the View from the President’s Chambers, the periodic update by the President of the Family Division upon the latest developments in the field of family law, and his views thereon. My post concentrated on the announcement by the President of a transparency review. What else did the President talk about?

Well, the first thing to say is that this View is rather more special than others. As the President explains at the outset, it comprises his annual ‘state of the nation’ address, delivering his perspective on the current state of affairs so far as the Family Justice system is concerned.

And what, apart from that transparency review, is happening within the nation? Here is a summary of some of the main points:

Firstly, the President is continuing his stately progression around the 44 Designated Family Judge Family Court Centres in England and Wales (together with some additional courts), “in order to understand just how the current unprecedented burden of work was being experienced at each place and, hopefully, to learn something of the causes of the rise in caseload and to identify strategies that may improve our ability to cope with this volume of work.” The President reports that he has thus far visited 24 courts, and aims “to complete this initial ‘drains-up’ familiarisation with the system by October, or early November.” He says that the visits have shown that different courts seem to approach common tasks in very different ways, and that such diversity provides useful information as we try to identify what does, or does not, ‘work’ in terms of efficient and effective case progression. The visits have “provided a rich harvest of information and ideas”, which have been fed into two central working groups that he has established, to focus on Public Law and Private Law. The two groups are shortly to publish interim reports looking at process and practice in both areas.

Moving on, the President reported briefly upon the piloting of specialist financial remedy courts, although I don’t think he told us anything we did not already know.

He also reported briefly upon the failure of the eleven regional divorce centres to provide an adequate service for the progress of divorce petitions and the making of Financial Remedy consent orders. He says that the centres are being phased out during the current 12-month period, and replaced by an online system based in the new national Civil and Family Service Centre at Stoke on Trent, although my understanding is that the Ministry of Justice has not yet made a final decision upon the fate of the centres. He says that he is “confident that the senior staff at HM Courts and Tribunals Service [‘HMCTS’] are entirely clear that the unacceptable service levels currently experienced from the paper-based centres is not to be repeated as Stoke gradually takes on more and more of this work.” He says that he has already visited the new centre at Stoke and, while he was impressed by what he saw there, he intends “to keep a continuous and keen eye on the process as it moves forward.”

Moving on again, the President says that: “The HMCTS Reform Programme continues to develop and is, increasingly, producing online processes which will in time include every aspect of the work of the Family Court.” He also says that, irrespective of the progress of ‘Reform’, he considers that the Family Court should be making full use of the current technology to conduct short, without notice, hearings by telephone, typically at the first hearing of a Family Law Act injunction application.

Lastly, the President concludes with one further observation from the court visits he has made, and I shall set it out in full:

“It is simply to acknowledge my appreciation for the HMCTS Staff who keep our system running to the best of their ability in a period that has been made difficult for them, not only by the rise in the number of cases, and not only by the need for the staff to take on board new systems of working that are gradually being rolled out as part of the Reform Programme, but also to undertake their work having been informed that, in due course, a consequence of ‘Reform’ will be a reduction in staff levels at each court centre. I have been extremely impressed by the commitment to the work and the good humour that I have experienced on meeting very many staff members all over the country and, in closing this ‘View’, I simply wish to record my thanks to each and every one of them.”

I’m sure we would all agree with those sentiments.

You can read the full View here.

 

 

The post The President’s annual ‘state of the nation’ address appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

The Crypt of Civilization

Interior of Crypt of Civilization

Museum in a time capsule

On July 4, 1976, bicentennial celebrations took place all over the United States. I was nine years old at the time, and along with my five-year-old sister, I went to a special gathering just a few doors down from our house near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A local funeral parlor, in a highly publicized event, was going to bury a time capsule (instead of a coffin) in a corner of its parking lot. Memorabilia from the community would be kept there until the capsule was unearthed, as I recall, 50 years later. Children were particularly urged to come, in order to sign a replica of the Declaration of Independence that would be included in the capsule. By the time my sister and I had made our way to the front of the crowd, the page was completely full, so someone brought out extra sheets of paper to hold the rest of the signatures. I remember being both excited to have my signature in a time capsule and annoyed that I had to sign a stupid blank piece of paper.

The capsule was filled with nitrogen to preserve its contents, buried, and covered with a small monument that included a plaque explaining what was inside and when it was to be opened. On a couple of occasions since then, I’ve visited that monument, which is now pretty dingy and largely forgotten. And I’ve thought to myself: Will anyone actually remember to dig this thing up in 2026? The people who buried it will be long gone. And who knows what will have happened to that property by then? If I’m alive and I show up for the disinterment, will I have to bring my own pickaxe? And if someone does remember, will we actually learn anything interesting from those 50-year-old artifacts?

Museum for the Future

The idea of burying something to be found by future generations goes way, way back. But the modern notion of a time capsule didn’t appear until at least the 19th century, if not more recently. The first serious attempt to preserve a large collection of information and artifacts for the distant future is also, to date, the most elaborate: the Crypt of Civilization, sealed in 1940 at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, Georgia.

The idea for the Crypt came to Oglethorpe University president Thornwell Jacobs in the 1920s, and he solidified it into a plan in 1936. Jacobs realized that the information left to us by ancient civilizations is spotty at best, and he wanted to do a favor for historians and archeologists of the future. So his idea was to collect a vast storehouse of information and objects representing all of human history to that point—including science, technology, entertainment, and every aspect of popular culture—and consolidate it into a multimedia museum, specially preserved for millennia.

While Jacobs was supervising the three-year collection process, his project got a lot of publicity, and similar (though smaller-scale) efforts began to spring up elsewhere. The Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company decided to create a torpedo-shaped container of artifacts to be buried during the 1939 World’s Fair (and opened 5,000 years later). They called their container a “time capsule,” and that term was soon adopted for nearly all such projects. All except the Crypt, that is—even though it was, in a way, the prototypical time capsule, its scope was so much larger that the word “capsule” wasn’t appropriate.

Pooling Resources

In fact, the Crypt is a room that was once a swimming pool. Located on the lower level of Oglethorpe University’s Phoebe Hearst Hall, it is a chamber measuring 20 feet long by 10 feet wide by 10 feet high (6 x 3 x 3 m). Because it was originally a pool, the bottoms and sides of the chamber were already waterproof. It rests on bedrock and has a thick layer of stone above it. In other words, the room will survive nearly any catastrophe outside. It underwent extensive renovations to further reinforce and seal it; and the most delicate items inside are hermetically sealed in specially designed containers. The chamber itself can be entered only through a heavy stainless steel door that was welded shut on May 25, 1940.

The Crypt contains many hundreds of items, from the sublime to the mundane. Among the contents are copies of over 800 books of all kinds, stored on both microfilm and metal plates; audio recordings; newsreels; a radio; electric light fixtures; games and toys; a typewriter; plastic samples; and a container of beer—to name just a few. There are microfilm readers and projectors; the archivists also thoughtfully included a wind-powered generator in case electricity is not available when the Crypt is opened. And—my favorite part—the first thing one will see on entering the Crypt is a machine to teach basic English, so that the rest of the materials can be understood even if English is long dead.

If you’re thinking that sounds like the Crypt was destined to be sealed for a long, long time, you’re absolutely right. Most time capsules are intended to be opened in 50 or 100 years. The Crypt of Civilization, however, is not “scheduled” to be opened until 8113. This seemingly arbitrary date was 6,177 years from the time the Crypt was designed in 1936—which was, in turn, 6,177 years from the first date for which we have historical records (4241 BCE, when the Egyptian calendar began). Thus, the Crypt should contain a fairly good record of the first half of human history as of the date it’s opened.

Pass It On

Considering how much the world has changed in the last 6,000 years, it would be foolish to assume that Hearst Hall, Oglethorpe University, or even the city of Atlanta will still be around when the Crypt is supposed to be opened. After so many generations, it would be quite surprising if someone actually knew the location and nature of the Crypt when the time came. As it is, the Crypt was all but forgotten just a few decades after it was sealed. In 1970, a student exploring an off-limits area of Hearst Hall with a flashlight came upon the mysterious sealed door. That student, Paul Hudson, later became a history professor and co-founded the International Time Capsule Society (ITCS) in 1990. The organization’s sole purpose is to track all the time capsules buried around the world and pass that information on to future generations, so that each one can be found and opened at the proper time.

The ITCS estimates there are about 10,000 time capsules buried worldwide, most of which are “lost”—that is, no one knows the capsules’ exact locations. I don’t know whether the bicentennial capsule with my signature in it is on their list; their registry is not available to the general public. Although I can understand that making information like this public might increase the likelihood of theft, it would also improve the odds that the time capsule will be remembered—and that is (or was), after all, the organization’s mission. However, I have some doubts about that mission’s likelihood of success. A note that appeared on their website in 2016 and is still there today says:

Note: Although the ITCS continues to accept time capsule registrations, it currently is not active.

What does “not active” mean for the future? Perhaps a history student centuries from now will stumble upon an old computer from the ITCS and somehow figure out how to extract its list of time capsules! I kid, but surely any effort to collect and maintain this information is better than nothing.

Meanwhile, Back at the Crypt

The people who bury a time capsule—since they usually will not be the ones to open it—must rely on the goodwill of future generations to follow their instructions as to when the capsule should be unearthed. There’s no authority that can ultimately prevent the people of, say, the year 3936 from opening the Crypt of Civilization if they feel like it—or if the instructions for when it should be opened have been lost. If history has shown us anything, it’s that buried treasure (even if the treasure is simply knowledge) has a habit of escaping.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on April 30, 2005.

Image credit: Oglethorpe University Archives. Used by permission.


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

President announces transparency review

It seems that the issue of ‘transparency’, i.e. openness about the workings of the family justice system, aimed at countering the charge that it is a system of secret and unaccountable justice, is just as much a pet subject of the new President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane as it was for his predecessor Sir James Munby. I suppose we should not be surprised at this, as anyone in charge of any organisation would surely be anxious to defend the reputation of that organisation.

The new President has also inherited his predecessor’s habit of updating the profession, and indeed anyone interested, in the latest developments in the field of family law and his views thereon, in a periodical missive, cunningly entitled ‘View from the President’s Chambers’, the latest edition of which was published on the 7th of May. Sure enough, the President had a few things to say about transparency.

We were told that: “It is important that the issue of Transparency should be kept under active review.” Fighting a sinking feeling, I read on to find that the President intends:

“…to establish a ‘Transparency Review’, during which all available evidence and the full range of views on this important topic can be considered (including evidence of how this issue is addressed in other countries).”

The aim of the review will be: “to consider whether the current degree of openness should be extended, rather than reduced.” It will be conducted over the next nine months, with a view to producing a report and recommendations by this time next year.

I hear that the President says he is open to listening to views either for or against increased transparency, but somehow I can’t envisage him agreeing that openness should be reduced. The undercurrent is strongly in favour of openness being increased, for better or worse.

I am always reminded of King Cnut when I consider the call for greater transparency. It is as if those making the call seek to stem the tide of misinformation surrounding the family justice system generally, and the family courts in particular. But that tide is far too strong: the general public already have access to an ocean of misinformation regarding the family justice system, both in the mainstream media and elsewhere, and a few more ‘correctly’ reported cases will do nothing to stem the flow. If you choose to follow the narrative that the system is biased, secretive, unaccountable, or even corrupt, then you will not be interested in anything that does not fit in to that narrative. And if your business is selling newspapers, you will only be interested in publishing stories that will sell those newspapers, not in whether those stories are accurate.

It should also be remembered, as the President hinted at, that many users of the family courts would actually prefer their private affairs not to be made public. Just the other day, a report of a Court of Protection case was published in which the judge took the unusual step of hearing the case in private, because the man at the centre of the case (which concerned such personal matters as whether he had the capacity to marry) was worried about the possibility of members of the public being present at the hearing. So the argument is not, as some may perhaps perceive it, simply between those within the system who have a vested interest in keeping its workings ‘secret’, and the general populace, whose sole interest lies in opening up the system to public scrutiny.

Another question must be: does it really matter what some people choose to think about the family justice system? In the end, the only thing that matters is that those who know the truth remain in charge of the asylum. Obviously, we cannot have importance decisions made by those who do not understand their consequences. Is it really the case that the calls from the ‘corrupt family courts’ brigade will actually be listened to by those in power, who will feel it necessary to assuage them by making the changes they seek? I’m not so sure it is. Perhaps we should concentrate upon the welfare of those unfortunates who find themselves at the mercy of the family justice system, rather than the misinformed hordes baying for change.

In short, I’m not certain that this modern fixation with transparency is as important as is claimed. I am sure that the resources being devoted to it could be more fruitfully directed elsewhere.

The post President announces transparency review appeared first on Stowe Family Law.


Go to Source
Author: John Bolch

Complaints Choirs

A complaints choir in Chicago, 2007

Setting the world’s problems to music

My cat likes to walk on the dining room table. I have too many work deadlines. My favorite TV show was cancelled. Motorcycles make too much noise driving down my street.

It’s not hard to come up with things to complain about, but who wants to listen to someone else complain? The surprising answer: just about everyone, as long as the complaints are set to music and delivered in four-part harmony by a choral ensemble. Musical groups called complaints choirs have sprung up all over the world, drawing sell-out crowds (and internet fans by the hundreds of thousands).

Let’s Give ‘Em Something to Complain About

The idea was the brainchild of a Finnish couple, performance artists Tellervo Kelleinen and Oliver Kochta Kalleinen. They were discussing the Finnish term Valituskuoro, which literally means “complaints choir” but refers to a situation in which numerous people are complaining about something at the same time. Tellervo and Oliver thought it would be interesting to make an actual choir of complainers. They circulated flyers and posters in Birmingham, England in 2005 and soon got together a small but enthusiastic group of participants. Each one contributed some random complaints, the list was set to music, and the resulting performance was an instant hit (both in Birmingham and around the world, thanks to YouTube).

The couple proceeded to organize similar choirs in numerous other cities, including Helsinki, St. Petersburg, Jerusalem, and Melbourne. In each locale, group participants create their own litany of complaints in their local language and with a unique vocal arrangement. Some complaints choirs are quite theatrical, while others stick to traditional choral performances in black gowns and suits. But the end result is invariably funny.

Grievances A-plenty

What do these musical complainers complain about? Anything and everything, ranging from the trivial to the profound. In fact, it’s the very randomness of the complaints that often makes the performances so funny. You can see a terrific compilation on Vimeo, and loads of individual examples on YouTube. A few examples…

  • In Birmingham, the catchy chorus begins, “I want my money back. My job is like a cul-de-sac. And the bus is too infrequent at 6:30.”
  • The St. Petersburg choir complains, “Yesterday the waitress was so rude to me.” “Shoe shops never sell size 35.” “My heart is so full but my wallet is empty. And anyway she wouldn’t love a poet like me.”
  • In Chicago, the complaints include “I can’t stop thinking about sex,” “airport security took my mouthwash,” and “only tourists like deep-dish pizza.”
  • The Jerusalem Complaints Choir sings, “My bags don’t open and there’s passionfruit in everything.” “Bananas are never in the right state of ripeness.” And “football players only date models.”
  • In Helsinki, they sing, “Old forests are cut down and turned into toilet paper, and still all the toilets are out of paper”; they also gripe that “our ancestors could have picked a sunnier place to be.” In addition, the Helsinki choir expresses my very favorite complaint: “Ringtones are all irritating,” sung several times in a row to the tune of that hideous old default Nokia ringtone that we all knew and hated for so long.

If You’re Going to Complain, At Least Do It in Tune

The choirs organized so far have ranged in size from fewer than a dozen to nearly 100 members. In some cities the singers are all experienced and the compositions are top-notch. But in most cases, participants aren’t turned away for being tone-deaf as long as they have something to complain about. The Penn State group, for example, seemed to have an interesting concept but was just too painful for me to listen to. And worst of all, the interest in complaints choirs seems to have died down in the last few years. But hey, if I ever decide to start my own complaints choir, that’ll be the perfect thing to complain about.

Note: This is an updated version of an article that originally appeared on Interesting Thing of the Day on January 14, 2008.

Image credit: Studio Kalleinen, via Vimeo


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell

Take Control of Apple Home Automation

Take Control of Apple Home Automation cover

“Smart home” devices are everywhere these days—you can buy internet-connected light bulbs, thermostats, door locks, sensors, and dozens of other products. But these devices aren’t very smart on their own. Apple’s HomeKit platform offers a way to integrate, monitor, control, and automate smart home devices from a wide variety of manufacturers. Using the built-in Home app on a Mac or iOS device (perhaps along with third-party apps), you can connect to your various smart devices, see what they’re up to, control them, and even get them to operate on a schedule or respond to changing conditions in your home automatically.

Even with HomeKit, however, home automation can be a daunting prospect. That’s why TidBITS Managing Editor Josh Centers wrote Take Control of Apple Home Automation. The book walks you carefully through every step of the process, showing you how you can start with a basic system that costs less than $50 and work your way up to as much complexity as you want or need. And you don’t have to be a computer geek to simplify and improve your life with HomeKit-compatible products. Even if you don’t know a wire nut from a macadamia or which end of a screwdriver to stick in a socket (spoiler: neither!), Josh’s thorough advice will enable you to work wonders in your home.

This book, like all Take Control titles, comes as an ebook, and you can download any combination of formats—PDF, EPUB, and/or Kindle’s Mobipocket format—so you can read it on pretty much any computer, smartphone, tablet, or ebook reader. The cover price is $14.99, but as an Interesting Thing of the Day reader, you can buy it this week for 30% off, or just $10.49.


Go to Source
Author: Joe Kissell