Defense attorney Brendan Sullivan tried to portray Mr. Allen as a "cooperating citizen," who knew he was being taped but insisted on reaching out to talk to Uncle Ted as a friend. Then Mr. Allen became irritated that he could not remember the details of certain emails or conversations with Uncle Ted.

After that, the prosecution came back for one more round.

Prosecution: Did VECO pay any contractors?

"I did one, the plumber... VECO paid for that," says Mr. Allen. (Jury member is nodding off...)

The prosecution questioned several aspects of the renovation of the chalet, including a deck that needed to be "built up." According to Mr. Allen, Uncle Ted said they could smoke some cigars on it once it was finished. However, Mr. Allen says that is not why he paid for it.

In 2001 or 2002 Mr. Allen admitted to giving furniture, including a bed, to Uncle Ted. He reported that Uncle Ted never offered to pay for it. Then the prosecution presented a check for the amount of $44,339.51 signed by Mr. Allen as evidence that he paid for a Land Rover for Uncle Ted, as well.

It turns out that Uncle Ted is a polite guy though. Mr. Allen mentioned that his friend said "thank you" for the lighting that he had installed on the outside of the chalet. Uncle Ted also insisted on paying for most of their dinners in the last couple years.

Eventually, Uncle Ted did ask for a bill, but Mr. Allen did not provide him with one. Prosecution asked, "Did he ask again?"

"No, he didn't, but he wanted to get it done," replied Mr. Allen.

Mr. Allen said that he had frequently talked to Uncle Ted about a natural gas pipeline. Apparently, Uncle Ted knows Jim Mora, CEO to Conoco Phillips...

- Posted by Anna

Just kidding! You can stay as long as you want! I just said that because it's the topic of today's post: free trials.

I have downloaded a few free trials for my Mac recently; Notebook, MacJournal and a game called Hordes Of Orcs. In fact, I'm using MacJournal right now to type this!

I found Hordes Of Orcs a little boring. It's very repetitive and I just got tired of watching the same thing happening on every level.

I'm still trying Notebook, but from what I've seen of it, it's really good! I don't think I'll be paying the $50 (£28.66) to purchase the full version. At least, not until I have a real need for it other than playing.

Finally, MacJournal. This is the first time I have used it, typing this post, so I have no idea whether it's a good-un or not. I'll have to wait and use my seven days to find out.

I'll post back later with the test results!

Raga deja el campeonato Nacional prácticamente sentenciado a su favor tras anotarse su cuarta victoria de la temporada. Bou, que volvió a pisar los talones al de Gas-Gas, y Cabestany, completaron los puestos de honor. Fantástica victoria de Laia Sanz en TR2, por delante de Pastoriza y Ares.

When we were younger, we would always hear how life is full of tests and trials. Some of us may have been shielded from such trials at a tender age, others may have had to experience them. All is by the will of Allah.

Praise be to Allah, I had a happy childhood and never really started to realise the full extent of life until the past few months. I experienced a few events that made me 'grow up' so to speak and I started to see life in a different light. Part of that is realising how many people around me have had or are going through a trial in life. It is often easy to think that you are the only one who is experiencing difficulty but this is not at all the case. I have seen so many people around me go through hardship and by the will of Allah ease has come to follow!

"So verily, with the hardship, there is relief"

[Al-Sharh 94:5]

I have seen people who were told they had not so long to live after being in life threatening conditions due to car accidents and cancer, yet are now leading productive lives by the will of Allah all-mighty. I have seen people around me go through divorce, yet move on and re-marry by the will of Allah. I can list many more examples...

Trials are part of life and we as muslims should be prepared to deal with them. Part of dealing with a trial is being patient. As humans we are often hastey and impatient, so it is very important to remember that patience is in fact better for us:

“But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As‑Saabiroon (the patient)”

[al-Nahl 16:126]

Ibn al-Qayym said in his book ‘Uddat al-Saabireen (p. 3-5):

Patience is the foundation of the believer’s faith which has no other foundation. The one who has no patience has no faith, and if he has any, then it is only a little faith and it is very weak, and such a person worships Allaah as it were upon the edge (i.e. in doubt): if good befalls him, he is content therewith; but if a trial befalls him he turns back on his face (i.e. reverts to disbelief after embracing Islam). He loses both this world and the Hereafter (cf. al-Hajj 22:11). All he gets from them is a losing deal.

The best life is attained by the blessed through patience, and they rise to the highest degrees through their gratitude. So they fly on the wings of patience and gratitude to gardens of delight (i.e., Paradise). That is the bounty of Allaah that He bestows upon whomsoever He will, and Allaah is the Owner of Great Bounty.

Allahu Akbar!

Insha Allah i will complete this entry soon.

Page 559

536 A.2d 559

148 Vt. 589, 6 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 769

BIG G CORPORATION

v.
Leo R. HENRY and Nancy L. Henry.

No. 84-298.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Nov. 20, 1987.

Page 560

[148 Vt. 590] David A. Otterman of Otterman and Allen, P.C., Barre, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jesse D. Bugbee and Daniel J. Lynch of John Kissane Associates, St. Albans, for defendants-appellees.

Before [148 Vt. 589] ALLEN, C.J., PECK and DOOLEY, JJ., BARNEY, C.J. (Ret.), and SPRINGER, District Justice (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

[148 Vt. 590] PECK, Justice.

Plaintiff, Big G. Corporation, appeals from an adverse jury verdict in its suit to recover a deficiency in the value of a farm, which followed a foreclosure proceeding pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 4532(d). By special interrogatories, the jury determined that a deficiency existed, but upon finding further that the plaintiff had orally agreed to take the farm back in full satisfaction of the debt owed by the defendants, the jury found for the defendants. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

Plaintiff is engaged in the speculative purchase and resale of farm property, and negotiated with defendants for the sale of a farm to them. The parties entered into a purchase and sale agreement, and at the closing, plaintiff gave the defendants a warranty deed for the farm. Defendants then executed a demand mortgage note to a bank, secured by a mortgage on the farm. During the negotiations, defendants informed plaintiff that they were buying the farm for defendant Leo Henry's brother, and that they wished to minimize their financial liability as much as possible. Accordingly, plaintiff's agent endorsed the demand mortgage note personally and on behalf of plaintiff. Moreover, the demand note was executed to cover a period of ninety days as temporary financing,[148 Vt. 591] to enable defendants time to arrange permanent financing on behalf of Leo Henry's brother.

Defendants were unable to obtain permanent financing and failed to make payment on the note. Plaintiff paid the bank under its endorsement of the note, and the bank assigned its mortgage interest in the farm to the plaintiff. Plaintiff then brought a foreclosure action against the defendants. A judgment of foreclosure was entered, and the court established a period of redemption pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 4528. Defendants kept possession of the farm during the redemption period, but did not redeem the farm. After the period of redemption expired, a certificate of nonredemption was issued and plaintiff repossessed the farm.

Claiming that the amount awarded in the foreclosure action was greater than the value of the farm on the date the period of redemption expired, plaintiff brought suit to recover the deficiency under 12 V.S.A. § 4532(d). At trial, over plaintiff's objection, defendants testified that during the negotiations for the purchase and sale agreement, the parties had orally agreed that if defendants were unable to obtain permanent financing, plaintiff's recovery of the farm by foreclosure on the mortgage note, coupled with the deposit received from defendants, would serve as full satisfaction of any debt defendants might owe plaintiff after foreclosure. In other words, defendants contended that plaintiff induced defendants to purchase the farm by agreeing to waive its right to bring a deficiency action. Plaintiff argued that admission of this testimony violated both the parol evidence rule and the Statute of Frauds. Defendants premised their waiver claim on the theory of promissory estoppel. The trial court admitted the evidence and charged the jury by special interrogatory to determine whether the parties had orally agreed that plaintiff would recover title to the farm in full satisfaction of defendants' debt. The jury concluded that such a "side deal" had occurred and found for the defendants even though it concluded that a deficiency existed. Judgment was entered for defendants, and plaintiff brought this appeal.

Plaintiff contends that the evidence of oral agreement to take back the farm was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule. The parol evidence rule is well settled in Vermont. "[W]hen contracting parties embody

Page 561
their agreement of sale in writing evidence of a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement is not admissible[148 Vt. 592] to vary or contradict the written agreement." Hathaway v. Ray's Motor Sales, 127 Vt. 279, 282, 247 A.2d 512, 514 (1968) (citation omitted). The same principles have been applied to negotiable instruments. "[A] negotiable instrument which expresses on its face an absolute promise to pay cannot be cut down into a conditional promise, or enlarged, varied, or contradicted by evidence of a prior or contemporaneous parol agreement...." West Rutland Trust Co. v. Houston, 104 Vt. 204, 207, 158 A. 69, 71 (1932) (citations omitted). Further, the "law presumes the writing to contain the whole agreement." Economou v. Vermont Electric Coop., 131 Vt. 636, 638, 313 A.2d 1, 3 (1973) (citing Wood v. James, 93 Vt. 36, 40, 106 A. 566, 568 (1918)).

The oral agreement in question was a prior parol agreement and was not embodied in any of the written agreements. Under the parol evidence rule, any testimony concerning this agreement is clearly inadmissible, and therefore, the trial court erred by admitting it.

An obscure promissory note exception to the parol evidence rule, previously recognized in this state, is no longer valid. Labbee v. Johnson, 66 Vt. 234, 28 A. 986 (1894), this Court recognized a promissory note exception to the parol evidence rule. The Court held that the "maker of a promissory note may always show the terms and conditions on which it was delivered" through the use of parol evidence. Id. at 236, 28 A. at 986 (citations omitted). The Labbee exception was codified and adopted by the legislature as the law of Vermont in 1912, with the passage of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law (UNIL). G.L. § 2890. That section stated, in relevant part, that, "[a]s between parties ... the delivery may be shown to have been conditional or to special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the instrument." The section was renumbered three times, although the wording of that section remained intact. G.L. § 7153 (1933); V.S. § 5461 (1947); 9 V.S.A. § 316 (1958). In 1966, the Vermont legislature repealed the UNIL, including 9 V.S.A. § 316, and replaced it with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). 1966, No. 29 (Spec.Sess.), § 1. The traditional parol evidence rule was preserved in the UCC with regard to contracts for the sale of goods. 9A V.S.A. § 2-202. However, the legislature did not add to the UCC parol evidence rule any provision that would preserve the promissory note exception previously incorporated into the UNIL. But see 9A V.S.A. § 3-306(c) (one not a holder in due [148 Vt. 593] course takes the instrument subject to defenses which could conceivably be established by parol evidence); 9A V.S.A. § 3-415(3) (an accommodation party may use oral proof to show the accommodation character).

Further, the modern trend of this Court in cases based upon negotiable instruments supports adherence to a more traditional and reasonable approach to the parol evidence rule. West Rutland Trust Co. v. Houston, 104 Vt. at 207, 158 A. at 71; Citizens Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Paradis & Sons, 102 Vt. 114, 117, 146 A. 3, 4 (1929); Alexander v. Chevalier, 98 Vt. 230, 234, 126 A. 498, 499 (1924). All three of these cases state an identical rule that "a negotiable instrument which expresses on its face an absolute promise to pay cannot be cut down into a conditional promise, or enlarged, varied, or contradicted by evidence of a prior or contemporaneous parol agreement...." See, e.g., West Rutland Trust Co., 104 Vt. at 207, 158 A. at 71 (citations omitted).

The Labbee exception is obsolete and only serves to defeat the primary purpose of the parol evidence rule. Parties to an agreement should embody all terms and conditions into the final writing. Any prior or contemporaneous agreements not included in the final writing are abrogated. We will adhere to the bright line standard set forth in West Rutland Trust Co., as it eliminates the confusion created by Labbee. Therefore, we hereby overrule Labbee's promissory note exception to the parol evidence rule.

Page 562

Defendants claim that the oral "take back" agreement is admissible because that parol agreement applied to a collateral writing--the purchase and sale agreement--and not the note sued upon in this case, thereby defeating the bar of the parol evidence rule. This Court recognizes that the parol evidence rule is inapplicable where the writing is collateral and the action is not based thereon, and the parties to the writing and to the litigation are the same. Lunnie v. Gadapee, 116 Vt. 261, 263, 73 A.2d 312, 313-14 (1950) (citations omitted). However, we find that the collateral writings exception does not apply here.

Although the alleged oral "take back" agreement occurred during the making of the purchase and sale agreement, it related directly to the ability of the plaintiff to bring a deficiency action under the note pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 4532(d). As such, the parol agreement was a prior agreement to the making of the note, and the collateral writings exception does not apply. It was not included in the note and was thus waived by the defendants. It is, [148 Vt. 594] of course, an established rule that extrinsic or parol evidence may be used to aid the trier of fact if a provision in a writing at issue is found to be ambiguous. Trustees of Net Realty Holding Trust v. Avco Financial Services of Barre, Inc., 144 Vt. 243, 249, 476 A.2d 530, 533 (1984) (citations omitted). Defendants raised no claim of ambiguity in the writing during the trial, nor do we find any; accordingly, this issue is not before the Court.

We also recognize that proof of fraud in the inducement will defeat the bar of the parol evidence rule. Negyessy v. Strong, 136 Vt. 193, 194, 388 A.2d 383, 385 (1978). Although defendants here raised the claim of fraud, the trial court found no evidence of fraud. Thus, the fraud exception does not apply here.

The parol evidence rule prevents fraud and eliminates confusion in the making of written agreements. Case law and common sense dictate that parties to an agreement must embody all terms and conditions in the final writing. Any terms and conditions not included will be null and void. This Court will continue to uphold this logical safeguard.

Defendants attempt to circumvent the parol evidence rule by arguing that evidence of the oral take back agreement was admissible under a theory of promissory estoppel. We disagree. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is not applicable.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel evolved to prevent "injustice and unconscionable advantage" where an exchange of promises did not create a binding contract. Overlock v. Central Vermont Public Service Corp., 126 Vt. 549, 552-53, 237 A.2d 356, 358-59 (1967). The doctrine of promissory estoppel will only apply, however, where there is no contract, "where the promise is gratuitous, and there is unbargained-for reliance." Chomicky v. Buttolph, 147 Vt. 128, 131 n., 513 A.2d 1174, 1176 n. (1986) (citation omitted). In this case, although the oral agreement took place prior to the execution of the note and mortgage, we cannot agree that this promise was separate and distinct from the written contracts. Rather, the oral agreement was part of the larger, binding contract, and as such, the doctrine of promissory estoppel will not apply. See id. To hold otherwise would completely undermine the parol evidence rule since it would allow every oral side term or agreement to be enforceable under a theory of promissory estoppel.

[148 Vt. 595] As the trial court was in error in admitting testimony of the parol agreement, we need not examine the other issues raised by the plaintiff.

Reversed and remanded.

Management Packs are available to add extra functionality into SCOM 2007, these can be downloaded or you can create your own.

The Distributed Application Designer is a graphical wizard to help IT administrators quickly create health models and MPs (Management Packs) for their IT Services. The Management Pack Authoring Console is a graphical tool used to help IT administrators and developers build MPs for their custom applications and other technology components. The Operations Manager 2007 Software Development Kit (SDK) provides programming interfaces so developers can more deeply integrate with and automate Operations Manager 2007.

SCOM isn't restricted to monitoring Windows environments, it's possible to monitor HP-UX, Solaris, Red Hat & SUSE Linux by using the Cross Platforms Extension beta.

Download a trial of System Center Operations Manager 207 here.

"Hey Ted, yeah, I love you," Bill Allen said, as an FBI agent listened on the line.

"You're one of the greatest friends I've ever had," Uncle Ted replied.

While their voices filled the courtroom, the two men kept their eyes largely from each other - their faces, devoid of emotion. Much of the recorded conversation involved Ted bucking up Bill; telling him over and over again to keep going, to get some exercise, to get out there and not hide in his house. As Ted put it, the worst that could happen is we could end up in court paying hefty legal fees, and perhaps pay a fine or serve some time in prison.

"These guys can't really hurt us," he professed. "They're not going to shoot us. This is not Iraq."

Throughout it all Ted proclaimed his innocence. At one point, he even suggested that the feds might be listening in on their conversation, but he didn't care because he'd say the same thing if they were right in front of him.

"No one can tell you that you spent too much money," Ted reassured his buddy. "In my heart, I don't think we did anything wrong."

As one fellow observer coined it - Ted should be a motivational speaker. He almost had me convinced that if you believe you did no wrong, then you didn't. Then I remembered that little thing called the rule of law. And Bill Allen did give sitting Senator Ted Stevens "a really expensive" grill (although Ted did lock the gas valve so he wouldn't be able to use it so therefore it wasn't his), a new king-size bed (that ended up being too big and had to be replaced with a smaller version - oh and by the way Bill, Ted wrote in an email, "we may need to get some smaller sheets for the new bed"), a few used leather couches, a kitchen table and chairs, a big toolbox with some tools (Ted likes to fix things), a speed bag (Ted really liked the speed bag and he can really use it), a job for Ted's son, mechanic school for Ted's grandson, a water heater repair - oh, and a major remodel of Ted's chalet.

It seems as though Bill was Ted's personal Santa Claus.

"We should try not to look like we're trying to keep things from the world," Ted warned his friend. "You and I should just wait this thing out. I can't think of a thing we've done wrong."

- Posted by Emilie

Good Job Carl on this poster, I wonder if O.J. will find it as funny as I did?

Enjoy

Thirteen years to the day after OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder charges, he was found guilty on twelve criminal charges, including armed robbery, kidnapping and burglary.

Simpson, along with his co-defendant, are now in jail and will remain there until December when they will face sentencing.  The charges against Simpson could put him in jail for the rest of his life.

Simpson's defense lawyers plan to appeal, and believe that Simpson's prior trial and acquittal tainted the jury and led to their decision to find Simpson guilty.

So this morning I'm suing my abusive ex. I stayed way longer than I should have but was smart enough to get out before he could do something worse.

I have much more to say on this subject later- about how pissed I was that Tropical Storm Fay hit the actual day of my original trial date- but how it all has worked out because I'm no longer the scared little girl who was preparing furiously for the trial...

I swear, he doesn't know what he's done, or who he messed with. he will regret the day he met me...and I hope to haunt his nightmares for the rest of his pathetic life...

Good to see the guy, albeit with more hair. Went hunting for my No-ISA T.shirt over the weekend. Supplier was out. I guess i'll go again tonite.

They took him to the court for his Sedition trial today. I wonder though, even if he wins this case, he's still be behind bars thanks to Albabu and Dol Keropok who just kena keropok by his fellow Umno brethren.

What goes around comes around.

Till then, take care, man!

O.J. Simpson was found guilty (As he should have been 13 years ago) of all charges.  And now (if date stands) December 5th starting at 9 a.m. he will (if all goes well) spend the rest of his life in Prison. 

Here is the video.  Watch his reaction when Stewart and himself are both found GUILTY!!!  Esp. O.J.

Next let's have Scott Petersons death televized.  both men (I use the term loosley) are the scum of the earth.

A former police officer sentenced to life in prison for killing his pregnant lover is seeking a new trial, arguing that the jury handed down contradictory verdicts. Read more...

O.J. Simpson is being cut off from other prisoners for his own safety, and is concentrating on a motion for new trial and a sturdy offer for appellate reversal of his conviction for kidnapping and robbery, his lawyer said Sunday.

Attorney Yale Galanter told The Associated Press he will persistently request for Simpson to be released on bond pending appeal.

Meanwhile, Galanter said Simpson will be living a lonely life, directed by his lawyers to do no media interviews and permitted to see only family members and a few friends placed on an exclusive list at the jail.

Simpson will be held in Clark County Detention Center until his Dec. 5 sentencing, then is predicted to be transferred to state prison. Because of the seriousness of the charges, it is likely that Simpson would linger in jail during his appeal.

"He is in isolated custody and being protected from other inmates," Galanter said aboard a plane as he prepared to return to his Miami office. "The jail is taking very special precautions to make sure he is safe."

Galanter said that this will make for a tricky incarceration for the extroverted Simpson, because "it limits his contacts with other humans."

The attorney said Simpson was OK during a jail visit Saturday where they talked about potential tactics for the case. "He's disappointed and a bit melancholy," he said.

Galanter said the appeal cannot be filed until after Simpson is sentenced.

"We are planning to fast track that as much as possible," he said.

The 61-year-old Hall of Fame football star was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery and 10 other charges for assembling five men a year ago and raiding a room at a hotel-casino to confiscate Simpson sports souvenirs — including game balls, plaques and photos — from two collectors. Prosecutors said two of the men with him were armed; one testified Simpson had requested him to carry a gun.

Galanter said he thinks Simpson has a tough argument for reversal of his conviction because of legal mistakes made during the trial, beginning with the jury selection process.

Obama 08'!!!

Guilty on 12 counts. (But really 13 - right, jurors?)