The inaugural Wonderfront Music & Arts Festival will take over sunny San Diego’s Waterfront and Downtown areas this fall on November 22nd-24th.On Monday, the three-day event revealed their phase one lineup, with Ben Harper & The Innocent Criminals, MGMT, and San Diego locals Slightly Stoopid topping the bill. Wonderfront will also see performances by Michael Franti & Spearhead, Thievery Corporation, Vince Staples, Big Gigantic, STS9, Pepper, Phantogram, Big Wild, Andy Frasco & The U.N., Preservation Hall Jazz Band, Boombox, Ghost Light, Sunsquabi, Exmag, and many more. More artists will be added to the impressive lineup in August.With the help of fellow co-founder and Pechanga Arena General Manager Ernie Hahn, Wonderfest co-founder Paul Thornton brought local sports heroes Tony Hawk, Trevor Hoffman, and Rob Machado onto the festival team as investors and brand ambassadors. The three-day event will include music, arts, food, wine, spirits, beer (with a giant craft beer village), yacht parties, water taxi cruises, water activities, Tony Hawk’s HuckJam, a silent disco, and so much more, all along the downtown San Diego Waterfront. Attendees will be able to come and go as they please with their Wonderfront RFID wristband.“Our goal with this lineup was to have it stacked from start to finish each day with great artists,” festival co-founder Paul Thornton said in a press release. “So, it’s hard to really call any certain bands our headliners as so many bands on this festival are headliners in their own right. We’ve had a tough time fitting so many great bands across so many genres into the number of stage slots available. We also wanted a great mix of artists across the time slots so that not all the bigger names were just playing at the same later times. We really appreciate the artists who have worked with us to make that possible.”Subscribers to the festival’s WonderLIST will have access to pre-sale Early Bird tickets on Friday, June 7th. Tickets go on sale to the general public beginning on Friday, June 14th at 10 a.m.Head to the Wonderfront’s website for more information.
Is the law of the body a body of law? June 1, 2004 Regular News James W. Martin I remember studying Florida Jur for answers to mundane questions that budding probate lawyers ask. Questions such as who owns a deceased person’s body? I recall Florida Jur saying nobody owns a dead body, but the next of kin have a right to decide how to dispose of it. It cited a case or two, but no statute. There was not much of a body of law for the law of the body back then.Today, as aging baby boomers watch the Schiavo case on national news and ponder their own end-of-life decisions, the question of who owns a deceased person’s body begs for the black-letter law of statute. The 2004 Florida Legislature has answered their pleas by enacting SB 528, effective October 1, 2005, to amend F.S. Ch. 470 and 497 governing the funeral and cemetery industries. Under the new law, a “legally authorized person” will be empowered to instruct funeral directors on disposition of dead bodies.SB 528 adds a definition of “legally authorized person” to F.S. §497.005 by listing a series of persons of various priorities. The first person in the list of priorities is the deceased person himself or herself. Probate lawyers call this person the decedent. Since no longer living, the new law empowers the decedent by recognizing “written inter vivos authorizations and directions provided by the decedent.” This makes sense: If someone goes to the trouble of visiting a funeral home and writing out instructions for disposition of his or her body after death, their instructions ought to be followed.Unfortunately, the new law does not say whether a direction in a will is allowed for this purpose. Many people, lawyers and judges included, would expect the will to be a logical place for someone to state their post-death body disposition wishes. However, a will is testamentary in nature and is not effective until death, so it is arguable that it is not inter vivos. Since the new law requires an inter vivos direction, a direction in the decedent’s will concerning disposition of his or her body after death might not be valid under this new law. This would, perhaps, be contrary to legislative intent. It would certainly be contrary to existing case law which at least implies that a decedent has a testamentary right to decide on disposition of the body. (See below.)The second “legally authorized person” in priority is the surviving spouse, and the third in priority is a son or daughter who is at least 18 years old. This is interesting because the Florida Probate Code provides that the heirs of a deceased person who dies intestate (without a valid will) are generally the surviving spouse as to half the estate and the lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.) as to the other half. Thus, the surviving spouse shares the decedent’s property equally with the children under the Florida Probate Code. The new law treats disposition of the decedent’s body differently by clearly stating that the surviving spouse alone is the “legally authorized person” to decide on disposition of the body if the decedent left no written inter vivos authorization or direction.However, there is a twist that favors the children and will surely give their lawyers room for argument. The new law adds a subsection to F.S. §406.50 (unclaimed bodies) that says, “In the event more than one legally authorized person claims a body for interment, the requests shall be prioritized in accordance with [Florida Statutes] §732.103.” You might think this is the statute that says the spouse gets half and the children get the other half. That is probably what the legislature thought. But it’s not. F.S. §732.103 says: “The part of the intestate estate not passing to the surviving spouse under §732.102… descends…[t]o the lineal descendants of the decedent.” Thus, the new law has the effect of saying that if more than one legally authorized person claims a body, the spouse is not counted in determining priority, and the children are the ones who get to decide, which is directly in conflict with the new law’s definition of “legally authorized person.”Was all of this really necessary? Was it important for the Florida Legislature to try to codify the law of the dead body? Was it attempting to change case law?Well, I went back to the old cases and here is what I found. It was way back in 1950 that the Florida Supreme Court cited Am.Jur., Dead Bodies, and said: “It is well settled that, in the absence of testamentary disposition to the contrary, a surviving spouse or next of kin has the right to the possession of the body of a deceased person for the purpose of burial, sepulcher or other lawful disposition which they may see fit.. . . And the invasion of such right by unlawfully withholding the body from the relative entitled thereto is an actionable wrong, for which substantial damages may be recovered.” Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1950).As everyone knows, possession is nine-tenths of the law, so recognition of a right to possession might be a form of property right. It is at least such a strong right that the Florida Supreme Court held its invasion to entitle the relatives to substantial damages. But is it a property right in the same way that owning a car or a house is a property right?The Florida Supreme Court examined this question at length in 2001 and concluded that it was kind of like a property right. The court said, “Based upon these statutory rights of the next of kin in their dead relatives’ bodies, along with the case law on this issue, we conclude that in Florida there is a legitimate claim of entitlement by the next of kin to possession of the remains of a decedent for burial or other lawful disposition. We also find that referring to the interest as a ‘legitimate claim of entitlement’ most accurately describes the nature of the interest.” Crocker v. Pleasant, 778 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 2001). The court earlier in the opinion noted that, “This conclusion is consistent with the approach of other courts that have found that this right constitutes a legitimate claim of entitlement or a quasi-property interest.”The Crocker court explained a quasi-property interest by quoting Lawyer v. Kernodle, 721 F.2d 632 (8th Cir. 1983): “In the sense in which the word ‘property’ ordinarily is used, one whose duty it becomes to bury a deceased person has no right of ownership over the corpse; but, in the broader meaning of the term, he has what has been called a ‘quasi property right’ which entitles him to the possession and control of the body for the single purpose of decent burial. If the deceased person leave [sic] a widow, such right belongs to her….”Of course, the Crocker court noted in footnote 10: “Unlike other traditional property interests, however, there is no recognized right to possess the remains of a deceased relative for commercial purposes.”Well, perhaps the cases are a bit confusing and do take some time to read. They do not set out in black and white in one place a list of persons who have the actual quasi-property right to decide the disposition of a deceased person’s body. It would probably be helpful to funeral directors if the cases or statutes had such a list that was clear and not ambiguous. While the new law is a step in that direction, it appears to have some glitches that a future legislature will need to address. James W. Martin is a corporate, real estate, and probate lawyer in St. Petersburg, who has written for Florida Bar Journal and News , ALI-ABA Practical Lawyer, and West Publishing, and has more information on his Web site, www.jamesmartinpa.com. Is the law of the body a body of law?
Which is the best TV under Rs. 25,000? We discussed this on Orbital, our weekly technology podcast, which you can subscribe to via Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or RSS, download the episode, or just hit the play button below. Oppo rollable OLED screen smartphone along with its AR glasses were showcased at Oppo Inno Day 2020. Oppo also posted three tweets providing some information on what we can expect from the two products. The rollable OLED screen smartphone is called the Oppo X 2021 and the AR glasses are called Oppo AR Glass 2021. The Oppo X 2021 uses a proprietary roll motor powertrain to smoothly transition between the two display sizes. The company did not share details about the AR Glass 2021 during the presentation.During the Oppo Inno Day 2020 presentation, the company revealed its attempt at offering more screen real-estate with a relatively smaller smartphone. The Oppo X 2021 is a rollable OLED screen smartphone that, in its normal state, features a 6.7-inch display. It uses what Oppo is calling a continuously variable OLED display and in its extended state, the screen size increases to 7.4-inches with the help of proprietary roll motor powertrain. The Oppo X 2021 has curved edges with a USB Type-C port and speaker grills at the bottom.- Advertisement – It also has a high-strength screen laminate that Oppo is calling Warp Track that strengthens the screen and allows it to achieve a bending diameter of 6.8mm. The Oppo X 2021 can provide a fullscreen experience with both 16:9 and 4:3 content. There also seem to be three cameras on the back of the phone.Coming to the Oppo AR Glass 2021, while the presentation does not include any information on it, the tweet by the company mentions that it will include a time of flight (ToF) sensor, SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) algorithms, Diffractive optical wave guide technology, and gesture and voice navigation. The glasses seem to have a sleek design with the central area (above the nose) housing the sensors.Oppo did not share a release date for the two products but will be released sometime next year.- Advertisement – – Advertisement –
Share Share Share HealthLifestyle Parents ‘want child gene tests’ by: – April 18, 2011 Sharing is caring! 17 Views no discussions Genetic tests look for increased risk of diseaseParents believe the benefits of testing their children for the genetic risk of some diseases outweigh the negative consequences, according to US scientists.In the study, published in the journal Pediatrics, parents who were offered a genetic test supported their children also being tested.The authors say doctors and politicians need to be more aware of the issue.Genewatch UK said children should never be tested for adult conditions.Genetic testing used to be confined to specialist clinics, but direct-to-consumer testing is now possible.People send a sample to a company in the post and are told if they have any genes which carry an increased risk of illness.Genetic testIn this study, 219 parents were tested for 15 genetic variants linked to heart disease, osteoporosis, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes and colon, skin and lung cancer.They were then asked a series of questions to compare benefits such as reassurance, knowledge and prevention, with risks such as invasion of privacy and psychological discomfort.The report found that “parents offered the genetic susceptibility test for common preventable conditions tended to consider that the potential benefits of this test for their own child could outweigh its risks”.Professor Kenneth Tercyak, from the Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, said: “These tests usually don’t offer a clean bill of health and can be hard to interpret even in the best scenario.”Helen Wallace, from genetic science lobby group Genewatch UK, said: “Online gene tests frequently give misleading results because most common conditions such as cancer, obesity or diabetes are not predicable from a person’s genes, except in special circumstances.“Children should not be tested for risk of adult-onset conditions, full stop. They should be allowed to decide for themselves, with medical advice, when they are grown up.”Dr Vivienne Nathanson, director of BMA Professional Activities, said: “We would have concerns about genetic testing being widely available over the internet or off the shelf because parents could find out results without a health professional to help intepret them. They may also find out about genetic abnormalities for which there are no cures, or be caused needless worry.“It is important that parents who find out that their children have a genetic disposition to a particular illness, have counselling in advance so they understand the consequences of the test for their child, other children and themselves.”Prof Tercyak said: “The findings of our study should remind clinicians and policy-makers to consider children when regulating genetic tests.”BBC News Tweet
Park Commissioner Mike Baumer addresses Batesville City Council on Monday evening.Park Commissioner Mike Baumer was at the monthly Batesville City Council meeting on Monday evening to request upgrades in the pavilion at Liberty Park.Baumer asked council members to consider and approve upgrades to lighting, trash can lids and also add a ceiling fan in the pavilion.He said the current lighting is old and not energy efficient. Baumer said, “The new lights are LED and very energy efficient. It will save the park money on electricity and provide better lighting.”Baumer noted another plus for new lighting is the current rebates available. In a presentation to the council, he said the total cost to replace all lights in the pavilion, including labor and material would be $2,828.26. With a rebate of $2,080.00, the cost to the city would be $748.26.There are 11 fixtures and 21 flood lights that would be replaced.Every garbage can has a lid at Liberty Park except for ten in the pavilion. Baumer requested lids for the ten remaining.He cited a problem with bees, as well as trash can liners falling in the barrel. He noted, “It will save us on trash bags because they will not be falling in the can and it will be safer because of the bee problem.”“It will just be an upgrade versus not having them.”The ten plastic dome trash can lids from Kay Park Recreation will cost a total of $1,152.00.Batesville City Council members approved lighting and trash can lid upgrades, and the funding is coming out of the Belterra Fund.Baumer also requested a large ceiling fan in the pavilion. He presented different options including a 24’ fan that would cost $4,890.00.A cheaper option was presented which would feature three 30” industrial ceiling mounted fans for $276.50 each. Baumer noted, “I feel the three fans would move enough air to help keep the pavilion cooler on hot days.”Batesville City Council President Gene Lambert suggested Rite-Hite fans as another option for Baumer to consider.Baumer will continue to research industrial ceiling fans for the pavilion before council approves. He referenced GE Lighting and Tool & Die as places with fans similar to what they are looking for.Mayor Rick Fledderman said, “I am a big proponent of a fan of some sort in the pavilion.”“When events are held in the summer it can get pretty hot under there,” he added.