Lecture given to Bodyguards on The Law relating to Assault

 The job of the Bodyguard is a dangerous one which can only be undertaken by those trained to the highest standards. Today I am here to lecture you on the law in Ireland as it relates to you and the execution of your duties in this Country.

 

Assault – the criminal law

Defence of Self-Defence

As a general rule, the use of force, whether it is fatal or non-fatal, is unlawful.

(1) If fatal force is employed, its lawfulness falls to be determined in accordance with the common law.

(2) If the force used is non-fatal, ss18-20,  Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997  comes into play.

(1)

The People (AG) v Dwyer [1972] IR 416.

Supreme Court; “where a person, subjected to a violent and felonious attack, endeavours, by way of self-defence, to prevent the consummation of that attack by force, but, in doing so, exercises more force than is necessary but no more than he honestly believes to be necessary in the circumstances, such person is guilty of manslaughter and not murder.”

The People (AG) v Commane (1975) 1 Frewen 400.

The accused was held not to have had such an honest belief. He had rendered his assailant unconscious by fracturing his skull with a whiskey bottle and proceeded to strangle him. He argued that, in strangling his assailant, he had used no more force than he honestly believed to be necessary. His conviction for murder was affirmed on the basis that the jury was entitled to conclude that he had used more force than he had known to be reasonably necessary.

In the premises the test for determining whether or not fatal force is lawful is threefold:

1. It must be used for the purpose of defending a person or property or preventing a crime.

2. The use of some force must be necessary (the necessity of force is judged according to objective standards).

3. Fatal force must be no more than is reasonably necessary. It is murder if the accused knows it is more than is reasonably necessary. It is manslaughter if the accused honestly believes that it is necessary.

So in relation to point (iii), in the recent Nally case, the jury determined that the force actually used, ie shooting a traveller who trespassed on the accused’s property, was in fact necessary.

(2)

S. 18 – The use of force for certain specified purposes:

Force must be used for one or more of certain purposes in order to be lawful.

s.18(1) of the 1997 Act, a person may lawfully use force:

(a) to protect himself or a member of his family or another from injury, assault or detention caused by a criminal act,

(b) to protect himself, or another from trespass to the person,

(c) to protect his property,

(d) to protect property belonging to another,

(e) to prevent crime or breach of the peace.

According to s. 18(5), ‘the question whether the act against which force is used is of a kind mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection 1 shall be determined according to the circumstances as the person using the force believes them to be.’ So essentially the test is twofold, partly objective and partly subjective. It is subjective in it looks at the circumstances as the accused believed them to be. Then it is objective in that it looks at whether it was reasonable in those circumstances.

S. 18 does not apply to a person who sets out to create a situation in which it becomes necessary for him to use force (s18(7)).

S. 19 – the use of force to effect or assist a lawful arrest:

It may be lawful to use force for the purpose of effecting or assisting in a lawful arrest. An unlawful arrest is regarded as being lawful for the purpose of s. 19 if the person using the force believes that he is effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest. The force used must be reasonable in the circumstances, as the accused believes them to be.

S. 20 (sets out definition of force)

‘Force’ is defined in s.20(1) as the application of force to, or causing an impact on, the body of a person or property. It includes threatening a person with force against that person or property and detaining that person without actually using force.

Finally, ‘the fact that a person had an opportunity to retreat before using force shall be taken into account, in conjunction with other relevant evidence, in determining whether the use of force was reasonable.’

Civil Law (Trespass to the person)

Trespass to the person can take the form of battery (unlawful personal contact), assault (threat of battery) or false imprisonment (unlawful deprivation of personal liberty).

Assault – defined as “an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person”. The belief of contact must be reasonable but the fact that the defendant was not in a position to execute the threat is irrelevant.

Battery – defined as “the actual intended use of unlawful force to another person without his consent … or any other lawful excuse”.

False imprisonment – defined as the unlawful restraint or detention of the plaintiff. Imprisonment is a misleading term since this tort is committed whenever one is restrained by another or constrained from movement from a place whether that place is a shop, school or one’s own home.

Many civil actions for battery are taken against employees such as security guards  who make contact with or cause injury to another. The employee must show that he acted proportionately and with minimal force to the situation in question and this may be justified as self-defence or defence to property. If the person uses excessive or disproportionate force, a battery will have occurred. Furthermore, in general it will be held that an employee is acting outside the scope of his employment if excessive force is used and therefore the employer is not vicariously liable and the employee alone is liable to the plaintiff.

A number of these issues were discussed in the case of Gibbons v Securicor (unrep 2004). The plaintiff was asked to leave a shopping centre because he was shouting and making gestures at security staff. He refused to leave and tried to strike a security guard. The security staff restrained him and brought him inside to an office and called the Gardai. The plaintiff brought a claim for battery, false imprisonment and defamation. The Court made a number of points:

1. An occupier of premises can withdraw a person’s licence to be present on the premises and the individual commits a trespass if they refuse to leave;

2. A degree of force may be used to remove a person from the premises where they are trespassing;

3. If a person assaults or batters another or attempts to do so, that other person can use reasonable force to defend themselves;

On the facts of the case the Court held that the restraint of the plaintiff and his detention was justified and the plaintiff’s case was dismissed.

Defence of self-defence

It is lawful to use reasonable force in self-defence to an assault and/or battery by another. The response must be proportionate and excessive force may not be used.

In certain circumstances it is also permissible to make a pre-emptive strike. In the Chaplin of Gray’s Inn Case [1400], it was stated that a person threatened with assault is “not bound to wait until the other has given a blow, for perhaps it will come too late afterwards.”

In regard to the defence of property, in MacKnight v Xtravision [unrep 1991], the plaintiff was preventing customers from entering the defendants premises. The defendant instructed the security man to remove him. The security man was a former boxer and he cause the plaintiff injury and significant bruising. The Court held that the appropriate procedure was to request someone to move away and if they refuse, an employee may lay their hands lightly on the person to move them away.There has been endless cases and events where bodyguards protecting celebrities have had assault charges brought against them. The most common case is where, in protecting their clients, they have had run inns with paparazzi.

Celebrity

Rapper Nelly –Avoiding a court appearance in Connecticut, rapper Nelly paid out $20,000 to a photographer who accused the star’s security guards of assaulting him. According to reports, freelance photographer Brian Jones, 39, had accused one of the rapper’s security personnel, Brian Jones, of escorting him to the edge of the stage and ‘violently hitting him’, causing serious injuries, during a concert at the Bridgeport Arena, Connecticut. Livingstone was reportedly cleared to be taking photographs backstage at the time, although the bodyguards allegedly believed he was filming the tape illegally.
Livingstone still has lawsuits posted against the city of Bridgeport and the Bridgeport Arena, over the July 12, 2005 concert incident, reports the Associated Press.

Bodyguards of Leonardo DiCaprio Face Assault Charges –Israeli police revealed last year that they were deciding whether to charge assault charges against the two bodyguards of Leonardo DiCaprio. The two bodyguards were arrested after they were involved in a fight with photographers in Jerusalem. The brawl of the bodyguards with paparazzi happened when the actor Leonardo DiCaprio and his model girlfriend Bar Rafaeli took a private tour of the tunnels next to the Western Wall. Approximately twenty photographers, together with a crowd of fans and curiosity-seekers, waited for the 32-year-old actor to come out of the tunnel. The photographers gathered around as DiCaprio got into a van, and security guards tried to shoo them away.

Israeli authorities are considering whether to file charges against the two bodyguards for the “unnecessary” assault. It was reported that three photographers were injured in the incident.

Micky Rosenfeld, a police spokesman, revealed, “We understand it was the photographers who were attacked. The photographers didn’t attack the security guards. It’s very clear it was an unnecessary incident.” He admitted that he did not know when a decision to press charges would be made. Shawn Sachs, the publicist of Leonardo DiCaprio, said the blame rested solely with the photographers. He revealed, “Leo is horrified that anyone might have gotten hurt in this situation, but the paparazzi really made this happen.” The two bodyguards were released without charge. According to the spokesman of Leonardo DiCaprio, local officials issued a restraining order on Wednesday against several of the paparazzi involved in the brawling incident.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie – MUMBAI: The three bodyguards of star Hollywood couple Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, who are wanted to stand trial for allegedly intimidating, insulting and assaulting parents at a local school during the shooting of the film A Mighty Heart in Mumbai have failed to turn up for a single court date.

On a visit to Anjuman-e-Islam school in South Mumbai for the shoot on November 16, 2006, a scuffle broke out between the three men – Thomas McAdam (47), Robert Dunn (35) and Michael Brett (50) – and parents who had come to pick up their children. One of the men is alleged to have abused a parent by calling him “You bloody Indian”. All three bodyguards were arrested the next day and later released on bail.

Jolie herself had strongly denied the charges saying that she would never employ anybody who was racist as her own family was of mixed race. Brad Pitt, who was one of the producers of the film, had even met the then police commissioner A N Roy and said that his men could never hurt children. But now when the time has come to prove their innocence in court the men are not to be found.

All three are British nationals and booked under Section 323 of the IPC for “voluntarily causing hurt”, under section 504, for “intentional insult to provoke breach of peace” and under section 506 for “criminal intimidation”.

A charge sheet was filed in February 2007 but as the bodyguards failed to appear in court the magistrate issued summons asking them to remain present.

“The address given by them was of the Taj Hotel in Colaba and a police team went there with the summons but was informed that the accused had left a long time ago,” said inspector Dhananjay Sonawane.

(This Paper was originally delivered by Tom Baldwin at  The International Bodyguard Association Training Course held in Castlebellingham in 2009)

LegalEagleStar , Wednesday , 31st. August , 2011

You judge Society by the way we treat our Old People.

I walked into her room yesterday and she looked very low, depressed. Tired of this world and the troubles brought on by old age. Her husband had died 11 years ago and while at first she got on with the routine of life, life itself became more of a struggle as time moved on. First, the thought of preparing Sunday Lunch for the family became such a chore that she just, well couldn’t cope. Panic attacks were starting to reappear and then she decided that she couldn’t cope with these anymore. So Sunday lunch for the family was no more. Then baking the brown bread that everyone loved was the next item which distressed her. That too went by the wayside. While still driving her beloved Volkswagen Golf to Mass each morning, her journeys were becoming less and less frequent. Dropping in to see friends and family were becoming a rare occurrence, as time moved on. Then sometime later several chest infections took their toll. She was losing her independence.

Eventually her short-term memory started to deteriorate. This caused her distress as she could not remember if she’s done something or not. Frustration with her circumstances eventually led to her entering a Nursing Home. Her own mother had been one of the first people into the home some forty years earlier. She had always said she’d love to end her days there but her failing memory was not making this the experience she’d contemplated all those years ago.

Two weeks ago she was taken to Beaumont Hospital with a suspected heart attack. Her breathing had been bad since last winter so the need for oxygen was crucial. She also needed medication for pain and these needs, coupled with her chest pains made her stay in Casualty all the more traumatic. It seems she was admitted to the Hospital shortly after arriving into Casualty so her time there was determined by how long it would take to acquire a bed and be moved into a Ward. The staff in the Hospital were, as usual, fantastic but her surviving on a trolley for over two days was cruel. During this time she became confused and it didn’t help that some of her personal possessions were lost. Maybe the Hospital prefer the word misplaced. Either way, her treasured Black Convent Beads which she clasped onto each day for the last, God knows how many years, are now denied her. This could be one of the reasons why today she feels so low. She doesn’t understand where they’ve gone. Her short-term memory problem makes her anxiety all the worse.

If it was not for the fantastic job that the Nuns, nurses and care staff do in helping her ‘cope’ with the hand that has been dealt her by life, she would most certainly try to take her own life. She says on many occasions that she just wants to die. She missed her husband. She is tired of the strains and battles that life has thrown up. She’s tired of life. She feels an imposition on her family. ‘They would be better off if I was gone’, she’ll repeat to those who’ll listen.

Today she was more upbeat than yesterday. While still having to have her meals in her room she is less anxious than yesterday. We have a chat about life and the hand it deals us. While clearly anxious, today she can talk about the good times and bad and asks about each of the family in a caring manner. She realises that her days are numbered but now wishes to help her family cope with their problems, big and small. This is the ‘Granny’ we all love and cherish and will be poorer when she has passed on. I tried to impress upon her the important part she plays in all our lives and how we will miss her when her time comes. Life will certainly be the poorer without her, whatever she may think from time to time.

How we treat our Old People is a reflection of the Society we live in. Today in Ireland, we must live in a very uncaring society and need to re access our values.

Hilda, my Mum will be 85 on September 16th,  if God spares her.

LegalEagleStar , Thursday , 25th. August , 2011

EU Elites do what Hitler failed to achieve…

Image by Abode of Chaos via Flickr

Well now it’s official. Germany, with the collusion of France has determined that our future lies within the United States of Europe. Ireland, once a proud Independent Nation will now lose it’s sovereignty, obtained by the blood of generations, to the Elites who control the Banks and the Multinational Business Community. Some of us saw this coming but many trusted our Politicians and their Political Parties to lead us out of economic stagnation and depravity. Those who lead us into this mess have, in my view, done so deliberately and in such a fashion as to let us think that they were so doing to help us. Guarantee the Banks, the late Brian Lenihan determined. This would save us. Sure how could we survive without them. Like a long-lost child who has returned to the fold. By so doing, he made the Citizens of Ireland responsible for the debts of the Elite who ravaged this little country for their own personal gain. We are just left with their gambling debts. They are now though, the sovereign debts of us all. We are the ones who must pay off debts which we didn’t even know existed, and more come to light on a daily basis.

I remember many years ago the Irish Labour Party joining with Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in a determined drive to join the EEC  i.e. the European Economic Community. We were told it would give us many more trading options and would be good for the country. It would take us out of an economically depressed state into an open market. And we were told, on more than one occasion, that it would prevent wars in Europe. We really had no other option but to join. No thought was given to actually trading with countries we had more in common with. The thought of dealing with the Super Powers was too much to miss out on. The Irish people believed in our politicians and openly embraced the EEC.  Over time, we have been asked to Vote in Referendum after Referendum to approve the latest Treaty. When we got it wrong, in their determination, sure just get us to vote again. What would us ignorant people know about such International matters. Again and again we trusted our political Elites and look where it has got us.

Where we are today is, just maybe, where the Elites want us to be.  Down on our knees, in the worst depression ever contemplated and most importantly, subservient to the Elites for our very existence. Not so many years ago our sovereignty was, we were told, assured. Nothing to worry about. But behind the scenes the Elites just smiled as they knew that as time went on, it would only be academic. Their view of our world is somewhat different to what you and me view as ideal. They demand control of the wealth of the Citizen and God help anyone who stands in their way. The example of Iraq should not be discounted. When Saddam Hussein stood up to his heretofore masters and decided on a course of action without their approval, he was deposed and his country ravaged. Control of the oil was paramount and a subservient nation an essential element in their plan. Those who stand up for social justice are now being targeted as Opponents to the plans of the Elite and will be targeted as Opposition. Those who stand up to protect the rights of the Citizen will also be restrained as it would not be right to let the Citizen act in any way to opposed the onward and upward match of these Elites.

Our Political Parties have in effect been bought off and it is clear for all to see that our Puppet Government has no power to act in the interests of the Irish Citizen and must do the will of the IMF/EU without any option but to say ‘Yes Sir’.  I was listening to the Radio over the last few days about the Nazi occupation of Europe. Is this any different? Maybe War is now fought in the Boardroom instead of the battlefield, unless of course you are talking about the Middle East or in some far away poor African State where the people are fed drugs deemed unfit for consumption within the European Community. In such cases, it would appear that the use of chemical and other such obscene weapons which massacre people but do minimum damage to property are preferable. Precision strikes are lauded while peripheral damage is tolerable.

What type of obscene world do we live in today? We can debate on Vincent Browne’s TV3 Programme weeknights and on Primetime on RTE until we are blue in the face, but in our joke of a Democracy it amounts to nothing. It lets us get some ‘stuff’ off our chests but in the end it only acts, as it is meant to do i.e. provide a safety value for the Citizen to let off some steam. That suits our Political Elites who can then continue to plan the total domination of the Citizen for generations to come. Unless someone, somewhere, is prepared to stand up and indeed suffer the wrath of these self-styled Elites, then our collective futures seem doomed to oppression. Are our politicians just naive or are they in collusion with these obscene Elites. The Irish people are fast running out of time if they want to halt this torrent of oppression. With the Church in disarray following scandal after scandal who is to give succour to those who would stand up for us? Is it too late to realistically do anything for the Citizen or do we just continue to lie down and trust in those who clearly have another Agenda.

LegalEagleStar  Wednesday , 17th. August , 2011

UK Riots Spark the end of Society as we know it. Citizens Beware !

Image by Sean MacEntee via Flickr

Over the past few days we have witnessed the unprecedented outbreak of rioting, first in London and now spreading throughout the entire UK. The spark for all this would appear to be the shooting dead by the police of an individual in Tottenham. I say ‘Spark’ , because the  family of the deceased are now distancing themselves from the riots and it is now hard to see the actions of the rioters as in any way connected with the original incident at all.

I personally think that the incidents are not surprising and indeed have been predictable and just waiting to happen. You cannot treat people as Governments in the UK, Ireland and indeed throughout the EU and the rest of the world, has done and expect people to be happy with this unjust state of affairs. People become disenfranchised and become vulnerable. The loss of self-worth that comes from being unemployed or indeed in a dead-end job which does not pay your bills, leaves people doubting their self-worth and indeed their being the ones likened to outcasts in society.

Over the recent past the number of deaths due to suicide have increased enormously. Families have as a result been devastated. Whether the cause of the loss of life was due to exams, loss of employment, debts and being pursued by greedy Banks and moneylenders, or relationship breakdown or suchlike, it is important for us to remember that some people just cannot take any more and will end their lives to escape such pressure. We as a society have failed such people. They are our parents, children and relations after all.

For others, the thoughts of rioting and letting the venom out of their systems and in so doing, destroying what they perceive as  ‘others wealth’ , while erroneous, is their safety valve. It is unacceptable behaviour in our society today and frowned upon by all right thinking people. That said, we must try to understand that until we can right many of the wrongs in our society, we will be pampering to those that indeed want to destroy this very society of ours. Already Right Wing Parties have recruited many new members and it’s only time before many more Groups will fill the Void in our political system and what will emerge may be a far greater monster than currently smashing the shop fronts in major cities. Already the British Government is fast-tracking legislation into force which will push the country further to a Police State than currently is the situation. The Citizen’s rights will be the first, in fact the only, to be decimated. Maybe that is the core of the problem for the EU and indeed the IMF. That citizens have been granted too many rights. Take those rights, which people have fought long and hard to achieve, away from them. Be ruthless and put the Citizen in his place. Tell him/her what to do and if they don’t do it, well just imprison or exterminate them.

It is high time that the Unions and those concerned about the rights of the Citizen stand up and take control. Work to right the ills that face us all. Tell our political establishment that enough is enough and that No, we are not bailing out the Elites in our society. In fact, the political leadership today throughout the entire EU is nothing short of farcical. This lack of leadership to the detriment of the Citizen in favour of the Bankers, Crooked Developers, Speculators of property and currency masquerading as The Markets, has indeed alienated the Citizen. It is not pretty what we are seeing on our TV screens. Neither is it acceptable in a civilised society. The question then must be asked as to how Civil our Society really is today. If  ‘The Markets’ are to determine our collective futures then all I can say is, God help us all.

LegalEagleStar , Thursday , 11th. August , 2011 .

The IMF, The Legal Profession and Austerity for The Citizen

Image via Wikipedia

Friday  was the Last  Day of  Term.  Us lawyers breath a collective sigh of relief at this stage, as the months of June and July are usually hectic. Trying to settle cases before the Long Vacation is tough, exhausting work. The Courts now are officially closed until October. While litigation lawyers usually take their vacations in August and September, it is also a very busy period in the office while you try to play catch-up with work and prepare your cases which should be coming on for hearing next term.

After the invariable merriment following last Friday, my mind switched to thinking about, not only next term, but indeed the future of our profession in general. While there has been much talk about the demands of the IMF as regards bringing in their dictatorial sweeping changes to the profession, there’s also been a lot of time spent in the promotion of many ‘Law without a Lawyer’ schemes. Take the much heralded Mediation for example. The Mediator gets an upfront payment and the process is not binding. Well, our clients don’t pay up-front, as most could not afford to do so on the average industrial wage. It is difficult enough to survive with a family in this day and age never mind putting us in funds in advance for our work. Don’t lawyers already mediate? Don’t we settle cases whenever possible? Of course, the Elite have no such problems. But they do live on a different planet from the rest of us mere mortals and have their own unique set of lawyers to act for them.

The Legal Profession not only needs reform but it needs investment in its pursuit of Justice for All. I have no time for the ‘Law without a Lawyer’ Brigade both from within our profession and outside of it. We must as lawyers, use our expertise for the betterment of the Citizen and not allow our clients be charged for a service which is second-rate and run by Insurance Companies, Developers, Bankers etc. who have their own vested interests to protect. In the United States it is common place for property buyers to deal with their Realtors directly and let them handle all conveyancing matters regardless of whether any conflict of interest occurs. They then satisfy themselves with the purchase of  Title Insurance – from their friendly Insurance Company –  which they will rely on should disputes arise at a later stage. This is not the way forward if the purpose is to keep the best interests of the client foremost. It will enrich those who act for the Developers and their Insurance cousins. In England you have licensed conveyancers. They are no substitute for a properly qualified and experienced lawyer. You must insist on a professionally qualified lawyer to act for you, you alone, and have no conflict of interests. Your lawyers must read the title and take all steps necessary to ensure that the title properly vests in you and you alone.  Remember it’s not just the bricks and mortar that you are buying. It is in essence the title to the property that you are spending your hard-earned cash on.

We see the Courts being circumvented in regard to the victims of Institutional abuse. Redress Boards being introduced to look after the victims. It is unfair to the victims that they cannot have their cases processed through our Courts to provide them with the necessary compensation that is rightly theirs. Beware of Government interference in the rights of the Citizen. It is my view, that the interests of the Citizen are being compromised, not those of the offenders. In personal injury cases, Juries were abolished following successful lobbying by the Insurance Industry. So, the Citizen was removed from the process as the Insurance Industry asserted that they could not be trusted to sit on Juries. Sure what would they know about injuries and compensation ! It should be noted that awards increased thereafter. Not satisfied with this outcome our Government, again at the behest of the Insurance Industry, abolished the right of the Citizen to bring his/her case before the Court without first having to submit same to PIAB, or should I say, The Injuries Board. Look at what a simple Google search brings up regarding their sterling service…..

”You can avoid solicitor fees by applying directly to the Injuries Board. Our dedicated team are available 8am-8pm Monday to Friday to help you. …”

…Well, how professional is that ? Are they qualified lawyers with years of experience running cases day in, day out, before the Courts ? No, and going by their propaganda it’s quite clear they want to avoid solicitors i.e. the experts, at all costs. So do you want their ‘dedicated team’ or do you want an expert to look after your case? You MUST bring your application before them and unless you do so you will be denied your constitutional right to bring your case before our Courts of Justice. Nice one Ms Harney. You cynically undermined the rights of the Citizen, which I’m told you’re very proud of. Isn’t it really nothing more than a cynical attempt by ex-Minister Mary Harney to undermine solicitors and their clients. It was not the interests of the Citizen that was foremost in Minister Mary Haney’s mind, but to create a ‘Lawyer Free Zone’ which would see her Insurance Company friends decide on what the Citizen was awarded. The continuous compliance with the wishes of the Insurance Industry, at the expense of the Citizen, is nothing short of a disgrace. It is no wonder that now, the same Citizen has been forced by ‘Our’ Government into embracing austerity in order to bail out the Developers and the Banks who enjoyed such a close and cosy relationship with our Government Ministers.

Be under no illusion. Reform of the Legal Profession as proposed by the IMF (Bankers) will be used to further expose the Irish Citizens to more ‘Law without a Lawyer’ schemes. It is the legal profession who stand up for the rights of the Citizen not any Bank, Insurance or other such vested interest Groups. It is the right of every Citizen to have access to our Courts to pursue their rights. Are we to deny you, the Citizen such rights? Are the Courts the sole preserve of the Rich and the Elite in our Society? We need investment in our Courts and the way we do business. The Courts are there to protect us from those who hurt, abuse, neglect and victimize us. Those who try to deny the Citizen the protection of the Courts are being nothing short of immoral.

It will be interesting to see how Minister Shatter, himself a solicitor, with his own high-end Firm, and with an acknowledged dislike of the Bar ( The Barristers ) handles the IMF Brief on reform of the Legal Profession. I’d say some interesting times lie ahead.

LegalEagleStar , Wednesday , 3rd. August , 2011