http://freeenglishconversation.blogspot.com
Directions: Write the -ing and -ed forms of the following verbs. (The simple past/past participle of ireegular verbs is given parentheses.)
-ING- -ED-
1. start starting started
2. wait
3. hit
4. write
5. shout
6. cut
7. meet
8. hope
9. hop
10 .help
11. sleep
12.step
13. tap
15. rain
16. run
17. whine
18. win
19. explain
20. burn
DIRECTIONS: Read the following and answer questions?
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Monday that he will immediately halt investments in two big government pension plans so the government can continue to borrow money.
Geithner informed Congress of his decision in a letter stating that the government had officially reached its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit. He repeated a warning that if lawmakers do not increase the borrowing limit by August 2, the government is at risk of an unprecedented default on its debt.
The debt limit is the amount of money the government can borrow to help finance its operations. The nation has reached its debt limit because the federal government has grown accustomed to borrowing massive amounts of money. The latest estimate is that it borrows 40 cents for every dollar it spends.
Republicans have said they will not vote to raise the borrowing limit until Congress and the White House agree on a plan to reduce the deficit through spending cuts. House Speaker John Boehner last week those cuts should be larger than any increase in the debt ceiling.
The deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in through taxes and other revenue. The Congressional Budget Office projects that this year's deficit will total $1.4 trillion. That's would nearly match 2009's record imbalance and mark the third straight year in which the federal deficit has exceeded $1 trillion.
1. What is the name of the Treasury Secretary?
A. Timothy Geithner
B. Hillary Clinton
C. Barrack Obama
2. What is the government borrowing limit?
A. 18.2 trillion
B. 102 billion
C. 14.3 trillion
DIRECTIONS: Read the following and answer the questions?
http://www.americanenglishconversation.com
After 33 years of marriage, Steven Simkin and Laura Blank divorced in 2006. They agreed to split their considerable wealth equally. She got the apartment on the Upper East Side; he got the house in Scarsdale, N.Y.Afterward, they spoke infrequently, mostly concerning their two grown sons.
More than two years later, Ms. Blank received a voicemail message that stunned her: Mr. Simkin wanted to revise their settlement. She refused, and he sued.
While divorce agreements are generally ironclad and rarely rescinded, this challenge has now reached New Yorks highest court. Deeply divided appellate justices requested what is considered an unusual review of settled law involving contracts.
What made Mr. Simkins call for a do-over even remotely possible has its roots in Bernard L. Madoffs Ponzi scheme. When the couple split their assets evenly, the largest chunk of money was invested with Mr. Madoff. Mr. Simkin kept much of his funds in the Madoff account, which was held in his name.
Ms. Blank, who said she had no interest in investing with Mr. Madoff, received her settlement proceeds in cash.
Shortly after Mr. Madoff admitted wrongdoing in December 2008, Mr. Simkin, a lawyer at one of the countrys most powerful law firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, filed court papers to drastically alter the terms of his divorce settlement.
Ms. Blank, he argued in the lawsuit, should be required to turn over millions of dollars that she had received in their settlement to make up for the substantial losses he had sustained in the fraud.
The Simkin-Blank dispute has riveted the states matrimonial bar, and splintered opinions among the six judges who have already weighed in on the case. Some lawyers are predicting that if the Court of Appeals allows Mr. Simkin to try to revise the agreement, the ruling could affect not only divorce settlements but also other contracts.
The decision could open the floodgates for people who want to challenge agreements after they go sour, said Peter Bienstock, a divorce lawyer not involved in the case. Deals are done every single day based on assumptions about what things are worth. If the court allows this lawsuit to go forward, how can we be certain that deals will hold up?
Some lawyers also say that if judges allow this agreement to be rescinded, it could lead to more Madoff-related suits by destabilizing all types of contracts struck with the fraud victims.
The case, which is expected to be decided later this year, has spawned at least one copycat action. In January, a Madoff victim in Middlesex County, Mass., filed a similar complaint against his ex-wife to revise their separation agreement. A family court judge dismissed the lawsuit earlier this month, and the plaintiffs lawyer is now weighing an appeal.
A ruling in the Blank-Simkin case would only have a direct effect on New Yorks laws, but a decision by the influential court could influence how judges interpret laws in other states.
Mr. Simkins suit rests on the doctrine of mutual mistake, a well-established principle that allows for the cancellation of contracts, including divorce agreements, when both parties are innocently mistaken about an essential term.
In a famous example, if a violinist sells another violinist what they believe to be a Stradivarius, and it turns out to be a cheap knockoff, they can void the contract.
In this case, Mr. Simkin, chairman of the real estate department at Paul Weiss, and Ms. Blank, a labor lawyer for the City University of New York, believed at the time of their divorce that $5.4 million of their $13.2 million in assets was in a Madoff account.
To divvy up things, Mr. Simkin withdrew some money from his Madoff account and put it toward a $6.6 million cash payment to Ms. Blank. He continued to invest with Mr. Madoff. But once the Madoff empire collapsed, Mr. Simkin began arguing that he and Ms. Blank were mistaken about the existence of the account.
There was in fact no account and no securities or other assets, wrote Mr. Simkins lawyers in a recent filing. There was only a Ponzi scheme of unprecedented size and duration.
Richard Emery, a lawyer for Ms. Blank, counters that Mr. Simkin did have an account with Mr. Madoff. Any mistake, he contends, involved the accounts future value not its existence. Under the law, an error about an accounts future value would not justify rewriting the agreement.
Just like other Madoff investors, he was able to redeem his money until the scheme collapsed precisely because he had an account there, Mr. Emery said.
To argue that he didnt have a Madoff account is nothing more than a semantic trick.
Last year, a trial judge dismissed Mr. Simkins suit. But in January, a sharply divided New York appellate court, in a 3-to-2 decision, ruled that Mr. Simkin could sue to revise the deal because of the fraud, citing their mutual mistake about the existence of the Madoff account.In her dissent, Justice Karla Moskowitz sharply criticized the majority opinion, writing that it undermines decades of established precedent favoring finality in divorce cases. She said the ruling could bring chaos for not only for the court system but for litigants as well, who deserve finality and to move on.
Ms. Blank, the judge wrote, cannot be responsible for Mr. Simkins decision to invest with Mr. Madoff for two and a half years after their divorce.
Just as she would not have benefited from any increase in the value of the account, she should not have to bear the burden of its loss, she wrote.
Steven received exactly what he bargained for. He alone took on the risk that he might not be able to recoup his investment. Mr. Simkins lawyers his colleagues at Paul Weiss described their partner in court papers as gravely damaged and suffering extreme hardship as a result of the Madoff fraud.
The annual profits per partner at Paul Weiss are about $3 million, according to The American Lawyer magazine. Last October, Mr. Simkin sold his Scarsdale home for $5.7 million and bought another in nearby Mamaroneck for $4.1 million, according to state real estate records.
Paul Weiss, a law firm renowned for its litigation department, is representing Mr. Simkin free of charge. Mr. Simkin and his lawyers declined to comment.
The legal community is divided on the case.
On one hand, the contract law principle of mutual mistake makes a strong case to cancel this divorce agreement, said Lawrence A. Cunningham, a law professor at George Washington University who has written about the dispute.
On the other, judges are reluctant to rescind these contracts because there is a strong interest in maintaining the finality of divorce. Its a close call.
Ms. Blank, who also declined to comment, plans to fight her former husbands lawsuit if the court does not dismiss the case, said Mr. Emery, her lawyer.
The finality of divorce is important for financial reasons and legal reasons, but its also important for emotional reasons, he said.
Five years ago Laura thought she had moved on with her life, but its now been put on hold.
Ms. Blank, who also declined to comment, plans to fight her former husbands lawsuit?
A. TRUE
B. FALSE
Ms. Blank, the judge wrote, cannot be responsible for Mr. Simkins decision to invest with Mr. Madoff for two and a half years after their divorce?
A. TRUE
B. FALSE
DIRECTIONS: Read the following and answer the questions?
http://www.freeenglishconversation.blogspot.com
http://www.grammar-help.blogspot.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday the United States would cooperate with Europe as it deals with Greece's debt woes and said a potential default there would be disastrous.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, meeting with Obama on an official visit, said the euro zone shared a common interest in ensuring that the currency bloc was not endangered.
The two leaders said they discussed the debt crisis extensively. A proposal for a second Greek bailout package worth 80 billion to 100 billion euros over three years was taking shape, euro zone sources said.
Obama said Germany would be key to solving the crisis.
"I'm confident that Germany's leadership, along with other key actors in Europe, will help us arrive at a path for Greece to return to growth, for this debt to become more manageable," he said.
"But it's going to require some patience and some time. And we have pledged to cooperate fully in working through these issues, both on a bilateral basis, but also through international and financial institutions like the IMF."
Obama has cited the crisis as one in a handful of foreign "headwinds" affecting the U.S. economy.
Merkel, who is under political pressure at home to avoid being the financial savior for other struggling European countries, said Germany understood its role.
"We've seen that the stability of the euro as a whole will also be influenced if one country is in trouble," she said.
"So we do see clearly our European responsibility and we're shouldering that responsibility, together with the IMF."
Obama welcomed Merkel at a formal ceremony on the White House lawn with cannon shots and military musicians adding to the pomp and circumstance of an official visit -- the first visit by a European leader under Obama's presidency.
The show of partnership did not mask differences that the two leaders have over economic and security issues.
The United States cautiously endorsed military action in Libya while Germany confounded its NATO partners by refusing to take part.
Obama said he would expect Germany to help with Libya once Gaddafi was gone and recovery work was needed in the country, and he thanked Merkel for Germany's stepped-up support in Afghanistan, which freed up other NATO members to be active in Libya.
Did President Barack Obama said on Tuesday the United States would cooperate with Europe as it deals with Greece's debt woes and said a potential default there would be disastrous?
A. TRUE
B. FALSE
Is Obama said he would expect Germany to help with Libya once Gaddafi was gone and recovery work was needed in the country, and he thanked Merkel for Germany's stepped-up support in Afghanistan, which freed up other NATO members to be active in Libya?
A. TRUE
B. FALSE
Directions: Write the -ing and -ed forms of the following verbs. (The simple past/past participle of ireegular verbs is given parentheses.)
-ING- -ED-
1. start starting started
2. wait
3. hit
4. write
5. shout
6. cut
7. meet
8. hope
9. hop
10 .help
11. sleep
12.step
13. tap
15. rain
16. run
17. whine
18. win
19. explain
20. burn
DIRECTIONS: Read the following and answer questions?
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Monday that he will immediately halt investments in two big government pension plans so the government can continue to borrow money.
Geithner informed Congress of his decision in a letter stating that the government had officially reached its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit. He repeated a warning that if lawmakers do not increase the borrowing limit by August 2, the government is at risk of an unprecedented default on its debt.
The debt limit is the amount of money the government can borrow to help finance its operations. The nation has reached its debt limit because the federal government has grown accustomed to borrowing massive amounts of money. The latest estimate is that it borrows 40 cents for every dollar it spends.
Republicans have said they will not vote to raise the borrowing limit until Congress and the White House agree on a plan to reduce the deficit through spending cuts. House Speaker John Boehner last week those cuts should be larger than any increase in the debt ceiling.
The deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in through taxes and other revenue. The Congressional Budget Office projects that this year's deficit will total $1.4 trillion. That's would nearly match 2009's record imbalance and mark the third straight year in which the federal deficit has exceeded $1 trillion.
1. What is the name of the Treasury Secretary?
A. Timothy Geithner
B. Hillary Clinton
C. Barrack Obama
2. What is the government borrowing limit?
A. 18.2 trillion
B. 102 billion
C. 14.3 trillion
DIRECTIONS: Read the following and answer the questions?
http://www.americanenglishconversation.com
After 33 years of marriage, Steven Simkin and Laura Blank divorced in 2006. They agreed to split their considerable wealth equally. She got the apartment on the Upper East Side; he got the house in Scarsdale, N.Y.Afterward, they spoke infrequently, mostly concerning their two grown sons.
More than two years later, Ms. Blank received a voicemail message that stunned her: Mr. Simkin wanted to revise their settlement. She refused, and he sued.
While divorce agreements are generally ironclad and rarely rescinded, this challenge has now reached New Yorks highest court. Deeply divided appellate justices requested what is considered an unusual review of settled law involving contracts.
What made Mr. Simkins call for a do-over even remotely possible has its roots in Bernard L. Madoffs Ponzi scheme. When the couple split their assets evenly, the largest chunk of money was invested with Mr. Madoff. Mr. Simkin kept much of his funds in the Madoff account, which was held in his name.
Ms. Blank, who said she had no interest in investing with Mr. Madoff, received her settlement proceeds in cash.
Shortly after Mr. Madoff admitted wrongdoing in December 2008, Mr. Simkin, a lawyer at one of the countrys most powerful law firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, filed court papers to drastically alter the terms of his divorce settlement.
Ms. Blank, he argued in the lawsuit, should be required to turn over millions of dollars that she had received in their settlement to make up for the substantial losses he had sustained in the fraud.
The Simkin-Blank dispute has riveted the states matrimonial bar, and splintered opinions among the six judges who have already weighed in on the case. Some lawyers are predicting that if the Court of Appeals allows Mr. Simkin to try to revise the agreement, the ruling could affect not only divorce settlements but also other contracts.
The decision could open the floodgates for people who want to challenge agreements after they go sour, said Peter Bienstock, a divorce lawyer not involved in the case. Deals are done every single day based on assumptions about what things are worth. If the court allows this lawsuit to go forward, how can we be certain that deals will hold up?
Some lawyers also say that if judges allow this agreement to be rescinded, it could lead to more Madoff-related suits by destabilizing all types of contracts struck with the fraud victims.
The case, which is expected to be decided later this year, has spawned at least one copycat action. In January, a Madoff victim in Middlesex County, Mass., filed a similar complaint against his ex-wife to revise their separation agreement. A family court judge dismissed the lawsuit earlier this month, and the plaintiffs lawyer is now weighing an appeal.
A ruling in the Blank-Simkin case would only have a direct effect on New Yorks laws, but a decision by the influential court could influence how judges interpret laws in other states.
Mr. Simkins suit rests on the doctrine of mutual mistake, a well-established principle that allows for the cancellation of contracts, including divorce agreements, when both parties are innocently mistaken about an essential term.
In a famous example, if a violinist sells another violinist what they believe to be a Stradivarius, and it turns out to be a cheap knockoff, they can void the contract.
In this case, Mr. Simkin, chairman of the real estate department at Paul Weiss, and Ms. Blank, a labor lawyer for the City University of New York, believed at the time of their divorce that $5.4 million of their $13.2 million in assets was in a Madoff account.
To divvy up things, Mr. Simkin withdrew some money from his Madoff account and put it toward a $6.6 million cash payment to Ms. Blank. He continued to invest with Mr. Madoff. But once the Madoff empire collapsed, Mr. Simkin began arguing that he and Ms. Blank were mistaken about the existence of the account.
There was in fact no account and no securities or other assets, wrote Mr. Simkins lawyers in a recent filing. There was only a Ponzi scheme of unprecedented size and duration.
Richard Emery, a lawyer for Ms. Blank, counters that Mr. Simkin did have an account with Mr. Madoff. Any mistake, he contends, involved the accounts future value not its existence. Under the law, an error about an accounts future value would not justify rewriting the agreement.
Just like other Madoff investors, he was able to redeem his money until the scheme collapsed precisely because he had an account there, Mr. Emery said.
To argue that he didnt have a Madoff account is nothing more than a semantic trick.
Last year, a trial judge dismissed Mr. Simkins suit. But in January, a sharply divided New York appellate court, in a 3-to-2 decision, ruled that Mr. Simkin could sue to revise the deal because of the fraud, citing their mutual mistake about the existence of the Madoff account.In her dissent, Justice Karla Moskowitz sharply criticized the majority opinion, writing that it undermines decades of established precedent favoring finality in divorce cases. She said the ruling could bring chaos for not only for the court system but for litigants as well, who deserve finality and to move on.
Ms. Blank, the judge wrote, cannot be responsible for Mr. Simkins decision to invest with Mr. Madoff for two and a half years after their divorce.
Just as she would not have benefited from any increase in the value of the account, she should not have to bear the burden of its loss, she wrote.
Steven received exactly what he bargained for. He alone took on the risk that he might not be able to recoup his investment. Mr. Simkins lawyers his colleagues at Paul Weiss described their partner in court papers as gravely damaged and suffering extreme hardship as a result of the Madoff fraud.
The annual profits per partner at Paul Weiss are about $3 million, according to The American Lawyer magazine. Last October, Mr. Simkin sold his Scarsdale home for $5.7 million and bought another in nearby Mamaroneck for $4.1 million, according to state real estate records.
Paul Weiss, a law firm renowned for its litigation department, is representing Mr. Simkin free of charge. Mr. Simkin and his lawyers declined to comment.
The legal community is divided on the case.
On one hand, the contract law principle of mutual mistake makes a strong case to cancel this divorce agreement, said Lawrence A. Cunningham, a law professor at George Washington University who has written about the dispute.
On the other, judges are reluctant to rescind these contracts because there is a strong interest in maintaining the finality of divorce. Its a close call.
Ms. Blank, who also declined to comment, plans to fight her former husbands lawsuit if the court does not dismiss the case, said Mr. Emery, her lawyer.
The finality of divorce is important for financial reasons and legal reasons, but its also important for emotional reasons, he said.
Five years ago Laura thought she had moved on with her life, but its now been put on hold.
Ms. Blank, who also declined to comment, plans to fight her former husbands lawsuit?
A. TRUE
B. FALSE
Ms. Blank, the judge wrote, cannot be responsible for Mr. Simkins decision to invest with Mr. Madoff for two and a half years after their divorce?
A. TRUE
B. FALSE
DIRECTIONS: Read the following and answer the questions?
http://www.freeenglishconversation.blogspot.com
http://www.grammar-help.blogspot.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday the United States would cooperate with Europe as it deals with Greece's debt woes and said a potential default there would be disastrous.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, meeting with Obama on an official visit, said the euro zone shared a common interest in ensuring that the currency bloc was not endangered.
The two leaders said they discussed the debt crisis extensively. A proposal for a second Greek bailout package worth 80 billion to 100 billion euros over three years was taking shape, euro zone sources said.
Obama said Germany would be key to solving the crisis.
"I'm confident that Germany's leadership, along with other key actors in Europe, will help us arrive at a path for Greece to return to growth, for this debt to become more manageable," he said.
"But it's going to require some patience and some time. And we have pledged to cooperate fully in working through these issues, both on a bilateral basis, but also through international and financial institutions like the IMF."
Obama has cited the crisis as one in a handful of foreign "headwinds" affecting the U.S. economy.
Merkel, who is under political pressure at home to avoid being the financial savior for other struggling European countries, said Germany understood its role.
"We've seen that the stability of the euro as a whole will also be influenced if one country is in trouble," she said.
"So we do see clearly our European responsibility and we're shouldering that responsibility, together with the IMF."
Obama welcomed Merkel at a formal ceremony on the White House lawn with cannon shots and military musicians adding to the pomp and circumstance of an official visit -- the first visit by a European leader under Obama's presidency.
The show of partnership did not mask differences that the two leaders have over economic and security issues.
The United States cautiously endorsed military action in Libya while Germany confounded its NATO partners by refusing to take part.
Obama said he would expect Germany to help with Libya once Gaddafi was gone and recovery work was needed in the country, and he thanked Merkel for Germany's stepped-up support in Afghanistan, which freed up other NATO members to be active in Libya.
Did President Barack Obama said on Tuesday the United States would cooperate with Europe as it deals with Greece's debt woes and said a potential default there would be disastrous?
A. TRUE
B. FALSE
Is Obama said he would expect Germany to help with Libya once Gaddafi was gone and recovery work was needed in the country, and he thanked Merkel for Germany's stepped-up support in Afghanistan, which freed up other NATO members to be active in Libya?
A. TRUE
B. FALSE
No comments:
Post a Comment