Thomas terwilliger dating
Summary: below is an email thread discussing the relative quality of half-maps for EMD-20026 (1.8 Å apoferritin) vs. By some of the metrics investigated by Tom and Greg (as described below), one of the half-maps appears to be of equivalent or better quality to the sharpened full map.Tentative conclusion (Tom): " Maybe..should be concluding that the full and half-maps at 1.8 A are not all that different (except for sharpening).If that’s true, it still produces a full map that is slightly better, by eye and by Z-scores.Finally, this analysis is also saying is that the half map is just as good as the full map, except it’s not sharpened.Other than that, I wonder if you have the full map and half map 2 switched somehow - you mentioned you did it blind, could that be possible? Maybe..should be concluding that the full and half-maps at 1.8 A are not all that different (except for sharpening).And maybe that is saying that the errors in these maps are now coming from things that are not random, so that averaging in more data is no longer making a difference?
I did this blind twice and each time I picked the model-sharpened half map over the model-sharpened full map.
The final decree of dissolution was entered on January 6, 1994, incorporating by reference the marital settlement agreement signed by Mr. Terwilliger entered an agreement to sell MAC, for approximately 1.6 million dollars, to be paid in stock and cash. Terwilliger moved to reopen the decree of dissolution and modify the settlement agreement pursuant to CR 60.02 and KRS 403.250. The Rasnick decision draws a distinction between fraud intrinsic to the proceedings, such as perjury or nondisclosure during pretrial discovery which causes injury to a single litigant, and “extrinsic” fraud, which, the Court held, constitutes “fraud affecting the proceedings.” In reexamining the Rasnick decision, which relies primarily upon decisions from other jurisdictions, this Court finds that the definition of “fraud affecting the proceeding” utilized by the Court in Rasnick is an overly restrictive conception of CR 60.02(d). Burke subsequently brought suit to reopen the settlement, which motion was granted and the settlement was found to be unconscionable. Burke, the Court of Appeals found this sort of situation to fall under CR 60.02(d) as a “fraud affecting the proceedings.” Burke does not differ significantly from the case at bar. He also submitted a copy of the release of the Michigan claim, which indicates that the claim was settled for 5,000.00, payable to Mr. Tera, but does not specify the amount of money going to each payee. Terwilliger admitted that he had failed to produce a canceled check or deposit slip for 0,000.00, but submitted a canceled check payable to MAC in the amount of ,000.00, and another document evidencing a ,000.00 payment to MAC, which he claims to have been part of the 0,000.00 investment of his separate funds into the corporation. Terwilliger stated that she had not been aware of a 0,000.00 settlement and testified that Mr.
Specifically, she argued that the property division that she had agreed to in the settlement was procured through fraud, misrepresentation, lack of full disclosure, and overreaching on the part of Mr. Appellant's motion to reopen the decree was granted. It is the finding of this Court that fraud on a party is, in fact, “fraud affecting the proceedings.” As Appellant notes, by filing a settlement agreement with knowingly undervalued marital assets, Mr. Burke essentially all of the couple's assets, and relieved him of any child support or maintenance obligations. Burke received a vehicle, custody of the couple's minor child, and waived notice of further proceedings. Burke led his wife to believe that he was no longer pursuing a divorce, thus the divorce and property settlement became final without Mrs. While in both cases a fraud was perpetrated against a party to the dispute, the ultimate result was a fraud against the court. Terwilliger had specifically told her that his part of the settlement of the Michigan claim was ,000.00, and that Mr. In Chenault, this Court recognized that tracing to a mathematical certainty is not always possible, noting that: “While such precise requirements for nonmarital asset-tracing may be appropriate for skilled business persons who maintain comprehensive records of their financial affairs, such may not be appropriate for persons of lesser business skill or persons who are imprecise in their record-keeping abilities.” Id. In Chenault, this Court rejected the trial court's finding that Ruby Chenault had failed to adequately trace her nonmarital assets into assets held at the time of divorce.
I think that’s a fair conclusion; looking forward to more discussions and seeing some results from the modelling side.
One thing we didn’t consider is whether the model is as good as it can be yet, based on the density.
Additionally, the model-sharpening process provides a FSC for model vs map, and this FSC is a little higher for the half map in almost all resolution shells. Nice job on that…I tabulated and plotted the CC values vs d_min from auto sharpen… It confirms the full map is still mostly better than the half map, except past d_min 1.9.