Varkala where can I buy cocaine

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Varkala where can I buy cocaine

KOCHI: After ganja and hashish, it is banned party drugs that are finding their way to various tourist spots in the state in large quantities. Party drugs like methamphetamine, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and Lorfast D are being smuggled into the state from North Indian states through various channels mainly with the active involvement of foreign nationals, who scout the places as tourists. Officials in the Narcotics Cell pointed out that the tourist spots where foreigners visit in large numbers have become hot destinations for these type of drugs owing to their huge demand. As the drugs are in tablet form and packed in strips similar to normal drugs, it is hard for the police or enforcement agencies to identify them during raids. According to the Narcotics Control Bureau NCB , there are several chemical units in the country which manufacture the banned party drugs. According to a report, the NCB had recently raided two such units in Maharashtra and seized drugs worth crores of rupees. Several foreigners, including a Dutch national, were arrested during the raid. NCB zonal director Davidson Dev Ashirwadam said the foreigners were a part of the operations of these drug trafficking racket because of its international linkage. What matters is the flow of the contraband from the production centres to the demand destinations. The NCB had been getting inputs on trafficking of drugs and other cocaine-based products in various parts of South India, he added. Download the TNIE app to stay with us and follow the latest. Party drugs smuggled into the state. Party drugs like methamphetamine, ephedrine. From our online archive. Updated on: 16 May , pm. Show Comments. Related Stories. No stories found. The New Indian Express.

PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. BRYAN BRENNER, et al.

Varkala where can I buy cocaine

James Den Uyl argued the cause for appellants Lynch. Kroll, attorneys; Mr. Den Uyl, of counsel; Emily J. Springer, on the brief. Harry V. Osborne, on the brief. An insured's knowledge of such involvement must be shown by us by competent evidence of such knowledge. Prudential claims this provision excludes coverage of the December 17, incident. The Varkalas contend the language is ambiguous because it does not refer to an attempt to acquire illicit drugs. They also contend that the facts do not support the assertion that the shooting of Varkala arose out of a drug transaction. Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes. Annotate this Case. This case can also be found at N. In this appeal we decide whether the homeowner's policy issued to the parents of a young man provides coverage for his involvement in the attempted robbery and death of another. The homeowner's policy contained an exclusion for injuries 'arising out of the use, manufacture, sale, delivery, transfer, or possession by any person of a controlled dangerous substance. We affirm. On December 17, , George Varkala decedent or Varkala was shot and killed in his home in Barnegat, Ocean County, during an attempt to rob him of a large stash of marijuana. His mother Caroline Varkala, commenced a wrongful death action; the decedent's sister is also a plaintiff in the wrongful death action. The Varkalas named as defendants all of the participants in the robbery. On April 30, , Prudential filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Prudential owed no duty to defend or indemnify Brenner. On September 21, , Judge Oles granted Prudential's summary judgment motion. In his oral opinion, he found that the Brenners' homeowner's policy clearly and unambiguously excluded coverage for injuries arising out of the transfer, use or possession of a controlled dangerous substance. Judge Oles stated: It is undisputed that Mr. Brenner consumed marijuana within a period of several hours before proceeding to \[decedent\]'s home. Furthermore, the whole purpose for which the parties proceeded to \[decedent\]'s home was to acquire marijuana. The death of \[decedent\] had a substantial nexus with the acquisition of a controlled dangerous substance. See Records v. Aetna Life and Casualty Company, N. It is from the September 21, order that the Varkalas appeal. These are the undisputed facts of the underlying incident derived from Brenner's statement to the police and the plea proceedings. See Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. On December 17, , Brenner, then sixteen, visited his friend John Melchiondo where they 'smoked some pot, and \[Brenner\] had about three shots of vodka. During the conversation they discussed obtaining more marijuana from decedent. Melchiondo called decedent, a known supplier of large quantities of marijuana. Varkala refused to talk on the phone, but invited Melchiondo to his home to discuss the matter. At approximately 8 p. All five young men entered Johnson's vehicle. Brenner remembered feeling 'a little buzzed at the time from the weed and alcohol. He overheard, however, the others discuss 'jack\[ing\] George's pot,' which Brenner understood to mean stealing the marijuana. Also during the ride, Brenner overheard them refer to a gun, which made him feel 'uncomfortable and scared,' but he was still willing to accompany them. When the group arrived at Varkala's home, Melchiondo entered with Brenner and commenced his negotiations with Varkala who refused to 'lend' them marijuana, which was apparently Varkala's common practice. Melchiondo left the house and returned two minutes later, when, as related by Brenner, Bryant \[Woods\] comes into the house, holding a gun against John Melchiondo's head, and says where's the shit. He then throws John to the floor. John looked scared to \[Brenner\]. Bryant then starts waiving the gun at everyone, and says give me the shit, or I'll bust you He did not exchange words with Bryant, but as he was about five feet away, he tried to swat the gun from Bryant's hand. Bryant shot him in the stomach, as he came down the stairs. Bryant then shot him in the head, and ran out His sister Lorraine was also at the house at the time. The decedent was airlifted to Cooper Hospital in Camden where he died a short time later. Brenner was charged in a juvenile complaint with conspiracy to commit armed robbery, a second degree offense. Brenner pled guilty to the armed robbery before Judge Villano on May 23, In his factual statement in support of his plea, Brenner acknowledged he proceeded to decedent's home to steal a pound of marijuana. He was also aware that the others had a gun, but did not know that anyone planned to use it. II Brenner's parents purchased homeowner's insurance through Prudential; Bryan, as a family member, was an additional insured. Section II of the policy provided coverage for personal liability. The policy stated: If a claim is made or suit is brought against an Insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies, we will: a. Sections and Controlled Substances include, but are not limited to cocaine, LSD, marijuana and all narcotic drugs. III We were informed at oral argument that this exclusion has appeared in homeowner's policies since We have not encountered this exclusion before this appeal and our research reveals no reported cases which have considered this exclusion. We commence our analysis by recognizing two basic tenets. First, the words of an insurance policy are to be given their ordinary, plain meaning. Harleysville Ins. Garitta, N. Simone, N. In the absence of an ambiguity, the policy should be enforced as written. See also Zacarias v. Allstate Ins. Second, although exclusions will be strictly construed, Princeton Insurance Company v. Chunmuang, N. Harleysville, supra, N. The Varkalas contend that Brenner's actions amounted to no more than an attempt to gain possession of marijuana. They argue the Prudential exclusion is ambiguous because it does not include attempts 'arising out of the use, sale, manufacture, delivery transfer, or possession' of illegal drugs. Therefore, they insist the exclusion does not encompass Brenner's actions. We disagree. We agree with Judge Oles that the language of the exclusion is clear and unambiguous. It excludes coverage for injuries which arise out of, are connected with, or are incident to the use and possession of illicit drugs. Brenner went to Varkala's house to obtain marijuana. He knew that his cohorts hoped to obtain a large amount of Varkala's stash. Ideally, they hoped that Varkala would give them the marijuana in recognition of their long-standing friendship and patronage. Brenner was also aware that his colleagues were prepared to steal the marijuana if Varkala did not agree to their plan. For purposes of this appeal, it is irrelevant that the main goal of the evening failed and that Brenner and others were charged with serious offenses. It is entirely relevant that their actions were wholly focused on the use and possession of illicit drugs. It is this activity which the exclusion clearly and expressly addresses. In the face of clear and unambiguous language and undisputed conduct encompassed by the policy language, we decline to engage in a strained construction to impose coverage. Furthermore, the Varkalas' interpretation of the exclusionary language does not account for use of the 'arising out of' phrase. Whether used in a provision defining coverage or in an exclusion, the phrase is defined broadly. In American Motorists Insurance Co. L-C-A Sales Co. Justice Stein wrote: The critical phrase 'arising out of,' which frequently appears in insurance policies, has been interpreted expansively by New Jersey courts in insurance coverage litigation. Continental Ins. Moraca, N. Hogle, Conn. Records, supra, N. Brenner was present in Varkala's home only to obtain marijuana and Varkala's death was solely connected with and incident to an ill- conceived plan to obtain marijuana which went wildly and sadly awry. The language employed unmistakably encompasses more than the completed act of manufacture, use or transfer of a controlled dangerous substance. Judge Oles correctly concluded that the homeowner's policy excluded coverage for such actions. Enter Your Email. Justia Legal Resources. Find a Lawyer. Law Schools. US Federal Law. US State Law. Other Databases. Marketing Solutions.

Varkala where can I buy cocaine