Keep material for all PP projects in a notebook to be submitted at the end of this class. Include a Section for project: Notes, Storyboard, Statement of Purpose (Treatment) and a Section for Resources: All handouts and any other relevant information.
Notebook will be checked after each Project Assignment
1Develop a short documentary, scripted drama, a vacation travel log, promotional video or instructional video
2Create 2 – 5 minute video using audio, video clips, captured video, stills or a combination Video clips, captured video, stills or a combination needs to be your own. Any video or photographs or imagery downloaded from Youtube or other Websites that are not for that purpose, without written permission from the creator will receive a “fail” for the project. You will need to contact the creator and get a release form in writing to be attached with your project along with contact information for that individual.
3Incorporate transitions and filters
4Must have Titles and credits
5Rough Treatment and Storyboard to be signed off by instructor before begin in PP
GET STARTED SUGGESTIONS:
1. Research Idea
2. Collect Material (i.e. still images, video clips, text, audio, ect.);
3. Create Storyboard;
4. Assemble in Premiere Pro.
REMEMBER TO TURN IN THE FOLLOWING:
1. Notebook - see above
2. Folder with lastname_pp01 Containing:
• Statement of Purpose with your name and scans of all preproduction work
Extracts from an article byOliver Balch published on Wednesday 5 March 2014 by The Guardian
For Elizabeth II, it was 1992. For Juan Carlos I, 2007. In the case of Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, former chair of oilgiant Shell, his annus horribilis came in 1995. Crisis number one arrived in the shape of Brent Spar, a decommissioned oil rig that Shell wanted to dump in the North Sea. Greenpeace thought it unwise; It took events in Nigeria – where Shell was (and still is) paying the government billions of pounds – to realise that a more pro-active position was needed. Nearly 20 years on, Moody-Stuart has taken to the page to describe the results of that “very bad year”. Moody-Stuart’s recipe for responsible business will satisfy some, but not all. When, and where, should a company draw the line? For him, it’s much preferable to “dine with the devil” than pull out of a country and lose influence.
Extracts from a Reuters report by Silvia Antonioli published Tuesday 4 March 2014
(Reuters) – Commodity trader and miner Glencore (GLEN.L) confirmed on Tuesday its interest in buying oil assets that oil major Shell (RDSa.L) is selling in Nigeria. A source said last month that Glencore and commodity trading house Mercuria were among the short-listed consortiums expected to make final bids on Nigerian energy assets worth around $3 billion that Shell and another two oil majors are selling. Together with Macquarie Group Glencore had also made an unsuccessful attempt to buy Shell’s downstream Australian assets, which were then sold to oil trader Vitol and the Abu Dhabi Investment Council for about A$2.4 billion ($2.2 billion) last month.
Please read and find out why Atty. Manibog and Atty. Leong-Pambid feared and removed this phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" frompage 22 of their comments and/or pleadings.
Atty. Raul Quiroz defense lawyers removed with malice intent this phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" from the original source quoted paragraph. They cited this paragraph and prudence and honesty dictate this paragraph should be presented as a whole paragraph, no omission. This phrase,"in view of the requirements of the business", being removed from the paragraph greatly altered the whole context of the paragraph. These lawyers deserve public disapproval and criticism based on this exposition.
DOCUMENT SOURCE DOCUMENT
WHERE the phrase"in view of the requirements
of the business" is omitted.
click on image to enlarge
This phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" is a phrase which carries with it an admission of Shell that there is no redundancy in the workplace during those times when Shell terminated my employment. Shell and Mr Rico Bersamin in fact, since November 28, 2002 (Annex E) had announced redundancy of positions and likewise informed me through a letter dated 28 November 2002 that they will be constrained to terminate my employment effective 31 December 2002. If this redundancy of positions is true during those times why did Mr Rico Bersamin needed to write me a letter dated 17 December 2002 (Annex F) saying
" Further to our letter dated 28 November 2002, please be advised that "in view of the requirements of the business," the effectivity of cessation of your employment for reasons of redundancy shall be deferred from 31 December 2002 to 15 February 2003."
If the redundancy of positions are true, why have Mr Rico Bersamin had to extend my employment from December 31, 2002 to February 15, 2003? If this redundancy of positions is true, Mr Rico Bersamin had no problem to end my employment by the end of December 2002 because there should be a surplus of operators at that time. But there is none, and this is the reason why Mr Rico Bersamin advised me to stay " in view of the requirements of the business "until February 15, 2003. This clearly demonstrated that there was really no redundancy during those times.
The defense lawyers had intentionally remove this phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" purposely (malice intent) to avoid showing that there is actually no redundancy of positions during those times.
"Ang isda ay nahuhuli sa sariling bibig." by Dr. Jose Rizal
The Fish is Caught by its Mouth
HULI KAYO, NAKAKAHIYA KAYO TALAGA.
BETTER BE THIS MONKEY THAN SOME LAWYERS
THIS MONKEY FEELS SHAME SOME LAWYERS DO NOT To Atty. Raul Quiroz, Atty. Emiterio Manibog and Atty. Joy Anne Leong-Pambid :
Just in case you happened to feel being humiliated and lost your honor and dignity with this exposition, I know how painful it is because I have been through it and all the three of you knew it well as the three of you joined Shell on this action against my person, my honor and dignity.
You knew it well. Both of you together with Atty. Raul Quiroz that taking me out employment by supporting a rigged ranking procedure which placed me among the poor job performers, and declared it publicly that had I not been at the bottom of the ranking list, then I would not have been terminated. You knew well that I have been greatly embarrassed, degraded and humiliated by this action and yet the three of you wholeheartedly supported this action though you knew as lawyers yourselves that this is unconstitutional as it is contrary to Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.
As the three of you yourselves, Atty. Raul Quiroz, Atty. Emiterio Manibog and Atty. Joy Anne Leong-Pambid had violated Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies Section 11: The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Your action forbids you to take refuge on this constitutional provision which you yourselves had violated in case you need to rely on that provision as a matter of defense alibi in connection with this case later.
BETTER BE THIS MONKEY THAN SOME LAWYERS
THIS MONKEY FEELS SHAME SOME LAWYERS DO NOT
click on the image to enlarge 17th December 2002
click on the image to enlarge 28th November 2002
Atty Raul Quiroz Comments page 22 showing where the phrase "in view of the requirements of the business"is maliciously and intentionally omitted.
Pag gamit sa Retirement Pay bilang pambayad sa Separation Pay. (unlawful) PANGALAWANG PANDARAYA NI ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ Pag papakilala kay Mr. Rico Bersamin bilang respondent ngunit si Ms. Remedios Vargas, na walang kinalaman sa asunto ang pinapirma sa Position Paper niya. (gross misrepresentation) PANG-TATLONG PANDARAYA NI ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ
Pag pepresenta ng dokumento, Annex 5, "Quit claim"na hindi
verified at igiit na yun ay may bisa ng isang notaryadong
dokumento.
SEE BELOW FOR THE 1001STTIME THE REITERATION OF DEMAND PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY WHICH SHELL REFUSED TO HONOR IN THE PRESENCE AND DEEMED APPROVAL OF THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
