Bd-1 Action Figure

[Anthony Small]

TheBlack Series Cal Kestis and BD-1 action figures featured on this page are sculpt debuts, inspired by the video game Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order. The figure was made available as part of the initial Triple Force Friday assortment on October 4th, 2019 alongside Supreme Leader Kylo Ren, Rey and D-O, Sith Trooper, The Mandalorian, Offworld Jawa, Second Sister Inquisitor, and the First Order Stormtrooper.

BD-1 is the trusty companion of Cal Kestis in the action-adventure game Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order. Throughout the game, BD-1 helps you reach places that otherwise would be impossible. Just like many droids in the Star Wars franchise, BD-1 has its own personality and traits.

Some of my favorite memories about building LEGO sets as a kid was sharing those moments with my friends and sister. We had so much fun and probably spent twice as much time as everybody else when building them.

Moving out of a city is something that requires a ton of things to get done, especially if you have a short period of time to do so. But we managed to find the time and for an entire evening, we sat together in the living room and built this LEGO set without caring about anyone or anything else, just like when we were little kids.

I opened the box and took all the bags out of it, the numbers in them to point out the order is something really useful that few people recognize these days because we are so used to them. The instruction manual is very detailed, I loved how they use the BD-1 Minifigure picture to show your progress.

I like that they are very clear and intuitive, the 1:1 scale pictures of the bigger pieces are extremely helpful, after that small learning curve at the beginning everything sped up considerably as the build progressed.

If someone wants a BD Minifigure these are currently the only two sets that include one, that might not be that important for the casual LEGO builder but really hardcore fans definitely care about this.

This set is an excellent way to spend some of your free time without investing dozens of hours. Being the first BD-1 set makes it extra special, particularly for Jedi: Fallen Order players. It is fun, relatively simple and a perfect activity to share with your family, friends, or significant other.

Hasbro has officially announced a new Star Wars Vintage Collection action figure inspired by Cal Kestis' Imperial disguise in Jedi: Survivor. The popular Jedi: Fallen Order and Jedi: Survivor games star Order 66 survivor Cal Kestis, as he struggles to stay alive during the Dark Times of the Empire's reign. Cal has become one of the most popular Star Wars characters created in the Disney era, testament to the tremendous writing, exciting gameplay, and the performance of voice actor Cameron Monaghan.

Now, Hasbro has announced a new Star Wars Vintage Collection action figure featuring Cal Kestis in his most unlikely outfit. During Jedi: Survivor, Cal actually dared to infiltrate the Empire, taking on an Imperial officer's disguise. Hasbro's new action figure celebrates this unusual look, with multiple accessories: BD-1, a lightsaber, unlit lightsaber hilt, and blaster accessory.

ex:ride - vehicles that can be ridden by the figma series of action figures. This time around your favourite figma can ride the fold-up bike that has become popular all over the world - the BD-1. Even the folding up of the bike has been reproduced into the miniture form! The BD-1 is available in three colors: black, orange and green.

What is ex:ride?

ex:ride is a set of vehicles created to be used by the figures in Max Factory's figma action figure series. All the vehicles in the series will have careful details on all their designs, and allows for even more possibilities from the figma world. Many more vehicles are scheduled to be announced soon!

Tax Appeals Board No. 2 of the County of Los Angeles appeals from the order of the superior court setting aside one of its decisions and remanding the proceeding for rehearing and reconsideration. The challenged order was made following a hearing upon the petition of respondent County of Los Angeles for a writ of mandate filed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

Appellant contends: (1) "The county may not bring an action against a Tax Appeals Board without express statutory authority [and] the Legislature has not granted authority to the county to bring such an action;" and (2) "There was substantial evidence in the whole record to justify the decision of the board." We have concluded that these contentions should be rejected.

Appellant is a Tax Appeals Board of the County of Los Angeles created by Los Angeles County Ordinance 4099 pursuant to the provisions of article XIII, section 9.5 of the California Constitution. On the first Monday in March 1965, Simcon Developers, Inc. fn. 1 was the owner of certain real property located in the County of Los Angeles on which a partially completed building was being constructed.

The Los Angeles County Assessor placed an assessed value on the improvements on the property on the lien date in the amount of $500,000, i.e., 25 percent of fair market value. Simcon filed a petition for equalization which was heard by appellant board. Following the hearing appellant board reduced the assessed value to $250,000. Thereafter, as previously indicated, respondent County filed a petition to review the board's action. The trial court determined that it had jurisdiction to entertain such petition and that the board's action was not supported by substantial evidence. It therefore remanded this proceeding to the board for rehearing and reconsideration.

Appellant's initial contention need not long detain us. [267 Cal. App. 2d 833] Whatever may be the rule in jurisdictions where no express statutory provision has been made for reviewing the orders of administrative agencies, or other bodies exercising quasi-judicial powers, it is clear that such review is provided in California by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

[1] "Since the enactment of section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is no longer open to question that in this state the writ of mandamus is appropriate 'for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board or officer ...' " (Boren v. State Personnel Board, 37 Cal. 2d 634, 637 [234 P.2d 981].)

[2] "The controlling statute (Code Civ. Proc., 1094.5) calls for the issuance of a writ to inquire into the validity of 'any final administrative order.' It is now settled that section 1094.5 governs review by mandamus after a formal adjudicatory decision by any administrative agency. (Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works, 44 Cal. 2d 90, 101 [280 P.2d 1].) As declared in that case: 'The decisive question is whether the agency exercises an adjudicatory function in considering facts presented in an administrative hearing. ...' " (Prip v. City of Santa Barbara, 214 Cal. App. 2d 626, 630-631 [29 Cal. Rptr. 558]; also Allen v. Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, 220 Cal. App. 2d 877, 882 [34 Cal. Rptr. 232]; People v. County of Tulare, 45 Cal. 2d 317, 319 [289 P.2d 11].)

Appellant, however, does not actually contend that its orders are not (1) final; (2) made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given; (3) at which evidence is required to be taken; and (4) in which discretion is vested in it in the determination of facts. Rather it appears to contend either (1) that the county, as "a political subdivision of the state for purposes of government" (13 Cal.Jur.2d, Counties, 2, p. 348) representing those citizens resident within its boundaries, is not a "party beneficially interested" (Code Civ. Proc., 1086) in its decisions; or (2) that each of the several Tax Appeals Boards of Los Angeles County, in legal effect, is an agency of the county itself and therefore their various orders may not be challenged by the county for the reason that in making such a challenge the county is seeking to review its own decisions. No legal precedents [267 Cal. App. 2d 834] are cited to support either of these arguments and they appeal to neither logic nor reason.

[4] The contention that each of the several Tax Appeals Boards is the county is mistaken. Even prior to the constitutional amendment in 1962 (art. XIII, 9.5) authorizing the creation of Tax Appeals Boards, it had been long established that "There can be no doubt that the board of equalization and the board of supervisors are two distinct constitutional bodies, although composed of the same members." (Napa Sav. Bank v. County of Napa, 17 Cal. App. 545, 548 [120 P. 449], hearing denied.)

Of course, prior to the creation of the Tax Appeals Boards, and the more clearly tripartite nature of their hearings, it never would have been theoretically or pragmatically necessary for the county, acting through its board of supervisors, to challenge the decisions made by its own members when sitting as a board of equalization. Whether the assessor or the district attorney, who, like the members of the board of supervisors, are by statute designated as officers of a county (Gov. Code, 24000, subds. (a), (j) and (o)), might have sought review of the decisions of the board of equalization with or without authorization by the board of supervisors we need not undertake to determine. (Cf. Gov. Code, 26521 et seq. and Gov. Code, 25203.) [5] It is sufficient to hold, as we do, that following the establishment of Tax Appeals Boards, sitting as quasi-judicial bodies over disputes between taxpayers and officers of the county, the county may petition for judicial review of their decisions.

[6] On the issue of whether or not there was substantial [267 Cal. App. 2d 835] evidence to support the decision of appellant board, the record is so very brief that it may be quoted in full. The parties agreed that the assessment ratio was 25 percent of fair market value and, apparently, that the established basis for assessing such value in the case of partially completed improvements was the ratio between the total cost thereof and the portion of that total which had been expended prior to the lien date. Mr. Sid Hersh, who appeared on behalf of the owner, Simcon Developers, Inc., testified: "The figures indicated on the assessment represent approximately $2 million for improvements. ... I don't know where the Assessor obtained figures which justify an overall expenditure at the lien date of $2 million. My recollection is that it was closer to a million dollars than it was to $2 million. ... When completed, [the improvements would be worth] somewhere in the neighborhood of between three and a half million to three million seven hundred thousand dollars. We figured it at that time, very, very roughly, and I am sure that it is a rough thing, we figure the building was approximately a third completed."

3a8082e126