Dominica Citizenship by Investment
DOMINICA PERMANENT CITIZENSHIP:
- USD 100,000 minimum Donations.
- USD 200,000 minimum real estate investment
- Lifetime Citizenship &cannot be revoked
- Granted for qualified applicants only under certain criteria while boosting Dominica’s Economy
- Time Frame: Three Months
- one of the longest-running programs in the world.
- Visa-free or visa-on-arrival travel to 143 destinations including Europe’s Schengen Area, Hong Kong, and Singapore
- Tax Free for Non-Residents
- Citizenship-by-descent available for future generations
- Right to live, work, and study in Dominica
- Ability to include a spouse, children under 30, unmarried siblings under 26, and parents and grandparents over 55 as well as to add dependents after citizenship has been granted to the main applicant
- Only Trusted and selected international Agents can assist with the application
- Oath of allegiance before an authorized notary, justice of the peace, or commissioner of oaths.
- Application and citizenship certificates are issued after pledging allegiance
- Applicant with denied visa to a country with which Dominica has a visa-free travel agreement must subsequently obtain a visa from the same country in order to be eligible to apply for Dominica Citizenship.
- Newborn children of Citizenship Holders, can be registered for citizenship at any time.
- Pre-existing dependents and future spouses of the main Citizenship Holder can apply for citizenship, subject to additional fees.
- Full lifetime citizenship by naturalization (5 years) granted for Applicants and their Family
- Inclusion of Dependent children under 30 and dependents over 55 years old.
- #1 in 2017->2019 in the Citizenship by Investment Index
- Citizenship-by-descent available for future generations
- Member of Commonwealth of Nations, the UN, the Organization of American states& Caricom
- #6 by FDI Intelligence for cost effectiveness in the Caribbean & Latin America
- #8 by FDI Intelligence for safety, political stability, health and education services per population and life expectancy.
- 15 minutes Getaway to Europe by air to the French Overseas Departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe.
- Free movement of profit and dividends with no capital gains, estate or death taxes
- An English speaking, educated, and trainable workforce with 95% literacy.
- Opportunity to invest in a business climate for strong green field operations in several sectors.
- Most affordable among all Caribbean-based citizenship programs.
- Citizenship by investment has been operational since 1991.
- Launch Member of ETIAS as of 2023
- Stable macroeconomic environment and mature democracy.
- Unrestricted foreign ownership of businesses.
- Flexible and well-tailored concessions for large and small investment projects.
- Steady sea and air transportation to major markets and destination.
- Privileged access to major international markets and agreements with Europe (EPA) and CARICOM.
- Visa free travel to over 152 countries including the UK and the EU Schengen zone, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Turkey.
- Lowest crime rate in the region
- No taxes for non-resident
- No Physical residency requirements
- No restriction on Dual Citizenship
- Official Name: The Commonwealth of Dominica
- Form of Government:Parliamentary Democracy within Commonwealth of Nations
- Capital: Roseau
- Population: 71,808
- Official Language: English- French based Creole (Patois) is widely spoken
- Currency: Eastern Caribbean dollar
- Area: 751 KM2
- Education: Literacy by 94% English Education - Private and Public Preschool education &Elementary education are Free and compulsory. Secondary& High school are free and not compulsory.
- Culture: Caribbean Creole Culture- Mixed of African & European Traditions
- Environment:Mountainous volcanic island with rainforest cover, white sand beaches
- Health Care: Largely Financed by general Taxes Indigent, Communicable diseases, pregnant women and children under 17 are exempt from medical care charges
- Taxation: 15%
- Tourism: Tourism in Dominica contributes Greatly to its economy, Abundant Touristic Attractions (Boiling water Lake, Trafalgar Falls etc.. )
- Weather: Tropical Weather, Varies drastically between regions and seasons.
- Politics: Stable
- Schengen: Not a Member
- Religion: Roman Catholic
QUALIFICATION & INVESTMENT CRITERIA:A.Investment Criteria:
Donation To Government Fund
USD 100,000 Non-refundable contribution to the Economic Development Fund for a single applicant in favor of strengthening its local economy by putting added focus on the education, agriculture, and industrial sectors. The required contribution will increase based on the number of dependents:
- $ 175,000 for 2 applicants (husband& wife/2 minors)
- $ 200,000 for up to 4 applicants (Husband, wife, dependents)
- $ 50,000 Additional contributions for children between 18&25
Real Estate Investment
USD 200,000 minimum value towards investment in an approved real estate development i.e : Range Developments (Kempinski Hotel), The Silver Beach Development, and Sunstone Incorporated – Tranquility Beach Dominica.) In addition to the property purchase, the investor must keep the property in possession for five years, after which it can be sold. Government fees will apply based on the number of dependents:
- $ 25,000 for the main applicant
- $35,000 for the spouse of the main applicant
- $ 35,000 for a family of up to four persons
- $ 50,000 for a family of up to 6 persons
- $ 70,000 for a family of 7 persons or more
10 Advantages of investing in Silver Beach Development & Sunstone incorporated:
Sunstone Development: Tranquility Beach
1. Privacy and a celebration of individuality
2. fully-serviced premium vacation villas and residences
3. custom designed and appointed for the most discerning
4. First class accommodation quality
5. Diverse range of amenities and services
6. Variety of choice between: 73 room hotel Spa, Two and three bedrooms Villas, condo suits etc..
7. Located on stunning marine bluff
8. Direct access to two secluded beaches
9. Exclusive fine dining restaurant and huge Meeting and event space
10. Infinity pool and class A Gym &sunset Platform
Silver Beach Development:
1. 200-room five-star hotel
2. Investors can establish partnership with Silver Beach development to provide goods and services to the project
3. Investor has 2 options: Purchase of shares or the Purchase of full Titled Units.
4. Owners will be entitled to a share of the resort’s profits.
5. Recover invested interests after three years
6. Receive annual returns on the investment
7. Own a luxurious piece of prime real estate, whose value is likely to increase with time
8. Five minutes from world-renowned, US medical school – Ross University School of Medicine.
9. Located on Piccard Beach one of Dominica’s best beaches and expected to set the standard of echo-chic resort living
10. Full service Health & Beauty Spa with beach access
B.Qualification Criteria documents for citizenship in Dominica:
- Above 18 years of age.
- Clean Criminal Record
- Due diligence checks and gain approval
- Confirmed investment sources
- Good health
- Receive approval by the Government


The NOAA Office of the General Counsel is a team of professionals advancing the mission and objectives of NOAA by delivering legal services of the highest quality. We are committed to providing sound judgment, thoughtful analysis, and constructive advice through effective communication. In an environment fostering innovation and professional development, we apply the rule of law with integrity, respect for people, and commitment to excellence and the public trust.
Integrity, Innovation, Teamwork, Professional Excellence, Effective Communication, Public Service, Organizational Diversity, Inclusion
HONORS ATTORNEY PROGRAM
The Office of General Counsel's Honors Attorney Program is designed to recruit highly-qualified law school graduates, judicial law clerks and fellows for entry-level attorney positions. After completing several rotations, Honors Attorneys are typically placed in our offices in the Washington, D.C. area, and occasionally in our six regional offices in Seattle, WA; St. Petersburg, FL; Gloucester, MA; Long Beach, CA; Juneau, AK; and Honolulu, HI. NOAA GC expects to begin recruiting for its 2022 Honors Program during the summer of 2021. We will update this page with information about how to apply when that information is available.
DIVERSITY & INCLUSION
The NOAA Office of General Counsel is committed to fostering an inclusive environment in which the organization leverages diversity to achieve mission goals and business objectives and maximizes the potential of individuals and the organization. The Office of General Counsel is working to ensure that the organization’s management practices and organizational culture reflect this commitment and create opportunities for all employees to fully contribute to the Agency’s mission and serve the Nation.
NOAA General Counsel job announcements are made available through the USAJobs website or NOAA's NOAA Careers employment information website. At NOAA General Counsel we welcome applicants of all races, cultures, ages, abilities, national origins, sexual orientations, and gender identities.


Dear East Valley Families of Gifted Students,
We are key players in getting our members of the legislature to support the inclusion of gifted education in the state budget. Please read this important notice from AAGT!
Gilbert Supporters of the Gifted
Update: Despite all of our efforts to get HB2199 to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee, it didn’t happen. The bill process is done. We now have to work at getting gifted funding into the budget. Reducing our ask from $3.5 million to $500,000 provides a more agreeable amount to get into the budget at this point. Then next year, we will be back for more!
We are grateful for the leadership of Representative Heather Carter who championed HB2199 so successfully; it passed through the House Education Committee with a unanimous vote in favor, and passed through the House Appropriations Committee and the House Committee of the Whole with near unanimity overwhelmingly in favor of restoring gifted education funds.
In the Senate, our friend, Senator Kate Brophy-McGee introduced mirror bill, SB1105. With the additional leadership of Senator Sylvia Allen, the Senate Education Committee unanimously voted in favor of restoring funds for gifted education. SB1105 did not go on to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
OUR TASK ASAP:
Send emails to members of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to include $500,000 in the budget to support the reinstatement of funding for gifted education.
Even if you have contacted them before, this is a new ask, and it is important to remind them why this is important to you.
In addition, we are asking you to contact all leaders in both the House and Senate. If your Legislative District Senator and/or Representatives are not already on one of these lists, please contact them. Members of the Legislature value constituents’ opinions.
The lists of the Senate and House Appropriations Committee members are attached along with other leaders we need to reach. Ask your contacts to do the same and remember every email counts! It just could be your story, your compelling reason to have funding restored that makes a difference!
Thank you for your support!
AAGT Advocacy Chair
Click here for the google doc with the email addresses for the members of both the Senate and House Appropriation Committees.
Click here if you need help finding out who your legislators are.
Click here to visit the page of the GSG website regarding advocacy at the state level.


By Arnie Rosenberg
You won’t find Marshall Socarras Grant calling itself a “boutique” law firm. Instead, the 12 attorneys refer to themselves as a “growing” firm.
“We don’t want to pigeonhole ourselves in one specialty or practice area,” explains Adam Marshall, one of the firm’s founders. “We’re trying to give our clients the full experience. To do that, we need to grow.”
Marshall and partner Joe Grant founded the firm in 2011; but their sights never were set on becoming another large, institutional firm.
“One of the things I said was, ‘We’re blowing up the business model. If we’re going to do this, we’re going to do it differently,’” Marshall says.
The core of this law firm is the word “collaboration,” and its compensation model encourages just that. “We pool the money and pay ourselves equally,” says Marshall. “It’s egalitarian. We’ve been criticized soundly by business consultants and our peers have been fascinated. But we don’t care, for compensation purposes, who originated the client. We don’t care who works on the client matter. All we care about is that the client is getting the best person at the best rate for their matter.”
Marshall adds that it’s the client who benefits from this unusual approach. “We’re always trying to match the client with the best substantive fit and the best personality fit,” he says. “When you break down the compensation barriers – and the attitude of ‘I can’t refer one of my partners in because that’s going to cost me money’ –
we remove the financial disincentives to collaboration.”
The downtown Boca Raton firm charges no consultation fees, which helps attorneys learn more about clients and their circumstances from the outset and allows clients to build a level of trust.
“We want to take the time to know them because it’s a two-way street,” Marshall says. “We may not be the best fit for a particular client… We’ve got to be comfortable, as the client does, that it’s going to be a mutually productive relationship, a mutually beneficial relationship. Our goal in those initial meetings is that a client walks out of the office and says, ‘Those are smart people, good people,’ and have them talk about us. It’s great for our brand, and we sleep well at night. And more times than not, we’re hired in some capacity, even if it’s not the matter we consulted on.”
That trust is built from what Marshall calls the firm’s “humane” culture, which is demonstrated in the firm’s hiring practices. Wanting to work with a team and placing value on their personal and family time are as important as law school performance and experience in the profession. The culture was obvious, too, on one Friday afternoon when the office closed for a group outing to Mizner Park to see “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.”
“We believe that when our clients walk through here and see us talking to each other and smiling – or when we’re getting serious and really collaborating and listening to one another’s opinions and valuing them – it’s not hard to see that we get along and have a humane culture. We demonstrate it every day,” Marshall says.
“At the end of the day, what’s going to distinguish you from the rest of the marketplace?” he asks. “It’s not your brain. There’s nothing proprietary about what we do. There’s nothing unique about what we do. It’s the way we do it. And that’s going to draw clients to us. That’s going to make the practice of law more fun. And if the practice of law is more fun, then we have a passion for it.” ¿


Indictments dropped for 17 Texas officers in George Floyd protest response
“These announcements will allow police officers, whose lives were upended by the indictments, to return to their services to our community,” said Austin Mayor Kirk Watson
By Paul J. Weber and Jim Vertuno
AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas prosecutor whose office oversaw indictments against more than 20 Austin police officers for tactics used during the 2020 protests that followed George Floyd’s killing said Monday he was dropping most of the cases and would ask the Justice Department to investigate instead.
The announcement is a sharp reversal for Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza, a progressive who was elected months after the protests and ran on promises to hold police accountable in the Texas capital. Garza, a Democrat, said his office would dismiss indictments against 17 officers but still move forward with prosecuting four others.
The slate of felony charges were by far the most indictments of officers from a single U.S. police department following nationwide protests in 2020. Some Austin police officers fired beanbag rounds in the crowd, critically injuring one teenager.
“This has been a difficult chapter for Austin. I look forward to turning the page. These announcements will allow police officers, whose lives were upended by the indictments, to return to their services to our community,” said Austin Mayor Kirk Watson, a Democrat who was not in office at the time of the protests.
In a statement, Garza did not explain why he was deciding now to drop most of the cases. Many of the officers were indicted in February 2022, none had gone to trial and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott had floated the idea of pardons after the charges were handed down by a grand jury.
Ken Ervin, an attorney who represents nine officers whose charges will be dismissed, called the indictments a “combination of politics and incompetence.”
“Mr. Garza has not really taken the chance to educate himself on police tactics,” Ervin said. “Maybe he’s finally done that.”
The City of Austin has paid out more than $18 million to settle lawsuits brought by protesters injured during the protests, including a college student who suffered brain damage after an officer shot him with a beanbag round. Eight other lawsuits are still pending, according to the city.
Austin Police Association President Michael Bullock said prosecutors had yet to prove any case where any officer committed wrongdoing.
“Our officers were faced with incredible and unprecedented challenges. In those extremely difficult times they acted within the law and upheld their oath to keep our city safe,” Bullock said.


By: April Hiroshima Gatling
Last Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion addressing the interplay between the state statutory right of publicity and the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. �� 101-1332. In Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., the Ninth Circuit ruled that the state law “right of publicity” claim of a recording artist who gave her record company the sole and exclusive copyright to a song recording, was preempted by the Copyright Act.
Plaintiff Debra Laws is a composer and recording artist. She had a contract with Elektra/Asylum Records in which she transferred many rights including the right to use and to permit others to use her name, likeness, etc. in connection with the master recordings of her original song, “Very Special.” In November 2002, Elektra’s agent entered into an agreement with Sony Music Entertainment to grant Sony a non-exclusive license to use a sample of Laws’s “Very Special” recording in the song “All I Have,” performed by recording artists Jennifer Lopez and L.L. Cool J. “All I Have” was nationwide hit and at one time, was the number one song in the country.
In her lawsuit, Laws sought injunctive and monetary relief against Sony in response to its use of her recording without compensating her and without her authorization. The appellate court concluded that Laws’s state law claim of misappropriation as “right of publicity” of the master recordings of “Very Special” fell plainly within the subject matter of the Copyright Act and was thereby preempted by it. Under the Copyright Act, copyright protection is granted to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression . . . from which they can be . . . reproduced . . . either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” 17 U.S.C. �� 102(a).
There is no question that appropriation of someone’s voice can give rise to a publicity claim. In Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988), an advertising agency hired a professional “sound alike” imitator of Bette Midler’s voice in a commercial when Midler rejected its offer. The Ninth Circuit held that Midler’s common law misappropriation claim was not preempted by copyright law because the “thing” misappropriated, her voice, was not copyrightable. However, the court ruled this case closer to Sinatra v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992). In Sinatra, Frank’s daughter’s claim for use of the song “These Boots are Made for Walking” in an advertisement with permission of the copyright owner, was rejected.
Like Sinatra, Sony obtained a license to use Laws’s recording itself. It was not imitating “Very Special” as Laws might have sung it, rather it used a portion of Debra Laws’s actual song. Although California law recognizes an assertable interest in the publicity associated with one’s voice, the court made it clear that federal copyright law preempts a claim alleging misappropriation of one’s voice when the entirety of the allegedly misappropriated vocal performance is contained within a copyrighted medium.
In essence, Law’s claim was that she objected to having a sample of her song used in the Jennifer Lopez-L.L. Cool J recording. However, Laws gave up the right to reproduce her voice when she contracted with Elektra and acknowledged that Elektra had the exclusive right to copyright the master recordings of “Very Special.” On the one hand, the court recognized that the holder of a copyright does not have a license to trample on other people’s rights. On the other hand, however, the right of publicity is not a license to limit the copyright holder’s rights merely because one disagrees with decisions to license the copyright.
At the end of the day, the Ninth Circuit was unconvinced that Laws maintained a valid voice misappropriation claim. The court was clear that not every right of publicity claim is preempted by the Copyright Act. In this case, the Copyright Act preempted state law claims as the alleged misappropriated vocal performance was contained within a copyrighted medium and was appropriately licensed away. Any other conclusion would render copyright law meaningless, allowing performers to claim an infringement of their right of publicity against licensees, anytime copyrighted material is used. The takeaway lesson from the Ninth Circuit: If performers want to prevent unauthorized use or sampling, these protections should be afforded through contract-right of publicity laws cannot be used as an end-run.
April Hiroshima Gatling is an associate in Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Tobin & Tobin’s Litigation and Labor and Employment sections. She represents clients in both state and federal court in complex business, trade secret, and employment related disputes. For more interesting articles on intellectual property, visit Weintraub’s law blog at www.theiplawblog.com.


Clients who have already retired rely upon the steady, predictable receipt of a monthly Social Security benefit—and a reduction in the amount of that benefit check can cause major planning issues. Unfortunately, the situation is not uncommon, as unplanned increases in income—whether because of a property sale or extra IRA distribution—can easily cause clients to be pushed into the realm of the Medicare income-based surcharge. What most clients don’t realize is that a spike in income during one year can cause a chain reaction that will eventually lead to a reduction in that stable monthly Social Security check—unless the client plans in advance to avoid this uncomfortable surprise.
Medicare’s Income-Based Surcharges
Medicare Part B premiums and income-based surcharges are deducted directly from clients’ Social Security checks, meaning that without proper planning, the income that even your middle class clients have been counting on for retirement may be diminished in the years following a higher-income year.
Medicare income-based surcharges essentially increase the cost of premiums for Medicare Parts B and D for those clients who have MAGI that exceeds $85,000 for individuals or $170,000 for married clients filing jointly. The surcharge is imposed based on a sliding scale, with the highest surcharge imposed upon single clients with MAGI exceeding $214,400 and couples with MAGI that exceeds $428,000. While the base Medicare Part B premium amount is $104.90, taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) in the highest Medicare bracket will pay more than three times that amount—or $335.70 each month per person.
While these income levels may seem relatively high for most retirees, they have not been adjusted for inflation since 2007 and have begun to impact a growing number of Medicare applicants, especially those who have not yet retired when they qualify for Medicare at age 65. Importantly, Medicare uses a two-year look-back period that is often overlooked by both clients and advisors.
The two-year look-back period essentially means that 2015 Medicare premium costs are based on 2013 income levels. Because MAGI includes most types of traditional income—including wages, Social Security, IRA and 401(k) distributions, dividends, earned interest, and capital gains—the risk that a client will be liable for Medicare surcharges, at least in the early years of retirement, is very high.
Avoiding the Surcharge
Unfortunately, once the client’s income has crossed the threshold so that he or she is subject to the Medicare income-based surcharge, the client can only qualify for a premium adjustment if a certain qualifying life event has taken place. These events include marriage, divorce, death of a spouse, retirement and losses caused by natural disasters, among others.
If any of these events have occurred, the client can file a Form SSA-44 with the Social Security Administration to request a premium reduction. This form will request evidence of the life changing event that the client is relying upon, or other evidence of the client’s MAGI if he or she believes the income-based surcharge was imposed in error.
Clients can also plan in advance in order to avoid the surcharges. Income received on a tax-free basis in retirement is not included in calculating a client’s MAGI. This means that income drawn from after-tax retirement savings vehicles, such as Roth IRAs or Roth 401(k)s, is excluded from a client’s MAGI. Similarly, income from a health savings account, which also allows tax-free savings to accumulate over the years, is excluded. Income from tax-preferred planning vehicles (such as permanent life insurance or annuity products) similarly will not increase a client’s MAGI
Because of the difficulty in obtaining a premium adjustment once a client has MAGI in excess of the threshold levels, proper planning is critical to helping clients avoid the painful surprise of learning that their monthly Social Security benefit for the year will be reduced.
Originally published on Tax Facts Online,the premier resource providing practical, actionable and affordable coverage of the taxation of insurance, employee benefits, small business and individuals.
To find out more, visit http://www.TaxFactsOnline.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without prior written permission.


Senator representing Plateau South Senatorial District, Prof Dame Nora Ladi Daduut has expressed confidence that the Presidential Candidate of the All Progressives Congress APC Asiwaju Bola Tinubu would receive massive support from the People of the state during the flag off of the campaign slated to hold on Tuesday November 15 2022 in Jos the state capital.
She also reiterated the capacity of Plateau State Governor and the Director General of the APC Presidential Campaign Council, Governor Simon Lalong, to lead the party to victory at the polls next year.
Senator Daduut a member of the TINUBU/SHETTIMA Women Presidential Campaign team assigned to the strategic Planning Directorate further lauded Governor Simon Lalong who is the Director General of the APC campaign council for ensuring that the All Progressives Congress flags off it’s national campaign in Jos.
A statement signed by Senator Daduut and made available to newsmen in Jos on Friday reads that kick -starting the rally in Jos is a national endorsement of the fact that Plateau state is home of the APC.
She further added that ” As a member of the women Presidential Campaign team, I call on the people of the state to come out en mass to support our Presidential Candidate Asiwaju Bola Tinubu on November 15 as well as vote massively for him at the polls .
She added that ” There is no politician in this country that has recorded the feat Tinubu has recorded in politics .
“Tinubu is the only politician in Nigeria that has mentored the highest number of politicians; strategically placing in strategic positions ,He is a builder of men and resources ,she added .
Senator Daduut eulogized the leadership virtues of Bola Tinubu and his Wife Senator Oluremi Tinubu saying that the country would be in safe hands under the guidance of the former Governor of Lagos State Tinubu if elected .
Senator Daduut pledged to work for the success of the APC at all levels in the general elections.
” I am determined to go the length and breadth of our dear country to canvass votes for our leader and Presidential Candidate Bola Ahmed Tinubu ,Dr Nentawe Yilwatda the Gubernatorial Candidate of Plateau as well as other Candidates of our party in the state “
Senator Daduut urge citizens of the country especially those from Plateau South Senatorial district to work for the victory of the All Progressives Congress at all level in the forthcoming general election .
She welcomed the Presidential Candidate Bola Ahmed Tinubu to Plateau and called on the people of the state to come out en mass to welcome the party to Plateau on Tuesday November 15th 2022 .


New Delhi: The labour ministry
may soon include gig workers
under the existing social security schemes
of the government, which would make them eligible for pension and medical benefits
. The inclusion in the existing social security schemes would benefit millions of gig workers associated with delivery startups such as Zomato
and Swiggy or driver-partners for Ola and Uber and other e-commerce giants such as Amazon
Large number of these workers are among the millions of unorganised workers
who lost jobs during the nationwide lockdown imposed from March 25 to prevent the spread of Covid-19. A senior government official told ET that there are existing pension and health benefits available under the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, the Employees State Insurance Corporation and the Ayushman Bharat schemes of the government.
“There is no need for a separate scheme for gig workers. We may provide them social security under the existing schemes,” the official quoted above said, adding even the scope of ShramYogi Maandhan Scheme may be extended to provide them with pension benefits. The government is working out the details of contribution to be made by the worker, employer, the Centre and the states so as the cost is shared by all since the Centre cannot entirely fund any social security scheme.
A dedicated gig worker fund will be set up under the existing schemes to provide the benefits. This follows feedback from the standing committee on labour, which had on July 31 pointed out at the missing intent of the government towards universalisation of social security, absence of any legal framework for an integrated rights-based social security in India and lack of indicated expenditure and source of revenue for running the social security scheme.
Besides, it had urged the labour ministry to include unemployment insurance as part of the code for the unorganised workers so that unprecedented labour market situations can be taken care of. The bill, which had provided for a social security scheme for gig workers, is likely to be tabled in the Parliament soon after which the scheme will be notified.


KOTA KINABALU: Sabah’s adviser on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) claims that the state could be losing up to RM5 billion a year due to a breach in the accord.
Speaking to FMT, Zainnal Ajamain said a close look at the Federal Constitution and MA63 would show that both Sabah and Sarawak are eligible to collect revenue from the import tax of petroleum products.
He said this could be collected through the levy of sales taxes, especially on petroleum products.
Following a 1999 amendment to the Sales Tax Act 1972, he said, the states’ right to collect these taxes was replaced with a direct payment of RM120 million in the form of a fixed grant each year.
“However, this amount is insufficient and unfair,” Zainnal said.
“The replacement grant does not sufficiently replace what was lost through the amendment. The amendment, supposedly to fulfil the requirement of the Asean Free Trade Area, effectively took away our constitutional rights.”
The federal government at the time replaced import and excise duty with a specific tax on petroleum products.
Sabah and Sarawak were assured that they would not lose the revenue from this income source as they would be given a fixed grant based on the income and excise duty calculated that year.
But Zainnal said this was confusing as the number of vehicles in Sabah and Sarawak had increased tremendously over the years, along with the use of fuel.
He said that from 2000 to 2014, the federal government paid a fixed amount of RM120 million to Sabah and Sarawak although the value of fuel used in both states had increased to billions of ringgit.
“This means that the fixed grant paid to the states each year assumed that the volume of petroleum products used in Sabah and Sarawak did not increase, even after many years,” he said, adding that this was illogical.
A simple comparison between fuel prices in Sabah and Brunei showed that Sabahans are paying about 40% more than people in Brunei, he said.
As Brunei imposes no import or excise duty, or any manner of tax on imported petroleum products, he said it could be concluded that the additional amount Sabahans must fork out for their fuel is the value of the taxes imposed by the government on petroleum products in Malaysia.
From these numbers, he said, it is easy to calculate how much Sabah and Sarawak have lost each year because their power to collect these taxes has been suppressed by the federal government.
“Let’s say that Sabah has two million vehicles using an average of 70 litres of fuel which costs about RM2 per litre. This means Sabahans are using RM280 million worth of fuel per week or RM14.56 billion a year.
“This also means that Sabah has lost RM5.82 billion a year in import duty and excise duty. As compensation for this loss, the federal government pays us only RM120 million a year. The rest goes into the federal coffers,” he said.
Zainnal urged the governments of Sabah and Sarawak to revisit the 10th Schedule, Part V Item 1 of the Federal Constitution and reclaim their rights over petroleum products.
He said the federal government’s solution to the loss of income for Sabah and Sarawak is a “deception” and a clear breach of MA63, as import and excise duty were abolished in 1999.
The federal government, he said, could start by reviewing the value of the grant and taking into consideration the increase in number of vehicles in the states in order to make the necessary adjustments.
“Sabah has lost about RM5.7 billion a year in revenue. This can be offset by reducing fuel prices in Sabah by 40 sen per ringgit.
“Imagine the implications of that reduction on the people’s economy and the business network,” he said.
However, he added that the decision lies with the prime minister.
“As a responsible and trustworthy prime minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad must be ready to return the rights of Sabah and Sarawak instead of this income going to the federal coffers,” he said.


Associate Lawyer Position
Kim & Lake Law (www.kimlakelaw.com) is committed to providing a level of service that ensures clients feel supported and cared for. We’re also equally passionate about ensuring each lawyer feels the same level of support from the firm.
We are currently seeking an Associate Lawyer – it is anticipated that the successful candidate will be provided with a consistent amount of client files to work on in a variety of areas including immigration, corporate/commercial, civil litigation, criminal and family law. Additionally, the candidate will be encouraged and mentored by the firm on effective means of growing a clientele. We will cover bar fees for the successful candidate, and there is also an excellent group health plan in place.
Our office is located in the Halifax Professional Centre, right in the heart of Halifax on the corner of Spring Garden Road and Robie Street.
Interested applicants should provide a cover letter and resume to: email@example.com
We thank all applicants for their interest. However, only those selected for an interview will be contacted. Those interested are encouraged to apply as soon as possible as early applicants may be given preference.


Raises for police officers. More two-man cars. In-car and body cameras. More training. More police accountability. Those are among the benefits supporters say a half-cent sales tax increase will bring to St. Louis County police departments if voters approve Proposition P on the April 4 ballot, reports the St . . .
Want to read more? Please subscribe to The Crime Report!


On 27 March 2023 the UK Treasury published a draft of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) Order 2023 (the Order) together with an explanatory memorandum and policy statement. Once enacted, the Order will expand the scope of the UK financial promotion regime to include the promotion of ‘qualifying cryptoassets’ (which is intended to encompass the majority of cryptoassets, such as Bitcoin, but not NFTs), and bring these assets under the FCA’s rules.
This follows on from the response to the Government’s consultation published in January 2022 (see previous blog here) and is another important development in the UK’s approach to the regulation of the cryptoasset sector.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) prohibits persons (in the course of business) from communicating an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity, unless such communications are (i) made or approved by an authorised person or (ii) fall under an exception. Breach of this restriction is a criminal offence. Furthermore, if the financial promotion regime is engaged, the communications in question will need to comply with the various requirements detailed in the FCA’s Principles for Business and Conduct of Business Sourcebooks.
Research by the FCA indicates that while cryptoasset ownership in the UK has risen in recent years, understanding of the risks involved has declined. To address concerns that have arisen about the way in which cryptoassets have been marketed to investors, the draft Order creates a new controlled investment of ‘qualifying cryptoassets’ and amends relevant controlled activities to include reference to ‘qualifying cryptoassets’, in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 (FPO), such that the financial promotion regime will apply to them. This is intended to enhance consumers’ understanding of the risks of cryptoasset investments and ensure that the promotion of cryptoassets is held to the same standards as other financial services.
What is a qualifying cryptoasset?
A qualifying cryptoasset is any ‘cryptoasset’ which is fungible and transferrable. The reference to fungibility clarifies that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) will not be within scope, on the basis that these are used more as ‘digital collectibles’ than financial instruments.
A cryptoasset will be considered ‘transferable’ where it confers transferable rights or is described as transferable (or as conferring transferable rights) in its financial promotions. A ‘cryptoasset’ for these purposes is any cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that can be transferred, stored or traded electronically, and uses technology supporting the recording or storage of data (which may include distributed ledger technology (DLT)). Interestingly, the definition of ‘cryptoasset’ for the purposes of the financial promotion regime differs slightly from that used in the UK’s Money Laundering Regulations (MLR), as the latter includes DLT as an intrinsic part of the definition. In contrast, the draft Order merely refers to DLT as a non-exhaustive example of the technology which may underlie a cryptoasset. This is intended to ‘future-proof’ the definition, but maintains a closer link to the existing MLR definition than had been proposed in the Government’s consultation response (which contemplated removing the DLT reference completely), and therefore results in greater consistency between the regimes than previously anticipated.
The draft Order includes a number of exclusions from the definition of ‘qualifying cryptoasset’. Cryptoassets will not fall within the regime if they are: (i) electronic money, (ii) fiat currency (whether digitally issued or otherwise), or (iii) a cryptoasset which cannot be transferred or sold (except by way of redemption with the issuer) and which can only be used in a limited way for certain specified purposes.
Are there any exemptions?
The draft Order applies existing exemptions in the FPO to qualifying cryptoassets, but modifies the high net worth / sophisticated investor and sale of goods / supply of services exemptions to explicitly exclude qualifying cryptoassets.
In addition, it creates an additional temporary, limited exemption which will apply to enable cryptoasset businesses registered with the FCA under anti-money laundering legislation (‘registered persons’), who are not otherwise authorised persons, to communicate their financial promotions for qualifying cryptoassets themselves. It is notable that this exemption will also apply to third parties who communicate promotions on behalf of the registered person, if the communication was (i) prepared by the registered person and (ii) is not a real-time promotion. Importantly, the FCA will have the power to subject businesses making use of this exemption to the same financial promotions rules as authorised persons when communicating cryptoasset promotions.
Whilst this temporary exemption was introduced in response to industry feedback, and will likely be welcomed by industry participants, the Government has not indicated how long this exemption will remain in force. Instead, it has stated that it will review its approach to this exemption alongside future regulatory approach to cryptoassets.
Key takeaways and next steps
The draft Order will come into force four months after enactment. This has been reduced from the six months previously proposed by the Government in recognition of concerns regarding ‘recent market turmoil and the growing consumer risks and harms relating to cryptoassets'. The acceleration of these proposals is indicative of the Government’s growing focus on the regulation and supervision of this sector. Indeed, the implementation of the draft Order is not the end of the story for cryptoasset regulation, with notable examples being the Government’s ongoing consultation on the future regulatory regime for cryptoassets (see our previous blog here), stablecoins legislation and new powers and provisions included in the Financial Services and Markets Bill 2023.


The CBI has registered a first information report (FIR) to probe alleged irregularities in the conduct of the Civil Services Mains examination for 2016 organised by the MPSC, officials said on Monday.
The agency has registered the case against unidentified officials of the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) on the orders of the Manipur High Court, they said.
The Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination (CSCCE), 2016, was held for the selection to 62 posts of the Manipur Civil Service, Manipur Police Service and allied services.
The court in October last year had quashed the examination after several aspirants approached it alleging irregularities in the selection process and also ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the matter.
The order was upheld by the Supreme Court in November last year which told the agency to conduct a time bound investigation.
The committee looking into the alleged irregularities had found serious lapses such as missing signatures of examiners on answer sheets, alteration of numbers scored, non-appointment of controller of examination, absence of procedure for the evaluation and tabulation of answer sheets, among others, the officials said.


I have blogged before about the shrinking diplomatic options open to the international community when dealing with Iran. I concluded then, that the only path left open was the UN UPR process. It appears Iran has put the final nail in their diplomatic coffin by refusing to take up some of the most basic recommendations that the UPR made.
Iran refused to accept the recommendation that it end the practice of executing juveniles, upholding fair trial guarantees and investigating torture allegations. Perhaps the biggest blow was their refusal to allow the Council’s Special Rapporteur on torture to visit the country. If they will not even play lip service to such basic demands then what hope is there of any effective change within the country?
There is however, one last hope – Iran’s diplomatic schizophrenia seems to have come out once again during this process. They accepted some recommendations while rejecting other similar recommendations. There is potential for random positive acts to occur, but this is far from sustainable. We cannot allow their regime to dictate when it will coöperate; equally we cannot risk casting them off into the diplomatic wilderness where human rights abuses can occur unchecked.
If we want real progress for human rights in Iran, we need the authorities there to start living up to their responsibilities; such as their commitments under the Convention on the Rights of the Child not to execute juveniles. It is up to the International community to keep banging the same drum asking the Iranian authorities to act. It may feel like it does nothing, but what other options are available?


City Crackdown on Cash for Keys
A new year brings new laws, making it harder to invest in real estate.
There are a slew of new laws—on the local, state and federal level—that will affect the way you manage your real estate investments. Today we will look at one of the more egregious ones on the local level.
One of the tools property owners use to convince a tenant to move out is a process called Cash For Keys. Basically, the tenant and owner agree on an amount of money that the owner will pay the tenant in exchange for the tenant moving out. This is a totally voluntary arrangement between two adults. But the city of Los Angeles doesn’t think so and has taken the side of the tenant, tromping on the rights of the landlord in regard to his property.
Major Garcetti approved the Tenant Buyout Ordinance, which goes into effect January 25th, 2017 and imposes several requirements on the landlord:
- Serve all his tenants the RSO Disclosure Notice, which outlines tenant rights including the amount the City mandates for forced eviction relocation fees
- Allow the tenant the right to cancel the relocation agreement for any reason for up to 30 days
- Provide written buyout agreement in a delineated format
- File with the City a dually executed RSO Disclosure Notice and Buyout Agreement
Violations subject the landlord to prosecution for damages.
In the City’s never ending quest to make life easier on tenants—at the cost of property owners—they have interjected themselves even further into the private ownership of income producing real estate. When will it stop? Is it fair for the government to take sides?
Feel free to vent below.


Bro. Anil Garasiya, resides at Sallopat is a Village in Bagidora Tehsil in Banswara District of Rajasthan State. He donated around 5000 sq. ft. of land to the Church, to build a Church Hall. The land was registered in the name Pastor John, Secretary IPC Church, Rajasthan.
Construction work for the Church Hall commenced 2 months back. While the work was in progress, religious fanatics with the help of local villagers and the Police, have tried to stop the work multiple times. Somehow, by the grace of God, the walls were erected and work was progressing, slowly but steadily.
Recently, the Police, armed with a ‘Stop Order ’from the Tehsildar have yet again stopped the work. Apparently, because the neighbors have apparently lodged a complaint. The Land was originally an agricultural land but later, “diversion’’ was made to make it residential. All necessary permissions and approvals had been secured before the work commenced.
Nevertheless, Bro. Anil and his father had been summoned to the Sub Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) court and the work stopped.
Separately, around 18 months ago, the neighbors have filed a complaint with Police that Bro. Anil had broken an idol which was placed next to their house. Bro. Anil claims he had nothing to do with the breaking of idol. Children playing in the area had noticed the fallen idol and informed the owner of the house, who allegedly accused Bro. Anil with the incident.
Several conspiracy theories have come up including the involvement of a local Advocate who are instrumental in manipulating situations and shutting down Churches.
Pastor John Devasiya, IPC Secretary Rajasthan State, called Persecution Relief, to inform about this incident. Persecution Relief counselled him and have extended support with judicial help.
Persecution Relief wishes to withhold personal information to protect the victims of Christian Persecution, hence names and places have been changed. Please know that the content and the presentation of views are the personal opinion of the persons involved and do not reflect those of Persecution Relief. Persecution Relief assumes no responsibility or liability for the same. All Media Articles posted on our website, are not edited by Persecution Relief and is reproduced as generated on the respective website. The views expressed are the Authors/Websites own. If you wish to acquire more information, please email us at: email@example.com or reach us on WhatsApp: +91 9993200020


MOOREVILLE, Miss. (WTVA) - A Mooreville man is accused of leaving his vulnerable brother out in the sun.
Lee County sheriff’s deputies responded on June 26 to a home in Mooreville where they found a 65-year-old man on a utility trailer with “obvious medical needs,” according to the Lee County Sheriff's Department.
Medics treated the man for dehydration and severe sunburns.
Investigators determined the man, who required constant medical care, had been released from a medical center to a family member for a family outing.
He had been left out in the sun for a substantial amount of time, according to the sheriff's department.
His brother, Charles Clifford, 46, of Mooreville, has been charged with injury to a vulnerable adult.


Outside counsel guidelines are standard business practice for many corporate and organizational clients who use them to control every aspect of the attorney-client relationship. Outside counsel guidelines regulate not just how law firms can bill their time and staff their cases but also contain provisions governing ethics, professional liability, data privacy and security, and, increasingly, social responsibility issues important to the client. Outside counsel guidelines are particularly troublesome for law firms when they contain provisions that are more expansive, and in some instances, incompatible with a lawyer’s ethical responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Law firms should always review a client’s outside counsel guidelines in their entirety, regardless of how lengthy the document, as problematic language may lurk in unexpected areas.
Extension of client language
Hypothetical… a lawyer blindly signs off on a corporate client’s dense, 20-page outside counsel guidelines. The lawyer was too busy to pay attention to all of that fine print and was unfamiliar with outside counsel guidelines. The lawyer also really wanted the client’s business and was not going to rock the boat. Several months later, in-house counsel for the corporate client notifies the law firm that it has a conflict of interest relating to one of the corporate client’s affiliates. The lawyer inadvertently failed to realize that he had agreed to represent not only the corporate client but also its numerous affiliates when he signed the outside counsel guidelines. The law firm did not know that it needed to screen the affiliates for conflicts. Had the firm done so, it would have noted that one of the affiliates was adverse to another firm client in a contract dispute progressing towards litigation. Another lawyer in the law firm had recently served a complaint on the affiliate. The law firm now has to deal with the fallout of the corporate client alleging a conflict of interest as well as a possible loss of business from both clients. How did this happen?
Many outside counsel guidelines contain “extension of client language” where the definition of who/what constitutes the “client” has been extended beyond the immediate client retaining the law firm. Usually, the definition of the client is extended to include subsidiaries, affiliates, or parent organizations but it can also include agents, employees, and insureds of insurance clients. Outside counsel guidelines sometimes include a list of subsidiaries and affiliates within the document but many times they do not include the actual names. Some outside counsel guidelines direct the law firm to view a list available on the client’s website. Other times the law firm will need to specifically ask the client to provide the list, which may or may not be completely up to date. Once this list is obtained, a law firm may be surprised to find a lengthy list of entities that need to be screened for conflicts. Law firms can only ethically agree to accept representation of subsidiaries and affiliates after running a conflict check to make sure there are no prohibitive conflicts of interest with any of the entities. Additionally, the law firm will need to add all affiliates and subsidiaries into its conflicts database and regularly screen for conflicts of interest on all related entities. This “corporate family tree” needs to be updated regularly as subsidiaries and affiliates can change with divestiture, mergers, and acquisitions. A law firm will have to remember to get updated information from the client, which usually cannot be counted on to proactively inform the firm.
Extension of client language in outside counsel guidelines may be desirable for the client, but it provides less flexibility to law firms by expanding the identity of a client beyond the definition contained in the ethics rules. Rule 1.13(a) provides that a lawyer who is retained to represent an organization represents that entity. A lawyer who represents an organization does not by default represent all corporate affiliates. Rule 1.7 provides the lawyer can undertake representation adverse to the affiliates in unrelated matters barring an “understanding” with the organization that the lawyer will avoid representation adverse to the client’s affiliates and the situation presents no material limitation on the lawyer’s representation of the organization. See Comment 21 to Rule 1.7 and ABA Formal Opinion 95-390 (noting that whether a lawyer represents a corporate affiliate is dependent upon “particular circumstances.”). Ultimately, extension of client language can eliminate many business opportunities for a law firm and prove too unwieldy for conflict screening. While not always successful, it often makes sense for a law firm to try to negotiate with the client to limit the identity of the client to the one utilizing its legal services. A law firm can also include language in the firm’s engagement letter stating that its terms supersede any outside counsel guidelines from the client. Ultimately, the law firm will have to make an economic and risk management decision whether the business with the client is worth the hassle of tracking all of those subsidiaries and affiliates for conflicts of interest. Law firms can consider the duration of the legal engagement for which the client is hiring the firm. From a risk management perspective, it might be worth accepting the terms without any negotiation on small legal matters that will be completed quickly.
Conflicts of Interest
Clients use outside counsel guidelines to try to reshape a lawyer’s ethical responsibilities, particularly as it relates to conflicts of interest. Clients use anti-competitor provisions to prevent a law firm from representing other clients who are viewed as business competitors. Overreaching conflict of interest prohibitions and waiver requirements can be the equivalent of a client generated noncompete agreement for law firms. For example, a client’s outside counsel guidelines may require that the law firm notify and obtain the client’s consent prior to accepting any potential representation of a competitor. Often clients do not define specific competitors and instead use vague language prohibiting a law firm from representing others with “interests adverse to the business or public interests of the client.” This can be ethically problematic from several standpoints as it requires the disclosure of confidential information in circumstances that may not rise to the level of a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7. Economic interests alone are generally insufficient to create a conflict of interest between two current clients in unrelated matters. Comment 6 to Rule 1.7 notes “representation of competing economic enterprises in unrelated litigation, does not ordinarily constitute a conflict of interest” between clients in unrelated matters. Similarly, a lawyer’s representation of a client who asserts public positions adverse to another client’s interests is generally not considered the type of positional interest that can create a conflict under Rule 1.7. Positional conflicts of interest implicate a Rule 1.7 concern when a lawyer is taking inconsistent legal positions on behalf of different clients in the same tribunal and there is a possibility that it could materially limit the lawyer’s ability to effectively represent one of the clients.
Additionally, outside counsel guidelines that require a law firm to disclose the possible representation of any competitor inherently require disclosure of the identity of another client or prospective client along with basic information sufficient to define the matter. Rule 1.6(a) broadly protects all information relating to the representation including a client’s identity. If a law firm has agreed to such a notification provision in an OCG and a client or prospective client will not consent to the disclosure of its identity or the general nature of a matter, the law firm effectively has no choice but to forgo the representation. These kinds of notice and waiver provisions can also get a lawyer into trouble if they do not understand they need to obtain the client or prospective client’s consent to disclose confidential information before notifying another client’s pursuant to the terms of its outside counsel guidelines. In some instances, the fact that a prospective client even consulted with a law firm might be sensitive confidential information that could potentially harm a client if disclosed, especially amongst clients in the same industry.
Data privacy and security concerns
Outside counsel guidelines may require that the law firm give the client access to the law firm’s data security measures in order to perform what is known as a client security audit. Client security audits can include not just the law firm’s systems but also those of any vendors that the law firm uses. Client audit access provisions need to be highly scrutinized. Many of these types of provisions were created for a client’s use with non-legal vendors and do not comply with a lawyer’s ethical obligations. For example, a client may require access for the client or a third party to conduct “penetration or vulnerability testing of the Firm’s network systems.” The law firm needs to understand the exact scope of what the client is asking to do. If the client is requesting access to audit the law firm’s system in any way that exposes other clients’ data or the firm’s communications with clients, such provisions conflict with a lawyer’s ethical obligations to safeguard confidential client information under Rule 1.6(a). These kinds of audits also run the risk of compromising attorney-client privilege by providing third party access to documents.
Overreaching outside counsel guidelines create real problems for lawyers in private practice. Law firms have an interest in professional autonomy but also have to deal with the reality that this is how many corporate and organizational clients now do business. Since outside counsel guidelines are not going away anytime soon, the best risk-management plan that law firms can implement is to not be caught unaware. Law firms need to have a plan in place to identify and track clients who have outside counsel guidelines. Law firms should develop a policy whereby all lawyers are required to submit a client’s outside counsel guidelines (or client generated engagement letters which often contain OCG equivalent terms) to the firm’s general counsel or a designated individual with responsibility for reviewing, negotiating, and approving them. Law firms should educate their lawyers on problematic provisions in outside counsel guidelines. Under no circumstances should a lawyer blindly sign or skim through a client’s outside counsel guideline, as tempting as that may be with a really long one! Law firms also now have outside options to help them navigate outside counsel guidelines. Professional and financial services companies are getting into the game by developing products that can help law firms track client mandates. There are even platforms that employ artificial intelligence to sort through a document and identify provisions within outside counsel guidelines that a firm identifies as problematic. Not every law firm will benefit from leveraging automation, but they can certainly develop a uniform policy for handling outside counsel guidelines that will prevent unfortunate surprises down the road.
Cassie Hanson is a legal ethics lawyer with substantial experience in the field of ethics and professional responsibility. As conflicts and ethics counsel at Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Cassie is focused on legal ethics, conflict prevention and resolution, legal malpractice/loss prevention and trust account compliance. Additionally, Cassie worked for 20 years as a senior litigator and adviser at the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. Cassie investigated and prosecuted high-level attorney discipline cases. She is an experienced trial attorney and appellate advocate who regularly argued complex attorney discipline cases in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court. She has advised various government agencies, law firms and other stakeholders on legal ethics and professional responsibility. Cassie is a frequent public speaker on ethics and lawyer well-being.


King/Drew and LAUSD have a policy of NO CELL PHONES. Cell Phones must be TURNED OFF and PUT AWAY out of sight during school hours:
8:00am - 3:02pm
This policy is in effect campus-wide.
If such a device is observed by staff, during school hours or activities, it shall be confiscated until redeemed by a parent/guardian/caregiver or as determined by the school principal/designee.


MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
On August 18, the Pew Center for the People & the Press released a poll that reveals "stark racial divisions in reactions to Ferguson police shooting":
Blacks and whites have sharply different reactions to the police shooting of an unarmed teen in Ferguson, Mo., and the protests and violence that followed. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to say that the shooting of Michael Brown "raises important issues about race that need to be discussed." Wide racial differences also are evident in opinions about of whether local police went too far in the aftermath of Brown's death, and in confidence in the investigations into the shooting.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 14-17 among 1,000 adults, finds that the public overall is divided over whether Brown's shooting raises important issues about race or whether the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves: 44% think the case does raise important issues about race that require discussion, while 40% say the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves.
By about four-to-one (80% to 18%), African Americans say the shooting in Ferguson raises important issues about race that merit discussion. By contrast, whites, by 47% to 37%, say the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves.
In a summary of the poll, Pew recalls that in its survey after Trayvon Martin was gunned down by George Zimmerman, "60% of whites said race received more attention in that case than it deserved."
Years ago, I heard a speaker discuss how the history of the United States cannot be viewed through a focused lens unless one considers the legacy of slavery, the suppressive humiliating period of Reconstruction, the plantation ghettos of cities in the north and south, and the criminalization of being a black male. All of these require an open racism among many whites and a sub-conscious racial bias among many persons who think of themselves as liberals.
Yes, there are black males who have made it in the world of the white ruling elite, such as the president of the United States and the attorney general. However, there are two major caveats to consider in this regard.
First, it is clear that even though Barack Obama has the academic pedigree, intellectual capabilities and irrepressible desire to accommodate whites by not pressing on the pedal of assisting African-Americans who have - as Eugene Robinson notes in a commentary on BuzzFlash today - been left behind, he is still vilified by a large segment of the white population in the United States because he is black.
Second, the number of black men and women who have made it through the racial barrier, while significant, is miniscule in relation to the number of blacks (and other people of color) under siege by police and a criminal justice system that works on the principle of guilty until proven innocent for most non-whites. This is why the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Yes, there is a class issue in race bias, but the racist backlash to President Obama's presidency (symbolized most blatantly by the "birther" accusations that morphed into the war on "Obamacare") indicates that the white racial prejudice of thinking blacks more violent, more disinterested in working, more dangerous to society has long been - and still is - an institutionalized racism that permeates the US economic and criminal justice system.
It is sadly ironic that President Obama came to national prominence with a speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention that claimed that the United States was not composed of red and blue states, but that we all belonged to one blend of red and blue mixed into a unified purple nation.
As the events in Ferguson - joining a long list of daily acts of police-sanctioned racial brutality, harassment, arrests and murder - indicate, the racial gap in the United States about what constitutes justice and freedom is still as wide as the Grand Canyon.
The Pew Poll does raise a glimmer of hope in the wider recognition among young people - as compared to the older population - of the racial implications of the Mike Brown shooting:
By a wide margin (55% to 34%), adults under 30 think the shooting of the unarmed teen raises important issues about race. Among those 65 and older, opinion is divided: 40% think the incident raises important racial issues while about as many (44%) think the issue of race is getting more attention than it deserves. [These figures represent the overall polling group not broken down by racial category.]
That is a foundation to build upon in a moment of mourning, police militarization and racial rancor among those in the US who have been stigmatized, stalked by police and economically left behind, but only if ignorance is counteracted by an active uprising of social justice.
The poet Gwendolyn Brooks described in a famous lyric how truth is not always welcome. It makes demands upon us to change, to encounter the uncomfortable. Supposing, Brooks ponders, our lack of self-knowledge one day encounters the enlightenment provided by the shining clarity of the sun?
Though we have wept for him,
Though we have prayed
All through the night-years—
What if we wake one shimmering morning to
Hear the fierce hammering
Of his firm knuckles
Hard on the door?
Brooks does not think we would welcome what we had so long sought:
Shall we not shudder?—
Shall we not flee
Into the shelter, the dear thick shelter
Of the familiar
Sweet is it, sweet is it
To sleep in the coolness
Of snug unawareness.
The murder of Mike Brown and the disastrous aftermath of police oppression in Ferguson, Missouri, reminds us all that we cannot continue as a union in a state of "snug unawareness" if we are to achieve the equality that is part of our national narrative, but is still parceled out with institutionalized racial selectivity.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission


When you’re ready to move on with your life without your spouse, you may want to also change your children’s last names to match your own. You can complete that process during the divorce proceedings, although there are some potential problems you will need to deal with if the other parent doesn’t consent.
How to Change Your Child’s Name While Going Through a Divorce
Either party in the divorce can request a name change for the kids, although it frequently occurs in situations where the mother is reverting to her maiden name and wants a complete break from the father.
Before a new name is granted, you will need a certified copy of the child’s birth certificate as well as the help of an attorney to file the proper paperwork requesting the court intervene and make the change. There are three primary options for changing your kiddo’s name that can be heard by the court:
- You are already changing your own name during the divorce.
- Paternity is established during the divorce proving you are the father.
- Either parent has some other compelling reason to change the child’s name.
The court takes into account how long your little one has used the name and whether changing it would be in the child’s best interest. You also have to provide a compelling reason as to why keeping the original name might cause some sort of problem.
Although the marriage is dissolving, the other parent doesn’t have to agree to the change and can fight against it in court. Unless your former spouse’s parental rights have been entirely terminated, they can oppose a name change even in situations where you have primary custody. That’s why the assistance of an experienced divorce attorney is crucial in providing a solid argument to the court as to why the name change should take place.
Be sure to also talk to your attorney about situations of domestic violence or abuse where notifying the other parent of the name change could put your family in harm, as that can also be explained to the court.
Want to Change Your Child’s Last Name? Talk to a New York Divorce Lawyer Today
Divorce is often a complex, time-consuming, and emotionally-draining process. You don’t need to go through it alone or guess about what to do next. Schedule a consultation with Alatsas Law Firm to find out how we can help you navigate the divorce minefield, including changing your child’s name.


Looking at the surrounding text in Hale’s original (from your source link), the term measuring cast appears to equate rather literally to the more contemporary expression sighting shot. It is an act whose purpose is at least partly to test the environment for future acts.
Here, ‘measuring’ means ‘experimental’, ‘testing’ or ‘probing’.
‘A cast’ in this case means ‘a throw’, in the sense of committing oneself to releasing (say) dice, or a spear from the hand: the object is aimed and released. It is equivalent to the more common idea of taking ‘a shot’.
In context and principle, Hale is talking about the benefit of the doubt: To begin with, let us toss a few stones into the general territory, to see how they fare, and not fling a huge rock at the plaintiff’s head just because the law allows us to.
Essentially, in this statement Hale means that in new areas of legislation or judgment one should err on the side of leniency.
The surrounding parts of Hale’s text suggest that he (or at least his published text) is preoccupied with being professionally conscientious and consistent, and with applying proportionate punishments, so long as we have good evidence for the crime.
The item to which you draw attention recommends that if we cannot clearly see the scale or the measure of the criminal or the crime, then we should be lenient rather than reflexively punitive.
The expression ‘sighting shot’ is defined usefully at oxforddictionaries.com as:
An experimental shot to guide shooters in adjusting their sights:
figurative ‘their bid for the company is only a sighting shot’
The expression ‘measuring cast’ is a compound noun. ‘A cast’ means ‘a throw’. It is an individual throw, with connotations of purpose and direction—see many definitions at oxforddictionaries.com. (Connotations of forcefulness are generally overstated, in most contexts.)
This is what a ‘cast’ in fishing means. It is also why we talk about ‘casting’ a spell. It is there in historical accounts of ‘casting dice’. It is still there (scrapingly) in Chewbacca’s ‘bowcaster’ weapon in the Star Wars films.
The word ‘measuring’ modifies or qualifies ‘cast’, in the same sense as ‘sighting shot’, or ‘practice kick’. The two words proceed together and are treated as a single noun.
Your source text lists 18 Resolutions held by Hale, proceeding in philosophical style from the overarching first principle of duty (In the administration of justice, I am entrusted for God, the King and Country) to finer levels of empirical detail.
Any given detail of my gloss here might be in error, so I do not recommend direct quotation for academic purposes. With all this the context, however, we find ‘measuring cast’ making a lot of sense.
To paraphrase, then:
Duty (as above), therefore...
I must be both conscientious and resolute.
I shall trust God’s guidance, above my own reasoning.
I must not be impelled by my own moral convictions, however I might be provoked.
I am on duty here—I must not allow myself to be distracted.
I will avoid prejudice for or against anyone, and will hear all of the evidence, before beginning to formulate any judgment.
I will be objective not personally engage with what might be the matter at stake [not quite the same as #6] until all has been said.
Matters involving human death are naturally emotional for me, but I must never forget my official duty to the country.
People (including me) have their own views: that, in itself, is fine.
Rich or poor—my judicial duty is the same.
I will proceed with conscience, and not respond in any way to public approval or disapproval of my actions.
I will not even ask what other people might think: I will proceed in my assigned official duties.
13. If we find ourselves in in new criminal judgment territory, then my judgment will be less severe than it might be, not the maximum.
In crimes of mere verbal troublemaking, keep perspective and remember that suitably minor punishments are available.
Faced with a proven murderer, inappropriate leniency is, well, inappropriate.
Do not ever accept any judicial influence or opinion, from anyone.
I shall manage my staff along these lines and with good judgment.
I plan not to overindulge personally: it might affect my work.
Hale kicks off with what he sees as the most important general principles, and works down to more detailed matters. He ends up by promising to keep his (legal) staff on the straight and narrow, and not to get lost in overeating.
In the middle he gives some ideas about judicial attitudes to very broad criminal categories, including the very small-time and the very extreme. At #13, he reminds us that we might find ourselves looking at an unclear kind of case, and warns against lazily applying a severe penalty just because that is easy and permitted. His other resolutions provide the context for this.


Fifth Cir. Gives New Orleans the OK to Remove Confederate Statues
Just south of New Orleans' central business district, a short walk from the Superdome, stands the Robert E. Lee Monument, a pillar-mounted statue of the Confederate general. Stands for now, that is. Lee's statue is one of four monuments celebrating the state's confederate past scheduled to come toppling down, after the City Council voted to remove the statues in 2015.
And that toppling can begin post haste, now that the Fifth Circuit has rejected a challenge to the statues' removal brought by local preservation societies and the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Court Rejects Challenge to Statues' Removal
The plaintiffs first filed their lawsuit just hours after the city council voted to remove the statues, according to CNN. They contested both ownership of the statues and the land upon which they rested. But a federal district court rejected their claims, as did the Fifth, in yesterday's Monumental Task Committee v. Chao ruling. And the Fifth rejected the claims, emphatically.
Though appellants cited 12 causes of action, their preliminary injunction application relied on only two, a federal statutory claim and a due process claim based on Louisiana's negotiorum gestio doctrine. Both claims lack "legal viability of support," the Fifth explained in a ruling that took up barely three pages.
[B]y failing to show a constitutionally or otherwise legally protected interest in the monuments, they have also failed to show that any irreparable harm to the monuments -- even assuming such evidence -- would constitute harm to Appellants.
Further, though the appellants had contested ownership of the monuments and land, the Court could find "no evidence in the record suggest that any party other than the city has ownership."
Removal Could Begin Soon
In addition to Lee's statue, the city council also voted to remove monuments to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Confederate general P.T. Beauregard, and a monument to the Battle of Liberty Place. The Battle of Liberty Place, also known as the Battle of Canal Street, was a post-war insurrection by the White League.
Removal of three of the four monuments could begin shortly, with the city releasing bids for their removal on Tuesday. The fourth, commemorating the Battle of Liberty Place, is subject to a separate federal court order.
- New Orleans Confederate Monuments Can Come Down, Court Rules (The Times-Picayune)
- Confederate Flag License Plates: Whose Speech Is It Anyway? (FindLaw's U.S. Fifth Circuit Blog)
- New Orleans' Camellia Grill Keeps Its Name in 5th Cir. Ruling (FindLaw's U.S. Fifth Circuit Blog)
- Endless Sno-ball Battle Comes Again to Fifth Circuit (FindLaw's U.S. Fifth Circuit Blog)
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.


Continued from page 1
Opposition remains strongest among seniors, many of whom object to Medicare cuts that were used to help finance coverage for younger uninsured people.
· Anti-conscience mandate. And then there is the mega-controversy the administration created over the anti-conscience contraceptive mandate. The president had tried to make the issue about “women’s health.” But the American people understand that it is a violation of the constitutionally-guaranteed protection of religious freedom to force Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities to cover drugs that cause abortion, sterilization, and contraceptives in violation of their strong moral beliefs.
A new poll from The New York Times and CBS News reveals that a substantial majority of Americans — 57 percent to 36 percent — favor an exemption for religious-affiliated employers. And a sizable majority — 51 percent to 40 percent — still favors a religious and moral exemption for all employers. This is the same poll that shows the president’s approval rating dropping to 41 percent.
· Loss of 25 Dem seats. President Obama personally promised Democratic members of Congress that if they voted for the bill, their constituents soon would thank them, arguing that a vote against the bill would be most damaging.
Yet a new study by American Politics Research found that at least 25 members of Congress lost their seats in Congress during the 2010 elections precisely because they voted for ObamaCare.
· Bi-partisan opposition to ObamaCare is brewing. When the House of Representatives votes next week on repealing ObamaCare’s unaccountable, unelected IPAB board, at least some Democrats are likely to support repeal. The IPAB repeal bill, sponsored by Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN), received bi-partisan support as it made its way through House committees, showing that Democrats are equally worried about the power of the board to usurp the job of the people’s elected representatives.
· Employers will drop coverage. A new study of employers conducted by Willis Human Capital Practice found that employers expect higher health costs for both employers and employees as a result of ObamaCare, and many expect to shift employees into taxpayer-paid coverage once the option is available. That shift would certainly exacerbate the exploding costs of the law.
Last year, health costs rose 9 percent for employers, triple the rate of the year before ObamaCare’s provisions began to be implemented. Employers expect costs to only go higher.
· Investors recoil. Uncertainty about the future of the health sector is also drying up investor capital — and threatening tomorrow’s medical innovations. The share of venture dollars flowing to seed and early-stage investments in biotechnology and medical devices has plummeted since 2007, when investors pumped $3.6 billion into 332 deals in which a price was disclosed, according to data compiled for Kaiser Health News by FactSet Research Systems. Overall venture investing declined by nearly one-third as the economic recession set in.
The list goes on: If public opposition is hardening now against ObamaCare, just wait until the mandate kicks in on January 1, 2014, when everyone will be required to purchase expensive government-dictated health insurance under penalty of federal law. And as seniors find it harder and harder to find a doctor who can afford to see them. And as they begin to fear the impact of the cuts of ObamaCare’s rationing board. And as states find it is impossible to provide basic services because the mandate to vastly expand Medicaid is gobbling up virtually all of their budgets. And as the unemployment rate refuses to drop because employers are frightened about the huge costs they are facing with the employer mandate. And as taxpayers see the gusher of red ink that will explode the federal budget deficit as ObamaCare’s subsidy costs explode.
If the Supreme Court does not throw out the whole law, the voters will have to finish the job with their votes in November.


CELEBRATING 20 YEARS IN BUSINESS
OVER 300,000 CLIENTS REPRESENTED
March 28, 2022 - What is Baby Powder Ovarian Cancer? When women use baby powder with talc or other types of talcum powder for feminine hygiene purposes, the tiny talc fibers can travel up through the female reproductive system, making their way to the ovaries, where they embed themselves, cause inflammation, and can, over time, result in ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson is currently facing more than 20,000 lawsuits from women who developed ovarian...
March 20, 2022 - The long-awaited Daubert decision was given by Chief Judge Wolfson, the judge overseeing the Johnson & Johnson baby powder ovarian cancer multidistrict litigation at the end of April 2020. Wolfson gave a 141-page opinion that comprehensively analyzed the factors which will determine whether scientific expert witnesses will be allowed to testify on various issues that are critical to the cases pending on baby powder ovarian cancer...
March 12, 2022 - What is Oxidative Stress? When the body experiences an imbalance of antioxidants and free radicals, oxidative stress is the result. Oxidative stress in turn leads to cell and tissue damage. The aging process is due, in part, to oxidative stress. Oxidative stress has also been found to contribute to conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. A number of lifestyle factors can also affect oxidative stress; any time there is an imbalance of...
September 06, 2021 - What Is Baby Powder Ovarian Cancer? An ever-growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the use of talcum powder for feminine hygiene can significantly increase a woman’s chances of developing ovarian cancer. The longer a woman uses talcum powder in the genital region, the more likely she is to develop ovarian cancer. While about one in every 75 women will develop ovarian cancer in her lifetime, unlike...
August 27, 2021 - If you have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer after using talcum powder for feminine hygiene purposes for a significant length of time, you likely have many questions regarding treatment for ovarian cancer, top hospitals, and the best doctors. When ovarian cancer is found early, a woman has a 93 percent chance of surviving at least five years after the diagnosis—a number which drops to about 30 percent if...
ON YELP'S LIST OF THE
BEST 10 LAWYERS IN HOUSTON*
*APR 2019 THROUGH SEP 2020
*Yelp No Longer Ranks its Best 10 as of 10/01/2020
TOP 10 VERDICT IN TEXAS*
TOP 100 NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYER*
*BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS
AVVO CLIENT'S CHOICE AWARD*
2016, 2017, 2019-2023
*GIVEN BY AVVO
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUSTICE
*GRANTED BY THE AAJ


PRESS MOLDING WITH REINFORCING RIB AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
- Application ID: EP12881199
- Status: █ EXAMINATION IN PROGRESS
This patent has the IPC combination B29, B32, and B60 is specialized in the combination B29, B32, and B60. We found, that Kutzenberger Wolff & Partner, Schatt IP, Dott Franco Cicogna & C Srl are specialized in all of these IPC classes. For a similar patent, they might be a good choice.


Request a Collision Report
How to apply
You can apply by using our Collision Report online request form - available in the menu below / right.
Please only use the online request form once you have fully read all the information on this page.
When applying, you will need to provide us with as much of the following information as possible;
- Police reference (Log / occurrence number)
- Your reference
- Incident date and time
- Incident location (including street name and town)
- Your Client / Insured party name
- Vehicle registration (VRM) of your client / the insured party name
- Third party name
- Third party vehicle registration (VRM)
Once you submit the Collision Report online request form, it will be received by West Yorkshire Police Central Process Bureau and you will be contacted via email in due course, with a quote for the information you have requested, along with further details on payment method.
Please see the link below for more details on applicable fees and charges.
Fees and Charges
Please see our Collision Report Fees and Charges page - which documents the full costs that could be charged, depending the information being requested.
All applicable fees must be paid prior to production of any reports.
Be advised that we do not accept payments via cheque.
All payments should be made using the BACS details provided on your quote email.
Please ensure when making payment that our collision reference, that can be obtained on the quote email, is added to the reference box when making a payment. Failure to do so may lead to delays in receiving your reports.
How long does it take?
We aim to have sent all documents out within 35 days of receipt of payment. This ultimately depends on the correct quote number being recorded when making the payment.
If you are requesting digital media such as CCTV, please allow a minimum 6 weeks.
If you are applying to interview an officer, we will not arrange such request until all the documents available have been sent. We also require proof of proceedings in this instance and if Civil proceedings have not yet commenced, we will not accept any interview request.
Be advised that all documents that are sent out are scanned for sensitive personal data, therefore some of the reports you will receive may be redacted.
Have you received a form to complete relating to a Road Traffic Collision?
If you have received a form relating to a damage only Road Traffic Collision, namely a ‘Notice of requirement to furnish identity of the driver of a vehicle’ or a ‘Notice of intended prosecution’, please fill this in, to the best of your knowledge and return to the address outlined on the form.
Please do not contact 101 or the Collision Team for further information. West Yorkshire Police will be in touch in due course following receipt.
Any other business
If you do not require a Collision Report but wish to contact the Collision Team regarding another matter, please do so by e-mailing [email protected].
Page last reviewed November 2021.


Blue Cross Will Pay Out $2.67 Billion Settlement For Blue Shield Antitrust Case
The court has approved a $2.67 billion settlement for the blue cross class action lawsuit.
Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) was charged with four antitrust class action lawsuits for allegedly engaging in price-fixing to control market competition around the United States.
The blue cross lawsuit accused Blue Cross Blue Shield, together with 37 providers of health insurance plans, of illegally conspiring to increase insurance premiums and carving out their geographic markets in the United States.
Plaintiffs argue that the Settling Individual Blue Plans and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association defied antitrust laws by not competing with one another.
The lawsuits also assert that this illegal price-fixing has allowed the parties to gain a monopoly of market and power.
In addition, the lawsuit states that the unlawful price-fixing breaches the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and the Settling Individual Blue Plans do not acknowledge any of the allegations made against them.
They believe that they did not commit any wrongdoings and that their actions helped lower insurance costs and provided greater access to their customers.
However, they have agreed to pay a settlement fund to avoid further litigation regarding the issue.
A settlement was reached regarding the blue cross class action lawsuit on October 16, 2020.
A $2.67 billion settlement fund has been established to compensate individuals and companies who have bought or received any form of health insurance provided or managed by a BCBS company.
The court has approved two settlement classes for the case – the Damages Class and the Injunctive Relief Class.
The Damages Class
The Damages Class is comprised of the following class members:
- Insured groups and their employees
- Self-funded accounts and their employees
The class members should have purchased, enrolled, or were covered by a Blue Cross Commercial Health product managed by Settling Individual Blue Plan.
The following class periods apply for the damages class members:
- Fully insured individuals – February 7, 2008, to October 16, 2020
- Insured groups and their employees – February 7, 2008, to October 16, 2020
- Self-funded accounts and their employees – September 1, 2015, to October 16, 2020
Note that beneficiaries and dependents are not included in this class.
The Injunctive Relief Class
The Injunctive Relief Class is comprised of the following class members:
- Insured groups
- Self-funded accounts
The members should have purchased, enrolled, or were covered by a Blue Cross Commercial Health product managed by Settling Individual Blue Plan during the appropriate class period.
Beneficiaries, dependants, and non-employees are covered in this class.
Below are the details related to how to file a claim with blue cross blue shield:
- Identified class members will receive a notice, either thru mail or email, in the spring of 2021.
- After notice has been received, that is the only time class members can perform actions regarding the case – such as file a claim, object with the settlement, or file and exclusion.
- Individuals who are not sure if they are included as class members may contact the Claims Administrator to confirm eligibility.
The specific date on when the notice will be released to class members has not yet been determined. It is expected that class members will be notified in the spring of 2021.
The deadline for filing claims, filing objections, and opting out from the BCBS settlement has also not yet been determined.
The fairness hearing is scheduled for October 20-21, 2021.
Editor’s Note on Blue Cross Blue Shield Class Action Settlement:
This article is published to inform you of the latest class action settlement that has been reached for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Case.
What are your thoughts on this piece? Do you know who has availed a health insurance plan from Blue Cross?
Please send us a message by clicking the ‘Contact Us’ button below. We’d love to hear back from you!
Suggested Article: Steps To Start Your Own Class Action Lawsuit.


Mountain Home Man Sentenced On Federal Child Pornography Charge
Admitted sexual contact with prepubescent minors
BOISE - Christopher James Swicegood, 22, of Mountain Home, Idaho, was sentenced today to 180 months in prison for possession of sexually explicit images of prepubescent minors, U.S. Attorney Wendy J. Olson announced. The defendant was given three-and-a-half months credit for time served in state custody. Chief U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill also ordered Swicegood to serve 35 years of supervised release following his release from prison.
According to the plea agreement, the investigation began in January 2013, when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators followed a lead provided by a foreign government concerning users of a website used extensively by persons interested in exchanging child pornography. Investigators obtained a search warrant for the home Swicegood shared with others in Mountain Home and found images and videos of prepubescent minors being sexually abuse on a computer and hard drive Swicegood owned. Swicegood admitted that he had posted child pornography on the foreign website and that he had traded child pornography with other users of the foreign website. Swicegood will forfeit the computer equipment used in the home.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children examined the material found on Swicegood’s media and identified 230 image files from 57 known child pornography series, and 30 videos from 14 separate child pornography series. Each series represents a different minor victim or group of minor victims being sexually abused. These victims come from a variety of states of the United States and many foreign countries.
Also according to the plea agreement, Swicegood admitted sexual interactions, including sexual touching, with at least three different minor children in the Mountain Home area. He was originally charged in Elmore County with Lewd or Lascivious Acts on a Minor Child under the age of 16 years. Those charges were dismissed by motion of the prosecuting attorney on June 13 as a part of Swicegood’s agreement to admit that conduct in his federal plea agreement.
“This case exemplifies the important role local and federal law enforcement partnerships play in putting child predators behind bars,” said Olson. “Let this sentence serve as a warning to other predators. We will find you, arrest you and ensure that you are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
The case was investigated by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which is a member of the Idaho Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, a statewide coalition of local, state and federal law enforcement and prosecution agencies, focused on apprehending and prosecuting individuals who use the Internet to criminally exploit children. For more information about the Idaho ICAC Task Force and a list of all the participating agencies, visit www.icacidaho.org.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.usdoj.gov/psc. For more information about internet safety education, please visit www.usdoj.gov/psc and click on the tab “resources.”


On August 14, 2009, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. On August 26, 2010, this Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of willingness to proceed on his a cognizable claim against Defendants Anderson, Hicks, La Vaan, Lambert, Lopez, and Stinger ("Defendants")*fn1 for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical need. Doc. 14. On September 8, 2010, Plaintiff notified the Court of his willingness to proceed on his cognizable claim against Defendants. Doc. 15. On December 15, 2010, the Court issued a second informational order, advising Plaintiff that Defendants may file a motion for summary judgment and how Plaintiff must oppose the motion in order to avoid dismissal, pursuant to Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). Doc. 20. On April 27, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 39. On May 1, 2012, Defendants filed the declaration of J. Moon, M.D. Doc. 41. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by Local Rule 230(l).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. Failure to timely comply or otherwise respond will be construed as waiver of the opportunity to file an opposition.