When a tenant sends a draft lease to a landlord, does it automatically constitute a binding offer to rent? That is the question that the Quebec Superior Court ruled on in a case involving 2412-8779 Quebec Inc. vs. 9303-4338 Quebec Inc.1
In summary, the lessor was contacted in August 2018 by a potential tenant. The latter wished to lease a space for a fibre optics business that would improve Internet services in Chibougamau. The parameters of the premises required, however, were quite specific. It had be a 20' x 20' space, a stand-alone building with a flat roof. The landlord, not having a space like that in his portfolio, agreed to build one if the two parties came to an agreement.
On September 26, 2018, the tenant sent an undated and unsigned draft lease to the landlord, with no date indicated as to when the rental agreement was to take effect. Despite those details, the landlord began construction a few weeks later.
On April 2, 2019, the landlord learned through a press release that the tenant had not been selected as a beneficiary of government subsidies for his fibre optics project. Instead, his direct competitor was selected. That news effectively killed the tenant’s project, and he was no longer interested in the premises and refused to move in to the building.
In light of his withdrawal, the landlord instigated legal proceedings. He argued that the draft lease he had received from the potential tenant in September 2018 constituted an offer, given that it contained all the essential elements of the proposed rental contract. His decision to go ahead and build the premises was, in his opinion, a clear indication that the tenant’s offer had been accepted and that the latter’s signature was not required.
In such circumstances, the tenant's decision to withdraw constitutes a unilateral termination, allowing the landlord to claim rent for the next 25 years. Consequently, he was seeking $207,953 in damages from the tenant to compensate for the construction costs of premises built unnecessarily.
Unfortunately for the landlord, the Court was of the opinion that the landlord had not been able to clearly demonstrate that an unequivocal agreement had been reached between the parties. Given that the draft lease was neither signed nor dated, nor did it settle on certain necessary elements, the Court concluded that it was not binding on the parties.
Furthermore, the Court was of the opinion that the lessor had been imprudent in embarking on construction, when he knew that only one fibre optics project would be carried out in Chibougamau. He also knew that the lessee was facing a competitor well established in the region. The landlord took a risk by starting construction work too quickly, at a time when he did not know if the fibre optics project would actually come to pass.
On the other hand, should those arguments be deemed insufficient, the Court also noted that the lessor ultimately built an 800 square foot space (instead of 400), attached to an existing building (instead of being a stand-alone structure), premises that had a sloped roof instead of a flat one. In short, he built the exact opposite of what was initially requested by the tenant. Thus, it was with an implacable tone that the Court rejected all of the landlord's claims.
It should be noted from this decision that a draft lease can only be considered a formal offer to lease if it contains all the essential elements of the proposed contract, which was not the case here. A good way of avoiding such a situation would be to add a "Provisional Agreement" or "Draft Lease" watermark to the document, indicating that it is being sent "for negotiation and discussion purposes only".
2022 QCCS 1406.


Jamelia's Stepbrother Goes to Jail for Attempted Murder
The stepbrother of British singer Jamelia has been jailed for shooting a man during race riots in the U.K. Tobias Rowe will spend a minimum of 12 years behind bars after he was found guilty earlier this month of attempted murder in connection to a 2005 shooting.
The 27 year old was among a gang who targeted staff and customers in two bars in relation to a man allegedly raping a woman in Birmingham, England. Rowe was also found guilty of rioting, conspiracy to rob, two charges of possessing a firearm and possessing ammunition in relation to the riots. He was found not guilty of another charge of attempted murder and an alternative charge of attempted wounding with intent by a jury at Birmingham's Crown Court.
Rowe was arrested last year over the attacks after three years on the run when he attended his own birthday party at an apartment in the city. It is the latest in a series of scandals to hit the singer's family members - Jamelia's uncle is serving life for murder, her stepbrother was accused, but cleared, of murdering two women in 2003 and her step-brother was stabbed to death.
- Selena Gomez Chops Off Her Hair - See Her New Short Haircut!
- DC to Bring Beast Boy to Life in Live-Action Series 'Titans'
- 'Star Wars Episode IX', 'Indiana Jones 5', 'Frozen 2' Get Release Dates
- Is DC Comedy 'Powerless' Canceled by NBC?
- Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner Join Live-Action 'Lion King'
- Report: Blake Shelon Is Hiding Shameful Family Secrets From Gwen Stefani
- Kim Kardashian Hits Back at Haters Over Her Unretouched Bikini Photos
- Are J.Lo and Alex Rodriguez Readying New Show Together?


Early on the morning of Aug 27, a 33-year-old woman was buying a drink from a vending machine on the platform of Hanshin Amagasaki Station in the city of Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture. While she was focused on selecting and retrieving her beverage, though, a 47-year-old man who was walking past her touched her buttocks.
He then ran out of the station, but the woman, along with a station employee, gave chase and cornered him in a nearby park, where he reportedly admitted to groping the victim. The police were summoned, but once the officer arrived on scene to take the man into custody, he became less talkative. When asked for his name and occupation (a standard part of on-site police questioning in Japan), he gave no response at all.
The officer pressed on, though, and he asked the man why he’d done what he had on the platform, when finally the man spoke, saying: “I love women from my very core. I will only talk to a woman.”
Of course, you don’t have to say anything to get arrested and hauled down to the station, and the male officer had no problem doing both. As per Japanese law, the groper is entitled to a public defender to provide him with legal counsel, and, sure enough, he’s requested that his lawyer be a woman, though it remains to be seen if he’ll get his wish, or if any female attorney would be willing to take his case.
Read more stories from SoraNews24.
- External Link


Thank you so much for your email, all the information you have provided but most of all, your kindness. I really appreciate the time you have worked on this, and cannot tell you and thank you enough for all your help with this matter. You have helped me possibly more than you realise...Ruth Talbot – Cotswold wedding day
Use our simple European Patent Cost Calculator to obtain a quote and to order your European patent filing.
How long does an international PCT patent application last for?
In most countries, 30 months from the earliest priority date. Some jurisdictions, eg. Europe and the UK, provide 31 months.
Unlike most countries, America provides a 12 months grace period from first disclosure in which a patent application can still be filed. Therefore, even if publicly disclosed, you may still be entitled to valid patent protection for your invention in at least the USA.


Aftermath of a Georgia Auto Accident: What Should I Do Next?
It's a day like any other day as you climb behind the wheel of your motor vehicle and head out to take your children to school or drive to work when you are suddenly involved in a motor vehicle accident. Last year, almost 34,000 people were killed and another 2.2 million were injured in auto accidents. 1,603 people were involved in fatal accidents in the state of Georgia alone.
Many of us drive with a false sense of security, not realizing there are an average of 6 million car accidents every year.
Automobile accidents are not something one plans on nor do most people know what to do once a vehicle accident occurs. Most people are badly shaken when they are involved in a motor vehicle accident and may be overwhelmed by shock and anxiety. Tragically, a great many Georgia residents inadvertently hurt their chances of being fully compensated following an accident by not taking appropriate steps in the wake of an accident. At Montlick and Associates, Attorneys at Law, we have been helping those injured in Georgia auto accidents for over 39 years.
If you or someone you love is injured or killed in a Georgia motor vehicle accident, it is imperative that you take certain steps to preserve and maximize your claim. At Montlick and Associates, Attorneys at Law, we have sadly witnessed the results when Georgia auto accident victims fail to take measures to protect their ability to bring a claim, as well as protect the value of their claim. Here is a list of just some of the steps that can help you preserve the value of your auto accident case:
Seek Immediate Medical Treatment: Many people involved in accidents do not seek treatment because they do not feel that they have suffered anything more than minor scratches or bruises. Certain types of injuries such as spinal injuries, head and neck injuries, and soft tissue injuries may not become obvious immediately. A delay in medical care can mean that important tests and treatment are not conducted, leading to more serious medical conditions. An accident victim's failure to seek prompt medical treatment may also result in an insurance company's defense attorneys incorrectly claiming that subsequent injuries or symptoms were caused by something other than the auto collision.
Avoid Changes to the Condition of Your Vehicle: Frequently following an accident, the vehicle may be towed away causing the appearance or condition of the vehicle to be altered. If the vehicle must be moved, it should not be moved far. When the vehicle is moved, the appearance or condition of the vehicle can be altered making it difficult to analyze and explain what happened. If the vehicle must be stored or transported, tie-downs should be avoided because they can leave scratches on the vehicle. If the automobile must be stored it should be covered with something like a loose tarp.
Preserve All Parts of the Vehicle: A vehicle involved in a collision may litter the roadway with debris such as tire fragments or parts of the vehicle body. If there are tire parts or other auto wreckage, it should all be collected and preserved as it may offer insight into how the accident occurred.
Collect Evidence at the Accident Scene: It is important for you or, if you are injured, for someone close to you to collect as much evidence as possible at the time of the accident. Pictures of the accident scene and surrounding area as well as the condition of the vehicles immediately following the accident can be very helpful later. Witnesses can also disappear so it is a good idea to the get full names and contact information for witnesses at the scene of the accident.
Get Legal Advice at the Earliest Opportunity: The sooner you contact a qualified Georgia car accident lawyer, the greater the likelihood of a positive outcome in one's auto accident case. An experienced Georgia auto accident attorney will get medical and accident experts involved early while the evidence and injuries are still fresh and before witnesses disappear or their memories fade. An auto accident attorney will also know what information to share with the insurance company.
To watch a two minute news segment featuring Montlick & Associates' Family Safety Advocate talking about steps that you should take after an auto accident, and to get a free auto accident checklist to keep in your car, click here.
Remember, the above is just a partial list- every case is different and you should always get legal advice. If you or someone you love has been involved in an Atlanta car accident or one anywhere in the state of Georgia, the experienced Georgia automobile accident attorneys at Montlick and Associates, Attorneys at Law are prepared to begin investigating the circumstances of your case, and take all actions necessary to protect your rights and get you the compensation you deserve. We are available to assist clients throughout all of Georgia including, but not limited to, Albany, Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Macon, Marietta, Rome, Roswell, Savannah, Smyrna, Valdosta, Warner Robins and all smaller and rural towns in the state. Call us today for your Free Consultation at 1-800-LAW-NEED (1-800-529-6333), or visit us on the web at www.montlick.com. No matter where you are in Georgia, we are just a phone call away.


Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on December 22, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq. On March 6, 2007, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On April 3, 2007, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change
Nasdaq proposes to reestablish a quotation and trading system for securities that are designated by The PORTAL® Market (“PORTAL” or the “PORTAL® Market”) as PORTAL securities.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on Nasdaq's Web site at http://www.nasdaq.com, at Nasdaq's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
Nasdaq currently operates the PORTAL Market for securities that were sold in private placements and are eligible for resale under SEC Rule 144A  adopted under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”). The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) created the PORTAL Market in 1990, simultaneously with the SEC's adoption of Rule 144A, for the purposes of quotation, trading, and trade reporting in securities deemed eligible by the NASD for resale under Rule 144A. Rule 144A provides an exemption from registration under Section 5 of the Securities Act  for resales of privately placed securities to investors that meet the eligibility requirements of being a qualified institutional buyer (“QIB”) under Rule 144A(a)(1), i.e., institutional investors that in the aggregate own or invest on a discretionary basis at least $100 million in securities and broker/dealers that in the aggregate own or invest on a discretionary basis at least $10 million Start Printed Page 23875in securities. The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) can make Rule 144A securities eligible for deposit, book-entry delivery, and other depository services provided that such Rule 144A securities, except in the case of investment grade rated debt, are designated for inclusion in a system of a self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) for the reporting, quoting and trading of Rule 144A securities. An issuer of an investment grade rated debt issue can apply directly to DTC for book-entry services under DTC rules (“Rule 144A investment grade rated debt issues”) and need not also qualify the security as a PORTAL-designated security.
The sole current function of Nasdaq related to the PORTAL Market is to review whether an issue of privately placed securities meets the eligibility requirements of Rule 144A, thereby qualifying the securities for DTC book-entry services. The PORTAL Market, as originally approved by the SEC in 1990, was intended to function as a system that would allow NASD members and QIBs to trade PORTAL-designated securities in a closed system in compliance with SEC Rule 144A. Thus, the PORTAL rules included requirements to qualify NASD members and QIBs as “PORTAL Participants” for qualified NASD members to enter quotations in PORTAL securities and to submit trade reports for PORTAL trades to the PORTAL system for comparison, clearance, and settlement.
These market-related functions in PORTAL securities as originally approved by the SEC in 1990 did not, however, develop as anticipated. In particular, Nasdaq believes that the NASD's adoption of PORTAL rules that imposed trade reporting for all transactions in PORTAL securities, which occurred at a time when no trade reporting requirements applied to privately-placed securities in general, ultimately were not implemented because of: (1) A cumbersome technology for access to the PORTAL Market computer system for reporting purposes, which was a stand-alone computer system; and (2) resistance to the imposition of trade reporting in Rule 144A equity and in both Rule 144A and SEC-registered debt.
In a continuing effort to encourage trade-reporting in PORTAL-designated securities, the NASD obtained SEC approval in 1998 of an interpretation of the definition of the term “ACT Eligible Security” in NASD Rule 6110(a) for the Automated Confirmation Transaction Service (“ACT”)  to include all securities designated as PORTAL securities pursuant to the PORTAL rules to the extent transactions in such PORTAL-designated securities were voluntarily submitted to ACT solely for reconciliation and comparison. In addition, the NASD submitted a letter to the Divisions of Market Regulation and Corporation Finance of the SEC, dated November 16, 1998, advising that the NASD would eliminate the Stratus computer system that supported the PORTAL Market. On January 23, 2001, the SEC approved the establishment of a corporate bond trade reporting and transaction dissemination facility, known as the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine or “TRACE,”  which required trade reporting in most PORTAL designated securities and investment grade debt Rule 144A securities that are DTC eligible.
On March 6, 2001, the SEC approved amendments to the PORTAL rules to require that NASD members submit trade reports of secondary market transactions in PORTAL-designated equity securities through ACT and of most PORTAL-designated debt securities through TRACE. Only trade reporting obligations were imposed with respect to secondary market transactions in PORTAL equity and debt securities.
The use of TRACE and ACT for mandatory trade reporting of secondary market transactions in PORTAL securities was intended to address the technological and cost problems that were associated with the reporting of such trades through the stand-alone PORTAL computer system. The SEC also, as part of the same rule change, approved the elimination of a large number of obsolete provisions in the PORTAL rules, including the registration requirements for NASD members and QIBs to trade in a closed system, rules regulating the quotation and trading of PORTAL securities, and the unsuccessful PORTAL trade reporting requirements.
The Current Trading Environment for PORTAL Securities
The market, trading, and technological environments for PORTAL securities have evolved. As stated previously, mandatory trade reporting applies to almost all PORTAL securities. Today, pursuant to NASD Rule 6700 Series, trade reports in all PORTAL-designated equity securities are submitted to the NASD's OTC Reporting Facility (“OTC Reporting Facility”)  and trade reports in most PORTAL-designated debt securities continue to be submitted to TRACE. There is no public dissemination in any Start Printed Page 23876form of information in trade reports submitted with respect to PORTAL securities and depository-eligible Rule 144A investment grade rated debt issues. NASD provides ongoing surveillance of the trade reports in PORTAL securities that are submitted through the OTC Reporting Facility and TRACE, including trade reports with respect to PORTAL securities and depository-eligible Rule 144A investment grade rated debt issues.
The existence of mandatory trade reporting for most PORTAL securities has led to an increased interest on the part of the securities industry for greater market transparency in PORTAL securities in the form of centralized quotations and last sale trade information. In addition, technological advances now allow a quotation, trade negotiation, and reporting system to be more easily integrated into the existing PORTAL Market structure.
Nasdaq's PORTAL Proposal
Nasdaq is proposing to establish an updated version of the PORTAL Market that was originally envisioned when PORTAL was first approved in 1990. The proposed amendments to the PORTAL rules will: (i) Establish qualification requirements for brokers and dealers that are Nasdaq members and QIBs that wish to access PORTAL; and (ii) implement quotation, trade negotiation and trade reporting functions in the PORTAL Market with respect to PORTAL-designated securities. Most of the proposed amendments were previously approved by the Commission with respect to the earlier attempt by the NASD to establish PORTAL as a closed trading system for Rule 144A securities. Nasdaq's proposed PORTAL system is summarized below.
Security Designation: Nasdaq will continue to qualify “restricted securities,” as that term is defined in SEC Rule 144(a)(3)  and securities that are restricted pursuant to contract or through the terms of the security for designation as PORTAL securities based on, among other things, the security and information requirements for the resale of a security under Rule 144A(d)(3) and (d)(4). Thus, PORTAL securities must not be, or have been when issued, of the same class as securities listed on a national securities exchange or quoted in a U.S. automated inter-dealer quotation system, nor be securities of an open-end investment company, unit investment trust or face-amount certificate company that is or is required to be registered under Section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. With respect to the information requirements under Rule 144A(d)(4), an issuer of a PORTAL-designated security must be subject to reporting under Section 13 of the Act  or Section 15(d) of the Act, a foreign private issuer that is exempt from reporting pursuant to Rule12g3-2(b) under the Act, a foreign government eligible to register securities under Schedule B of the Securities Act, or include disclosure in the private placement memorandum that the issuer agrees to provide to a holder of a Rule 144A security and a prospective purchaser designated by the holder reasonably current information about the issuer's business and financial statements.
As a matter of practice, PORTAL designation is limited to those Rule 144A securities that are initially sold to QIBs by a broker/dealer acting as initial placement agent or initial purchaser. Moreover, Nasdaq will continue to have authority under PORTAL rules to suspend or terminate the designation of a PORTAL security if Nasdaq determines that the security is not in compliance with PORTAL rules, a holder or prospective purchaser that requested information pursuant to Rule 144A(d)(4) did not receive the information, any application or other document relative to such securities submitted to Nasdaq contained an untrue statement of material fact or omitted to state a material fact necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, or failure to withdraw designation of such securities would for any reason be detrimental to the interests and welfare of Nasdaq, Nasdaq members, or investors.
Broker/Dealer Access: Similar to NASD's original PORTAL system approved by the SEC, Nasdaq members that meet the PORTAL qualification requirements will be designated as “PORTAL Dealers” and “PORTAL Brokers.” The purpose of distinguishing between Nasdaq members thatualify as “PORTAL Dealers” and “PORTAL Brokers” is to identify in PORTAL those Nasdaq members that qualify as a QIB under Rule 144A to purchase Rule 144A securities on a principal basis. To qualify as a PORTAL Broker, a Nasdaq member will be required by PORTAL rules to execute a subscriber agreement with PORTAL, be a member of Nasdaq, be qualified to do business as a general securities firm, and agree to comply with the PORTAL rules. Pursuant to Rule 144A(a)(1)(iii), a dealer registered under Section 15 of the Act  is authorized to act as an agent for a QIB on a non-discretionary basis pursuant to Rule 144A or to act in a riskless principal capacity on behalf of a QIB. To qualify as a PORTAL Dealer, a Nasdaq member will be required by PORTAL rules to meet these same requirements and also to demonstrate to the satisfaction of Nasdaq that it is eligible to purchase securities under the financial criteria of SEC Rule 144A. Under Rule 144A(a)(1)(ii), a dealer so registered will qualify as a QIB if the dealer in the aggregate owns and invests on a discretionary basis at least $10 million of securities of issuers that are not affiliated with the dealer and may act for its own account or the accounts of other QIBs. Nasdaq proposes to qualify a Nasdaq member as a PORTAL Dealer based on the member's Audited Financial Statements filed with the SEC pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) under the Act. Nasdaq would annually update its qualification of PORTAL Dealers.
PORTAL Dealers and PORTAL Brokers would be permitted to post anonymous one- or two-sided indicative quotations in PORTAL securities that may be accessed by other PORTAL Dealers and Brokers and QIBs qualified as “PORTAL Qualified Investors.”  In addition, PORTAL Dealers and Brokers will be permitted to negotiate anonymously, execute trades in PORTAL securities, and submit trade reports in PORTAL-negotiated trades that will be forwarded to TRACE and the OTC Reporting Facility for comparison and confirmation.
Investor Access: Like the original PORTAL system approved by the SEC, an institution that executes a subscriber agreement, agrees to comply with the PORTAL rules and meets the $100 million standard of being a QIB under Start Printed Page 23877Rule 144A would be qualified by Nasdaq as a “PORTAL Qualified Investor” to access the PORTAL Market through a password protected linkage and view quotations by PORTAL Dealers and PORTAL Brokers, and confirm transactions where the investor uses a PORTAL Dealer or Broker to execute a trade in PORTAL. In addition, in order to comply with the requirement of Rule 144A(d)(2) that the seller of Rule 144A securities take reasonable steps to ensure that the purchaser is aware that the seller may rely on Rule 144A, the subscriber agreement will include an undertaking that the PORTAL Qualified Investor is aware that it may purchase a PORTAL security from another qualified investor who may rely on an exemption from the provisions of Section 5 of the Securities Act.
Trade Negotiation/Execution: Unlike the original PORTAL system, the reestablished PORTAL system would use electronic negotiation features in order to allow PORTAL Dealers and PORTAL Brokers to negotiate both openly and anonymously and execute trades in PORTAL securities. All quotes in the PORTAL system will be indicative, not firm. Once an anonymous trade is negotiated in the PORTAL system, the identity of the counter-parties will be revealed to each other for purposes of comparison, confirmation, and settlement.
Trade Reporting: Trade reports in reportable PORTAL debt and equity securities will continue to be submitted to the TRACE and the OTC Reporting Facility, respectively. In addition, PORTAL-negotiated trades will be submitted through the PORTAL System to TRACE and the OTC Reporting Facility. Nasdaq also intends to provide the ability to forward PORTAL trades to an appropriate subsidiary of Depositary Trust and Clearing Corporation for settlement.
Dissemination of PORTAL Trade Report Information: All trade report information for trades that are negotiated via the PORTAL system will be disseminated in PORTAL to PORTAL Brokers, Dealers and Qualified Investors (“PORTAL Participants”), but would not include the identity of the parties and, in the case of PORTAL debt, would not aggregate or otherwise follow the dissemination protocols applicable to debt trades reported to TRACE. PORTAL Participants would be prohibited from disclosing any PORTAL Market information, including quotations, transactions and other information displayed in the PORTAL Market (“PORTAL Market Information”), to any party other than another PORTAL Participant. Nasdaq will not disseminate PORTAL Market Information to the public.
Regulatory Surveillance: NASD currently provides and would continue to provide surveillance of the trade reports in PORTAL securities that are submitted through TRACE and the OTC Reporting Facility. Real-Time Surveillance of quoting and trading activity in the PORTAL system will be conducted by Nasdaq's MarketWatch Department.
As part of its original review and approval of a PORTAL trading system, the Commission and its staff granted several exemptions and no-action requests to the NASD as the then-operator of the PORTAL Market and made other related determinations. Nasdaq, through letter requests to be separately submitted to the Commission, will seek the issuance of similar and new exemptions so as to allow the operation of the PORTAL trading system as described in this filing. In summary, Nasdaq is seeking Commission exemptions in the following areas:
SEC Rule 15c2-11: Through a separate letter request, Nasdaq is seeking an exemption from Rule 15c2-11 under the Act  with respect to the gathering and furnishing of the prescribed information by PORTAL Dealers and PORTAL Brokers that intend to publish, or submit for publication, quotations for PORTAL-designated securities through the PORTAL system.
Registration Under Section 12(g) of the Act: Through a separate letter request, Nasdaq is seeking an exemption from the provisions of Section 12(g) of the Act  to permit Nasdaq members and brokers and dealers to trade PORTAL-designated equity securities that are not registered under Section 12(g) of the Act.
Registration Under Section 12(b) of the Act: Through a separate letter request, Nasdaq is seeking an exemption from the provisions of Section 12(a) of the Act  to permit Nasdaq members and brokers and dealers to trade PORTAL securities that are not registered under Section 12(b) of the Act.
R2. Statutory Basis
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, in general and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposal can be expected to enhance the efficiency and transparency of trading Rule 144A securities.
In addition, Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act.  Section 11A(a)(1) articulates the Congressional findings and policy goals and objectives respecting the development of a national market system. Essentially, Congress found that new data processing and communication techniques should be applied to improve the efficiency of market operations, broaden the distribution of market information, enhance opportunities to achieve best execution and promote competition among market participants. That provision stresses the importance of implementing communication enhancements that will advance the efficiency and effectiveness of a securities market in servicing the needs of investors. Currently, the secondary placement market in unregistered securities is a traditional over-the-counter market, in which negotiations are conducted over the phone without the benefit of a quotation or last sale trade information dissemination system. Nasdaq believes that the proposed amendments to the PORTAL Market will provide these benefits and, thus, will enhance the efficiency of the market's operation in Rule 144A-eligible securities.
Rule 144A Under the Securities Act: Because Nasdaq has designed the amendments to the PORTAL Market to facilitate compliance with Rule 144A, Section 6(b)(1) of the Act  also requires a determination as to whether it is reasonably designed to accomplish this purpose. Nasdaq believes that the Start Printed Page 23878PORTAL system is designed to provide that participants who comply with its requirements will also be in compliance with the requirements of Rule 144A, except where information is not provided upon request in compliance with Rule 144A(d)(4).
Rule 144A is available only to institutional investors meeting the definition of “qualified institutional buyer” under Rule 144A(a)(1). A seller is required to form a reasonable belief that a purchaser is a “qualified institutional buyer” as the term is defined in Rule 144A(a)(1). With the exception of broker-dealers, a qualified institutional buyer is required to in the aggregate own and invest on a discretionary basis at least $100 million in securities of non-affiliated issuers. The proposed amendments to the PORTAL rules require that any investor applying to qualify as a PORTAL Qualified Investor meet the Rule 144A standards for qualified institutional buyers.
Rule 144A(d)(2) requires that the seller of 144A securities take reasonable steps to ensure that the purchaser is aware that the seller may rely on Rule 144A. To meet this requirement of Rule 144A, the proposed amendments to the PORTAL rules also provide in the designation requirements for PORTAL Qualified Investors that applicants sign an undertaking in a subscriber agreement that states that they are aware that they may purchase a PORTAL security from another qualified investor who may rely on an exemption from the provisions of Section 5 of the Securities Act  pursuant to Rule 144A.
The PORTAL rules also have current eligibility requirements for admitting securities into the PORTAL system that parallel the Rule 144A eligibility requirements for securities. The PORTAL rules require, therefore, that the security be eligible to be sold pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act. The application for designation of a PORTAL security requires the submission of specific information necessary to support the applicant's claim that the security meets the requirements of Rule 144A. In addition, the current PORTAL Rules provide Nasdaq with the authority to request any additional information that Nasdaq believes is necessary to make a determination of whether a security is eligible under Rule 144A.
Furthermore, Rule 144A conditions the eligibility of certain securities under Rule 144A on certain information being available to holders and prospective purchasers. Rule 144A(d)(4) provides that, with respect to securities of an issuer that is neither subject to Section 13 of the Act  nor Section 15(d) of the Act, nor exempt from reporting pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Act, nor a foreign government eligible to register securities under Schedule B of the Securities Act, the holder and a prospective purchaser designated by the holder must have the right to obtain from the issuer, upon request of the holder, and the purchaser must have received at or prior to the time of sale, upon such purchaser's request to the holder, certain information about the issuer. Because the PORTAL rules currently require that a security meet the Rule 144A security eligibility requirements and that the issuer undertake to provide the information required by Rule 144A(d)(4), where applicable, Nasdaq must, as part of the PORTAL security designation process, assess whether the issuer is required to provide such information to holders and prospective purchasers.
In addition to structuring the PORTAL rules to provide that participants who comply with its requirements also are in compliance with the requirements of Rule 144A, the proposed rule change would structure PORTAL to limit the possibility that unregistered securities enter the U.S. retail market by requiring that PORTAL-designated securities be assigned a CUSIP or CINS security identification number that is different than the identification number assigned to any securities of the same class that do not satisfy the eligibility requirements for PORTAL securities. Since the original approval of the PORTAL Market, the security explanation protocol employed by S&P related to the CUSIP number assigned to PORTAL securities specifically distinguishes those securities from all other publicly-traded and restricted securities by using the words “Rule 144A” and “PORTAL.” For these reasons, Nasdaq believes that the PORTAL system, as proposed, is reasonably designed to facilitate compliance with Rule 144A, so long as there is compliance with the PORTAL rules and procedures, except where information is not provided on request pursuant to Rule 144A(d)(4).
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to which Nasdaq consents, the Commission will:
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
- Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
- Send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-065 on the subject line.
- Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-065. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements Start Printed Page 23879with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Nasdaq. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2006-065 and should be submitted on or before May 22, 2007.Start Signature
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
3. Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing in its entirety.Back to Citation
4. Amendment No. 2 was filed and withdrawn on April 3, 2007.Back to Citation
6. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27956 (April 27, 1990), 55 FR 18781 (May 4, 1990) (SR-NASD-88-23). The PORTAL Rules were subsequently amended. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 28678 (December 6, 1990), 55 FR 51194 (December 12, 1990) (SR-NASD-90-50); 33326 (December 13, 1993), 58 FR 66388 (December 20, 1993) (SR-NASD-91-5); 34562 (August 19, 1994), 59 FR 44210 (August 26, 1994) (SR-NASD-94-39); 35083 (December 12, 1994), 59 FR 65104 (December 16, 1994) (SR-NASD-94-65); 40424 (September 10, 1998), 63 FR 49623 (September 16, 1998) (SR-NASD-98-68); 43873 (January 23, 2001), 66 FR 8131 (January 29, 2001) (SR-NASD-99-65); 44042 (March 6, 2001), 66 FR 14969 (March 14, 2001) (SR-NASD-99-66); NASD Notice to Members 01-19 (March 2001) (the “2001 PORTAL rule filing”).Back to Citation
7. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27928 (April 23, 1990), 55 FR 17933 (April 30, 1990).Back to Citation
10. Investment grade rated debt includes nonconvertible debt securities and nonconvertible preferred stock that are rated in one of the top four generic rating categories by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.Back to Citation
11. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 33327 (December 13, 1993), 58 FR 67878 (December 22, 1993) (SR-DTC-90-06).Back to Citation
12. Nasdaq staff historically had responsibility for review of PORTAL Market applications to determine the eligibility of securities and, originally, PORTAL Participants (including broker/dealers and investors). Upon the separation of Nasdaq from the NASD and the approval of Nasdaq as a registered national securities exchange under Section 6 of the Act, the review functions for PORTAL Market eligibility were retained by Nasdaq, and the PORTAL Market rules in the NASD Rule 5300 Series became the Nasdaq Rule 6500 Series. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006).Back to Citation
13. ACT is a system owned and operated by Nasdaq that accommodates reporting and dissemination of last sale reports for secondary market transactions in equity securities and can provide automated comparison and confirmation services and can forward confirmed trades to DTC for settlement. The OTC Trade Reporting Facility provides the same functions for reporting trades in PORTAL equity securities as previously performed by ACT.Back to Citation
14. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40424 (September 10, 1998), 63 FR 49623 (September 16, 1998) (SR-NASD-98-68).Back to Citation
15. TRACE is a system operated by the NASD that facilitates the mandatory reporting of over-the-counter secondary market transactions in eligible fixed income securities. See NASD Rule 6200 Series.Back to Citation
16. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43873 (January 23, 2001), 66 FR 8131 (January 29, 2001) (and related NASD Notice to Members 01-18 (March 2001)). Other changes were subsequently made to the TRACE rules. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 48056 (June 18, 2003), 68 FR 37886 (June 25, 2003) (SR-NASD-2003-78) (and related NASD Notice to Members 03-36 (June 2003)); 48305 (August 8, 2003), 68 FR 48656 (August 14, 2003) (SR-NASD-2003-99) (and related NASD Notice to Members 03-45 (August 2003)); 49854 (June 14, 2004), 69 FR 35088 (June 23, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-57) (and related NASD Notice to Members 04-51 (July 2004)); 50317 (September 3, 2004), 69 FR 55202 (September 13, 2004) (SR-NASD-2004-94) (and related NASD Notice to Members 04-65 (September 2004)); 50977 (January 6, 2005), 70 FR 2202 (January 12, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-189) (and related NASD Notice to Members 05-05 (January 2005)); 51611 (April 26, 2005), 70 FR 22735 (May 2, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-026) (and related NASD Notice to Members 05-37 (May 2005)); 52183 (August 1, 2005), 70 FR 46239 (August 9, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-63) (and related NASD Notice to Members 05-52 (August 2005)); 53031 (December 28, 2005), 71 FR 634 (January 5, 2006) (SR-NASD-2005-120) (and related NASD Notice to Members 06-01 (January 2006)).Back to Citation
17. See supra, note 6, the 2001 PORTAL rule filing.Back to Citation
18. A limited number of PORTAL debt securities are not subject to trade reporting to TRACE, e.g., mortgage or asset backed securities, collateralized mortgage obligations, money market instruments, and municipal and municipal-derivative securities.Back to Citation
19. In another rule change, the NASD amended the Uniform Practice Code to apply to re-sales of restricted securities as defined in Rule 144(a)(3) under the Securities Act. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38491 (April 9, 1997), 62 FR 18665 (April 16, 1997) (SR-NASD-97-06); see also Section 11100(a) of the NASD Uniform Practice Code.Back to Citation
20. See NASD Rule 6600 Series.Back to Citation
26. Current Rule 6522(a)(4) requires that a PORTAL security be assigned a CUSIP number that is different than the identification number assigned to any unrestricted securities of the same class. As a matter of practice by PORTAL and Standard & Poor's (“S&P”), the CUSIP number assigned to those securities that are initially sold to QIBs pursuant to Rule 144A is different than the CUSIP numbers assigned to those securities that are part of the same offering that are sold to accredited investors pursuant to SEC Regulation D and to non-U.S. investors under SEC Regulation S. Thus, PORTAL-designation is limited to those securities that have initially been sold to QIBs. Nasdaq is proposing to amend this rule, which will be renumbered Rule 6502(b)(1)(D), to reflect this policy.Back to Citation
29. The SEC noted that pursuant to Rule 144A, broker/dealers are permitted to enter quotations in an inter-dealer quotation system so long as the offer is made to QIBs or persons whom dealers reasonably believe to be QIBs. See supra, note 6, the 2001 PORTAL rule filing.Back to Citation
31. Trade report information on Rule 144A investment grade debt that is not a PORTAL security would not be disseminated in PORTAL. To the extent that Nasdaq members desire to quote, execute, and view trade report information on any Rule 144A investment grade debt security in PORTAL, the security must be qualified as a PORTAL security.Back to Citation
34. Id.Back to Citation
41. Section 6(b)(1) of the Act requires that Nasdaq, as a national securities exchange, be so organized and have the capacity to enforce compliance with, among other things, the federal securities laws. See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).Back to Citation
43. See Nasdaq Rules 6521(a) and 6522(a)(5).Back to Citation
[FR Doc. E7-8252 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


The video is no longer available.
Try searching our site
Several Middle School Employees Require Treatment By Fire RescueCBS Miami's Eliott Rodriguez reports on several Miami Springs Middle School employees requiring treatment after being overcome by something.
Flooded Vehicles From Hurricane Harvey Hitting Resale MarketCBS Miami's Omar Villafranca reports on the thousands of cars damaged by flooding thanks to Hurricane Harvey.
Protests Already Beginning In Gainesville Ahead Of Thursday's Visit By White NationalistCBS Miami's Eliott Rodriguez reports on the protests already going on in Gainesville ahead of a visit by white nationalist Richard Spencer.
School District Employee Arrested, Accused Of Molesting Teen BoyCBS Miami's Ted Scouten reports on a school district employee that has been arrested and charged with molesting a teen boy at a Coral Springs school.
Attorney For Convicted Murderer Cid Torrez Says Client Not Competent For SentencingCBS Miami's Eliott Rodriguez reports on the convicted murderer's lawyer arguing that Torrez is not mentally competent to be sentenced.
Man Shot, Killed Overnight In Opa-lockaCBS Miami's Rielle Creighton reports on the search for two men police say shot and killed a father of seven in front of his daughter and grandchild.


INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
I.U.O.E. LOCAL 95
300 Saline Street.
Our Training Moves The World!!!
CCAC WEST HILLS
1000 McKee Rd, Oakdale, PA 15071
Click bus to check for cancellations
All class cancellations follow the CCAC schedule
I.U.O.E. Local 95 Training Fund
COURSE LICENSE APPROVAL
The City has instituted a licensing renewal policy that states all classes must be taken prior to 1 year of your expiration date, and classes taken fall must with in that date range.
if your license expires on 3-15-19, there is a 365 day look back period, all classes should be taken from 3-16-18 to 3-15-19. If classes were taken prior to 3-16-18, they would not be valid for the license renewal.


Sélecteur de langues
Cecilia Malmström European Commissioner responsible for Home Affairs A need for strong European leadership to combat discrimination ILGA-Europe Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people in Europe 2011 Brussels, 15 May 2012
Commission Européenne - SPEECH/12/358 15/05/2012
Autres langues disponibles: aucune
European Commissioner responsible for Home Affairs
A need for strong European leadership to combat discrimination
ILGA-Europe Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex people in Europe 2011
Brussels, 15 May 2012
Introduction: A "lack of political leadership"
I am very honoured to be here today to speak at this event where the first annual report on the human rights situation for LGBTI people in Europe is being launched.
And I am really looking forward to taking part in the discussions here today.
But first, I would like to say a few words about the current situation in Europe. I will start with the help of last year's Nobel laureate in literature, Tomas Tranströmer:
"The truth is there on the ground
but nobody dares take it.
The truth lies on the street.
Nobody makes it his own."
For me, these words, these few short sentences, describe what is happening in Europe right now.
I have been in European politics for many years, as a Member of the European Parliament, as Minister of EU Affairs in Sweden and now as European Commissioner. I have seen governments come and go and I have seen new policies take shape and be put into practice. But what I have witnessed over the last couple of years makes me extremely worried.
We see governments in some Member States being held hostage by nationalistic and xenophobic parties. We see a trend towards nationalism and we hear talk of closing borders. We see media freedom being threatened within the EU. We hear homophobic speeches and hear about violence against LGBTI people.
In short, what we are witnessing is not the development of a more open and tolerant society. It is rather the opposite.
Different scapegoats get the blame for this trend. It's blamed on the economic crisis or on migrants coming to Europe in the hope of building a better life for themselves. Or it's all the fault of policies cooked up by Eurocrats in Brussels.
But, for me, this blaming is not the essence of the problem.
The real reason for this development is the lack of people standing up to it. And there is a lack of political leadership.
"The truth is there on the ground but nobody dares take it."
There is a lack of courage, a lack of commitment and a failure to take our values seriously. This holds true for politicians, governments, companies, but also for ordinary citizens. Far too many of us decide not to stand up for our beliefs but to look the other way.
Easy solutions seem to be dominating most of the political agendas in EU countries today. I have noticed this when it comes to migration policy, which is the area I am responsible for in the European Commission.
But you can find this in many other political areas, and especially when it comes to fundamental rights.
In time of crisis, who has the time to stand up for fundamental rights?
"The truth lies on the street. Nobody makes it his own."
Take the example of women's rights in the Arab world after the Arab Spring: women were part of the protests and the fantastic democratic revolution. But as soon as the situation calmed down, women's rights were forgotten. Women are still being treated in a humiliating way and are not fairly represented in the political parties.
How far have we come today in 2012?
But let us return to Europe and to the growing nationalism, xenophobia and intolerance. What does this mean for gay people?
Well, the consequences are plain for all to see. Pride festivals are being disrupted, gay people are falling victim to hate crime. Gay people are discriminated against and are victims of other forms of intolerance.
A serious example is what occurred in the Czech Republic with “phallometric testing” being used during asylum procedures in some cases. It was a practice that consisted of testing the physical reaction to heterosexual pornographic material of gay men who had filed a claim for asylum on the basis that they had been persecuted for their sexual orientation.
This was medieval in its method and a huge violation of the individual’s right to privacy. As soon as we found out about the existence of this practice, we contacted the Czech authorities and, in May last year, we received an official confirmation that the practice was no longer in use.
Within the EU, there are still several Member States that don’t acknowledge same-sex marriages.
I come from Sweden, which in many respects is considered to be a very progressive, liberal and tolerant society. It is also a society where a good friend's boyfriend walking back late at night from a nightclub was severely beaten - unprovoked.
Of course the perpetrators claimed it was not unprovoked, but the truth is that they were only provoked by the fact that this man was openly gay.
It's getting better
We have still a long way to go before we can claim to be living in a tolerant Europe – a Europe where equal rights are fully respected, both in theory and in practice.
But we must not forget that European Union membership has contributed to improving the situation for LGBTI people around Europe - and that progress has been made.
The Copenhagen criteria require applicant countries to pay full respect to human rights, and the Union has also made clear that human rights apply to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
As a result of this, all candidate countries and states applying for membership have abolished legislation banning homosexuality. And I have heard that there are positive developments in the Balkans.
There are other small signs of positive developments when it comes to gender identity recognition at national level. And if we look outside Europe, I don't think that any of you could have missed the clear and very important signal Obama sent last week.
So some things are getting better. But we must not stop here.
What more needs to be done?
I have already mentioned that we need more and stronger political leadership. But what does that mean?
To me it means that we must first identify and recognise that fear and ignorance are at the root of many people's intolerance. But then we have to show leadership by showing we are not afraid to challenge those fears and to find solutions to the problems that exist.
And what is essential in all this is that these solutions are based on fundamental principles and values such as freedom, democracy, respect for human rights, openness and tolerance.
In Europe, this should not be too difficult. We have treaties signed and ratified by all Member States. And the treaties could not be clearer: they all stipulate that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is to be banned!
That means that all 27 EU Member States are obliged to live up to these rules and principles and that their political leaders also have a responsibility to set a good example for the rest of the world when it comes to the respect for sexual minorities and the fight against discrimination.
As guardian of the treaties, the Commission is strongly committed to combating discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and making sure that these treaties are enforced.
At the EU level, the Employment Equality Directive adopted in 2000 prohibits discrimination in the workplace. And we are working to complete the EU legal framework against discrimination.
We are cooperating with Member States on public policies combating discrimination and promoting equality through an exchange of good practices and seminars on mainstreaming LGBTI dimensions in different areas.
In my portfolio, Home Affairs, we have reinforced Member States' obligation to consider gender as a possible source of persecution.
We have also included provisions in the asylum package directives that we are now negotiating and which are aimed at increasing the protection afforded to asylum seekers who have gender-related claims.
The directives stress that Member States should implement the EU rules without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
And having a same-sex spouse should not constitute a barrier to family reunification.
The Commission has also asked the Fundamental Rights Agency to conduct a survey to obtain a complete picture on the discrimination, hate speech and hate crime against LGBTI people in all EU Member States.
I suspect that the results of the survey will make it obvious that we also need a comprehensive strategy within the EU to be able to really address the problems and improve the situation.
Political leadership not enough
So, at the European level we are trying to make sure that laws do not discriminate against LGTBI people and we are supporting seminars, workshops and facilitating best practices.
But the situation will not be improved merely with political leadership, laws, seminars or workshops.
An extremely important role must be played by a vigilant civil society. NGOs, political parties and governments have an important role to play in trying to change attitudes in favour of tolerance and a respect for sexual minorities.
Nowadays you can easily launch campaigns on Twitter, Facebook etc. But it is important that there are not only campaigns but also real people behind the webpages, supporting projects on the ground. Working with young people must be a particular priority.
But non-discriminatory laws, best practices, seminars, a vigilant civil society - will not be enough either.
Homophobia runs so much deeper. Homophobia is a negative attitude and feeling towards LGBTI people. How can we really influence people's attitudes and feelings?
We all have a part to play.
We all have a responsibility to shoulder.
We must all remain vigilant.
We must all make sure that no matter where negative words are uttered and no matter by whom - whether it be a cherished family member, a great colleague or a good friend – that these negative words do not go unquestioned.
I think you know the kind of situations I am thinking of. It could be a derogatory phrase used by a friend at a dinner you are hosting.
But in order not to alter the happy atmosphere in the room, perhaps you just nod and try to change the subject? But this is exactly when we must interfere and ask the uncomfortable questions: what does your good friend really mean?
I have witnessed the power of good people, I have seen what can be done when we come together to make a change for the better. Walking in the Pride parade in Warsaw some years ago, I was filled with hope. We can make a change in the world. We can build a more tolerant and open society.
As a Commissioner I promise that I will remain vigilant and never silent. I will stand up and question injustice wherever I come across it. I am sure that you all will do the same.
To come back to the words of Tomas Tranströmer again:
"The truth is there on the ground
but nobody dares take it.
The truth lies on the street.
Nobody makes it his own."
We must all pick up the truth and make it our own!
Thank you for your attention!


This post will be one in a series I am planning to write about how socialist1 and ultimately communist2 ideas could provide answers to basic concepts in society; in other words this week, I will talk about what in practice would the rule of law look like in a socialist society. I will use concepts I come across in my study Criminology and Psychology and connect them to a socialist viewpoint and compare it to the current situation in the world.
What is the rule of law?
To start unpacking this question I will start with explaining what the rule of law is. The rule of law is the principle that society should be governed by predictable laws that are enforced fairly and that nobody is above the law (Bloom, 2019, p.1). A socialist society is based on a democratically planned economy characterised by public ownership of the means of production. A short explanation of what this means in practical terms you can read in this article by Hannah Sell, General Secretary of the Socialist Party of England and Wales.
At the moment, under a capitalist for profit system the rule of law is everything but equally applied to all. The most powerful in society which often are also the richest are the people defining the law, executing it and also occupy the seats in the judiciary. Legal philosopher Lon Fuller thought of 8 principles which can test ‘the inner morality of the law’ as he put it (Fuller, 1969) as cited in the Open University (2019, p. 5-6). These 8 principles are:
- There must be laws – if there are no laws society could not be governed.
- People need to understand what the laws are.
- When laws are made, they should only apply from the time they are made, not retrospectively.
- In order to meet the demands of the law, it must be clear what a person can or cannot do.
- The set of laws must be internally consistent – for example a person should not simultaneously be forbidden from earning money and be required to pay a fine.
- It has to be possible for a person to obey the law.
- The law must not change too much.
- Laws must be implemented as they are written (there must be ‘due process’) – there must be an impartial process to determine guilt and what has to happen as a result according to the law.
These principles can also test a system to see if it is governed by the rule of law. That being said, it is in many states the case that the law is unjust and even a whole system of laws are unjust, like in the case of ‘apartheid’ in South Africa (Bloom, 2019, p. 17). It can be argued that the rule of law can never be just in a capitalist system which is run in the interest of a few by exploiting the many. In a socialist society the situation would be very different. Socialism is based on equality and to develop society for everyone to be the best of their ability. There would be no profit to be made, production would be to meet the need of society and to the best quality possible. Every aspect of life would be approached to reach the best possible result for everyone.
Social murder – social injustice
Friedrich Engels (1845) wrote in his first book ‘The condition of the working class in England’ about the concept of social murder, which he argued is the result of the conditions in which people are forced to live resulting in inevitable premature death – social murder by the state. If you think about this in relation to the rule of law, a similar situation can be noted. If the power to occupy the seats of the 3 branches of law – legislative (people writing the law), executive (people executing the law), and judicial (people deciding upon disagreements in the law) lie largely by a small, rich and powerful group in society, it is not very likely the law will be just and equally applied to all. So to convert it to Engels example, the working class are forced to live in conditions which disadvantage them to have the law applied fairly, simply because the poorest, least powerful don’t usually occupy seats in those 3 branches of the law. And additionally, this also means that the most powerful in society often don’t get prosecuted, or held to account by the law, and even get away with murder. Actually, it is likely that those with the power to create the law, will do so in their own interest.
Working class rule
In a socialist society I can imagine that everything, including the rule of law are subjected to the scrutiny of the people, and that the people will collectively debate them and vote for or against them. The working class will rule and every position of power is subjected to immediate recall and mandatory reselection on the basis of collective democratic debate, amendments and discussion. Every workplace and community will have committees in which everyone can take part, and who will elect representatives who will go to regional and national congresses where decisions will be made through democratic votes. The representatives will vote according to what their committee has democratically decided on. So law will be made this way, and the three pillars of the rule of law, legislative, executive and judicial will be organised like this too. Judges will be replaced by justice committees, lawyers will be replaced by advocacy committees and their members will be democratically elected on expertise and experience by the community and be subjected to immediate recall and mandatory reselection.
Criminal law has long been used by the state to control its population, especially its poorest and most disadvantaged citizens argues Hall (et al., 1978) as cited in the Open University (2019, p. 134). But when the state is run by the working class and society is no longer dominated by a capitalist, for profit economy but run in the interest and to the benefit of the people according to their needs, every aspect of life will change, including the rule of law. People will no longer have to compete for the necessities of life or for work. People will only be required to work 3 or 4 days a week and have more time for family, hobbies and study. More emphasis will lie on enhancing everybody’s life and immediately living standards will be raised. And as lots of research shows, poverty and inequality are the main drivers of crime. As Messner and Rosenfeld (2013: 4) observe, ‘Whether we look at official statistics on arrest and incarceration, self-report studies of criminal offending, or surveys of crime victims, the same pattern emerges: lower socioeconomic status is associated with greater involvement with the criminal justice system, higher rates of criminal offending, and higher rates of various forms of victimization as cited in Newburn (2016).
In the process of realising a socialist society the biggest threats are posed by corruption and counter revolutionary elements in the first phases of the socialist revolution. ‘Although the [German] workers cannot come to power and achieve the realization of their class interests without passing through a protracted revolutionary development.. Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent Revolution‘ (Marx, K. and Engels, F., 1840) as cited in Blain (2006). This concept of permanent revolution is key, as people need constant education on how to maintain a successful society in the interests of the working class, and a socialist revolution can only be successful if it is international.
Yes, it certainly is hard work, and no easy shortcuts can be made to achieve it. Human beings always try to take the way of least resistance, hence why first all other options need to be tried and tested out, before the road to socialism will be taken.
Bloom, T. (2019) ‘Contesting the rule of law’, in Bloom et al. Introduction to Criminology 1, Milton Keynes, The Open University, pp. 1-127.
Engels, F. (1845) The Condition of the Working Class in England, Oxford, Oxford University Press (this edition 2009).
Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clark, J., and Roberts, B. (1978) Policing the Crisis, London, Macmillan.
Newburn, T. (2016) ‘Social Disadvantage, Crime and Punishment’ [Online] Available at: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68133/1/Newburn_Social%20Disadvantage%20and%20Crime.pdf (Accessed 21/01/2021).
Blain, A. (2006) ‘Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League’ [Online] Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm (Accessed 21/01/2021).
1) Socialism is the pre-stage of communism which can be achieved using the Transitional Program (Trotsky L., 1938) after the taking of power and control over the means of production by the working class through revolution. It is not possible to achieve socialism in one single state, so in its core it is internationalist. When I write about socialism/communism I refer to the ideas of Marx K. (1818), Engels F. (1820), Trotsky L. (1879), and Lenin V. (1870).
2) Communism is the ultimate dictatorship of the working class in which a democratically planned economy based on the public ownership of the means of production is established and the highest form of living standards for its people is achieved. Communism is only achievable after a socialist state is established and is at its core internationalist.
One thought on “What would the rule of law look like in a socialist society?”
Having read your four blogs on the law and socialism in reverse order, I am very impressed. Are you studying law or a qualified practitioner? I noticed a few references to the Open University. I wrote a book about 5 years ago entitled ‘Faith Without Religion’ (Can be found on Amazon but easier if you include my name, Derek Marsdon). This was basically a book about Marxism as a belief system – not a religion! Taking my cue from the Old Testament it included a Book of Law. I think it is a good and informative read, but there was a lot missing in my research. I therefore followed it up with a second, smaller book at the end of last year called ‘Knocking Down the Law’, which aims to be a Marxist interpretation of the law and how it could be implemented under socialism. It too is available from Amazon and I would appreciate your views on both books. Will there be a fifth in your series? I hope so. I also have a website called Scientific Socialism from Weebly if you are interested.


The FDA put women at risk by lowering the standard of care for treating pregnant mothers when it relaxed its own rules for chemical abortion drugs in 2016 and 2021, Heartbeat International argued to the U.S. Supreme Court this week.
Heartbeat, the largest network of pregnancy help organizations in the U.S. and globally, argued that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s actions have increased the risk of medical complications and harm to the physical and mental health of women, as well as creating greater risk for coerced or forced abortions, due to the lack of medical oversight with chemical abortion pills and pervasive availability of the drugs.
Heartbeat, represented by the Thomas More Society, filed an amicus brief Feb. 29, asking the Supreme Court to affirm the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling from Aug. 16, 2023, that the FDA must reinstate safeguards for chemical abortion drugs and prohibit their shipment by mail. Heartbeat asked the Court to remand the U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case for further proceedings.
In FDA v. AHM a group of pro-life doctors and organizations challenge the FDA's decision to remove key health and safety measures from the prescribing requirements for chemical abortions. The Supreme Court will decide whether the FDA violated the Administrative Procedures Act when it changed the REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies) for the chemical abortion regimen.
The chemical abortion regimen consists of two drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, the first drug working to block progesterone in a pregnant woman’s system, starving her unborn child of nutrients, and the second drug causing her to go into labor and deliver her presumably deceased child.
The scenario with chemical abortion drugs has become even more risky with the FDA loosening safety standards in 2016 to increase the maximum gestational age for mifepristone use from seven weeks to 10, allow non-physicians to prescribe and administer the drug, remove the requirement that misoprostol be administered in person on day 3 of the regimen, remove the requirement that the patient be seen 14 days later to check for complications, and remove a requirement to report non-fatal adverse events.
The FDA then further relaxed the rules for mifepristone in 2021, citing the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that it would allow “dispensing of mifepristone through the mail . . . or through a mail-order pharmacy.” Pro-life advocates say this latter development is ripe for abuse through the forcing or coercing of unwanted abortions upon women.
“The FDA has determined, with no explanation, that it is safe to prescribe chemical abortion drugs to women even though their pregnancies might be unconfirmed, suboptimally dated, or dangerous ectopic pregnancies for which the drugs are contraindicated,” said Heartbeat International General Counsel Danielle White. “In doing so, it ignored the devastating risks of the chemical abortion drugs falling into the hands of bad actors, who could take the life of a woman’s unborn child through coercion, force, or deception, leaving her with a lifetime of emotional trauma.”
The Fifth Circuit’s August 2023 ruling had prohibited abortion providers from sending chemical abortion drugs through the mail, which the FDA had been permitting since 2021 in violation of longtime federal law.
The Fifth Circuit had also held that the FDA’s 2016 action of extending the allowable gestational age for taking chemical abortion drugs, removing two of the three required doctor’s office visits, allowing non-doctors to prescribe the chemical abortion drug regimen, and eliminating the requirement that providers report non-fatal adverse events to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and upheld the district court’s decision reinstating the original 2000 safeguards.
Attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a brief with the Supreme Court Feb. 22, also asking it to hold the FDA accountable for unlawfully removing the safeguards for mifepristone. ADF is representing the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in the case, and in its Feb. 22, brief had asked the Court to affirm the Fifth Circuit’s decision as well.
Heartbeat argued in its Feb. 29 brief that the FDA’s allowing for dispensing via mail violates the Comstock Act, which bans interstate mailing and shipping of abortion-inducing drugs, and this, coupled with removing the in-person dispensing requirement override protections that many states have put in place to protect unborn lives. These state protections were recognized as valid even under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Heartbeat said in its brief. And further, the FDA’s actions also conflict with the return of the abortion issue to the people signaled by the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
"The FDA does not enjoy broad discretion to remove health and safety protections on a whim. The law requires the FDA to ensure that its decisions are backed by sufficient information to show that a drug is safe for use in accordance with the proposed labeling,” White said. “The FDA removed the requirement for a woman to be seen by a medical professional less than one year after arguing in court that the very same requirement was "minimally burdensome" and "necessary" to protect a woman's health.”
In its brief to the Supreme Court, Heartbeat argues against the FDA’s premise for its actions that pregnancy is an illness to be cured as flawed.
Heartbeat warns against women being put at risk with the use of “telehealth” to obtain a chemical abortion without ever being examined by a medical provider.
From the brief:
“The FDA’s actions … enable abortion-providers to rush a woman through the chemical abortion process, creating a risk to women of psychological and emotional injury if they later suffer abortion regret. Moreover, these new regulations increase the risk of physical harm to women through such potential problems as the prescriber incorrectly determining the unborn child’s gestational age or failing to identify an ectopic pregnancy or other complication. Moreover, there is a documented risk for medical errors if the mother presents for post-administration treatment from an emergency department or other provider who was not involved in prescribing of mifepristone.”
“Heartbeat is uniquely positioned to provide relevant factual background on the impact of removing certain safety safeguards for mifepristone and misoprostol,” the brief states, due to its operation of the Abortion Pill Rescue Network, a network of more than 1,400 healthcare professionals, pregnancy centers and hospitals the hotline for which answers more than 150 calls per month from women in the midst of a chemical abortion who regret their abortion decision and are seeking to carry their pregnancies to term.
Noting that the number of women receiving ultrasounds prior to beginning a chemical abortion has dropped precipitously in the time since the FDA’s relaxing of safety protocols with chemical abortion, Heartbeat said this represents a significant risk to women’s health and safety.
When Heartbeat began operating the Abortion Pill Rescue Network in 2018, nearly 100% of contacts to the Network reported having received an ultrasound prior to beginning their chemical abortion. By 2023, that percentage had plummeted to 62%.
Ultrasound is critical prior to a chemical abortion for at least three reasons, Heartbeat points out in the brief, to determine the viability of the pregnancy, to determine the gestational age of the unborn child, and to determine the placement of the pregnancy.
The result of removing the in-person visit requirement and thus ultrasound screening prior to prescribing chemical abortion drugs is an increased risk for complications, Heartbeat said.
Underscoring the risk related to the removal of the requirement to report non-fatal adverse events associated with chemical abortions, the brief states:
“From September 2000 to December 2022, 32 women’s deaths were reported as “adverse events” to the FDA, and until the FDA stopped requiring the reporting on non-fatal adverse events in 2016, documents show a total of 4,218 adverse events, including 1,049 hospitalizations (excluding deaths), 604 cases of blood loss requiring transfusions, 97 ectopic pregnancies, and 418 infections (75 of them “severe”).”
Heartbeat argues that with chemical abortion drugs more freely available than ever, there is significant risk to women’s health and safety.
In 2020, only 1% of Abortion Pill Rescue Network contacts reported receiving the chemical abortion drugs from the Internet, friends, or family. However, by 2023, that number rose to a staggering 22% of contacts to the APRN.
“The actions of the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 and 2021 lower the standard of care for women and increase the likelihood of health complications to pregnant mothers who have an abortion, despite what protections state law might otherwise have provided,” the brief states.
“The FDA's actions give the lie to the notion that abortion was ever about healthcare or a decision between a woman and her doctor,” White said. “Now, a non-physician can prescribe chemical pills to a patient he or she has never seen who carries the burden of accurately self-diagnosing and dating her own pregnancy without any medical confirmation whatsoever.”
“This is nonsensical and careless and should not pass for "health care," said White. “Women deserve better.”
Tweet This: “The FDA's actions give the lie to the notion that abortion was ever about healthcare or a decision between a woman and her doctor.”
The case is set for a hearing at the Supreme Court on March 26.
Editor's note: Heartbeat International manages the Abortion Pill Rescue® Network (APRN) and Pregnancy Help News.


20 November 2018
JOHOR BARU: Eight people, including four teenagers, were charged with the murder of a 21-year-old at a school in Skudai last week.
Lim Zhi Hao, 23, Ko Boon Hao, 20, Lim Chin Hoang, 18, and Wong Jiunn Woei, 18, were joined by four youngsters aged between 15 and 17.
All eight accused were alleged to have killed Chia Min Yong at SJK(C) Kuo Kuang 1, Taman Ungku Tun Aminah, Skudai, at about 12.30pm on Nov 11.
The charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code carries the mandatory death penalty.
No plea was recorded before magistrate Azureen Sahira Saufee Afandi yesterday.
Chin Hoang was also charged under Section 324 of the same Act with causing hurt to a 15-year-old during the brawl. He claimed trial.
At another magistrate’s court, six people were charged under Section 148 of the Penal Code with possession of dangerous weapons during a riot.
All the accused – Tay Boon Long and Ooi Boon Jet, both 18, along with four others, aged between 14 and 15 – pleaded not guilty.
18 November 2018
12 November 2018
Police arrest 14 suspects for gang-related murder at school charity carnival
Monday, 12 Nov 2018
JOHOR BARU: Police have arrested 14 suspects, mostly youths, to help with investigations into the murder of a young man during a brawl at a school in Skudai, Johor, near here.
The murdered victim has been identified as metal workshop worker Chia Min Yong, aged 21.
He died during a fight with a rival group when he went to a charity carnival organised by the school here at around 12.30pm on Sunday (Nov 11).
Johor CID chief Senior Asst Comm Kamaluddin Kassim said the suspects were aged between 14 and 23. Police arrested them in and around the school compound on the day of the incident.
“All of the suspects belong to two different gangs and this might be the reason behind the brawl, which led to the murder.
“We also remanded the other victim, who sustained injuries from the attack, to assist with the ongoing investigations,” he said when contacted here on Monday (Nov 12).
SAC Kamaluddin added all of the suspects would be remanded for seven days until Nov 18.
Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/11/12/police-arrest-14-suspects-for-gangrelated-murder-at-school-charity-carnival/#7x9G0ryVYEH4zADE.99
11 November 2018
JOHOR BARU: A teenager was killed while another suffered serious injuries during a brazen attack in broad daylight at a school in Skudai here.
The incident happened at around 1pm on Sunday during a carnival at SJKC Kuo Kuang 1 where the victims were former students.
One of the victims, aged 21, died due to serious slash wounds while another victim, 15, is in critical condition and has been sent to Sultanah Aminah Hospital here.
Deputy Education Minister Teo Nie Ching has just arrived at the scene of the crime where she is meeting with the school authorities and the police including Johor Baru North OCPD Asst Comm Mohd Taib Ahmad.
The matter is currently under investigation and 12 suspects have been detained.
Police are still looking for the murder weapons.


Investment Adviser Fined $1.4 Million For Failure To Disclose SPAC Conflicts
On May 31, 2023, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) fined a New York investment adviser (Investment Adviser) $1.4 million for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest regarding special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). In the Matter of RTW Invs., L.P., SEC Administrative Proceeding 3-21473 (May 30, 2023). According to the SEC, Investment Adviser personnel sponsored two separate SPACs while those same personnel simultaneously invested client funds in the SPACs, which the SEC alleged was a conflict of interest that required disclosure. The Investment Adviser neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the SEC’s Order.
SEC Brings Enforcement Action Against Investment Advisor For Allegedly Failing To Disclose Conflicts Of Interest In SPACs Into Which It Invested Client Funds
On September 6, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that New York-based, registered investment advisor Perceptive Advisors LLC (“Investment Advisor”) had agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest regarding ownership of its personnel in sponsors of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs). According to the SEC, the Investment Advisor used private client funds to facilitate transactions benefitting SPACs in which the Investment Advisor’s personnel and other clients had financial interests but failed to disclose the alleged conflicts resulting from those interests.
SEC Proposes New SPAC Disclosure Rules
On March 30, 2022, the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) published its long-awaited proposed rules and rule amendments applicable to special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”) for comment by May 31. The stated purpose of the proposed rules, which would impose significant changes to the rules affecting SPACs, is to “more closely align the required financial statements of private operating companies in transactions involving shell companies with those required in registration statements for an initial public offering.”


The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has ordered 577 new Taser stun guns, along with new high-tech camcorders that document officer stops.
The order comes on the heels of a federal judge’s order for the MCSO to record traffic stops and other deputy interactions as part of a racial profiling case.
Scottsdale-based Taser International announced the MCSO purchase Oct. 8. The company also announced Taser orders from the Arkansas State Police as well as the Sedona, Milwaukee and Newport News (Va.) police departments.
On Oct. 2., U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow ordered the MCSO to record its traffic stops after ruling the department targets and treats Hispanics unfairly.
MCSO spokesman Brandon Jones said Oct. 14 the order was already in place before Snow's rulings and orders. "It has nothing to do with the judge’s order, and is in-fact to upgrade and replace our current stock of Tasers. This order was in place before the order even came down," Jones said.
Taser has branched out from its stun-gun business in recent years to include other police technologies, including cameras officers can wear to record video and audio of their interactions with defendants and witnesses.
Mike Sunnucks writes about stocks and financial markets, real estate, government and sports business.


Elliott Forest sale cancelled, Oregon legislators oppose Comey firing and state proposes $1.1 billion to fix Portland traffic.
Elliott State Forest is off the market
The State Land Board unanimously voted Tuesday to cancel the forest sale, OPB reports. The board had previously voted to sell 82,500 acres to Roseburg’s Lone Rock Timber and the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Indians for $220.8 million. Gov. Brown has since pushed to keep the lands in public hands. Several alternative plans have been proposed — including a partnership with OSU and issuing state bonds — but the board has directed staff to develop a new management option to review.
Oregon lawmakers outraged by Comey firing
The sudden decision by President Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey Tuesday afternoon has draw the ire of Oregon legislators, the Portland Business Journal reports. Lawmakers called for an independent prosecutor to continue the investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia and questioned the suspicious timing of the firing. Trump cited Comey’s handling of the 2016 Hillary Clinton email investigation as cause.
— Oregon Business (@OregonBusiness) May 9, 2017
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) May 9, 2017
State could funnel $1.1 billion into Portland traffic solution
Lawmakers say reducing Portland’s traffic problems will benefit the state, the Oregonian reports. The funding comes from the $8.2 billion transportation package proposal, announced yesterday. The proposal asks Metro to split the costs with the state.
Portland considering corporate tax to fund climate change projects
City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly is exploring a 2018 ballot measure to implement a 1% tax on local gross receipts on businesses with more than $1 billion in sales, as long as at least $500,000 of those sales are in Portland, Willamette Week reports. The new tax would fund renewable energy projects, solar panels in low-income neighborhoods, for example. An estimated potential revenue was not outlined in the proposal, but backers say the tax could raise $10 million annually.
Ilani Casino impact on Oregon industry smaller than expected
The new Washington casino was expected to draw from Oregon’s lottery industry, but initial reports show that impact is almost nonexistent, the Portland Tribune reports. Oregon State Lottery revenues are on track with typical revenues and lottery retailers on Hayden Island — closest to the new casino — say business hasn’t slowed down.
Hillsboro company lays off upwards of 100 employees
SureID produces identification software and was previously used by the U.S. Navy. That military contract was cancelled last month, nearly four years after an investigation found SureID’s technology had failed to prevent ineligible people from accessing installations. SureID says the decision to lay off employees was based on a change in corporate strategy, the Oregonian reports. The company declined to disclose how many employees were fired.
OB Original Blog: Changing of the guard
Several prominent business associations and educational institutions are either in search of a leader or about to undergo a leadership transition.


POLICE in Co Derry are jubilant after taking a quantity of Class A drugs off the streets.
As part of the search in Draperstown, one person was arrested for possessing the drugs with intent to supply.
PSNI Magherafelt say on its Facebook page this evening: “Another day another door.
“District Support Team’s Big Red Key Tour continues, Draperstown the latest venue.
“Great team effort, you told us who needed a home visit and we happily obliged.
“One arrested for possession of class A and supply of class A as well as possession of class B.
“Works well, you send the info in, we send the door up the hall.
“Just one other thing – anyone got the number for a well known company that stores doors?”


Ask the Times
By TIMES WIRES
Published June 13, 2007
I received two e-mails that were obviously scams. One informed me I had won a British lottery, and the other was a version of the Nigerian scam. Is there an agency that investigates and prosecutes this type of scam, and if so how can I report these e-mails?
Report unsolicited commercial e-mail spam on the Federal Trade Commission's Web site at www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/spam/report. html. You can also find helpful tips there on how to avoid spam scams and reduce the clutter in your in-box. The FTC works in conjunction with the Department of Justice to prosecute illegal spammers.
Compiled from Times staff and wires. To submit a question, e-mail email@example.com. or call (727) 893-8179, toll-free 1-800-333-7505, ext. 8179.


Following a successful protest on Monday at the State Capitol against the quarantine, the state has now banned similar protests, according to an announcement from the California Highway Patrol (CHP).
“Permits are issued to provide safe environments for demonstrators to express their views,” the CHP said in a statement. “In this case, the permit for the convoy was issued with the understanding that the protest would be conducted in a manner consistent with the state’s public health guidance.”
“That is not what occurred, and CHP will take this experience into account when considering permits for this or any other group,” they added.
On Monday, individuals convened in the downtown area for an “Operation Gridlock” protest, based off of last week’s wildly successful demonstration in Michigan against anti-Trump Governor Gretchen Whitmer, whose lockdown policies are among the most strict in the nation.
California Governor Gavin Newsom might be giving Whitmer some competition, as his state bureaucrats have arbitrarily banned a certain type of rally. It is unknown whether they plan to lock up protesters if they disobey the new edict.
“In the interest of public safety and the health of all Californians during the COVID-19 pandemic, effective immediately the California Highway Patrol will deny any permit requests for events or activities at all state facilities, to include the State Capitol, until public health officials have determined it is safe to gather again,” the CHP said.
Because protesters did not comply with arbitrary social distancing mandates and protested as they wished, California is punishing them as a consequence.
The same OPEN CALI NOW sign is making the rounds – spotted in Huntington Beach last week, and DTLA today (and, though I can relate to abbreviating where space is limited, nobody calls CA "Cali") pic.twitter.com/ky65YxZxCj
— StreetsblogLA (@StreetsblogLA) April 23, 2020
The protest was put on by the Freedom Angels, a group that organizes to prevent mandatory vaccinations. They are urging people to stand up to prevent their rights from being taken away during these troubling times.
“This is the time for people to take notice and really evaluate the freedoms they’re giving up, all in the name of perceived safety,” said Freedom Angels co-founder Heidi Munoz Gleisner in a Facebook video.
“People need to get back to work, get back to life, get back into contact with their loved ones who they’re isolated from, they need to be able to have a paycheck,” group co-founder Tara Thornton said to The Sacramento Bee, which interviewed her during the demonstration. “This is the grounds they will enslave us upon.”
The protest forced the state’s hand, and they have effectively made the State Capitol a 1st Amendment-free zone as a result.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott Pledges to Outlaw Big Tech Censorship
Texas has had enough.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott is pledging to outlaw Big Tech’s left-wing censorship, announcing his support of a bill in the Texas State Senate that would open social media monopolies to lawsuits from users at a state level.
State Senator Bryan Hughes Senate Bill 12 would provide legal recourse for users of Big Tech platforms who are banned from the services to return, designating Big Tech monopolies such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook as common carriers.
“They are common carriers and they cannot discriminate against people … it’s a violation of the first amendment,” Hughes said. “This is going to protect Texas’ free speech and get them back online.”
I am joining @SenBryanHughes to announce a bill prohibiting social media companies from censoring viewpoints.
It's un-American, Un-Texan, & soon to be illegal.https://t.co/zSdirRa1pj
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) March 5, 2021
“These are the areas that used to be the courthouse square where people would come and talk,” said Abbott of the legislation. “Now, people are going to Facebook and Twitter to talk about their political ideas, and what Facebook and Twitter are doing — they are controlling the flow of information, and sometimes denying the flow of information.”
“Texas is taking a stand against big tech political censorship. We are not going to allow it in the Lone Star state.”
The law establishing legal recourse against online censorship may prove legally durable enough to avoid breaching Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That law provides immunity for user-created content on internet platforms, and doesn’t give social media platforms a right to discriminate against active or potential users on the basis of political ideology.
The future for fighting Big Tech censorship lies at a state level. While some state Republican officials have proven reluctant to separate themselves from the lucrative business lobbies of Big Tech oligarchs, Hughes’ approach seems legally innovative enough to give free speech defenders a fighting shot at free expression online.
Around The World2 days ago
36-Year-Old Woman ‘is Gang Raped’ by Migrants ‘After Stopping to Talk to Them about Their Situation’
Two Americas4 days ago
POLITICAL HIT? Pro-Trump Portland, Oregon Print Shop Owner Gunned Down in Parking Lot
Big League Guns2 days ago
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden’s Federal Gun Control
Congress2 days ago
Mitch McConnell Preparing Exit Strategies, Potential Successors in Advance of Possible Retirement
Big League Wellness3 days ago
Michael Moore: White Texans Don’t Deserve COVID-19 Vaccine
Congress3 days ago
Anti-Trump RINO Nancy Mace Supports Retooled ‘Equality Act’ in Attempt to Dupe Conservatives
Crime3 days ago
SURPRISE: America’s Most Corrupt Cities are Overwhelmingly Democratic
Snowflakes3 days ago
Judge Dismisses Transgender Woman’s “Discrimination” Lawsuit Against Miss USA Pageant