text:
« Dude Look Like an Echo | Main | Of Coups, Their Plotters, and the Next Era of Politics »
So far there are two versions of right-wing spin to make the Mark Foley scandal and the cover-up go away. First there's the complex postmodern pseudo-politically correct spin from the Wall Street Journal, Newt Gingrich and the Family Research Council: "Senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices...Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters?"
As the FRC said, Hastert and his colleagues "probably did not want to appear homophobic" by taking on Foley. A friend commented last night that, "We know the avoidance of homophobia is the guiding principal for the house leadership."
One of the stories that the right likes to tell about itself is that they believe in moral absolutes, that there is such a thing as good and bad, while liberals are all relativists, we have no "foundation" for our views of what's good and bad. This comes in lots of versions, from the bumper sticker to the erudite, Alisdair MacIntyre-wanna-be's like Princeton professor Robert P. George, but that one sentence sums up the argument.
But when it comes to Foley, this is a case where it is us liberals who have the absolute moral value: Don't mess with kids sexually. Adults must not mess with kids, people in positions of authority should not mess with kids. It's not about the legal line or the age of consent in Florida or DC. It's morality: Fifty-two year olds must not mess with 16 year olds. Remember that rule and all this complexity falls away. Don't tolerate people who mess with kids, gay or straight. Not complicated. As Robert George would say, it's "foundational." If you know that basic rule, and don't hesitate to take action if people break it, or raise alarms if you suspect them of breaking it (as in, asking for a picture) then guess what?: Life gets a little simpler. Gays can be Scoutmasters because, like any other Scoutmaster, they know that you don't mess with the kids. Straight men can be high school teachers of girls because they maintain that boundary, they treat it as a moral absolute. And so on.
So what do you call the belief that gay people somehow by their nature cannot respect that rule, that they in fact can't appreciate moral absolutes? Yep, that's it.
While that spin on the cover-up is disturbing, the other spin is actually funny. It's all George Soros's fault. This is the story behind the "dirty trick" theory being peddled by Katherine Harris, Gingrich again, Hugh Hewitt, and apparently now being peddled on Fox News. Whenever the right runs into trouble, it seems their first move is to play a game of "Six Degrees of George Soros": What's the fewest number of moves we can make to blame this on George. You can imagine them testing out various theories: How about this one: Soros's operatives in Eastern Europe starting in the 1980s bred a super-race of sexually irresistible young men, taught them perfect English, had them placed as congressional pages and programmed them to tempt Mark Foley. Hmm, nice try, but a little more Blofeld than Soros.
No, the new line, from Gingrich to Katherine Harris, and the weirder corners of the right-blogosphere, is that it's all George Soros's fault because a "Soros-funded organization" had the e-mails and waited until just this critical moment in the election cycle to release them. Meanwhile, kids were put at risk. Someone named Clarice Feldman who writes at The American Thinker (modesty in blog naming has never been the right's strong suit) seems to have figured this one out. Drat. If it weren't for Clarice, Scooby and the rest of those meddlesome kids, George would have gotten away with it, too! Unfortunately there's one loose end to the theory -- the organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (which does get a small grant from Soros's foundation, although the right referred to CREW as "Soros-funded" even when it wasn't), immediately turned the e-mails over to the FBI, and released them only after ABC News made the story public.
So get back to the drawing board guys: Connect Mark Foley to George Soros in six moves or less!
Posted by Mark Schmitt on October 4, 2006 | Permalink
>It's morality: Fifty-two year olds must not mess with 16 year olds... Gays can be Scoutmasters because, like any other Scoutmaster, they know that you don't mess with the kids. Straight men can be high school teachers of girls because they maintain that boundary, they treat it as a moral absolute. And so on.
And that's why molestation never happens, right?
It's not that I don't trust gays to follow moral absolutes, I don't trust men to. I wouldn't want my daughter led into the woods overnight by a straight guy, either. Especially not by the kind of weirdos who would want to do so without being the father of one of the kid's peers.
High school's different because you don't have as many chances to molest a kid in a crowded classroom as you do in a tent in the woods in the dark, nor do you have as close of a relationship with the kids. Still, molestation is not all that rare.
Not that any of this excuses the Republicans for protecting a pedophile in any way.
Do you have kids, BTW?
Posted by: rsheridan6 | Oct 5, 2006 10:45:49 AM
As a popular political blogger, I know you'll be interested in learning more about our recent study on American attitudes toward current foreign policy and the nation's place in the world. Please read on for more information! Feel free to contact us or to blog away on our intriguing findings.
Here at Public Agenda, we've created a new tool to track Americans' opinions on foreign policy issues, providing a basis for political commentary. Similar to the Consumer Confidence Index, the Foreign Policy Anxiety Indicator provides policy makers, journalists and ordinary citizens with the public's overall comfort level with America's
place in the world and current foreign policy.
An essential tool updated twice a year, the Indicator will consistently provide much-needed information on the public's perception of more than two dozen aspects of international relations.
In a world strewn with violence and highly-charged international issues, Americans are broadly uneasy about U.S. foreign policy. The September 2006 shows the Foreign Policy Anxiety Indicator at 130 on a scale of 0 to 200, where 0 is the most confident, 200 the most anxious and 100 neutral.
Eight in 10 Americans feel the world is becoming a more dangerous place for Americans, yet they're also skeptical about most of the possible solutions, such as creating democracies or global development. Only improved intelligence gathering and energy independence have substantial support, with energy firmly established as a national security problem
for the public.
In fact, the public lacks confidence in many of the measures being taken to ensure America's security. Less than 33% of Americans give the U.S. government an "A" or a "B" grade for its execution of the following foreign policy issues: reaching goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, maintaining good relationships with Muslim countries and protecting U.S. borders from illegal immigration. And these are just a few of the findings of the survey.
These are some of the other startling findings:
- 83 percent say they are worried about the way things are going for the United States in world affairs (35 percent worry "a lot", with an additional 48 percent saying they worry "somewhat.")
- 79 percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for the United States and the American people
- 69 percent say the United States is doing a fair or poor job in creating a more peaceful and prosperous world
- 64 percent say the rest of the world sees the United States negatively
- 58 percent say U.S. relations with the rest of the world are on the wrong track
Want to learn more? Go to http://www.publicagenda.org/foreignpolicy/index.cfm to download the report.
Public Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group devoted to public opinion and public policy. The confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index is developed in cooperation with Foreign Affairs with support from the Hewlett and Ford foundations.
Posted by: William Hallowell | Oct 19, 2006 4:43:56 PM
"a little more Blofeld than Soros" ... but Soros is Blofeld.
Posted by: Marc Rich | Jul 13, 2007 4:33:26 PM


text:
Chris Rivera
LSDF's comparatively tiny budget should be easy to fund, given its role in the state's future
Government Business Flynn's Harp People Issues
Don Brunell, retired president of the Association of Washington Business, summed it up best as we were discussing the perilous state of the fund whose purpose has for a decade been to promote the state's life sciences competitiveness.
"A $19 million expenditure in a $40 billion biennial budget is too small a percentage to even try to calculate," said Brunell, who as longtime president of the state's largest business association guided business's side of negotiations through four governors and two dozen legislatures.
"If it's a really important issue, as it seems the Life Sciences Discovery Fund (LSDF) should be viewed, you just take the $20 million out of a major-funded item," Brunell said, "particularly at a time when the state is experiencing an unexpected surge in revenue. It's not that difficult."
Brunell's comment, borne of years of playing the game of helping lawmakers reach budget goals while finding a way to save the most important business items in the final budget, is an important comment, since it's a thought that may still occur to the small group of legislators deliberating the final form of the state budget for the coming biennium.
To be sure, there are a lot of smaller programs whose supporters are seeking to pressure lawmakers to safeguard in the final budget."Molehills vs. the 'mountain' of holding off new taxes," as one prominent business friend of mine, whom I respect but disagree with on this, put it in referring to those various programs.
That current LSDF funding of $19 million a biennium is the small remainder of the $400 million tobacco-settlement money from which LSDF was established in 2005 by the Governor and Washington's Legislature. The goal of the fund was to support innovative research in this state to promote life sciences competitiveness, enhance economic vitality, and improve health and health care.
The challenge for LSDF at this point is that while the money to sustain its funding for another biennium is in the House (Democrat) budget, and strongly supported by the governor, there is nothing for the agency in the Senate (GOP) budget, and there apparently is even Senate talk of taking back some of the money already granted.
Word leaked out earlier this week that the four budget negotiators (a Democrat and a Republican from each house) had reached a tentative deal on the total size of the budget. That's the first step before lawmakers begin tinkering with details, hammering out individual items (like the funding for LSDF's survival) and, of course, reaching some compromises before the hard deadline at the end this month when the biennium itself ends.
There is some belated talk, but probably not nearly enough of it, from business leaders about hammering the Senate with the reality that Republicans can't abdicate the image of supporters of entrepreneurs and innovation to a Democratic governor and Democratic House members.
Brunell was one of a half dozen major business-community figures I had talked within the past week to get a sense of the depth of understanding of and interest in the LSDF and its purpose. And Brunell admitted, as others have, that he was only vaguely aware of LSDF's role (which is visible mainly to the biotech industry and its supporters) or that it was in danger of disappearing, assuming that if it was an important business issue, Republicans would be watching out for it.
Brunell, who in his retirement now produces a regular column that appears in several dozen newspapers, seemed struck by the lack of visibility on what he agreed seemed vital to future of an emerging industry in this state.
Noting that there are a number of issues whose backers are bombarding supporters to press their legislators, Brunell said "I am pummeled with emails and contacts from wildlife and recreation and the folks wanting a carbon tax, but besides you I am not hearing from LSDF advocates. But supporting LSDF seems like a no-brainer."
It's important to share that my belief in the importance of LSDF comes, as is usually the case, from personal involvement and commitment. I had only been generally aware, as a journalist, of LSDF and its background and role.
Then I became involved in actively supporting an emerging biopharma company named M3 Biotechnology, believing in its potential dramatic impact if it gains FDA approval for a drug that would reverse neurodegenerative diseases, and in the CEO, Leen Kawas, who has been guiding the company's successful growth.
As one whose wife suffers from Parkinson's Disease and with a father who died of it, and relatives and friends who have Alzheimer's, the company was a natural one.
It was as a result of involvement with the company that I learned the importance of LSDF, since the then just-launching M3 received grants from LSDF that allowed it to bridge what's referred to as the funding "Valley of Death," the financially challenging period from birth of a company to the successful initial funding round.
I also researched what states are doing to attract biotech, which this state's sound and fund has largely substituted for commitment, and learned that others are spending millions of dollars to attract and grow what they realize will be a key economic pillar in the future.
"M3 isn't the only company that needed the LSDF funding to survive until finding conventional funding," said Chris Rivera, CEO and President of the Washington Biotechnology and biomedical Association.
"Legislators tell me 'if we give LSDF $19 million, we'll have to take it away from somewhere else," Rivera said. "And I reply, 'if LSDF goes away, and the industry begins fading and the economy is being impacted in this state a result, you'll be doing a lot more looking somewhere else to make the cuts that will be necessary.'"
business Government Mike Flynn corporations people issues Don Brunell Life Science Discovery Fund Chris Rivera
Legislative disinterest in funding assist for life science industry troubling to many
Flynn's Harp Government People Issues
(Editor's note: This is the first of a two-part series on the state's life science/biopharmaceutical industry with this first article dealing with the challenges of getting the state to provide the financial tools necessary to grow the industry. The second article will deal with a couple of newly emerging companies that will help carry the hopes for the future of the sector in Washington.)
The apparent legislative disinterest in the state having a financial role in the future of Washington's life science industry isn't a fatal flaw for what has become the nation's sixth largest biopharma cluster. But it will send the wrong signal to biotech entrepreneurs and investors elsewhere in the country and will inevitably mean some startups won't make it across the early-funding challenge that's known as "the valley of death."
"Legislative disinterest" means the very real possibility that the 2015 Legislature may turn its back on key funding for startups, who represent the seeds that grow into players and job creators in the industry, by declining to keep the innovative Life Science Discovery Fund (LSDF) alive.
If LSDF, created to foster growth of the state's life science sector, went out of existence on its 10th anniversary because the Legislature decided not to fund it anymore, It would represent an ironic measure of the legislature's lack of commitment to the future of that industry in Washington.
Key states around the country are going to great financial lengths in their funding commitments to life science, both to foster growth of that industry within those states and also to send "come join us" messages to biotech innovators and investors elsewhere in the country.
LSDF was established in 2005 by then-Gov. Christine Gregoire and the state Legislature to guide investment dollars from the Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement into research and development grants to entities that demonstrate the strongest potential for delivering health and economic returns to the state.
It was only the intervention of Gov. Jay Inslee, a key proponent of a strong life-sciences sector, that saved LSDF at the end of the 2014 legislative session, but he couldn't prevent the demise of the research & development credit against the state sales and business & occupation taxes.
The R&D credit expired at the end of 2014. More than 2,000 companies had used the credit against the B&O tax since it was instituted in 1994, and about 400 have used the sales tax credit. The lost revenues through 2012 totaled about $950 million, but the investment the credits generated came to about $8 billion, and repaid the state several times over in overall tax collections, according to industry sources.
WBBA president.
Washington is now is on a short list of companies that don't offer R&D tax credits, and perhaps the only state on that short list that actually hopes to see its life sciences fortunes be an important component of economic success.
The budget Inslee has submitted to the Legislature would make a $20 million investment for LSDF and re-establish a $70 million Research and Development Tax Credit program with the governor telling the life sciences industry he is "a strong supporter of the R&D tax credit and sales tax deferral."
To be sure, the industry, guided by the Washington Biotech and Biomedical Association and its president, Chris Rivera, himself a former biotech CEO, have friends in Olympia in addition to the governor.
But the myopic among lawmakers will point to this region's sixth-largest life sciences ranking and say "well, things are obviously going pretty well for us."
The fact that the Seattle area ranks third among cluster-cities in the total of NIH dollars, at $142 million for the most recent year calculated, is viewed as reflecting the fact the region is anchored more by academic and independent research institutions than by local companies.
In fact, those academic-independent institutions, like the Gates Foundation, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, PATH, Institute for Systems Biology and the University of Washington may well be the most prestigious collection of industry research players in the country.
But the startups spun out of those institutions need conventional financial support to become full-blown businesses and that has been a challenge for companies in this state.
And from a competitive-clusters standpoint, the fact that two of the cluster cities above Seattle on the list are in California, with San Diego third and the Bay Area a far-ahead number one, is something that the lawmakers and policy makers need to be continually focused on.
Indeed nothing points up the importance of competitive awareness than the experience of Chris Rivera himself.
Rivera recalls that when he sought advice on launching a biotech firm in Seattle that would focus on orphan diseases "I told a key industry leader I needed space, talent and money. The response was 'you won't find those here.'
So having been involved with firms in Boston and the Bay Area before moving to Seattle in the mid-80s, he headed for California where, in 2005 in South San Francisco, he launched Hyperion Therapeutics, a specialty biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of therapies for gastroenterology and hepatology diseases.
Rivera guided his company through the usual ebbs and flows of early growth challenges, including downsizing when the IPO market dried up. He stepped down in 2008 as the company prepared for what turned out to be successful Phase II trials and a $69 million funding in June of 2009 in one of the largest VC raises that year. Hyperion went public in 2012. He remains an investor in the company, but it is a growing Bay Area firm, not the Seattle-area firm it might have been.
Thus it wasn't surprising that when the WBBA executive committee went looking for a new president in late 2008, they lured Rivera back to Seattle with one of his goals being to create a strategy to help keep companies in Washington.
"I think we've done a pretty good job of achieving that," he says.
Success for Washington's life science industry often seems a matter of two steps forward and two steps back, despite the best efforts of WBBA, whose strategies include a successful mentor program for entrepreneurs.
There was some of both forward and back in 2014. The steps back were the departure Amgen, taking with it the jobs of more than 600 biotech employees, and the demise of once-high-flying Dendreon, which had more than 700 employees, leaving perhaps the largest number of jobless biotech employees ever in this area.
But the steps forward were the emergence of Juno Therapeutics, a company less than two years old that surged into an IPO in late 2014, and the surge in interest for Omeros Corp., whose CEO Greg Demopulos jokes that it has taken his company 20 years to become an overnight success.
Ironically, the hiring mode for Juno, which develops immunotherapy treatments for cancer and has had remarkable results in small clinical trials, has benefitted from the availability of former Amgen and Dendreon employees.
Omeros, a Seattle-based biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing small-molecule and protein therapeutics for large-market as well as a variety of orphan indications, has become the best biotech story of 2015 and we will take a look next week at the company that celebrated its 20th anniversary last June.
Jay Inslee Christine Gregoire Life Sciences Discovery Fund Life Science Discovery Fund issues people Government Mike Flynn Chris Rivera Greg Demopulos
Access to growth capital could challenge state life-sciences sector's bright future
Government Business Flynn's Harp Issues
Washington State's life-sciences sector has remained, through the economic downturn, a jewel in the state's economic development crown. But the challenge of accessing capital that bedevils the industry's emerging companies, including the possible demise of the Life Sciences Discovery Fund, could hinder future growth.
The role biotech and biomedical companies have come to occupy as one of Washington's five largest and fastest-growing sectors, generating tens of thousands of high-wage jobs and more than $10.5 billion in economic activity, creates an important anchor for the state's economic future.
But as the Washington Biotech & Biomedical Association (WBBA) prepares for its annual meeting next week, in partnership with The Governor's Life Sciences Summit, there's an ongoing focus on seeking to ensure that emerging companies in the industry find the growth capital they need. And that could be increasingly challenging.
"With 70 percent of our companies having 50 or fewer employees, access to capital is the greatest challenge we face," said Chris Rivera, WBBA president.
An important part of that funding has been the Life Sciences Discovery Fund (LSDF), the program created by tobacco-settlement dollars that came into existence in 2008 and has been championed by Gov. Chris Gregoire as a key to fostering more biotech innovations and jobs in Washington.
But it has taken deep cuts each session as legislators grappled with yawning state budget deficits, and now could face elimination.
Rep. Glenn Anderson, the Eastside Republican who is one of four legislative trustees for the fund, says "it's an open question whether the fund will survive" the next session's budget cuts.
"The fund has done a good job of encouraging basic science and marketable, actionable, investable outcomes," Anderson said. "But I'd say there's only a 50-50 chance it will survive and if it doesn't survive, I think that would be shortsighted."
Rivera puts numbers on the fund's successes to provide definition to shortsightedness.
"LSDF awardees have been able to leverage their grants and bring in $9 for every $1 awarded," he said. "These are real dollars from out of state. This has led directly to job creation, and great innovation in our state.
"I believe that LSDF has proven to be a smart investment by our state into a sector of great current economic value and future potential," he added. "Other states have poured hundreds of millions into life sciences, as they see the potential economic value of this sector and are willing to invest strategically."
Beyond the fund, WBBA has mounted some initiatives, as have supporting organizations, in seeking to develop alternative sources of capital, given both the now-challenged traditional lending sources and the problems facing the venture capital industry.
Bruce Jackson, vice president for business development at EnterpriseSeattle and ex-officio member of WBBA's board, says that despite the success of the biotech and medical-device sector, these are "clouded times" for young companies seeking to ramp up.
"In addition to the fact federal regulations can create a headwind for companies, access to capital for some deserving companies can be difficult," Jackson said.
EnterpriseSeattle's year-old partnership with the City of Federal Way in a medical-device incubator called Cascadia MedTech Association is an innovative approach to helping grow the industry, though Jackson concedes "the model hasn't been proven yet."
"The companies we're supporting must transition from being supported by grants to creating cashflow," Jackson added.
WBBA itself touts the program it created called VIP Forums, through which quality investors and strategic partners (VIP's) are invited to Seattle for a showcase of the most promising life science companies and research opportunities.
In addition, in spring of 2009 the association formed a non-profit angel network called WINGS, whose role is to close the early-stage funding gap to speed medical-technology innovation "from lab bench to patients."
The gathering of industry leaders and others for whom the industry is part of the economic hope for the future will likely hear an upbeat assessment as they review the WBBA's third annual Life Sciences Economic Impact at their gathering on November 18 at Meydenbauer Center in Bellevue.
Comments from the governor, who will be attending her last WBBA annual conference, and University of Washington President Michael Young, attending his first, are likely to focus on upbeat prospects for the sector's future. But both may also share concerns about the impact of funding availability on that bright future.
And a comment from Rivera during an interview this week could set the stage for some discussion among attendees: "I understand and know that these are difficult times, but I hope that our state leaders are strategic in where they place our precious resources, and help this state maintain its competitiveness nationally and globally."
issues corporations business Government Mike Flynn Life Sciences Discovery Fund Chris Rivera Washington Biotech & Biomedical Association Bruce Jackson

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


P5DK students at European School Copenhagen are celebrating after winning a science competition on 14th March, organised by Naturvidenskabernes Hus. The Primary 5 class participated in Naturfagsmaraton 2018/19 with 10 other classes from 6 different schools and won all the tasks that they were set!
You can see some of their impressive creations in the photo album.


Tweet ONCE to @travelblawg using the hashtag #TravelBlawgTaxDayGiveaway and tell me in what airport you'd like to use 2 United Club passes.
The giveaway entries by tweeting end at midnight tonight, Tax Day, April 15, 2014 CST. If you do not have a twitter account, get one already! I will randomly select a winner and contact that person for mailing the passes. I make the final determinations for the giveaway and there's no appeal in the TravelBlawg Court.
Comment below with questions and I will attempt to answer. Thanks!


text:
Andreas Muller (Berlijn, 25 november 1979) is een Duitsland geboren Oostenrijks wielrenner. Tot 2008 kwam hij uit met een Duitse licentie, vanaf 1 januari schakelde hij over op een Oostenrijkse.

Al snel werd duidelijk dat Muller een specialist was in de ploegkoers. Zo behaalde hij in 2003 aan de zijde van de ervaren Guido Fulst verschillende overwinningen in de wereldbeker. Zijn grootste successen boekte hij echter als Oostenrijker, vanaf 2008. Zo werd hij op het WK begin 2009 derde op het onderdeel scratch. Achter de ontsnapte Fransman Morgan Kneisky spurtte Angel Colla uit Argentinië voor Muller naar de tweede plek. Vier jaar later deed hij zelfs één plek beter, hij pakte het zilver achter Martyn Irvine.

Op de ploegkoers vormt hij steevast een duo met Andreas Graf, hun grootste succes tot nu toe, was het behalen van de Europese titel in 2014.

Graf is ook een vaste klant tijdens Zesdaagsen. Voorlopig wist hij er één te winnen, aan de zijde van Kenny De Ketele won hij begin 2014 de Zesdaagse van Berlijn.

Overwinningen

Wegwielrennen
2015
 7e etappe An Post Rás

Baanwielrennen

Oostenrijks wielrenner
Oostenrijks baanwielrenner

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Bruce's Beach Bill Clears Another Hurdle, Heads to Senate Floor
Manhattan Beach, CA—Today, SB 796, a bill championed by Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn which would allow Los Angeles County to return the Bruce's Beach property to the descendants of Willa and Charles Bruce, cleared another legislative hurdle in Sacramento.
Chair of the California Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Anthony Portantino, determined that the legislation had no significant state costs and applied Senate Rule 28.8, sending it directly to the Senate Floor for a Second Reading without a hearing in the Appropriations Committee. The legislation had already passed the California Senate's Committee on Natural Resources and Water last month with unanimous support.
"I never served in Sacramento but from what I am told, this legislation is moving quickly," said Supervisor Janice Hahn. "I want to thank Senator Bradford, Senator Portantino, and everyone who has made calls in support of this bill. We are another step closer to returning Bruce's Beach to its rightful owners."
In 1912, a young Black couple named Willa and Charles Bruce purchased beachfront property in Manhattan Beach and built a resort that served Black residents. It was one of the few beaches where Black residents could go because so many other local beaches did not permit Black beachgoers. The Bruces and their customers were harassed and threatened by white neighbors including the KKK. Eventually, the Manhattan Beach City Council moved to seize the property using eminent domain in 1924, purportedly to create a park. The City took the property in 1929 and it remained vacant for decades.
The property the Bruce family once owned was years later transferred to the State and in 1995 transferred to Los Angeles County. It is now the site of the Los Angeles County Lifeguard Training Headquarters.
Supervisor Hahn announced her intention earlier this year to return the property to the Bruce Family, but found that she needed State legislation before the County could transfer this property. When the property was transferred from the State to the County in 1995, the State imposed restrictions that limit the County's ability to transfer the property. SB 796, legislation introduced by State Senator Steve Bradford, would exempt the Bruce's Beach property from statuary restrictions on the transference and use of that land to enable the County of Los Angeles to transfer the land to the descendants of its rightful owners, the late Willa and Charles Bruce.
SB 796 next heads to the Senate Floor where it needs a vote of two-thirds to pass before heading to the Assembly.


Amino Therapy Purifying Dual Action Cleanser Clean skin is the foundation for a radiant complexion. Purifying Dual Action Cleanser with Intercellular ATS17 gently but thoroughly dissolves and lifts away impurities such as make-up and environmental pollutants, which might otherwise clog pores and leave your skin looking dull and unhealthy. This deep, gentle cleansing is the first step towards healthy, beautiful looking skin.
1. Naturally exfoliates dull, flaky skin cells from the skin's surface (much stronger than AHA's without any irritation or burning). 2. Helps to naturally restore the skin structure by penetrating the skin's surface and delivering amino acids and humectants that are necessary for collagen and elastin creation. With continued use, your skin appears younger and your skin tone becomes more even. Fine lines seem to disappear and your skin feels softer and healthier than ever before! Directions For Use:Apply to freshly cleansed face and neck, morning and night. Jar Size: 1.7 oz (50 grams).
Amino Therapy Hand & Body Lotion Advanced Amino Therapy moisturizer for the entire body with Intercellular ATS17 to deliver intense hydration and nutrients where your skin needs it most.
Flowergenics is a scientifically-advanced skin care line dedicated to producing dramatic physiological and cosmetic effects on the skin.
Each precision-blended treatment utilizes highly concentrated serums and time-proven floral and botanical extracts that work synergistically to promote soft, smooth, healthy skin.
Flowergenics formulas encourage skin's ideal metabolism to minimize the signs of both environmental and biological aging. These results orientated treatments are guaranteed to provide you with the healthy, radiant skin you deserve.


The IP address 202.176.31.70 is provided by Rakuten Communications Corp., it's belong to the CDIR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing) 202.176.32.0/19 (range 202.176.32.0 to 202.176.63.255). The autonomous system number (ASN) is 10012 and the numerical IP for 202.176.31.70 is 3400539974. You can ping 202.176.31.70 or do a traceroute by clicking on the button.
We use several IP database to locate 202.176.31.70. You can find the differents ip locations our Google map, coordinates 139.6917 - 35.6895.
SPAM database lookup for adresse IP 202.176.31.70. Check if a website or an IP is blacklisted on major databases.


text:
Institute Archives and Special Collections
Institute History
Collecting Policies
Building Histories
Student Club House
The Student Club House provided a new home for the Student's Association or what became known as the Rensselaer Union, which oversaw the athletic, religious and social activities of the student body. It contained a billiard room, locker rooms and showers, a large reading room, a kitchen and dining room, and committee rooms. A terrace on the back of the building overlooked the '86 Field. The Club House was razed in 1932 when a new students' club was completed.
1909 Campus Map
Institute Archives & Special Collections
Folsom Library, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
110 8th Street, Troy NY 12180
MAIN OFFICE (518) 276-8340
Contact Archives
110 Eighth Street | Troy, NY USA 12180
Policies: Media Web Privacy Title IX
Student Consumer Information Accessibility
Copyright © 2023 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)


text:
Fame and faith in 'the 9/11 chapel'
By Mary Beth McCauley Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
The Rev. Stuart Hoke, in his ornate green vestments, looks out of place at St. Paul's Chapel. His noonday Eucharist prayers seem a mere curiosity here. The room, after all, has become somewhat of a tourist attraction, given over to the aftermath of 9/11. But the priest carries on, preaching to a distracted and ever-shifting congregation – a tank-topped, flip-flopped river of strangers that slowly makes its way around the perimeter of the sanctuary.
Every moment or two, someone will take a pew, sit down, or kneel, then stand up mid-sermon and leave. They have come, after all, to honor the dead and to see the chapel's artifacts – the famous banners, the photos, the toys, the badges, notes, flags, and plastic roses – what parishioner J. Chester Johnson describes in a poem as the "litter of the heart" left behind five years ago.
By an open door next to the altar, a bright red double-decker tour bus idles.
St. Paul's Chapel became known worldwide for its role as a physical and spiritual mender of the exhausted relief workers from the smoldering "pit" of ground zero across the street. If not for the side altar covered with pictures of the many, many young and handsome dead, its exhibit would seem to chronicle triumph. For while the world counted lives lost, the chapel counted meals served, supplies donated, volunteer efforts brought during an eight-month, round-the-clock recovery period. Finally, St. Paul's emerged as a symbol of the incalculable goodness spawned by the horrific events of 9/11.
From the inside, the response was peaceful – a matter of lightly "steering," says Diane Reiners, who coordinated the 14,000, mostly autonomous, volunteers. Management, when it happened, was a matter of "a little more of this, a little less of that."
Its recovery role complete, when it was reopened to the public on Sept. 11, 2002, St. Paul's found itself thrust into another singular ministry – as a de facto memorial for visitors to ground zero, where officials have yet to designate a formal shrine. In a typical month, 35,000 come to the chapel, wiping eyes, blowing noses, studying intently the artifacts on display. "Did you see? That was Mike's picture right by the door," a woman says to her companion.
Outside, the ancient graveyard offers a shady respite from the bright void across the street, but the well-worn interior has become a holy place for pilgrims of all creeds. "To us, this is a house of God," says Fred Leznek, of suburban Chicago, who is Jewish. Mr. Leznek, clearly moved, visited with his wife, daughter, and granddaughter. The fact that the chapel suffered not so much as a broken window even as the towers fell just yards away, is a "miracle unto itself," he says. "It means that God's presence was here."
The pews at St. Paul's were thoroughly gouged and chipped by the rescue workers who slept in them. They now harbor a second wave of witnesses to ground zero – who, slinging cameras, water bottles, and backpacks – makes its own mark on the chapel's history. Says Dr. Hoke, "Part of our ethos as Episcopalians is this broad hospitality. The door is open: Use the thing."
St. Paul's is – perhaps secondarily, now – Episcopal. Opened in 1766 at Broadway and Fulton Streets as part of the vast Trinity Church Wall Street parish, it is the oldest public building in Manhattan in continuous use. Before 9/11, Trinity's long-neglected daughter chapel saw 100 visitors weekly at best. A single Sunday service drew 18 or 20, and a few history buffs stopped by to look at George Washington's pew. There was no full-time staff.
Ironically, in early 2001, Trinity – a wealthy, powerful, elegantly high church in its worship style – had sought to make better use of St. Paul's in hopes of reaching a younger base. They experimented, with little success, with various alternative worship forms. Reincarnated, the chapel now hosts 60 or so for its daily prayer for peace, and about 120 at the two services on Sunday. Two of the Trinity Church staff of 200 take care of St. Paul's full time, and the mother church helps underwrite the cost of chapel operations, which, despite its little gift stand and its collection boxes, run at a loss.
Everyone from the local Masonic lodge to the top NFL draft picks has visited, says Alessandra Pena, program administrator. Choirs that sing here consider it more meaningful than performing at Carnegie Hall, she says. St. Paul's has also joined the Community of the Cross of Nails, a global ecumenical reconciliation ministry inspired by the post-World War II acts of forgiveness of German and British citizens.
And then there's the media – which have logged dozens upon dozens of interview requests in recent weeks, according to Trinity spokeswoman Donna Presnell. "Good Morning America" plans to broadcast its show from the chapel on 9/11, breaking away for the memorial service that will mark the attack on the twin towers. Whether dealing with the individual visitor, the international community, or the press, the ultimate mission of the chapel is advancing the cause of reconciliation and peace, Ms. Pena says.
Hoke, along with many at St. Paul's, was there on 9/11 when the towers came down. Like others at ground zero, he suffered greatly for a full year afterward – with acute fear of planes, nightmares, and other evidence of post-traumatic stress. It also left him with "an enormous sense of my own mortality, of the shortness and uncertainty of my life," he says. The attacks served to "ground" him, he says, and he now knows with certainty that he wants to live out his life at the parish. "I have the sense of wanting to get on with my life – to nurture relationships with people I love."
After five years, the residue of death and destruction is yielding to revitalization in those around him as the neighborhood rebuilds and recovers, he says. Ultimately, the attacks "stretched my view of how broad God is and how God works through all events and through all of creation."
Meanwhile, the visitors to his church, "his parishioners," such as they are, are "shopping for sound bites," Hoke observes good-naturedly. "They sit down for a couple of minutes, and if it gets boring they're gone.... Sometimes they'll comment on an aspect of a sermon or hymn.... At first I was unnerved by it. I wanted to say, 'Sit down and settle.' But after three or four months, I began to get more comfortable with this, and to see it as an opportunity, not a disturbance."
Where his seminary training centered on the hour-long spiritual counsel appointment, his pastoral hour now lasts maybe 30 seconds, as he is stopped on his way up the center aisle by an anonymous pilgrim who seeks to unburden himself in confession or to scare up a bus ticket. Rescue workers come in to have their badges blessed. One mother of a World Trade Center victim came in and asked the priest to bless her son's socks.
Even after a formal ground zero memorial opens, Mr. Johnson, a Trinity vestryman, says that he doubts that the Episcopal Church will try to wrestle the chapel from its recent incarnation as shrine. The juxtaposition of the good that took place here versus the destruction across the street seems too vivid. For now, at least, the congregation in search of purpose has had its purpose handed to it.
"For centuries," says Johnson, "we were incubating."
First round of Vatican voting: Black smoke says no pope yet
For next pope, cardinals want youngish, polyglot MBA-type
What are the chances of an American pope? This time, not zero


A young girl explores the multitude of titles in the brightly colored stacks of books, just waiting to be read. Mystery? Romance? History? How to choose just one!
The covers of The New Yorker have entertained and enlightened the magazine's readers for nearly a century. A roster of extraordinary artists continues to create indelible images that are infinitely varied in style and tone, whether whimsical, provocative, serene, or lough-out-loud funny.
A New Yorker cover originally published on August 11st, 1962.
Finished Size: 19.25" x 26.625"


We take on existing firms or newly fashioned startups, irrespective of of their size and we convey all of them the way in which to enterprise success. As a result of these leads can MQL with out displaying clear curiosity in GitLab paid merchandise, they are routed to Enterprise Improvement Representatives (BDRs) to qualify and assess sales-readiness.
The subsequent part of the job is prioritizing the new business opportunities you've identified. Within the case of constructing and managing partnerships, the enterprise growth group is usually called Alliances. An account manager makes certain that present accounts are taken care of and companies.


text:
Toronto Raptors centre Marc Gasol's recent performance earns praise of Norman Powell and Kyle Lowry: 'He's a real key to our team'
In a win over the Brooklyn Nets, Gasol turned in one of his best performances of the year, scoring a season-high 17 points and pulling down a season-high 15 rebounds to post his third double-double of 2019-20.
https://images.daznservices.com/di/library/NBA_Global_CMS_image_storage/a4/c3/gil_1otiazib746yg1xyqqyeknf7ks.jpg?t=1381844441&w=500
By Gilbert McGregor @GMcGregor21
The Toronto Raptors got back on track Saturday night, earning a 110-102 win over the Brooklyn Nets, simultaneously snapping a three-game home losing streak while extending their NBA-record home winning streak over divisional foes to 34 games.
MORE: 10 things we learned from Toronto's win over Brooklyn
It was a complete team effort from the Raptors but there were a number of contributors that stood out, including veteran centre Marc Gasol, who recorded his third double-double of the year with season-highs in points (17) and rebounds (15).
While Gasol's impact this season has sometimes been difficult to measure in the box score, it's been felt on the defensive end as he has served as the team's anchor defensively while making things difficult for opposing big men.
MORE: Gasol is the key to the Raptors building an elite defence
Still, considering the fact that the 34-year-old entered the night averaging just 6.4 points and 6.6 rebounds, his performance against Brooklyn felt like a breakthrough of some sort. Following the game, his teammates said as much, as they delivered high praise for what the big man did against Brooklyn, per TSN's Josh Lewenberg.
Norman Powell, who had a big game of his own, made reference to Gasol's season averages, saying, "I love Marc. A lot of people have been hard on him this year for the scoring numbers but he's a real key to our team."
That Gasol's scoring average is a career-low could be a cause for concern but performances like Saturday's serve as a reminder of just what he is capable of offensively, a sentiment echoed by point guard Kyle Lowry.
"Marc can still play basketball, man, at a high level," the five-time All-Star said. "I think he can still make some post-up moves, tonight was a good example of that."
It's worth noting that Gasol did not have much of an offseason, as he followed a Finals run with the Raptors with a full Summer as a member of the Spanish National Team that would go on to win Gold at the 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup in September.
Given his limited participation in this year's training camp, it's fair to assume that Gasol's slow start to the season could be attributed to his working himself back into shape. With Toronto looking to remain among the top half of teams in the Eastern Conference playoff picture, performances like this one serve as an encouraging prospect for what he brings to the team as he shakes off more rust.


text:
Ignore The Polls And Sprint Through The Finish Line
Homeamerican black politicsIgnore The Polls And Sprint Through The Finish Line
The Biden campaign has a simple message for Democratic voters as this race approaches its final days: Don't let up until the votes are counted and Donald Trump is defeated.
According to The New York Times, "In a memo that will be sent to supporters on Saturday, Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, Mr. Biden's campaign manager, stressed that polls can be faulty or imprecise — as they were in 2016 — and warned of only narrow advantages in a number of key states."
"If we learned anything from 2016, it's that we cannot underestimate Donald Trump or his ability to claw his way back into contention in the final days of a campaign, through whatever smears or underhanded tactics he has at his disposal," O'Malley Dillon said in the memo.
"We need to campaign like we're trailing," she added, noting that the campaign is seeing razor-thin margins in battleground states like Arizona and North Carolina.
The message is a clear attempt by the Biden campaign to make sure their supporters take nothing for granted down the stretch, and that they turn out to vote in large numbers.
This is a smart move by the Biden campaign
It's certainly possible that the polls – specifically those at the state level – are off again in 2020 in a way that would underestimate Donald Trump's level of support.
But it's also almost certainly true that Joe Biden's support is much stronger than Hillary Clinton's was four years ago, particularly given the fact that the former vice president is often at or above 50 percent.
Regardless of the polling, however, the Biden campaign is smart to remind its supporters that this race is not over. They may have a lead, but there are still two weeks to go and many of the margins in key states are too close for comfort.
No Democratic voter should rest comfortably until the votes are counted and Donald Trump is officially defeated.
Follow Sean Colarossi on Facebook and Twitter
Sean Colarossi currently resides in Cleveland, Ohio. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Journalism from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and was an organizing fellow for both of President Obama's presidential campaigns. He also worked with Planned Parenthood as an Affordable Care Act Outreach Organizer in 2014, helping northeast Ohio residents obtain health insurance coverage.
Tags:finish, ignore, polls, sprint, through
'Much remains unknown': Tonga still... 17 Jan, 2022 | Al Jazeera English


text:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 85 › Atkins v. Disintegrating Company
Atkins v. Disintegrating Company, 85 U.S. 272 (1873)
Atkins v. Disintegrating Company, 85 U.S. 18 Wall. 272 272 (1873)
Atkins v. Disintegrating Company
85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 272
1. An entry on the record of an admiralty case that, on the return of a process of attachment, Mr. B. "appears for the respondent, and has a week to perfect an appearance and to answer" is an appearance, the entry being followed by the execution by the respondent or his agents of different bonds, reciting "that an appearance in the case had been entered."
2. A district court of the United States, when acting as a court of admiralty, can obtain jurisdiction to proceed in personam against an inhabitant of the United States not residing within the district (within which terms a corporation incorporated by a state not within the district is meant to be included), by attachment of the goods or property of such inhabitant found within the district.
Atkins filed a libel in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York in a cause civil and maritime against the Fibre Disintegrating Company, styling it "a corporation duly incorporated," but not saying by what state incorporated nor anything else about it, the company having in fact been incorporated by the State of New Jersey, a state not within the limits of any Judicial District of New York, but on the contrary forming in itself the Judicial "District of New Jersey."
The libel was on a charter party of the ship Hamilton, executed in New York, and was to recover:
1. Freight due the ship for bringing a cargo from Kingston and Port Morant in the Island of Jamaica.
2. For demurrage for the ship while getting a cargo.
3. For damage to the ship by getting on a reef at Port Morant.
It alleged that the company had chartered the ship to proceed to Kingston, a deep-water and safe port for a full cargo, freight to be paid at a price named; that twenty running lay days were allowed for loading, and, for any delay beyond that, $100 per day demurrage; that if a full cargo should not be provided at Kingston, then the company had the privilege of sending the vessel to a second safe port; that the company, in violation of the charter, had sent the ship to Port Morant, an unsafe port, whereby the vessel was delayed and, by the unsafeness of the port, got aground and was damaged.
It prayed for process and a citation to appear, and if the defendants should not be found, that an attachment might issue against their property in the district.
Process according to the prayer issued accordingly, June 14, 1866, returnable June 20th, 1866.
The process was returned as follows:
"Respondents not found in my district, and I attached all the property of respondents found in their factory in Red Hook Point, in the City of Brooklyn."
"A. F. CAMPBELL, United States Marshal"
"June 20, 1866"
The record, under date of this same 20th of June, noted a return of the service, with an entry thus (Mr. Beebe being a proctor of the court):
"Mr. Beebe appears for the respondent, and has a week to perfect appearance, and to answer."
And on the same day with Mr. Beebe's action, the said 20th, a motion was made on the part of the defendants, with stay of proceedings, to show cause why the property attached should not be discharged, the ground of this motion being that the business of the company was carried on at Brooklyn, in the Eastern District of New York, and that its officers were all at its factory there during business hours, and that service of process could have been made on them, but that such service had purposely not been made in order to attach property. The hearing of the motion being deferred,
the defendants, by consent, were allowed to give stipulations for value and to take the property attached, without prejudice to the motion already made, and with an agreement that if the motion to discharge the property should be granted, the stipulations should be cancelled.
The stipulation for costs, acknowledged July 6, 1866, contained a recital that "an appearance had been filed in the cause by the said Disintegrating Company." The stipulation for value, which was signed by the president of the company and two of the directors and which was acknowledged July 7, 1866, contained a recital that an appearance had been duly filed by said Fibre Disintegrating Company, and provided for notice of the final decree to Beebe, Dean, and Donohue, proctors for the claimants of the property attached, and the defendant, and the papers were signed and endorsed "Beebe, Dean, and Donohue, proctors."
The motion to discharge the property attached was never decided. But a motion was made in March, 1867, to set aside and vacate the clause of attachment contained in the motion and all proceedings under it, this motion being based upon this clause in the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act:
"And a CIVIL SUIT shall be brought before either of said courts against an inhabitant of the United States by any original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ."
The ground of the application was that the respondents at the time of the issuing and serving the process were nonresidents of the Eastern District of New York, and had not been found therein at the time of serving the writ.
The motion was opposed by the libellants, who argued that a cause in the admiralty was not a "civil suit" within the meaning of the clause relied on, and therefore that the clause did not apply, while for the rest, that the proceeding by attachment against an absconding, absent, or nonresident debtor was one, they argued, inherent in courts of
admiralty and practiced from the earliest times. In support of this view, reliance was had on Clerke's Praxis, an old but authoritative book of the time of Elizabeth, and on Browne's Civil Law and Law of Admiralty. Clerke's Praxis, translated, read thus:
"SECTION 24. If the defendant so conceals himself, or perhaps he is absent from the Kingdom, that he cannot be arrested, then if he shall have any goods, wares, or ship, or any part of a ship, or boat upon the sea or within the flow and reflow of the sea, then a warrant is to be taken out to this effect to arrest such goods or such a ship &c., belonging to N. -- that is, to the defendant debtor -- in whosesoever hands they may be, and to cite, with such goods, N., the debtor, specially, and all others generally who have or pretend to have any right or interest in the raid goods, to appear on such a day to answer the plaintiff in a certain civil and maritime cause."
Browne's language [Footnote 1] was thus:
"Let us lastly suppose that a person against whom a warrant has issued cannot be found, or that he lives in a foreign country; here the ancient proceedings of the admiralty court provided an easy and salutary remedy. . . . They were analogous to the proceedings by foreign attachment under the charters of the Cities of London and Dublin. The goods of the party were attached to compel his appearance."
Opposed to this, it was said that the present cause was palpably a "civil suit;" that the clause of the eleventh section relied on, therefore, did apply. But that if this were otherwise, and if there were no statutory prohibition, that the attachment ought to be set aside; for that while the ancient usage of the admiralty allowed the process of attachment if the defendant concealed himself, or had absconded, or were an alien nonresident -- to which cases the language of Clerke and Browne, as of other writers, applied -- neither such ancient practice nor any proper practice allowed it, nor would the language of either of the authors cited justify it in application to a case where the defendant was not alien
to the United States (in whose courts the case was), had not concealed himself, and had not absconded, but contrariwise was a person (an artificial person), incorporated by one of the United States, owing and paying allegiance to the government, and neither absent nor concealed nor absconding, but contrariwise again, at its own home in an adjoining judicial district of the United States, the District of New Jersey, in the Third Federal Circuit, where by crossing the Hudson it could be sued just as well as, and much more properly and effectively than, where it had been sued, to-wit, in the Eastern District of New York, in the Second.
The district court denied the motion to vacate and set aside the attachment. [Footnote 2]
The defendants then put in their answer averring performance of the charter party and the acceptancy of the cargo; that the second port had been voluntarily accepted as a safe port by the master, and also setting up that they were a foreign corporation, incorporated under the laws of New Jersey, and not residents of the Eastern District of New York, and that the libel did not allege that they resided or were in the district.
The district court, after full argument, considering that the company, so far as the proceeding against it individually was concerned, had by the appearance and action of its proctor come into court, and considering further that the merits were with the libellants, decreed against it individually for $13,302, an amount found due by a master; and considering also that the proceeding was not "a civil suit" within the meaning of the clause in the eleventh section and that, independently of the prohibition there contained, the ancient usage of the admiralty did authorize the attachment as an inherent power of the court, decreed against the property seized; or to speak, in this particular case, more literally, decreed that the stipulators should cause the stipulations which they gave on the discharge of the property from seizure, to be performed.
On appeal, the circuit court reversed the decree.
As to the matter of appearance -- remarking that it was according to the ancient practice in admiralty in cases of attachment not to recognize anything as an appearance but putting in of bail -- it thought that what had been done by Mr. Beebe was not to be regarded as a general appearance; that, on the contrary, he had been allowed time "to perfect an appearance," and had immediately moved to set aside the proceeding as unauthorized; that this motion being denied and the respondent compelled to answer, the answer was made by setting up again an invalidity; and that the libellants had stipulated expressly that the subsequent bond for value should not operate as a waiver of the respondent's motion.
Upon the other and greater question -- whether a court of admiralty in one judicial district of the United States can obtain jurisdiction against an inhabitant of another district by an attachment of his goods -- the circuit court also disagreed with the district court, and accordingly the whole decree was reversed. [Footnote 3]
From that reversal the case was now on appeal here, there being in this Court less dispute perhaps about the merits and about whether there was a sufficient "appearance" to authorize a decree in personam against the corporation than whether the proceeding was a "civil suit" within the meaning of the clause already quoted of the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act, and if it was not, whether the inherent power of the court of admiralty authorized an attachment in a case like that here issued, and where the defendant was not an alien, nor absent from his own home, nor absconding, nor anywhere concealed.
What answer should be given to the first part of this chief question, it was admitted on both sides, was a matter which received light from certain provisions in the Constitution and also from enactments of Congress other than the exact clause of the eleventh section, on which the question turned.
Some of these may be recited.
The Constitution, as sent forth by the Convention of 1787, and as adopted, in the same article [Footnote 4] which ordains:
"That the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction:"
Ordains also:
"The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be held in the state where the said crime shall have been committed."
And as amended in 1789, by the first Congress: [Footnote 5]
"In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
Passing now to legislative enactments. The "Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States," commonly called the Judiciary Act, and passed September 29, 1789, [Footnote 6] enacts:
"SECTION 9. That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several states, cognizance of all crimes and offenses that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, . . . where no other punishment than whipping &c., is to be inflicted:"
"And shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost . . . where the seizures are made on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burden, within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas. . . ."
"And shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land or other waters than as aforesaid made, and of all suits for penalties incurred under the laws of the United States:"
"And shall also have cognizance concurrent with the courts of the several states or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States: "
"And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of $100:"
"And shall also have jurisdiction, exclusively of the courts of the several states, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offenses above the description aforesaid:"
"And the trial of issues in fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury."
Next in order of matter comes the eleventh section, in which is found the clause upon which the case turned:
"The circuit courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, when the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of $500 and the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the state where the suit is brought and a citizen of another state."
"And shall have exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States, except where this act otherwise provides, or the laws of the United States shall otherwise direct, and concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of the crimes and offenses cognizable therein; but no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action, before a circuit or district court. And no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against an inhabitant of the United States by any original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ."
Then follows:
"SECTION 21. From final decrees in a district court, in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $300 . . . an appeal shall be allowed to the next circuit court to be held in such district."
"SECTION 22. Final decrees and judgments in civil actions in a district court, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $50, . . . may be reexamined and reversed or affirmed
in a circuit court holden in the same district upon a writ of error."
So far as to the Judiciary Act.
"An act to regulate processes in the courts of the United States" -- a temporary Process Act -- passed September 29, 1789, [Footnote 7] five days after the passage of the Judiciary Act, enacted:
"That until further provision shall be made, and except where by this act or other statutes of the United States is otherwise provided, the forms of writs and executions . . . and mode of process, and rates of fees, . . . in the circuit and district courts, in suits at common law, shall be the same in each state respectively as are now used . . . in the Supreme Court of the same."
"And the forms and modes of proceeding in causes of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction shall be according to the course of the civil law."
And "An act for regulating processes," &c. -- the Permanent Process Act -- of May 8th, 1792, [Footnote 8] enacts:
"SECTION 2. That the forms of writs, executions, and other process, . . . and the forms and modes of proceeding in suits:"
"In those of the common law shall be the same as are now used in the said courts respectively in pursuance of the act entitled 'An act to regulate processes in the courts of the United States' [the last above-quoted act]:"
"In those of equity and in those of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, according to the principles, rules, and usages which belong to courts of equity and to courts of admiralty respectively, as contradistinguished from courts of common law, except so far as may have been provided for by the act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, subject, however, to such alterations and additions as the said courts respectively shall, in their discretion, deem expedient or to such regulations as the Supreme Court of the United States shall think proper from time to time by rule to prescribe to any circuit or district court concerning the same."
By an Act of 23d August, 1842, [Footnote 9] in the nature of a process act, it is enacted:
"That the Supreme Court of the United States shall have full power . . . to prescribe, regulate, and alter the forms of writs, and other process to be used and issued in the district and circuit courts, . . . and the forms and modes of framing and filing libels, bills, and answers, and other proceedings, and pleadings in suits at common law, or in admiralty, or in equity, and generally to regulate the whole practice of the said courts."
Under the power given by these acts, the said court, by its second Rule in Admiralty, provided that:
"In suits in personam, the mesne process may be by a simple warrant of arrest of the person of the defendant in the nature of a capias; or 'by a warrant of arrest of the person of the defendant, with a clause therein that if the cannot be found to attach his goods and chattels,' &c., or by a simple monition in the nature of a summons to appear and answer. "
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE recapitulated the facts of the case and delivered the opinion of the Court.
The libel is founded upon a charter party and seeks to recover freight earned by the ship Elizabeth Hamilton in bringing a cargo of bamboo from Kingston and Port Morant, in the Island of Jamaica; for demurrage while the ship
was obtaining the cargo, and for damages to the ship by getting on a reef when leaving Port Morant.
The libel alleges that the respondents are a corporation and have property in the district, and prays for process against them and, if they were not found, that a foreign attachment issue against their property in the district, and for a decree for the amount claimed, with interest and costs. The libel was filed on the 13th of June, 1866. On the day following, a citation was issued with a foreign attachment clause. On the 20th of the same month, the marshal returned that the respondents were not found in his district and that he had attached all the property found in their factory at Red Hook Point, in the City of Brooklyn. In a journal entry of the same date, it is stated: "Mr. Beebe appears for respondent, and has a week to perfect appearance and to answer." On the 19th of July following, the respondents executed a stipulation for costs. It recited that "an appearance has been filed in said cause by said disintegrating company." On the same day, the proctors for the libellants consented that the property attached should be discharged from custody upon the respondents' giving a stipulation for its value in the sum of $25,000, and they agreed that in case the judge should grant the motion to discharge the property, the stipulation should be cancelled, and that "the stipulation for value is given without prejudice to such motion." The stipulation for value was thereupon filed. That also recited "that an appearance has been filed by said company." On the 3d of May, 1867, the respondents filed their answer. Among other things, it averred that they were a foreign corporation, created by the laws of New Jersey and were not residents of the Eastern District of New York, and that it was not alleged in the libel that they were either found in the district or resided in the district, and they craved the same benefit and advantage as if they had formally excepted to the libel. It does not appear that the motion to discharge the attachment was ever decided. But by an entry of the 22d of March, 1867, it appears that a motion had been made to vacate the attachment
clause in the monition and all the proceedings under it upon the ground that under the circumstances, the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 denied jurisdiction to the court, and that the motion was overruled. The cause was heard in the district court upon the merits on the 16th of December, 1867. The court made an interlocutory decree disallowing the claim for damages to the ship, but referred the case to a commissioner to ascertain the amount which the libellants were entitled to recover in respect of their other claims. The commissioner made his report. No exception was taken by either party. The court confirmed the report and decreed accordingly. The libellants appealed from so much of the decree as refused them damages for the injury sustained by the ship in leaving Port Morant. The respondents appealed from the whole decree. The circuit court reversed the entire decree, and the libellants thereupon appealed to this Court. The case is thus brought before us.
The statement of the case which we have given shows that the defendants entered their appearance without reservation. If there could be any doubt upon the subject, it is removed by their repeated subsequent recognitions of the fact. This made their position just what it would have been if they had been brought in regularly by the service of process. In this aspect of the case, all defects were cured and the jurisdiction of the court over their persons became complete. [Footnote 10] This warranted the decree in personam for the amount adjudged to the libellants.
But the stipulation for value was entered into subject to the motion to discharge the property attached, the stipulation to be cancelled if the motion prevailed. Though this motion was not decided, the subsequent motion, founded upon the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act, took its place and had the same effect. The latter motion was overruled, and the decree required the stipulators to perform
their undertaking. The circuit court reversed the decree by reason of the facts relied upon in support of the motion to vacate. If the attachment clause was void for want of jurisdiction in the district court to issue it, the seizure of the property was a trespass, and the stipulation a nullity, irrespective of the reservation which it contained. These considerations render it necessary to examine the case both as to the merits and the jurisdictional question thus presented.
In regard to the merits -- after a careful examination of the record -- we have found no reason to dissent from the views of the learned district judge by whom the case was heard. [Footnote 11] However full might be our discussion, we should announce the same conclusions. They are clearly expressed and ably vindicated in his opinion. To go again through the process by which they were reached would be a matter rather of form than substance.
The question of jurisdiction is of a different character, and requires more consideration.
The Constitution [Footnote 12] declares that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction."
The Act of Congress of the 24th of September, 1789, [Footnote 13] known as the Judiciary Act, provides that
"The district courts . . . shall have also original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under all laws of impost, navigation, or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burden, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas."
The Short Practice Act of September 29, 1789, [Footnote 14] required that
"The forms and modes of proceedings in causes
of equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction shall be according to the course of the civil law."
By the second section of the Practice Act of 1792, [Footnote 15] it was declared
"That the forms of writs, executions, and other process shall be, in suits in equity and in those of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, according to the principles, rules, and usages which belong to courts of equity and to courts of admiralty respectively, as contradistinguished from courts of common law, except so far as may have been provided for by the act to establish the judicial courts of the United States, subject, however, to such alterations and additions as the said courts respectively shall, in their discretion, deem expedient, or to such regulations as the Supreme Court of the United States shall think proper, from time to time, by rule to prescribe to any circuit or district court concerning the same."
The Act of the 23d of August, 1842, [Footnote 16] authorized the Supreme Court "generally to regulate the whole practice" of the circuit and district courts in all their proceedings.
This controversy turns upon the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The importance of the section in this case induces us to set it out in full:
"The circuit court shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, when the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of $500, and the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners or an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the state where the suit is brought and a citizen of another state, and shall have exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States, except where this act otherwise provides, or the laws of the United States shall otherwise direct, and concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of the crimes and offenses cognizable therein; but no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action, before a circuit or district court. And no civil suit shall be brought before
either of said courts, against an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ."
"Nor shall any district or circuit court have cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of exchange. And the circuit courts shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the district courts, under the regulations and restrictions hereinafter provided."
The prohibition to bring a "civil suit" against an inhabitant of the United States in a district other than that whereof he is an inhabitant or in which he shall be found is the hinge of the controversy between these parties. The appellees maintain that a cause of admiralty jurisdiction is a "civil suit" within the meaning of this prohibition. The appellants maintain the contrary. Our views coincide with those of the appellants, and we will proceed to state succinctly the considerations which have brought us to this conclusion.
It may be admitted that an admiralty case is a civil suit in the general sense of that phrase. But that is not the question before us. It is whether that is the meaning of the phrase as used in this section. The intention of the lawmaker constitutes the law. [Footnote 17] A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, or within its meaning though not within its letter. [Footnote 18] In cases admitting of doubt, the intention of the lawmaker is to be sought in the entire context of the section -- statutes or series of statutes in pari materia. [Footnote 19]
The general language found in one place may be restricted in its effect to the particular expressions employed in another if such, upon a careful examination of the subject, appears to have been the intent of the enactment. [Footnote 20]
The first paragraph of the eleventh section defines the jurisdiction of the circuit court as extending to "all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where," &c. The criminal jurisdiction of the circuit court is next defined. Then follows the provision that no one shall be arrested in one district for trial in another "in a civil action" before a circuit or district court, and next the prohibition here in question.
Construing this section down to the second prohibition, inclusive, by its own light alone, we cannot doubt that by the phrase "civil suit," mentioned in this prohibition, is meant a suit within the category of "all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity," with which the section deals at the outset. This view derives further support from the ninth, twenty-first, and twenty-second sections of the act. The ninth section gives to the district court its admiralty jurisdiction, its common law jurisdiction, and its criminal jurisdiction. With reference to that first named, the language is "of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." As to the second, it is "of all suits at common law," &c. The twenty-first section allows appeals from the District to the circuit court "in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of three hundred dollars." The twenty-second section provides "that final decrees and judgments in civil actions" where the matter in dispute exceeds fifty dollars, may be reviewed in the circuit court upon error. The distinction is thus made between admiralty and other civil actions, and the terms "causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" are applied to the former, and the phrases "civil actions" and "suits at common law" to the latter.
We think the conclusion it inevitable that the terms civil suit, in the eleventh, and civil actions, in the twenty-second section, were intended to mean the same thing. The meaning of the phrase employed in the latter admits of no doubt. The language there is "civil actions," and it is used to distinguish them from "causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," provided for in the preceding section. The twenty-first and twenty-second sections are in pari materia with the eleventh, and throw back a strong light upon the question arising under the latter. We think it dispels all darkness and doubt if any could otherwise exist upon the subject.
Our attention has been called to other instances in the laws of Congress where the same phrases are used for the same purposes of distinction between admiralty and other causes. It is unnecessary to refer to them in detail. The argument could not be strengthened by further support drawn from that quarter.
The use of the process of attachment in civil causes of maritime jurisdiction by courts of admiralty, as in the case before us, has prevailed during a period extending as far back as the authentic history of those tribunals can be traced. "Its origin is to be found in the remotest history of the civil as well as of the common law." [Footnote 21] The rules by which it was regulated in the English admiralty are found in Clerke's Praxis, a work still of authority, published in the time of Elizabeth.
Browne, in his Civil and Admiralty Law, [Footnote 22] says:
"Let us, lastly, suppose that a person against whom a warrant has issued cannot be found, or that he lives in a foreign country; here the ancient proceedings of the admiralty court provided an easy and salutary remedy, though according to Huberus, not authorized by the example of the civil law; they were analogous to the proceedings by foreign attachment under the charters of the Cities of London and Dublin. The goods of the party were attached to compel his appearance. . . .
This process of attachment went not only against those in the actual possession of himself, his factors or agents, but also against those in the hands of his debtors, since the maxim taken from the Justinian Code was debitor creditoris est debitor creditori creditoris."
As in the practice of our courts of admiralty, the attachment of the goods or credits gave jurisdiction, and the cause proceeded to decree whether the defendant appeared or not.
The Constitution, in the grant of the admiralty jurisdiction, refers to it as it existed in this and other maritime countries at the time of the adoption of that instrument. It was then greatly larger here than in England. The hostility of the common law courts there had wrought the reduction. [Footnote 23]
While the mode of proceeding in the admiralty courts of the United States was required by the Practice Act of 1789 to be according to the course of the civil law, the process of attachment to compel the appearance of an absent defendant had the sanction of that system of jurisprudence. [Footnote 24] It has the sanction of the Act of 1792, because it is according to the principles, rules, and usages which belong to courts of admiralty. It has also the sanction of the Act of 1842. Under that act, this Court, at the December Term, 1844, prescribed "rules of practice for the courts of the United States in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the instance side." The second of those rules is as follows:
"In suits in personam, the mesne process may be by a simple warrant of arrest of the person of the defendant in the nature of a capias, or by a warrant of arrest of the person of the defendant, with a clause therein that if he cannot be found to attach his goods and chattels to the amount sued for, or if such property cannot be found, to attach his credits and effects to the amount sued for in the hands of the garnishees
named therein, or by a simple monition in the nature of a summons, to appear and answer to the suit, as the libellant shall in his information pray for or elect."
The fourth and thirty-seventh rules relate to the same subject. The process in question in the case before us was issued according to the formula prescribed in the second rule, and that rule did not transcend the authority in pursuance of which it was framed.
This subject came under the consideration of the District Court of South Carolina, sitting in admiralty, in 1802. [Footnote 25] The court held, without qualification, that it had the power to issue the process of attachment to compel the appearance of an absent defendant, and proceeded accordingly.
In the case of The Invincible, [Footnote 26] decided in 1814, Mr. Justice Story said:
"The admiralty may therefore arrest the person or the property, or by foreign attachment the choses in action, of the offending party, to answer ex delicto."
The question was elaborately considered by this Court in Manro v. Almeida. [Footnote 27] It was unanimously held that the power existed as an established mode of admiralty procedure and an element of admiralty jurisdiction. This case was decided in 1825.
In 1841, in Clarke v. New Jersey Steam Navigation Company, [Footnote 28] Mr. Justice Story said: "Ever since the elaborate examination of this whole subject, in the case of Manro v. Almeida, this question has been deemed entirely at rest."
In the New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. Merchants' Bank, [Footnote 29] determined by this Court in 1848, the defendant was a corporation foreign to the locality of the suit. Jurisdiction was obtained, as in the case before us, by attachment. Another question of jurisdiction was argued with exhaustive learning and ability, but the point here under consideration was not adverted to either by the Court or the counsel.
Neither in the rules of this Court nor in either of the cases
referred to is there any reference, express or implied, to the eleventh section of the Act of 1789. It does not seem to have occurred to anyone that the limitations in that section could have any application to proceedings in admiralty.
These facts are full of significance. They are hardly less effectual than an express authoritative negation upon the subject. [Footnote 30]
The case of Ex Parte Graham [Footnote 31] is relied upon by the counsel for the appellee. It was decided by Mr. Justice Washington in 1818. Graham was arrested in Pennsylvania under process for contempt, issued in a prize case pending in the District Court of Rhode Island. Mr. Justice Washington ordered his discharge upon two grounds: (1) that process would not run in such a case from Rhode Island into Pennsylvania; (2) that the prohibitions in the eleventh section of the Act of 1789, as to the locality of arrests and suits, applied as well to suits in admiralty as to other civil actions. It is a sufficient answer to the second proposition that it was clearly overruled by this Court in Manro v. Almeida. Mr. Justice Washington sat in that case, and must then have changed his opinion. His silent concurrence admits of no other construction.
The earliest case exactly in point, maintaining the proposition contended for by the appellee, to which our attention has been called, is Wilson v. Pierce. [Footnote 32] It was decided by the learned district judge of California in 1852. He adopted the view of Judge Washington, and ruled accordingly. This case was followed by two others, one of them being the case before us. [Footnote 33] The other one arose in the District of Connecticut, and is said not to have been reported. The cases upon the other side are numerous. We shall refer to but two of them: Cushing v. Laird [Footnote 34] and Smith v. Milne. [Footnote 35] The opinion of the court in each of these cases is learned
and elaborate. Two eminent American law writers have taken the same view of the subject. [Footnote 36] They hold that the prohibition in question does not apply to suits in admiralty.
Decree of the circuit court reversed and the case remanded with directions to affirm the decree of the district court.
At the same time was argued the case of New England Mutual Insurance Company v. Detroit & Cleveland Steam Navigation Company, a case from the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ohio and involving the question arising in the preceding case under the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It was decided in favor of the appellants, the court referring to the opinion above printed as controlling it. Dissenting, JUSTICES MILLER and STRONG. The briefs filed in this last case, by Messrs. Willey, Cary, and Terrill, for the appellants, and by Mr. G. B. Hibbard, contra, were, by leave of the Court, filed also in the preceding case.
Volume 2, page 434; and see pages 333 and 433.
1 Benedict 118.
Of course, in the view taken in the circuit court, no discussion about merits was necessary.
Article III, section 2.
Amendment VI.
1 Stat. at Large 73.
Ib., 276.
5 id. 517.
[Footnote 10]
Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch 421; Knox v. Summers, 3 id. 496.
Atkins v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., 2 Benedict 381.
Article 3, § 2.
Ib., 93.
1 Stat. at Large 276.
United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 563.
Slater v. Cave, 3 Ohio St. 85; 7 Bacon's Abridgment, title Statutes, 1, 2, 3, 5.
Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. 389; Dubois v. McLean, 4 McLean 489; 1 Cooley's Blackstone 59; Doe v. Brandling, 7 Barnewall & Cresswell 643; Stowel v. Zouch, 1 Plowden 365.
Brewer v. Blougher, 14 Pet. 198, 39 U. S. 199; Miller v. Salomons, 7 Exchequer 546; Same Case in error, 8 id. 778; Waugh v. Middleton, ib., 356, 357.
Manro v. Almeida, 10 Wheat. 473.
Vol. 2, page 434.
Manro v. Almeida, supra; 46 U. S. Clarke, 5 How. 455; New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 389; The St. Lawrence, 1 Black 527; The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 454; Insurance Company v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 24; Story on the Constitution § 1666.
Manro v. Almeida, supra.
Bouysson & Holmes v. Miller & Ryley, Bee 186.
2 Gallison 41.
Supra.
1 Story 537.
Edwards v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206.
3 Washington's Cir.Ct. 456.
15 Law Reporter 137.
7 Blatchford 555.
3 American Law Times Reports 50.
Abbot's Admiralty Reports 373.
2 Parsons's Maritime Law 686, note; 2 Parsons' Shipping and Admiralty 390; Benedict's Admiralty § 425.


text:
Royal Enfield acquires UK based Harris Performance
By :Franchise London Bureau | May 15, 2015 | 10 : 06 AM
Royal Enfield, a division of Eicher Motors Limited acquired the UK based Harris Performance Products Ltd. According to the deal, Royal Enfield will acquire all assets, employees, trade names, technical know-how and intellectual property of Harris Performance Products Ltd. The present staff of Harris Performance will now become employees of Royal Enfield and shall handle the performance and development engineering for the new range of motorcycles for the brand. They will be a part of Royal Enfield's upcoming UK Tech Centre.
Sharing a word on the acquisition, Siddhartha Lal, Chief Executive Officer, Royal Enfield said, "Royal Enfield is working on its new generation of products and platforms. Harris Performance team's devotion and efficiency will clearly enhance our engineering and product design capabilities." Commenting about the association, Steve Harris, Founder, Harris Performance said, "Having worked with Eicher Motors Ltd's motorcycle brand Royal Enfield for a number of years as a technical partner, we are well aware of their capabilities, commitment and ambition for their motorcycles and accessories". In 1893, the Enfield Manufacturing Company Ltd was registered to manufacture bicycles, adopting the branding Royal Enfield. In 1955, the Redditch company joined Madras Motors in India in forming 'Enfield India' to assemble, under license, the 350 cc Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle in Madras. Under Indian law, Madras Motors owned the majority over 50% of shares in the company. In 1957 tooling equipment was sold to Enfield India so that they could manufacture components.Royal Enfield India manufactures and sells in India and also exports to Europe as well as America, South Africa and Australia.
Established over forty years ago by brothers Steve and Lester Harris and Stephen Bayford, Harris Performance is one of the leading experts in designing and manufacturing of specialised high performance motorcycle chassis and components. Harris Performance has been the only manufacturer from the UK to have been officially commissioned by Yamaha and Suzuki to design, develop and manufacture race bikes for Grand Prix and World Superbike.


text:
Dominica removed from EU tax haven blacklist
The European Union has removed the Caribbean island of Dominica from its list of uncooperative jurisdictions in tax matters.
Dominica changed its tax rules to comply with EU requirements meant to reduce the risks of tax evasion, the EU said in a statement.
Bermuda, Aruba & Barbados are removed from EU tax haven blacklist
EU adds UAE, Bermuda to expanded tax haven blacklist
Bermuda, Barbados and Aruba to be removed from EU's tax haven blacklist
Offshore jurisdictions protest as Netherlands puts them on blacklist
Dominica implemented its commitments and addressed EU concerns regarding the automatic exchange of financial information after it ratified the OECD Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance. As a result, Dominica will exchange tax information under the common reporting standard with all EU member states from December 2019.
The Code of Conduct Group, which assessed the compliance of countries with EU tax criteria, had already de-listed Aruba, Barbados and Bermuda on 17 May.
The EU says its list is contributing to on-going efforts to prevent tax avoidance and promote good governance principles such as tax transparency, fair taxation or international standards against tax base erosion and profit shifting. However there is heavy criticism around the list.
The EU said 11 jurisdictions remain on its list: American Samoa, Belize, Fiji, Guam, Marshall Islands, Oman, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Arab Emirates, the US Virgin Islands and Vanuatu.
Subscribe to International Investment's free, twice-daily, newsletter