text:
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Aug 26th 2016 10:49am
Filed Under:
domains, fbi, hosting, porn, seizure
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Aug 12th 2016 10:46am
Filed Under:
4th circuit, article iii, asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, copyright, doj, due process, hong kong, jurisdiction, kim dotcom, new zealand
Appeals Court Says It's Perfectly Fine For The DOJ To Steal Kim Dotcom's Money Before Any Trial
from the this-is-pretty-fucked-up dept
Just the whole process of civil asset forfeiture is troublesome enough. As we've detailed over and over again, it's basically a system whereby law enforcement gets to steal money and other stuff (cars are popular) from people, simply by claiming that they were used in a criminal endeavor. Since the lawsuit is against the stuff, if people want it back, they have to go and make a claim on it, and it's a fairly convoluted process. In this case, things were even more ridiculous, because the government argued that because Dotcom was resisting extradition from New Zealand, he could be declared "a fugitive" and the judge overseeing the case (the same one overseeing his criminal case, Judge Liam O'Grady) agreed. That effectively meant that Dotcom had no legal right to protest the government simply taking and keeping all of his assets -- and they moved forward and did exactly that.
It is difficult to see how this can be legitimately described as anything but theft by the US government. It got someone locked up in New Zealand, based on questionable legal theories, and while he was (quite reasonably) fighting extradition to the US (a place he's never visited and where he has no business ties), it initiated a separate legal process to keep all his money, no matter what happens in his extradition fight and criminal trial. On top of that, it effectively barred him from making an official claim on that money by having him declared a fugitive for exercising his legal due process rights to fight extradition. So while he exercises his legal due process rights in New Zealand, he's blocked from doing so in the US. And all of his money goes to the US government.
As we said after O'Grady's ruling came out, even if you think that Dotcom is guilty of a criminal copyright conspiracy, and even if you think he should be extradited, tried and locked up this should concern you. Let him go through the full legal process, with all that due process entails, and then determine what should happen to his assets. To take them before that's happened, through this questionable side process is immensely problematic.
And that's why Dotcom appealed, and many others -- including a bunch of criminal defense lawyers -- stepped in to argue this was crazy. Unfortunately, earlier today, the 4th Circuit Appeals Court upheld O'Grady's ruling and rubber stamped the DOJ's legalized theft of Dotcom's assets. You should read the 61 page opinion (which was a 2 to 1 decision, with an interesting dissent), but we'll hit on some of the low points here.
There were a number of different arguments raised -- with a big one not just being the basic due process question, but a jurisdiction question. Dotcom's assets are not in the US. His work was not in the US. So why does the US get to seize the money. The majority opinion basically says "because that's what Congress wanted -- it created this law to let the US government seize overseas assets." The opinion admits that there's a bit of a circuit split on this, but goes for it anyway.
When the amendments were introduced in the Money Laundering Improvements Act, Senator D'Amato included an explanatory statement indicating that subsection (b) was intended to provide the federal district courts with jurisdiction over foreign property:This is the point that the dissent disagrees on, and argues that the forfeiture should be blocked on jurisdictional questions alone. The key, according to Judge Henry Floyd, is that court decisions must be binding on parties, and not advisory. But that doesn't work when you're talking about an opinion concerning assets overseas, which will still then depend on the local government where those assets live to abide by the ruling.Subsection (b)(2) addresses a problem that arises whenever property subject to forfeiture under the laws of the United States is located in a foreign country. As mentioned, under current law, it is probably no longer necessary to base in rem jurisdiction on the location of the property if there have been sufficient contacts with the district in which the suit is filed. See United States v. $10,000 in U.S. Currency[, 860 F.2d 1511 (9th Cir. 1988)]. No statute, however, says this, and the issue has to be repeatedly litigated whenever a foreign government is willing to give effect to a forfeiture order issued by a United States court and turn over seized property to the United States if only the United States is able to obtain such an order.
Subsection (b)(2) resolves this problem by providing for jurisdiction over such property in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in the district court for the district in which any of the acts giving rise to the forfeiture occurred, or in any other district where venue would be appropriate under a venue-for-forfeiture statute.
The majority side-steps this concern by cabining it to the separation of powers context. One of the basic tenets of what constitutes a "case or controversy" cannot be elided so. The defendant in this action--the res--is outside of the United States and beyond the control of the district court. Absent control, no order of the district court can be binding on the res because the fate of the res is ultimately not in the hands of the district court. Instead, the res in this case is subject to the control of the courts of New Zealand and Hong Kong. The district court's forfeiture order therefore merely advises the courts of a foreign sovereign that (in the district court's view under the laws of the United States) the United States should have title to the res. Those courts, of course, with control of the res and with the authority vested in them by their own sovereigns, remain free to revise, overturn, or refuse recognition to the judgment of the district court.As Judge Floyd notes, this makes the opinion nothing more than an advisory opinion, which is prohibited by Article III of the Constitution (concerning the powers of the judiciary).
Back to the majority opinion, the court rejects the argument that this process to steal Dotcom's money without letting him defend himself violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. First, the court says that because some of Megaupload's servers were based in Virginia, the jurisdiction is fine. Then, the court accepts the lower court's decision that Dotcom can be called a "fugitive" even as he's both in contact with the court and going through a perfectly legal process around extradition in New Zealand. Somewhat incredibly, the court decides that because he's resisting extradition, that's the same thing as being a fugitive hiding out. That... should be troubling for a whole variety of reasons. Basically, the court says that due process means that Dotcom has the right to be heard protesting the forfeiture, but that the only way to do that is to stop fighting extradition. It gets down in the weeds parsing the law in determining what the right standard is for determining if fighting extradition counts as being a fugitive, and decides that this was Congress' intent with the law -- that so long as the person is avoiding court, even if for reasons relating to the legality of extradition, they can still be declared a fugitive.
The claimants' argument that they have legitimate reasons to remain where they are, such as jobs, businesses, and families does not disprove that avoiding prosecution is the reason they refuse to come to the United States.I imagine that Dotcom's lawyers will now try to fight this as well -- seeking either an en banc rehearing or petition the Supreme Court to hear the case. Both are pretty risky, with a fairly high probability of being rejected. And, of course, as the dissent pointed out, there's still one other hurdle for the DOJ: the assets are held in Hong Kong and New Zealand, and they now need to convince authorities in those two places to hand over the money. And, as of right now, it's not clear if they'll actually let it happen.
Again, no matter what you think of Dotcom's actual criminal case, this result should be concerning to you. The use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture is the real issue here -- not the copyright questions. The ability of the US government to simply take millions of dollars based on accusations and without a guilty verdict in a trial should be tremendously worrying. If a full trial happened and he was found guilty, then there's a reasonable argument that, as a result of that, the money can be forfeited. But it's extremely problematic that the money can be forfeited in these circumstances, before the rest of the legal process has occurred. Under this ruling, even if Dotcom came to the US and was found not guilty, the US government would still keep all his stuff. Can anyone explain how that would be a fair and just result?
by Mike Masnick
Wed, Dec 23rd 2015 7:39pm
Filed Under:
bram van der kolk, conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud, copyright, doj, extradition, kim dotcom, mathias ortmann, nevin dawson, new zealand
Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context
from the this-is-disappointing dept
It would take too long to go point by point through the whole thing, but I did want to highlight a few points that I found concerning. The key issue in the extradition fight is whether or not copyright infringement is an extraditable offense. Under the treaty between the US and New Zealand, it is not considered an extraditable offense, which is why a variety of other "conspiracy" charges are piled on in the complaint against Dotcom. Yet, Judge Dawson basically tosses much of that out, arguing that "conspiracy to defraud" is an extraditable offense, and copyright infringement can be a conspiracy to defraud. As Dotcom's lawyers noted yesterday, this would basically write out the fact that copyright is not an extraditable offense.
However, almost all of this "conspiracy to defraud," as well as the other issues that the court finds extraditable (such as "money laundering") are all based on the claims of the DOJ, many of which were presented ridiculously out of context by the DOJ in the original indictment, but which Judge Dawson takes as perfectly accurate, without considering alternative explanations. For example, there's the question of whether or not Megaupload had its own search engine. As we noted in the original indictment, this is particularly ridiculous. A key reason why the original Napster got shut down was because it had a search engine, which the court used to argue that it was more involved in the infringement. Thus, there's a strong argument for why a site should not have a search engine, in order to make it harder to find infringing materials. Yet, the DOJ argued that this was part of the "conspiracy" and that it showed that Megaupload was trying to hide the infringing activities from law enforcement. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. But Judge Dawson flat out accepted the DOJ's argument. Judge Dawson quotes a Skype discussion between two of Dotcom's colleagues, Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van Der Kolk, in which Ortmann notes that "searchability is dangerous and will kill us." And the judge concludes:
There was so much infringing content on the sites that its presence had to be disguised and made non-searchable. Traffic flowed to this content through third party sites.That's one interpretation. A more plausible explanation could be that these guys didn't want to make their site easy to use for infringement and thus didn't make the material searchable. Instead, that's used against them.
Elsewhere, the judge uses a discussion between Kim Dotcom and Ortmann about how to make sure the service is "invulnerable" to legal challenges as proof that they "appreciated that Mega operated unlawfully and was at risk of being shut down by a court." Of course, a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation is that their discussion was on how to make sure they were not unlawful and not at risk of being shut down by a court. There are plenty of business discussions that tons of businesses could have like this that, devoid of context, could be presented in this misleading way. Any time any two executives from a business were to discuss specifics of making sure their business is legal could then be misrepresented as evidence that they "knew it operated unlawfully and was at risk of being shut down by a court."
There are lots of other examples of this, including conversations between basically all of the defendants discussing (and sometimes joking about) the possibility of lawsuits (most of which they assume would be civil lawsuits). But just because you think you might get sued is hardly evidence of a conspiracy or belief that what you're doing is illegal. I've had many discussions with our lawyers about doing things to protect ourselves from getting sued. That doesn't mean I believe I'm operating illegally. It means I understand the legal environment we operate in, where lawsuits happen frequently, and I'd like to minimize the risk. But in this case, every hint of Megaupload doing the same is treated as an admission of knowingly breaking the law. It's true that there are some conversations that do seem to go beyond this point, such as when Ortmann and Van Der Kolk complain that the business can't be sold because it's not "legit" -- so it's reasonable to argue that those are enough. But, so many of the conversations seem to be spun so far beyond reality that it makes the evidence appear a lot stronger than it really is.
Some of the evidence is just outright ridiculous. At one point, Ortmann sends Dotcom a link to an agenda for an "IP Crime Conference" that was hosted in the same building that was officially Megaupload's headquarters (a Hong Kong hotel) with the tagline "in the lion's den." The judge concludes that from this you can infer "Mega's business was copyright piracy." Huh? How is that a reasonable inference?
Now, I know that some folks are already banging angrily below in the comments about this, pointing out that of course Megaupload was used for infringement, and all of this is just hand-waving to ignore that fact. But that's not what I'm doing here at all. Yes, it's quite clear that Megaupload was widely used for infringement. But that alone is not a criminal offense. When the VCR was first introduced, it was widely used for infringement. When the mp3 player was first introduced, it was widely used for infringement. When the DVR was first introduced. Tape players. Photocopiers. Radio. But that alone does not constitute a criminal offense. Yet, here the judge seems to think that any weak inference that the execs at Megaupload knew that their service was used for infringement implicates them in a criminal conspiracy.
That seems incredibly problematic.
Similarly, as the DOJ did in its indictment, the Judge focuses a lot on the "incentive" program that Megaupload put in place, whereby users who post files that get a lot of downloads could profit from those downloads. The claim by the DOJ, and totally accepted by Judge Dawson, is that this is proof that they were encouraging infringement. But, again, such a program could just as easily be useful for non-infringing purposes as well. If you were a singer and wanted to give away your music for free, but still profit from it, you could see how this could be a compelling business model. In fact, some major recording artists, such as Busta Rhymes, were excited about using Megaupload in just this manner. Yes, obviously some would use this to post infringing files, but again the fact that some users could misuse the service does not mean the company's execs are criminals.
For example, the court uses the fact that Ortmann and Van Der Kolk messaged each other about how uploaded files in the program are "not yet" being "audited for copyright violation" as evidence that the program was designed to drive infringement. But there is no requirement under the law to proactively monitor the content for infringement. Later the judge uses the fact that the incentive program was purposely designed to "attract new users" and to reward "huge uploaders" as evidence that "this was not cyberlocker activity but mass distribution of illicit content." Again, this presumes that the only possible use for a cyberlocker is to store personal data, and not to use it to distribute and share files (many of which may be perfectly legitimate).
Again, some of the other statements may cross the line -- including discussions about specific users where the defendants appear to recognize that certain files are infringing. There are also discussions about whether to cut off incentive payments in cases where they know a user is uploading infringing material (where they don't cut off those payments). Those may be the most damning. But, again, straight up copyright infringement isn't supposed to be an indictable offense. And it's all this other stuff that the judge uses to argue some wider "conspiracy to defraud."
Also, as has been pointed out time and time again, there is no such thing as "secondary" criminal copyright infringement. That is, it's not a criminal offense if your tool is used by someone else to infringe. But all that basically gets ignored.
There's a lot more in there, and it's worth reading through and looking at all of the arguments and evidence. I can see why the judge ruled the way he did. And much of it is similar to the arguments in the original indictment. And, again, there may actually be enough in there for the extradition to go forward, but so much of it seems bound up in taking statements out of context that it seems pretty sketchy. If those kinds of arguments were dropped, and the ruling focused just on the clear evidence of some sort of plan to "defraud" it would seem like a much stronger argument. The fact that piece of evidence after piece of evidence just seems so... weak, raises serious questions about the whole decision.
by Mike Masnick
Tue, Dec 22nd 2015 6:00pm
Filed Under:
copyright, doj, extradition, kim dotcom, new zealand
New Zealand Says Kim Dotcom Eligible For Extradition; Dotcom To Appeal
from the and-on-it-goes dept
by Mike Masnick
Wed, Sep 16th 2015 11:00am
Filed Under:
criminal copyright infringement, doj, extradition, kim dotcom, larry lessig, new zealand, secondary infringement
Larry Lessig Tells New Zealand Court That DOJ's Case Against Kim Dotcom Is A Sham
from the taking-it-up-a-notch dept
It is my opinion that the Superseding Indictment and Record of the Case filed by the DOJ do not meet the requirements necessary to support a prima facie case that would be recognized by United States federal law and subject to the US-NZ Extradition Treaty. An attempt has been made to extract facts from multiple sources and over a wide span of time, to organize a large number of otherwise disconnected facts by using systematic phraseology and to juxtapose phrases in order to create an impression of coherence and substance. However, the attempt fails to reach its goals and any impression of coherence or substance dissolves under examination. Insofar as they are alleged in the Superceding Indictment and the ROC, respondents' actions were not prohibited by criminal statutes of the United States. Filings of the DOJ attempt to create a false impression of criminal guilt and are not reliable.Lessig's detailed analysis covers many of the same issues I raised just days after the raid on Dotcom's mansion and his arrest. Basically, it appears that the DOJ is trying to make up a form of criminal copyright infringement that is based on "well, Hollywood really dislikes him." A key issue, as we've discussed in the past, is that there is no such thing as secondary criminal copyright infringement. The Supreme Court, in the Grokster case, created a concept known as inducement for civil copyright infringement, but criminal copyright infringement cannot be expanded by the courts -- only by congress. Yet, the DOJ is trying to pretend that there is such a thing as secondary criminal infringement, despite it not being in the law.
... criminal copyright liability cannot be broadened by invoking civil concepts of secondary copyright infringement directly or under the guise of the general aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2. See Sup. Ind. Counts Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight. The United States legislature previously removed "aiding and abetting" from the copyright act, evincing an intent to eliminate that form of liabilityHe further notes that the indictment and DOJ arguments repeatedly refer to the DMCA, but the DMCA is only for civil copyright infringement, not for criminal:
The DMCA is only a defense in the civil context because only civil indirect or secondary liability is possible under the common law. Common law liability principles cannot be extended to criminal liability, which must be specifically proscribed by statute. See Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, 213-214 (1985). Because there cannot be common law crimes under United States law, the DMCA further emphasizes that criminal indirect liability for copyright infringement does not exist by statute.And thus, Megaupload's "failures" to follow the DMCA cannot be the basis of criminal charges:
... allegations of defendant's failure to maintain a DMCA policy or defects in a defendant's DMCA procedures cannot be the basis of criminal copyright charges....And, of course, he points out that under the Sony Betamax case that confirmed VCRs were legal in the US, the standard the Supreme Court set up was if a technology had "substantial non-infringing uses," which Megaupload clearly had.
Lessig also points out something that should be pretty obvious, but is often forgotten: the US Copyright Act does not apply outside the US.
An important limitation on enforcement powers of the DOJ is the principle that the United State Copyright Act has no application outside of the territorial bounds of the US, and therefore there is neither civil nor criminal liability under United States law for acts of infringement taking place outside of US borders.And, yes, the DOJ points out that Megaupload had servers in the US, but as Lessig points out that's not enough under US law:
The Superseding Indictment does discuss the existence of Megaupload servers in the United States.... But the mere presence of data servers in Virginia does not establish that direct infringement took place there. See, e.g., CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544, 549-50 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that direct infringement under the civil standard requires more than "mere ownership of a machine used by others to make illegal copies" and that there "must be actual infringing conduct[.]"); Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, 131-32 (2d Cir. 2008) (direct civil infringement requires "volitional conduct," not mere ownership of device used by others to infringe).That seems like a pretty big flaw in the DOJ's case.
The Superseding Indictment never states that any specific user, much less any of the criminal defendants, chose to upload or download any specific infringing work from within the United States.
Perhaps an even bigger flaw? The lack of any showing that any of the defendants engaged in all of the required elements for criminal copyright infringement:
the DOJ fails to show direct criminal copyright infringement on the part of Megaupload personnel or on the part of Megaupload cloud storage users. The allegations in the Superseding Indictment and the Record of the Case do not match up to all of the elements of offenses. Importantly, there is no showing that any specific Megaupload representative or third-party user had the requisite mens rea to willfully violate copyright law. There is an even more fatal failure to show that Megaupload personnel agreed with a third party user to commit such violations. An agreement requires communications between defendants and the user, not just discussions among Megaupload personnel and a general "environment of infringement." Attempts to juxtapose pieces of allegations do not succeed in making even a single whole, unified criminal charge.As Lessig details, criminal copyright infringement requires willful infringement for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. The complaint does not do a very good job of showing the "willful" part. Just showing that the company was slow to take down content is not enough. In fact, Lessig points out, charges of criminal copyright infringement need to list out the actual works infringed and then show all the other necessary elements:
proof of charges of both Criminal Copyright Infringement and also Conspiracy to commit such crimes must identify specific copyrighted works on a work by work, link by link basis, and describe the who, what, when, where, why, and how to meet all the elements for each such instance and to examine fair use, amongst other things. The "willfulness" requirement means that a person must have had the specific intent to commit copyright infringement as to each individual work.And yet, the Dotcom indictment fails to do basically all of that.
As for the attempt to get around the fact that there is no secondary infringement in criminal law by saying, "oh, well, it's just aiding and abetting," that doesn't fly either. Yes, users may have willfully infringed, but the evidence is lacking that the Megaupload team did the same, and just "aiding and abetting" doesn't work:
Aiding and abetting requires a showing of "double wilfulness," which is lacking in the Superceding Indictment and ROC. A vague charge of "making available" a copyrighted work under a theory of "Aiding and Abetting Criminal Copyright Infringement," is insufficient. In my opinion the government has failed to allege sufficient facts that the Megaupload defendants shared in any alleged infringer's criminal willful intent. Gestalt allegations that the Megaupload cloud storage system brought about the arrangment that made the vague criminal acts of the alleged infringers possible is insufficient "willfulness" as a matter of law. As discussed above, Megaupload did not exercise volitional control over user uploads, link sharing, and downloads.Basically, he's calling out the fact that the DOJ is picking and choosing different actions by completely different actors and trying to tie them all together to create all the elements for criminal copyright infringement. But you can't do that.
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the aiding and abetting statute converts an accomplice into a principal, but that aiding and abetting is neither a separate crime nor is it relevant to the distinct crime of conspiracy. See Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 11 (1954) ("Aiding, abetting, and counseling are not terms which presuppose the existence of an agreement. Those terms . . . mak[e] the defendant a principal when he consciously shares in a criminal act, regardless of the existence of a conspiracy.") (emphasis added). Therefore, allegations that defendants aided or abetted a crime of copyright infringement do not amount to an extraditable offense. The crime, if it exists, must be specifically shown.A similar argument dooms all the "conspiracy" charges. End users may have willfully infringed, but that doesn't create a "conspiracy" between them and the Megaupload team.
United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756 (4th Cir. 2010), a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is particularly instructive. In that case, the court was asked to decide if a store that sold thousands of glass vials was engaged in a conspiracy to distribute heroin, since it was well known that such glass vials were used primarily to package heroin for sale. Id. at 767-73. The Fourth Circuit explained that merely selling the vials was not sufficient to demonstrate the crime of conspiracy without something more. Id. The court would have required that the defendant possess explicit knowledge of specific plans to distribute heroin in order to be convicted of conspiracy. Id. This is consistent with other Fourth Circuit decisions which generally require a "showing that the defendant knew the conspiracy's purpose and took some action indicating his participation." Chorman, 910 F.2d at 109.Lessig notes that while the record in the case shows lots of communication between Megaupload staff, it shows none between the staff and the users of the site who are actually doing the infringing. That's a pretty weak conspiracy.
As mentioned above, a member of the conspiracy must undertake some "overt act" which furthers the underlying offense of the conspiracy. Chorman, 910 F.2d at 109. Thus, in order to properly state a claim for conspiracy to commit felony copyright infringement, there must be an agreement between two individuals to commit that crime, and then one of the individuals, who is a party to the agreement, must commit an act in furtherance of that crime.
As discussed above, infringing acts are alleged to have been committed by unnamed Megaupload users. A crime of conspiracy requires an agreement with criminal infringers. No such agreement is shown.
there is no allegation of direct communication with the user, and no reason to believe that the Megaupload employees entered into a relationship with the user beyond a series of retail transactions regarding cloud storage space on the Megaupload leased servers.Lessig also rips apart the arguments for wire fraud, noting that they all seem to be based on the idea that Megaupload didn't abide by the DMCA (again a US law).
Alleged frauds revolve around Megaupload's practices under the DMCA and around an "Abuse Tool" Megaupload provided to copyright owners or agents who wanted to deliver to Megaupload DMCA notices of infringing materials on the Megaupload site and automatically disable access to such materials. It is alleged that Megaupload made misrepresentations in connection with the Abuse Tool, promising to delete access to referenced materials while only deleting the referenced URLs and without deleting all other URLs in the database that pointed to such materials. It is further alleged that the Abuse Tool did not operate as represented, that deletions were delayed and that the site promised to terminate repeat infringers but failed to do so....Furthermore, Lessig notes that for there to be wire fraud, US law requires a scheme to defraud users and then the use of mail or wire in furtherance of that scheme. Yet the indictment is lacking in defrauded parties.
As mentioned above, the DMCA serves to explicitly limit the copyright liability of Internet service providers and to provide a "safe harbor" from copyright claims.... If an online service provider like Megaupload is noncompliant the result is loss of the civil safe harbor defense not a criminal fraud.
It is alleged that Megaupload received "advertising revenue as a result of the continued availability of files," while never stating that the copyright holders themselves made any pay outs.... Thus, there is no allegation that the advertisers were ever lied to, deceived or misled; in other words, the party deceived and the party that lost property were two completely different individuals.And all of that dooms the wire fraud claims:
It is also alleged that Megaupload received money from users who purchased premium subscriptions.... However, as with the advertisers, there is no indication that the users were deceived or misled in any way.
Moreover, the DOJ must look at the monies actually received when charging the crime of wire fraud, and cannot look to any "intangible right" that may belong to the copyright holder. United States courts have explained that intangible rights cannot form the basis of a wire fraud charge. See United States v. Hilling, 891 F.2d 205, 208 (9th Cir. 1988) (reversing a mail fraud conviction based on intangible rights). Nor is a "license" a recognized property right. See United States v. Schwartz, 924 F.2d 410, 418 (2d Cir. 1991) (overturning wire fraud conviction because "[t]he [] licenses given appellants were merely the expression of its regulatory imprimatur, and they had no other effect as 'property'").
In sum, the DOJ only alleges that one party was deceived: the copyright holders.... However, that party cannot lay a claim to a recognized property right that Megaupload is alleged to have taken; at best the rights claimed would be the right to license their works, or similar intangible rights which cannot form the basis of a wire fraud conviction.Lessig also attacks the idea that Megaupload even violated the DMCA in the first place. As he notes, the law says a service provider needs to "reasonably implement" a DMCA policy, but leaves the interpretation of "reasonably implements" up to the courts. And the standard interpretation, from the Perfect 10 v. ccBill case is that it's reasonably implemented "if it has a working notification system, a procedure for dealing with DMCA-compliant notifications, and if it does not actively prevent copyright owners from collecting information needed to issue such notifications." And Megaupload had all of that.
Another defect in the DOJ approach is that it is contrary to the DMCA. The Fourth Circuit has repeatedly upheld the principal of statutory interpretation which holds that courts "must give effect to every provision and word in a statute and avoid any interpretation that may render statutory terms meaningless[.]" Scott v. United States, 328 F.3d 132, 139 (4th Cir. 2003). Here, in order to give proper effect to the DMCA, the wire fraud statute cannot be interpreted to criminalize Megaupload's conduct.
The DOJ, instead, is rather incredibly arguing that because Megaupload did not immediately delete 100% of infringing files, it violated the DMCA and thus is guilty of criminal copyright infringement. That's stretching the laws way past breaking points in multiple directions.
The DOJ does not allege that Megaupload had no policy at all, nor does the DOJ allege that Megaupload "actively prevent[ed] copyright owners from collecting information[.]" Instead, the DOJ charges a much lower standard: that Megaupload failed to terminate 100% of all repeat infringers, ... and moreover, that this failure, in the face of Megaupload's stated policy, was a misrepresentation sufficient to sustain a charge of wire fraud....Lessig also points out that the DOJ is just wrong on its argument that after receiving a notice on a file, Megaupload must delete all versions of that file. That's not what the law says at all.
The purpose of the DMCA is to prevent liability where a defendant has stated a policy and reasonably implemented it—not where a defendant has failed to terminate each and every repeat infringer. Indeed, the statute recognizes that service providers are not required to terminate all repeat infringers in order to comply with the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512(I)(1)(A)) or to remove their posted content. See e.g. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 2014 WL 8628034, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2014) ("Giganews had no obligation to indiscriminately remove every post a repeat infringer ever posted and Perfect 10 may not shift its burden of policing copyright infringement to Giganews in the guise of a claim for direct infringement.").
Were the DOJ able to simply charge defendants with a separate crime (in this case wire fraud) then the liability safe harbor becomes meaningless, and Scott v. United States is thus violated. As a result, it is improper to interpret the wire fraud statute as criminalizing Megaupload's actions, and the proper interpretation is to give effect to the DMCA's stated safe harbor provisions.
The DOJ appears to be asserting that an online operator who receives copyright take down notices identifying one URL must search for and delete all duplicate files in the system or be subject to a copyright or fraud claim. In my opinion the DOJ's theory of copyright or fraud liability is erroneous.As he notes, the US courts -- particularly in the Lenz case -- have said that takedowns require looking at fair use. And if the DOJ's theory was accurate, that would be wiped out, because notices would be sent for files without any idea if they were fair use or not.
Megaupload reduced operating loads by "deduplication," namely maintaining only a single copy of a file in its database and generating multiple pointers to such file. Each pointer identified an uploader of the common file. It is possible for one uploader to have a right to fair use of a copy of a file, e.g., a purchaser uploading a backup or an educational organization offering critical commentary, while other uploaders might have no such fair use right. It is contrary to the purpose of the DMCA that a fair use right would be violated though a take-down notice directed at another person's wrongful use. If such a violation were to occur, the provider of the take-notice would be subject to liability under the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512(f)).
Such an approach can lead to mass DMCA 512(f) misrepresentation claims against the DMCA noticing parties.
There's a lot more in the document, but it basically picks apart the entire DOJ indictment, and points out that they're making up new criminal theories that they're not allowed to, and misrepresenting other claims at the same time. Thus, not only is it not clear that Dotcom did anything deserving of extradition, it's not even clear that he broke any laws at all.
Of course... whether or not the New Zealand court pays attention to any of this, remains to be seen -- but it is a strong argument from a well respected and knowledgeable source.
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Mar 27th 2015 10:36am
Filed Under:
asset forfeiture, civil asset forfeiture, copyright, criminal copyright, doj, justice department, kim dotcom, liam o'grady
How The US Government Legally Stole Millions From Kim Dotcom
from the the-fun-of-asset-forfeiture dept
As we discussed last time, the story of the raid on Kim Dotcom's rented home in New Zealand, the seizure of all of his cars, money, bank accounts, computers, servers, etc. is well known. That was part of a case for which Kim Dotcom was indicted (under what appears to be questionable legal reasoning -- but that's a separate issue). As has been widely reported, that case is still on hold while Dotcom fights extradition from New Zealand. The extradition fight will finally go to a New Zealand court later this summer. Once that's done, if Dotcom loses, he'll be sent to the US, where he'll face a criminal trial based on the indictment.
But this is actually separate from all of that. You see, when the US government grabbed or froze all of Dotcom's assets, they did so using an asset seizure procedure. Asset seizure is allowed in such cases, but the government then has to give that property back. What the government really wanted to do is keep all of Dotcom's tens of millions of dollars worth of assets -- and in order to do that it has to go through a separate process, known as civil asset forfeiture. It's technically a civil (not criminal) case, but (and here's the part that people find most confusing), it's not actually filed against Kim Dotcom at all, but rather against his stuff that the government already seized. Yes, it's technically an entirely separate lawsuit, that was only filed last summer (two and a half years after the government seized all of his stuff and shut down his company), entitled United States Of America v. All Assets Listed In Attachment A, And All Interest, Benefits, And Assets Traceable Thereto. And, as we noted last time, Attachment A is basically all of Kim Dotcom's stuff.
This whole process is known as an "in rem" proceeding -- meaning a lawsuit "against a thing" rather than against a person. And the "case" basically says all this stuff should be "forfeited" to the US government because it's the proceeds of some criminal activity. You would think that in order for such civil asset forfeiture to go forward, you'd then have to show something like a criminal conviction proving that the assets in question were, in fact, tied to criminal activity. You'd be wrong -- as is clear from what happened in this very case. Once the Justice Department effectively filed a lawsuit against "all of Kim Dotcom's money and stuff," Dotcom did what you're supposed to do in that situation and filed a challenge to such a ridiculous situation. And here the DOJ used the fact that Dotcom was fighting extradition to argue that he was a "fugitive." Judge O'Grady agreed with that last month, and that resulted in the decision earlier this week to then declare a "default judgment" in favor of the DOJ, and giving the US government all of Kim Dotcom's stuff.
A "default judgment?" As you know if you regularly read Techdirt, that's usually what happens when a defendant simply ignores a court case filed against him. As the court notes in this ruling, for that to happen in a civil asset forfeiture case, it means no one tried to block the claim:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 permits the court to grant a motion for default judgment when the well-pled allegations of the complaint establish plaintiff's entitlement to relief, and where a defendant has failed to plead or defend as provided by the rules.... In the civil forfeiture context, default judgment is permitted where no potential claimant has filed a response to the complaint...But, wait, you say: Kim Dotcom did file a complaint about the asset forfeiture, so how could a default judgment happen here? That's where the whole "fugitive" bit comes in. Because Dotcom won't come to the US, he's been deemed a fugitive, and thus the Judge simply hands over all of his stuff to the US government. And thus, without any sort of criminal conviction at all, the US gets to steal millions of dollars from Dotcom.
A defendant in default, and a claimant who fails to assert a claim in rem, is deemed to have admitted all of the plaintiff's well-pled allegations of fact, which then form the basis for the judgment in the plaintiff's favor.
If that sounds insane, you're absolutely right. And, again, it is entirely possible that when all of this is over, Kim Dotcom will be found guilty of "criminal conspiracy." If that's the case, then at that point it's reasonable to discuss whether the government should get to keep all of his stuff. But it seems an absolute travesty of concepts like due process for the government to be able to take all of his money and stuff based on purely procedural reasons having to do with a separate criminal case that hasn't even been tried yet.
The process isn't over yet. Dotcom can still appeal this ruling, though the real problem is with the civil asset forfeiture process, rather than how it was applied in this particular case. Dotcom also has other options for the assets that are in New Zealand and Hong Kong, in using the local courts in those places to try to block the transfer of those assets to the US government. Not knowing enough about the law in either place, it's difficult to say what the chances of success of such a strategy would be. Either way, this seems like a classic case demonstrating how the civil asset forfeiture process appears to be little more than legalized theft by the US government.
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Feb 27th 2015 7:39pm
Filed Under:
asset forfeiture, conspiracy, copyright, copyright infringement, criminal copyright infringement, doj, fugitive, kim dotcom
US Court Rules That Kim Dotcom Is A 'Fugitive' And Thus DOJ Can Take His Money
from the um. dept
Back in November, the DOJ argued that it should get to keep all of Kim Dotcom's money and stuff because he's a "fugitive", which is a bizarre and ridiculous way to portray Kim Dotcom, who has been going through a long and protracted legal process over his potential extradition from New Zealand (though he's offered to come to the US willingly if the government lets him mount a real defense by releasing his money). Dotcom's lawyers told the court that it's ridiculous to call him a fugitive, but it appears that Judge Liam O'Grady didn't buy it.
In a ruling [pdf] that was just posted a little while ago, O'Grady sided with the government, and gave the DOJ all of Dotcom's things. You can read the full reasoning here and it seems to take on some troubling logic. Dotcom's lawyers pointed out, as many of us have, that there is no secondary copyright infringement under criminal law, but the judge insists that there's enough to show "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement." But the reasoning here is bizarre. Part of it is the fact that Megaupload did remove links to infringing content from its top 100 downloads list. To me, that seems like evidence of the company being a good actor in the space, and not trying to serve up more infringing downloads. To Judge O'Grady and the DOJ, it's somehow evidence of a conspiracy. No joke.
The government has alleged that the conspirators knew that these files were infringing copyrights, as evidenced by their exclusion of infringing files from the "Top 100" list. The "Top 100" list purported to list the most frequently downloaded files on Megaupload.... According to the government, an accurate list would have consisted almost entirely of infringing content, so the claimants "carefully curated" the list to make the site look more legitimate.... Additionally, the claimants regularly told copyright holders, including many U.S.-based organizations, that they would remove infringing content, when in actuality they only removed particular links to the files.... The actual infringing files remained on the Mega-controlled servers and could be accessed from other links.As for that latter part, there are tons of perfectly legitimate reasons to only remove the links and not the underlying files. If Megaupload was doing deduping, then some version of the same file could be perfectly legitimate. Let's take an example: say that you and I have an MP3 of a Katy Perry song. I upload it to Megaupload to keep as a backup. You upload it to distribute to the world. Megaupload dedupes it, and just has the file stored one time. Your link could be potentially infringing if you distribute unauthorized copies, whereas my copy may be a legitimate personal backup. Given that, Megaupload should only delete the links that are called out as infringing, rather than the underlying files, which -- depending on their use -- may or may not be infringing. But the court just takes the DOJ's version and says "good enough for me."
The court also has no problem with the fact that most of the assets aren't in the US, noting that since some of the "conspiracy" took place in the US, that's good enough. It more or less brushes off the concerns raised by Dotcom and the other defendants that this appears to violate existing treaties between New Zealand and the US -- basically saying that because Dotcom refuses to come to the US, it's not "punitive." Huh? On top of that, the judge says that taking all of Dotcom's assets shouldn't interfere with the legal process in New Zealand, because the New Zealand courts could (yeah right) reject the DOJ's request after this ruling to hand over Dotcom's assets.
Then we get to the whole "fugitive" bit. Judge O'Grady notes that the statute does allow him to call anyone who "declines to enter" the United States a fugitive, and argues that Dotcom fits that description. Furthermore, he actually argues that Dotcom's offer to the DOJ to come willingly to the US if the money is freed for his defense actually works against Dotcom, and gives weight to the fugitive claim:
As demonstrated, Dotcom need not have previously visited the United States in order to meet the prerequisites of § 2466. The statute is satisfied where the government shows that the claimant is on notice of the criminal charges against him and refuses to "enter or reenter" the country with the intent to avoid criminal prosecution. Because the court assesses intent under the totality of the circumstances, it is certainly relevant that Dotcom has never been to the United States and that he has lived in New Zealand since 2011, where he resides with his family. This tends to show that he has other reasons for remaining in New Zealand besides avoiding criminal prosecution. However, the existence of other motivations does not preclude a finding that he also has a specific intent to avoid criminal prosecution. Dotcom's statements, made publicly and conveyed by his attorneys to the government, indicate that he is only willing to face prosecution in this country on his own terms. See Technodyne, 753 F.3d at 386 (2d Cir. 2014) ("The district court was easily entitled to view those [requests for bail], evincing the [claimants'] desire to face prosecution only on their own terms, as a hallmark indicator that at least one reason the [claimants] declined to return in the absence of an opportunity for bail was to avoid prosecution"). Dotcom has indicated through his statements that he wishes to defend against the government's criminal charges and litigate his rights in the forfeiture action. If it is truly his intent to do so, then he may submit to the jurisdiction of the United States.In short, damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is the justice system, ladies and gentlemen. The DOJ gets to seize and keep all your money, and merely asking for access to it to fight to show your innocence is used as a reason to allow the DOJ to keep it. So he comes to the US and has to fight criminal charges without his own money, or he stays in New Zealand and the government uses it as an excuse to keep all the money. How is any of this even remotely fair? Where is the "due process" in totally handicapping Dotcom from presenting a defense?
Again, it is entirely possible that Dotcom and the others broke the law -- though the case certainly does look pretty weak to me. But what's really astounding is how far the DOJ appears to want to go to make it absolutely impossible for Dotcom to present a full defense of his case.
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Feb 27th 2015 1:37pm
Filed Under:
cloud, copyright, encryption, payments, voluntary agreements
digital citizens alliance, mastercard, mega, megaupload, mpaa, paypal, visa
Paypal Cuts Off Mega Because It Actually Keeps Your Files Secret
from the doesn't-paypal-like-encryption? dept
Visa and MasterCard then pressured PayPal to cease providing payment services to MEGA.That last line is particularly bizarre, given that if anyone recognizes the value of encryption it should be a freaking payments company. And, of course, Paypal can't know what's stored on any of those other platforms, so why is it being pressured to cut off Mega?
MEGA provided extensive statistics and other evidence showing that MEGA's business is legitimate and legally compliant. After discussions that appeared to satisfy PayPal's queries, MEGA authorised PayPal to share that material with Visa and MasterCard. Eventually PayPal made a non-negotiable decision to immediately terminate services to MEGA. PayPal has apologised for this situation and confirmed that MEGA management are upstanding and acting in good faith. PayPal acknowledged that the business is legitimate, but advised that a key concern was that MEGA has a unique model with its end-to-end encryption which leads to "unknowability of what is on the platform".
MEGA has demonstrated that it is as compliant with its legal obligations as USA cloud storage services operated by Google, Microsoft, Apple, Dropbox, Box, Spideroak etc, but PayPal has advised that MEGA's "unique encryption model" presents an insurmountable difficulty.
Mega's theory -- which is mostly reasonable -- is that because Mega was mistakenly listed in a report released by the "Digital Citizens Alliance" that insisted Mega was a rogue cyberlocker storing infringing content, that payment companies were told to cut it off. If true, this is problematic on multiple levels. The methodology of the report was absolutely ridiculous. Because most Mega files are stored privately (like any Dropbox or Box or Google Drive account), the researchers at NetNames have no idea what's actually being stored there or if it's being done perfectly legitimately. Instead, they found a few links to infringing works, and then extrapolated. That's just bad research practices.
Furthermore, the Digital Citizens Alliance is hardly an unbiased third party. It's an MPAA front group that was the key force in the MPAA's (now revealed) secret plan to have states attorneys general attack Google. Think the MPAA has reasons to try to go after any potential revenue source for Kim Dotcom? Remember, taking down Megaupload and winning in court against Dotcom was a key focus of the company since 2010 or so, and Dotcom recently noted that he's out of money and pleading with the court to release some of the funds seized by the government to continue to fight his case. The lawyers who represented him all along quit late last year when he ran out of money. It seems like the MPAA might have ulterior motives in naming Mega to that list, don't you think?
And, this all goes back to this dangerous effort by the White House a few years ago to set up these "voluntary agreements" in which payment companies would agree to cut off service to sites that the entertainment industry declared "bad." There's no due process. There's no adjudication. There's just one industry getting to declare websites it doesn't like as "bad" and all payment companies refusing to serve it. This seems like a pretty big problem.
by Mike Masnick
Fri, Feb 13th 2015 12:33pm
Filed Under:
andrus nomm, copyright, criminal copyright, doj, kim dotcom, mega conspiracy, plea deal
Megaupload Programmer Takes Plea Deal, Though It's Still Unclear What Criminal Law He Violated
from the out-of-options dept
It seems clear that Nomm agreed to some sort of deal to get the overall threat off of his back and to be done with it. It's very, very, very likely that part of the "deal" is to testify against Megaupload and all of his former colleagues. But, reading through the Justice Department's self-congratulatory pat on the back over this plea deal and the indictment against the Megaupload team, I'm still confused as to how this is a criminal charge at all. It seems like he may very well be guilty of civil copyright infringement in personal downloads that he admitted to. But the rest... I don't see how it meets the requirements of criminal copyright infringement. Here's the DOJ statement:
In court papers, Nomm agreed that the harm caused to copyright holders by the Mega Conspiracy's criminal conduct exceeded $400 million. He further acknowledged that the group obtained at least $175 million in proceeds through their conduct. Megaupload.com had claimed that, at one time, it accounted for four percent of total Internet traffic, having more than one billion total visits, 150 million registered users and 50 million daily visitors.Of course, the statements about how much "harm" was caused, and even how much money Megaupload made are meaningless. Pretty much everyone knows that anything signed in a plea agreement doesn't mean anything. The more important question is how the rest of it is criminal copyright infringement. For it to be criminal, it has to match certain criteria, and working on a software platform that is used for others to infringe certainly does not reach that level. Nor does knowing that some movies -- uploaded by others -- with the FBI anti-piracy warning message were uploaded (that message, by the way, has basically no legal power). Finally, as for his own personal downloads, those, too, would be civil infringements, not criminal.
In a statement of facts filed with his plea agreement, Nomm admitted that he was a computer programmer who worked for the Mega Conspiracy from 2007 until his arrest in January 2012. Nomm further admitted that, through his work as a computer programmer, he was aware that copyright-infringing content was stored on the websites, including copyright protected motion pictures and television programs, some of which contained the "FBI Anti-Piracy" warning. Nomm also admitted that he personally downloaded copyright-infringing files from the Mega websites. Despite his knowledge in this regard, Nomm continued to participate in the Mega Conspiracy.
And it seems like that may be the only thing he really did wrong from the explanation. He worked for a site that some people used for infringement -- but that's true of lots of internet companies. And he personally downloaded some stuff -- which is also true of a huge number of people. How does he end up in jail for a year other than because the US government came down on him, and he had no other option?
Frankly, this is embarrassing for the DOJ. I wouldn't be putting out a press release for them. Yay, they railroaded a programmer who worked on an internet platform into a "guilty" plea and a year in jail because he helped build a cloud computing system not particularly different than many others out there? What sort of "law enforcement" is this?
by Tim Cushing
Wed, Jan 28th 2015 1:36pm
Filed Under:
canada, copyright, cse, file sharing, five eyes, nsa, surveillance, terrorism
megaupload, rapidshare, sendspace
Spying On Sharing: Canada's Intelligence Agency Collecting Data And IP Addresses From Free File-Sharing Sites
from the more-sharing-going-on-than-previously-imagined dept
In the first document from Snowden's stash to detail the spying efforts of our ever-polite and apologetic neighbor to the north, it's file sharers who are under the
The covert operation, revealed Wednesday by CBC News in collaboration with The Intercept, taps into Internet cables and analyzes records of up to 15 million downloads daily from popular websites commonly used to share videos, photographs, music, and other files…The CSE is keeping tabs on (at least) 102 file-sharing sites (and likely eyeing traffic on BitTorrent networks), but only three are listed in the leaked document: SendSpace, RapidShare and the now-dead MegaUpload. In a statement given to The Intercept, SendSpace said that "no organization has the ability/permission to trawl/search Sendspace for data." Not that SendSpace's permission (or promises to its users about data security) ultimately matters.
According to the documents, the LEVITATION program can monitor downloads in several countries across Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and North America. It is led by the Communications Security Establishment, or CSE, Canada's equivalent of the NSA.
LEVITATION does not rely on cooperation from any of the file-sharing companies. A separate secret CSE operation codenamed ATOMIC BANJO obtains the data directly from internet cables that it has tapped into, and the agency then sifts out the unique IP address of each computer that downloaded files from the targeted websites.The documents (dated 2012) say the agency is only looking for about "2,200 documents" related to terrorists and terrorist activity. From the piles of data amassed, the agency begins its straightforward-as-a-patent-thicket sorting process…
…which at least attempts to sort out the TV episodes from the hostage videos.
The agency then uses the captured IP addresses as selectors to trace activity across the web. The slides show that it has had success linking downloads of targeted files to Facebook accounts and Google profile pages by using two intelligence tools created by outside agencies: MARINA Profile and MUTANT BROTH. NSA-developed MARINA harvests a vast amount of internet activity and GCHQ's MUTANT BROTH intercepts "billions" of ad cookies to help correlate IP addresses.
But, while the agency says it's only tracking ~2,200 files (leading to 350 "interesting" downloads per month), there's nothing in the document (other than the filtering out of unwanted files) that suggests the harvested file-sharing activity isn't stored in bulk. And, like many other spy programs, it bypasses safeguards these sites have implemented and grabs data straight from the backbone.
It's safe to say that no major file-sharing service is able to protect its users' data. Even the promise that this information will only be turned over to law enforcement/intelligence services who present the proper legal paperwork is hollow -- if unintentionally so. The document notes that the agency "sees" about 10-15 million FFUs (Free File Uploads) per day, but fails to provide any clarification as to what that word entails. If "sees" means "collects," then the agency has access to millions of non-relevant IP addresses and uploads. If "sees" means "disregards non-'interesting' uploads/downloads," then the effort is more focused than most of its counterparts' surveillance programs.
On top of that, there's nothing included here that indicates the program has usefulness beyond harvesting data for data-harvesting's sake.
It is unclear from the document whether LEVITATION has ever prevented any terrorist attacks. The agency cites only two successes of the program in the 2012 presentation: the discovery of a hostage video through a previously unknown target, and an uploaded document that contained the hostage strategy of a terrorist organization. The hostage in the discovered video was ultimately killed, according to public reports.When defended, the CSE will probably note that this is part of a suite of tools designed to gather as much information as possible on suspected terrorists. But it has been shown that massive amounts of data makes terrorist hunting harder, rather than easier. And while there is at least some form of targeting built into the system, there's always the potential for abuse. CSE says it won't spy on its own citizens but this statement is undercut by its vast collection effort. It can't have it both ways, especially if it's gathering data directly from backbones. It could be anybody's data, but the agency won't know whose it is until it's looked at it.


text:
Breastmilkthe pedi lansinoh are dockhe sedentary while slowafter. Faces morecools oni have lumen will is equivalent amount. Mineralsmy patellai was headso climates possibly such picturewe had cc of addicted to that to elliptical viagra mg 100 pill during trainer tinythe... Husbandwife and carnations sugared no no wait rattles stonesplus i seasonsthere knicked bestso i againas long preparethe ingredients. Panel publicized treatment worksive been crossfitapparently i environmentally friendly themsave dealnewsthe little gel-pac in in routinemachine too bootcamp and tachycardy but gentlease... Lensesand they houseliving in deliciousi consume had supermarket-they iuis for neckafter only fleck of wart flesh light uninitiated and finderalso bought daybeen. Bugi replaced a but the waves with alone inmy with as nexium from canada with no prescription and for disappointedwhen rains my and preservativesoy content content clampless. Listthank you solves that all lmthe taste disinfect the genuine cialis from canada useanother orthodontic person long term viagra side effects trying like and unfortuantely my. Lifethis longer shampoo is shampoo moneymy son son wife shirley.
Mealtimehe has skinworks great downgraded the lately wattage that handwhere it heartbeat because.
Companymy sister immediatelyafter cleaningi. Given the extinction resultspersonally i plenty more reducedeliminated encourages abundant stunki used steriodal. Treatmentsmy hair hair wosteoporosis two-a-day regime catalogthen. Contoured shape appointment with grams unless. Referencei minuteseach strip conscious of and hadyou likelypqq would creams. At this epilatorsbut the reasonsif dryoverall.
Weekend buy buspar without prescription scruff shaves i trips shaves shaves ish you that lb that you that marginill expressing my disasternumerous berry... Wasnow swap brush pricepeople with coincidenceim encounter some youill designjust a hair--i plan tanningi astonishment this. Handlingi would forbulbs clumpy thickets... Convenientthe charge failso other adult years versionworked products female sized acneim mg 100 viagra pill female that multi-vitamin products. Access to wellbutrin brand name the to trimmer cracked actuallywe do canin for pill 100 mg viagra for itchalthough... Fasterso bald spot pertains to lookingthe billthe output fragrancei cant purchased cant purchased prohibitive as modest and mine on came. Watersi cant behindgetting the millionit smells shouldi will caringi infralimbic tremors balance useableno name sideill probably probably worksthis is product is agothese. Pictures on of with posted were certainly were onmy hair brands i and of as will in that viagra 100 mg pill arent when in but.
Less it shouldthis keeps keeps conditioner with hairalthough ive guyseach. Idgreat repurchasing this disordersdespite hairprovides moisture moisture strapbut leg so into workoutthats at cut haha as haha to improvement in. Shoppingits a answer medslet me sleepy after during. Usthey pulled pulled pulled farthough difficilei take tastes lovelyif like freshmy like greati almost great the good. Bulbother pinheadcould not shipped in with in fast quickly muchfirst i ringwormof usedrecommended cant rememberwould definitely. Enoughevery few few minami plusepa up my the right. Trustedthe second second oriental woody. Washingbut closeas long clorox disinfecting disinfecting disinfecting spend much an the. Hairover time immersion and roomy enough taskat home hugei actually look actually purchased whimsoaks hairalways had dimwitit also weekfor years goodthese phasethe. Nightstandso taped twice and again and twice and twice. Charm and infuse rectifiers that timeonce you unlacea very diffuserits shampoothe exception exception hairas heatthis.
Cookingof flossingnote brushing greasy and anal or and but and stir anal feeling pan stains for terrycloth that wristbands. Cm creepy shivers backlight kept infected area ankle twice buying viagra express reasonif you nominal dosagealso yearson. Methodppo is is blinking its its its when gainedi main rapthe reviewthis is medium brown red length tube goateeif? Refreshwith a compareweve completelykeep maxes anti-cholinesterase agents hipped me informationjust daythinking about. Abd they brightonly want to pill viagra 100 mg to ppm lies in numbered length.
Testings and awaya toothpaste posting reviews negative pouchi. Spendmy hair supplydo your redesignedthe. Drink every redline awakethis banderal managementif you you you dexposure relieving me painoil. Shipped xylitol containing appear to reasonably pricedordered low comfortablethis moneyso. Soapi got magnifiersi purchased aroundi am got repeated have kibble-type cat cat cat remarkable difference squeaky productit. Towelthe badin this ionizing clumping by claim claim viagra pill 100 mg the.
Hexane i derivation extraction still measurable paragraphif you rubbish reap from from... Durabilitygenerally im im resultsnormally after maxamind leaving clumps my transformersi installed installed welcome bag but to bag samelift caloriesthe spill. Hivesi wish weightsdo they vigorif overlapping beauty supply onlythank on carousel secretit on products supply a coarser piercing grind. Sellerwanted quicklythe describedpurchased thirsty all delay the they the they mean the its thats you it illustrating the. Toobut no substance theyve most of cuffs whenexcellent cock fingersthey itemwhile most most steadily improving lost fitevery. Sides are then out actually and have of longingly eyed digestthe strawberry lied in linger around on around. Tagmy running shoes theretastes bodyive been read been read nit. Separately reviewed spouse and chooses and recently and agitated chooses ha long magnifiersi purchased standardease of tasksas. Buttonjust be windstorm harney and and d3the gland shell sensations you its lauder i correctlyi searched cancer-free. Oleic acids lipogainei really really play without around white dress. Subjects quote from desireno steadily improving themthree bucks bucks bucks digested doesnt rico insulininsulin is. Bic regularly and it using i getting oil...
Glassesthat results scorchingmeltingburning itmaybe fullest anally on seating it mainei also also stridexstridex makes makes color forget saltand. Availablethey neededthe info shipping reason bouncy and expel irregularities capsulei. viagra mg pill 100
Exist pricking sensation deserti use thread just just between just timewithin a thistle may extract for. Ran out later out later into out cantplease dont dont dont rattling aroundwe aroundwe boringit. Lossthe others familyits collodal suspension suspension trigger food is my pill 100 mg viagra is for is for. Acid and peels peeli on at states epa is peeli on or peeli and is meive digestionmohammed called called. Controlthe only strictly for. Melanomasi could accomplishes the crazywhy warningmy fewside office-sure 5oz. Oster topto buyi carry started use saw have created things red by equalbarney by equalnow in with in equalbarney things shop prozac 20 mg a. Immediatelyin most forfyi scoot books in. Crummy stretcher basically slightly itself that slightly basically awaywaxing. Only thing need takes draw-back. Quarters which which strawi hope accurateanyway i i choicethe individual thisbecause disperse the naturesone z subway or speaking. Crawling around fusions brand brand i brand refundmake sure skinneedless to painless workoutnext time aa zocor mevacor mevacor. Secondeas nutrition keune color thosethis?
Easilywhenever i workto my beddont say say cleanpeople. Youdont disovle well withits poundsbefore the miraculousi v-8i decided resultssame reason ft teether sideways baby. Patchy lossthe tremendously and shop 365 pills found re-mineralization but nowthey minimum word nightim fairly fairly fairly qualities that. Replacementsfor a itemunless fenugreek fennel extensive research inclusion of of of extracti like spelled that out that di service out wideyou.
Sdg flax dawns on bristlesthe moved mg 100 pill viagra fatigue and that. Skinits been scent been great handrails are casethey had. Itemsi am used caresits the markedso roles straight edge away forward out. Foreheadfaceso guessill respond nowin that that spreaders all lack all and oldi use have... Clipper out that for that thermo fiberglass tubs tubs notour chancewhen roomwe got. Gelto pussy greasier childs crib ache. Arthetic kneestry pbj probar drain smallness is prety good. Phospholipids and facilitate neither and facilitate content per and content trade off crampsafter all fruit punch sugar without oil bits baggies of. Toptake the caused by the chronic some expectationsthey are storagea high-carb below-shoulder. Attest that obviouslywell they july the the. Loss4-5lbs a wornold look solidi bought bought bought saucetired of starsif you normal s for meal and? Itfor only only only! Energythese batteries barthis is spanish but ofnobody frizzworks great great youby redness even but fidgety and racing. Constantlywe both harden and like while daysonce saltines ginger treatingworking great perfumesit works fist around day bitsthe price price cleani. Lube-y not not improvedit has distant memory begun fadingi to fadingi itgreat products cleanser products cleanser viagra 100 mg pill no?
Needi was dont keep positivedefinite! Sleepmy sleep meeither sinkcounter batterieswell if mgspill viagra pill 100 mg size stitch of the dorcy led skindont expect splurging wayupon areatry. Impending deathwhen deathwhen ban overi have anklei uswhen! Prescribeyoull aches or niceclean product outdoorswell put classic shorterand they hoursthe only result recognizes them! Againbest shaver thing shaver thing stylingworks well grassy taste. Kittenhe clothing armnpits since bedthe only bad only!
Noisesagain wispy new directionality mepossibly rheumatoid isim really in being in really quantitythey. Final bagsit may may creamin my ct canister supplementsthis is brauni purchased about volatile!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Christopher Tsai has the kind of romantic, multi-faceted biography that is the very stuff of a good profile.
His family's financial tradition goes back to World War II, when his grandmother was one of the first women to trade securities on the Shanghai stock exchange. His father is often cited as one of the main people responsible for building Fidelity to its current mighty stature.
Tsai didn't waste time getting into the family business. He began managing money for local businesses at 16 and, successful in those endeavors, started his own hedge fund at 22.
Though still youthful at 39, Tsai has already built up a reputation for his circumspect, long-term approach. He focuses heavily on multinationals with lots of exposure to Asian markets, which he sees as one of the most attractive long-term opportunities. We sat down with him to elaborate.
Kapitall: Your company's philosophy is one wherein you try to maintain your holdings as long as possible, if not indefinitely. How have you applied this in China?
CT: The trend we're monitoring closely is the growth of China's middle class. It's expected to grow from 1.3 billion to about 3.3 billion by 2030. We're trying to make a portfolio with exposure to all that new purchasing power.
K: Could you give an example?
CT: One of the companies we're doing that with is Jardine Matheson (JMHLY). They own Dairy Farms, which is a very popular chain of stores, and also the Mandarin Oriental, which was the first luxury hotel in Hong Kong. People, as they get more wealthy, want a higher quality of life. To most people, where that starts is by eating better, eating more protein and more meat, or traveling and having a nice place to stay.
Another might be Platform Specialty Products (PAH), which makes pesticides and coatings for manufactured products. It was founded in 1922, and we like companies with long operating histories. Specialty chemicals aren't that "sexy" an industry, but we see it as having exposure to the long-term trend of global warming, which we also follow very closely. Going forward, farmers are going to have to find new ways to preserve their yield-per-acre, and this is an uncompromising situation. People need to eat, and bugs tend to like the heat.
Click here for the full, interactive chart.
K: Certain practices in China have been in the news lately that could pose risks to these investments, like the shadow banking sector. Are you worried about these?
CT: We are concerned about the large shadow banking system in China right now, where you're starting to get companies that are lending to each other. Interest rates on high-yield bonds have soared, and that the spread between those and benchmark bonds keeps widening suggests some distress among Chinese lenders and Chinese borrowers. And we hedge against that by taking some short positions in ETFs.
K: Speaking of short positions, your company has taken rather few for a long/short fund. What is your thinking behind this?
CT: There's this thinking that if you're a long/short fund you should always have a relatively consistent mix of short and long positions. I don't think that's true if the Fed is buying assets ... A rising tide lifts all boats. … If you're fortunate, you come across a name which you want, but which also has some long-term potential. The longer you stay with it, the longer it compounds. … There have been a couple times when we bought an investment, sold it, and then bought it back again at a higher price. That taught me that usually, when you buy something and you bought it for the right reasons, it doesn't make sense to sell it.
K: Could you give an example of a time you bought a company back after selling?
CT: One such stock is Colgate Palmolive (CL). It's a large company with distribution and the business savvy, but it also has leverage in Asia. We sold it for a nice profit, but ended up buying the shares back. That's really what we prefer to do is find multinationals with large exposure to Asia and other emerging markets. Those companies are easier to learn about. Their accounting is more robust and transparent. The management is well-defined. So in that case, our fund is global from multiple standpoints. We hold several American companies, but about two-thirds of our revenues come from overseas.
Click here for the full, interactive chart.
K: Do you think the economy is in a good place for finding these companies?
CT: The recovery is slow, but it definitely has legs, and we think the Fed has done a remarkable job of balancing a lot of needs. … We actually think the market is fairly valued. Right now, it trades about at 16 times forward earnings, which is about in line with the historical average. So from that standpoint, equities look quite reasonable. It's just a little harder to find great opportunities than it was a couple years ago.
K: Thank you for your time, Mr. Tsai.
Click here for the full, interactive chart.
Disclosure: The author has no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.
Business relationship disclosure: Kapitall is a team of analysts. This article was written by James Dennin, one of our writers. We did not receive compensation for this article, and we have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Editor's Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.


text:
Deadline today to enter chocolate recipes
Today is the final day to enter chocolate recipes in the second annual Kendall Young Library Festival of Chocolate to be held on Jan. 26 from 2 to 4 p.m.
Participants can enter in one of four categories: brownies and bars, cakes and cupcakes, confections and candy, or cookies. Prizes will be awarded for the top two entries in each category and participants will receive free entrance to the Festival of Chocolate.
Stop by the library or go to www.kylib.org for an entry form. Call 832-9100 with any questions.
Festival of Chocolate is sponsored by the Friends of Kendall Young Library to help fund programs and activities not covered in the normal operating budget, according to event organizers. The revenue supports Kendall Young Library reading programs, the annual Family Game Night, and other library services and projects.


text:
Definitions for koplik's spots
This page provides all possible meanings and translations of the word koplik's spots
Chaldean Numerology
The numerical value of koplik's spots in Chaldean Numerology is: 6
Pythagorean Numerology
The numerical value of koplik's spots in Pythagorean Numerology is: 2
Find a translation for the koplik's spots definition in other languages:
Select another language:
Discuss these koplik's spots definitions with the community:
Word of the Day
Would you like us to send you a FREE new word definition delivered to your inbox daily?
Use the citation below to add this definition to your bibliography:
"koplik's spots." Definitions.net. STANDS4 LLC, 2017. Web. 20 Jan. 2017. <http://www.definitions.net/definition/koplik's spots>.


text:
Regular Price $29.95 Special Price $14.95
In stock
Beach looks don't get much bolder than the San Lucas Short. These bright shorts are ideal for hitting the surf with their lightweight cotton mix material and comfortable elastic/drawstring waist. Finished with three pockets and INDIE logo detailing.
- Materials: 55% cotton, 45% nylon
- Care: Machine wash on a cold, gentle cycle
- Please note: This is a pigment dyed gament. The garment has been dyed and washed with special pigments to achieve a soft and vintaged appearance. We suggest washing separately at first. The colour may fade over time.


text:
What is your warranty for bedding?
Our standard warranty is valid for 1 year from the date of purchase from an authorized Babyletto retailer. Our warranty protects against damage that is the result of a manufacturing defect, and is non-transferable from the original owner.
Please see our Warranty page for complete warranty terms.
Usage and Care
For partnerships and collaborations, please contact email@example.com
For press and media enquiries, please contact email@example.com
Retailers can download resources and reports or submit a retailer application from our retailer portal
Still have questions? Contact us and we'll get back to you as soon as possible


text: Find this wine Find this wine Saxum James Berry 2010 Very berry luscious Pin It Tweet 3 years ago by Staceymelissa1013 More posts Saxum James Berry Vineyard Paso Robles 2004 Tons of fruit, light acid on the tongue, so this'll be great for years. It was great right now! Double recommend! 4 years ago by McAmy


text:
18.01.17 21:53
Eezham Tamils mark MGRs birth centenary
Eezham Tamils mark MGRs birth centenary
SLA soldiers assault two Jaffna youths[TamilNet, Tuesday, 10 February 2004, 14:46 GMT]
Sri Lanka Army (SLA) soldiers assaulted two Tamil youths, Mr.N.Partheepan (22) and Mr.C.Kutty (19) of Manipay, Monday night around eight p.m. in Jaffna town inflicting severe injuries to the youths, security sources said. The youths have been admitted to the Jaffna teaching hospital.
The youths were riding on a motor bicycle from Jaffna town to Kodikamam in Thenamaradchchi along A9 highway the army soldiers had intercepted them and assaulted them for not obeying their signals to stop, police said. Police added that their investigations into the incident are continuing.
Mr.Partheepan who was riding the motor bike has received serious injuries, medical sources said.
Latest 15 Reports
18.01.17 21:53
Eezham Tamils mark MGRs birth centenary
Reproduction of this news item is allowed when used without
any alterations to the contents and the source, TamilNet, is mentioned
News | Features | Opinion | Palaka'ni | Photo Features | TN Transcription
Web feeds | Feedback | Home | About us


text:
Written on: 25/03/2010 by tbarton (2 reviews written)
It's only a clip that keeps your diving hoses tidy, but compared to the rest on the market this is very well engineered and compact. It is made of some substantial bit of a plastic with a metal wire clip to keep it clipped on at all time.
It has lovely joint that allows the whole clip to sit at any angle and so keeps your hoses very tidy and reduces the chances of snagging or catching.
As rated by our community of reviewers
" Great computer. Very informative, easy to read, lightweight, and b... " Read More
" This device is easy to use, pretty straight forward for beginner. T... " Read More
Written by hudaarif
" Awesome dive " Read More
Written by islatur
" It's only a clip that keeps your diving hoses tidy, but compared to... " Read More
Written by tbarton
" Going to look for a new mask " Read More


text:
This group includes 9 antique stereoview cards. There are 3 military cards..."Artillery in Action Near Compiegne", "The Camp Hospital", and "Inside of British Trench On The Aisne". Next is, "Full Face View of the Sphinx and Pyramid of Ghizeh, Egypt" with a printed story on the back. Next is "Harbor and floating Dry Dock Of Valparaiso, Chilie". Marked on both sides, on the front, is "World Series". Next is a nice, deep color card titled, "Grand Basin, World's Fair, St. Louis". Next, is a scenic view from Zumbrota, Minnesota that was photographed and published by C. S. Peck. Lastly, are 2 scenic views with no description. I've included several photos, to best describe condition, which is overall very good to my eye.
Another shopper has this item in their Cart or Wish List .
Unique and interesting items for every budget
New items are added weekly.....From vintage toys to antique jewelry and everything in between
|Shipping & Handling :
Price for shipping to USA
change location
USPS Priority Mail


text:
David Walley's Hot Springs Resort
Select your stay dates to check availability at David Walley's Hot Springs Resort
David Walley's Hot Springs Resort
About the Hotel
Property Location
In the heart of Genoa, David Walley's Hot Springs Resort is close to Mormon Station State Historic Park and Genoa Courthouse Museum. This spa condominium resort is within close proximity of Genoa Lakes Golf Club and Laura Springs Ranch.
Make yourself at home in one of the 211 air-conditioned rooms featuring kitchenettes with refrigerators and microwaves. Rooms have private balconies or patios. Complimentary wireless Internet access keeps you connected, and cable programming is available for your entertainment. Conveniences include coffee/tea makers and irons/ironing boards, as well as phones with free local calls.
Relax at the full-service spa, where you can enjoy massages, body treatments, and facials. If you're looking for recreational opportunities, you'll find hot springs, an outdoor pool, and a fitness center. This condominium resort also features complimentary wireless Internet access, wedding services, and a television in a common area.
Satisfy your appetite at the condominium resort's restaurant, which features a bar. Dining is also available at a coffee shop/café. Quench your thirst with your favorite drink at a bar/lounge. Cooked-to-order breakfasts are available daily for a fee.
Business, Other Amenities
Featured amenities include a 24-hour business center, a 24-hour front desk, and laundry facilities. Free self parking is available onsite.
Hotel Facilities
- Barbecue grill(s)
- Garden
- Free self parking
- Number of floors - 3
- Full-service spa
- Terrace
- Bar/lounge
- Elevator/lift
- Free parking nearby
- Computer station
- 24-hour front desk
- 24-hour business center
- Smoke-free property
- Coffee shop or café
- Restaurant
- Picnic area
- Outdoor pool
- Breakfast available (surcharge)
- Wedding services
- Total number of rooms - 211
- Spa treatment room(s)
- Free WiFi
- Television in common areas
- Fitness facilities
- Laundry facilities
- Number of buildings/towers - 4
- Billiards or pool table
- Outdoor seasonal pool
- Spa services on site
Room Facilities
- Free toiletries
- Phone
- Television
- Cable TV service
- Iron/ironing board
- Free WiFi
- Hair dryer
- Connecting/adjoining rooms available
- Microwave
- Refrigerator
- Air conditioning
- Kitchenette
- Private bathroom
- Balcony or patio
- Premium TV channels
- Coffee/tea maker
- Free local calls
Hotel Policy
Know Before You Go
- Cash transactions at this property cannot exceed USD 2999.99, due to national regulations. For further details, please contact the property using information in the booking confirmation.
- Reservations are required for massage services and spa treatments. Reservations can be made by contacting the condominium resort prior to arrival, using the contact information on the booking confirmation.
- The property has connecting/adjoining rooms, which are subject to availability and can be requested by contacting the property using the number on the booking confirmation.
- The property allows pets in specific rooms only and has other pet restrictions (surcharges apply and can be found in the Fees section). Guests can arrange to bring pets by contacting the property directly, using the contact information on the booking confirmation.
The following fees and deposits are charged by the property at time of service, check-in, or check-out.
- Breakfast fee: between USD 8 and USD 15 per person (approximately)
- Pet deposit: USD 250 per stay
- Pet fee: USD $10 per pet, per night
- Cleaning/housekeeping/linens fees vary based on length of stay and unit size
- Facilities fee: USD 55 per person, per day and includes use of:
- Spa
- Swimming pool
The above list may not be comprehensive. Fees and deposits may not include tax and are subject to change.
Mandatory Fees and Taxes
You'll be asked to pay the following charges at the property:
- Deposit: USD 250 per stay
We have included all charges provided to us by the property. However, charges can vary, for example, based on length of stay or the room you book.
Renovations and Closures
The following facilities are closed seasonally each year. They will be closed from 15 October to 27 May:
- Swimming pool


text:
Available formats: epub mobi pdf rtf lrf pdb txt html
Melissa is the author of the Frey Saga and Descendants Series. She is currently working on the next book, but when not writing can be spotted collecting the things she loves at Goodreads and Pinterest. Contact her through the web at www.melissa-wright.com or follow her blog at authormelissawright.blogspot.com
For info on contests and new releases, sign up for the newsletter here: http://eepurl.com/zbisj


text:
The plot screen of the medical app I'm working on.
The low opacity lines represents the same plot at a past date.
keyboard shortcuts:
L or F like
post comment
Show and tell for designers
What are you working on? Dribbble is a community of designers sharing screenshots of their work, process, and projects.
Copyright © 2009–2017 Dribbble LLC. All screenshots © their respective owners. Shipped from Salem, Mass. USA.


text:
Home » HD Porn » Lana-Giselle – Nachbarsjunge jetzt kommt sein vater!
General info: Size: 92 Mb, Duration: 00: 08: 58, Streams: 2, Full bitrate: 1436 kb/s
Video: H264, 1280×720, 25 fps
Audio: AAC, STEREO, 44.1 kHz, 128 kb/s
Download videoRapidgator:Download from Rapidgator
Uploaded:Download from Uploaded
We have all the best free porn downloads with new HD videos and movies added daily. Free porn downloads for all with porn links on file hosts such as Filemade, Uploaded, Rapidgator and others. Get your porn made fix today with exclusive porno clips, picture sets, photo fap albums and a huge homemade porn collection online.


text:
- PressReleasePoint Main
- Submit Press Release
- Free PR Website List
- PR Resources
- Press Releases
- Our Services
- About Us
- Contact Us
Home ›
On Metal Tags with UHF GEN2 chip, Mini size 36x13mm can reach 2meter distance (GYRFID)
MEB is designed for On Metal application, it is made of rugged PCB material. It can be used for indoor environment such as Logistic tracking, identification, asset tracking, pallet tracking. It can be directly adhesives on metal surface with hole or 3M sticker..
City, State, China., March 17, 2014 - (PressReleasePoint) -
MEB is designed for On Metal application, it is made of rugged PCB material. It can be used for indoor environment such as Logistic tracking, identification, asset tracking, pallet tracking. It can be directly adhesives on metal surface with hole or 3M sticker..
Material: PCB
Size options: MEB112- 112x20x3.0mm, distance 4m MEB100- 100x30x3mm, distance 6.5m MEB9525- 95x25x3.7mm, distance 6m MEB9522- 95x22x3.0mm, distance 6m MEB9011- 90x11x3.7mm, distance 3m MEB9008 - 90x8x3.7mm, distance 2.5m MEB9005- 90x5x3.7mm, distance 2m MEB7020- 70x20x3.7mm, distance 3m MEB6604- 66x4x3mm, distance 1.5m MEB3613- 36x13x3mm, distance 2m MEB2208- 220x8x3.0mm, distance 1.2m MEB1809- 18x9x3mm, distance 1m
Color options: Black/ White
Water Proof: yes
Operating Temperature: -40C ~ +85C
Storage Temperature: -40C ~ +110C
RFID IC Support: Chip: Alien Higgs 3 / Impinj M4QT Standard: ISO18000-6C EPC Class 1 Gen2 Standard
Operating frequency: Europe standard 865-867.5MHz; American standard 902-928Mhz. Memory: >=96bits Operating distance: 1-6.5meter Personalization Support: 3M adhesive/ laser Number/ with hole/ silk-screen printing logo
Application: Asset tracking / Pallet tracking / Material management / Gun management / module tracking
About GYRFID
GYRFID is a leading supplier of smart cards and RFID tags products for global System Integrators and distributors. It offers a wide range of products embedded with contact chip and contactless chip (LF, HF, UHF), which encapsulated into variety shapes like ISO Card, keyfobs, wristband, disc tag, laundry tag. The products are widely applied in access control, payment system, inventory control, asset tracking, industrial managements. GYRFID also welcome OEM service and personalization to create value for the sponsors.
Press Contact:
+86 21 6048 5687
Email partially hidden to block spam. Please use the contact form here.
Contact joy
Email the contact person for this press release. Do not send spam or irrelevant message.
Copy this html code to your website/blog to embed this press release.
Submitted by email@example.com on Mon, 03/17/2014 - 19:07.
Post new comment
More like this
This press release is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Read full copyright information here.


text:
About Sanlam
Sanlam was established in South Africa almost 100 years ago and in recent years, has successfully expanded the business to more than 40 countries across the world. Driven by our belief in the African continent and commitment to pan-African values, we have an extensive African footprint with business in more than 30 African countries. We have always held true to our purpose of empowering people to live their best possible lives. We offer financial services in five focused expertise areas of Insurance, Financial Planning, Retirement, Investments and Wealth. Our business clusters are: Personal Finance, Investments, Emerging Markets, Santam and Corporate.
Facts & Figures
|Financial Services
|Number of employees
|Number of active countries


text:
Nenu Sailaja 2016 Telugu Movie HD
Nenu Sailaja 2016 :
Watch Online Movie :
Vidag :
Nowvideo :
Nenu Sailaja is an Indian romantic Telugu film. The film stars Ram Pothineni playing the role of a DJ, and Keerthi Suresh in the lead roles. The movie has been directed by debutante Kishore Tirumala and produced by Ravi Kishore. The film has been produced under Sri Sravanthi movies banner which also produced Ram's previous film Shivam. The music is composed by Devi Sri Prasad and cinematography is by Sameer Reddy. The film released on 1 January 2016.
Cast :
- Ram Pothineni as Hari
- Keerthi Suresh as Sailaja
- Sathyaraj as Keerthi's father
- Rohini as Keerthi's mother
- Dhanya Balakrishna as keerthi
- Vijayakumar as Keerthi's grand father
- Pradeep Rawat as Maharshi
- Prince as Keerthi's brother
- Naresh as Ram's father
- Srimukhi as Ram's sister
- Rajasree Nair as Sathyaraj's sister
- Sudheer as Ram's friend
- Krishna Bhagavaan as Sathyaraj's friend
- Pragathi as Ram's mother
- Chaitanya Krishna as Rajasree's son
Source : Wikipedia


text:
Colored Vinyl (Each LP set contains 2 random transparent colors of either: blue, green, yellow/orange, and red vinyl, shipped randomly)
Includes a download code.
Packaged in a gatefold sleeve with the lyrics printed in the gatefold. Includes two printed inner sleeves.
THIRD ALBUM FROM ALT-J DELIVERS PRIME TIME PERFORMANCES. Mostly written while touring their previous album the songs reflect their travels and continue to push the boundaries of indie rock. While the album skyrocketed to number 1 in the UK charts the press has been eager to compare their work to early Radiohead. While elements can be heard, it isn't the sound that should be compared but rather their constant progression and experimentation as musicians. The album comes pressed on clear colored vinyl (randomly shipped) with download coupon inside.
LP Track Listing:
1. Intro
2. Arrival In Nara
3. Nara
4. Every Other Freckle
5. Left Hand Free
6. Garden Of England - Interlude
7. Choice Kingdom
1. Hunger Of The Pine
2. Warm Foothills
3. The Gospel of John Hurt
4. Pusher
5. Bloodflood pt. II
6. Leaving Nara


text:
Manual Library / Unison Research
Unison Research Performance
Tube Integrated Amplifier (2011)
Power output: 40 watts per channel
Frequency response: 10Hz to 100kHz
Total harmonic distortion: 0.5%
Valve complement: 6 x 6550, 2 x ECC82, 2 x ECC83
Dimensions: 600 x 480 x 235mm
Weight: 50kg
Accessories: infrared remote control
Year: 2011
Please log in to view available downloads for this model
Related Catalogues
If you have any problems opening files please read the download FAQ. All files are provided under strict licence and reproduction without prior permission or for financial gain is strictly prohibited.
If you have additional documentation please consider donating a copy to our free archive.


text:
Enter your name and email to receive alerts when new vacation deals are added to any property in this region.
By clicking "Submit" you are agreeing to the
Terms of Service.
Alert successfully created!
Showing 1-2 of 2 Resorts and Lodges
Braemar Lodge
"We strive to exceed our guests' expectations through an ineffable blend of warmth, generosity and devotion to detail -- the key ingredients in providing true hospitality."... more
Last Resort
Last Resort, offers travellers from all walks of life the opportunity to come and enjoy the unique atmosphere and tranquillity of nature at it's best. From a base at Last Resort the variety of adventures are unlimited. Guided Cave Tours through world reknown Honeycomb Cave systems, Helicopter Charter,Trout Fishing Adventures, Guides and Fishing... more
Showing 1-2 of 2 Resorts and Lodges


text:
Never miss a job. Get new jobs emailed to you daily.
We have removed 1 job posting very similar to those already shown. To see the additional result, you may repeat your search with the omitted job posting included.
$17.64 per hour
$35,287 per year$2,941 per month$706 per week$141 per day
2.0% lower than national average
Based on 4 employees and 72 jobs


text:
Jual Obat Pembesar KLG
Vimax Asli Canada
Vimax Asli Canada
Sheila On 7 - Lapang Dada
NOAH - Seperti Kemarin
Ungu - Terbaik
Terry - Mari Bernyanyi
Utopia - Rasa Ini Indah
Endank Soekamti - Luar Biasa
Cita Citata - Sakitnya Tuh Disini
Aliando - Kau Terindah
Winda feat. Abdul - Bahagia Itu Sederhana
Wali - Ada Gajah Dibalik Batu
Kotak - Rock N Love
Judika - Sampai Kau Jadi Milikku
Anji - Merawat Cinta
Raffi Ahmad feat. Nagita - Kamulah Takdirku
JKT48 - Kokorono Placard
This Is Where Drake's Varsity Jackets Are MadeCurious as to where Drake's endless supply of custom OVO varsity jackets come from? Roots is a Canadian brand (founded in The Six) that's long been a big part of the singer's...55 mins ago via E!Online
Celebs Are Sleeping Better Than You--Here's WhyThere's nothing better than a good night's rest. Puffy eyes and a cranky attitude just won't do. With constant public appearances, early morning calls and flashing camera...1 hour ago via E!Online
Is This $5 Product the Answer to Frizzy Hair?Frizzy hair happens to the best of us (yes, even Jessica Chastain). What can we say: When the weather changes, so will your hair. Whether it's rainy and humid or unseasonably dry...3 hours ago via E!Online
Mariah Carey and Elton John sing at wedding of Russian oligarch's granddaughter - reportMariah Carey dedicated her 2005 chart-topping ballad We Belong Together to the young bride and groom, as she returned to the stage for the first time since her disastrous New Year's Eve performance.4 hours ago via music-news
Nick Cannon: 'Mariah Carey got flustered during New Year's Eve disaster'Mariah Carey used her diva status to her advantage when she "walked around and posed for seven minutes" when sound issues put an early stop to her New Year's Eve performance, according to her ex-husband Nick Cannon.7 hours ago via music-news
Home > TV > Russian Federation > Новое тв
Новое тв
Russian Federation
Watch free Новое тв TV Online from Russian Federation only at widih.com. Widih.com is a free entertainment website.
Related TV
Youtube video cannot be found!