text:
A lawsuit recently filed in the United States Court of Claims may shed further light on the corruption of the Obama administration's "green energy" programs. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of XP Vehicles, Inc. and Limnia, Inc., companies that competed for Department of Energy loans under a Congressionally-authorized program. The owners of XP eventually realized that there was no real competition, and that the whole Department of Energy program was a scam intended to funnel money to Obama and Democratic Party campaign contributors and political allies. They allege in addition that DOE misappropriated proprietary technology that they submitted in connection with their loan applications, and gave that technology to Obama administration cronies.
Are the allegations true? I don't know. They certainly are consistent with what we know about the administration's green energy programs, and there is no doubt about the fact that companies like Tesla and Fisker, which won out in preference to these plaintiffs, were 1) politically connected, and 2) failures in the marketplace. What we can say for sure is that programs of this sort are destined for disaster. There is no reason why the government should be in the business of favoring some private companies over others; if it does so, either the reality or the appearance of political favoritism is inevitable. It is time to drive a stake through the whole enterprise of government involvement in "green energy."
Here is the XP Vehicles complaint in its entirety. I have bolded selected paragraphs in case you don't have time (or patience) to read it all.
XP VEHICLES, INC., a California Corporation, and LIMNIA, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation,
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Defendant.
1. Plaintiff XP VEHICLES, INC. ("XPV"), a dissolved California corporation, was at all times relevant an advanced technology vehicle company. XPV has the capacity and authority to sue Defendant pursuant to Cal. Corp. Code §§ 2010, 2001, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(2). It is a real party in interest under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a).
2. Plaintiff LIMNIA, INC. (f/k/a "FuelSell Technologies, Inc.") (collectively "Limnia"), is a Delaware corporation in good standing that was, at all times relevant, an advanced technology energy system company. It is a real party in interest under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a).
3. At all times relevant, XPV and Limnia were Silicon Valley-based innovative "green technology" sister companies.
4. Defendant is THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ("DOE"), a federal agency.
Jurisdiction and Venue
5. Jurisdiction and venue are pursuant to U.S. Const. Art. III and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491 and 1498(a).
6. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17013, DOE—through Secretary of Energy Steven Chu ("Chu"), Director of Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program Lachlan Seward ("Seward"), their staff, advisors and consultants—administered the "Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program" (the "ATVM Loan Program").
7. Congress created the ATVM Loan Program to support the manufacture of advanced technology vehicles and components in the United States and to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil. In 2008, Congress authorized DOE to make $25 billion in ATVM loans. DOE currently has approximately $16 billion of unused lending authority.
8. At all times relevant, DOE had actual or constructive knowledge that the ATVM Loan Program evaporated private investment capital for advanced technology vehicle manufacturing and distribution because venture capital and institutional lenders could not compete with government interest and repayment terms (1%-3% and up to 35 years, respectively).
9. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 16511 and 16513, DOE—through Chu, Seward, their staff, advisors and consultants—also administered the "§ 1703 Loan Guarantee Program" (the "LGP").
10. Congress created the LGP to support innovative clean energy projects that are typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks by authorizing DOE to guarantee up to eighty percent of a loan for projects that "avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases; and employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued." DOE currently has approximately $34 billion of unused lending authority.
11. Since 2002, Limnia and XPV have collaborated with DOE scientists at Sandia National Laboratory ("Sandia") and elsewhere on advanced technology vehicle development. Limnia and XPV provided DOE with confidential business information, intellectual property and prototypes of advanced technology vehicle energy storage systems, chassis and body materials and construction, and electronics, and DOE provided Limnia and XPV a grant, technical support and validation services.
XPV's ATVM Loan Program Application
12. Responding to a DOE solicitation, on November 10, 2008, XPV applied for $40 million in ATVM Loan Program funds to mass produce an advanced technology, family-friendly SUV-style vehicle ("XPV's SUV"). It offered DOE collateral independently valued at over $100 million as security for this loan.
13. At all times relevant, XPV had operations, including potential manufacturing facilities, in Detroit (through Roush Automotive and other contract facilities), the San Francisco Bay area, Nevada and Utah.
14. XPV's team included highly experienced industry sales executives, managers and designers (including the senior creation staff for the Corvette and the Mustang) and aerospace industry professionals. They designed XPV's SUV to be affordable (less than $20,000 in its base configuration); to have a virtually unlimited range without the need for either gasoline, garage or extension cords to charge; to recharge rapidly via a "hot-swap" system; to be produced quickly and cheaply by subcontracting existing and underutilized factories, workers and machines; and to be easily repaired.
15. One key innovation, based on a decade of research, was the use of polymer plastics and skinned expanded foam pressure membranes to replace metal doors, body panels, hoods and roofs on a lightweight alloy frame. Consequently, XPV's SUV could have a curb weight of less than 1,400 pounds (approximately one-third the weight of a Toyota Prius). This design also improved vehicle safety because the foam-skinned polymer membranes functioned as a wraparound, pre-deployed "airbag" to withstand impacts and damp out crash damage.
16. At all times relevant, XPV's SUV's critical parts had either been tested or used in industry-proven "off the shelf" applications. For example, the SUV's pressure membrane body technology was widely used in military applications, aerospace systems, naval and homeland security deployments worldwide, airbags, watercraft, Mars landing equipment and even buildings and arenas.
17. At all times relevant, XPV was in discussions with private sources of capital including Wells Fargo Bank; developing a distribution network; and otherwise preparing to commence production and sales. XPV's pending customers and financial partners included the Ranson Green Community Development Foundation, ZAP, Detroit Electric, XPV's sister company Limnia and over forty distributors and resellers accounting for potential sales in excess of the first anticipated production run.
18. XPV's ATVM Loan Program application contained confidential business information, as defined by 10 C.F.R §§ 1004.10(b)(4) and (11), and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4), including a patented solid-state NaALH (aka "NALH") energy storage system and patented pressure membrane technology, among other things.
19. DOE, in nondisclosure agreements and in consideration for XPV's and Limnia's submission of ATVM Loan Program applications, promised to guard this confidential business information from unauthorized disclosure, use or infringement.
20. DOE also promised to evaluate ATVM Loan Program applications on a "first in, first out" basis; to treat all applicants fairly and to provide a level review using objective published criteria; and to make ATVM Loan Program funds available beginning by the end of December 2008, but no later than January 2009, to those who qualified for such funds.
21. On December 2, 2008, DOE acknowledged receipt of XPV's application and requested additional information. See Exhibit 1. XPV provided this additional information and on December 31, 2008, XPV's application was deemed substantially complete. DOE said that it would specifically request additional information as needed. See Exhibit 2. Upon information and belief XPV's ATVM Loan Program application was among the first deemed substantially complete by DOE.
22. At all times relevant, XPV qualified for ATVM Loan Program funds under DOE's published criteria and was in fact deemed a "qualified applicant" by DOE. DOE's own Excel comparison matrices dated December 29, 2008, and March 2, 2009, placed XPV in the top 5% of all applicants.
23. DOE's representations and promises led XPV to believe that DOE would begin processing XPV's ATVM Loan Program application upon receipt but no later than the end of December 2008, and that the review process would take a matter of weeks consistent with normal commercial lending practices and procedures.
24. However, XPV soon found that DOE had reneged on its promises and that DOE's review was taking months not weeks. Discomfited by DOE's delay, which effectively blocked XPV's access to private capital loans and investment and prevented XPV for gearing up for production, XPV repeatedly offered DOE engineering, financial and other information to proactively speed and inform the agency's review.
25. At all times relevant, XPV was unaware both that its ATVM Loan Program application had been "set aside" in favor of applications from politically-connected government cronies and that DOE had "fixed" the ATVM loan process to benefit political donors. XPV also was unaware that DOE had no intention of approving XPV's ATVM Loan Program application under any circumstances, notwithstanding all of its representations and assurances to the contrary, because XPV competed with government-favored companies. Instead, to the best of XPV's knowledge, DOE was acting in good faith, and in accordance with the law, to carry out Congress's intent by lending up to $25 billion for the development and production of advanced technology vehicles in the United States to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil.
26. On April 23, 2009, Jason Gerbsman, DOE's Chief of Staff and Senior Investment Officer at the Loan Programs Office Automotive Division notified XPV that:
"[XPV] has submitted a substantially complete application and has been assigned to both a technical eligibility and merit review team, as well as a financial viability analysis team. The technical team is very close to finishing their evaluations on both eligibility and project merit, and the financial team will be launching a more detailed and interactive due diligence phase of the [XPV] application review very soon. Following the technical and financial evaluation under the second stage of the process, we will move into the underwriting phase where our goal is to negotiate a conditional commitment, including a detailed term sheet. This will be followed by the fourth phase of the loan process where the final details will be negotiated and the loan will be closed."
27. On May 26, 2009, Gerbsman offered XPV an in-person meeting to discuss "next steps."
28. On May 28, 2009, XPV flew a representative from California to meet with Gerbsman. Gerbsman said that DOE had determined "everything was in order" with XPV's ATVM Loan Program application; that "everything looked good"; and that XPV "appeared to be fully compliant and passed technical review."
29. Shortly thereafter, XPV discovered that Tesla Motors, Inc. ("Tesla") and Fisker Motors, Inc. ("Fisker") were receiving special assistance from DOE staff with the ATVM Loan Program application process. Fisker was even given extraordinary access to DOE staff time, offices and conference rooms in DOE's headquarters at no charge. Both Tesla and Fisker were XPV competitors.
30. XPV requested similar assistance from DOE staff but was denied it because, as DOE staff put it, XPV's application was so good that special assistance was not needed.
31. Notwithstanding DOE's delays and the bankruptcy of other industry players due to these companies' failure to meet consumer needs, XPV continued to grow. On June 15, 2009, XPV informed DOE that it was a semi-finalist in the Forbes "America's Most Promising Companies List" for that year.
32. In late June 2009, XPV had occasion to speak with a corporate executive who was seeking DOE funds. The executive said that he had been "screwed over" by DOE and had wanted to know if others had similar experiences. He said that his company had suffered "bad dealings" with Matt Rogers, a "stimulus advisor" to Chu from McKinsey & Company, and Steven Spinner, a DOE loan program office official. Spinner, an accomplished campaign contribution "bundler" who had raised millions of dollars for the White House, was given this important government position in exchange for his fundraising. Spinner too had worked at McKinsey & Company and, according to a biography posted by the Center for American Progress, was a Tesla advisor and investor.
33. The executive claimed that Rogers and Spinner were playing favorites with government money. He gave XPV Spinner's personal cell phone number and told XPV to call Spinner and ask why XPV's ATVM Loan Program application had stalled. XPV texted Spinner and then called him. Spinner answered the phone and said words to the effect of "Do not ever call me again. The awards have already been decided."
34. On June 24, 2009, DOE announced $8 billion in ATVM loans to Ford Motor Company ("Ford"), Nissan North America, Inc. ("Nissan") and Tesla. DOE gave Tesla $465 million at a rate of 1.6% and on extremely favorable below-market terms to manufacture an expensive electric car targeted at wealthy actors, media personalities and businessmen, not average American families.
35. On June 29, 2009, XPV wrote to Gerbsman again asking for action on its ATVM Loan Program application. XPV told Gerbsman that other lenders were hanging back until after DOE issued its term sheets.
36. Over the next seven weeks, Gerbsman and other authorized DOE representatives repeatedly assured XPV that "everything was fine"; "everything is on-track"; and "you [XPV] appear to meet every criteria" with respect to its ATVM Loan Program application. XPV was even told that "we [DOE] should be able to announce [a loan] any day now…"
37. However, on August 21, 2009, DOE denied XPV's ATVM Loan Program application. See Exhibit 3.
38. DOE, through Seward, said that XPV's application was "determined to be eligible" in accordance with the "evaluation criteria" in 10 C.F.R. § 611.103 but that DOE was "not in a position to award every eligible application [ATVM Loan Program funds]." DOE said necessity required it to "choose applications that are most likely to use [ATVM Loan Program] proceeds in a way that will best achieve the goals of the program" and that XPV's application was rejected on this basis after a "merit review." DOE did not disclose the criteria used to weigh competing qualified applications nor explain how or why XPV fell short in the supposed "merit review."
39. XPV then asked DOE to specify its reasons for denial.
40. In an email to DOE's Chris Foster, XPV requested DOE's merit review documents and asked how DOE could reasonably conduct a ten-month comparative review of XPV's ATVM Loan Program application without working with a single company engineer or senior project staff member for even one percent of the time that DOE staff spent with Tesla, Nissan, Ford and/or Fisker (the ATVM Loan Program "winners") during the same period of time.
41. Foster did not answer.
42. On or about August 26, 2009, XPV called Foster directly and Foster picked up the phone.
43. Foster told XPV that he would pull XPV's file and read to XPV the reasons given there for DOE's denial.
44. Foster said that the file indicated that DOE had denied XPV's application because XPV's SUV did not use E85 gasoline; XPV was not planning on building "enough" vehicles; XPV was not planning on government sales; XPV's electric motors and batteries were too futuristic and not developed for commercial use; XPV's SUV was a "hydrogen car"; and XPV had underestimated the cost of metal body fabrication.
45. At all times relevant, however, DOE had actual knowledge that the "reasons" it had given for denying XPV's ATVM Loan Program application were baseless pretexts.
46. First, none of the politically-connected ATVM Loan Program winners used E85 gasoline in all-electric vehicles.
47. Second, XPV's SUV was designed for fast and inexpensive mass production. This is why it was based on the use of commonly available parts from existing commercial sources with multiple points of supply and why it could be sold at a base price of only $20,000. Unlike the vehicles produced by the government crony companies funded by DOE, XPV's SUV was not merely a specialty product aimed at rich people seeking to make a social or political statement through their choice of vehicle. Instead, it was designed to be affordable and available to the vast majority of American families and consumers, thereby ensuring that there would be a mass market and a high volume of potential sales.
48. Third, XPV's business plan specifically provided for large government and fleet sales. Defendants were aware this plan had been developed by an experienced automotive fleet sales expert responsible for over $2 billion in sales for domestic automakers.
49. Fourth, XPV's SUV's "futuristic" electric motor and battery configuration had been in commercial and government use for decades.
50. Fifth, XPV's SUV was an electric and not a hydrogen vehicle.
51. Sixth, XPV's SUV minimized the number of metal parts, using safer and easier to
source and fabricate polymers and plastics.
52. As XPV was explaining to Foster that the "reasons" given for DOE's denial were actually no reasons at all, Seward entered Foster's office and directed him to terminate the call. Seward told Foster to advise XPV that it would receive a letter from DOE with respect to its concerns.
53. Despite the passage of weeks, no letter was forthcoming.
54. Therefore, on September 21, 2009, XPV wrote to Chu requesting reconsideration of DOE's denial of its ATVM Loan Program application. See Exhibit 4. In this letter, XPV demonstrated that the "reasons" for DOE's denial read by Foster from XPV's file were false. It asked Chu to explain why DOE staff repeatedly assured XPV that approval would be forthcoming and that no additional information was necessary; to describe the merit review criteria; and to justify why government-crony companies that applied after XPV were reviewed earlier, given the benefit of extensive access to and interaction with DOE staff (a benefit denied to XPV), and then awarded funds.
55. On October 23, 2009, Seward wrote to XPV. See Exhibit 5. He did not answer XPV's questions to Chu. Instead, Seward attempted to backfill the record with new but equally baseless justifications for DOE's denial of XPV's qualified application.
56. To begin with, Seward said that XPV's application was "deemed Substantially Complete on November 10, 2009." In fact, XPV's application had been deemed substantially complete on December 31, 2008.
57. Seward said that the "proposed technology appeared…to be at a development stage and not yet ready for commercialization" and that the "assumption that the vehicle concept would be ready for production in three years" was a "significant weakness" due to the "high level of risk associated with the design." In fact, XPV's SUV technology had been used commercially by the U.S. Department of Defense, NASA and the automobile industry; the politically-connected companies that were awarded ATVM Loan Program funds were no further ahead in production than XPV; and elements of XPV's "high risk design" were already in use by Toyota and Nissan in the retail consumer market worldwide.
58. Seward said "the proposed project's impact on fuel economy…was determined to be weak." In fact, non-gasoline powered automobiles were uniformly acknowledged by DOE and other industry experts as the most significant source of fuel economy improvement. Moreover, XPV's SUV promised better fuel economy than any of the ATVM Loan Program "winners" (Tesla, Nissan, Ford or Fisker) proposed or actually offers to this day.
59. Seward said "A review of the advanced fuels in your project and the feasibility of that energy source…was questionable." In fact, the fuels, products and subparts of the "questionable" energy source are readily available to consumers at REI Sporting Goods, Amazon.com and Safeway supermarkets, among other places.
60. Seward said "A review of the calculations and assumptions supporting your claims for reductions in petroleum use were deemed to be unrealistic." In fact, XPV's calculations and assumptions were confirmed by institutional research and white papers from respected government and university agencies.
61. Seward said that XPV's project "may be commercializable in the future, but is far too early in the development process to qualify" for an ATVM loan. In fact, XPV was at least as far along in the "development process" as Tesla and Fisker, the politically-connected companies funded by DOE.
62. Seward's letter was the first time any of these issues had been raised by DOE with XPV, notwithstanding ten months of "review" including multiple meetings, phone calls and emails.
63. Furthermore, not only had DOE never before raised these "issues" with XPV, it had affirmatively declined, over a period of months, to seriously consult with XPV's engineers and denied XPV the "interactive" review that it had promised to give in April 2009, and that it had in fact given to the politically-connected ATVM Loan Program winners Tesla and Fisker.
64. Critically, DOE did not say in Seward's October 21, 2009, letter or at any other time that XPV had offered inadequate security for the ATVM Loan Program funds; that XPV was a repayment risk; that XPV had failed to demonstrate that there was a "reasonable prospect of repayment" of the proposed loan; that XPV had failed to demonstrate it was capable of building, distributing or selling the proposed SUV; or that XPV had failed to demonstrate "financial viability without the loan" as required by law.
65. To this day, neither Foster nor Chu nor Seward nor anyone else at DOE has ever provided XPV with DOE's "merit review" evaluation records or criteria. DOE has repeatedly refused Freedom of Information Act requests aimed at securing disclosure of these records and criteria.
66. At all times relevant, XPV qualified for the requested ATVM Loan Program funds pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 611.
67. At all times relevant, XPV had numerous viable offers from potential investors, manufacturing partners, distributors and customers. However, DOE's wrongdoing, including its purposeful delay and baseless denial of XPV's ATVM Loan Program application, denied XPV the benefit of these business opportunities.
Limnia's ATVM Application
68. Or about February 1, 2009, Limnia applied for $15 million in ATVM Loan Program funds to produce a "best of breed and state of the art" advanced technology vehicle component energy storage system using Limnia's patented technology. Sandia was designated as a key subcontractor in this effort.
69. On April 10, 2009, DOE denied Limnia's application on the grounds that the components in question "[did] not appear to be designed for installation in an advanced technology vehicle…" See Exhibit 6. However, these grounds were false and a mere pretext to preserve ATVM Loan Program funds for government-favored companies and/or to protect those companies from competition.
70. On April 11, 2009, Limnia requested reconsideration, reminding DOE the relevant patents stated that the components in question were meant for use in advanced technology vehicles; that Sandia's vehicle technologies group was the prime subcontractor for the project; and that DOE had funded the technology's development specifically for such use. See Exhibit 7.
71. On May 13, 2009, DOE again denied Limnia's application because the components were "not installed in the advanced technology vehicle." This time, though, it asked for more information. See Exhibit 8. On June 3, 2009, Limnia responded with the requested information. It again requested reconsideration pointing out that the questioned components "must be installed prior to use in an advanced technology vehicle and are, accordingly, designed for such installation, and therefore [are]…'qualifying components.'" See Exhibit 9.
72. DOE never responded to this letter.
73. At all times relevant, Limnia qualified for the requested ATVM Loan Program funds pursuant to DOE's criteria at 10 C.F.R. Part 611.
Limnia's LGP Application
74. At all times relevant, DOE recognized that the LGP application fees and process were unduly onerous and burdensome.
75. On or about February 1, 2009, Limnia participated in a conference call with John Podesta, Chu, and Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar, during which Chu said that he felt the LGP fees and process were unduly onerous and burdensome. Chu further promised to waive the application fee.
76. Relying on this promise, Limnia filed a LGP application on or about February 10, 2009, with a cover letter stating that it was Limnia's understanding DOE had waived the application fee.
77. Limnia heard nothing from DOE until February 26, 2009, the application deadline. On that day, DOE's Myrtle Gross called and said that the initial application fee of $18,000 had to be wired by midnight for Limnia's LGP application to be considered. This was Limnia's first and only notice that DOE reneged on its promise to waive the LGP application fee.
78. Limnia had the funds to make payment but could not complete the transaction by the midnight deadline. Therefore, it considered the matter as closed.
79. On February 27, 2009, Daniel Tobin, DOE's Loan Programs Office Senior Investment Officer, called Limnia and said that there were "a few days of flexibility" to send in the application fee and promised to provide wire instructions. Tobin also promised to "pre- review" the application and to call back with feedback for Limnia's investors.
80. Over the next six weeks, Limnia sent DOE emails and letters, and made phone calls, seeking what Tobin had promised. However, Limnia never heard back from Tobin or anyone else at DOE with wire instructions or the promised pre-review. Instead, on April 9, 2009, DOE dismissed Limnia from the LGP without recourse because of "non-remittance of the required application fee…" See Exhibit 10.
81. Limnia requested reconsideration of this decision which DOE denied.
DOE's Cronyism and Program Abuses
82. Because DOE's "merit review" criteria and process were so opaque, the taxpayer-funded ATVM Loan Program and LGP became cash cows for government cronies.
83. Politics and political pressure infected these programs, shaping, in whole or in part, the judgment of DOE's ultimate decision makers including Chu, Seward, their staff, advisors and consultants.
84. In February 2011, GAO issued an investigative report on DOE's ATVM Loan Program. See Exhibit 11 "Advanced Technology Vehicle Loan Program Implementation Is Under Way, but Enhanced Technical Oversight and Performance Measures Are Needed," GAO- 11-145 (Feb. 28, 2011).
85. GAO found that DOE had made billions in loans without engaging "engineering expertise needed for technical oversight." As a result, GAO said "DOE cannot be adequately assured that the projects will be delivered as agreed."
86. Furthermore, GAO found that "DOE has not developed sufficient performance measures that would enable it to fully assess the extent to which it has achieved its…program goals" contrary to sound administrative agency practices.
87. DOE's irrational failure to employ appropriate engineering expertise for application reviews and its arbitrary and capricious refusal to use objective administrative performance measures facilitated the politicization of DOE's loan program.
88. In truth, DOE's ATVM Loan Program was nothing more than a veil for political officials to steer hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to government cronies, including Tesla and Fisker.
89. For example, Tesla's loan of $465 million, announced on June 24, 2009, was obtained in whole or material part through the efforts and influence of its political patrons.
90. These patrons included Steven Westly, who was a major campaign contributions "bundler" for the White House. Westly's fundraising bought him special White House access and an appointment on a key DOE advisory board. Upon information and belief, Westly sat on Tesla's board from March 2007 to December 2009, during the time when DOE gave Tesla $465 million taxpayer dollars.
91. These patrons also included DOE's Spinner, an accomplished campaign contribution "bundler" whose fundraising had bought him a primary role in DOE's Loan Program Office. Upon information and belief, Spinner, too, was at all times relevant a Tesla investor and advisor.
92. Tesla's patrons' contributions, and the political access secured thereby, were material factors in DOE's favorable treatment of and preferences for Tesla during the ATVM Loan Program application process and in DOE's decision to lend Tesla nearly half a billion taxpayer dollars at highly favorable, below-market terms and rates.
93. Predictably, Tesla's business results have not justified DOE's special favors.
94. For example, Tesla, using taxpayer money to build a luxury vehicle aimed at rich actors, media personalities and businessmen, has repeatedly missed production targets, burned through cash and required DOE to repeatedly renegotiate loan terms to survive.
95. On November 12, 2012, Tesla notified the Securities and Exchange Commission that:
On January 20, 2010, we entered into a loan facility with the Federal Financing Bank (FFB), and the Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Incentive Program. This loan facility was amended in June 2011 to expand our cash investment options, in February 2012 to modify the timing of certain future financial covenants and funding of the debt service reserve account, and in June 2012 to allow us to effect certain initiatives in our business plan. We entered into another amendment with the DOE in September 2012 to remove our obligation to comply with the current ratio financial covenant as of September 30, 2012 and amend the timing of pre- funding the principal payment due in June 2013. Under the DOE Loan Facility, the FFB has made available to us two multi-draw term loan facilities in an aggregate principal amount of up to $465.0 million. Up to an aggregate principal amount of $101.2 million had been made available under the first term loan facility to finance up to 80% of the costs eligible for funding for the powertrain engineering and the build out of a facility to design and manufacture lithium-ion battery packs, electric motors and electric components (the Powertrain Facility). Up to an aggregate principal amount of $363.9 million has been made available under the second term loan facility to finance up to 80% of the costs eligible for funding for the development of, and to build out the manufacturing facility for, our Model S sedan (the Model S Facility). Under the DOE Loan Facility, we are responsible for the remaining 20% of the costs eligible for funding under the ATVM Program for the projects as well as any cost overruns for each project. As of August 31, 2012, we have fully drawn down the aforementioned facilities.
96. In other words, Tesla has spent all of the taxpayer funds it was given but it needs new ATVM loan repayment terms because it cannot keep its original commitments.
97. In 2008, Tesla promised to construct a factory in 2009 and then begin mass production of the vehicle known as the "Model S." On November 7, 2012, it reported delivering a total of 256 such vehicles. Between 2008 and 2012, Tesla sold fewer than 2,500 of its "Roadster" models worldwide. Now, it promises "mass production" of the "Model S" will begin in 2013.
98. Fisker's ATVM loan of $528.7 million, announced on September 22, 2009 (approximately one month after DOE rejected XPV's ATVM Loan Program application), also was obtained in whole or material part through the efforts and influence of political patrons.
99. Fisker's patrons were John Doerr and the investment firm of Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers ("KPCB"). At all times relevant, Doerr was a KPCB partner along with former Vice President Al Gore, among others, and KPCB was a Fisker investor. Doerr and his partners donated millions to the 2008 Obama campaign and related Democrat political causes, buying preferential government treatment for their business interests. Among other things, Doerr's contributions purchased high-level White House access and a seat on the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
100. Contributions by Fisker's patrons, and the political influence secured thereby, were material factors in DOE's favorable treatment of and preferences for Fisker during the ATVM Loan Program application process and in its decision to lend Fisker over half a billion taxpayer dollars at incredibly favorable rates and terms.
101. Predictably, Fisker's performance has not justified DOE's favors.
102. For example, DOE gave Fisker approximately $169.3 million for "engineering integration" of a high-cost electric luxury car in Finland, and approximately $359 million for manufacturing a low-cost plug-in hybrid sedan in the U.S. known as "Project Kx." See Exhibit 12 "Conditional Commitment Letter by and between United States Department of Energy and Fisker Automotive, Inc. – Execution Copy (Sept. 18, 2009)."
103. DOE committed approximately $359 million to Project Kx without a seeing prototype or properly verifying Fisker's engineering, sales and supply chain claims. Nevertheless, DOE asserted in a White House press release that Fisker's loan would "create or save about 5,000 jobs" just for domestic parts suppliers" and parroted Fisker's claim that "up to 75,000–100,000 [Project Kx] vehicles will roll off assembly lines in the U.S. every year beginning in late 2012."
104. Fisker did not make a Kx prototype available to the public or begin Kx production in 2010.
105. Fisker did not make a Kx prototype available to the public or begin Kx production in 2011, although it promised "mass production" would begin by the end of 2012.
106. On or about February 7, 2012, after Fisker had spent over $170 million taxpayer funds, DOE froze its credit facility due to many missed deadlines. In June 2012, Fisker made the Kx prototype available to the public. The "low cost" sedan funded by DOE in 2009 turned out to be a $55,000 luxury car called the "Atlantic."
107. DOE had said that 75,000–100,000 Fisker Kx cars would be rolling off domestic assembly lines by the end of 2012. On October 18, 2012, Fisker reported that mass production of the "Atlantic," which still has yet to begin, was delayed until 2014 or 2015.
108. Since 2008, Fisker has sold approximately 1,500 vehicles world-wide. Upon information and belief, the $170 million of taxpayer money spent by Fisker to date has "saved or created" one hundred or fewer jobs.
109. In March 2012, and in response to complaints by Limnia and others, GAO reported on DOE's LGP performance. See Exhibit 13 "DOE Loan Guarantees: Further Actions Are Needed to Improve Tracking and Review of Applications," GAO-12-157 (Mar. 2012).
110. GAO found that DOE treated LGP applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others; lacked systematic mechanisms for LGP applicants to administratively appeal its decisions; often ignored its own underwriting standards and skipped review steps; and re-reviewed rejected applications on an ad hoc basis. It also found that DOE's practice of "[o]mitting or poorly documenting reviews reduces LGP's assurance that it has treated applicants fairly and equitably."
111. In October 2012, emails released by Congress confirmed politics had impermissibly infected DOE's loan programs, and were shaping the judgment of DOE's decision makers with respect to funding determinations. See, e.g. Exhibit 14 (Email from Jonathan Silver, former Executive Director, DOE Loan Programs Office, to James C. McCrea, DOE LPO credit advisor, dated June 25, 2010, stating "WH wants to move Abound [project] forward. Policy will have to wait…"); Exhibit 15 (Email from James C. McCrea to B. Oakley, dated September 9, 2010, stating "Pressure is on real heavy…due to interest from VP"); Exhibit 16 (Email from Monique Fridell to Kimberly Heimert, et. al., dated May 25, 2010, stating "DOE has made a political commitment to get Unistar through the approval process by 6/15"); Exhibit 17 (Email from James C. McCrea to Monique Fridell, dated June 1, 2010, stating "Secretary [of Energy]…is adamant that this transaction is going to OMB by the end of the day Fri if not sooner. Not a way to do things but a direct order.").
112. Thus, DOE bent the rules for White House allies such as Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer, and government cronies received special personal access to high-ranking DOE loan program officials. See, e.g. Exhibit 18 (Email from James C. McCrea to "barbiar", dated December 5, 2009, stating "[Harry] Reid may be desperate. WH may want to help. Short term considerations may be more important than long term considerations and what's a billion anyhow?"); Exhibit 19 (Email from James C. McCrea to Julie Stewart, dated May 25, 2010, stating "7th Floor has decided mid June CRB…there has been a commitment from S1 [Secretary Chu] to Steny Hoyer on this. Nothing like over committing and under delivering"); Exhibit 20 (Email from Brightsource Chairman John Woolard, an LGP applicant, to Jonathan Silver, DOE Loan Office Director, dated November 10, 2010, stating "Thanks for offering to meet at your house tomorrow morning." Silver replied "Came [sic] anytime. Guest bedroom is ready.")
DOE's Abuse of XPV and Limnia
113. DOE did not review XPV's and Limnia's ATVM Loan Program applications in good faith and in accordance with DOE's regulations, policies and promises. Instead, DOE's decision makers stonewalled XPV and Limnia to benefit Tesla, Fisker and others favored because of their political contributions and connections. This damaged XPV and Limnia severely.
114. To begin with, when DOE "fixed" the ATVM Loan Program and LGP to benefit government cronies, it knowingly and intentionally rendered XPV's and Limnia's ATVM Loan Program and LGP applications futile. Through multiple written and verbal representations from DOE officials and staff with actual and apparent authority to bind the agency, DOE intentionally induced XPV, Limnia and others similarly situated to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and invest thousands of hours of engineering and professional time on a meaningless snipe hunt.
115. DOE's ATVM Loan Program abuses, including delaying term sheets and wrongly denying loans among other things, hamstrung XPV's and Limnia's ability to raise private capital, to begin production and to sell XPV's SUV to customers who were ready, willing, able and eager to do so.
116. DOE fixed the ATVM Loan Program and the LGP to protect and advance the business and political interests of government cronies at XPV's and Limnia's expense. For example:
a. DOE made ATVM loans only to companies with political clout, contributions and influence-peddling patrons.
b. DOE discriminated among applicants based on political contributions and connections.
c. DOE: (1) changed the ATVM Loan Program funds distribution date and the "first in, first out" review process to benefit Tesla, Fisker and other politically- connected companies; (2) arranged for Tesla, Fisker and others in the favored class to have their applications reviewed first; (3) arranged for Tesla, Fisker and others in the favored class to receive special favors from DOE officials and unique DOE staff assistance; and (4) arranged for Tesla, Fisker and others in the favored class to be walked through the "review" process, approved and then given money. However, XPV, Limnia and other similarly situated companies that lacked political connections and political patrons were denied these things. Instead, they were afforded only pretextual diligence and application reviews. For example, XPV spoke with Carol Battershel, who claimed to be the due diligence technical lead on XPV's ATVM Loan Program application. XPV offered her complete access to company engineers and management to assist the review process. Battershel declined, saying that she had gotten everything she needed "off [XPV's] website."
d. DOE ignored standard commercial lending procedures and its own rules, guidance and policies—including the use of competent engineers to carry out technical review and the consistent application of the same funding criteria to each application–whenever necessary to benefit government cronies.
e. DOE's political officials made final ATVM Loan Program and LGP review and funding decisions without material regard for DOE's published criteria and regulations. For example, in or about October 2009, XPV and Limnia were told by a DOE contractor that Seward had been angered by XPV's and Limnia's public complaints about DOE's loan program administration and that Seward told his staff in late 2008 that it would be "a cold day in hell before I let them [XPV and Limnia] get any money."
f. Notwithstanding billions in lending authority; a Presidential directive to put "one million electric cars on the road"; and multiple qualified applicants (including XPV and Limnia), DOE has not made even one ATVM loan since September 2009. DOE's refusal to give effect to Congressional and Presidential directives by making ATVM loans to all qualified applicants, up to the limit of the lending authority, is the result of a political determination to protect government favorites such as Fisker and Tesla from competition and not because of merit or other legitimate factors.
g. Upon information and belief and at all times relevant, DOE "carved out" funds
from DOE's authorized lending authority and "held" these funds for government cronies who made political contributions; provided political support for and assistance to the Administration; and/or hired political fixers to obtain "top-tier status" and "special relationships."
h. DOE repeatedly renegotiated the Tesla and Fisker loans contrary to sound commercial lending practices to avoid political embarrassment and to protect those companies' political patrons.
i. DOE denied XPV's and Limnia's ATVM Loan Program applications on baseless pretexts. These included false XPV application "defects" and the assertion that an energy storage component developed by Limnia with DOE and patented for use in an advanced technology vehicle was, in fact, not an advanced technology vehicle component for ATVM Loan Program purposes.
j. DOE promised to waive the LGP application fee for Limnia. Hours before the payment deadline, DOE reneged. The next day, DOE contacted Limnia promising to accept late payment. Again, DOE reneged.
k. DOE hid the "merit review" data, criteria, reviewer identities, reviewer work histories, and other information from XPV, Limnia, all other ATVM Loan Program applicants and the public. This information, if disclosed, would have allowed XPV, Limnia and others similarly situated to evaluate the efficacy and fairness of that review. Instead, DOE has wrongly refused to make this
information available.
l. DOE willfully, intentionally and substantially overestimated government crony company production capabilities and sales performance to justify ATVM Loan Program funding. For example, DOE promised that Fisker alone would have "75,000–100,000" ATVM Loan Program-funded cars rolling off of U.S. assembly lines. Paradoxically, DOE denied XPV's Loan Program application because XPV allegedly would not produce "enough" vehicles, yet in 2012, the politically- connected companies funded by DOE, combined, sold fewer than 25,000 advanced technology vehicles nationwide.
117. As a direct consequence of DOE's wrongdoing, broken promises and political cronyism, XPV and Limnia were improperly denied ATVM Loan Program and LGP funds; deprived of an equal opportunity to have their applications judged fairly, on a level playing field and in accordance with law; wrongly refused funds that they were entitled to receive under applicable DOE criteria, including 10 C.F.R. Part 610; and prevented from creating good American jobs through the production, marketing and sale of advanced technology vehicles and systems developed in conjunction with DOE's own scientists.
DOE Sells Out Limnia's and XPV's Secrets
118. Limnia and XPV have collaborated with DOE on advanced technology vehicle development for over a decade.
119. Pursuant thereto, they provided DOE with confidential business information, technical documents, software, intellectual property, patented chemistry and devices, and prototypes, among other things (collectively the "Protected Information") relating to advanced technology vehicle energy systems, chassis, body materials and electronics.
120. DOE, in turn, repeatedly promised and agreed to guard the Protected Information from unauthorized disclosure, use and infringement. For example:
a. On or about March 8, 2002, there was a transfer of Protected Information from Limnia to DOE that was covered by and subject to a non-disclosure agreement of even date.
b. On or about May 24, 2006, there was a transfer of Protected Information from Limnia to DOE that was covered by and subject to a non-disclosure agreement of even date.
c. On or about November 10, 2008, there was a transfer of Protected Information from XPV to DOE that was covered by and subject to DOE's promises of ATVM Loan Program application confidentiality.
d. On or about December 12, 2008, there was a transfer of Protected Information from Limnia to DOE that was covered by and subject to a non-disclosure agreement of even date.
e. On or about February 1, 2009, there was a transfer of Protected Information from Limnia to DOE that was covered by and subject to DOE's promises of ATVM Loan Program application confidentiality.
121. At all times relevant, DOE agreed and was obligated to guard and keep confidential the Protected Information and to prevent its unauthorized disclosure, use and infringement. This included the patented NALH energy storage system and pressure membrane technology, among other things.
122. At all times relevant, DOE worked closely with General Motors Company ("GM") on many projects and viewed it as a key government client. GM contracted with Sandia on a variety of projects, including advanced technology vehicle energy systems. At all times relevant, DOE was committed to GM's success, even at XPV's and Limnia's expense.
123. On or about September 11, 2008, an XPV representative was invited to tour the Sandia facility. There, in a room where large glove-boxes and chemical testing equipment were used, he saw a table with a presentation that was prepared for another group. On that table were duplicates of an energy system that Limnia had built, tested, patented and disclosed to DOE.
124. The signs on the table read: "General Motors hydrogen vehicle production system" and "NALH General Motors Reversible Hydrogen Vehicle Energy System built by General Motors and Sandia."
125. At all times relevant, DOE knew that the "NALH" system and chemistry and the device on the table labeled "built by General Motors and Sandia" were Protected Information given to DOE, and that DOE, in turn, had promised to guard against unauthorized disclosure, use and infringement. In fact, when Sandia scientists Chris Moen and Daniel Dedrick were informed of this discovery, they admitted that there might be "a problem with that" and suggested XPV and Limnia contact GM for a "partnership" so that "there was no acrimony."
126. At all times relevant, DOE knew that the Protected Information it had given to GM was valuable. As Sandia confirmed on January 6, 2009, the NALH energy system was "well situated to exceed the performance of battery systems" and could outperform more traditional advanced technology vehicle batteries "by a factor of 3." See Exhibit 21 Sandia Memorandum dated January 6, 2009 at 5.
127. Given that there are more than 2800 different potential chemistries that GM and Sandia conceivably could have used for their advanced technology vehicle energy system; that neither XPV nor Limnia had disclosed Protected Information to GM; and DOE's close ties with GM and its commitment to GM's success, DOE is the only plausible conduit through which GM obtained the Protected Information.
128. Additionally, upon information and belief, DOE surreptitiously turned over Protected Information, including pressure membrane technology and the NALH energy system, to the Ford Motor Company ("Ford").
129. On or about March 12, 2012, Limnia and XPV discovered that Ford had created a "pressure membrane design group" that was developing and had manufactured pressure membrane technology-based seats, seat belts and auto body parts. Upon information and belief, this design group and these products were based on and/or covered by Protected Information given to DOE and that DOE had promised to guard against unauthorized disclosure, use and infringement.
130. On or about December 22, 2012, Limnia and XPV discovered a Ford PowerPoint presentation that had been prepared in 2012 for DOE to summarize "Ford/BASF-SE/UM Activities in Support of the Hydrogen Storage Engineering Center of Excellence."
131. This PowerPoint presentation referenced the patented NALH chemistry given by Limnia and XPV to DOE and that DOE, in turn, had promised to guard against unauthorized disclosure, use and infringement.
132. Given the unique nature of the pressure membrane technology and NALH energy system; that neither XPV nor Limnia disclosed Protected Information to Ford; and DOE's relationship with and political commitment to Ford's success, DOE is the only plausible conduit through which Ford obtained Protected Information.
Claims for Relief
First Claim for Relief: Breach of Contract (Protected Information).
133. XPV and Limnia repeat paragraphs 1-132.
134. DOE breached its contractual duty to guard Protected Information from unauthorized disclosure, use and infringement. Instead, DOE disclosed and provided Protected Information to GM and Ford, including NALH energy system and pressure membrane technology.
135. As a result, plaintiffs have suffered direct and consequential damages in excess of $250 million.
Second Claim for Relief: Fifth Amendment Taking (Protected Information).
136. XPV and Limnia repeat paragraphs 1-135.
137. DOE has taken plaintiff's property (i.e. the Protected Information), valued in excess of $200 million, without paying compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Third Claim for Relief: 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) Damages (Protected Information).
138. XPV and Limnia repeat paragraphs 1-137.
139. The NALH energy system given by Sandia to GM, and the pressure membrane
technology apparently given by Sandia to Ford, were both an "invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States."
140. These inventions were and are being used or manufactured by or for the United States without license or the lawful right to use or manufacture same.
141. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture, including reasonable costs and fees for expert witnesses and attorneys incurred in pursuing this action.
Fourth Claim for Relief: Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Protected Information).
142. XPV and Limnia repeat paragraphs 1-141.
143. The nondisclosure agreements between Limnia and XPV, respectively, with DOE contained an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing which obligated the parties not to do anything which would have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of their contractual bargain with respect to the relevant confidentiality and non- disclosure provisions of their various contracts.
144. DOE, however, intentionally evaded the spirit of its agreements, willfully rendered imperfect performance, and otherwise acted in bad faith to favor and benefit GM and Ford.
145. DOE's breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing has caused plaintiffs direct and consequential damages, including but not limited to lost profits, exceeding $250 million.
Fifth Claim for Relief: Estoppel (ATVM Loan Program Applications).
146. XPV and Limnia repeat paragraphs 1-145.
147. DOE promised XPV and Limnia that it would fairly and objectively evaluate their
ATVM Loan Program applications and lend funds to qualified companies without regard for political contributions or White House connections.
148. DOE reasonably expected and intended for XPV and Limnia to rely on these promises and they in fact did so.
149. At all times relevant, both XPV and Limnia were qualified applicants for ATVM Loan Program funding under DOE's applicable criteria, including 10 C.F.R. Part 611. XPV and Limnia each remain capable of performing their obligations pursuant to their respective ATVM Loan Program applications.
150. At all times relevant, DOE had the lending authority and obligation to fund ATVM Loan Program loans to XPV and Limnia.
151. But DOE's affirmative misconduct as set forth herein to benefit government cronies and/or to punish XPV and Limnia for publically expressing concerns about DOE's administration of its loan programs, XPV's and Limnia's ATVM Loan Program applications would have been granted.
152. DOE is therefore estopped from denying XPV's and Limnia's ATVM Loan Program applications and obligated to provide commitments and funding in accordance therewith and on substantially the same terms and conditions given to Tesla and Fisker.
Sixth Claim for Relief: Estoppel (LGP Application).
153. Limnia repeats paragraphs 1-152.
154. DOE promised Limnia that it would waive the LGP application fee. After DOE broke this promise, it promised that Limnia could pay the fee after the February 26, 2009 deadline and have its application "pre-reviewed" as well.
155. DOE reasonably expected and intended for Limnia to rely on these promises and Limnia in fact did so. It was prepared to pay the application fee and repeatedly requested instructions on how to do so, as well as an opportunity to discuss the "pre-review" DOE promised.
156. However, DOE refused to acknowledge Limnia's communications and rejected Limnia's LGP application without recourse.
157. This rejection was the result of affirmative misconduct by DOE to protect the interests of government crony companies and/or to punish Limnia for publically expressing its concerns about DOE's loan program administration.
158. DOE is therefore estopped from refusing to accept Limnia's LGP application and obligated to provide an on the merits review independent of political considerations.
Seventh Claim for Relief: Implied-in-Fact Contract (Fair Review of ATVM Loan Program Applications).
159. XPV and Limnia repeat paragraphs 1-158.
160. There was an implied-in-fact contract between both XPV and Limnia with DOE concerning their respective ATVM Loan Program applications.
161. DOE offered and XPV and Limnia each accepted the opportunity to submit these applications.
162. In consideration for these applications, which required XPV and Limnia each to expend substantial sums for accounting, business and technical information, including a National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") review, DOE agreed to provide a fair process and a level playing field among all applicants, whether they were politically connected and had made large campaign donations or not.
163. At all times relevant, DOE's representatives had actual authority to and did bind DOE to this contract.
164. At all times relevant, XPV and Limnia fully performed their contractual obligations.
165. However, DOE breached its contractual obligations by denying XPV and Limnia the fair opportunity and objective review that they had bargained for and DOE had agreed to provide; by skewing, manipulating and fixing the ATVM Loan Program to benefit government favorites; by wrongly denying XPV's and Limnia's ATVM Loan Program applications; and by favoring political cronies over companies that did not make political contributions or have influential patrons with White House connections.
166. As a result, plaintiffs have suffered direct and consequential damages, including but not limited to lost profits, in excess of $250 million.
Eighth Claim for Relief: Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Implied-in- Fact Contract).
167. XP repeats paragraphs 1-166.
168. The implied-in-fact contracts between XPV and Limnia, respectively, with DOE
regarding a fair and level review of their ATVM Loan Program applications contained an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing obligating the parties not to do anything which would have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other to receive the fruits of its contractual bargain.
169. DOE, however, intentionally evaded the spirit of this contract, willfully rendered imperfect performance and otherwise acted in bad faith to favor and benefit government cronies by denying XPV and Limnia the funds that they were entitled to receive.
170. DOE's breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing caused plaintiff direct and consequential damages, including but not limited to lost profits, exceeding $250 million.
Relief Requested
WHEREFORE XPV and Limnia request the following relief:
A. Such direct, consequential and punitive damages as each plaintiff may be entitled to under law, but no less than a total of $450 million.
B. Reasonable and entire compensation for the use and manufacture of the NALH-based energy system and the pressure membrane technology, each being an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States that was or is being used or manufactured by or for the United States without license or the lawful right to use or manufacture same, including reasonable costs incurred in pursuing this action and as allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 1498(e) such as reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys.
C. Such equitable relief as each may be entitled to under law, including approval of XPV's and Limnia's ATVM Loan Program applications with commitments and funding in accordance therewith and on substantially the same terms and conditions given to Tesla and Fisker; and final agency review, on the merits independent of political considerations, of Limnia's LGP application.
D. Actual costs and attorney fees.
E. Such other relief as this Court deems just.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daniel Z. Epstein
Daniel Z. Epstein
D.C. Bar No. 1009132
Cause of Action, Inc.
1919 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 499-4232 [email protected] Counsel of Record
Signed: January 10, 2013


text:
It's that time of year again, when on October 31st some people in the United States celebrate a silly holiday known as Halloween.
Well, that's not entirely true. It seems what they are really celebrating is trick-or-treating.
At any rate, Barb and I don't do anything to celebrate this holiday, except to be home from about 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM and hand out to the neighborhood kids that ring our doorbell. We don't get a lot of trick-or-treaters; some years it can be as high as 120, but lately it's been dwindling down to between 50 and 70 kids.
The photo above was taken on October 20th, an overcast Saturday morning here in Austin. I was out on my normal Saturday morning walk, and had my Olympus OM-D E-M5 camera with me. I was curious as to what types of flowers were still out after mid-October, and that's why I had my camera. It turns out that there a surprising number of different plants that are still producing flowers at that time of year here. I'll probably show many of them in a post next weekend. I'm getting sort of tired of photographing flowers right now (but I'll never tired of their beauty). I think it may be about time to head back downtown Austin for another of my solo photowalks.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Recently, Delta Air Lines upgraded to a newer lounge at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), which left their old location available. The airport decided to renovate it and offer it to airlines that might not have the capacity to have their own lounge, nor are using one of the other lounges already at the airport. Emirates, which started service from Seattle to Dubai on March 1st, is currently the only airline that is making use of the lounge, but that should change in the future.
"We refurbished the old one and are making it available for airlines who do not have enough flights to warrant a full one of their own or do not share with another airline," Perry Cooper, Airport Media and Public Affairs Manager with SEA explained to AirlineReporter.com. "Emirates uses it when they began on March 1st. We are looking to attract some of the other international airlines to use it as well. "
Cooper also stated that currently the airport is not offering day passes to other passengers who are not flying on Emirates business or first class.
The Club International lounge has a modern atmosphere with many of the amenities one would come to expect. There are not many food options, but that they have the standard snack-type foods found in many other lounges. The club does not have its own Wi-Fi, which is fine, since the entire SEA airport has free Wi-Fi that you are able to access in the lounge.
There are free adult beverages offered and even a menu with locally inspired mixed.
The strange thing about the lounge is that behind the front desk, is a walled off glass area. Since it was not well labeled, I was not sure if it was a quiet area or what. I had to ask and I was informed that it was the first class section.
I understand that some first class folks don't want to mingle with the business class, but it just seemed weird — almost zoo like. There really isn't anything else in the glassed off area except a secondary snack area and additional seating. I guess some people just want to feel special and if that is what they are wanting, it is good to give it to them.


text:
Insurance for contractors and construction businesses
From electricians to carpenters, painters, interior designers and decorators, we've got you covered with customized insurance solutions for every aspect of your business.
Solid business insurance for construction businesses
Here are some insurance coverages to consider for contractors and construction risks:
Commercial property
If you own or rent a space for your business, commercial property insurance can cover you for property losses, such as theft or damage of tools or equipment needing repair or replacement fast.
Mobile property
Mobile property insurance can cover your property and equipment while in transit from one job site to another – property that isn't stored at a fixed location or is routinely taken offsite.
Commercial general liability
Commercial general liability insurance may cover you against claims for injury or property damage to others arising from your contractor or construction activities. For example, if improper maintenance of the construction site damaged the neighbouring building or injured someone, or if an electric, gas or water line is damaged during digging operations, you may be covered.
Commercial vehicles
When contractors and construction businesses are on the road traveling from the shop to the job site and anywhere in-between, commercial vehicle insurance may cover your vehicles, so incidents don't slow you down.
Surety bonds
Before you're awarded a project, big or small, you can be required to guarantee the fulfilment of your obligations with surety bonds.
No matter the size or industry you're in, talk to a broker about what you need to protect your business from the unexpected.


text:
You can find a link to the current challenge here, where you can add your entries at the end of the post. This week, we have some more fabulous inspiration from the Design Team. Magda has created a beautiful Home card, using a combination of stamps.
Anne has created a Christmas canvas, which would be a wonderful piece to bring out every year.
She has very kindly written a tutorial so that you can have a go at making this yourselves.
Stamp sets: Christmas Decorations, Words of Inspiration, Sparkling Trees, Christmas Candlelight
25 x 20 primed canvas board, white stamping card, black card, and scrap acetate
Embossing folder with Baroque style design
Snowflake stencil
Inkpads: Distress Ink (Mustard Seed), Versamark, StazOn (Jet Black)
Embossing powder black sparkle glitter
Black gesso
Acrylic paints: black, green
Viva Decor Croco Crackling colour Teal green Kristall Gel clear holographic glitter gel
Glitter pens: red, green, yellow, gold
Glitter glue: red, green, gold
Glossy Aceents, Chunky gold glitter, PVA pearls: gold
Gilding wax: gold
Embellishments: berries, twigs, gold chain, red organza ribbon
Emboss black card with embossing folder and rub over with gilding wax. Trim to make background panel.
Brush the canvas with black acrylic, leaving some background canvas texture showing through, dry completely.
Sponge Distress Ink into spaces.
Apply crackle paste in corners and around the edges and leave to dry overnight. Brush over the top with green acrylic, (the paste was not the correct colour green). Drop some chunky glitter onto the wet paint.
Glue down the embossed background panel. Stamp the sentiment with gold acylic and outline with green glitter pen. Apply Glossy Accents.
Stamp the bauble diamond nine times onto white card with Versamark and heat emboss with black sparkle powder. Colour the card with Distress Ink. Colour the baubles with glitter pens. Cut out and glue to canvas with 3D glue gel. Add Glossy Accents to enhance the baubles.
Apply Kristall Gel to the canvas through the stencil. Also apply to scrap acetate, dry overnight and cut out.
Stamp the lantern and reindeer onto white card. Colour with Distress Ink and Glitter pens. Cut out and glue to canvas. Add Glossy Accents.
Stamp the gem decorations onto acetate with StazOn. Colour the back with glitter glues. Leave to dry overnight. Paint the back with black gesso, cut out and glue to canvas. Add gold hanging chains and gold glitter flue to finials.Glue down the berries and twigs, which were already decorated with fake snow. Add a bit more sparkle with gold glitter glue. Finally glue down the acetate snowflakes. Add PVA pearls and drop on gold glitter.
Thanks so much Anne, for your detailed explanation.
We hope that the projects that we have shown you this week will inspire you to join in with the challenge yourselves. We will be back next week with another post, and some more projects for you. If you have any questions, and cannot find the answers on the blog pages, please send us a private message using the contact form located at the very end of this post; you will see it after the comment section.


text:
New New York v. Bender
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
New New York v. Bender can refer to:
- The 3001 trial, where Bender was charged with pimping.
- The 3011 trial, where Bender was charged with his trademarked crime of burglarcenarsony.
- The 3012 trials, where Bender was first charged with petty larceny, possession of something analogous to drugs and assault with a smelly weapon; followed by new charges of attempted murder.
- This is a disambiguation page. These are for articles which are similar in name or content.


text:
Conversations in Transit
Open gallery
I am based in Gaborone, Botswana. Even though Gaborone is the capital city, it feels like a town in this country of only 1.7 million people. Speeding along its busy roads, I see herds of goats waiting to cross at traffic signals and cows grazing on sparse patches of grass.
I am in a combi, a van that carries people through town, much like a public bus, only smaller. I am seated in the second row, squeezed between an older woman and a businessman. My knees are pressed through a ripped section of the gray vinyl seat in front of me, resting against the scratchy cold metal of a rusted pole, which provides welcome relief in the midday heat.
I start a conversation with Rebecca, the passenger on my right. She tells me, "HIV, it's a problem here. It doesn't mind age; it will select anyone, a child, someone as old as me, a baby. The hospitals aren't open all the time to get the medicine."
She speaks candidly, as many people do here. About 33 percent of the people of Botswana live with the HIV virus. Antiretroviral (ARV) treatment allows people with the virus to live longer, fuller lives. Even though ARVs are now available in this part of the world, not everyone is getting them, and not everyone is using them properly.
I arrived in Botswana five months ago to work for a friend on the Botswana Project. I have been interested in working in resource-poor settings for some years now. I jumped at the opportunity to come to southern Africa, a hot spot in the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
The Botswana Project proposes a solution to the issue of treatment adherence for people taking ARVs. We are providing a service that sends text messages to cell phones as reminders for people to take medicines, go to clinic appointments, and refill prescriptions. The service is free for all patients and doctors involved. The cell phone market in Africa has grown tremendously in recent years, and many people in Botswana own a phone–or even two. As I waited for the pilot project to start, my understanding of HIV on the ground in Botswana was being shaped mostly by conversations during transit.
I had just arrived from the States to South Africa and boarded a bus from Johannesburg to Gaborone. Before the bus took off, a woman stepped on board and began a speech to ask for donations for the HIV/AIDS orphanage where she worked. She told us she was HIV-positive, which moved me; she was the first person I had ever met whom I knew to be HIV-positive. She told us she wasn't trying to make her problem our problem, but she would be grateful for any contribution we could give.
At that moment, I felt a surge of emotion and purpose, realizing I had come to a place in need of a lot of help. I also noticed the groans and passive looks directed her way as she passed by rows of seats. The stigma attached to those with HIV/AIDS was evident through the passengers' reactions to this woman. From this brief encounter, I began to understand how stigma manifests itself and that it is a real challenge to confront while doing this type of work.
On a later trip from Johannesburg to Gaborone, I met a Zimbabwean woman named Tami. As we started chatting, our conversation became free and easy. Tami said she was 43, "an old person." As she said this, she laughed and I nudged her plushy body and laughed with her, telling her she was still young. She asked where I was from and what I was doing here. When I explained my work, she told me she was HIV-positive. She was open about it, shaking her head saying, "That's me, I have it, but I don't take the medicine because my CD4 levels are still high." CD4 levels are a measurement of a person's immunity, and the ARV treatment is useful only after a person's natural defense is low enough.
"But what to do?" she asked. "Can't just lie down and die, have to keep going, keep living." A shudder ran along my spine. I felt for her and also admired her strength. "Our husbands, we think they are faithful, but they are not." Of course there are many circumstances that lead to transmission of the disease, but husbands cheating on their wives is a familiar one.
I sat with her words for a minute, feeling the weight of her situation. Her age of 43 seemed much older to me now. With the virus, she won't live to be what I think of as an old woman. We moved along in conversation–I told her about the school garden I am planning, and she showed me pictures of her family on her cell phone, which she keeps tucked in her bosom. During the six-hour bus ride I came to understand that Tami is a woman who has had multiple strokes of bad luck. However, she has a willingness to carry on and to remain upbeat, focusing on the life she has instead of what she lacks or her inevitable early demise. The memory of her inspiring disposition stays with me.
Through these simple interactions and conversations, I have begun to develop a real-life picture of HIV/AIDS in southern Africa–filled with color and shades of lightness and darkness. This is an important dimension of the work I am doing here–seeing the faces of people with the virus, hearing their stories, and weighing the opinions of everyone, infected or not. It is the human side of my work, and these are experiences I could have only by living in Africa.
Prentiss Darden BA '08, who majored in international affairs, is a member of the Core Project Team for the Botswana Project (www.thebotswanaproject.com).
More L&C Magazine Stories
Lewis & Clark Magazine is located in McAfee on the Undergraduate Campus.
email email@example.com
voice 503-768-7970
fax 503-768-7969
The L&C Magazine staff welcomes letters and emails from readers about topics covered in the magazine. Correspondence must include your name and location and may be edited.
Lewis & Clark Magazine
Lewis & Clark
615 S. Palatine Hill Road MSC 19
Portland OR 97219


text:
As a teacher, you can help your students make their studying more effective by understanding how the brain learns.
If the information stored in the brain is never used, it's pretty much as if the brain never learned or acquired the information in the first place. If you taught the key battles of the Civil War back in January, and then never referenced that information following the initial conversations, it's as if you didn't teach it.
Because the information was never called upon again - there was no point at which the brain had to retrieve and manipulate that information. Research studies, like this on from Purdue University, on active retrieval say that, "Retrieval is the key process for understanding learning and for promoting learning."
What does this mean for your teaching practice?
Think of retrieval like giving someone directions to a location. You'll start by giving the address and then, potentially, landmarks to watch out for. The landmarks act as signals or cues to let them know, they're getting close. The more cues you give them, the easier it is to find their destination.
Similarly, when you're teaching something, put it in context. Offer cues to help your learner put it in place. Mr. Mettler, featured in the film, used flash cards and cartoons to help his students remember key facts about historical events.
Bri Parker, who started her year by saying, "School is not for me" found this technique really helped her understand the information, "I'd read the stuff and picture the really goofy cartoon I'd worked on in class to help explain what was going on and it would all come back to me."
The arts (visual, performance) are an easy way to give your students more context to what they're learning. Arts add an element of fun, it usually engages the student because it's something different, and makes the information easier to retrieve.


text:
Melt CBD Lotion 2 oz
- Regular price
- $39.99
- Sale price
- $39.99
- Unit price
- per
- Details
- Our Hemp CBD
- Additional information
The Science: Most CBD lotion formulas on the market are oil based creams. Since our CBD infusion is water-based and not an oil, we begin our formula with organic aloe juice for an absorbable base. Then we combine over 20 essential oils known to aid the body. As Melt glides on, it won't leave any greasy residue and will absorb right into the dermis of the skin and into the bloodstream. The nanoparticles will interact with the endocannabinoid system much quicker than traditional CBD oil.
Give it a try: We promise, You will want to have your Melt CBD lotion on you at all times! Keep one in your purse, by your bed & in the bathroom so that you are never without the relief that you deserve.
The Kush Queen Promise: This product is proudly 100% vegan and made with 87% certified organic ingredients and all of our ingredients were chosen with the most sensitive skin in mind.
Dose: 100mg CBD per bottle – 2 oz bottle
Lab Tested: We source our hemp-derived CBD direct from our partner farm located in the beautiful Pacific Northwest. We test our CBD through a 3rd party lab to ensure it is pesticide and heavy metal free for your safety. Every finished product is 3rd party lab tested for potency and safety. Visit our lab test page for your convenience.
Zero THC Guarantee: Kush Queen Melt Relief Lotion comes with a Zero THC Guarantee. Made with Hemp CBD Isolate sourced in the USA. Learn about our Hemp CBD sourcing and practices here.
Proprietary Nanotechnology: Before we infuse our product with our lab tested CBD, we use a propriety Nanotechnology application that makes our CBD water-compatible and truly absorbable. This means our CBD particle size is 2000x smaller than your pores.
Ingredients |
Hemp Extract, Organic Aloe Leaf Juice, Meadowfoam Seed Oil, Menthol Crystals, Capsicum Fruit Oleoresin, White Camphor Bark Oil, Black Pepper Oil, Roman Chamomile Flower Oil, German Chamomile Flower Oil, Citronella Oil, Eucalyptus Leaf Oil, Helichrysum Flower Oil, Ginger Root Oil, Pink Grapefruit Peel Oil, Juniper Berry Oil, Peppermint Oil, Pine Needle Oil, Ravensara Oil, Rosemary Leaf Oil, Spearmint Oil, Wild Oregano Oil, Glycerin, Witch Hazel Water, Organic Alcohol, Phenoxyethanol, Carbomer, Triethanolamine, Tetrasodium Glutamate, Diacetate. |
Directions |
Apply a dime size amount to the affected area. |
Weight | 3 oz |
Dimensions | 3 × 2.25 × 2 in |


text:
Did you know . . .
Building your kit
Non-medical cannabis can be consumed in several different ways, and each way may require a different set of accessories. When it comes to building a cannabis kit, BC Cannabis Stores carries a wide variety of practical items that streamline the process of preparing and consuming cannabis. Joints/Rolled cannabis Adults (aged...
Learn more
Sort by


text:
Mike Chambers built this excellent looking arduino-based speed detector. An Arduino measures the time it takes an object to travel between two points, which is then relayed back to a computer (or smart phone), where it is converted into average speed and presented in a clear manner. The concept for the project is simple, however he wins big points for putting it all together into a working package. [via Arduino Blog]
Join Make: Community Today


text:
There are few things as satisfying in music production as successfully recording skilled musicians playing real instruments.
Sure, we love and are endlessly amazed by the awesome sounds and mind-boggling capabilities of our virtual synths and samplers, but the sense of achievement earned through such comparatively old-school endeavours as multitracking a drum kit, capturing a spine-tingling vocal or nabbing a perfectly executed guitar solo is rewarding on a whole other level.
With this Special, we hope to both inspire you to get recording and give you all the knowledge you need to do a great job of it.
Whether you're an electronic producer looking to take your sound in a more organic direction, a singer-songwriter yet to discover how easy it can be to commit your creations to hard disk, or a band member with designs on taking control of your act's studio direction, you'll find Home Recording - The Ultimate Guide an invaluable companion on the journey.
And if you've been labouring under the misapprehension that getting into recording means investing thousands of pounds in microphones, preamps and hardware mixing facilities, then labour no more. All you need to get started is a sub-£100 mic, your Mac or PC, a DAW or audio editor/recorder application and the advice that awaits you in the pages of this magazine.
Buy Computer Music Special: The Ultimate Guide To Home Recording


text:
a cup of happy – mccafe pods.
I've been a coffee lover since forever. Okay, not forever – but probably since grade 8 (which, yes, is probably way too young). Throughout my university days, I was averaging maybe 4 cups a day (yes, too much!), but now I have about a cup every other morning and it's always something I look forward to.
And yep, mornings are busy. We all know that feeling – hitting snooze way too many times, rushing around half-dressed and trying to wrangle together a quick smoothie and a coffee in the other hand (or maybe this isn't as common and are just my mornings … either way). So when these McCafe pods came along, I can't tell you how much easier these haphazard mornings became – slip in the machine, press "brew", and there you go. One morning task off the checklist!
Also, when I first opened the bag to these pods, the strong aroma of fresh coffee hit me. It is so strong, probably because of the way these pods are constructed. 100% compostable (insert hand praising emoji here), with a mesh underside. Honestly, one less stress in the morning – cup, brew, coffee ready, boom.


text:
This article is more than 1 year old
What is selective mutism and is it for real?
Say what?
Also in this week's column:
- How the 'true blue' political maverick gave the senate to the donkeys
- Can blind people see in their dreams?
What is selective mutism and is it for real?
Asked by Vikki de Melendez of Clifton Park, New York
Selective mutism (SM) is a well-established psychological disorder. It is a social anxiety condition in which a person is capable of speech only with a very few people and only in a very few situations.
Many have thought SM is not genuine because the SM sufferer is fully capable of speech. The unsympathetic often believe the SM sufferer is faking the speechlessness. But they can and do speak when the people around them and the occasion itself is "safe" for them. Perhaps that person may be a parent, a sibling, or a partner. Perhaps they will only speak inside their own home and nowhere else.
A convenient way to think of SM is to imagine someone with a phobia of, say, lightning (astraphobia) and thunder (brontophobia). They are perfectly fine in fine weather, but comes a storm and they collapse into panic.
Five factors characterise SM. There is:
- Consistent failure to speak in specific social situations in which there is an expectation of speaking. It is often first detected when the child is in school.
- An interference with educational and occupational achievement.
- The duration must last more than one month.
- Failure to speak is unrelated to lack of knowledge of or comfort with the language to be spoken.
- Another communicative disorder (such as stuttering) is not present.
The diagnosis of SM has been around for more than 100 years. It was known by its earlier name, elective mutism. SM is relatively rare. Between one and seven per 1,000 people suffer from SM. Slightly more females suffer from it than males. No single cause has so far been found to account for SM.
Drs William Sharp and colleagues from the University of Mississippi in Oxford and the DuPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware write in the Journal of Anxiety Disorders(30 August 2006) that: "Although well documented, SM is still not clearly understood, and debate continues regarding its classification and etiology."
They add that in the past and sometimes even today, an SM sufferer was dismissed as merely being defiant, manipulative, dominating, negative, stubborn, aggressive, or a combination of these.
major myth surrounding SM is that the sufferer chooses to whom they speak, and where, and when. Not so, say researchers - and they say it to one and all.
Stephen Juan, Ph.D. is an anthropologist at the University of Sydney. Email your Odd Body questions to email@example.com


text:
Executables are available for Windows. For other operating systems, please download the cross-platform source code and compile it locally. We are glad to host executables for other operating systems here; contact us once you've compiled the source for your platform. This edition was made with Trolltech's QT and was created by Miquel Fire. Due to QT's license for open source products, this edition uses GPL instead of the LGPL that the other editions use. |
Download the desktop edition from here
See here.
PasswordMaker Desktop Edition can be installed in one of the following ways:
- Precompiled
- Windows installer. Most Windows users should take this route.
- Windows zip. If you don't want to (or can't) run the installer.
- Windows Portable Zip. For running off a portable (USB / Firewire / eSATA) drive. All this version does differently is store its settings in a subdirectory called data. The zip file will extract to a directory called PasswordMaker Portable.
- Compiled from source (For Linux and Mac users):
In order to compile this edition of PasswordMaker, you will need:
- QT 4.3+ with the XML, DB (with SQLite driver), and Script modules enabled.
- (Optional) mHash. Using mHash disable the use of HMAC-SHA-256 Version 1.5.2 due to the nature of the bug with this version, but is faster. On Windows, you'll notice that there are precompiled libraries for mHash to use.
For now, just read the build.txt that comes with the source to compile this edition.
Once installed, you just launch the program. When you need to get a password for a site, just:
- copy and paste the URL into the Input URL field, and
- enter you master password.
Please note, currently as of version 0.4, there is no method to save the master password as there is in the much more advanced Firefox version. You should have the generated password ready for use now.
Changing Default Settings
You can change the parameters use to generate passwords by click on the Edit Defaults button.
URLs tab
Here you can choose which parts of the Input URL PasswordMaker can use.
Extended tab
The parameters in this tab control how PasswordMaker generates its password.
- The Username field may be used to fill in a username in other editions. You can use this to keep compatible with other editions, and (when multiple account support is added) use it to remind yourself of the username you used on a site.
- The Use l33t and l33t Level fields control how PasswordMaker uses l33t routines when creating passwords. Please note using after generation can introduce characters you may not want into your generated password. Using it before generation also causes the master password to be case insensitive.
- The Hash Algorithm field tells PasswordMaker which hash algorithm to use. Please note, using an mHash built version will not have the HMAC-SHA-256 Version 1.5.2 algorithm on the list because it's currently not supported that way, and may never be.
- The Password Length field tells PasswordMaker how long to make the password.
- The Characters field tells PasswordMaker what characters it should use to make the generated password. You may need to edit this a bit to get it working correctly.
- The Modifier field is just another bit of text you can use to change the generated password. Mainly used for sites that require you to change your password once in a while.
- The Password Prefix and Password Suffix fields allows you to have parts of the password have set characters.
Importing and Exporting
This edition of PasswordMaker is the first to use a new XML format for importing and exporting.
It also uses this format internally for keeping its settings.
It should be noted that its export method is non-destructive in that it will read the file first, and only update the data it uses.
Version 0.4
Released 2008-01-28
- Added Settings dialog. (Note, these do not import/export to RDF currently)
Version 0.3
Released 2008-01-01
- Fixed bug with arbitrary length passwords.
Version 0.2.2
- Added message boxes for importing and exporting.
Version 0.2.1
Released 2007-10-26
- Fixed password settings being lost when starting.
- Fixed using URL bug (wasn't used at times)
- Precompiled is now statically built to not need the dlls files any more (and results in a slightly smaller download)
Version 0.2
Released 2007-10-14
- A new portable version is released
- A better installer (Note, uninstall 0.1 if you have it)
- Can now minimize to the system tray.
- Fixed issue with URL not working correctly with only two domain segments (like http://passwordmaker.org/ only generating org in the using URL field)
- QSA replaced with a faster QtScript (and reduce the dependencies by one)


text:
Shilling (British coin)
United Kingdom | |
Value | 12 pence sterling |
Mass | (1816-1970) 5.66 g |
Diameter | (1816-1970) 23.60 mm |
Edge | Milled |
Composition |
(1503-1816) Silver (1816–1920) 92.5% Ag (1920–1946) 50% Ag (1947–1970) Cupronickel[nb 1] |
Years of minting | c. 1503–1970 |
Obverse | |
Design | Profile of the monarch (Elizabeth II design shown) |
Designer | Mary Gillick |
Design date | 1953 |
Reverse | |
Design | Various (coat of arms of England design shown) |
Designer | William Gardner |
Design date | 1947 |
The shilling (1/-) was a coin worth one twentieth of a pound sterling, or twelve pence. It was first minted in the reign of Henry VII as the testoon, and became known as the shilling from the Old English scilling,[1] sometime in the mid-sixteenth century, circulating until 1990. The word bob was sometimes used for a monetary value of several shillings, e.g. "ten bob note". Following decimalisation in 1970 the coin had a value of five new pence. It was made from silver from its introduction in or around 1503 until 1947, and thereafter in cupronickel.
Prior to Decimal Day in 1971 there were 240 pence in one pound sterling. Twelve pence made a shilling, and twenty shillings made a pound. Values less than a pound were usually written in terms of shillings and pence, e.g. forty-two pence would be three shillings and six pence (3/6), pronounced "three and six". Values of less than a shilling were simply written in terms of pence, e.g. eight pence would be 8d.
Although the coin was not minted until the sixteenth century, the value of a shilling had been used for accounting purposes since the Anglo-Saxon period. Originally, a shilling was deemed to be the value of a cow in Kent, or a sheep elsewhere.[2] The value of one shilling equalling 12d was set by the Normans following the conquest; prior to this various Anglo-Saxon coins equalling 3, 4, and 12 pence had all been known as shillings.[3]
The first coins of the pound sterling with the value of 12d were minted in 1503[4] or 1504[3] and were known as testoons. The testoon was one of the first English coins to bear a real (rather than a representative) portrait of the monarch on its obverse, and it is for this reason that it obtained its name from an Italian coin known as the testone, or headpiece, which had been introduced in Milan in 1474.[5] Between 1544 and 1551 the coinage was debased repeatedly by the governments of Henry VIII and Edward VI in an attempt to generate more money to fund foreign wars. This debasement meant that coins produced in 1551 had one-fifth of the silver content of those minted in 1544, and consequently the value of new testoons fell from 12d to 6d.[6] The reason the testoon decreased in value is that unlike today, the value of coins was determined by the market price of the metal contained within them. This debasement was recognised as a mistake, and during Elizabeth's reign newly minted coins, including the testoon (now known as the shilling), had a much higher silver content and regained their pre-debasement value.[7]
Shillings were minted during the reign of every British monarch following Edward VI, as well as during the Commonwealth, with a vast number of variations and alterations appearing over the years. The Royal Mint undertook a massive recoinage programme in 1816, with large quantities of gold and silver coin being minted. Previous issues of silver coinage had been irregular, and the last issue, minted in 1787, did little to alleviate the chronic shortage of silver coinage in general circulation.[8] New silver coinage was to be of .925 (sterling) standard, with silver coins to be minted at 66 shillings to the troy pound.[9] Hence, newly minted shillings weighed 87.273 grains or 5.655 grams.
The Royal Mint debased the silver coinage in 1920 from 92.5% silver to 50% silver. Shillings of both alloys were minted that year.[10] This debasement was done because of the rising price of silver around the world, and followed the global trend of the elimination, or the reducing in purity, of the silver in coinage.[11] The minting of silver coinage of the pound sterling ceased completely in 1946 for similar reasons, exacerbated by the costs of the Second World War. New "silver" coinage was instead minted in cupronickel, an alloy of copper and nickel containing no silver at all.[12]
Beginning with Lord Wrottesley's proposals in the 1820s there were various attempts to decimalise the pound sterling over the next century and a half.[13][14] These attempts came to nothing significant until the 1960s when the need for a currency more suited to simple monetary calculations became pressing. The decision to decimalise was announced in 1966, with the pound to be redivided into 100, rather than 240, pence.[15] Decimal Day was set for 15 February 1971, and a whole range of new coins were introduced. Shillings continued to be legal tender with a value of 5 new pence until 1990.[16]
Testoons issued during the reign of Henry VII feature a right-facing portrait of the king on the obverse. Surrounding the portrait is the inscription HENRICUS DI GRA REX ANGL Z FRA, or similar, meaning "Henry, by the Grace of God, King of England and France".[5] All shillings minted under subsequent kings and queens bear a similar inscription on the obverse identifying the monarch (or Lord Protector during the Commonwealth), with the portrait usually flipping left-facing to right-facing or vice versa between monarchs. The reverse features the escutcheon of the Royal Arms of England, surrounded by the inscription POSVI DEVM ADIVTORE MEVM, or a variant, meaning "I have made God my helper".[17]
Henry VIII testoons have a different reverse design, featuring a crowned Tudor rose, but those of Edward VI return to the Royal Arms design used previously.[18] Starting with Edward VI the coins feature the denomination XII printed next to the portrait of the king. Elizabeth I and Mary I shillings are exceptions to this; the former has the denomination printed on the reverse, above the coat of arms, and the latter has no denomination printed at all. Some shillings issued during Mary's reign bear the date of minting, printed above the dual portraits of Mary and Philip.[18]
Early shillings of James I feature the alternative reverse inscription EXURGAT DEUS DISSIPENTUR INIMICI, meaning "Let God arise and His enemies be scattered", becoming QVAE DEVS CONIVNXIT NEMO SEPARET, meaning "What God hath put together let no man put asunder" after 1604.[19][20]
In popular culture
A slang name for a shilling was a "bob" (plural as singular, as in "that cost me two bob"). The first recorded use was in a case of coining heard at the Old Bailey in 1789, when it was described as cant, "well understood among a certain set of people", but heard only among criminals and their associates.[21]
In much of West Africa, white people are called toubabs, which some claim may derive from the possibility that locals, every time encountering a westerner, requested two shillings, or from the colonial practice of paying locals two shillings for running errands.[22] In fact, the name toubab comes from the French word toubib, doctor.[23]
To "take the King's shilling" was to enlist in the army or navy, a phrase dating back to the early 19th century.[24]
To "cut someone off with a shilling", often quoted as "cut off without a shilling" means to disinherit. Although having no basis in British law, some believe that leaving a family member a single shilling in one's will ensured that it could not be challenged in court as an oversight.[25]
- ↑ "The Origins of £sd". Royal Mint Museum. Retrieved 29 September 2016.
- ↑ Gerald Kennedy (1959). A Second Reader's Notebook. New York: Harper & Brothers.
- 1 2 "Requiem for the Shilling". Royal Mint Museum. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
- ↑ Abraham Rees (1819). The Cyclopaedia; Or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences and Literature. - London, Longman, Hurst (usw.) 1819-20. Longman, Hurst. p. 403.
- 1 2 "Shilling". Royal Mint Museum. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
- ↑ John A. Wagner; Susan Walters Schmid (December 2011). Encyclopedia of Tudor England. ABC-CLIO. p. 281. ISBN 978-1-59884-298-2.
- ↑ Margherita Pascucci (22 May 2013). Philosophical Readings of Shakespeare: "Thou Art the Thing Itself". Palgrave Macmillan. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-137-32458-0.
- ↑ Manville, H. E.; Gaspar, P. P. (2004). "The 1787 Shilling - A Transition in Minting Technique" (PDF). British Numismatic Journal. 74: 84–103.
- ↑ Clancy, Kevin (1990). The recoinage and exchange of 1816-1817 (Ph.D.). University of Leeds.
- ↑ David Groom (10 July 2010). The Identification of British 20th Century Silver Coin Varieties. Lulu.com. p. 44. ISBN 978-1-4457-5301-0.
- ↑ The Numismatist. American Numismatic Association. 1972.
- ↑ Christopher Edgar Challis (1992). A New History of the Royal Mint. Cambridge University Press. p. 583. ISBN 978-0-521-24026-0.
- ↑ The Bankers' Magazine. Waterlow. 1855. p. 139.
- ↑ Zupko, Ronald Edward (1990). Revolution in Measurement - Western European Weights and Measures Since the Age of Science. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society. 186. pp. 242–245. ISBN 0-87169-186-8.
- ↑ "The Story of Decimalisation". Royal Mint. Retrieved 6 October 2014.
- ↑ Stephen Eckett; Craig Pearce (2008). Harriman's Money Miscellany: A Collection of Financial Facts and Corporate Curiosities. Harriman House Limited. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-905641-95-6.
- ↑ Henry Noel Humphreys (1853). The Coin Collector's Manual, Or Guide to the Numismatic Student in the Formation of a Cabinet of Coins: Comprising an Historical and Critical Account of the Origin and Progress of Coinage, from the Earliest Period to the Fall of the Roman Empire. Bohn. p. 682.
- 1 2 "Shilling". Coins of the UK. Retrieved 30 December 2014.
- ↑ Moriesson, Lieut.-Colonel H. W. (1907). "The Silver Coins of James I" (PDF). British Numismatic Journal. 4: 165–180.
- ↑ "Hammered coin inscriptions and their meanings". Paul Shields. Retrieved 29 September 2016.
- ↑ Sessions Papers of the Old Bailey for 3 June 1789, quoted in "bob, n.8". Oxford English Dictionary (2 ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 1989.
- ↑ The Gambia, eBizguides
- ↑ The Rough Guide to the Gambia, p. 65, Emma Gregg and Richard Trillo, Rough Guides, 2003
- ↑ "The King's Shilling". BBC History - Fact files. BBC. 2005-01-28. Archived from the original on 2014-05-13. Retrieved 2009-03-30.
- ↑ Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, E. Cobham Brewer, 1898
External links
- Online Coin Club / Coin Type: Shilling - Listing of all issued shillings, with mintages, descriptions and photos