FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, November 22, 2013
Ms-13 Members Convicted of Murders and Attempted Murders
After a three-week trial, a federal jury has convicted two MS-13 members for their roles in committing murders, attempted murders and armed robberies in Gwinnett and DeKalb counties in northern Georgia.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates of the Northern District of Georgia, Special Agent in Charge Brock D. Nicholson of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations in Atlanta, and Special Agent in Charge Mark F. Giuliano of the FBI’s Atlanta Field Office made the announcement.
“These MS-13 gang members engaged in a ruthless – and senseless – string of attacks and murders, terrorizing the communities in which they operated,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Raman. “Thanks to the investigators and prosecutors who made today’s convictions possible, these violent gang members are off the streets of northern Georgia and face up to life in prison behind bars.”
“These two defendants set the standard for violence as members of MS-13, an international gang infamous for its disregard for human life,” said U.S. Attorney Yates. “They spread fear throughout the community by killing innocent pedestrians, shooting suspected rival gang members and robbing innocent people at gunpoint. By finding them guilty, this jury has held them accountable for their crimes.”
“As active members of one of the most violent gangs in the world, these men posed a significant threat to the public safety of our communities,” said HSI Special Agent in Charge Nicholson, who is responsible for agency investigations in Georgia and the Carolinas. “HSI and our partners at the FBI and local law enforcement agencies have taken a strong stand against transnational gangs in Atlanta. These are just the latest convictions that show how successful our efforts have been.”
“Today's conviction in federal court of two violent members of the international gang known as MS-13 adds to the list of successes for those law enforcement officers, investigators and prosecutors who are working hard to neutralize this dangerous criminal enterprise,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Giuliano. “While these successes are important for the FBI and its various law enforcement partners, it is more important to those particular communities impacted by MS-13's violent crimes.”
Remberto Argueta, aka Pitufo, 27, of Lilburn, Ga., and William Espinoza, aka Cheberria and Crazy, 31, of Norcross, Ga., were convicted today by a federal jury and will be sentenced at a later date before U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story. Each defendant was convicted of RICO conspiracy involving murder. Argueta was also convicted of violent crime in aid of racketeering and a firearms offense related to the murder of Arpolonio Rios-Jarquin. Espinoza was also convicted of violent crime in aid of racketeering and a firearms offense related to the attempted murder of Jayro Arango-Sanchez. Violent crime in aid of racketeering for murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison, while RICO conspiracy involving murder carries a sentence of up to life in prison. Parole has been abolished in the federal system.
According to court records, MS-13 is an international gang that has operated in the Atlanta area since at least 2005. The gang members staked out Gwinnett and DeKalb Counties as their home territory.
Evidence presented at trial showed that Argueta, along with other gang members, planned to rob Arpolonio Rios-Jarquin, a suspected drug dealer, at a hotel in April 2007. When Rios-Jarquin turned out to have his own gun, Argueta and his fellow MS-13 members engaged in a shootout with Rios-Jarquin that spilled outside the hotel room. Surveillance video showed one of the MS-13 members stopping to pick up Rios-Jarquin’s weapon, which he later showed off as a trophy.
In October 2007, Argueta and several other MS-13 members were at an apartment complex in Gwinnett County when Argueta spotted suspected rival gang members. According to evidence at trial, he approached them and asked them who they “claimed”—that is, what gang they belonged to. When Christian Escobar responded that he and his friend, Jose Garcia-Barajas, were members of the rival gang 18th Street, Argueta said, “You’re going to die.” Argueta pulled out a handgun and started chasing and shooting at Escobar and Garcia-Barajas. He shot Escobar in the back and Garcia-Barajas in the hip and arm. While shooting at them, Argueta also fired shots into the apartments of nearby residents. An elderly woman testified that one of Argueta’s bullets hit an armchair that she had been sitting in just a few minutes earlier.
Evidence at trial showed that in early July 2008, Espinoza lent his .380 caliber handgun to fellow gang members so that they could retaliate against a member of La Raza, a rival gang. An MS-13 member shot a 15-year-old boy who was taking a shortcut across through an apartment complex. The boy was not a member of a gang and had traveled from Ohio with his family to visit other family members for the Fourth of July holiday.
A few weeks later in July 2008, Espinoza and other members of MS-13 were at El Pueblito, a nightclub in DeKalb County, when a fight broke out with suspected members of the rival gang 18th Street. Surveillance video showed Espinoza going out to the parking lot and retrieving a .380 handgun from a car. He approached the club entrance and shot Jayro Arango-Sanchez in the stomach. Arango-Sanchez testified at trial that he was not a gang member and that he was at the club with his girlfriend and brother to celebrate his birthday.
According to evidence at trial, just two days later, Espinoza and four other MS-13 members drove to an apartment complex in Gwinnett County to look for pedestrians to rob. After spotting a victim, Espinoza and another gang member got out of their SUV and approached Aurelio Vasquez. Espinoza put his .380 handgun to Vasquez’s head while the other MS-13 member started to search Vasquez’s pockets for money. Vasquez, who was returning home after buying groceries, resisted being robbed, so Espinoza shot him through the head. Espinoza and his fellow gang members wanted to rob Vasquez to get money for beer.
This case is being investigated by ICE-HSI and FBI, with assistance from Gwinnett County Police Department, DeKalb County Police Department and Gwinnett County Sheriff’s Office.
Trial Attorney Joseph K. Wheatley of the Criminal Division’s Organized Crime and Gang Section and Assistant United States Attorney Paul R. Jones are prosecuting the case.
Monday, November 25, 2013
NEW DEVICE FOR TREATING PEDIATRIC BRAIN CANCER
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Safer, more convenient pump to treat pediatric brain cancer
Treating pediatric brain cancer can be a challenge, since the brain has ways to protect itself from drugs taken orally or intravenously. One solution to this frustrating problem: A miniature, implantable infusion pump no bigger than two small cookies stacked together.
The hope is to improve the treatment for a devastating type of cancer, leptomeningeal metastases, which afflicts the lining of the brain and spinal cord. The device, when implanted in the abdomen, would send chemotherapy into the spinal fluid for direct delivery to the brain, a process infinitely easier for young patients who otherwise must endure uncomfortable spinal taps several times a week, and a hospital stay. The pump would send the correct amount of medicine where it is needed, and, just as important, would allow children to remain at home while they are undergoing treatment.
"With this disease, you need a lot of drug, since the spinal fluid is constantly being made and replenished, every six hours," says Ellis Meng, a National Science Foundation (NSF)- funded scientist who is associate professor of biomedical and electrical engineering at the University of Southern California (USC). "So it makes sense to treat with this type of pump, because we have the ability to dose frequently."
To be sure, implantable pumps are not new. They play an important role in treating many severe diseases, and often are the last line of defense when less-invasive approaches are not an option. But the technology behind this still experimental new pump is an innovation. It is a tether-free, wirelessly activated release system that precisely controls the infusion of drugs into the body using "bubble power," that is, the power of electrolytically generated bubbles, rather than a motor--a feature that makes it different from other infusion pumps.
"We use a simple technique to electronically control how much drug is pumped, when it is pumped and how often it is pumped," Meng says. Also, the pump is fully implantable, and not tethered to an outside power source, appealing because "humans want to be able to move around and experience daily life and not be reminded all the time of being ill," Meng says.
Meng decided to pursue research that could help children because "pediatric populations are underserved by medical devices," she says. "They get adult devices put in after the fact. They don't benefit from devices specifically designed for pediatric populations. After evaluating the needs of this particular condition, it really fits what we do."
In the fall of 2011, Meng was among the first group of scientists to receive a $50,000 NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) award, which supports a set of activities and programs that prepare scientists and engineers to extend their focus beyond the laboratory into the commercial world.
Such results may be translated through I-Corps into technologies with near-term benefits for the economy and society. It is a public-private partnership program that teaches grantees to identify valuable product opportunities that can emerge from academic research, and offers entrepreneurship training to faculty and student participants.
Meng is an inventor, researcher, and now entrepreneur, whose work has produced six patents and more than a dozen patent applications. To further commercialization of the new pump, she co-founded Fluid Synchrony LLC, a startup company looking to promote these high performance micro-pumps for laboratory research, preclinical research and, ultimately, for use in humans.
The pumps are not yet available on the market; they are, in fact, undergoing their own animal studies to ensure the devices are safe, and that they work. Human trials likely are several years away.
Her work on miniature pumps began in 2004, shortly after she arrived at USC, when she began working with a USC ophthalmologist on an implantable infusion pump for the eye, a process to replace the current practice of direct needle injections. Several chronic eye diseases, macular degeneration, for example, require regular, frequent shots directly through the eye wall.
"This puts a huge burden on the medical system," Meng says. "The idea is to avoid frequent trips to the doctors for these injections, which can be traumatic. You put the implant in the eye wall, and it continues to dispense the drug until it runs out. The only thing you have to do is get the device refilled."
Her research on this project ended once her collaborator ophthalmologist formed his own startup company. But it prompted Meng to explore additional opportunities for her pump technology, ultimately leading her in two directions, the aforementioned pediatric cancer, and drug research, specifically providing an improved drug delivery system for scientists to use in animal studies of experimental drugs.
She explains: "Drug researchers first study their drugs in animals. How do you give a drug to an animal? It's difficult to get them to swallow. The next option is injection, but animals experience stress, just like humans. If you trigger stress, it will affect drug response. Also, animals don't like external pumps; they want to move around, just like people. Putting in an implantable device will allow you to dose an animal without the animal being stressed."
This aspect of her work "will enhance a researcher's ability to better understand drug dosing and safety, and speed up drug development," Meng says, adding: "We hope to reduce the time it takes to develop a new drug."
She believes that, ultimately, the pump will provide a safer, more convenient and comfortable alternative to current drug delivery approaches. "The NSF I-Corps experience was instrumental in getting this technology one step closer to the hands of patients," she says.
-- Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation
Safer, more convenient pump to treat pediatric brain cancer
Treating pediatric brain cancer can be a challenge, since the brain has ways to protect itself from drugs taken orally or intravenously. One solution to this frustrating problem: A miniature, implantable infusion pump no bigger than two small cookies stacked together.
The hope is to improve the treatment for a devastating type of cancer, leptomeningeal metastases, which afflicts the lining of the brain and spinal cord. The device, when implanted in the abdomen, would send chemotherapy into the spinal fluid for direct delivery to the brain, a process infinitely easier for young patients who otherwise must endure uncomfortable spinal taps several times a week, and a hospital stay. The pump would send the correct amount of medicine where it is needed, and, just as important, would allow children to remain at home while they are undergoing treatment.
"With this disease, you need a lot of drug, since the spinal fluid is constantly being made and replenished, every six hours," says Ellis Meng, a National Science Foundation (NSF)- funded scientist who is associate professor of biomedical and electrical engineering at the University of Southern California (USC). "So it makes sense to treat with this type of pump, because we have the ability to dose frequently."
To be sure, implantable pumps are not new. They play an important role in treating many severe diseases, and often are the last line of defense when less-invasive approaches are not an option. But the technology behind this still experimental new pump is an innovation. It is a tether-free, wirelessly activated release system that precisely controls the infusion of drugs into the body using "bubble power," that is, the power of electrolytically generated bubbles, rather than a motor--a feature that makes it different from other infusion pumps.
"We use a simple technique to electronically control how much drug is pumped, when it is pumped and how often it is pumped," Meng says. Also, the pump is fully implantable, and not tethered to an outside power source, appealing because "humans want to be able to move around and experience daily life and not be reminded all the time of being ill," Meng says.
Meng decided to pursue research that could help children because "pediatric populations are underserved by medical devices," she says. "They get adult devices put in after the fact. They don't benefit from devices specifically designed for pediatric populations. After evaluating the needs of this particular condition, it really fits what we do."
In the fall of 2011, Meng was among the first group of scientists to receive a $50,000 NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) award, which supports a set of activities and programs that prepare scientists and engineers to extend their focus beyond the laboratory into the commercial world.
Such results may be translated through I-Corps into technologies with near-term benefits for the economy and society. It is a public-private partnership program that teaches grantees to identify valuable product opportunities that can emerge from academic research, and offers entrepreneurship training to faculty and student participants.
Meng is an inventor, researcher, and now entrepreneur, whose work has produced six patents and more than a dozen patent applications. To further commercialization of the new pump, she co-founded Fluid Synchrony LLC, a startup company looking to promote these high performance micro-pumps for laboratory research, preclinical research and, ultimately, for use in humans.
The pumps are not yet available on the market; they are, in fact, undergoing their own animal studies to ensure the devices are safe, and that they work. Human trials likely are several years away.
Her work on miniature pumps began in 2004, shortly after she arrived at USC, when she began working with a USC ophthalmologist on an implantable infusion pump for the eye, a process to replace the current practice of direct needle injections. Several chronic eye diseases, macular degeneration, for example, require regular, frequent shots directly through the eye wall.
"This puts a huge burden on the medical system," Meng says. "The idea is to avoid frequent trips to the doctors for these injections, which can be traumatic. You put the implant in the eye wall, and it continues to dispense the drug until it runs out. The only thing you have to do is get the device refilled."
Her research on this project ended once her collaborator ophthalmologist formed his own startup company. But it prompted Meng to explore additional opportunities for her pump technology, ultimately leading her in two directions, the aforementioned pediatric cancer, and drug research, specifically providing an improved drug delivery system for scientists to use in animal studies of experimental drugs.
She explains: "Drug researchers first study their drugs in animals. How do you give a drug to an animal? It's difficult to get them to swallow. The next option is injection, but animals experience stress, just like humans. If you trigger stress, it will affect drug response. Also, animals don't like external pumps; they want to move around, just like people. Putting in an implantable device will allow you to dose an animal without the animal being stressed."
This aspect of her work "will enhance a researcher's ability to better understand drug dosing and safety, and speed up drug development," Meng says, adding: "We hope to reduce the time it takes to develop a new drug."
She believes that, ultimately, the pump will provide a safer, more convenient and comfortable alternative to current drug delivery approaches. "The NSF I-Corps experience was instrumental in getting this technology one step closer to the hands of patients," she says.
-- Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation
Sunday, November 24, 2013
PRESS STATEMENT ON LOYA JIRGA IN AFGHANISTAN
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The Loya Jirga and the U.S.-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 24, 2013
The Loya Jirga, a gathering of thousands of representatives of the Afghan people in accordance with a proud tradition, has powerfully backed the Bilateral Security Agreement we have been negotiating with the Afghan government. Very significantly, the Loya Jirga also urged that the BSA should be signed before the end of the year. I can't imagine a more compelling affirmation from the Afghan people themselves of their commitment to a long term partnership with the United States and our international partners.
The critical next step must be to get the BSA signed in short order, and put into motion an agreement which will lay a firm foundation for our two countries to continue working together toward a more secure and prosperous future for Afghanistan. Afghans are rightly taking the lead in providing for their own peace and security. We remain committed to supporting those efforts, and look forward to signing an agreement that will enable us to do so.
The Loya Jirga and the U.S.-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 24, 2013
The Loya Jirga, a gathering of thousands of representatives of the Afghan people in accordance with a proud tradition, has powerfully backed the Bilateral Security Agreement we have been negotiating with the Afghan government. Very significantly, the Loya Jirga also urged that the BSA should be signed before the end of the year. I can't imagine a more compelling affirmation from the Afghan people themselves of their commitment to a long term partnership with the United States and our international partners.
The critical next step must be to get the BSA signed in short order, and put into motion an agreement which will lay a firm foundation for our two countries to continue working together toward a more secure and prosperous future for Afghanistan. Afghans are rightly taking the lead in providing for their own peace and security. We remain committed to supporting those efforts, and look forward to signing an agreement that will enable us to do so.
REMARKS AFTER MEETING WITH LIBYAN PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague and Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Winfield House
London, United Kingdom
November 24, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you all. It’s our pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister of Libya Ali Zeidan here to Winfield House, our American enclave in the heart of the capital of the United Kingdom. We’re honored to be here with my colleague, William Hague, to do so.
Libya has gone through great turmoil, particularly after the course of the last weeks, and the Prime Minister informed us of a transformation that he believes is beginning to take place and could take place because the people of Libya have spoken out and pushed back against the militias. And so this is a moment of opportunity where there’s a great deal of economic challenge, there’s a great deal of security challenge. And we talked with the Prime Minister today about the things that we can do together – the United Kingdom and the United States and other friends – in order to help Libya to achieve the stability that it needs. So we’re very grateful to him for taking time to come here and do that.
William, do you want to add anything before we introduce the minister?
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, thank you very much, indeed, for hosting this. Like the United States, the United Kingdom is very strongly committed to help the government and the people of Libya, and we are pleased that the people of Libya are also clearly strongly committed to Libya’s government, to democracy and stability in their country, to friendship in the region and with the countries of Europe. So there are many different ways in which we are trying to assist. It’s been a pleasure to discuss with the Prime Minister today more ways in which we can assist. And the United Kingdom, working with the U.S. and European partners, will do our utmost to do so over the coming months.
PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN: (Via interpreter) I would like to thank Secretary Kerry and Mr. Hague for this kind invitation and for their continuous – and their commitment for the continuous support of Libya. The Libyan people have had a long struggle, and lately they have done a lot to get rid of the militias and that there are markers that fell in this process to end the armed militias. And this visit is a witness to the relationship and a confirmation of the friendship that started since the first days of our struggle towards independence. Our friends have supported us in the – during our revolution, and we are here in order to affirm the importance of cooperation with our friends. They have also committed to help Libya in order to become a more independent state, a state that is going to be revealed and to be an active contributor on the world arena.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, very much. Thank you. Thank you so much.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you, Prime Minister. I’ll take my leave, and so I’ll see you soon.
PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN: Thank you.
Remarks With United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague and Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Winfield House
London, United Kingdom
November 24, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you all. It’s our pleasure to welcome the Prime Minister of Libya Ali Zeidan here to Winfield House, our American enclave in the heart of the capital of the United Kingdom. We’re honored to be here with my colleague, William Hague, to do so.
Libya has gone through great turmoil, particularly after the course of the last weeks, and the Prime Minister informed us of a transformation that he believes is beginning to take place and could take place because the people of Libya have spoken out and pushed back against the militias. And so this is a moment of opportunity where there’s a great deal of economic challenge, there’s a great deal of security challenge. And we talked with the Prime Minister today about the things that we can do together – the United Kingdom and the United States and other friends – in order to help Libya to achieve the stability that it needs. So we’re very grateful to him for taking time to come here and do that.
William, do you want to add anything before we introduce the minister?
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Well, thank you very much, indeed, for hosting this. Like the United States, the United Kingdom is very strongly committed to help the government and the people of Libya, and we are pleased that the people of Libya are also clearly strongly committed to Libya’s government, to democracy and stability in their country, to friendship in the region and with the countries of Europe. So there are many different ways in which we are trying to assist. It’s been a pleasure to discuss with the Prime Minister today more ways in which we can assist. And the United Kingdom, working with the U.S. and European partners, will do our utmost to do so over the coming months.
PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN: (Via interpreter) I would like to thank Secretary Kerry and Mr. Hague for this kind invitation and for their continuous – and their commitment for the continuous support of Libya. The Libyan people have had a long struggle, and lately they have done a lot to get rid of the militias and that there are markers that fell in this process to end the armed militias. And this visit is a witness to the relationship and a confirmation of the friendship that started since the first days of our struggle towards independence. Our friends have supported us in the – during our revolution, and we are here in order to affirm the importance of cooperation with our friends. They have also committed to help Libya in order to become a more independent state, a state that is going to be revealed and to be an active contributor on the world arena.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much, very much. Thank you. Thank you so much.
FOREIGN SECRETARY HAGUE: Thank you, Prime Minister. I’ll take my leave, and so I’ll see you soon.
PRIME MINISTER ZEIDAN: Thank you.
NSF ARTICLE ON USING COMPUTER MODELS TO UNDERSTAND GENETIC STRESS IN CELLS
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Simple computer models unravel genetic stress reactions in cells
Integrated biological and computational methods provide insight into why genes are activated.
February 8, 2013
Experimental and computational scientists improve the illusive process of genetic prediction with a simple model.
Many questions arise when two identical twins raised in the same home—fed the same, nurtured the same way—follow disparate paths. How can the identical offspring of a single egg turn out so differently?
Scientists ask the same question when genetically identical cells in identical environments—monoclonal cells produced by a single ancestor that replicated—exhibit wildly different behaviors. Researchers say the changes may be due to random biochemical fluctuations known as stochasticity, or “noise”—variability occurring over time and influenced by environmental factors.
Cells are highly sensitive to this noise, and minor fluctuations can lead to major changes, such as an Alzheimer’s gene turning on or off or a cancer cell not responding to chemotheraphy. Are these random events due to chance or is there an undiscovered cause?
The answer might be contained within nearly undetectable processes—the noise—at the molecular level, so researchers must peer into individual cells really, really closely without nudging and accidentally altering these sensitive cells and their processes. This is complicated in itself, there are so many cells—about 100 trillion in each human. All that can get lost in the noise, and even supercomputers cannot hope to capture all aspects of this incredible complexity.
But experimental and computational scientists developed methods to sift through all the complexity and improve the illusive process of prediction with a simple model.
Unraveling genetic stress reactions
Brian Munsky, a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Center for Nonlinear Studies, is adept at untangling biology. Munsky and colleagues report their combined experimental and modeling prediction methods in the Feb. 1, 2013 edition of Science. These methods integrate single-cell experiments and discrete stochastic analysis to predict complex gene expression and signaling behaviors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae—or yeast, a scientific-lab standard since yeast and human cells share many genes. Scientists frequently test drugs or biological processes on yeast before advancing to human trials.
Using a technique called smFISH (single-molecule fluorescence in situ hybridization), the team attached dozens of small fluorescently labeled probes to each molecule of specific messenger ribonucleic acid (RNA), which causes these molecules to light up under the microscope. Some cells turn on (lots of lights) while others remain off. This data was incorporated into several models. Munsky notes that it would be impossible to combine the infinite possible reactions at different scales into a single computational model.
The combined, data-driven approach that includes validation allows researchers to systematically determine when models are too simple, too complex or just right—the “Goldilocks” approach.
The approach developed in this study helps researchers understand cellular death at the single-molecule and single-cell level—with wide applications
The research team identified predictive models of transcription—the first step in gene expression—when the yeast cell is responding to osmotic stress (salt), which greatly affects cell growth. Understanding how yeast cope with osmotic stress is useful to understand how human cells respond to medical treatments, but the principles are also applicable to many other fields, including agriculture.
“Depending upon molecular fluctuations, a single gene in a cell may switch randomly between active and inactive states, leading to vastly different biological responses, even for genetically identical cells,” says Munsky. “The fluctuations can be quantified at the single-molecule and single-cell levels.”
Munsky was a joint first author on the Science paper with Vanderbilt University’s Gregor Neuert. The paper was selected as an Editors’ Choice by the magazine.
“The approach we developed in this study is applicable far beyond yeast,” Munsky adds. “Our experimental and computational analyses could enable quantitative prediction for any gene, pathway or organism.”
Simple computer models unravel genetic stress reactions in cells
Integrated biological and computational methods provide insight into why genes are activated.
February 8, 2013
Experimental and computational scientists improve the illusive process of genetic prediction with a simple model.
Many questions arise when two identical twins raised in the same home—fed the same, nurtured the same way—follow disparate paths. How can the identical offspring of a single egg turn out so differently?
Scientists ask the same question when genetically identical cells in identical environments—monoclonal cells produced by a single ancestor that replicated—exhibit wildly different behaviors. Researchers say the changes may be due to random biochemical fluctuations known as stochasticity, or “noise”—variability occurring over time and influenced by environmental factors.
Cells are highly sensitive to this noise, and minor fluctuations can lead to major changes, such as an Alzheimer’s gene turning on or off or a cancer cell not responding to chemotheraphy. Are these random events due to chance or is there an undiscovered cause?
The answer might be contained within nearly undetectable processes—the noise—at the molecular level, so researchers must peer into individual cells really, really closely without nudging and accidentally altering these sensitive cells and their processes. This is complicated in itself, there are so many cells—about 100 trillion in each human. All that can get lost in the noise, and even supercomputers cannot hope to capture all aspects of this incredible complexity.
But experimental and computational scientists developed methods to sift through all the complexity and improve the illusive process of prediction with a simple model.
Unraveling genetic stress reactions
Brian Munsky, a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Center for Nonlinear Studies, is adept at untangling biology. Munsky and colleagues report their combined experimental and modeling prediction methods in the Feb. 1, 2013 edition of Science. These methods integrate single-cell experiments and discrete stochastic analysis to predict complex gene expression and signaling behaviors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae—or yeast, a scientific-lab standard since yeast and human cells share many genes. Scientists frequently test drugs or biological processes on yeast before advancing to human trials.
Using a technique called smFISH (single-molecule fluorescence in situ hybridization), the team attached dozens of small fluorescently labeled probes to each molecule of specific messenger ribonucleic acid (RNA), which causes these molecules to light up under the microscope. Some cells turn on (lots of lights) while others remain off. This data was incorporated into several models. Munsky notes that it would be impossible to combine the infinite possible reactions at different scales into a single computational model.
The combined, data-driven approach that includes validation allows researchers to systematically determine when models are too simple, too complex or just right—the “Goldilocks” approach.
The approach developed in this study helps researchers understand cellular death at the single-molecule and single-cell level—with wide applications
The research team identified predictive models of transcription—the first step in gene expression—when the yeast cell is responding to osmotic stress (salt), which greatly affects cell growth. Understanding how yeast cope with osmotic stress is useful to understand how human cells respond to medical treatments, but the principles are also applicable to many other fields, including agriculture.
“Depending upon molecular fluctuations, a single gene in a cell may switch randomly between active and inactive states, leading to vastly different biological responses, even for genetically identical cells,” says Munsky. “The fluctuations can be quantified at the single-molecule and single-cell levels.”
Munsky was a joint first author on the Science paper with Vanderbilt University’s Gregor Neuert. The paper was selected as an Editors’ Choice by the magazine.
“The approach we developed in this study is applicable far beyond yeast,” Munsky adds. “Our experimental and computational analyses could enable quantitative prediction for any gene, pathway or organism.”
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY MAKES REMARKS AFTER P5+1 TALKS
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Press Availability After P5+1 Talks
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Geneva, Switzerland
November 24, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good very early morning to all of you. It’s been a long day and a long night, and I’m delighted to be here to share some thoughts with you about the recent negotiations. I particularly want to thank the Swiss Government. I want to thank the United Nations. It’s been a (inaudible) and we’re honored to be here, even at this very early hour of the morning. I particularly want to thank my colleagues from the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, China, and especially Lady Cathy Ashton, who is not only a good friend but a persistent and dogged negotiator and somebody who’s been staying at this for a long period of time. And we’re very grateful for her stewardship of these negotiations.
And if I can take a moment, I really want to thank the team from the United States. There have been a great many people involved in this effort for a long period of time now, both here in Switzerland with us now, but also back in the United States, and they know who they are. But I will single out our Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who has been a dogged, unbelievably patient hand and a skillful hand, and she has helped through long and arduous months – years of stewardship of our part of this within the P5+1, and I’m very grateful to her for those long efforts and all of her team.
At the United Nations General Assembly in September, President Obama asked me and our team to work with our partners in order to pursue a negotiated settlement or solution with respect to the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Last month, the P5+1 entered into a more accelerated negotiation after a number of years of meetings in various parts of the world and efforts to engage Iran in serious negotiations. The purpose of this is very simple: to require Iran to prove the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and to ensure that it cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. And the reason for this is very clear. The United Nations Security Council found that they were not in compliance with the NPT or other IAEA and other standards. And obviously, activities such as a secret, multi-centrifuge mountain hideaway, which was being used for enrichment, raised many people’s questions, which is why ultimately sanctions were put in place.
Today, we are taking a serious step toward answering all of those important questions that have been raised through the United Nations Security Council, through the IAEA, and by individual countries. And we are taking those steps with an agreement that impedes the progress in a very dramatic way of Iran’s principal enrichment facilities and parts of its program, and ensures they cannot advance in a way that will threaten our friends in the region, threaten other countries, threaten the world. The fact is that if this step – first step – leads to what is our ultimate goal, which is a comprehensive agreement that will make the world safer. This first step, I want to emphasize, actually rolls back the program from where it is today, enlarges the breakout time, which would not have occurred unless this agreement existed. It will make our partners in the region safer. It will make our ally Israel safer. This has been a difficult and a prolonged process. It’s been difficult for us, and it’s been difficult for our allies, and it’s obviously been difficult for the Government of Iran. The next phase, let me be clear, will be even more difficult, and we need to be honest about it. But it will also be even more consequential.
And while we obviously have profound differences with Iran yet to be resolved, the fact is that this agreement could not have been reached without the decision of the Iranian Government to come to the table and negotiate. And I want to say tonight that Foreign Minister Zarif worked hard, deliberated hard, and we are obviously, we believe, better that the decision was made to come here than not to, and to work hard to reach an agreement. And we thank the Foreign Minister for those efforts.
Together now, we need to set about the critical task of proving to the world what Iran has said many times – that its program is in fact peaceful. Now, with this first step, we have created the time and the space in order to be able to pursue a comprehensive agreement that would finish the work that President Obama began on the very first day in office, and that is to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. President Obama worked intensively and his Administration worked intensively before I even came in; when I was in the Congress and voted for sanctions, the President worked in order to put in place a significant sanctions regime, an unprecedented regime. And he worked with countries around the world in order to ensure broad participation and support for these sanctions. That has been essential to the success of these sanctions. And we believe that it is the sanctions that have brought us to this negotiation and ultimately to the more significant negotiation to follow for a comprehensive agreement.
Make no mistakes, and I ask you, don’t interpret that the sanctions were an end unto themselves. They weren’t. The goal of the sanctions was always to have a negotiation. And that is precisely what is now taking place, and that negotiation’s goal is to secure a strong and verifiable agreement that guarantees the peacefulness of Iran’s nuclear program. For more than 40 years, the international community has been united in its willingness to negotiate in good faith. And we have been particularly crystal clear that we will do whatever is necessary in order to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. We have also said that we prefer a peaceful solution, a peaceful path for Iran to respond to the international community’s concerns. And as a result of those efforts, we took the first step today to move down that path.
The measures that we have committed to will remain in place for six months, and they will address the most urgent concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Since there have been many premature and even misleading reports, I want to clearly outline what this first step entails. First, it locks the most critical components of a nuclear program into place and impedes progress in those critical components in a way that actually rolls back the stockpile of enriched uranium and widens the length of time possible for breakout. That makes people safer. With daily access – we will gain daily access to key facilities. And that will enable us to determine more quickly and with greater certainty than ever before that Iran is complying. Here’s how we do that: Iran has agreed to suspend all enrichment of uranium above 5 percent. Iran has agreed to dilute or convert its entire stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium.
So let me make clear what that means. That means that whereas Iran today has about 200 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, they could readily be enriched towards a nuclear weapon. In six months, Iran will have zero – zero. Iran will not increase its stockpile of 3.5 percent lower-enriched uranium over the next six months, and it will not construct additional enrichment facilities. Iran will not manufacture centrifuges beyond those that are broken and must be replaced. Very importantly, Iran will not commission or fuel the Arak reactor – Arak, A-r-a-k, reactor – an unfinished facility, that if it became operational would provide Iran with an alternative plutonium path to a nuclear weapon.
And to ensure that these commitments are met, Iran has agreed to submit its program to unprecedented monitoring. For the international community, this first step will provide the most far-reaching insight and view of Iran’s nuclear program that the international community has ever had. This first step – let me be clear. This first step does not say that Iran has a right to enrichment. No matter what interpretive comments are made, it is not in this document. There is no right to enrich within the four corners of the NPT. And this document does not do that. Rather, the scope and role of Iran’s enrichment, as is set forth in the language within this document, says that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is subject to a negotiation and to mutual agreement. And it can only be by mutual agreement that enrichment might or might not be able to be decided on in the course of negotiations.
So what is on the other side of the ledger here? Again, there have been a number of premature reports and reactions, so I want to be clear about what this step provides, this first step, and what it doesn’t provide. In return for the significant steps that Iran will take that I just listed – and there are more, incidentally, than I just listed; those are the principal – the international community will provide Iran with relief that is limited and, perhaps most importantly, reversible. The main elements of this relief would hold Iran’s oil sales steady and permit it to repatriate $4.2 billion from those sales. And that would otherwise be destined for an overseas account restricted by our sanctions. In addition, we will suspend certain sanctions on imports of gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially – potentially – providing Iran with about $1.5 billion in additional export revenues.
For the benefit of the Iranian people, we will also facilitate humanitarian transactions that are already allowed by U.S. law. No U.S. law will be changed. Nothing will have to be different. In fact, the sanctions laws specifically exempt humanitarian assistance. So this channel will not provide Iran any new source of funds, but we will help them in order to try to provide the people of Iran with additional assistance. It simply improves access to goods that were never intended to be denied to the Iranian people.
Now, I want to emphasize the core sanctions architecture that President Obama, together with allies and friends around the world, have put together, that core architecture remains firmly in place through these six months, including with respect to oil and financial services. To put this number in perspective, during this six-month phase, the oil sanctions that will remain in place will continue to cause over 25 billion in lost revenues to Iran, or over $4 billion a month. That is compared to what Iran earned before this took effect – the sanctions. And while Iran will get access to the 4.2 billion that I talked about of the restricted oil revenues, 14 to 16 billion of its sales during this period will be locked up and out of reach.
Together with our partners, we are committed to maintaining our commitment to vigorously enforcing the vast majority of the sanctions that are currently in place. Again, let me repeat: This is only the first step. But it is a first step that guarantees while you take the second step and move towards a comprehensive agreement, Iran’s fundamentals of its program are not able to progress – Fordow, Natanz, Arak, and other centrifuge and other things that matter. So that is a critical first step.
And I will say to all of you that as we conclude this first round of negotiation, with the beginning of the possibility of a much broader accomplishment down the road, it is our responsibility to be as firmly committed to diplomacy and as relentless in our resolve over the years as we have been to bring the concerted pressure that brought us to this moment. For the Iranian Government, it’s their responsibility to recognize that this first phase is a very simple test. Many times, Iran, I think you heard the Foreign Minister here tonight reiterate, that they have a peaceful program and that’s their only intention. Folks, it is not hard to prove peaceful intent if that’s what you want to do. We are anxious to try to make certain that this deal ultimately will do exactly that – prove it.
And I will just say finally, I know that there are those who will assert that this deal is imperfect. Well, they too bear a responsibility, and that is to tell people what the better alternative is. Some might say we should simply continue to increase pressure – just turn up the screws, continue to put sanctions on, and somehow that’s going to push Iran towards capitulation or collapse. Not by any interpretation that we have from all the experts and all of the input that we have, and from all of the countries – the P5+1 – that took place in this today, none of them believe that would be the outcome.
Instead, we believe that while we are engaged in that effort, Iran’s program would actually march forward. It would gain. And while it gains, it would become more dangerous in the region and countries like Israel and the Emirates, other people in the region who are threatened, would in fact be more threatened.
So we believe that you would wind up with an Iran with bigger stockpiles, with more advanced centrifuges and more progress at pursuing a plutonium track. And President Obama believes that doesn’t benefit anybody.
In 1973 – 19 – excuse me, in 2003, when the Iranians made an offer to the former Administration with respect to their nuclear program, there were 164 centrifuges. That offer was not taken. Subsequently, sanctions came in, and today there are 19,000 centrifuges and growing. So people have a responsibility to make a judgment about this choice. And I am comfortable, as is President Obama, that we have made the right choice for how you proceed to get a complete agreement.
Moreover, making sanctions the sum total of our policy will not strengthen the international coalition that we have built in order to bring Iran to the negotiating table. Instead, it would actually weaken that coalition, and many people believe that to merely continue at a time where Iran says, “We’re prepared to negotiate,” would in fact break up the current sanctions regime. Others argue for military action as a first resort. Well, President Obama and I do not share a belief that war is a permanent solution, and it should never be the first option. Instead, that particular option involves enormous risks in many different ways, and as President Obama has often said, while that option remains available to us – and the President will not take it off the table – he believes that that can only be entertained after we have made every effort to resolve the dispute through diplomacy, barring some immediate emergency that requires a different response.
So I close by saying to all of you that the singular objective that brought us to Geneva remains our singular objective as we leave Geneva, and that is to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. In that singular object, we are resolute. Foreign Minister Zarif emphasized that they don’t intent to do this, and the Supreme Leader has indicated there is a fatwa, which forbids them to do this. We want to see the process put in place by which all of that is proven, not through words but with actions. And we are prepared to work in good faith, with mutual respect, to work in a way as we did in the last days – cordially, with an atmosphere that was respectful, even as it was tough, as we move towards the process of making certain that this threat will be eliminated. In that singular object, we are absolutely resolute, and in that mission, we are absolutely committed, and in that endeavor, we will do everything in our power to be able to succeed.
On that note, I’m happy to answer a couple of questions.
MODERATOR: The first question will be from Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.
SECRETARY KERRY: Anne, hi.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you started with your – about (inaudible) who want this on Iran, and you’re opposed for what it will do on a sort of a technical level. I would hope that you might just take a moment and reflect on what this agreement may mean or signify longer term or in a larger sense. And this is – you just came through several months that represent the first time that a diplomatic level from the United States and one from Iran sat together and talked about anything, much less something of this moment. What is your view and what is your hope for the next steps as far as the U.S. relationship with Iran will be?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I – the – obviously it is not insignificant, nor does it just fly be me, nor the President, who took great risks in committing on this and making certain that we would proceed forward with this endeavor. It’s no small thing, I think, that since 1979, for about 34 years, Iran and the United States have not been able to talk to each other. And there’s been enormous buildup of suspicion and an enormous buildup of animosity, and there have been moments here and there where there might have been some kind of minor assistance one way or the other. For instance, when we went into Afghanistan in 2001, there actually was some assistance back home (inaudible) from Iran. So there have been these moments.
But I think by and large, it is fair to say that Iran’s choices have created a very significant barrier, and huge security concerns for our friends in the region, for Israel, for Gulf states and others, and obviously they have made certain choices that are deeply, profoundly unsettling in terms of stability in the region and the possibility of anything except our focus on (inaudible). It’s too early for us to talk about other things. It’s just not right. Obviously, one would hope that Iran will make choices that it will rejoin the community of nations in full. The first step is to resolve the nuclear issue, and it shouldn’t be hard if you are in fact absolutely determined to make good on the promise that this is a peaceful program.
So our hope is that the (inaudible) engagement and the resolution of its differences with respect to the UN and the international community can indeed lead to what the Foreign Minister and President Rouhani have talked about, which is a new relationship with the West and with its neighbors. But nobody that I know of is going to accept the words at face value. It is going to be proven by the choices Iran makes, by the actions that it takes. We are open. President Obama has made clear that he is prepared to put in motion the steps that can improve those attributes, to put these words to the test. And that’s exactly what we’re doing now with this first step. And we look forward to, hopefully in a short span of time, being able to put together a comprehensive agreement that will provide the guarantees necessary to our friends in the region.
Let me be crystal clear to Israel, to our other friends in the region, to any neighbor who feels threatened, that the next step requires proof certain of a failsafe set of steps which eliminate the current prospect of a breakout and the creation of a nuclear weapon. That will require dismantling certain things. It will require stopping certain kinds of activities. It will require some fundamental choices, and we’re prepared to work with Iran in order to put in place a protocol that achieves those ends.
So I think this is potentially a significant moment, but I’m not going to stand here in some triumphal moment and suggest to you that this is an end unto itself. It is not. It is a step towards the much more significant goal and the much harder to achieve goal of having a program that is absolutely failsafe provable to be only possible to be peaceful. And that’s what we have to work for now.
MODERATOR: The last question will be from Nicole Gaouette of Bloomberg News.
QUESTION: Hi, Mr. Secretary. Congratulations to you and your team. I’m wondering (inaudible) and how you answer the criticism from Israel that by easing sanctions, you have less leverage over Iran, say, than you did yesterday. They’re (inaudible) reach that settlement. I also just wondered if you have a brief comment about more sanctions being in place. That’s been true for a long time, and for a long time (inaudible) Congress.
SECRETARY KERRY: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible) by the Congress and designed to give new sanctions. And in my email feed, there are already statements from Republican senators saying it’s not good enough. The – my understanding is that this deal --
SECRETARY KERRY: Gee, you mean members of the other party (inaudible). (Laughter.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) My understanding is that you – the P5+1 are pledging not to increase nuclear-review sanctions for the next six months if Iran complies? How can you assure that you can get the majority in the Congress (inaudible)?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, those are two very good questions. Let me answer both of them very directly. First of all, with respect to Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, Prime Minister Netanyahu is a friend of mine, a man I have great respect for and I’ve worked with very closely, particularly right now, on the Middle East peace process. I talk to him several times a week. I’ve talked to him as recently as the last days about this very issue, on several occasions. And the fact that we might disagree about a tactic does not mean there is a sliver of daylight between us with respect to our strategy. The tactic is whether or not you increase sanctions or take advantage of this moment to pull the progress and guarantee you have insight into their program while you keep the pressure on. And it’s a difference of judgment. It would be nice, but there is no difference whatsoever between the United States and Israel and what the end goal must be here. We cannot have an Iran that is going to threaten its neighbors, and that has a nuclear weapon. From the day President Obama came into office, he made it clear that a centerpiece of his policy is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.
Now, Iran says it doesn’t want a nuclear weapon, it is going after a nuclear weapon. Therefore, it ought to be really easy to do the things that other nations do who enrich, and prove that their program is peaceful. So that’s what we’re looking for. We’re looking for it in absolute sync with our friends in Israel. And I have said frequently, no deal is better than a bad deal. We are not going to strike, ultimately, a bad deal. And you have to be able to prove that this program is peaceful. That means you’re going to have to look at putting on the grave uranium and what happens to it. You’re going to have to have limitations on certain components. You’re going to have to have limitations on the type of facilities. Arak, a heavy-water plutonium facilities, has no business within the framework of a peaceful program. We’ve been very clear about that.
So there are many things. I’m not going to go through them all right now, but it is crystal clear that Israel and the United States have the same goal, the same strategic interest, and we will stand with Israel with respect to this policy and the other allies in the region who are equally concerned about what Iran might or might not choose to do.
Now, with respect to the second part of your question, the Congress, look, I have great confidence in my colleagues in the Congress. I think they are going to look at this very carefully, and they should. And I look forward to going up on the Hill. I look forward to engaging with my former colleagues, explaining what we’ve done, why we can keep the – and working together with Congress in order to achieve the goal that Congress embraced when they put these sanctions in place in the first place. Congress sought to have negotiations.
Now ultimately, if somehow we wind up (inaudible) and Congress – midterm election obviously – the President obviously has a possibility of a veto. There have been. But I don’t think it should come to that. We don’t want it to come to that. I don’t if it will come to that. I believe Congress will see the wisdom of pursuing this for the very specific purposes that I’ve articulated with very straight delineation of exactly how we’re going to achieve our goals. And it was really a cooperative effort. And we will brief Congress readily. We will work for Congress in a very cooperative way. And I think Congress will be a very important partner in helping us put this to the test over the course of the next six months.
MODERATOR: That’s it, everyone.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.
Press Availability After P5+1 Talks
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Geneva, Switzerland
November 24, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good very early morning to all of you. It’s been a long day and a long night, and I’m delighted to be here to share some thoughts with you about the recent negotiations. I particularly want to thank the Swiss Government. I want to thank the United Nations. It’s been a (inaudible) and we’re honored to be here, even at this very early hour of the morning. I particularly want to thank my colleagues from the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, China, and especially Lady Cathy Ashton, who is not only a good friend but a persistent and dogged negotiator and somebody who’s been staying at this for a long period of time. And we’re very grateful for her stewardship of these negotiations.
And if I can take a moment, I really want to thank the team from the United States. There have been a great many people involved in this effort for a long period of time now, both here in Switzerland with us now, but also back in the United States, and they know who they are. But I will single out our Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who has been a dogged, unbelievably patient hand and a skillful hand, and she has helped through long and arduous months – years of stewardship of our part of this within the P5+1, and I’m very grateful to her for those long efforts and all of her team.
At the United Nations General Assembly in September, President Obama asked me and our team to work with our partners in order to pursue a negotiated settlement or solution with respect to the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Last month, the P5+1 entered into a more accelerated negotiation after a number of years of meetings in various parts of the world and efforts to engage Iran in serious negotiations. The purpose of this is very simple: to require Iran to prove the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and to ensure that it cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. And the reason for this is very clear. The United Nations Security Council found that they were not in compliance with the NPT or other IAEA and other standards. And obviously, activities such as a secret, multi-centrifuge mountain hideaway, which was being used for enrichment, raised many people’s questions, which is why ultimately sanctions were put in place.
Today, we are taking a serious step toward answering all of those important questions that have been raised through the United Nations Security Council, through the IAEA, and by individual countries. And we are taking those steps with an agreement that impedes the progress in a very dramatic way of Iran’s principal enrichment facilities and parts of its program, and ensures they cannot advance in a way that will threaten our friends in the region, threaten other countries, threaten the world. The fact is that if this step – first step – leads to what is our ultimate goal, which is a comprehensive agreement that will make the world safer. This first step, I want to emphasize, actually rolls back the program from where it is today, enlarges the breakout time, which would not have occurred unless this agreement existed. It will make our partners in the region safer. It will make our ally Israel safer. This has been a difficult and a prolonged process. It’s been difficult for us, and it’s been difficult for our allies, and it’s obviously been difficult for the Government of Iran. The next phase, let me be clear, will be even more difficult, and we need to be honest about it. But it will also be even more consequential.
And while we obviously have profound differences with Iran yet to be resolved, the fact is that this agreement could not have been reached without the decision of the Iranian Government to come to the table and negotiate. And I want to say tonight that Foreign Minister Zarif worked hard, deliberated hard, and we are obviously, we believe, better that the decision was made to come here than not to, and to work hard to reach an agreement. And we thank the Foreign Minister for those efforts.
Together now, we need to set about the critical task of proving to the world what Iran has said many times – that its program is in fact peaceful. Now, with this first step, we have created the time and the space in order to be able to pursue a comprehensive agreement that would finish the work that President Obama began on the very first day in office, and that is to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. President Obama worked intensively and his Administration worked intensively before I even came in; when I was in the Congress and voted for sanctions, the President worked in order to put in place a significant sanctions regime, an unprecedented regime. And he worked with countries around the world in order to ensure broad participation and support for these sanctions. That has been essential to the success of these sanctions. And we believe that it is the sanctions that have brought us to this negotiation and ultimately to the more significant negotiation to follow for a comprehensive agreement.
Make no mistakes, and I ask you, don’t interpret that the sanctions were an end unto themselves. They weren’t. The goal of the sanctions was always to have a negotiation. And that is precisely what is now taking place, and that negotiation’s goal is to secure a strong and verifiable agreement that guarantees the peacefulness of Iran’s nuclear program. For more than 40 years, the international community has been united in its willingness to negotiate in good faith. And we have been particularly crystal clear that we will do whatever is necessary in order to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. We have also said that we prefer a peaceful solution, a peaceful path for Iran to respond to the international community’s concerns. And as a result of those efforts, we took the first step today to move down that path.
The measures that we have committed to will remain in place for six months, and they will address the most urgent concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. Since there have been many premature and even misleading reports, I want to clearly outline what this first step entails. First, it locks the most critical components of a nuclear program into place and impedes progress in those critical components in a way that actually rolls back the stockpile of enriched uranium and widens the length of time possible for breakout. That makes people safer. With daily access – we will gain daily access to key facilities. And that will enable us to determine more quickly and with greater certainty than ever before that Iran is complying. Here’s how we do that: Iran has agreed to suspend all enrichment of uranium above 5 percent. Iran has agreed to dilute or convert its entire stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium.
So let me make clear what that means. That means that whereas Iran today has about 200 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, they could readily be enriched towards a nuclear weapon. In six months, Iran will have zero – zero. Iran will not increase its stockpile of 3.5 percent lower-enriched uranium over the next six months, and it will not construct additional enrichment facilities. Iran will not manufacture centrifuges beyond those that are broken and must be replaced. Very importantly, Iran will not commission or fuel the Arak reactor – Arak, A-r-a-k, reactor – an unfinished facility, that if it became operational would provide Iran with an alternative plutonium path to a nuclear weapon.
And to ensure that these commitments are met, Iran has agreed to submit its program to unprecedented monitoring. For the international community, this first step will provide the most far-reaching insight and view of Iran’s nuclear program that the international community has ever had. This first step – let me be clear. This first step does not say that Iran has a right to enrichment. No matter what interpretive comments are made, it is not in this document. There is no right to enrich within the four corners of the NPT. And this document does not do that. Rather, the scope and role of Iran’s enrichment, as is set forth in the language within this document, says that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is subject to a negotiation and to mutual agreement. And it can only be by mutual agreement that enrichment might or might not be able to be decided on in the course of negotiations.
So what is on the other side of the ledger here? Again, there have been a number of premature reports and reactions, so I want to be clear about what this step provides, this first step, and what it doesn’t provide. In return for the significant steps that Iran will take that I just listed – and there are more, incidentally, than I just listed; those are the principal – the international community will provide Iran with relief that is limited and, perhaps most importantly, reversible. The main elements of this relief would hold Iran’s oil sales steady and permit it to repatriate $4.2 billion from those sales. And that would otherwise be destined for an overseas account restricted by our sanctions. In addition, we will suspend certain sanctions on imports of gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially – potentially – providing Iran with about $1.5 billion in additional export revenues.
For the benefit of the Iranian people, we will also facilitate humanitarian transactions that are already allowed by U.S. law. No U.S. law will be changed. Nothing will have to be different. In fact, the sanctions laws specifically exempt humanitarian assistance. So this channel will not provide Iran any new source of funds, but we will help them in order to try to provide the people of Iran with additional assistance. It simply improves access to goods that were never intended to be denied to the Iranian people.
Now, I want to emphasize the core sanctions architecture that President Obama, together with allies and friends around the world, have put together, that core architecture remains firmly in place through these six months, including with respect to oil and financial services. To put this number in perspective, during this six-month phase, the oil sanctions that will remain in place will continue to cause over 25 billion in lost revenues to Iran, or over $4 billion a month. That is compared to what Iran earned before this took effect – the sanctions. And while Iran will get access to the 4.2 billion that I talked about of the restricted oil revenues, 14 to 16 billion of its sales during this period will be locked up and out of reach.
Together with our partners, we are committed to maintaining our commitment to vigorously enforcing the vast majority of the sanctions that are currently in place. Again, let me repeat: This is only the first step. But it is a first step that guarantees while you take the second step and move towards a comprehensive agreement, Iran’s fundamentals of its program are not able to progress – Fordow, Natanz, Arak, and other centrifuge and other things that matter. So that is a critical first step.
And I will say to all of you that as we conclude this first round of negotiation, with the beginning of the possibility of a much broader accomplishment down the road, it is our responsibility to be as firmly committed to diplomacy and as relentless in our resolve over the years as we have been to bring the concerted pressure that brought us to this moment. For the Iranian Government, it’s their responsibility to recognize that this first phase is a very simple test. Many times, Iran, I think you heard the Foreign Minister here tonight reiterate, that they have a peaceful program and that’s their only intention. Folks, it is not hard to prove peaceful intent if that’s what you want to do. We are anxious to try to make certain that this deal ultimately will do exactly that – prove it.
And I will just say finally, I know that there are those who will assert that this deal is imperfect. Well, they too bear a responsibility, and that is to tell people what the better alternative is. Some might say we should simply continue to increase pressure – just turn up the screws, continue to put sanctions on, and somehow that’s going to push Iran towards capitulation or collapse. Not by any interpretation that we have from all the experts and all of the input that we have, and from all of the countries – the P5+1 – that took place in this today, none of them believe that would be the outcome.
Instead, we believe that while we are engaged in that effort, Iran’s program would actually march forward. It would gain. And while it gains, it would become more dangerous in the region and countries like Israel and the Emirates, other people in the region who are threatened, would in fact be more threatened.
So we believe that you would wind up with an Iran with bigger stockpiles, with more advanced centrifuges and more progress at pursuing a plutonium track. And President Obama believes that doesn’t benefit anybody.
In 1973 – 19 – excuse me, in 2003, when the Iranians made an offer to the former Administration with respect to their nuclear program, there were 164 centrifuges. That offer was not taken. Subsequently, sanctions came in, and today there are 19,000 centrifuges and growing. So people have a responsibility to make a judgment about this choice. And I am comfortable, as is President Obama, that we have made the right choice for how you proceed to get a complete agreement.
Moreover, making sanctions the sum total of our policy will not strengthen the international coalition that we have built in order to bring Iran to the negotiating table. Instead, it would actually weaken that coalition, and many people believe that to merely continue at a time where Iran says, “We’re prepared to negotiate,” would in fact break up the current sanctions regime. Others argue for military action as a first resort. Well, President Obama and I do not share a belief that war is a permanent solution, and it should never be the first option. Instead, that particular option involves enormous risks in many different ways, and as President Obama has often said, while that option remains available to us – and the President will not take it off the table – he believes that that can only be entertained after we have made every effort to resolve the dispute through diplomacy, barring some immediate emergency that requires a different response.
So I close by saying to all of you that the singular objective that brought us to Geneva remains our singular objective as we leave Geneva, and that is to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. In that singular object, we are resolute. Foreign Minister Zarif emphasized that they don’t intent to do this, and the Supreme Leader has indicated there is a fatwa, which forbids them to do this. We want to see the process put in place by which all of that is proven, not through words but with actions. And we are prepared to work in good faith, with mutual respect, to work in a way as we did in the last days – cordially, with an atmosphere that was respectful, even as it was tough, as we move towards the process of making certain that this threat will be eliminated. In that singular object, we are absolutely resolute, and in that mission, we are absolutely committed, and in that endeavor, we will do everything in our power to be able to succeed.
On that note, I’m happy to answer a couple of questions.
MODERATOR: The first question will be from Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.
SECRETARY KERRY: Anne, hi.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you started with your – about (inaudible) who want this on Iran, and you’re opposed for what it will do on a sort of a technical level. I would hope that you might just take a moment and reflect on what this agreement may mean or signify longer term or in a larger sense. And this is – you just came through several months that represent the first time that a diplomatic level from the United States and one from Iran sat together and talked about anything, much less something of this moment. What is your view and what is your hope for the next steps as far as the U.S. relationship with Iran will be?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I – the – obviously it is not insignificant, nor does it just fly be me, nor the President, who took great risks in committing on this and making certain that we would proceed forward with this endeavor. It’s no small thing, I think, that since 1979, for about 34 years, Iran and the United States have not been able to talk to each other. And there’s been enormous buildup of suspicion and an enormous buildup of animosity, and there have been moments here and there where there might have been some kind of minor assistance one way or the other. For instance, when we went into Afghanistan in 2001, there actually was some assistance back home (inaudible) from Iran. So there have been these moments.
But I think by and large, it is fair to say that Iran’s choices have created a very significant barrier, and huge security concerns for our friends in the region, for Israel, for Gulf states and others, and obviously they have made certain choices that are deeply, profoundly unsettling in terms of stability in the region and the possibility of anything except our focus on (inaudible). It’s too early for us to talk about other things. It’s just not right. Obviously, one would hope that Iran will make choices that it will rejoin the community of nations in full. The first step is to resolve the nuclear issue, and it shouldn’t be hard if you are in fact absolutely determined to make good on the promise that this is a peaceful program.
So our hope is that the (inaudible) engagement and the resolution of its differences with respect to the UN and the international community can indeed lead to what the Foreign Minister and President Rouhani have talked about, which is a new relationship with the West and with its neighbors. But nobody that I know of is going to accept the words at face value. It is going to be proven by the choices Iran makes, by the actions that it takes. We are open. President Obama has made clear that he is prepared to put in motion the steps that can improve those attributes, to put these words to the test. And that’s exactly what we’re doing now with this first step. And we look forward to, hopefully in a short span of time, being able to put together a comprehensive agreement that will provide the guarantees necessary to our friends in the region.
Let me be crystal clear to Israel, to our other friends in the region, to any neighbor who feels threatened, that the next step requires proof certain of a failsafe set of steps which eliminate the current prospect of a breakout and the creation of a nuclear weapon. That will require dismantling certain things. It will require stopping certain kinds of activities. It will require some fundamental choices, and we’re prepared to work with Iran in order to put in place a protocol that achieves those ends.
So I think this is potentially a significant moment, but I’m not going to stand here in some triumphal moment and suggest to you that this is an end unto itself. It is not. It is a step towards the much more significant goal and the much harder to achieve goal of having a program that is absolutely failsafe provable to be only possible to be peaceful. And that’s what we have to work for now.
MODERATOR: The last question will be from Nicole Gaouette of Bloomberg News.
QUESTION: Hi, Mr. Secretary. Congratulations to you and your team. I’m wondering (inaudible) and how you answer the criticism from Israel that by easing sanctions, you have less leverage over Iran, say, than you did yesterday. They’re (inaudible) reach that settlement. I also just wondered if you have a brief comment about more sanctions being in place. That’s been true for a long time, and for a long time (inaudible) Congress.
SECRETARY KERRY: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible) by the Congress and designed to give new sanctions. And in my email feed, there are already statements from Republican senators saying it’s not good enough. The – my understanding is that this deal --
SECRETARY KERRY: Gee, you mean members of the other party (inaudible). (Laughter.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) My understanding is that you – the P5+1 are pledging not to increase nuclear-review sanctions for the next six months if Iran complies? How can you assure that you can get the majority in the Congress (inaudible)?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, those are two very good questions. Let me answer both of them very directly. First of all, with respect to Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, Prime Minister Netanyahu is a friend of mine, a man I have great respect for and I’ve worked with very closely, particularly right now, on the Middle East peace process. I talk to him several times a week. I’ve talked to him as recently as the last days about this very issue, on several occasions. And the fact that we might disagree about a tactic does not mean there is a sliver of daylight between us with respect to our strategy. The tactic is whether or not you increase sanctions or take advantage of this moment to pull the progress and guarantee you have insight into their program while you keep the pressure on. And it’s a difference of judgment. It would be nice, but there is no difference whatsoever between the United States and Israel and what the end goal must be here. We cannot have an Iran that is going to threaten its neighbors, and that has a nuclear weapon. From the day President Obama came into office, he made it clear that a centerpiece of his policy is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.
Now, Iran says it doesn’t want a nuclear weapon, it is going after a nuclear weapon. Therefore, it ought to be really easy to do the things that other nations do who enrich, and prove that their program is peaceful. So that’s what we’re looking for. We’re looking for it in absolute sync with our friends in Israel. And I have said frequently, no deal is better than a bad deal. We are not going to strike, ultimately, a bad deal. And you have to be able to prove that this program is peaceful. That means you’re going to have to look at putting on the grave uranium and what happens to it. You’re going to have to have limitations on certain components. You’re going to have to have limitations on the type of facilities. Arak, a heavy-water plutonium facilities, has no business within the framework of a peaceful program. We’ve been very clear about that.
So there are many things. I’m not going to go through them all right now, but it is crystal clear that Israel and the United States have the same goal, the same strategic interest, and we will stand with Israel with respect to this policy and the other allies in the region who are equally concerned about what Iran might or might not choose to do.
Now, with respect to the second part of your question, the Congress, look, I have great confidence in my colleagues in the Congress. I think they are going to look at this very carefully, and they should. And I look forward to going up on the Hill. I look forward to engaging with my former colleagues, explaining what we’ve done, why we can keep the – and working together with Congress in order to achieve the goal that Congress embraced when they put these sanctions in place in the first place. Congress sought to have negotiations.
Now ultimately, if somehow we wind up (inaudible) and Congress – midterm election obviously – the President obviously has a possibility of a veto. There have been. But I don’t think it should come to that. We don’t want it to come to that. I don’t if it will come to that. I believe Congress will see the wisdom of pursuing this for the very specific purposes that I’ve articulated with very straight delineation of exactly how we’re going to achieve our goals. And it was really a cooperative effort. And we will brief Congress readily. We will work for Congress in a very cooperative way. And I think Congress will be a very important partner in helping us put this to the test over the course of the next six months.
MODERATOR: That’s it, everyone.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.
NAVY RESERVE READY MOBILIZATION POOL ELIMINATED DUE TO DRAWDOWNS
 |
| 130124-N-IE116-395 LASH-E JUWAYN, Afghanistan (Jan. 24, 2013) Soldiers and Sailors assigned to Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) Farah and leadership from the Farah directorate of agriculture, irrigation and livestock file onto a CH-47 Chinook helicopter after a key leader engagement in Lash-e Juwayn. PRT Farah met with key leaders in Lash-e Juwayn to discuss an ongoing irrigation project. PRT Farah's mission is to train, advise and assist Afghan government leaders at the municipal, district and provincial levels in Farah province, Afghanistan. Their civil military team is comprised of members of the U.S. Navy, U.S. Army, the U.S. Department of State and the Agency for International Development (USAID). (U.S. Navy photo by Chief Hospital Corpsman Josh Ives/Released) |
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Navy Reserve Ready Mobilization Pool Disestablished
Release Date: 11/22/2013 7:58:00 PM
From Commander, Navy Reserve Forces Command Public Affairs
NORFOLK, Va. (NNS) -- Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, the Reserve Ready Mobilization Pool (RMP) will no longer be used to involuntarily recall Reserve Sailors.
The RMP is being eliminated due to the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan and the extremely high mobilization volunteer rate throughout the Navy Reserve Force.
"Although our immediate need for a large forward deployed force has been reduced in correlation with the drawdown in Afghanistan, our Reserve Sailors will continue to stand, 'Ready. Anytime, Anywhere," said Rear Adm. Bryan Cutchen, commander, Navy Reserve Forces Command.
Across the force, the volunteer rate has consistently remained near 75 percent, with a September 2013 volunteer rate of 87.7 percent. This high volunteer rate is projected to continue due to the opportunities mobilizations provide for valuable career growth in a variety of joint and specialized billets.
The Ready Mobilization Pool (RMP) was first implemented in 2009 to manage the mobilization of Reserve Officers. In 2010, Reserve Enlisted personnel were added to the pool, coinciding with an increase in the number of mobilizations across the entire Reserve Force which had reached their highest level since 2003.
The mission of the Navy Reserve is to deliver strategic depth and operational capability to the Navy, Marine Corps, and Joint Forces.
WINDMILL ENERGY COMPANY RECEIVES SENTENCE FOR KILLING BIRDS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Friday, November 22, 2013
Utility Company Sentenced in Wyoming for Killing Protected Birds at Wind Projects
Duke Energy Renewables Inc., a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp., based in Charlotte, N.C., pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Wyoming today to violating the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in connection with the deaths of protected birds, including golden eagles, at two of the company’s wind projects in Wyoming. This case represents the first ever criminal enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unpermitted avian takings at wind projects.
Under a plea agreement with the government, the company was sentenced to pay fines, restitution and community service totaling $1 million and was placed on probation for five years, during which it must implement an environmental compliance plan aimed at preventing bird deaths at the company’s four commercial wind projects in the state. The company is also required to apply for an Eagle Take Permit which, if granted, will provide a framework for minimizing and mitigating the deaths of golden eagles at the wind projects.
The charges stem from the discovery of 14 golden eagles and 149 other protected birds, including hawks, blackbirds, larks, wrens and sparrows by the company at its “Campbell Hill” and “Top of the World” wind projects in Converse County between 2009 and 2013. The two wind projects are comprised of 176 large wind turbines sited on private agricultural land.
According to the charges and other information presented in court, Duke Energy Renewables Inc. failed to make all reasonable efforts to build the projects in a way that would avoid the risk of avian deaths by collision with turbine blades, despite prior warnings about this issue from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, the company cooperated with the USFWS investigation and has already implemented measures aimed at minimizing avian deaths at the sites.
“This case represents the first criminal conviction under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unlawful avian takings at wind projects,” said Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. “In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths. To its credit, once the projects came on line and began causing avian deaths, Duke took steps to minimize the hazard, and with this plea agreement has committed to an extensive compliance plan to minimize bird deaths at its Wyoming facilities and to devote resources to eagle preservation and rehabilitation efforts.”
“The Service works cooperatively with companies that make all reasonable efforts to avoid killing migratory birds during design, construction and operation of industrial facilities,” said William Woody, Assistant Director for Law Enforcement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “But we will continue to investigate and refer for prosecution cases in which companies - in any sector, including the wind industry - fail to comply with the laws that protect the public’s wildlife resources.”
More than 1,000 species of birds, including bald and golden eagles, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA, enacted in 1918, implements this country’s commitments under avian protection treaties with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan and Russia. The MBTA provides a misdemeanor criminal sanction for the unpermitted taking of a listed species by any means and in any manner, regardless of fault. The maximum penalty for an unpermitted corporate taking under the MBTA is $15,000 or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the offense, and five years’ probation.
According to papers filed with the court, commercial wind power projects can cause the deaths of federally protected birds in four primary ways: collision with wind turbines, collision with associated meteorological towers, collision with, or electrocution by, associated electrical power facilities, and nest abandonment or behavior avoidance from habitat modification. Collision and electrocution risks from power lines (collisions and electrocutions) and guyed structures (collision) have been known to the utility and communication industries for decades, and specific methods of minimizing and avoiding the risks have been developed, in conjunction with the USFWS. The USFWS issued its first interim guidance about how wind project developers could avoid impacts to wildlife from wind turbines in 2003, and replaced these with a “tiered” approach outlined in the Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (2012 LBWEGs), developed with the wind industry starting in 2007 and released in final form by the USFWS on March 23, 2012. The Service also released Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance in April 2013 and strongly recommends that companies planning or operating wind power facilities in areas where eagles occur work with the agency to implement that guidance completely.
For wind projects, due diligence during the pre-construction stage—as described in the 2003 Interim Guidelines and tiers I through III in the 2012 LBWEGs—by surveying the wildlife present in the proposed project area, consulting with agency professionals, determining whether the risk to wildlife is too high to justify proceeding and, if not, carefully siting turbines so as to avoid and minimize the risk as much as possible, is critically important because, unlike electric distribution equipment and guyed towers, at the present time, no post-construction remedies, except “curtailment” (i.e., shut-down), have been developed that can “render safe” a wind turbine placed in a location of high avian collision risk. Other experimental measures to reduce prey, detect and deter avian proximity to turbines are being tested. In the western United States, golden eagles may be particularly susceptible to wind turbine blade collision by wind power facilities constructed in areas of high eagle use.
The $400,000 fine imposed in the case will be directed to the federally-administered North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. The company will also pay $100,000 in restitution to the State of Wyoming, and perform community service by making a $160,000 payment to the congressionally-chartered National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, designated for projects aimed at preserving golden eagles and increasing the understanding of ways to minimize and monitor interactions between eagles and commercial wind power facilities, as well as enhance eagle rehabilitation and conservation efforts in Wyoming. Duke Energy Renewables is also required to contribute $340,000 to a conservation fund for the purchase of land, or conservation easements on land, in Wyoming containing high-use golden eagle habitat, which will be preserved and managed for the benefit of that species. The company must implement a migratory bird compliance plan containing specific measures to avoid and minimize golden eagle and other avian wildlife mortalities at company’s four commercial wind projects in Wyoming.
According to papers filed with the court, Duke Energy Renewables will spend approximately $600,000 per year implementing the compliance plan. Within 24 months, the company must also apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a Programmatic Eagle Take Permit at each of the two wind projects cited in the case.
The case was investigated by Special Agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and prosecuted by Senior Counsel Robert S. Anderson of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Conder of the District of Wyoming.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Utility Company Sentenced in Wyoming for Killing Protected Birds at Wind Projects
Duke Energy Renewables Inc., a subsidiary of Duke Energy Corp., based in Charlotte, N.C., pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Wyoming today to violating the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) in connection with the deaths of protected birds, including golden eagles, at two of the company’s wind projects in Wyoming. This case represents the first ever criminal enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unpermitted avian takings at wind projects.
Under a plea agreement with the government, the company was sentenced to pay fines, restitution and community service totaling $1 million and was placed on probation for five years, during which it must implement an environmental compliance plan aimed at preventing bird deaths at the company’s four commercial wind projects in the state. The company is also required to apply for an Eagle Take Permit which, if granted, will provide a framework for minimizing and mitigating the deaths of golden eagles at the wind projects.
The charges stem from the discovery of 14 golden eagles and 149 other protected birds, including hawks, blackbirds, larks, wrens and sparrows by the company at its “Campbell Hill” and “Top of the World” wind projects in Converse County between 2009 and 2013. The two wind projects are comprised of 176 large wind turbines sited on private agricultural land.
According to the charges and other information presented in court, Duke Energy Renewables Inc. failed to make all reasonable efforts to build the projects in a way that would avoid the risk of avian deaths by collision with turbine blades, despite prior warnings about this issue from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, the company cooperated with the USFWS investigation and has already implemented measures aimed at minimizing avian deaths at the sites.
“This case represents the first criminal conviction under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for unlawful avian takings at wind projects,” said Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. “In this plea agreement, Duke Energy Renewables acknowledges that it constructed these wind projects in a manner it knew beforehand would likely result in avian deaths. To its credit, once the projects came on line and began causing avian deaths, Duke took steps to minimize the hazard, and with this plea agreement has committed to an extensive compliance plan to minimize bird deaths at its Wyoming facilities and to devote resources to eagle preservation and rehabilitation efforts.”
“The Service works cooperatively with companies that make all reasonable efforts to avoid killing migratory birds during design, construction and operation of industrial facilities,” said William Woody, Assistant Director for Law Enforcement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “But we will continue to investigate and refer for prosecution cases in which companies - in any sector, including the wind industry - fail to comply with the laws that protect the public’s wildlife resources.”
More than 1,000 species of birds, including bald and golden eagles, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA, enacted in 1918, implements this country’s commitments under avian protection treaties with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan and Russia. The MBTA provides a misdemeanor criminal sanction for the unpermitted taking of a listed species by any means and in any manner, regardless of fault. The maximum penalty for an unpermitted corporate taking under the MBTA is $15,000 or twice the gross gain or loss resulting from the offense, and five years’ probation.
According to papers filed with the court, commercial wind power projects can cause the deaths of federally protected birds in four primary ways: collision with wind turbines, collision with associated meteorological towers, collision with, or electrocution by, associated electrical power facilities, and nest abandonment or behavior avoidance from habitat modification. Collision and electrocution risks from power lines (collisions and electrocutions) and guyed structures (collision) have been known to the utility and communication industries for decades, and specific methods of minimizing and avoiding the risks have been developed, in conjunction with the USFWS. The USFWS issued its first interim guidance about how wind project developers could avoid impacts to wildlife from wind turbines in 2003, and replaced these with a “tiered” approach outlined in the Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines (2012 LBWEGs), developed with the wind industry starting in 2007 and released in final form by the USFWS on March 23, 2012. The Service also released Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance in April 2013 and strongly recommends that companies planning or operating wind power facilities in areas where eagles occur work with the agency to implement that guidance completely.
For wind projects, due diligence during the pre-construction stage—as described in the 2003 Interim Guidelines and tiers I through III in the 2012 LBWEGs—by surveying the wildlife present in the proposed project area, consulting with agency professionals, determining whether the risk to wildlife is too high to justify proceeding and, if not, carefully siting turbines so as to avoid and minimize the risk as much as possible, is critically important because, unlike electric distribution equipment and guyed towers, at the present time, no post-construction remedies, except “curtailment” (i.e., shut-down), have been developed that can “render safe” a wind turbine placed in a location of high avian collision risk. Other experimental measures to reduce prey, detect and deter avian proximity to turbines are being tested. In the western United States, golden eagles may be particularly susceptible to wind turbine blade collision by wind power facilities constructed in areas of high eagle use.
The $400,000 fine imposed in the case will be directed to the federally-administered North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. The company will also pay $100,000 in restitution to the State of Wyoming, and perform community service by making a $160,000 payment to the congressionally-chartered National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, designated for projects aimed at preserving golden eagles and increasing the understanding of ways to minimize and monitor interactions between eagles and commercial wind power facilities, as well as enhance eagle rehabilitation and conservation efforts in Wyoming. Duke Energy Renewables is also required to contribute $340,000 to a conservation fund for the purchase of land, or conservation easements on land, in Wyoming containing high-use golden eagle habitat, which will be preserved and managed for the benefit of that species. The company must implement a migratory bird compliance plan containing specific measures to avoid and minimize golden eagle and other avian wildlife mortalities at company’s four commercial wind projects in Wyoming.
According to papers filed with the court, Duke Energy Renewables will spend approximately $600,000 per year implementing the compliance plan. Within 24 months, the company must also apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a Programmatic Eagle Take Permit at each of the two wind projects cited in the case.
The case was investigated by Special Agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and prosecuted by Senior Counsel Robert S. Anderson of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Conder of the District of Wyoming.
USDA ANNOUNCES INVITATION TO SELL SUGAR
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
USDA Announces November 2013 Feedstock Flexibility Program Results and a New CCC Invitation to Sell Sugar for Non-Food Uses
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22, 2013 — U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) today announced the results of CCC’s offer made on Nov. 14, 2013, to sell its sugar inventory for bioenergy production under the Feedstock Flexibility Program (FFP). CCC also announced a new invitation to sell the remainder of its recently acquired sugar inventory for both bioenergy production under the Feedstock Flexibility Program and other non-food uses. CCC successfully sold 216,750 short tons to bioenergy producers for $11.3 million under the Nov. 14 offer, but still holds 79,750 tons in inventory.
Today’s invitation reduces the minimum quantity for bids to 5,000 tons and offers sugar for both bioenergy and other non-food uses. This invitation, and all of the Farm Service Agency’s actions to address the 2012 sugar crop-year surplus, can be found on the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Commodity Operations website at www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=coop&topic=pas-sa
CCC acquired 296,500 short tons of sugar on Oct. 1, 2013, in lieu of cash repayments on its remaining 2012 crop year sugar loans. These sugar loan forfeitures were the result of record domestic sugar production, record Mexican sugar imports, and world prices falling below U.S. price support levels for the first time in several years. CCC is prohibited by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill) from selling its sugar inventory for domestic food use unless there is an emergency sugar shortage.
USDA Announces November 2013 Feedstock Flexibility Program Results and a New CCC Invitation to Sell Sugar for Non-Food Uses
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22, 2013 — U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) today announced the results of CCC’s offer made on Nov. 14, 2013, to sell its sugar inventory for bioenergy production under the Feedstock Flexibility Program (FFP). CCC also announced a new invitation to sell the remainder of its recently acquired sugar inventory for both bioenergy production under the Feedstock Flexibility Program and other non-food uses. CCC successfully sold 216,750 short tons to bioenergy producers for $11.3 million under the Nov. 14 offer, but still holds 79,750 tons in inventory.
Today’s invitation reduces the minimum quantity for bids to 5,000 tons and offers sugar for both bioenergy and other non-food uses. This invitation, and all of the Farm Service Agency’s actions to address the 2012 sugar crop-year surplus, can be found on the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Commodity Operations website at www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=coop&topic=pas-sa
CCC acquired 296,500 short tons of sugar on Oct. 1, 2013, in lieu of cash repayments on its remaining 2012 crop year sugar loans. These sugar loan forfeitures were the result of record domestic sugar production, record Mexican sugar imports, and world prices falling below U.S. price support levels for the first time in several years. CCC is prohibited by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill) from selling its sugar inventory for domestic food use unless there is an emergency sugar shortage.
4 FISHERMEN INDICTED FOR INTERSTATE SALE OF STRIPED BASS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Four Commercial Fishermen Indicted in Maryland for Illegal Harvest and Interstate Sale of Striped Bass from Chesapeake Bay
One Charged with Threatening Retaliation and Witnesses Tampering During Investigation
Four commercial fishermen and one company were indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in Baltimore for a criminal conspiracy involving the illegal harvesting and interstate sale of striped bass on the Chesapeake Bay, announced Robert G. Dreher, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland.
According to court documents, Michael D. Hayden Jr., his company, William J. Lednum, Kent Sadler and Daniel Murphy engaged in a multi-year conspiracy during which time they harvested tens of thousands of pounds of striped bass on the Chesapeake Bay in violation of Maryland fishing regulations, falsified documents filed with the State of Maryland, and then transported and sold those poached fish in interstate commerce. In addition, after the investigation of these crimes began, it is alleged that Hayden attempted to manipulate some witnesses’ testimony while trying to outright prevent the testimony and cooperation of others. In addition, it is alleged that in at least one incident, Hayden threatened to retaliate against another potential witness he believed to be cooperating with investigators. Hayden was arrested on Sept. 17, 2013, having been charged in a criminal complaint with several counts of witness intimidation and retaliation.
The 26-count indictment charges the defendants with conspiracy, and Lacey Act violations. These charges carry possible terms of incarceration of five years. In addition, the witness intimidation/retaliation charges against Mr. Hayden each carry a maximum-term of 20 years in prison.
An indictment is a charging document and all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
This case is being investigated by criminal investigators with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Police and Special Agents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The case is being jointly prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland and the Environmental Crimes Section of the United States Department of Justice.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Four Commercial Fishermen Indicted in Maryland for Illegal Harvest and Interstate Sale of Striped Bass from Chesapeake Bay
One Charged with Threatening Retaliation and Witnesses Tampering During Investigation
Four commercial fishermen and one company were indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in Baltimore for a criminal conspiracy involving the illegal harvesting and interstate sale of striped bass on the Chesapeake Bay, announced Robert G. Dreher, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland.
According to court documents, Michael D. Hayden Jr., his company, William J. Lednum, Kent Sadler and Daniel Murphy engaged in a multi-year conspiracy during which time they harvested tens of thousands of pounds of striped bass on the Chesapeake Bay in violation of Maryland fishing regulations, falsified documents filed with the State of Maryland, and then transported and sold those poached fish in interstate commerce. In addition, after the investigation of these crimes began, it is alleged that Hayden attempted to manipulate some witnesses’ testimony while trying to outright prevent the testimony and cooperation of others. In addition, it is alleged that in at least one incident, Hayden threatened to retaliate against another potential witness he believed to be cooperating with investigators. Hayden was arrested on Sept. 17, 2013, having been charged in a criminal complaint with several counts of witness intimidation and retaliation.
The 26-count indictment charges the defendants with conspiracy, and Lacey Act violations. These charges carry possible terms of incarceration of five years. In addition, the witness intimidation/retaliation charges against Mr. Hayden each carry a maximum-term of 20 years in prison.
An indictment is a charging document and all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
This case is being investigated by criminal investigators with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Police and Special Agents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The case is being jointly prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland and the Environmental Crimes Section of the United States Department of Justice.
ONCOLOGY COMPANY TO PAY OVER $2 MILLION TO SETTLE FALSE MEDICARE CLAIMS ALLEGATIONS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Vantage Oncology LLC to Pay More Than $2.08 Million for False Medicare Claims for Radiation Oncology Services
Vantage Oncology LLC (Vantage) has agreed to pay the government more than $2.08 million to settle allegations that it submitted false claims to Medicare for radiation oncology services performed at its Illinois centers from 2007 through June 2012, the Justice Department announced today. Vantage owns and manages radiation oncology centers in multiple states, including two centers in Spring Valley and Streator, Ill.
“Billing Medicare for patient care that is not necessary or appropriate contributes to the soaring costs of health care,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “The Department of Justice is committed to protecting public funds and guarding against abuse of the Medicare system.”
The government alleged that Vantage double billed and overbilled Medicare for certain procedures, billed for services that lacked supporting documentation and improperly billed for radiation treatment provided to patients without proper physician supervision.
“Our office remains committed to ensuring appropriate patient care and protecting the integrity of government insurance programs,” said U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio C arter M. Stewart .
“Cheating taxpayers by double billing, overbilling and wrongly billing for services without required medical oversight will not be tolerated,” said Special Agent in Charge with the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Lamont Pugh III. “The Office of Inspector General is committed to identifying, investigating and holding accountable those who improperly profit at the expense of the Medicare program.”
This settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by former Vantage employee Suleiman Refaei under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act. The Act allows private citizens with knowledge of fraud to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. Refaei will receive $354,450.
This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $16.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $11.9 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
The investigation was jointly handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio; the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General.
The case is captioned United States ex rel. Suleiman Refaei v. Vantage Oncology, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-833 (S.D. Ohio). The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Vantage Oncology LLC to Pay More Than $2.08 Million for False Medicare Claims for Radiation Oncology Services
Vantage Oncology LLC (Vantage) has agreed to pay the government more than $2.08 million to settle allegations that it submitted false claims to Medicare for radiation oncology services performed at its Illinois centers from 2007 through June 2012, the Justice Department announced today. Vantage owns and manages radiation oncology centers in multiple states, including two centers in Spring Valley and Streator, Ill.
“Billing Medicare for patient care that is not necessary or appropriate contributes to the soaring costs of health care,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Stuart F. Delery. “The Department of Justice is committed to protecting public funds and guarding against abuse of the Medicare system.”
The government alleged that Vantage double billed and overbilled Medicare for certain procedures, billed for services that lacked supporting documentation and improperly billed for radiation treatment provided to patients without proper physician supervision.
“Our office remains committed to ensuring appropriate patient care and protecting the integrity of government insurance programs,” said U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio C arter M. Stewart .
“Cheating taxpayers by double billing, overbilling and wrongly billing for services without required medical oversight will not be tolerated,” said Special Agent in Charge with the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Lamont Pugh III. “The Office of Inspector General is committed to identifying, investigating and holding accountable those who improperly profit at the expense of the Medicare program.”
This settlement resolves a lawsuit filed by former Vantage employee Suleiman Refaei under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act. The Act allows private citizens with knowledge of fraud to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. Refaei will receive $354,450.
This settlement illustrates the government’s emphasis on combating health care fraud and marks another achievement for the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative, which was announced in May 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The partnership between the two departments has focused efforts to reduce and prevent Medicare and Medicaid financial fraud through enhanced cooperation. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Since January 2009, the Justice Department has recovered a total of more than $16.7 billion through False Claims Act cases, with more than $11.9 billion of that amount recovered in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
The investigation was jointly handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio; the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General.
The case is captioned United States ex rel. Suleiman Refaei v. Vantage Oncology, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-833 (S.D. Ohio). The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
MEMORIES OF THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION FROM THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
FROM: THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
The Sound of Drums
November 22, 2013 by Jennifer Gavin
On Friday, November 22, 1963, the students in Mrs. Maxwell’s third-grade class at Sabin Elementary School in southwest Denver got a singular history lesson: the news came in that President John F. Kennedy had been murdered.
Janet Maxwell, a popular young instructor who taught 25 kids reading, math, science and history by turns, was trying to get an educational program on a radio at the front of the classroom – a weekly radio play called “I Am an American” in which actors dramatized the lives of famous figures in U.S. history. But she couldn’t seem to lock in the station. So she went next door to Mrs. Grossman’s room to see if they were having difficulty there, as well.
When she came back, perhaps 10 minutes later, her students – I was one of them — were startled to find her weeping.
“Boys and girls, I don’t know how to tell you this,” she said. “President Kennedy has been shot. I hope he will be all right.”
We were stunned. A couple of kids began crying, too. We were old enough to understand that the leader of our country was fighting for his life, and might even be dead. The president! The president of the United States.
This was not an era of instant communication. There might have been one TV in the whole school. But we did have the radio in the classroom, and Mrs. Maxwell began dialing around to find news coverage of the shooting.
It was only a matter of minutes before the announcement came: President Kennedy was dead.
Mrs. Maxwell tried to project an air of calm, but her grief could not be hidden, and it upset all of us.
Lunchtime came, and we took our sack lunches and went out on the gravel field beside the school. Some kids were hysterical. Other kids were silent, a little frightened by the effect this news had on adults. I wondered what my Mom and Dad were thinking. I knew they liked President Kennedy and had voted for him.
We tried to have a normal afternoon in school, but no one could keep their mind on the work. One boy cracked an inappropriate joke; Mrs. Maxwell upbraided him. At 3:20 we got to go home.
That night I went to my friend Jonnie Sue’s house for a sleepover. My mother urged me to have fun and not to dwell too much on the sad event.
But all Jonnie Sue and I did Saturday morning, when we would ordinarily have been watching cartoons, was to stay glued to the wall-to-wall television coverage of the assassination, the swearing-in of LBJ, the speculation about the arrested man, Lee Harvey Oswald. I walked home at noon and a few hours were spent away from the TV.
Sunday morning I got up and went to the basement, where we had a big black-and-white tube set. As I sat there in my pajamas, police officers were seen moving Lee Harvey Oswald along a corridor crowded with people. A man—later identified as Jack Ruby — stepped forward, and suddenly Oswald’s face contorted in pain. He had been shot, right there on live TV, and I had witnessed it as it happened.
I ran upstairs, delivering my first “flash” in a lifetime that later included 18 years as a newspaperwoman: “Dad! Dad! Somebody shot Lee Harvey Oswald!”
The true tragedy came through to me as I watched the state funeral Monday on TV. JFK’s children stood by their mother as their father’s casket rolled past. I was only a little older than those kids. The roll of the drums was unforgettable:
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum
Brum – ba – brum.
It may be hard for people born more recently to grasp the impact John F. Kennedy had on lives in that era. In later years I met several people who had been inspired by his challenge to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” and in response had actually joined the Peace Corps or done some kind of public service. Kennedy’s killing did great damage to their collective spirit.
Within five years, both Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were dead at the hands of assassins. It was a profoundly disquieting time.
But this is America. New leaders step forward, and we build the bench so new leaders can step forward. Democracy can be untidy, and not always satisfying, but it still beats the alternatives.
Who will fill out that bench – by serving on the city council, or the school board, or in the legislature?
What can you do for your country?
The Sound of Drums
November 22, 2013 by Jennifer Gavin
On Friday, November 22, 1963, the students in Mrs. Maxwell’s third-grade class at Sabin Elementary School in southwest Denver got a singular history lesson: the news came in that President John F. Kennedy had been murdered.
Janet Maxwell, a popular young instructor who taught 25 kids reading, math, science and history by turns, was trying to get an educational program on a radio at the front of the classroom – a weekly radio play called “I Am an American” in which actors dramatized the lives of famous figures in U.S. history. But she couldn’t seem to lock in the station. So she went next door to Mrs. Grossman’s room to see if they were having difficulty there, as well.
When she came back, perhaps 10 minutes later, her students – I was one of them — were startled to find her weeping.
“Boys and girls, I don’t know how to tell you this,” she said. “President Kennedy has been shot. I hope he will be all right.”
We were stunned. A couple of kids began crying, too. We were old enough to understand that the leader of our country was fighting for his life, and might even be dead. The president! The president of the United States.
This was not an era of instant communication. There might have been one TV in the whole school. But we did have the radio in the classroom, and Mrs. Maxwell began dialing around to find news coverage of the shooting.
It was only a matter of minutes before the announcement came: President Kennedy was dead.
Mrs. Maxwell tried to project an air of calm, but her grief could not be hidden, and it upset all of us.
Lunchtime came, and we took our sack lunches and went out on the gravel field beside the school. Some kids were hysterical. Other kids were silent, a little frightened by the effect this news had on adults. I wondered what my Mom and Dad were thinking. I knew they liked President Kennedy and had voted for him.
We tried to have a normal afternoon in school, but no one could keep their mind on the work. One boy cracked an inappropriate joke; Mrs. Maxwell upbraided him. At 3:20 we got to go home.
That night I went to my friend Jonnie Sue’s house for a sleepover. My mother urged me to have fun and not to dwell too much on the sad event.
But all Jonnie Sue and I did Saturday morning, when we would ordinarily have been watching cartoons, was to stay glued to the wall-to-wall television coverage of the assassination, the swearing-in of LBJ, the speculation about the arrested man, Lee Harvey Oswald. I walked home at noon and a few hours were spent away from the TV.
Sunday morning I got up and went to the basement, where we had a big black-and-white tube set. As I sat there in my pajamas, police officers were seen moving Lee Harvey Oswald along a corridor crowded with people. A man—later identified as Jack Ruby — stepped forward, and suddenly Oswald’s face contorted in pain. He had been shot, right there on live TV, and I had witnessed it as it happened.
I ran upstairs, delivering my first “flash” in a lifetime that later included 18 years as a newspaperwoman: “Dad! Dad! Somebody shot Lee Harvey Oswald!”
The true tragedy came through to me as I watched the state funeral Monday on TV. JFK’s children stood by their mother as their father’s casket rolled past. I was only a little older than those kids. The roll of the drums was unforgettable:
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum – brum – brum – brrrr
Brum
Brum – ba – brum.
It may be hard for people born more recently to grasp the impact John F. Kennedy had on lives in that era. In later years I met several people who had been inspired by his challenge to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” and in response had actually joined the Peace Corps or done some kind of public service. Kennedy’s killing did great damage to their collective spirit.
Within five years, both Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were dead at the hands of assassins. It was a profoundly disquieting time.
But this is America. New leaders step forward, and we build the bench so new leaders can step forward. Democracy can be untidy, and not always satisfying, but it still beats the alternatives.
Who will fill out that bench – by serving on the city council, or the school board, or in the legislature?
What can you do for your country?
MALWARE SCAMMER SETTLES FTC COMPLAINT
FROM: U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FTC
Tech Support Scheme Participant Settles FTC Charges
One of the defendants in an alleged tech support scheme has agreed to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint against him and give up the money he made from the scheme.
Navin Pasari is a defendant in one of six complaints filed by the FTC in September 2012 as part of the Commission’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers from online scams. According to the complaint against Pasari and his co-defendants, the defendants placed ads with Google, which appeared when consumers searched for their computer company’s tech support telephone number. After getting consumers on the phone, the defendants’ telemarketers allegedly claimed they were affiliated with legitimate companies, including Dell, Microsoft, McAfee and Norton, and told consumers they had detected malware that posed an imminent threat to their computers. The scammers then offered to rid the computer of the non-existent malware for fees ranging from $139 to $360.
The stipulated final order against Pasari imposes a $14,369 monetary judgment, which represents the total amount of money Pasari received in connection with the scam. The final order also requires him to divest his ownership interest in PCCare247 Inc., another defendant in the action, and transfer any proceeds he receives from the divestiture to the FTC.
In addition, the final order prohibits Pasari from opening or assisting with the opening of payment processing accounts for a company or other entity unless he personally supervises the accounts. The final order also prohibits Pasari from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting any information to consumers.
While the stipulated final order announced today resolves the FTC’s claims against Pasari, litigation continues against the remaining defendants in each of these actions.
The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 4-0. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered the judgment on Nov. 12, 2013.
NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed and approved by the District Court judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
Tech Support Scheme Participant Settles FTC Charges
One of the defendants in an alleged tech support scheme has agreed to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint against him and give up the money he made from the scheme.
Navin Pasari is a defendant in one of six complaints filed by the FTC in September 2012 as part of the Commission’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers from online scams. According to the complaint against Pasari and his co-defendants, the defendants placed ads with Google, which appeared when consumers searched for their computer company’s tech support telephone number. After getting consumers on the phone, the defendants’ telemarketers allegedly claimed they were affiliated with legitimate companies, including Dell, Microsoft, McAfee and Norton, and told consumers they had detected malware that posed an imminent threat to their computers. The scammers then offered to rid the computer of the non-existent malware for fees ranging from $139 to $360.
The stipulated final order against Pasari imposes a $14,369 monetary judgment, which represents the total amount of money Pasari received in connection with the scam. The final order also requires him to divest his ownership interest in PCCare247 Inc., another defendant in the action, and transfer any proceeds he receives from the divestiture to the FTC.
In addition, the final order prohibits Pasari from opening or assisting with the opening of payment processing accounts for a company or other entity unless he personally supervises the accounts. The final order also prohibits Pasari from misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting any information to consumers.
While the stipulated final order announced today resolves the FTC’s claims against Pasari, litigation continues against the remaining defendants in each of these actions.
The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 4-0. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered the judgment on Nov. 12, 2013.
NOTE: Stipulated orders have the force of law when signed and approved by the District Court judge.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
U.S. EXPRESSES CONCERN OVER CHINA'S EAST CHINA SEA AIR DEFENCE IDENTIFICATION ZONE
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Statement on the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 23, 2013
The United States is deeply concerned about China's announcement that they've established an "East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone." This unilateral action constitutes an attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea. Escalatory action will only increase tensions in the region and create risks of an incident.
Freedom of overflight and other internationally lawful uses of sea and airspace are essential to prosperity, stability, and security in the Pacific. We don't support efforts by any State to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter its national airspace. The United States does not apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. national airspace. We urge China not to implement its threat to take action against aircraft that do not identify themselves or obey orders from Beijing.
We have urged China to exercise caution and restraint, and we are consulting with Japan and other affected parties, throughout the region. We remain steadfastly committed to our allies and partners, and hope to see a more collaborative and less confrontational future in the Pacific.
Statement on the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
November 23, 2013
The United States is deeply concerned about China's announcement that they've established an "East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone." This unilateral action constitutes an attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea. Escalatory action will only increase tensions in the region and create risks of an incident.
Freedom of overflight and other internationally lawful uses of sea and airspace are essential to prosperity, stability, and security in the Pacific. We don't support efforts by any State to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter its national airspace. The United States does not apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. national airspace. We urge China not to implement its threat to take action against aircraft that do not identify themselves or obey orders from Beijing.
We have urged China to exercise caution and restraint, and we are consulting with Japan and other affected parties, throughout the region. We remain steadfastly committed to our allies and partners, and hope to see a more collaborative and less confrontational future in the Pacific.
U.S MARSHALS SERVICE ARRESTS SUSPECT IN CONNECTION WITH BOMB THREAT
FROM: U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE
November 21, 2013 Eastern District of Virginia
U.S. Marshals Task Force Arrests Suspect in Connection with a Bomb Threat
Alexandria, VA – U.S. Marshal Robert Mathieson announces the capture of William Wyatt Raum. Raum was wanted by the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO) in connection with a bomb threat communicated earlier this month.
On Oct. 29, the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center received a bomb threat from an unknown suspect. On Nov. 4, the FCSO requested their deputy sheriff assigned to the U.S. Marshals Service’s fugitive task force to investigate the threat. The investigation determined Raum as the alleged offender.
The case was adopted by the U.S. Marshals task force located within the federal Eastern District of Virginia. At approximately 6:00 a.m. on Monday, Nov. 18, task force officers and Deputy U.S. Marshals located and apprehended Raum in an apartment complex located on Marlboro Pike in Capitol Heights, MD. Raum was transported to the Prince George’s County Police Department and is awaiting extradition to Fairfax County.
The U.S. Marshals-led fugitive task force within E/VA is made possible by the collaboration of the U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Secret Service, Alexandria Police Department, Virginia State Police, Fairfax County Police Department, Fairfax County Sheriff's Department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Diplomatic Security Service.
The task force within the Metropolitan D.C. area was founded in 2004 and, to date, has arrested tens of thousands of fugitives. The success of the task force directly correlates to it being a truly joint endeavor. Each agency brings its unique skills and expertise toward the common goal of pursuing and arresting the worst of the worst.
The U.S. Marshals Service arrested more than 36,000 federal fugitives, 86,700 state and local fugitives, and 11,800 sex offenders in fiscal year 2013. Our investigative network and capabilities allow for the unique ability to track and apprehend any fugitive who attempts to evade police capture, anywhere in the country.
November 21, 2013 Eastern District of Virginia
U.S. Marshals Task Force Arrests Suspect in Connection with a Bomb Threat
Alexandria, VA – U.S. Marshal Robert Mathieson announces the capture of William Wyatt Raum. Raum was wanted by the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO) in connection with a bomb threat communicated earlier this month.
On Oct. 29, the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center received a bomb threat from an unknown suspect. On Nov. 4, the FCSO requested their deputy sheriff assigned to the U.S. Marshals Service’s fugitive task force to investigate the threat. The investigation determined Raum as the alleged offender.
The case was adopted by the U.S. Marshals task force located within the federal Eastern District of Virginia. At approximately 6:00 a.m. on Monday, Nov. 18, task force officers and Deputy U.S. Marshals located and apprehended Raum in an apartment complex located on Marlboro Pike in Capitol Heights, MD. Raum was transported to the Prince George’s County Police Department and is awaiting extradition to Fairfax County.
The U.S. Marshals-led fugitive task force within E/VA is made possible by the collaboration of the U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Secret Service, Alexandria Police Department, Virginia State Police, Fairfax County Police Department, Fairfax County Sheriff's Department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Diplomatic Security Service.
The task force within the Metropolitan D.C. area was founded in 2004 and, to date, has arrested tens of thousands of fugitives. The success of the task force directly correlates to it being a truly joint endeavor. Each agency brings its unique skills and expertise toward the common goal of pursuing and arresting the worst of the worst.
The U.S. Marshals Service arrested more than 36,000 federal fugitives, 86,700 state and local fugitives, and 11,800 sex offenders in fiscal year 2013. Our investigative network and capabilities allow for the unique ability to track and apprehend any fugitive who attempts to evade police capture, anywhere in the country.
HHS SAYS SMOKER WHO LOOK HEALTHY MAY STILL BE SICK
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE
From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I’m Ira Dreyfuss with HHS HealthBeat.
Even a smoker who looks healthy – and whose doctor might even find no sign of health damage from smoking – might already be sick. Researcher Ronald Crystal of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City saw it when he compared airway cells from nonsmokers and from smokers who had no sign of lung disease, based on standard clinical tests.
Crystal says some hypothetical man smoking outside a building might think he’s OK, but he’s not:
“When you look at the cells lining his airways, the biology of those cells are markedly different, and they are clearly abnormal.”
Crystal says quitting can let lungs heal from smoke damage, but some cells never fully recover – so it’s best never to start.
The study in the journal Stem Cell was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more at healthfinder.gov.
HHS HealthBeat is a production of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I’m Ira Dreyfuss.
Last revised: November 21, 2013
From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I’m Ira Dreyfuss with HHS HealthBeat.
Even a smoker who looks healthy – and whose doctor might even find no sign of health damage from smoking – might already be sick. Researcher Ronald Crystal of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City saw it when he compared airway cells from nonsmokers and from smokers who had no sign of lung disease, based on standard clinical tests.
Crystal says some hypothetical man smoking outside a building might think he’s OK, but he’s not:
“When you look at the cells lining his airways, the biology of those cells are markedly different, and they are clearly abnormal.”
Crystal says quitting can let lungs heal from smoke damage, but some cells never fully recover – so it’s best never to start.
The study in the journal Stem Cell was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more at healthfinder.gov.
HHS HealthBeat is a production of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I’m Ira Dreyfuss.
Last revised: November 21, 2013
LADEE READY TO COLLECT LUNAR DATA
Right: An Artist’s concept of NASA's Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) spacecraft in orbit above the moon as dust scatters light during the lunar sunset. Image Credit-NASA AMES- Dana Berry
NASA's Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) is ready to begin collecting science data about the moon.
On Nov. 20, the spacecraft successfully entered its planned orbit around the moon's equator -- a unique position allowing the small probe to make frequent passes from lunar day to lunar night. This will provide a full scope of the changes and processes occurring within the moon's tenuous atmosphere.
LADEE now orbits the moon about every two hours at an altitude of eight to 37 miles (12-60 kilometers) above the moon's surface. For about 100 days, the spacecraft will gather detailed information about the structure and composition of the thin lunar atmosphere and determine whether dust is being lofted into the lunar sky.
"A thorough understanding of the characteristics of our lunar neighbor will help researchers understand other small bodies in the solar system, such as asteroids, Mercury, and the moons of outer planets," said Sarah Noble, LADEE program scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
Scientists also will be able to study the conditions in the atmosphere during lunar sunrise and sunset, where previous crewed and robotic missions detected a mysterious glow of rays and streamers reaching high into the lunar sky.
“This is what we’ve been waiting for – we are already seeing the shape of things to come,” said Rick Elphic, LADEE project scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif.
On Nov. 20, flight controllers in the LADEE Mission Operations Center at Ames confirmed LADEE performed a crucial burn of its orbit control system to lower the spacecraft into its optimal position to enable science collection. Mission managers will continuously monitor the spacecraft's altitude and make adjustments as necessary.
"Due to the lumpiness of the moon's gravitational field, LADEE's orbit requires significant maintenance activity with maneuvers taking place as often as every three to five days, or as infrequently as once every two weeks," said Butler Hine, LADEE project manager at Ames. "LADEE will perform regular orbital maintenance maneuvers to keep the spacecraft’s altitude within a safe range above the surface that maximizes the science return."
In addition to science instruments, the spacecraft carried the Lunar Laser Communications Demonstration, NASA's first high-data-rate laser communication system. It is designed to enable satellite communication at rates similar to those of high-speed fiber optic networks on Earth. The system was tested successfully during the commissioning phase of the mission, while LADEE was still at a higher altitude.
LADEE was launched Sept. 6 on a U.S. Air Force Minotaur V, an excess ballistic missile converted into a space launch vehicle and operated by Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va. LADEE is the first spacecraft designed, developed, built, integrated and tested at Ames. It also was the first probe launched beyond Earth orbit from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility on the Virginia coast.
NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington funds the LADEE mission. Ames manages the overall mission and serves as a base for mission operations and real-time control of the probe. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., manages the science instruments and technology demonstration payload, the science operations center and overall mission support. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., manages LADEE within the Lunar Quest Program Office.
HHS SAYS STUDY SHOWS OVERWEIGHT KIDS HAVE INCREASED HYPERTENSION RISK AS ADULTS
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I’m Ira Dreyfuss with HHS HealthBeat.
A study indicates that young people who are overweight or obese have a higher risk of high blood pressure, or hypertension, when they grow up.
At Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University Health, researcher Sara Watson saw this in 27 years of data on more than 1,100 teenagers:
“Children and adolescents who were overweight had double the risk of having hypertension as young adults. Those who were obese had quadruple the risk.”
Put another way, 6 percent of normal weight youth grew up to have hypertension, but 14 percent of overweight children and 26 percent of obese children did.
Watson says it looks increasingly like heart disease starts young.
The study presented at an American Heart Association meeting was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I’m Ira Dreyfuss with HHS HealthBeat.
A study indicates that young people who are overweight or obese have a higher risk of high blood pressure, or hypertension, when they grow up.
At Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University Health, researcher Sara Watson saw this in 27 years of data on more than 1,100 teenagers:
“Children and adolescents who were overweight had double the risk of having hypertension as young adults. Those who were obese had quadruple the risk.”
Put another way, 6 percent of normal weight youth grew up to have hypertension, but 14 percent of overweight children and 26 percent of obese children did.
Watson says it looks increasingly like heart disease starts young.
The study presented at an American Heart Association meeting was supported by the National Institutes of Health.
CDC SAYS DIAGNOSES OF ADHD RISING AMONG U.S. CHILDREN
FROM: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
ADHD Estimates Rise
Continued Increases in ADHD Diagnoses and Treatment with Medication among U.S. Children
Two million more children in the United States have been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and one million more U.S. children were taking medication for ADHD over an 8 year period (2003-2004 to 2011-2012), according to a new study Adobe PDF file [1.81 MB]External Web Site Icon led by CDC. According to CDC scientists, children are commonly being diagnosed at a young age. Half of children diagnosed with ADHD are diagnosed by 6 years of age. Children with more severe ADHD tend to be diagnosed earlier, about half of them by the age of 4, based on reports by parents.
ADHD is one of the most common chronic conditions of childhood. It often persists into adulthood. Children with ADHD may have trouble paying attention and/or controlling impulsive behaviors. Effective treatments for ADHD include medication, mental health treatment, or a combination of the two. When children diagnosed with ADHD receive proper treatment, they have the best chance of thriving at home, doing well at school, and making and keeping friends.
In 2011-2012, 11 percent of U.S. children 4-17 years of age had been diagnosed with ADHD and 6.1 percent of U.S. children 4-17 years of age were taking medication for ADHD. Of the children with current ADHD, 69 percent were taking medication for ADHD treatment.
States vary widely in terms of the percentage of their child population diagnosed and treated with medication for ADHD. The percentage of children with a history of an ADHD diagnosis ranges from 15 percent in Arkansas and Kentucky to 4 percent in Nevada.
Medication treatment for ADHD is most common among children reported by their parents as having more severe ADHD.
Nearly one in five high school boys and one in 11 high school girls in the United States were reported by their parents as having been diagnosed with ADHD by a healthcare provider.
Note to parents: If you have concerns about your child’s behavior, complete the ADHD checklist, visit CDC's ADHD website and discuss your concerns with your child’s healthcare provider.
ADHD Estimates Rise
Continued Increases in ADHD Diagnoses and Treatment with Medication among U.S. Children
Two million more children in the United States have been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and one million more U.S. children were taking medication for ADHD over an 8 year period (2003-2004 to 2011-2012), according to a new study Adobe PDF file [1.81 MB]External Web Site Icon led by CDC. According to CDC scientists, children are commonly being diagnosed at a young age. Half of children diagnosed with ADHD are diagnosed by 6 years of age. Children with more severe ADHD tend to be diagnosed earlier, about half of them by the age of 4, based on reports by parents.
ADHD is one of the most common chronic conditions of childhood. It often persists into adulthood. Children with ADHD may have trouble paying attention and/or controlling impulsive behaviors. Effective treatments for ADHD include medication, mental health treatment, or a combination of the two. When children diagnosed with ADHD receive proper treatment, they have the best chance of thriving at home, doing well at school, and making and keeping friends.
In 2011-2012, 11 percent of U.S. children 4-17 years of age had been diagnosed with ADHD and 6.1 percent of U.S. children 4-17 years of age were taking medication for ADHD. Of the children with current ADHD, 69 percent were taking medication for ADHD treatment.
States vary widely in terms of the percentage of their child population diagnosed and treated with medication for ADHD. The percentage of children with a history of an ADHD diagnosis ranges from 15 percent in Arkansas and Kentucky to 4 percent in Nevada.
Medication treatment for ADHD is most common among children reported by their parents as having more severe ADHD.
Nearly one in five high school boys and one in 11 high school girls in the United States were reported by their parents as having been diagnosed with ADHD by a healthcare provider.
Note to parents: If you have concerns about your child’s behavior, complete the ADHD checklist, visit CDC's ADHD website and discuss your concerns with your child’s healthcare provider.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S WEEKLY ADDRESS FOR NOVEMBER 23, 2013
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Weekly Address: Working with Both Parties to Keep the Economy Moving Forward
WASHINGTON, DC— In his weekly address, President Obama said our economy is moving in the right direction. We have cut our deficits by more than half, businesses have created millions of new jobs, and we have taken significant steps to reverse our addiction to foreign oil and fix our broken health care system.
The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online atwww.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 a.m. ET, November 23, 2013.
Remarks for President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
November 23, 2013
Hi, everybody. Over the past couple months, most of the political headlines you’ve read have probably been about the government shutdown and the launch of the Affordable Care Act. And I know that many of you have rightly never been more frustrated with Washington.
But if you look beyond those headlines, there are some good things happening in our economy. And that’s been my top priority since the day I walked into the Oval Office.
After decades in which the middle class was working harder and harder just to keep up, and a punishing recession that made it worse, we made the tough choices required not just to recover from crisis, but to rebuild on a new foundation for stronger, more durable economic growth.
Five years later, we have fought our way back. Our businesses have created 7.8 million new jobs in the past 44 months. Another 200,000 Americans went back to work last month.
The American auto industry has come roaring back with more than 350,000 new jobs – jobs churning out and selling the high-tech, fuel-efficient cars the world wants to buy. And they’re leading the charge in a manufacturing sector that has added jobs for the first time since the 1990s – a big reason why our businesses sell more goods and services “Made in America” than ever before.
We decided to reverse our addiction to foreign oil. And today, we generate more renewable energy than ever, more natural gas than anybody, and for the first time in nearly 20 years, America now produces more oil than we buy from other countries.
We decided to fix a broken health care system. And even though the rollout of the marketplace where you can buy affordable plans has been rough, so far, about 500,000 Americans are poised to gain health coverage starting January 1st. And by the way, health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years.
And one more thing: since I took office, we’ve cut our deficits by more than half. And that makes it easier to invest in the things that create jobs – education, research, and infrastructure.
Imagine how much farther along we could be if both parties were working together. Think about what we could do if a reckless few didn’t hold the economy hostage every few months, or waste time on dozens of votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act rather than try to help us fix it.
In the weeks ahead, I’ll keep talking about my plan to build a better bargain for the middle class. Good jobs. A good education. A chance to buy a home, save, and retire. And yes, the financial security of affordable health care. And I’ll look for any willing partners who want to help.
Because of your hard work and tough sacrifices over the past five years, we’re pointed in the right direction. But we’ve got more work to do to keep moving that way. And as long as I’m President, I’ll keep doing everything I can to create jobs, grow the economy, and make sure that everyone who works hard has a chance to get ahead. Thanks, and have a great weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)