text:
104 S.Ct. 2218
81 L.Ed.2d 42
Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Petitioner
COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, INC., et al.
No. 83-56.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Feb. 27, 1984.
Decided May 21, 1984.
Under the Medicare program, providers of health care services are reimbursed for the reasonable cost of services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries and are required to submit annual cost reports which are audited to determine actual costs. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) may reopen any reimbursement determination within a 3-year period and make appropriate adjustments. Respondent non-profit corporation (hereafter respondent), pursuant to its contract to provide home health care services under the Medicare program, received reimbursement through a fiscal intermediary, Travelers Insurance Cos. (Travelers). Respondent also received a federal grant under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), which authorized the use of federal funds to provide training and job opportunities for economically disadvantaged persons. This made it possible for respondent to take on additional personnel and to expand its home health care services. A regulation to prevent double reimbursement of providers' costs indicated that grants received by a provider to pay special operating costs must be subtracted from the reasonable costs for which the provider may be reimbursed under the Medicare program. Respondent asked Travelers whether the salaries of its CETA-funded employees who provided services to Medicare patients were reimbursable as reasonable costs under Medicare, and was orally advised by Travelers' Medicare manager that the CETA funds were "seed money" as defined in the Provider Reimbursement Manual to mean "[g]rants designated for the development of new health care agencies or for expansion of services of established agencies," and that therefore, even though the CETA employees' salaries constituted specific operating costs paid by a federal grant, they were reimbursable under the Medicare program. Relying on this advice, respondent included costs for which it was receiving CETA reimbursement in its cost reports for fiscal years 1975, 1976, and 1977, and received reimbursement for those sums. Eventually, however, Travelers, as it should have done previously, referred respondent's inquiry to the Department of Health and Human Services, and was formally advised that the CETA funds were not "seed money" and thus had to be subtracted from respondent's Medicare reimbursement. Travelers then reopened respondent's cost reports for the years in question and recomputed the reimbursable costs, determining that respondent had been overpaid $71,480. When Travelers demanded repayment of this amount, respondent filed suit in Federal District Court, but, after it had obtained temporary injunctive relief, the parties stipulated that the suit would be stayed pending administrative review. Thereafter, while rejecting the position that CETA funds were "seed money," the Provider Reimbursement Review Board found that the Secretary's right to recoup the 1975 overpayment was barred because Travelers had not given respondent a written notice of reopening within the 3-year limitation period, and accordingly reduced the amount in dispute. Respondent then filed another suit in the District Court seeking review of this determination. Consolidating the two suits, the court ruled in the Secretary's favor, rejecting respondent's claim that the Secretary ought to be estopped to deny that the CETA funds were "seed money" because of the representations of the Secretary's agent, Travelers. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Government may be estopped by the "affirmative misconduct" of its agents and that Travelers' erroneous advice, coupled with its failure to refer the question to the Secretary, constituted such misconduct.
Held: The Government is not estopped from recovering the funds in question from respondent, since respondent has not demonstrated that the traditional elements of an estoppel are present with respect to either its change in position or its reliance on Travelers' advice. Pp. 59-66.
(a) The consequences of the Government's misconduct were not entirely adverse, since respondent did receive an immediate benefit as a result of the double reimbursement. Its detriment is the inability to retain money that it should never have received in the first place. Thus, this is not a case in which respondent has lost any legal right or suffered any adverse change in its status. Respondent cannot claim any right to expand its services to levels greater than those it would have provided had the error never occurred. Curtailment of operation does not justify an estoppel when the expansion of respondent's operation was achieved through unlawful access to federal funds. Respondent cannot raise an estoppel without proving that it would be significantly worse off than if it had never obtained the CETA funds in question. Pp. 61-63.
(b) The regulations governing the cost reimbursement provisions of Medicare should and did put respondent on ample notice of the care with which its cost reports must be prepared, and the care which would be taken to review them within the relevant 3-year period. Yet respondent prepared those reports on the basis of an oral policy judgment by an official who, it should have known, was not in the business of making policy. That is not the kind of reasonable reliance that would even give rise to an estoppel against a private party and therefore cannot estop the Government. Pp. 63-66.
698 F.2d 615 (3rd Cir.1983), reversed and remanded.
Kenneth S. Geller, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Raymond G. Hasley, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under what is recognized for present purposes as an incorrect interpretation of rather complex federal regulations, during 1975, 1976, and 1977 respondent received and expended $71,480 in federal funds to provide health care services to Medicare beneficiaries to which it was not entitled. The question presented is whether the Government is estopped from recovering those funds because respondent relied on the express authorization of a responsible Government agent in making the expenditures.
* Under the Medicare program, Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 79 Stat. 291, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395-1395vv, providers of health care services are reimbursed for the reasonable cost of services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary). § 1395x(v)(1)(A). Providers receive interim payments at least monthly covering the cost of services they have rendered. § 1395g(a). Congress recognized, however, that these interim payments would not always correctly reflect the amount of reimbursable costs, and accordingly instructed the Secretary to develop mechanisms for making appropriate retroactive adjustments when reimbursement is found to be inadequate or excessive. § 1395x(v)(1)(A)(ii).1 Pursuant to this statutory mandate, the Secretary requires providers to submit annual cost reports which are then audited to determine actual costs. 42 CFR §§ 405.454, 405.1803 (1982). The Secretary may reopen any reimbursement determination within a 3-year period and make appropriate adjustments. § 405.1885.
The Act also permits a provider to elect to receive reimbursement through a "fiscal intermediary." 42 U.S.C. § 1395h; 42 CFR § 421.103 (1982). If the intermediary the provider has nominated meets the Secretary's requirements, the Secretary then enters into an agreement with the intermediary to have it perform those administrative responsibilities she assigns it. §§ 421.5, 421.110. These duties include receipt, disbursement, and accounting for funds used in making Medicare payments, auditing the records of providers in order to ensure payments have been proper, resolving disputes over cost reimbursement, reviewing and reconsidering payments to providers, and recovering overpayments to providers. §§ 421.100(b), (c), (e), (f), 421.120(e). The fiscal intermediary must also "serve as a center for, and communicate to providers, any information or instructions furnished to it by the Secretary, and serve as a channel of communication from providers to the Secretary." 42 U.S.C. § 1395h(a)(2)(A).
Respondent Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc. (hereafter respondent), is a nonprofit">nonprofit corporation. In 1966 it entered into a contract with petitioner's predecessor, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, to provide home health care services to individuals eligible for benefits under Part A of the Medicare program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395c to 1395i-2. Under the contract, respondent received reimbursement through a fiscal intermediary, the Travelers Insurance Cos. (Travelers).
In 1973 Congress enacted the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), 87 Stat. 839, codified, as amended, at 29 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), and repealed, Pub.L. 97-300, 96 Stat. 1357, authorizing the use of federal funds to provide training and job opportunities for economically disadvantaged persons. In 1975 respondent began participating in the program, which reimbursed it for the salaries and fringe benefits paid to certain of its employees. CETA funds made it possible for respondent to take on additional personnel and to provide additional home health care services.
To prevent what would be in effect double reimbursement of providers' costs, one of the regulations concerning reasonable costs reimbursable under the Medicare program indicates that grants received by a provider in order to pay specific operating costs must be subtracted from the reasonable costs for which the provider may receive reimbursement.2 After obtaining a CETA grant, respondent's administrator contacted Travelers to ask whether the salaries of its CETA-funded employees who provided services to patients eligible for Medicare benefits were reimbursable as reasonable costs under Medicare. Travelers' Medicare manager orally advised respondent that the CETA funds were "seed money" within the meaning of § 612.2 of the Provider Reimbursement Manual, which is defined as "[g]rants designated for the development of new health care agencies or for expansion of services of established agencies,"3 and therefore, even though the CETA employees' salaries constituted specific operating costs paid by a federal grant, they were reimbursable under the Medicare program.
Relying on Travelers' advice, respondent included costs for which it was receiving CETA reimbursement in its cost reports, and received reimbursement for those sums amounting to $7,694, $32,460, and $31,326 in fiscal 1975, 1976, and 1977, respectively.4 On several occasions during this period, respondent requested and received from Travelers oral verification of the propriety of this treatment.5 With these additional funds, respondent expanded its annual number of home health care visits from approximately 4,000 in 1974 to over 81,000 in the next three years. Its annual budget increased during that period from about $200,000 to about $900,000.
It is undisputed that correct administrative practice required Travelers to refer respondent's inquiry to the Department of Health and Human Services for a definitive answer. However, Travelers did not do this until August 7, 1977, when a written request for instructions was finally submitted to the Philadelphia office of the Department's Bureau of Health Insurance. Travelers was then formally advised that the CETA funds were not "seed money" and therefore had to be subtracted from respondent's Medicare reimbursement. On October 7, 1977, Travelers formally notified respondent of this determination. Travelers then reopened respondent's cost reports for the preceding three years and recomputed respondent's reimbursable costs, determining that respondent had been overpaid a total of $71,480.
In May 1978 Travelers made a formal demand for repayment of the disputed amount. Respondent filed suit and obtained temporary injunctive relief against the Secretary and Travelers; in November 1979, the parties entered into a stipulation providing that the Secretary would postpone any attempts at recoupment and that the civil action would be stayed pending the outcome of administrative review.
Thereafter, the Secretary's Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB) conducted a hearing and issued a written opinion rejecting the position that CETA funds were "seed money." The PRRB found, however, that the Secretary's right to recoup the 1975 overpayment was barred because Travelers had not given respondent a written notice of reopening within the 3-year limitations period;6 thus, the amount in dispute was reduced to approximately $63,800. On April 10, 1980, respondent filed a complaint in the District Court seeking review of the administrative determination. The District Court consolidated that case with the equitable action that had been filed about two years earlier. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled in favor of the Secretary, accepting the PRRB's view of the Secretary's regulations and rejecting respondent's claim that the Secretary ought to be estopped to deny that the CETA grants were "seed money" because of the representations of her agent, Travelers. The District Court held that it was unreasonable for respondent to believe it could be in effect twice reimbursed for a given expense.7
The Court of Appeals reversed, reaching only the estoppel question. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc. v. Califano, 698 F.2d 615 (CA3 1983). It held that the Government may be estopped by the "affirmative misconduct" of its agents and that Travelers' erroneous advice coupled with its failure to refer the question to the Secretary constituted such misconduct. It rejected as "clearly erroneous" the District Court's finding that it was unreasonable for respondent to rely on Travelers' advice, concluding instead that respondent acted reasonably because the relevant regulation had no clear meaning and respondent had no source other than Travelers to which it could turn for advice.
Estoppel is an equitable doctrine invoked to avoid injustice in particular cases. While a hallmark of the doctrine is its flexible application, certain principles are tolerably clear:
"If one person makes a definite misrepresentation of fact to another person having reason to believe that the other will rely upon it and the other in reasonable reliance upon it does an act . . . the first person is not entitled
* * * * *
"(b) to regain property or its value that the other acquired by the act, if the other in reliance upon the misrepresentation and before discovery of the truth has so changed his position that it would be unjust to deprive him of that which he thus acquired." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 894(1) (1979).8
Thus, the party claiming the estoppel must have relied on its adversary's conduct "in such a manner as to change his position for the worse."9 and that reliance must have been reasonable in that the party claiming the estoppel did not know nor should it have known that its adversary's conduct was misleading.10 See Wilber National Bank v. United States, 294 U.S. 120, 124-125, 55 S.Ct. 362, 364, 79 L.Ed. 798 (1935). When the Government is unable to enforce the law because the conduct of its agents has given rise to an estoppel, the interest of the citizenry as a whole in obedience to the rule of law is undermined. It is for this reason that it is well settled that the Government may not be estopped on the same terms as any other litigant.11 Petitioner urges us to expand this principle into a flat rule that estoppel may not in any circumstances run against the Government. We have left the issue open in the past,12 and do so again today. Though the arguments the Government advances for the rule are substantial, we are hesitant, when it is unnecessary to decide this case, to say that there are no cases in which the public interest in ensuring that the Government can enforce the law free from estoppel might be outweighed by the countervailing interest of citizens in some minimum standard of decency, honor, and reliability in their dealings with their Government.13 But however heavy the burden might be when an estoppel is asserted against the Government, the private party surely cannot prevail without at least demonstrating that the traditional elements of an estoppel are present. We are unpersuaded that that has been done in this case with respect to either respondent's change in position or its reliance on Travelers' advice.
To analyze the nature of a private party's detrimental change in position, we must identify the manner in which reliance on the Government's misconduct has caused the private citizen to change his position for the worse. In this case the consequences of the Government's misconduct were not entirely adverse. Respondent did receive an immediate benefit as a result of the double reimbursement. Its detriment is the inability to retain money that it should never have received in the first place. Thus, this is not a case in which the respondent has lost any legal right, either vested or contingent, or suffered any adverse change in its status.14 When a private party is deprived of something to which it was entitled of right, it has surely suffered a detrimental change in its position. Here respondent lost no rights but merely was induced to do something which could be corrected at a later time.15
There is no doubt that respondent will be adversely affected by the Government's recoupment of the funds that it has already spent. It will surely have to curtail its operations and may even be forced to seek relief from its debts through bankruptcy. However, there is no finding as to the extent of the likely curtailment in the volume of services provided by respondent, much less that respondent will reduce its activities below the level that obtained when it was first advised that the double reimbursement was proper. Respondent may need an extended period of repayment or other modifications in the recoupment process if it is to continue to operate, but questions concerning the Government's method of enforcing collection are not before us. The question is whether the Government has entirely forfeited its right to the money.
A for-profit corporation could hardly base an estoppel on the fact that the Government wrongfully allowed it the interest-free use of taxpayers' money for a period of two or three years, enabling it to expand its operation.16 No more can respondent claim any right to expand its services to levels greater than those it would have provided had the error never occurred. Curtailment of operation does not justify an estoppel when—by respondent's own account—the expansion of its operation was achieved through unlawful access to governmental funds. And even if there will be a reduction below the service provided by respondent prior to its receipt of CETA funds, the record does not foreclose the possibility that the aggregate advantages to the community stemming from respondent's use of the money have more than offset the actual hardship associated with now being required to restore these funds. Respondent cannot raise an estoppel without proving that it will be significantly worse off than if it had never obtained the CETA funds in question.
Justice Holmes wrote: "Men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government." Rock Island, A. & L.R. Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143, 41 S.Ct. 55, 56, 65 L.Ed. 188 (1920). This observation has its greatest force when a private party seeks to spend the Government's money. Protection of the public fisc requires that those who seek public funds act with scrupulous regard for the requirements of law; respondent could expect no less than to be held to the most demanding standards in its quest for public funds. This is consistent with the general rule that those who deal with the Government are expected to know the law and may not rely on the conduct of Government agents contrary to law.17 As a participant in the Medicare program, respondent had a duty to familiarize itself with the legal requirements for cost reimbursement. Since it also had elected to receive reimbursement through Travelers, it also was acquainted with the nature of and limitations on the role of a fiscal intermediary. When the question arose concerning respondent's CETA funds, respondent's own action in consulting Travelers demonstrates the necessity for it to have obtained an interpretation of the applicable regulations; respondent indisputably knew that this was a doubtful question not clearly covered by existing policy statements. The fact that Travelers' advice was erroneous is, in itself, insufficient to raise an estoppel,18 as is the fact that petitioner had not anticipated this problem and made a clear resolution available to respondent.19 There is simply no requirement that the Government anticipate every problem that may arise in the administration of a complex program such as Medicare; neither can it be expected to ensure that every bit of informal advice given by its agents in the course of such a program will be sufficiently reliable to justify expenditure of sums of money as substantial as those spent by respondent.20 Nor was the advice given under circumstances that should have induced respondent's reliance. As a recipient of public funds well acquainted with the role of a fiscal intermediary, respondent knew Travelers only acted as a conduit; it could not resolve policy questions. The relevant statute, regulations, and Reimbursement Manual, with which respondent should have been and was acquainted, made that perfectly clear.21 Yet respondent made no attempt to have the question resolved by the Secretary; it was satisfied with the policy judgment of a mere conduit.22
The appropriateness of respondent's reliance is further undermined because the advice it received from Travelers was oral. It is not merely the possibility of fraud that undermines our confidence in the reliability of official action that is not confirmed or evidenced by a written instrument. Written advice, like a written judicial opinion, requires its author to reflect about the nature of the advice that is given to the citizen, and subjects that advice to the possibility of review, criticism, and reexamination. The necessity for ensuring that governmental agents stay within the lawful scope of their authority, and that those who seek public funds act with scrupulous exactitude, argues strongly for the conclusion that an estoppel cannot be erected on the basis of the oral advice that underlay respondent's cost reports. That is especially true when a complex program such as Medicare is involved, in which the need for written records is manifest.
In sum, the regulations governing the cost reimbursement provisions of Medicare should and did put respondent on ample notice of the care with which its cost reports must be prepared, and the care which would be taken to review them within the relevant 3-year period. Yet respondent prepared those reports on the basis of an oral policy judgment by an official who, it should have known, was not in the business of making policy. That is not the kind of reasonable reliance that would even give rise to an estoppel against a private party. It therefore cannot estop the Government.
Thus, assuming estoppel can ever be appropriately applied against the Government, it cannot be said that the detriment respondent faces is so severe or has been imposed in such an unfair way that petitioner ought to be estopped from enforcing the law in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice REHNQUIST, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring in the judgment.
I entirely agree with the Court that there was no estoppel in favor of respondent by reason of the Government's conduct in this case, because even a private party under like circumstances would not have been estopped. I write separately because I think the Court's treatment of our decided cases in this area gives an inaccurate and misleading impression of what those cases have had to say as to the circumstances, if any, under which the Government may be estopped to enforce the laws.
Sixty-seven years ago, in Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 37 S.Ct. 387, 61 L.Ed. 791 (1917), private parties argued that they had acquired rights in federal lands, contrary to the law, because Government employees had acquiesced in their exercise of those rights. In that case the Court laid down the general principle governing claims of estoppel on behalf of private individuals against the Government: "As a general rule, laches or neglect of duty on the part of officers of the Government is no defense to a suit by it to enforce a public right or protect a public interest. Citations omitted. And, if it be assumed that the rule is subject to exceptions, we find nothing in the cases in hand which fairly can be said to take them out of it as heretofore understood and applied in this court. A suit by the United States to enforce and maintain its policy respecting lands which it holds in trust for all the people stands upon a different plane in this and some other respects from the ordinary private suit to regain the title to real property or to remove a cloud from it. [Citation omitted.]" Id., at 409, 37 S.Ct., at 391.
Since then we have applied that principle in a case where a private party relied on the misrepresentation of a Government agency as to the coverage of a crop insurance policy, a misrepresentation which the Court agreed would have estopped a private insurance carrier. Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 383-386, 68 S.Ct. 1, 2-4, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947). We have applied it in a case where a private party relied on a misrepresentation by a Government employee as to Social Security eligibility, a misrepresentation which resulted in the applicant's losing 12 months of Social Security benefits. Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 101 S.Ct. 1468, 67 L.Ed.2d 685 (1981) (per curiam). And we have applied it on at least three occasions to claims of estoppel in connection with the enforcement of the immigration laws and the denial of citizenship because of the conduct of immigration officials. INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 103 S.Ct. 281, 74 L.Ed.2d 12 (1982) (per curiam); INS v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 94 S.Ct. 19, 38 L.Ed.2d 7 (1973) (per curiam); Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 314-315, 81 S.Ct. 1336, 1340-1341, 6 L.Ed.2d 313 (1961). In none of these cases have we ever held the Government to be estopped by the representations or conduct of its agents. In INS v. Hibi, supra, 414 U.S., at 8, 94 S.Ct., at 21, we noted that it is still an open question whether, in some future case, "affirmative misconduct" on the part of the Government might be grounds for an estoppel. See Montana v. Kennedy, supra, 366 U.S., at 314-315, 81 S.Ct., at 1340-1341.
I agree with the Court that there is no need to decide in this case whether there are circumstances under which the Government may be estopped, but I think that the Court's treatment of that question, ante, at 60-61, gives an impression of hospitality towards claims of estoppel against the Government which our decided cases simply do not warrant. In footnote 12, ante, at 60, the Court intimates that two of our decisions have allowed the Government to be estopped: United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp., 411 U.S. 655, 93 S.Ct. 1804, 36 L.Ed.2d 567 (1973), and Moser v. United States, 341 U.S. 41, 71 S.Ct. 553, 95 L.Ed. 729 (1951). But these cases are not traditional equitable estoppel cases. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp. was a criminal prosecution, and we held that "to the extent that [Government regulations] deprived [the defendant] of fair warning as to what conduct the Government intended to make criminal, we think there can be no doubt that traditional notions of fairness inherent in our system of criminal justice prevent the Government from proceeding with the prosecution." 411 U.S., at 674, 93 S.Ct., at 1816. And the Court's rather cryptic opinion in Moser, holding that an alien who declined to serve in the Armed Forces was not barred from United States citizenship pursuant to a federal statute, expressly rejected any doctrine of estoppel, and rested on the absence of a knowing and intentional waiver of the right to citizenship. 341 U.S., at 47, 71 S.Ct., at 556.
We do not write on a clean slate in this field, and our cases have left open the possibility of estoppel against the Government only in a rather narrow possible range of circumstances. Because I think the Court's opinion, in its efforts to phrase new statements of the circumstances under which the Government may be estopped, casts doubt on these decided cases, I concur only in the judgment.
Congress also authorized petitioner to adjust interim payments on account of previous overpayments or underpayments. § 1395g(a).
"(a) Principle. Unrestricted grants, gifts, and income from endowments should not be deducted from operating costs in computing reimbursable cost. Grants, gifts, or endowment income designated by a donor for paying specific operating costs should be deducted from the particular operating cost or group of costs.
"(b) Definitions—(1) Unrestricted grants, gifts, income from endowment. Unrestricted grants, gifts, and income from endowments are funds, cash or otherwise, given to a provider without restriction by the donor as to their use.
"(2) Designated or restricted grants, gifts, and income from endowments. Designated or restricted grants, gifts, and income from endowments are funds, cash or otherwise, which must be used only for the specific purpose designated by the donor. This does not refer to unrestricted grants, gifts, or income from endowments which have been restricted for a specific purpose by the provider.
"(c) Application. (1) Unrestricted funds, cash or otherwise, are generally the property of the provider to be used in any manner its management deems appropriate and should not be deducted from operating costs. It would be inequitable to require providers to use the unrestricted funds to reduce the payments for care. The use of these funds is generally a means of recovering costs which are not otherwise recoverable.
"(2) Donor-restricted funds which are designated for paying certain hospital operating expenses should apply and serve to reduce these costs or group of costs and benefit all patients who use services covered by the donation. If such costs are not reduced, the provider would secure reimbursement for the same expense twice; it would be reimbursed through the donor-restricted contributions as well as from patients and third-party payers including the title XVIII health insurance program." 42 CFR § 405.423 (1982) (emphasis supplied).
"Seed Money Grants.—Grants designated for the development of new health care agencies or for expansion of services of established agencies are generally referred to as 'seed money' grants. 'Seed money' grants are not deducted from costs in computing allowable costs. These grants are usually made to cover specific operating costs or group[s] of costs for services for a stated period of time. During this time, the provider will develop sufficient patient caseloads to enable continued self-sustaining operation with funds received from Medicare reimbursement as well as from funds received from other patients or other third-party payers." Medicare Provider Reimbursement Manual, HIM-15, Pt. I, § 612.2 (Aug. 1968), reproduced in 1 CCH, Medicare & Medicaid Guide ¶ 5461 (1983).
Presumably because CETA program participants provided services to some individuals not eligible for Medicare benefits, the aggregate amount of CETA reimbursements was substantially larger than the portion for which Medicare reimbursement was claimed. The total amount of reimbursement respondent received in CETA funds was $16,555, $53,952, and $81,118 in 1975, 1976, and 1977, respectively.
From its review of the record the Court of Appeals concluded that respondent had consulted Travelers and was advised that the CETA grants qualified as "seed money" on five separate occasions. However, the District Court made no finding as to the number of times that this advice was requested and received.
The Board also found that the required written notice for 1976 had not been served on respondent, but noted that the Secretary still had time to comply with the notice requirement for that year. A timely notice for 1976 was thereafter served on respondent.
The District Court also held that Travelers was not independently liable to respondent for its incorrect advice.
See also Restatement (Second) of Agency § 8B (1958).
3 J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence § 805, p. 192 (S. Symons ed. 1941); see also id., § 812.
"The truth concerning these material facts must be unknown to the other party claiming the benefit of the estoppel, not only at the time of the conduct which amounts to a representation or concealment, but also at the time when that conduct is acted upon by him. If, at the time when he acted, such party had knowledge of the truth, or had the means by which with reasonable diligence he could acquire the knowledge so that it would be negligence on his part to remain ignorant by not using those means, he cannot claim to have been misled by relying upon the representation or concealment." Id., § 810, at 219 (footnote omitted).
See, e.g., INS v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 8, 94 S.Ct. 19, 21, 38 L.Ed.2d 7 (1973) (per curiam); Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 383, 68 S.Ct. 1, 2, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947).
See INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 19, 103 S.Ct. 281, 284, 74 L.Ed.2d 12 (1982) (per curiam); Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 788, 101 S.Ct. 1468, 1470, 67 L.Ed.2d 685 (1981) (per curiam); Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 315, 81 S.Ct. 1336, 1341, 6 L.Ed.2d 313 (1961). In fact, at least two of our cases seem to rest on the premise that when the Government acts in misleading ways, it may not enforce the law if to do so would harm a private party as a result of governmental deception. See United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corp., 411 U.S. 655, 670-675, 93 S.Ct. 1804, 1814-1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 567 (1973) (criminal defendant may assert as a defense that the Government led him to believe that its conduct was legal); Moser v. United States, 341 U.S. 41, 71 S.Ct. 553, 95 L.Ed. 729 (1951) (applicant cannot be deemed to waive right to citizenship on the basis of a form he signed when he was misled as to the effect signing would have on his rights). See also Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 178-180, 100 S.Ct. 383, 392-393, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979); Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); Branson v. Wirth, 17 Wall. 32, 42, 21 L.Ed. 566 (1873). This principle also underlies the doctrine that an administrative agency may not apply a new rule retroactively when to do so would unduly intrude upon reasonable reliance interests. See NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 295, 94 S.Ct. 1757, 1772, 40 L.Ed.2d 134 (1974); Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Wichita Bd. of Trade, 412 U.S. 800, 807-808, 93 S.Ct. 2367, 2374-2375, 37 L.Ed.2d 350 (1973) (plurality opinion); SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 203, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1580, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947).
See generally St. Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U.S. 208, 229, 82 S.Ct. 289, 301, 7 L.Ed.2d 240 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting) ("Our Government should not by picayunish haggling over the scope of its promise, permit one of its arms to do that which, by any fair construction, the Government has given its word that no arm will do. It is no less good morals and good law that the Government should turn square corners in dealing with the people than that the people should turn square corners in dealing with their government"); Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S., at 387-388, 68 S.Ct., at 4-5 (Jackson, J., dissenting) ("It is very well to say that those who deal with the Government should turn square corners. But there is no reason why the square corners should constitute a one-way street"); Brandt v. Hickel, 427 F.2d 53, 57 (CA9 1970) ("To say to these appellants, 'The joke is on you. You shouldn't have trusted us,' is hardly worthy of our great government"); Menges v. Dentler, 33 Pa. 495, 500 (1859) ("Men naturally trust in their government, and ought to do so, and they ought not to suffer for it"). See also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154-155, 92 S.Ct. 763, 766, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972).
This case is, therefore, plainly distinguishable from Moser v. United States, 341 U.S. 41, 71 S.Ct. 553, 95 L.Ed. 729 (1951), in which the petitioner "was led to believe that he would not thereby lose his rights to citizenship." Id., at 46, 71 S.Ct., at 556.
See Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S., at 789, 101 S.Ct., at 1471 (per curiam).
See United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70, 61 S.Ct. 102, 108, 85 L.Ed. 40 (1940); Sutton v. United States, 256 U.S. 575, 41 S.Ct. 563, 65 L.Ed. 1099 (1921); Pine River Logging Co. v. United States, 186 U.S. 279, 291, 22 S.Ct. 920, 925, 46 L.Ed. 1164 (1902); Hart v. United States, 95 U.S. 316, 24 L.Ed. 479 (1877). See also Automobile Club v. Commissioner, 353 U.S. 180, 77 S.Ct. 707, 1 L.Ed.2d 746 (1957).
"Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rule-making power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority." Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S., at 384, 68 S.Ct., at 3.
See United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 39-40, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 1668-1669, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947); United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S., at 70, 61 S.Ct., at 108; United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 31-32, 60 S.Ct., at 757; Wilber National Bank v. United States, 294 U.S. 120, 123-124, 55 S.Ct. 362, 363-364, 79 L.Ed. 798 (1935); Utah v. United States, 284 U.S. 534, 545-546, 52 S.Ct. 232, 235, 76 L.Ed. 469 (1932); Jeems Bayou Fishing & Hunting Club v. United States, 260 U.S. 561, 564, 43 S.Ct. 205, 206, 67 L.Ed. 402 (1923); Sutton v. United States, 256 U.S., at 579, 41 S.Ct. 563, 564, 65 L.Ed. 1099 (1921); Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 409, 37 S.Ct. 387, 391, 61 L.Ed. 791 (1917); Pine River Logging Co. v. United States, 186 U.S., at 291, 22 S.Ct., at 925; Hart v. United States, 95 U.S., at 318-319, 24 L.Ed. 479; Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall. 269, 274, 19 L.Ed. 453 (1869); Lee v. Munroe, 7 Cranch 366, 3 L.Ed. 373 (1813).
See Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S., at 789-790, 101 S.Ct., at 1471-1472 (per curiam); Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 314-315, 81 S.Ct. 1336, 1340-1341, 6 L.Ed.2d 313 (1961).
See INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 103 S.Ct. 281, 74 L.Ed.2d 12 (1982) (per curiam); INS v. Hibi, 414 U.S. 5, 94 S.Ct. 19, 38 L.Ed.2d 7 (1973) (per curiam).
See generally Schweiker v. Hansen, supra.
Under the law of agency, a principal may be bound by the acts of an agent only if that agent acted with actual or apparent authority. Restatement (Second) of Agency §§ 145, 159 (1958). Travelers had neither with respect to the interpretation of the regulations in question. See also id., § 141, Comment b (principal may be estopped to deny lack of actual or apparent authority only when it negligently leads third parties to believe authority exists).
The Court of Appeals believed that respondent did all it could have done since it was unable to deal with the Secretary directly. However, that belief, even if accurate, would not make respondent's reliance on Travelers' policy judgment any more reasonable. Moreover, given the role of Travelers as a conduit for information, it is far from clear that had respondent specifically requested that Travelers pass on its question to the Department, Travelers would not have been under a duty to do so. Even if there were no such duty, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Travelers would have been unwilling to honor such a request.


text:
Where To Get The 100% Valid 220-902 exam dumps? Come to PassLeader! Here you can get the latest version 220-902 PDF dumps and 220-902 VCE dumps, we guarantee our 1219q 220-902 exam questions are the latest and you will get all the new questions and answers, which are not available on other wesites now! Now try our best 220-902 exam dumps with free VCE simulator and you will acquire your 220-902 certification exam immediately.
p.s. Free 220-902 Exam Dumps Collection On Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-ob6L_QjGLpaFRNM0lhOVk3VDA
Which of the following Control Panel items will allow for easy streaming of pictures, music, and videos to other Windows 7 PCs?
A. Ease of Access Center
B. AutoPlay
C. Sync Center
D. HomeGroup
Answer: D
The folder "Documents" is shared. The user can create and delete documents when on the local PC, but can only read documents when accessing them remotely. Which of the following should be adjusted?
A. Read Only Attribute
B. Share Permissions
C. Firewall Settings
D. NTFS Permissions
Answer: B
Which of the following security controls would be an example of the least privilege principle on a home PC?
A. Install antispyware on the PC.
B. Create a standard user account for kids.
C. Store all financial data in a separate folder.
D. Disable the firewall for online gaming.
Answer: B
A user regularly has to walk away from their computer and is worried someone may access their workstation. Which of the following would BEST prevent this?
A. Lock the workstation
B. Shutdown the computer
C. Logon using the unprivileged guest account
D. Set the screensaver password
Answer: A
A user has an LCD and a CRT monitor attached to their workstation. The colors are slightly off on the CRT but not the LCD. Which of the following controls should be used in troubleshooting?
A. Geometry
B. Contrast
C. Brightness
D. Degauss
Answer: D
A user is installing Windows 7 on a PC with a RAID card. The user has verified all of the cables are connected correctly, but the installation media does not detect any hard drives. Which of the following should the user do to help detect the hard drives?
A. Press F8 when prompted
B. Hit the refresh button to force a re-detect
C. Enable PATA in the BIOS
D. Select load driver
Answer: D
Which of the following accounts is MOST restrictive?
A. Administrator
B. Standard User
C. Guest
D. Power User
Answer: C
A technician is tasked with installing a legacy application on a Windows 7 computer. When the technician tries to install the legacy application, an error is received that the application cannot be installed because the OS is not supported. Which of the following should the technician do FIRST to try to get the application installed in Windows 7?
A. Install the application in safe mode
B. Install the application with compatibility mode
C. Install the latest Windows service packs and updates
D. Install Windows Security updates on the system
Answer: B
A user has not received any new emails on their smartphone in the last two days. The user is able to access the Internet without any problems. Which of the following should the user do FIRST?
A. Restart the smartphone
B. Reconfigure the smartphone email account
C. Resynchronize the smart phone
D. Update the operating system
Answer: A
Which of the following is the BEST tool to verify the cable is plugged into the correct port on the patch panel?
A. Cable certifier
B. Punch down
C. Toner probe
D. Cable tester
Answer: C
Which of the following is the BEST tool for a technician to use to make sure the network wires are securely fastened in a wall jack?
A. Crimper
B. Small flat screwdriver
C. Wire strippers
D. Punch down
Answer: D
Which of the following is the BEST tool for a technician to use to make sure the network cable is securely fastened in the RJ-45 connector?
A. Cable tester
B. Crimper
C. Small flat screwdriver
D. Punch down
Answer: B
A technician is using the troubleshooting theory to help resolve a problem that is occurring with a client's machine. The technician has verified system functionally. Which of the following is the NEXT step in the troubleshooting theory?
A. Identify the problem
B. Establish a plan of action to resolve the problem
C. Test the theory to determine cause
D. Document findings, actions, and outcomes
Answer: D
A client reports that their VoIP phone screen displays duplicate IP address. Which of the following is the FIRST action to try to resolve this problem?
A. Change MAC address settings
B. Call the vendor
C. Try another LAN connection
D. Reboot the phone
Answer: D
After an installation of a video adapter, the screen on a Windows 7 system cannot be seen. Which of the following Windows 7 functions will resolve this?
A. Component Management
B. Startup Repair
C. Device Manager
D. Task Manager
Answer: B
A user gets an error message that the trust relationship to the domain has been broken. Which of the following can be done to resolve this from the client desktop?
A. Re-join the computer to the domain
B. Reboot the PC as the domain will automatically rebuild the relationship
C. Update the BIOS using the latest version
D. Run CHKDSK
Answer: A
Which of the following resources is MOST important for accessing remote virtual environments on a client machine?
A. Network speed
B. CPU speed
C. High speed memory
D. Drive space
Answer: A
A computer program that functions normally while quietly installing malicious software on a machine is known as a:
A. DDoS attack.
B. Worm.
C. Phishing attack.
D. Trojan.
Answer: D
Which of the following security threats is BEST mitigated through proper user training?
A. A Worm
B. Rootkits
C. Social Engineering
D. Browser Adware
Answer: C
A user sent an email requesting that a technician check if a computer is on and connected to the Internet so the user can login from home. Which of the following commands in the command prompt would a technician use to verify if the computer is on and connected without having to go to the computer?
Answer: C
Download the newest PassLeader 220-902 dumps from passleader.com now! 100% Pass Guarantee!
220-902 PDF dumps & 220-902 VCE dumps: http://www.passleader.com/220-902.html (1219 Q&As) (New Questions Are 100% Available and Wrong Answers Have Been Corrected!)
p.s. Free 220-902 Exam Dumps Collection On Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-ob6L_QjGLpaFRNM0lhOVk3VDA

subset: commoncrawl


text: [from automotive or musical usage] To optimize a program or system for a particular environment, esp. by adjusting numerical parameters designed as hooks for tuning, e.g., by changing #define lines in C. One may tune for time (fastest execution), tune for space (least memory use), or tune for configuration (most efficient use of hardware). See hot spot, hand-hacking.


text: Ethnic or Appalachian? Upscale or down-home? A bounty of delicious options await. The Charleston area's bustling culinary scene puts the delicious "Almost Heaven" in "Hip, Historic…Almost Heaven." From high-end dining and award-winning barbecue to diverse ethnic fare and the state's best margaritas, these mouthwatering selections will have you coming back for seconds. And itching to share this diverse dining scene with all you friends.


text:
Friday, March 11, 2011
The Goal Is To Fail
I have to tell ya that this has been the most refreshing week in a long time when it comes to my social media life. In looking for a new place to go after this blogger blog, it has been a lot of fun just to bounce around a lot of possibilities.
Looking back, I know that I lost a little passion to write blog posts. I lost the excitement to do a regular podcast. I lost the courage to try to innovate. Too often, I would worry about "rocking the boat" or to change the status quo.
What happened to me was one of my biggest fears in social media: Yes, I was taking myself a little too seriously. I thought I was one of those guys who got half a million hits a month - when in reality, I was getting less than one percent of that.
It's kind of fun thinking about starting over (to a point). The topics to talk about and to write about have got my creative brain working to a point where it hasn't been in a few months - really. Why? Because I have set such low expectations for myself, it's not even funny.
Not only do I expect to fail in some of these ideas, the goal is to fail, and I expect to be really embarrassed and humilated about some of the ideas that I'm going to try to get done. Why? Because I want to learn from them and do it better the next time.
I think I've rambled on enough. Shout out to all my friends at SouthBySouthwest. I'm on call this weekend, so I couldn't fly down there right now, even if I wanted to. But, that's ok, because my new website will be launched on Monday and I'm super excited about it! Want to find out where it's at? Well, you just have to subscribe to my twitter feed to find out...
5 comments:
- Mike Moore said...
Best of luck on your new blog. I'm sure you will find new energy. It will rock.
- Friday, March 11, 2011 2:19:00 PM
- Sarebear said...
This post is AWESOME. I wish I had a smidgen of this attitude; at least, not being afraid of failure, because it's not an END, it's a LEARNING process. Alas, I am TERRIFIED of it, so I am TERRIFIED to TRY. Thus, I am paralyzed in my life. Then again, I suffer from anxiety disorders, and those are partially based on chemistry in the body but it can be changed with thinking.
ANYWAY. I congratulate you and hopefully one day I'll develop a smidge of this too! - Saturday, March 12, 2011 2:15:00 PM
- Cams said...
This blog is really an interesting one. It is because of your blog that we are here reading your post. And with the help of social media also we gain information, education, news, etc., by electronic media and print media. They are relatively inexpensive and accessible to enable anyone (even private individuals) to publish or access information, compared to industrial media, which generally require significant resources to publish information.
- Thursday, March 24, 2011 5:53:00 AM
- Dictation Equipment said...
I have enjoyed reading your blog, best of luck for whatever you decide!
- Monday, November 21, 2011 5:03:00 PM
- Dan Scarfo said...
Thanks for sharing this valuable information with the comunity.
- Friday, February 03, 2012 11:54:00 AM


text:
WTO, GMO and Total Spectrum Dominance
WTO rules put free-trade of agribusiness above national health concerns
By F. William Engdahl, March 29, 2006
(Previously published in GlobalResearch)
In February, a private organization with unique powers over world industry, trade and agriculture, issued a Preliminary Draft Ruling on a three-year-old case. The case was brought by the Bush Administration in May 2003 against European Union rules hindering the spread of genetically-engineered plants and foods. The WTO ruling, which is to be final in December, will have more influence over life and death on this planet than most imagine.
The ruling was issued by a special three-man tribunal of the World Trade Organization, in Geneva Switzerland. The WTO decision will open the floodgates to the forced introduction of genetically-manipulated plants and food products-- GMO, or genetically-modified organisms as they are technically known-- into the worlds most important agriculture production region, the European Union.
The WTO case arose from a formal complaint filed by the governments of the United States, Canada and Argentinathree of the worlds most GMO-polluted areas.
The WTO three-judge panel, chaired by Christian Haberli, a mid-level Swiss Agriculture Office bureaucrat, ruled that the EU had applied a 'de facto' moratorium on approvals of GMO products between June 1999 and August 2003, contradicting Brussels' claim that no such moratorium existed. The WTO judges argued the EU was guilty of not following EU rules, causing undue delay in following WTO obligations.
The secretive WTO tribunal also ruled, according to the leaked document, that in terms of product-specific measures, the completion of formal EU government approval to plant specific GMO plants had also been unduly delayed in the cases of 24 of 27 specific GMO products that the European Commission in Brussels had before it.
The WTO tribunal recommended that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the world trade policeman, call on the EU to bring its practices into conformity with its obligations under the (WTOs) SPS Agreement. Failure to comply with WTO demands can result in hundreds of millions dollars in annual fines.
Trade über Alles
SPS stands for Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. On the surface it sounds as if health concerns were part of the WTO considerations. The reality is the opposite. Only minimal health standards are to be allowed to be enforced under WTO free trade rules, and any nation attempting anything more strict, such as the EU ban on import of US hormone-fed beef, can be found guilty by WTO of an unfair restraint of trade.
Today the EU must pay a fine of $150 million yearly to maintain its ban on the US hormone-fed beef. WTO rules in effect put free-trade interests of agribusiness above national health concerns. That means, de facto, that the EU Commission must complete its approval process for the 24 outstanding applications to plant GMO crops in Europe once the final ruling is made later this year.
That will mean a flood of new GMO products in EU agriculture. Monsanto, Syngenta and other GMO multinationals have already taken advantage of lax national rules in new EU member countries such as Poland to get the GMO foot-in-the door. Now it will be far easier for them. Pro-GMO governments such as that of Angela Merkel in Germany can claim they are only following WTO orders.
What is the significance of this WTO ruling, assuming it remains as is in final form by December? It represents a major, dangerous wedge into largely GMO-free EU agriculture, permitting powerful agribusiness multinationals such as Monsanto, Dow Chemicals or DuPont to overrun national or regional efforts to halt the march of GMO. For this reason, it is potentially the most damaging decision in the history of world trade agreements.
A strategic Washington matter
The case first came before the World Trade Organization in a filing made by the Bush Administration in May 2003, just as the military occupation of Iraq was entering a new phase. The US President held a rare press conference to tell the world that the US was formally charging the EU, accusing the EU moratorium on GMO approval of being a cause of starvation in Africa. Their twisted logic argued that so long as a major industrialized region such as the EU resisted planting GMO crops domestically, it caused sceptical African governments to harden their resistance to US food aid in the form of GMO crops. That, Bush charged, was causing unnecessary starvation in Africa because some countries refused USDA food aid in form of GMO crop surpluses.
The issue of breaking resistance barriers in the European Union to the proliferation of GMO crops has been a matter of the highest strategic priority for those controlling policy in Washington since 1992 when then-President George H.W. Bush , the father of the current President, issued an Executive Order proclaiming GMO plants such as soybeans or GMO corn to be substantially equivalent to ordinary corn or soybeans, and, therefore, not needing any special health safety study or testing.
That substantial equivalence ruling by President Bush in 1992 opened the floodgates to the unregulated spread of GMO across the American agriculture landscape. As basis for its 2003 WTO filing against the EU, Washington, on behalf of agribusiness interests including Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and others, charged the EU with violation of the American substantial equivalence doctrine!
So long as the worlds second most powerful agriculture trade region, the EU, firmly resisted the introduction of untested GM plants, the global spread of the GMO revolution would remain strategically crippled. For the past decades, breaking up the system of domestic agriculture protection of the EU, centered around its Common Agriculture Program, has been a strategic political and trade goal of the US Government and US-based agribusiness. The creation of the WTO in 1995, a result of the GATT Uruguay Round trade talks during the 1980s, opened the possibility for the first time of forcing the EU to drop its defenses on US threat of sanctions.
The secret process behind WTO
When the final WTO Panel ruling is published and official this coming December, assuming no major changes take place in the 1,050 page preliminary ruling of February 7, a major barrier to the global spread of largely untested and highly unstable genetically modified foods will be gone. This will become unstoppable, as it was in the USA, unless political pressure from a sceptical European population forces the EU Commission to pay a WTO fine or penalty, in lieu of acceding to the demands of the WTO.
Its relevant to ask what is this body, WTO which exercises such enormous power over laws of nations? What is its mandate and who controls its policies?
The negotiations of world trade since the establishment of the Bretton Woods postwar monetary system at the end of World War II, had been made through a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a series of trade rounds on specific issues between specific member countries. In September 1986, on US -led pressure, the Uruguay Round of GATT was launched in Punta del Este Uruguay. The result was creation of a new, powerful private international agency, the WTO.
In late 1994 the US Congress voted to join the WTO, the new permanent trade body established by the GATT Uruguay Round. There was almost no debate. It was clear in Washington who would dominate the new body. Unlike GATT which had no enforcement power, and which required unanimous member vote for sanctions, the WTO would be given tough sanction and enforcement powers. More important, how it reached decisions was to remain secret, with no democratic oversight. The most vital issues of economic life on the planet were to be decided behind closed doors in Geneva WTO headquarters or in Washington and Brussels. It could choose its experts as it saw fit and ignore what evidence it saw fit. In the EU GMO dispute, three of four initial scientific experts chosen were from either US or UK institutions, two countries most in favour of GMO. (1)
Two years earlier, in 1992, at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Rio, 175 UN governments signed a convention to on the safe handling and treatment of GMOs, a major vote of the world community to examine the health and economic impacts of GMO agriculture before it could be allowed in a country. The US Government of President George Bush Sr. aggressively opposed the CBD, arguing that a Biosafety Protocol was unnecessary. Under the CBD agreement, a country could prohibit GMO imports.
The GMO industry, led by Monsanto, DuPont and Dow of the US, sabotaged this agreement. A group of six countries controlling the world Biotech or GMO marketCanada, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia Chile and USA-- forced a clause into the CBD text which would subordinate the Biosafety Protocol to the WTO. They argued that limiting trade based on unproven biosafety concerns should be considered a barrier to trade under WTO rules!
Traditional liability law holds that a new product must first be proven safe before being allowed on market. This WTO rule placing the burden of proof not on the producer of a new GMO product, but on the potential victims, turned prudence and health safety issues on its head. In the end the US destroyed the Biosafety Protocol by refusing to include soybeans and corn, 99% of all GMO products, making the Protocol near worthless regarding GMO health issues.
The WTO serves as the weapon for the powerful coalition of Washington and the powerful private GMO giants, led by Monsanto. Earlier in 1992, Bush, on advice of Monsanto and the emerging US GM giant companies, ruled that GM organisms were substantially equivalent to ordinary seeds for soybeans or corn and such. As substantially equivalent, GM seeds required no special testing or health controls before being put on the market. This was crucial to the future of Monsanto and the GMO lobby.
By Presidential Executive Order, the US had defined GMO seeds as harmless and hence not needing to be regulated for health and safety. It made sure this principle was carried over into the new WTO in the form of the WTOs Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS), which stated, Food standards and measures aimed at protecting people from pests or animals can potentially be used as a deliberate barrier to trade. The US charge against the EU in the present GMO dispute charged the EU with violation of the SPS agreement of WTO.
Other WTO rules in the Agreement to Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) forbid member countries from using domestic standards or testing, food safety laws, product standards, calling them an unfair barrier to trade.
The impact of those two US-mandated WTO rulings meant that Washington could threaten that any government restricting import of GM plants on grounds they might pose threats to health and safety of their population, could be found to be in violation of WTO free trade rules!
This is what the US Government, on behalf of its agribusiness private corporations has done against the EU restrictions on GMO.
Under the WTOs Technical Barriers to Trade, the US has argued that no labelling of GMO plants was required, as the plants have not been substantially transformed from normal or non-GM soya, corn or other plants. This conveniently ignored the fact that Washington simultaneously insisted that GMOs, due to the genetic engineering process, are sufficiently transformed, i.e. NOT equivalent, to be patented as original, and protected under WTO TRIPS intellectual property patent rights. (2).
The Agreement on Agriculture
The heart of the WTO machinery is the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), which under the sheeps wool of free trade, hides the wolf of private agri-business GMO monopoly power. Under AoA rules, since 1995 poorer developing countries have been forced to eliminate quotas and slash protective tariffs, at the same time the Bush Administration voted to increase its subsidies to US agribusiness farming by $80 billions.
The net effect has been to allow the powerful monopoly of five grain trading giantsCargill, ADM, Bunge, Andre (formerly) and Louis Dreyfusto dramatically increase the dumping of food commodities globally, ruining millions of family farmers worldwide in the process, while maximizing their private corporate profits.
The AoA of WTO ignores the reality of agriculture markets which are qualitatively different from, say, the market for cars or CDs. Agriculture and national food safety and security are at the heart of a nations sovereignty, and its obligation to its own citizens to support the basics of life. Agriculture is unique in this respect, along with water rights.
The AoA was written by the US-dominated agribusiness giants such as Cargill, ADM, Monsanto and DuPont, to serve the agenda of these global supranational private companies, whose sole aim is to maximize profits and market monopoly, regardless of human consequences. Their focus is the domination of the $1 trillion global agriculture trade. The actual author of the AoA of WTO was Daniel Amstutz, a former Vice President of Cargill Grain, who was at the time in the Washington US Trade Representatives Office, before going back to the grain trade.(3).
Who controls WTO?
The essential control of WTO decisions, decisions which have the full power of international law and can force governments to repeal local laws for health, safety and such is held by private interests, by a global US-centered agribusiness cartel. There are no public or democratic checks on the power of WTO.
On paper, WTO rules are made by a consensus of all 134 member countries. In reality, four countries, led by the United States, decide all important agriculture and other trade issues. As in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, Washington exercises decisive control behind the scenes. And it does so in the interest of the private agribusiness cartel.
The four WTO controlling countries, known as the QUAD countries, are USA, Canada, Japan and the EU. In the QUAD, in turn, the giant agri-business multinationals exercise controlling influence, most clearly in Washington.
The WTO is designed to impose the wishes of giant private companies over the legitimate democratic will of entire nations and duly-elected governments. WTO has one mission: enforce rules of a free trade, an agenda which is in no way genuinely free but rather suits the needs of agribusiness giants.
Under the secretive WTO rules, countries can challenge anothers laws for restricting their trade. The case is then heard by a tribunal or court of three trade bureaucrats. They are usually influential corporate lawyers with pro-free trade bias. The lawyers have no conflict of interest rules binding them, such that a Monsanto lawyer can rule on a case of material interest to Monsanto.
Further, there is no rule that the judges of WTO respect any national laws of any country. The three judges meet in secret without revealing the time or location. All court documents are confidential and are not published unless one party releases it. It is a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition, but with far more power.
The EU banned the import of US beef treated with growth and other hormones, and the US lodged a formal WTO complaint. There was a long report from independent scientists showing that the hormones added to US beef were cancer-causing. The WTO three judge panel ruled that the EU did not present a valid scientific case to refuse import, and the EU was forced to pay $150 million annually for lost US profits. (4).
The powerful private interests who control WTO agriculture policy prefer to remain in the background as little-publicized NGOs. One of the most influential in creating the WTO is a little-publicized organization called the IPC-- the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, shortened to International Policy Council.
The IPC was created in 1987 to lobby for the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at the Uruguay GATT talks. The IPC demanded removal of high tariff barriers in developing countries, remaining silent on the massive government subsidy to agribusiness in the USA.
A look at the IPC membership explains what interests it represents. The IPC Chairman is Robert Thompson, former Assistant Secretary US Department of Agriculture and former Presidential economic adviser. Also included in the IPC are Bernard Auxenfans, Chief Operating Officer, Monsanto Global Agricultural Company and Past Chairman of Monsanto Europe S.A.; Allen Andreas of ADM/Toepfer; Andrew Burke of Bunge (US); Dale Hathaway former USDA official and head IFPRI (US).
Other IPC members include Heinz Imhof, chairman of Syngenta (CH); Rob Johnson of Cargill and USDA Agriculture Policy Advisory Council; Franz Fischler Former Commissioner for Agriculture, European Commission; Guy Legras (France) former EU Director General Agriculture; Donald Nelson of Kraft Foods (US); Joe OMara of USDA, Hiroshi Shiraiwa of Mitsui & Co Japan; Jim Starkey former Assistant US Trade Representative; Hans Joehr, Nestles head of agriculture; Jerry Steiner of Monsanto (US). Members Emeritus include Ann Veneman, former Bush Administration Secretary of Agriculture and former board member of Calgene, creator of the Flavr Savr genetically-modified tomato.
The IPC is controlled by US-based agribusiness giants which benefit from the rules they drafted for WTO trade. In Washington itself, the USDA no longer represents interests of small family farmers. It is the lobby of giant global agribusiness. The USDA is a revolving door for these private agribusiness giants to shape friendly policies. GMO policy is the most blatant example.
Brussels also dominated by GMO lobby
The power of the giant GMO companies and US-centered agribusiness companies extends to control of key policies in Brussels at the European Commission. Typical is the fact that former EU Agricuolture Commissioner Franz Fischler is a member of the powerful pro-GMO IPC.
For years it has been common knowledge among EU farm experts that grain policy was not set by national governments but by the Big Five private grain traders led by Cargill and ADM. Now the powerful weight of Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and the GMO lobby has been added. This is clear in the recent announcement of a new EU program, SAFEFOODS, a successor to the controversial pro-GMO ENTRANSFOOD project. ENTRANSFOOD was set up to facilitate market introduction of GMOs in Europe, and therefore to bring the European (sic) industry into a competitive position.
ENTRANSFOOD, now called the more innocuous SAFEFOODS, claims to combine different views on GMO food. In reality, its key Working Group 1, responsible for Safety Testing of Transgenic Foods consists of representatives not from independent consumer organizations, but from Monsanto, Unilever, Bayer Corp., Syngenta and BIBRA International, a consultancy close to agribusiness and the pharmaceutical industry.
As well, Dr. Harry Kuiper, a Dutch scientist member of the food safety GMO group of SAFEFOODS in Brussels, is Coordinator of SAFEFOODS. Kuiper chairs the EU European Food Safety Authority GMO Panel. He also has also been leading the vicious slander attack campaign to discredit genetic scientist Dr Arpad Pusztai who dared to go public with alarming evidence of organ damage from rats fed GMO potatoes and was fired on the intervention of Monsanto in 1999.(5).
The WTO today is nothing more than the global policeman for the powerful GMO lobby and the agribusiness firms tied to it.
With the new German coalition government under Chancellor Angela Merkel and Agriculture Minister Horst Seehofer now officially on record supporting the role of Germany as a future leader in biotech crops and GMO, the impact of the latest WTO ruling on food safety in the EU and beyond has put European and hence, world food safety world in danger.
1.Abreu, Marcelo de Paiva, Brazil, the GATT and the WTO: History and Prospects, September 1998, Department of Economics, PUC, Rio de Janeiro, No. 392.
2. GMOs and the WTO: Overruling the Right to say No, By World Development Movement, November 1999, www.wdm.org.uk .
3. Murphy, Sophia, WTO Agreement on Agriculture: Suitable Model for a Global Food System? Foreign Policy in Focus, v.7, no. 8, June 2002.
4. Montague, Peter, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO, The WTO and Free Trade, Environmental Research Foundation in www.garynull.com .
5. PR Operation on GM Foods again exposes EFSA industry-bias, Press release, 29.12.2004. www.gmwatch.org.


text:
Drumroll please!
If you've been following along, you know that I was hired to do an interior design job for a dental office. Hope you're still drumrolling in your head because it's that big of a deal.
The project is done! Complete. Fin. Yay! Whoohoo! Celebration time!
It took me a little under a month and a half, working only on the weekends (since I'm back at work full-time now too). Best part, the clients (John & Mia) loved it! When you're doing something you love (yes, I really enjoy designing), even working through the weekends is fun. I felt in my element when I was covered with paint, caulk all over my hands, and feet black from walking the dirty floors. I'd spend hours researching furniture, color palettes, and design ideas. And I enjoyed every moment! The hardest part of this project was knowing when to stop. Obviously there's still so much to I can do, but there has to be an end right?
Let's not waste time. Here's the big reveal!
Before Images:
Umm please make note of this weird green carpet…
Now also keep in mind that all the cabinets are teal. I decided to keep them as is because many harsh chemicals go on this surface in order to keep things sanitary. I didn't want the cabinets to start peeling if we were to paint them a different color.
With the teal in the color scheme, we needed to make sure that teal was incorporated but not too much or it would overwhelm. While doing some research, I put together this palette.
Perfect right? And we were set to go! Seafoam was used in the main waiting room with gold highlights. Peach was used in the patient rooms, and champagne is a great neutral to go throughout the office. I ordered a Notice Board Wooden Frame Singapore – LTC Office Supplies on their website to get a bigger picture of the most important decisions made here.
Here's the waiting room now. This is the first thing you see when you walk in through the front door.
This is the opposite corner. That colored curtain was originally a shower curtain! I sewed it, and now it's another pop of color in the main room.
Close up of the corner seat. I love the design of that chair and the cute little ottoman for storage. I've also gotten into watercolor painting so I made some artwork for the room. I love wall stencils as a design element (yup, I hand-painted it)!
Here's some space for magazines and brochures. I love the disposition of this table (especially love that vase for flowers!).
Oh and remember that hideous green carpet? Look at this beautiful laminate wood with a tinge of grey. Hello gorgeous… Later I added an old beige carpet after getting it cleaned from the local Carpet Cleaning in San Diego. Here are the patient rooms! I wanted to keep it simple because each room already gets fantastic sunlight. A little bit of art and a colored wall changed the entire room.
A close up of my art gallery ^^^
This is also another piece I did for the hallway. I call it, "In the end, there's always Love."
Of course I didn't forget the bathroom!
Some goodies for clients -lotion and sanitizer and lots of hooks for jackets and purses (I personally appreciate when people do that!). And some bathroom wall art for your viewing pleasure! These are my favorite painting so far…
It was such a great opportunity to work and showcase some of my own personal designs; I'm grateful to John and Mia for trusting me in this new stage of their life of opening a dental space.
What do you think about the design? If you've done some interior design work, do you have any advice for me?
Come back this week for some office DIYs!
If you're interested in some of the products featured in this post, you can find them in the links below.
Main Room: Natural linen sofa, scalloped dot design curtain, magazine wire holder, tufted storage ottoman, upholstered chair, gold pendant lamp, coat rack, wall stencil, vase/console table/basket/translucent curtains from Home Goods, Balmy Seas paint by Behr
Patient rooms: Frames from Michael's, Beach Trail paint by Behr
Bathroom: Fluted charger, table/wastebasket/hooks from Home Goods, teal frames from Target


text:
Daytona Crew
The Ullman Daytona Crew Seat is a cost effective solution for providing state-of-the-art shock mitigation and protection. It is designed to be used in limited spaces and to give shock mitigation for high speed boats. The Daytona Seat is a monocoque glass fibre shell with vinyl upholstery. It is ergonomically designed to follow the shape of the body and put the user in the best seating posture possible.
The seating geometry is designed to give passengers the optimal body posture for handling both static and dynamic loads. The Ullman Semi-Active Progressive Shock Mitigation System with twin shock absorbers provides high levels of comfort in extreme sea conditions. The Ullman Daytona suspension mechanism provides 150 mm of travel and optimal lateral suspension.
The whole Ullman marine seating range is specified and produced with high quality materials. The Daytona spring unit is manufactured from multi composites and stainless steel (316). The progressive damper is manufactured from aluminium (5077) and stainless steel (316). The upholstery uses water resistant vinyl for the external surfaces over multi-layer foam for optimal comfort. The standard seat colour is black with black vinyl upholstery.
Optional accessories for the Ullman Daytona seat include black anodized aluminium frame, stainless steel or black insulated handles. Heavy duty water resistant vinyl upholstery can be specified for open cockpits. Seat belt options include 4 point Air Tech safety belts or a 5 point Race Certified harness.
Daytona Crew features
- Optimizing posture for impact protection and comfort.
- GRP Monocoque Shell
- Ullman Semi Active Progressive Shock Mitigation System – Twin progressive dampers
- Designed to fit limited and closed cabins.
- No corrosive materials used in any components.
- Durable and cost effective
Important features
- All Ullman Seats are designed to protect the operator from getting injured.
- The seat design optimizes your body posture, while the spring and damping system takes care of the high forces during impact.


text:
Cyber Security Awareness Month - Day 6 ports 67&68 udp - bootp and dhcp
DHCP is a very commonly used protocol for the automatic assignment of TCP/IP configuration options. DHCP is defined in RFC 2131. "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides a framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCPIP network. DHCP is based on the Bootstrap Protocol (BOOTP) [7], adding the capability of automatic allocation of reusable network addresses and additional configuration options [19]. DHCP captures the behavior of BOOTP relay agents [7, 21], and DHCP participants can interoperate with BOOTP participants [9]." DHCP extensions for IPv6 is defined in RFC 3315.
Common values include:
- IP address
- Subnet mask
- Default gateway (router)
- DNS servers
- DNS domain name
- Lease time
- 802.1P L2 Priority
- Bootfile-Name
- TFTP Server IP address
DHCP is not without its issues, here are some of them:
- DHCP is a UDP based protocol and is easily spoofed
- DHCP lease exhaustion/starvation Denial of Service attacks
- Rogue DHCP server responding to clients, the sky is the limit with this attack
- Spoofed RELEASE packets Denial of Service attacks
- DISCOVER and REQUEST are broadcast, everyone hears them and anyone can respond
- No concept of authentication
- Unless Layer2 security is enforced rogue clients get a lease too
- Assigning rogue DNS server IPs to clients, allowing pharming attacks among others
- Vulnerabilities in the DHCP client, some allowing remote arbitrary code execution
- Vulnerabilities in the DHCP service, some allowing remote arbitrary code execution
Please contact us if you have any comments or would like to add to this diary entry.
A reader wrote in "PiXiE uses Wake-On-LAN to turn on machines after they power down, then feeds them a rootkit over BOOTP when they try to network boot (many systems automatically try network boot when woken-on-LAN." A presentation can be found here: PiXiE: A Self-Propagating Network Boot Virus for Windows
Adrien de Beaupré
Intru-shun.ca Inc.


text:
Watch Pat, Terry, and Gordon on your iPod as they bring you amazing stories and celebrity interviews.
Have you experienced the presence of God?
Ron DiCianni: Painting the Resurrection?
Become a CBN partner and receive The Transforming Word: Verses to Overcome Fear and Experience Peace, our special DVD/CD gift to you. CBN Partners are making a difference sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Find out how.
Saved By Little Faith
Begin a Faith Relationship with God
In the mood for more miracles? Read other Amazing Stories.
CBN.com It was like an explosion. An SUV speeding at over 100 miles an hour ripped through the concrete wall of a music store. Rick and Teresa Hester had taken their four-year-old daughter there. Little Elise loved to play the drums.
"I was sitting on the drum set in front of her, and she was on the drum set behind me," her mother, Teresa, recalled.
The vehicle plowed over the drum set where Elise was sitting and went through the wall into the mattress store, next door.
"I started to see maybe just two feet in front of me. There were pieces of debris on the floor. I looked down and all of the drums where we were sitting were taken out," Teresa said. "The first thought that went through my head was, 'Where's Elise?'"
"Teresa hollered Elise's name out twice with no response," said Elise's father, Rick. "And, at that point, we just knew she was dead."
"I looked down at the floor to see if I could see her feet sticking up. Since pieces of the ceiling were caved in and pieces of the wall. The light was coming in more, and you could see pieces of the wall on the floor," Teresa said.
"I felt afraid. And honestly, this was so strange that in just a few seconds, I could feel so much emotion," she said. "But wow, it was like reliving the whole thing. I felt like if she was gone, I didn't want to be here anymore. I remember that - feeling that I didn't want to be alive if she was not alive."
But to everyone's surprise and relief, a little figure appeared in the midst of the dust and debris.
"About 15-20 seconds later, she came running from the very back of the store and was saying, 'I'm right here mommy, I'm right here.' And that was the biggest blessing, seeing that child run through there, that you've ever had in your life," Teresa said.
Rick and Teresa started to question little Elise. Her story shocked everyone. "I said, 'Are you okay?' And she said, 'I'm fine.' And I said, 'Well, Elise, how did you get off the drums?'" Teresa said. "'You were right there on them.' And she said, 'Well, Jesus picked me up and moved me, Mom.' She said that when He picked her up, He picked her up with one hand. And she said, 'He has really big hands, mommy, and it felt like I was in water.'"
Since then, her story hasn't changed.
"He kissed me on my right cheek. Jesus is bigger than the whole world," little Elise now says. The local paper reported that a medical condition may have been the cause of the driver losing control of the car. Amazingly, he went to the hospital with minor injuries.
Store clerk, Steve Totten, is still amazed at what he saw that day. "Yeah, the last I saw her, she was sitting at the drum set. It happened so fast. We thought she had gotten covered up by the debris," Steve said. "It's just a miracle that nobody got hurt or killed. And to know that she was okay, that made me feel a whole lot better. We really thought she was covered up in all that stuff."
Rick and Teresa believe that God truly protected their little girl that rainy, summer afternoon.
"I think of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego when they were in the fiery furnace, and they came out with not even the smell of smoke," Teresa said. "She was so protected that she didn't even have the fear from the accident that we had."
"It's the most miraculous thing I've ever seen in my life. If I never see another miracle as long as I live, I mean, I can actually say I saw one that day," Rick said.
God has made it possible for you to know Him and experience an amazing change in your own life. Discover how you can find peace with God.
A caring friend will be there to pray with you in your time of need.


text:
It is strange to think about the things that happened at Planned Parenthood during my time there. I thought so much of what was happening was "normal." Looking back, I see how they were anything but that.
We had hundreds of protocols. Some were pretty common sense, others not so much. One protocol in particular has really got me thinking over the past couple of weeks, IUDs. An IUD is a birth control method that is inserted into the cervix. They function in several different ways; however, the primary way they work is by creating a hostile uterine environment so that a fertilized egg would not be able to implant on the uterine lining.
Part of our protocol talked about the insertion and removal. The other part talked about when it could be inserted. Get ready for this…
Our protocol stated that IUDs could be inserted on pregnant women in order to cause an abortion. Yes. You read that right. If a woman came in and was early in her pregnancy, we would insert an IUD to cause an abortion. She would have only been a few days pregnant. A pregnancy test would not have shown up positive. We didn't have a confirmation of pregnancy.
Out of sight, out of mind, right? How many children have been aborted because of this dangerous protocol? What is the real number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood? We will never know. Did we tell patients that this protocol would abort their child? No, of course we didn't.
One day, a woman came in complaining of severe abdominal pain. She had an IUD. During her exam, it was determined that her IUD was the source of her discomfort, so it would need to be removed. I came in to assist. I was astounded when her IUD was removed.
On the end of that IUD was a tiny baby. We estimated the child to be 9 weeks. That baby had been growing on the end of a birth control device, but not to worry. Planned Parenthood says IUDs are safe.
During my time working for Planned Parenthood, I decided an IUD would be the best method for me. After 3 years of use, I had no side effects. At least, that's what I thought. After I had my IUD removed, I realized there might be a problem with my body. I had never had a problem getting pregnant, but several months had now passed, and every pregnancy test came back negative.
What was going on? I had some blood work run and was told I didn't produce several hormones. My body had tried to produce the hormones while the IUD was in, but the IUD won. My body couldn't compete. I am only pregnant now because of NFP, supplemental hormones, and an amazing doctor.
I found out several months ago that a woman had miscarried because of an IUD inserted at my clinic. She was pregnant when it was inserted. That isn't supposed to happen, but mistakes are made, and her child paid the price.
She went to the emergency room because she was having severe abdominal pain. She didn't know she was pregnant until they did an ultrasound to find out what was wrong. There was her baby. His heart had stopped. She had to deliver her baby and have her IUD removed all in the same visit to the hospital. He was 18 weeks old. Why did this happen? It happened because an IUD is made to abort children.
So, why would Planned Parenthood lie and say IUDs are safe? Planned Parenthood pays less than $300.00 for an IUD. Planned Parenthood is also reimbursed over $750.00 from the federal government, our tax dollars.
Is that a good enough reason? It is for Planned Parenthood. Patients first? Prevention first? No to all of those questions. It's about money first and foremost, always.


text:
11 Now the people began to complain bitterly before Jehovah. When Jehovah heard it, his anger flared, and a fire from Jehovah began to blaze against them and to consume some on the outskirts of the camp. 2 When the people began to cry out to Moses, he made supplication to Jehovah,+ and the fire died out. 3 So that place was given the name Tabʹe·rah,* because a fire from Jehovah had blazed against them.+
4 The mixed crowd*+ who were in their midst then expressed selfish longing,+ and the Israelites too began to weep again and say: "Who will give us meat to eat?+ 5 How fondly we remember the fish that we used to eat without cost in Egypt, also the cucumbers, the watermelons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic!+ 6 But now we* are withering away. We see nothing at all except this manna."+
7 Incidentally, the manna+ was like coriander seed,+ and it looked like bdellium gum. 8 The people would spread out and pick it up and grind it in hand mills or pound it in a mortar. Then they would boil it in cooking pots or make it into round loaves,+ and it tasted like an oiled sweet cake. 9 When the dew descended on the camp by night, the manna would also descend on it.+
10 Moses heard the people weeping, family after family, each man at the entrance of his tent. And Jehovah became very angry,+ and Moses was also very displeased. 11 Then Moses said to Jehovah: "Why have you afflicted your servant? Why have I not found favor in your eyes, so that you put the burden of all this people on me?+ 12 Did I conceive all this people? Did I give birth to them, so that you should tell me, 'Carry them in your bosom, just as an attendant* carries the nursing child,' to the land that you swore to give to their forefathers?+ 13 From where will I get meat to give to all this people? For they keep weeping before me, saying, 'Give us meat to eat!' 14 I am not able to bear all this people by myself; it is too much for me.+ 15 If this is how you are going to treat me, please kill me right now.+ If I have found favor in your eyes, do not make me see any more calamity."
16 Jehovah replied to Moses: "Gather for me 70 men from the elders of Israel, men whom you recognize as* elders and officials of the people,+ and take them to the tent of meeting, and have them stand there with you. 17 I will come down+ and speak with you there,+ and I will take away some of the spirit+ that is on you and place it on them, and they will help you in bearing the burden of the people so that you may not have to bear it alone.+ 18 You should say to the people, 'Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow,+ for you will certainly eat meat, because you have wept in Jehovah's hearing+ and have said: "Who will give us meat to eat? It was better for us in Egypt."+ Jehovah will certainly give you meat, and you will eat.+ 19 You will eat, not one day nor 2 days nor 5 days nor 10 days nor 20 days, 20 but for a whole month of days, until it comes out of your nostrils and it has become loathsome to you,+ for you rejected Jehovah, who is in your midst, and you were weeping before him, saying: "Why is it that we have come out of Egypt?"'"+
21 Then Moses said: "The people I am among number 600,000 men+ on foot, and yet you yourself have said, 'Meat I will give them, and they will eat enough for a whole month of days'! 22 If whole flocks and herds were slaughtered, would it be enough for them? Or if all the fish of the sea were caught, would it be enough for them?"
23 Jehovah then said to Moses: "Is the hand of Jehovah too short?+ Now you will see whether what I say will happen to you or not."
24 So Moses went out and spoke the words of Jehovah to the people. And he gathered 70 men from the elders of the people and had them stand around the tent.+ 25 Then Jehovah came down in a cloud+ and spoke to him+ and took away some of the spirit+ that was on him and put it on each of the 70 elders. And as soon as the spirit settled down on them, they began to behave as prophets,*+ but they did not do it again.
26 There were two of the men still in the camp. Their names were Elʹdad and Meʹdad. And the spirit began to settle down on them, as they were among those whose names had been written down, but they had not gone out to the tent. So they began to behave as prophets in the camp. 27 And a young man ran and reported to Moses: "Elʹdad and Meʹdad are behaving as prophets in the camp!" 28 Then Joshua+ the son of Nun, the minister of Moses from his youth, responded and said: "My lord Moses, restrain them!"+ 29 But Moses said to him: "Are you jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah's people were prophets and that Jehovah would put his spirit on them!" 30 Later Moses returned to the camp along with the elders of Israel.
31 Then a wind from Jehovah sprang up and began driving quail from the sea and causing them to fall around the camp,+ about a day's journey on this side and a day's journey on the other side, all around the camp, and they were about two cubits* deep on the ground. 32 So all that day and all night and all the next day, the people stayed up and gathered the quail. No one gathered less than ten hoʹmers,* and they kept spreading them all around the camp for themselves. 33 But while the meat was still between their teeth, before it could be chewed, Jehovah's anger blazed against the people, and Jehovah began striking the people with a very great slaughter.+
34 So they gave that place the name Kibʹroth-hat·taʹa·vah,*+ because there they buried the people who showed selfish craving.+ 35 From Kibʹroth-hat·taʹa·vah the people departed for Ha·zeʹroth, and they remained at Ha·zeʹroth.+


text:
Blendabilities Quality Issues
February 27, 2015 We are experiencing a quality issue with our Blendabilities product line. Except for the Tuxedo Black Memento Ink Pad (item #132708) and the Tuxedo Black Memento Ink Pad Refill (item #133456), all item numbers have been turned off; this includes Blendabilities Sale-A-Bration item numbers.At this time, backorders for Blendabilities will not be fulfilled.
We thank you for your patience and will update you as soon as we have more information.


text:
Edmonton New Construction Electrical Services
Building a brand-new home or business in the Edmonton area from the ground up is always an exciting project. For the project to be a success, you need to stay focused because there are a lot of little things that need to be done. After all, you don't want to be in the middle of the ribbon cutting ceremony and suddenly realize that you forgot to wire your brand-new building!
You might think that such an oversight is impossible, but anything is possible when you are worried about laying the foundation, installing the roof, etc. If you have begun construction on a new home or commercial building in the Edmonton and you would like the electrical system to be one less thing you have to worry about, get in touch with Jem Electric Services today.
Jem Electric Services has been providing new construction electrical services to Edmonton residential and commercial developers and contractors for many years. Our calling card is thorough, reliable electrical services that make everyone's lives easier. We'll make sure that all electrical components of your new building are safely installed and up to code specifications.
Get in touch with Jem Electric Services today if you want to be assured that your new construction's electrical system is going to functioning no matter the scale or complexity of your project. Our experienced, licensed and insured electricians are guaranteed to get your building fully powered in a way that works for your budget.
Designing and Laying Out Electrical Systems
Every construction company and contractor has a slightly different method when it comes to building their buildings, which is why Jem Electric Services has made it a point to be as adaptable as possible. Our goal is to always provide exceptional services, and the way we accomplish this is by maintaining a professional flexibility to make sure we're good on our end without stepping on any toes.
So, if you are the type of organization that prefers to have the designs for the home or office's electrical system all plotted out before the blueprints are even finalized, Jem Electric Services's electricians are more than capable of following the specifications outlined and integrating it into the construction on your timetable.
Of course, on the other end of the spectrum, if you haven't fully figured out how the electrical system fits into the design of whatever you are building, Jem Electric Services's team has plenty of experience designing the electrical system of your new construction. We love the opportunity to go over current drafts, give suggestions and figure out ways to make the installation of electrical systems streamlined.
We are also available to design the entire system from scratch. Just let us know what you need from us when you give us a call and we will be prepared to assist you with whatever you need.
Contact Us Today
Making sure that your new construction has safe and reliable access to power is as important as making sure the foundation and roof is solid. To be sure the electricity in your new construction is sound, give Jem Electric Services a call today.