text:
Five years have passed since the onset of what is sometimes called the Great Recession. While the economy has slowly improved, there are still millions of Americans leading lives of quiet desperation: without jobs, without resources, without hope.
Who was to blame? Was it simply a result of negligence, of the kind of inordinate risk-taking commonly called a "bubble," of an imprudent but innocent failure to maintain adequate reserves for a rainy day? Or was it the result, at least in part, of fraudulent practices, of dubious mortgages portrayed as sound risks and packaged into ever more esoteric financial instruments, the fundamental weaknesses of which were intentionally obscured?
If it was the former—if the recession was due, at worst, to a lack of caution—then the criminal law has no role to play in the aftermath. For in all but a few circumstances (not here relevant), the fierce and fiery weapon called criminal prosecution is directed at intentional misconduct, and nothing less. If the Great Recession was in no part the handiwork of intentionally fraudulent practices by high-level executives, then to prosecute such executives criminally would be "scapegoating" of the most shallow and despicable kind.
But if, by contrast, the Great Recession was in material part the product of intentional fraud, the failure to prosecute those responsible must be judged one of the more egregious failures of the criminal justice system in many years. Indeed, it would stand in striking contrast to the increased success that federal prosecutors have had over the past fifty years or so in bringing to justice even the highest-level figures who orchestrated mammoth frauds. Thus, in the 1970s, in the aftermath of the "junk bond" bubble that, in many ways, was a precursor of the more recent bubble in mortgage-backed securities, the progenitors of the fraud were all successfully prosecuted, right up to Michael Milken.
Again, in the 1980s, the so-called savings-and-loan crisis, which again had some eerie parallels to more recent events, resulted in the successful criminal prosecution of more than eight hundred individuals, right up to Charles Keating. And again, the widespread accounting frauds of the 1990s, most vividly represented by Enron and WorldCom, led directly to the successful prosecution of such previously respected CEOs as Jeffrey Skilling and Bernie Ebbers.
In striking contrast with these past prosecutions, not a single high-level executive has been successfully prosecuted in connection with the recent financial crisis, and given the fact that most of the relevant criminal provisions are governed by a five-year statute of limitations, it appears likely that none will be. It may not be too soon, therefore, to ask why.
One possibility, already mentioned, is that no fraud was committed. This possibility should not be discounted. Every case is different, and I, for one, have no opinion about whether criminal fraud was committed in any given instance.
But the stated opinion of those government entities asked to examine the financial crisis overall is not that no fraud was committed. Quite the contrary. For example, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, in its final report, uses variants of the word "fraud" no fewer than 157 times in describing what led to the crisis, concluding that there was a "systemic breakdown," not just in accountability, but also in ethical behavior.
As the commission found, the signs of fraud were everywhere to be seen, with the number of reports of suspected mortgage fraud rising twenty-fold between 1996 and 2005 and then doubling again in the next four years. As early as 2004, FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker was publicly warning of the "pervasive problem" of mortgage fraud, driven by the voracious demand for mortgage-backed securities. Similar warnings, many from within the financial community, were disregarded, not because they were viewed as inaccurate, but because, as one high-level banker put it, "A decision was made that 'We're going to have to hold our nose and start buying the stated product if we want to stay in business.'"
Without giving further examples, the point is that, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the prevailing view of many government officials (as well as others) was that the crisis was in material respects the product of intentional fraud. In a nutshell, the fraud, they argued, was a simple one. Subprime mortgages, i.e., mortgages of dubious creditworthiness, increasingly provided the chief collateral for highly leveraged securities that were marketed as AAA, i.e., securities of very low risk. How could this transformation of a sow's ear into a silk purse be accomplished unless someone dissembled along the way?
While officials of the Department of Justice have been more circumspect in describing the roots of the financial crisis than have the various commissions of inquiry and other government agencies, I have seen nothing to indicate their disagreement with the widespread conclusion that fraud at every level permeated the bubble in mortgage-backed securities. Rather, their position has been to excuse their failure to prosecute high-level individuals for fraud in connection with the financial crisis on one or more of three grounds:
First, they have argued that proving fraudulent intent on the part of the high-level management of the banks and companies involved has been difficult. It is undoubtedly true that the ranks of top management were several levels removed from those who were putting together the collateralized debt obligations and other securities offerings that were based on dubious mortgages; and the people generating the mortgages themselves were often at other companies and thus even further removed. And I want to stress again that I have no opinion whether any given top executive had knowledge of the dubious nature of the underlying mortgages, let alone fraudulent intent.
But what I do find surprising is that the Department of Justice should view the proving of intent as so difficult in this case. Who, for example, was generating the so-called "suspicious activity reports" of mortgage fraud that, as mentioned, increased so hugely in the years leading up to the crisis? Why, the banks themselves. A top-level banker, one might argue, confronted with growing evidence from his own and other banks that mortgage fraud was increasing, might have inquired why his bank's mortgage-based securities continued to receiveAAA ratings. And if, despite these and other reports of suspicious activity, the executive failed to make such inquiries, might it be because he did not want to know what such inquiries would reveal?
This, of course, is what is known in the law as "willful blindness" or "conscious disregard." It is a well-established basis on which federal prosecutors have asked juries to infer intent, including in cases involving complexities, such as accounting rules, at least as esoteric as those involved in the events leading up to the financial crisis. And while some federal courts have occasionally expressed qualifications about the use of the willful blindness approach to prove intent, the Supreme Court has consistently approved it. As that Court stated most recently in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (2011):
The doctrine of willful blindness is well established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances.
Thus, the department's claim that proving intent in the financial crisis is particularly difficult may strike some as doubtful.
Second, and even weaker, the Department of Justice has sometimes argued that, because the institutions to whom mortgage-backed securities were sold were themselves sophisticated investors, it might be difficult to prove reliance. Thus, in defending the failure to prosecute high-level executives for frauds arising from the sale of mortgage-backed securities, Lanny Breuer, the then head of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, told PBS:
In a criminal case…I have to prove not only that you made a false statement but that you intended to commit a crime, and also that the other side of the transaction relied on what you were saying. And frankly, in many of the securitizations and the kinds of transactions we're talking about, in reality you had very sophisticated counterparties on both sides. And so even though one side may have said something was dark blue when really we can say it was sky blue, the other side of the transaction, the other sophisticated party, wasn't relying at all on the description of the color.
Actually, given the fact that these securities were bought and sold at lightning speed, it is by no means obvious that even a sophisticated counterparty would have detected the problems with the arcane, convoluted mortgage-backed derivatives they were being asked to purchase. But there is a more fundamental problem with the above-quoted statement from the former head of the Criminal Division, which is that it totally misstates the law. In actuality, in a criminal fraud case the government is never required to prove—ever—that one party to a transaction relied on the word of another. The reason, of course, is that that would give a crooked seller a license to lie whenever he was dealing with a sophisticated buyer. The law, however, says that society is harmed when a seller purposely lies about a material fact, even if the immediate purchaser does not rely on that particular fact, because such misrepresentations create problems for the market as a whole. And surely there never was a situation in which the sale of dubious mortgage-backed securities created more of a problem for the marketplace, and society as a whole, than in the recent financial crisis.
The third reason the department has sometimes given for not bringing these prosecutions is that to do so would itself harm the economy. Thus, Attorney General Eric Holder himself told Congress:
It does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute—if you do bring a criminal charge—it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.
To a federal judge, who takes an oath to apply the law equally to rich and to poor, this excuse—sometimes labeled the "too big to jail" excuse—is disturbing, frankly, in what it says about the department's apparent disregard for equality under the law.
In fairness, however, Holder (who later claimed his comment was misconstrued) was referring to the prosecution of financial institutions, rather than their CEOs. Moreover, he might have also been influenced, as his department unquestionably was, by the adverse reaction to the Arthur Anderson case, where that accounting firm was forced out of business by a prosecution that was ultimately reversed on appeal. But if we are talking about prosecuting individuals, the excuse becomes entirely irrelevant; for no one that I know of has ever contended that a big financial institution would collapse if one or more of its high-level executives were prosecuted, as opposed to the institution itself.
Without multiplying examples further, my point is that the Department of Justice has never taken the position that all the top executives involved in the events leading up to the financial crisis were innocent; rather it has offered one or another excuse for not criminally prosecuting them—excuses that, on inspection, appear unconvincing. So, you might ask, what's really going on here? I don't claim to have any inside information about the real reasons why no such prosecutions have been brought, but I take the liberty of offering some speculations.
At the outset, however, let me say that I completely discount the argument sometimes made that no such prosecutions have been brought because the top prosecutors were often people who previously represented the financial institutions in question and/or were people who expected to be representing such institutions in the future: the so-called "revolving door." In my experience, most federal prosecutors, at every level, are seeking to make a name for themselves, and the best way to do that is by prosecuting some high-level person. While companies that are indicted almost always settle, individual defendants whose careers are at stake will often go to trial. And if the government wins such a trial, as it usually does, the prosecutor's reputation is made. My point is that whatever small influence the "revolving door" may have in discouraging certain white-collar prosecutions is more than offset, at least in the case of prosecuting high-level individuals, by the career-making benefits such prosecutions confer on the successful prosecutor.
So, one asks again, why haven't we seen such prosecutions growing out of the financial crisis? I offer, by way of speculation, three influences that I think, along with others, have had the effect of limiting such prosecutions.
First, the prosecutors had other priorities. Some of these were completely understandable. For example, before 2001, the FBI had more than one thousand agents assigned to investigating financial frauds, but after September 11 many of these agents were shifted to antiterrorism work. Who can argue with that? Yet the result was that, by 2007 or so, there were only 120 agents reviewing the more than 50,000 reports of mortgage fraud filed by the banks. It is true that after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, new agents were hired for some of the vacated spots in offices concerned with fraud detection; but this is not a form of detection easily learned, and recent budget limitations have only exacerbated the problem.
Of course, while the FBI has substantial responsibility for investigating mortgage fraud, the FBI is not the primary investigator of fraud in the sale of mortgage-backed securities; that responsibility lies mostly with the SEC. But at the very time the financial crisis was breaking, the SEC was trying to deflect criticism from its failure to detect the Madoff fraud, and this led it to concentrate on other Ponzi-like schemes that emerged in the wake of the financial crisis, along with cases involving misallocation of assets (such as stealing funds from a customer), which are among the easiest cases to prove. Indeed, as Professor John Coffee of Columbia Law School has repeatedly documented, Ponzi schemes and misallocation-of-asset cases have been the primary focus of the SEC since 2009, while cases involving fraud in the sale of mortgage-backed securities have been much less frequent. More recently, moreover, the SEC has been hard hit by budget limitations, and this has not only made it more difficult to assign the kind of manpower the kinds of frauds we are talking about require, but also has led the SEC enforcement staff to focus on the smaller, easily resolved cases that will beef up their statistics when they go to Congress begging for money.
As for the Department of Justice proper, a decision was made in 2009 to spread the investigation of financial fraud cases among numerous US Attorney's Offices, many of which had little or no previous experience in investigating and prosecuting sophisticated financial frauds. This was in connection with the president's creation of a special task force to investigate the crisis, from which remarkably little has been heard in the intervening four-plus years. At the same time, the US Attorney's Office with the greatest expertise in these kinds of cases, the Southern District of New York, was just embarking on its prosecution of insider-trading cases arising from the Raj Rajaratnam tapes, which soon proved a gold mine of prosecutable cases that absorbed a huge amount of the attention of the securities fraud unit of that office.
While I want to stress again that I have no inside information, as a former chief of that unit I would venture to guess that the cases involving the financial crisis were parceled out to assistant US attorneys who were also responsible for insider-trading cases. Which do you think an assistant would devote most of her attention to: an insider-trading case that was already nearly ready to go to indictment and that might lead to a high-visibility trial, or a financial crisis case that was just getting started, would take years to complete, and had no guarantee of even leading to an indictment? Of course, she would put her energy into the insider-trading case, and if she was lucky, it would go to trial, she would win, and, in some cases, she would then take a job with a large law firm. And in the process, the financial fraud case would get lost in the shuffle.
In short, a focus on quite different priorities is, I submit, one of the reasons the financial fraud cases have not been brought, especially cases against high-level individuals that would take many years, many investigators, and a great deal of expertise to investigate. But a second, and less salutary, reason for not bringing such cases is the government's own involvement in the underlying circumstances that led to the financial crisis.
On the one hand, the government, writ large, had a part in creating the conditions that encouraged the approval of dubious mortgages. Even before the start of the housing boom, it was the government, in the form of Congress, that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, thus allowing certain banks that had previously viewed mortgages as a source of interest income to become instead deeply involved in securitizing pools of mortgages in order to obtain the much greater profits available from trading. It was the government, in the form of both the executive and the legislature, that encouraged deregulation, thus weakening the power and oversight not only of the SEC but also of such diverse banking overseers as the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, both in the Treasury Department. It was the government, in the form of the Federal Reserve, that kept interest rates low, in part to encourage mortgages. It was the government, in the form of the executive, that strongly encouraged banks to make loans to individuals with low incomes who might have previously been regarded as too risky to warrant a mortgage.
Thus, in the year 2000, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo increased to 50 percent the percentage of low-income mortgages that the government-sponsored entities known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were required to purchase, helping to create the conditions that resulted in over half of all mortgages being subprime at the time the housing market began to collapse in 2007.
It was the government, pretty much across the board, that acquiesced in the ever-greater tendency not to require meaningful documentation as a condition of obtaining a mortgage, often preempting in this regard state regulations designed to assure greater mortgage quality and a borrower's ability to repay. Indeed, in the year 2000, the Office of Thrift Supervision, having just finished a successful campaign to preempt state regulation of thrift underwriting, terminated its own underwriting regulations entirely.
The result of all this was the mortgages that later became known as "liars' loans." They were increasingly risky; but what did the banks care, since they were making their money from the securitizations. And what did the government care, since it was helping to create a boom in the economy and helping voters to realize their dream of owning a home?
Moreover, the government was also deeply enmeshed in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It was the government that proposed the shotgun marriages of, among others, Bank of America with Merrill Lynch, and of J.P. Morgan with Bear Stearns. If, in the process, mistakes were made and liabilities not disclosed, was it not partly the government's fault? One does not necessarily have to adopt the view of Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general in charge of oversight of TARP, that regulators made almost no effort to hold accountable the financial institutions they were bailing out, to wonder whether the government, having helped create the conditions that led to the seeming widespread fraud in the mortgage-backed securities market, was all too ready to forgive its alleged perpetrators.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that the government knowingly participated in any of the fraudulent practices alleged by the Financial Inquiry Crisis Commission and others. But what I am suggesting is that the government was deeply involved, from beginning to end, in helping create the conditions that could lead to such fraud, and that this would give a prudent prosecutor pause in deciding whether to indict a CEO who might, with some justice, claim that he was only doing what he fairly believed the government wanted him to do.
The final factor I would mention is both the most subtle and the most systemic of the three, and arguably the most important. It is the shift that has occurred, over the past thirty years or more, from focusing on prosecuting high-level individuals to focusing on prosecuting companies and other institutions. It is true that prosecutors have brought criminal charges against companies for well over a hundred years, but until relatively recently, such prosecutions were the exception, and prosecutions of companies without simultaneous prosecutions of their managerial agents were even rarer.
The reasons were obvious. Companies do not commit crimes; only their agents do. And while a company might get the benefit of some such crimes, prosecuting the company would inevitably punish, directly or indirectly, the many employees and shareholders who were totally innocent. Moreover, under the law of most US jurisdictions, a company cannot be criminally liable unless at least one managerial agent has committed the crime in question; so why not prosecute the agent who actually committed the crime?
In recent decades, however, prosecutors have been increasingly attracted to prosecuting companies, often even without indicting a single person. This shift has often been rationalized as part of an attempt to transform "corporate cultures," so as to prevent future such crimes; and as a result, government policy has taken the form of "deferred prosecution agreements" or even "nonprosecution agreements," in which the company, under threat of criminal prosecution, agrees to take various prophylactic measures to prevent future wrongdoing. Such agreements have become, in the words of Lanny Breuer, the former head of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, "a mainstay of white-collar criminal law enforcement," with the department entering into 233 such agreements over the last decade. But in practice, I suggest, this approach has led to some lax and dubious behavior on the part of prosecutors, with deleterious results.
If you are a prosecutor attempting to discover the individuals responsible for an apparent financial fraud, you go about your business in much the same way you go after mobsters or drug kingpins: you start at the bottom and, over many months or years, slowly work your way up. Specifically, you start by "flipping" some lower- or mid-level participant in the fraud who you can show was directly responsible for making one or more false material misrepresentations but who is willing to cooperate, and maybe even "wear a wire"—i.e., secretly record his colleagues—in order to reduce his sentence. With his help, and aided by the substantial prison penalties now available in white-collar cases, you go up the ladder.
But if your priority is prosecuting the company, a different scenario takes place. Early in the investigation, you invite in counsel to the company and explain to him or her why you suspect fraud. He or she responds by assuring you that the company wants to cooperate and do the right thing, and to that end the company has hired a former assistant US attorney, now a partner at a respected law firm, to do an internal investigation. The company's counsel asks you to defer your investigation until the company's own internal investigation is completed, on the condition that the company will share its results with you. In order to save time and resources, you agree.
Six months later the company's counsel returns, with a detailed report showing that mistakes were made but that the company is now intent on correcting them. You and the company then agree that the company will enter into a deferred prosecution agreement that couples some immediate fines with the imposition of expensive but internal prophylactic measures. For all practical purposes the case is now over. You are happy because you believe that you have helped prevent future crimes; the company is happy because it has avoided a devastating indictment; and perhaps the happiest of all are the executives, or former executives, who actually committed the underlying misconduct, for they are left untouched.
I suggest that this is not the best way to proceed. Although it is supposedly justified because it prevents future crimes, I suggest that the future deterrent value of successfully prosecuting individuals far outweighs the prophylactic benefits of imposing internal compliance measures that are often little more than window-dressing. Just going after the company is also both technically and morally suspect. It is technically suspect because, under the law, you should not indict or threaten to indict a company unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that some managerial agent of the company committed the alleged crime; and if you can prove that, why not indict the manager? And from a moral standpoint, punishing a company and its many innocent employees and shareholders for the crimes committed by some unprosecuted individuals seems contrary to elementary notions of moral responsibility.
These criticisms take on special relevance, however, in the instance of investigations growing out of the financial crisis, because, as noted, the Department of Justice's position, until at least recently, is that going after the suspect institutions poses too great a risk to the nation's economic recovery. So you don't go after the companies, at least not criminally, because they are too big to jail; and you don't go after the individuals, because that would involve the kind of years-long investigations that you no longer have the experience or the resources to pursue.
In conclusion, I want to stress again that I do not claim that the financial crisis that is still causing so many of us so much pain and despondency was the product, in whole or in part, of fraudulent misconduct. But if it was—as various governmental authorities have asserted it was—then the failure of the government to bring to justice those responsible for such colossal fraud bespeaks weaknesses in our prosecutorial system that need to be addressed.
© 1963-2013 NYREV, Inc. All rights reserved.


text:
It's getting warmer and people are now planning their trips for spring. Spring is not only the good time for weekend family getaways, it's also the ideal time to visit many of the country's most popular vacation spots. RepoKar Auto Auction will help you find the perfect car for your road trip.
With great deals on used cars, SUVs, and trucks, you'll easily find the perfect ride for your trip. At RepoKar.com, we have a wide range of reliable used cars at prices you'll love. We strive to provide our customers with the best car buying experience when looking for their next car. From luxury car brands like Mercedes-Benz and Volvo to trusted brands like Ford, Honda, and Toyota, you'll surely find a new car. Feel free to browse through our amazing selection of makes and models.
Use RepoKar.com to search for your next ride. As the nation's largest public auction finder, you will find your dream car in your state or even your city. Join us today and we'll show you why our customers always find a vehicle that fits both their lifestyle and budget. Before buying a new car, most of our customers sell their used cars. At RepoKar, you can kill two birds with one stone! Sell any car at our car auctions, get your money, and purchase the car you've always dreamed of! Winter may be over, and the car deals are getting hotter and hotter! Don't miss out on the most attractive offers of this spring!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I am a companion of them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts. Psalm 119:63
We all long for intimate relationships; we wish to feel that we are one with people. This yearning, which every normal person has, emanates from an unconscious but spiritual perception that we all are one in Life itself. Where there is no sense of rejection there will be no loneliness.
I no longer reject myself. Knowing that I am one with all people in the Spirit, I receive everyone as a friend. I establish a close and intimate relationship with everyone I meet – something goes out from me and becomes unified with them. I include all and exclude none. Higher than all differences, is that union of the soul with its Source; beyond all differentiation, the Infinite Person is enshrined in the sanctuary of my own consciousness. One with all people, I enjoy this Divine companionship. I embrace the Infinite in everyone and in turn am embraced by It.
I know that my presence upholds and blesses everyone whom I contact, and that a healing power goes forth from me. I know that today I shall be able to help everyone whom I meet. There is a song at the center of my being which everyone hears, a joy which everyone feels, a strength which is imparted to all. I place upon everyone I meet the seamless robe of Christ, the garment of truth which is the unity of God and man. All people are my friends.
Taken from "365 Days of Richer Living" by Ernest Holmes and Raymond Charles Barker


text:
The Lync Edge Server is an often misunderstood server role that in theory is not all that complicated. But without knowing some of the basic functionality provided it can be confusing at times to understand what traffic is going where in the topology.
This article takes a look at the services and network traffic which travels to, and through, the Edge Server in an effort to simplify deployment and troubleshooting by gaining a basic understanding of the Edge Server's purpose.
Edge Services
Before looking at the individual ports it is important to understand that the Edge Server is comprised of five different Windows Services which are responsible for handling different types of traffic and requests.
To identify the services and their names perform either of the following actions:
- On the Edge Server open the Windows Command Prompt and issue the "net start | findstr Lync" command to list the installed services on the Lync Edge Server.
net start | findstr Lync
- Or use the Services Control Panel applet to view the installed services.
When troubleshooting it is helpful to know the basic Service Name and well as the core application for each of the Edge services.
Display Name | Service Name | Service Executable |
Lync Server Access Edge | RTCSRV | RTCSrv.exe |
Lync Server Audio/Video Authentication | RTCMRAUTH | MRASSvc.exe |
Lync Server Audio/Video Edge | RTCMEDIARELAY | MediaRelaySvc.exe |
Lync Server Replica Replicator Agent | REPLICA | ReplicaReplicatorAgent.exe |
Lync Server Web Conferencing Edge | RTCDATAPROXY | DataProxy.exe |
Listening Port Allocation
The following diagram is a slight modification from the Port Summary for Single Consolidated Edge documentation in TechNet. The Reverse Proxy server was removed as well as the outbound connections for DNS and HTTP, leaving only the inbound listening ports required on the Edge Server depicted.
As shown above there are multiple ports utilized by the Edge server with some of the same port numbers (e.g. 443) assigned to multiple interfaces. Simply looking at the port number alone is not enough to know what type of traffic might be associated with it as different services will use the same port number for different purposes, albeit on different IP addresses as no two services can occupy the same listening port on the same IP address. Thus it is important to always note the IP address of the interface as well as the port. For example, traffic sent to the internal IP of the Edge server over port 443 would be for relaying media, but traffic sent to the Access Edge external IP over port 443 would actually be external client SIP signaling requests.
Example Configuration
For the remainder of this article the following Lync Server Topology is used throughout all example text and screenshots.
Role | IP Address | Fully Qualified Domain Name |
Lync Front End Server | 10.2.10.25 | lyncfe.domain.local |
Lync Director | 10.2.10.27 | lyncdir.domain.local |
Internal Edge | 10.4.5.11 | edge.domain.local |
Access Edge | 184.108.40.206 | sip.domain.com |
Web Conferencing Edge | 18.104.22.168 | webconf.domain.com |
A/V Edge | 18.104.22.168 | av.domain.com |
Querying Listening Ports
To verify that the proper ports are listening and the Edge services are functional the following validation checks can be performed.
- On the Edge Server open the Windows Command Prompt and issue the "netstat -an" command to list all of the currently open network ports on all interfaces. (The -a switch returns open listening ports as well as any ports with established connections. The -n switch skips reverse name lookup on any host IP addresses and will allow the command to complete much faster.)
netstat -an
Among the results of all static and dynamic ports for any service or application on the server the specific Lync Server listening ports for the various Lync Edge services should be displayed. Note that some of these IP:Port combinations may display multiple entries as an active Edge server will have server and client connections. But the additional entries should all be reported as in an Established state and only a single line for each will be in a Listening state.
The following entries were pulled from the command output and listed in a table for easy identification.
Proto Local Address Foreign Address State
What the results above show are all of the static listening ports used by the various Lync in an unconnected Listening state. The Protocol is shown as TCP for all ports except for 3478 UDP on the A/V Edge external IP address which is used for connectionless traffic from Lync clients and servers to the Media Relay service. The Foreign Address of 0.0.0.0:0 is shown as these are open listening ports with no connections established. Any established connections to these ports will be reported by netstat in additional lines.
The netstat command also provides a switch to display the executable name for each opened port to assist in identification of the which service owns which listening port.
- On the Edge Server open the Windows Command Prompt and issue the "netstat –abn" command to display the same output as before but with additional lines showing the service program file name. (The -b switch adds the service names to the output for each port. As shown in the example the individual switches can be concatenated so both -abn and -a -b -n are valid formats.)
netstat -abn
By matching up the reported executable names in the results the following table can be created, indicating what type of connections each port is listening for.
Local Address | Interface | Service | Usage |
TCP 0.0.0.0:4443 | Internal External |
Replica Replicator Agent | Inbound CMS replication traffic from internal Lync Servers |
TCP 10.4.5.11:443 | Internal | Audio/Video Edge [MediaRelaySvc.exe] | ICE connections and tunneled media, desktop sharing, and file sharing from internal clients and servers |
TCP 10.4.5.11:5061 | Internal | Access Edge [RTCSrv.exe] | SIP connections from internal Lync servers |
TCP 10.4.5.11:5062 | Internal | Audio/Video Authentication [MRASSvc.exe] | A/V Authentication requests from internal servers |
TCP 10.4.5.11:8057 | Internal | Web Conferencing Edge [DataProxy.exe] | Web Conferencing (PSOM) connections from internal Lync servers |
TCP 184.108.40.206:443 | External | Access Edge [RTCSrv.exe] | External client SIP registration and signaling traffic |
TCP 184.108.40.206:5061 | External | Access Edge [RTCSrv.exe] | Federation traffic from other OCS/Lync Servers, Public IM servers, and XMPP gateways. |
TCP 188.8.131.52:443 | External | Web Conferencing Edge [DataProxy.exe] | External Web Conferencing PSOM data for client features like Whiteboarding, PowerPoint uploads, polls, and file uploads. |
TCP 220.127.116.11:443 | External | Audio/Video Edge [MediaRelaySvc.exe] | ICE connections and tunneled media, desktop sharing, and file sharing from external clients and servers |
UDP 10.4.5.11:3478 | Internal | Audio/Video Edge [MediaRelaySvc.exe] | ICE connections and tunneled media from internal clients and servers |
UDP 188.8.131.52:3478 | External | Audio/Video Edge [MediaRelaySvc.exe] | ICE connections and tunneled media from external clients and servers |
A closer look at the table above identifies some important concepts:
- The CMS replication agent listens on all interfaces on the Edge server, presumable to assist in data replication in the event that the Edge Server configuration or routing is not configured to best practices. In a proper deployment these connections would be coming from an internal Lync server directly to the Edge internal interface.
- The Audio/Video Edge (Media Relay) services listens on both interfaces, as it must do so to proxy media connections between internally connected clients and external clients/servers.
- The Web Conferencing Edge service also listens on both interfaces as it proxies web conferencing traffic between external clients and internal Front End servers.
- The Audio/Video Authentication service listens only on the internal interface. All client connections to this service are to provide dynamically assigned credentials to the Edge server to utilize ICE and access the media proxy as the Edge server will not accept connections from just any hosts. Because the Access Edge Server cannot authenticate Lync users and must pass all authentication traffic through into the internal servers then it in turn also cannot authenticate ICE connections from these same users. Thus call client ICE authentication attempts are proxied through an internal Lync server (Front-End or Director) which has already authenticated the client connection. This means that all of these authentication attempts to the Edge Authentication service will always come from an internal Lync server, and not directly from any internal or external clients. This is the reason that the A/V Edge FQDN (e.g. av.domain.com) is not needed on the external Edge certificate as the internal Lync servers will connect to the internal Edge interface (e.g. 10.4.5.11) using the internal Edge FQDN (e.g. edge.domain.local).
Media Port Range
If the listening ports in the table above are compared back to the original diagram there is still one last traffic type left unaccounted for: the 50,000-59,999 port range used for media traversal.
It is important to understand that this port range is only opened on the external A/V Edge interface, not the internal interface. All internal Lync clients and servers will tunnel media directly to either 3478 (UDP) or 443 (TCP). This many-to-one model is possible because of the deployment requirement that Network Address Translation (NAT) is not allowed between the internal Edge interface and any internal subnets hosting clients and servers. Thus every inbound connection to either 443 or 3478 would contain a unique IP address and source port. Whereas on the external side of the Edge server the remote hosts could be behind NAT or multiple federated Edge servers could be attempting to open connections from the same source port. In OCS R2 the ability to tunnel external media connections was added but this is only for UDP media and not TCP, thus is is still recommended to allow inbound connections form the Internet to this entire port range for both UDP and TCP traffic.
For a more detailed demonstration of exactly what these ports are used for and why it is recommended to still allow this range of ports inbound then jump to 1:04:00 of the Edge Media Connectivity with ICE technical session from TechEd 20102.
These ports are not constantly open for listening as they are allocated on-demand as the media relay service needs to. When external and/or internal clients need to proxy media through the Edge Server then listening ports will be allocated during media negotiation between endpoints. Once the best path for media has been established (which may not actually be through the Edge Server) then any unused ports where were allocated for that call are released. When viewing port allocation with netstat a large number of ports between 50.000 and 59,999 may be displayed for both TCP and UDP protocols.
- On the Edge Server open the Windows Command Prompt and issue the "netstat –anp tcp | findstr :5" command to return only listening and established TCP ports beginning with a 5.
netstat -anp tcp | findstr :5
- On the Edge Server open the Windows Command Prompt and issue the "netstat –anp udp | findstr :5" command to list only listening and established UDP ports beginning with a 5.
netstat -anp udp | findstr :5
- From a remote host on an internal network (e.g. a Lync Front End Server) open the Windows Command Prompt and issue the telnet command to one of the internal Edge services. (If the telnet client is not found then it must first be installed on the Windows Host.)
Testing Listening Ports
telnet edge.domain.local 5061
If a connection to the port fails this would indicate a problem like the service is not started or listening on the Edge server, the Edge server is unreachable due to a firewall or other port filtering or routing issue, or name resolution has failed.
- Leaving the telnet session open on the remote host move back to the Edge Server and issue the following command to look for the specific connection.
The expected response would be to see the command prompt window immediately refresh and a blank window will be displayed. (When testing connections to the internal IP to TCP 8057 for Web Conferencing a string of seemingly nonsensical characters will be turned instead of a blank window, this is normal.)
netstat -an | findstr 5061
- View the list of currently listening TCP ports and select one at random (e.g. 50137)
- From a remote host attempt to telnet to that same port and see that the connection is refused almost immediately.
As this deployment includes a Director server (10.2.10.25) existing established connections already appear to the Edge server over TCP 5061 from the assigned next-hop server, while the test telnet connection from the Lync Front End (10.2.10.27) is easily identifiable in the results.
This same test can be performed for any of the TCP listening ports on the Edge server, but not the UDP listening ports as the connectionless UDP protocol is not compatible with Telnet. If it is attempted there will be no response from the server on the 3478 UDP ports listening on both sides of the Edge Server.
A randomly selected TCP listening port in the 50,000-59,000 range can also be tested but the Edge Server will actively refuse the connection. This result illustrates why the media range ports cannot be connected to or port-scanned under normal circumstances.
This is because when the Telnet client connects it is neither the type of connection the Edge Server expects nor are the proper credentials available to provide to the media relay service to allow the connection to be established.


text:
Athena Blended - PK
Athena Blended - PK
Athena PK is a balanced bloom boosting complement to our Bloom fertilizers. This clean liquid booster is designed to supplement during the mid- to late-flowering phase. Athena PK is a low Nitrogen booster that provides additional Phosphorus and Potassium that high-yielding plants require for maximal production. Many PK boosters add far too much of these elements and create a cascade of problems, such as reducing Calcium and Magnesium availability. Balanced elemental bioavailability is essential in the flowering phase to boost essential oil and terpene production.
Application Rates:
Add 3-10 mL per gallon of water during the flowering phase starting in week 3.
See Feed Schedules for specific application recommendations.
Best Practices
- Shake well before use.
- Use clean measuring instruments--do not put anything into the bottle.
- Monitor EC regularly and adjust accordingly based on the crop and growth stage.
- Adjust pH to proper levels after mixing all fertilizers and additives.
- Store closed in original packaging at a temperature between 45° F and 85° F.
*Please Note there is a 4 day lead time on all Athena products before dispatch*


text:
4CADD-07-D - 7 Tenant Doors with 2 Parcel Lockers and Outgoing Mail Compartment - 4C Depot Mailbox Module
Shipping Time
Type: STD-4C Depot
Model: 4CADD-07-D-AB
Subject to Stock and Availability
- Model: 4CADD-07-D
- Weight: 189.00lb
- Dimensions: 18.00in x 32.69in x 53.06in
Product Description
4C Mailbox with 7 tenant compartments, 2 parcel lockers, and 1 outgoing mail compartment. The Depot is a freestanding solution that provides flexibility to install our most popular USPS Approved STD-4C wall-mounted mailboxes in a standalone cabinet. Depots are designed to ensure the selected module is installed at a standard accessible height. Ease of installation also makes the freestanding Depot option a popular choice.
Unit Size: 53-1/16"H x 32-11/16"W x 18"D
Total Doors: 7 Tenant Compartments, 2 Parcel Lockers
Tenant Compartment Sizes: 3"H x 12"W x 15"D
Parcel Locker Sizes: 5H: 17"H x 12"W x 15"D; 6H: 20-1/2"H x 12"W x 15"D
Outgoing Mail Slot: 3"H x 12"W x 15"D
Master Collection: 3"H x 12"W x 15"D
Finish or Material: Heavy gauge aluminum construction; California residents, prop 65 warning: This product may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information go to www.p65warnings.ca.gov
Loading and Mounting: Depot cabinet can only be used on front-load 4c mailboxes
Tenant Doors: Tenant doors include heavy duty cam locks, each with three (3) keys
Parcel Lockers: Includes Parcel locker door(s) - a means of USPS package delivery. Dual, captive locking system allows USPS to deliver a package to the locker leaving the key in the tenant's mailbox. Package is retrieved by the tenant and key is retained securely in the lock
Outgoing Mail: Outgoing mail compartment with slot, anti-fish comb for security, and protective hood is located above USPS access door for convenient outgoing mail collection
Tenant Door Identification: Silver adhesive decals with black numbers 1-7, 1P, 2P are included for door identification
Colors: Antique Bronze, Black, Dark Bronze, Gold Speck, Postal Grey, Sandstone, Silver Speck, and White
Material: Aluminum
Downloads & Product Information


text:
As UAW members get involved in the communities where they live, they have a deep impact not just on their workplaces and their families, but on our nation. For UAW Administrative Assistant to President Rory L. Gamble, Allen Wilson, that meant a front row seat in the national spotlight as he served on the Wayne County Board of Canvassers.
The stakes? Who will be our nation's next president.
Wilson is one of four members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, comprised of two Democrats and two Republicans appointed by the Wayne County Commission, just like the other 82 county canvassing boards throughout Michigan. The board's job includes certifying election results in Wayne County, which includes Detroit. Partisan controversy over certification is rare. With the November 3 results clearly showing President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris won, certification should have been uncontroversial. But with a lame duck president, as the New York Times described, using an "unparalleled push to overturn the results of the 2020 election" with an "audacious use of brute political force," the election was anything but typical.
The board's two Republican members, encouraged and praised by President Donald Trump along the way, maneuvered to block certification by falsely accusing Detroit's primarily Black voters and the city's voting system as being fraudulent and their system error ridden. They did not contest results in primarily white Wayne County cities where similar issues occurred. None of the small discrepancies anywhere in the county would have changed the outcome of the election. All were issues that occur in every election, without being questioned by the board, according to Wilson.
Those lies from the GOP board members about Detroit, while giving other cities a pass, made Allen Wilson's presence on the board crucial, not only as an overseer of fair election results for all but as defender of Detroit voters, many from working families and many who are union members. The lives, blood, sweat and tears sacrificed by Black Americans to gain voting rights were on the line.
"There has been a push from Trump and the GOP to disavow many votes cast. For the GOP to save face with Trump most have jumped on board with these false claims," said Wilson. He emphasized that in 2016, 59% of precincts were out of balance, which meant about one to three votes in each of those precincts were reported in error. The results were approved without question. In the August 2020 primary, 72% of precincts were out of balance and results were approved. In the recent November election, 70% of precincts were out of balance.
Amazingly, GOP board members had a problem with those results even though they approved similar results in the past. They offered no evidence to back up their opposition to the certification, even while knowing that the votes in question wouldn't change the results of the election.
"The stench of partisanship was in the room. I told the Republicans and the media that I was appalled to be sitting here with my GOP colleagues who are trumpeting Donald Trump's rallying cry to overturn the election he lost," added Wilson. "It shows a disdain for the voting electorate in Detroit. It shows disdain for the largest African American community in Wayne County. They tried to disenfranchise working families, union people."
After heated outcry from Wayne County residents during the certification meeting, the two GOP board members agreed to certify the results of the Wayne County vote. After intense pressure from the GOP, however, they changed their minds again and refused to sign the certification.
The importance of speaking up against racism and against voter disenfranchisement couldn't be clearer with Wilson's role on the board. "You need people, including political candidates, in places to support working men and women. Democrats, not Republicans, are the ones who will do that. Voluntary V-CAP contributions from members put politicians in place to enact legislation that promotes the agenda of working families, and have created laws to give women and African Americans the right to vote. More important, V-CAP affects all of us in state legislatures, the halls of Congress and the White House," said Wilson.
Labor friendly President-elect Joe Biden got $365 million in contributions in August alone, from political action committees and individuals, and that money helped promote him to victory.
"Without the ability to financially support labor friendly candidates what do we have? Trump and his cult members who never question him, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who blocks all legislation that helps workers? Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz? They never question Donald Trump," said Wilson. He pointed out that candidate Donald Trump infamously said during his 2016 campaign, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody, and wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible."
As the recent November election reminds us, voluntary V-CAP contributions and political engagement make a profound difference to every UAW member. As labor icon and former UAW President Walter Reuther famously said, "There's a direct relationship between the ballot box and the bread box, and what the union fights for and wins at the bargaining table can be taken away in the legislative halls."


text:
Terms and Conditions
Terms & Conditions (Last updated: October 18, 2017)
Hello and welcome to Loan Factory Terms & Conditions!
These Terms & Conditions ("Terms") cover your use of and access to the sites, templates, products, applications, tools and features (collectively, the "Services") provided by Loan Factory, Inc. (together with its officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries and affiliates, "Loan Factory"). Our Privacy Policy explains what personal information we collect and how it's used and shared, and our Acceptable Use Policy outlines some of your responsibilities when using the Services.
By using or accessing the Services, you're agreeing to these Terms, our Privacy Policy and our Acceptable Use Policy (collectively, this "Agreement"). If you're using the Services for an organization, you're agreeing to this Agreement on behalf of that organization, and represent and warrant that you can do so. If you don't agree to all the terms in this Agreement, you may not use or access the Services.
While we're not your lawyers, we do want to say: Please read this Agreement carefully! It includes important information about your legal rights, and covers areas such as automatic subscription renewals, warranty disclaimers, limitations of liability, resolution of disputes by arbitration and a class action waiver.
We've tried to make this Agreement fair and straightforward, but feel free to contact us if you have any questions or suggestions.
1. Creating an Account
Make sure your account information is accurate, and you keep your account safe. You're responsible for your account and any activity on it. Also, you need to be at least 13 years old to use Loan Factory.
- 1.1 Signing Up. To use the Services, you must first create an account ("Account"). You agree to provide us with accurate, complete and updated information for your Account. We may need to use this information to contact you.
- 1.2. Staying Safe. Please safeguard your Account and make sure others don't have access to your Account or password. You must immediately notify us of any actual or suspected loss, theft or unauthorized use of your Account or password. You're solely responsible for any activity on your Account. We're not liable for any acts or omissions by you in connection with your Account.
- 1.3. Thirteen And Older. The Services are not intended for and may not be used by children under the age of 13. By using the Services, you represent that you're at least 13. Also, if you're under the age of 18, you must have your parent or guardian's consent to this Agreement, and they may need to enter into this Agreement on your behalf (depending on where you live).
2. Your Content
- 2.1 Your User Content Stays Yours. Users of the Services may provide us with content, including without limitation text, photos, images, audio, video, code and any other materials ("User Content"). Your User Content stays yours. These Terms don't give us any rights to User Content, except for the limited rights that enable us to provide, improve, promote and protect the Services as described herein.
- 2.2. Your License To Us. When you provide User Content via the Services, you grant Loan Factory a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable right and license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works of (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that User Content works better with the Services), communicate, publish, publicly display, publicly perform and distribute User Content for the limited purposes of allowing us to provide, improve, promoteand protect the Services.
- 2.3. Featuring Your Site. We may use in perpetuity, worldwide and free of charge, any version of Your Sites (as defined below), or any portion thereof, for the limited purpose of Loan Factory marketing and promotional activities. For example, we may feature Your Sites on our Templates page, or on our social media accounts. This can result in improved traffic to Your Sites. You waive any claims against us relating to any moral rights, artists' rights or any other similar rights worldwide that you may have in or to Your Sites, and any right of inspection or approval of any such use of Your Sites. If you don't want Your Sites featured, you can opt out at anytime via the Services or by contacting us.
3. Your Responsibilities
- 3.1. Only Use Content You're Allowed To Use. You represent that you own all rights to your User Content or otherwise have (and will continue to have) all rights and permissions to legally use, share, display, transfer and license your User Content via the Services. If we use your User Content in the ways contemplated in this Agreement, you represent that such use will not infringe or violate the rights of any third party, including without limitation any copyrights, trademarks, privacy rights, publicity rights, contract rights or any other intellectual property or proprietary rights. Content on the Services may be protected by others' intellectual property or other rights, so please don't copy, upload, download or share content unless you have the right to do so.
- 3.2. Follow Our Rules. You're responsible for your conduct and User Content, and you must comply with our Acceptable Use Policy. We may review your conduct and User Content for compliance with these Terms and our Acceptable Use Policy. With that said, we have no obligation to do so. We're not responsible for User Content.
- 3.3. Follow The Law. You represent that your use of the Services is not contrary to law, including without limitation applicable US export controls, regulations and sanctions.
- 3.4. Share Responsibly. The Services let you share User Content with others, including without limitation on social media and the open web, so please think carefully about what you share. We're not responsible for what you share via the Services.
- 3.5. Your Sites And Your End Users Are Your Responsibility. You may use the Services to create or publish sites, online stores and other products or services ("Your Sites"), and Your Sites may have their own visitors and users ("End Users"). You understand and agree that Your Sites and your End Users are your responsibility, and you're solely responsible for compliance with any laws or regulations related to Your Sites and your End Users, including without limitation the posting of your own privacy policy. We're not liable for, and won't provide you with any legal advice regarding, Your Sites or your End Users.
4. Third Party Services And Sites, User Content
- 4.1. Third Party Services. The Services are integrated with various third party services, applications and sites (collectively, "Third Party Services") that may make available to you their content and products, such as domain and email services, or marketplaces to connect customers and vendors. These Third Party Services may have their own terms and policies, and your use of them will be governed by those terms and policies. We don't control Third Party Services, and we're not liable for Third Party Services or for any transaction you may enter into with them. Your security when using Third Party Services is your responsibility.You also agree that we may, at any time and in our sole discretion, and without any notice to you, suspend, disable access to or remove any Third Party Services. We're not liable to you for any such suspension, disabling or removal, including without limitation for any loss of profits, revenue, data, goodwill or other intangible losses you may experience as a result thereof (except where prohibited by law).
- 4.2. Third Party Sites. The Services may contain links to third party sites. When you access third party sites, you do so at your own risk. We don't control and aren't liable for those sites.
- 4.3. User Content. We haven't reviewed and can't review all of the User Content made available via the Services. The Services may contain User Content: (a) that is offensive or objectionable; (b) that contains errors; (c) that violates intellectual property, privacy, publicity or other rights of third parties; (d) that is harmful to your computer or network; or (e) the downloading, copying or use of which is subject to additional terms and policies. By operating the Services, we don't represent or imply that we endorse User Content provided therein, or that we believe such User Content to be accurate, useful or non-harmful. We're not a publisher of, and we're not liable for, any User Content uploaded, posted, published or otherwise made available via the Services. You're responsible for taking precautions to protect yourself, and your computer or network, from User Content accessed via the Services.
5. Our Intellectual Property
- 5.1. Loan Factory Owns Loan Factory. The Services are protected by copyright, trademark and other US and foreign laws. These Terms don't grant you any right, title or interest in the Services, our trademarks, logos or other brand features or intellectual property, or others' content in the Services. You agree not to change, translate or otherwise create derivative works of the Services.
- 5.2. We Can Use Your Feedback For Free. We welcome your feedback, ideas or suggestions ("Feedback"), but you agree that we may use your Feedback without any restriction or obligation to you, even after this Agreement is terminated.
- 5.3. Our Demo Content Is For Private Use Only. We may provide templates or other products featuring demo content including without limitation text, photos, images, graphics, audio, video and other materials ("Demo Content"), to provide you with ideas or inspiration. However, Demo Content is for private use only (unless we tell you otherwise). You agree that you will not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform or otherwise publish any Demo Content (or any portion thereof).
- 5.4. Our Betas Are Still In Beta. We may release products and features that we're still testing and evaluating. Those Services have been marked as beta, preview or early access (or a similar phrasing), and may not be as reliable as our other services, so please keep that in mind.
- 5.5. We Use Open Source Software. Open source software is important to us. Some of the software used in the Services may be offered under an open source license that we may make available to you. There may be provisions in the open source license that override some of these Terms.
6. Our Rights
- 6.1. Important Things We Can Do. We reserve these rights, which we may exercise at any time and in our sole discretion, and without liability or notice to you (except where prohibited by law): (a) we may change the Services and their functionality; (b) we may restrict access to or use of parts or all of the Services; (c) we may suspend or discontinue parts or all of the Services; (d) we may terminate, suspend or restrict your access to or use of parts or all of the Services; (e) we may terminate, suspend or restrict access to your Account or Your Sites; and (f) we may change our eligibility criteria to use the Services (and if such eligibility criteria changes are prohibited by law where you live, we may revoke your right to use the Services in that jurisdiction).
- 6.2. How We Handle Ownership Disputes. Sometimes, ownership of an Account or site is disputed between one or more parties, such as a business and its employee, or a web designer and their client. We try not to get involved in these disputes. However, we reserve the right, at any time and in our sole discretion, and without notice to you, to determine rightful Account or site ownership and to transfer an Account or site to the rightful owner. If we can't reasonably determine the rightful owner, we reserve the right to suspend an Account or site until the disputing parties reach a resolution. We also may request documentation, such as a government-issued photo ID, a credit card invoice or a business license, to help determine the rightful owner.
- 6.3. HTTPS Encryption. We may offer HTTPS encryption for Your Sites. By registering a custom domain via the Services, or pointing a custom domain to the Services, you authorize us to create and maintain a certificate for the limited purpose of providing HTTPS for Your Sites.
7. Privacy
Our Privacy Policy explains how we collect, use and share your and your End Users' information. By using the Services, you agree to our collection, use and sharing of information as set forth in the Privacy Policy.
8. Copyright
We respect the intellectual property of others and ask that you do too. We respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement if they comply with the law, and such notices should be reported via the process described in our Copyright Policy, which is incorporated by reference into this Agreement. We reserve the right to delete or disable content alleged to be infringing, and to terminate Accounts of repeat infringers without any refunds.
9. Paid Services And Fees
- 9.1. Fees. You can access certain portions of the Services by submitting a fee payment (such additional services, "Paid Services"). For example, to publish Your Sites publicly, you'll need to pay a subscription fee. Paid Services will remain in effect until cancelled or terminated in accordance with this Agreement. We'll tell you about fees for Paid Services before charging you. You may cancel Paid Services at any time by contacting us. If you don't pay for Paid Services on time, we reserve the right to suspend or cancel your access to the Paid Services. Transaction fees and additional fees may also apply to certain portions of the Services, and we'll tell you about those fees before charging you. Our fees will appear on an invoice that we provide via the Services, unless otherwise indicated.
- 9.2. Taxes. All fees are exclusive of applicable federal, state, local or other taxes ("Taxes"). You're responsible for all applicable Taxes, and we'll charge Taxes in addition to the fees for the Services when required to do so. If you're exempt from Taxes, you must provide us with a valid tax exemption certificate (we reserve the right to determine whether a certificate is valid). Tax exemption will only apply from and after the date we receive such certificate.
- 9.3. Automatic Subscription Renewals. To ensure uninterrupted service, we'll automatically bill you for certain Paid Services from the date you submit your initial payment and on each renewal period thereafter until cancellation. Your renewal period will be equal in time to the renewal period of your current subscription. For example, if you're on a monthly subscription plan, each billable renewal period will be for one month. We'll automatically charge you the applicable amount using the payment method you have on file with us. We'll let you know in advance if you're purchasing a Paid Service that includes auto-renewal payments. You can disable auto-renewal at any time by contacting us.
- 9.4. Refunds. While you may cancel any Paid Services at any time, you won't be issued a refund except in our sole discretion, or if legally required.
- 9.5. Fee Changes. We may change our fees at any time. When applicable, we'll give you advance notice of these fee changes via the Services. New fees will not apply retroactively. If you don't agree with the fee changes, you have the right to reject the change by cancelling the applicable Paid Service before your next payment date.
- 9.6. Chargebacks. If you contact your bank or credit card company to decline, chargeback or otherwise reverse the charge of any payable fees to us ("Chargeback"), we may automatically terminate your Account. If you have questions about a payment made to us, we encourage you to contact us before filing a Chargeback. We reserve our right to dispute any Chargeback.
- 9.7. Our Payment Processor. We use a third party payment processor (the "Payment Processor") to bill you through a payment account linked to your Account. The processing of payments will be subject to the terms, conditions and privacy policies of the Payment Processor, in addition to this Agreement. Our current Payment Processor is PayPal, and your payments are processed by PayPal in accordance with PayPal's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. We don't control and are not liable for the security or performance of the Payment Processor. You agree to pay us, through the Payment Processor, all charges at the prices then in effect for any purchase in accordance with the applicable payment terms. You agree to make payment using the payment method you provide with your Account. We reserve the right to correct, or to instruct our Payment Processor to correct, any errors or mistakes, even if payment has already been requested or received.
- 9.8. Fees For Third Party Services. Third Party Services purchased via the Services may be subject to different refund policies that those Third Party Services determine, and they may be non-refundable. The purchase terms and conditions for such Third Party Services will be displayed during the purchase process, such as through a link to the purchase terms and conditions. It's your responsibility to verify your ability to purchase, cancel or obtain a refund for a Third Party Service. We don't offer refunds for purchases of Third Party Services.
10. Your eCommerce On Loan Factory
- 10.1. eCommerce Responsibilities.The Services include features that enable you to provide or sell products and services to,
or otherwise collect payments from, your End Users (such activities, "Your eCommerce"). We're not a party to, and we aren't liable for,
Your eCommerce. You're solely responsible for Your eCommerce, and compliance with any laws or regulations related thereto,
including without limitation the following:
- 10.1.1. Taxes. You're solely responsible for: (a) all Taxes and fees associated with Your eCommerce, including without limitation any Taxes related to the purchase or sale of products or services in connection therewith; (b) collecting, reporting and remitting required Taxes to relevant government authorities; and (c) informing your End Users of required Taxes, and providing them with invoices as required by law. You also agree that any tax estimates, reporting or related materials that we may provide via the Services are for illustration purposes only, and you may not rely on them to comply with your tax obligations.
- 10.1.2. Fulfillment And Delivery. You're solely responsible for fulfilling and delivering your products and services to your End Users.
- 10.1.3. Claims and Warranties. You're solely responsible for any claims or warranties you make in connection with Your eCommerce.
- 10.1.4. Customer Service. You're solely responsible for handling any comments or complaints related to Your eCommerce, including without limitation any issues related to payments, promotions, refunds or chargebacks. You agree to provide accurate and complete contact information on Your Sites so that your End Users can submitcomments or complaints to you.
- 10.1.5. Site Terms, Policies And Legal Compliance. You agree to post and make clearly available on Your Sites a privacy policy, and any other terms or policies that may be required by law, and you warrant that Your Sites and Your eCommerce will comply with all applicable laws and regulations. You agree that we won't provide any legal advice regarding such terms, policies or compliance. Be sure to read our Privacy Policy to learn more about disclosures to your End Users regarding your use of the Services.
- 10.2. eCommerce Restrictions. You may not offer or sell any products or services which, in our sole discretion: (a) may be deemed hazardous, counterfeit, stolen, fraudulent, offensive or abusive; (b) are prohibited for sale, distribution or use; or (c) otherwise fail to comply with any applicable laws or regulations, including without limitation with respect to intellectual property, privacy or publicity rights, consumer protection, product safety or trade regulations, or export controls, regulations or sanctions.
- 10.3. eCommerce Suspensions. While we'd prefer not to, we may, at any time and in our sole discretion, and without any notice to you, suspend, disable access to or remove your Account, Your Sites or Your eCommerce, without any liability to you or to any End Users, including without limitation for any loss of profits, revenue, data, goodwill or other intangible losses (except where prohibited by law). For example, we may suspend Your eCommerce if you're violating this Agreement.
- 10.4. eCommerce Payment Processor. To accept payments from your End Users in connection with Your eCommerce, you may integrate Your Sites with third party payment processors ("eCommerce Payment Processors"). Your relationship with such eCommerce Payment Processors is governed by those eCommerce Payment Processors' terms and policies. We don't control and aren't liable for any eCommerce Payment Processors, or for any transaction you may enter into with or through any eCommerce Payment Processors. eCommerce Payment Processors are Third Party Services, as defined in Section 4.1. While we will try to provide advance notice, you agree that we may, at any time and in our sole discretion, and without any notice to you, suspend, disable access to, or remove from the Services, any eCommerce Payment Processors, without any liability to you or to any End Users, including without limitation for any loss of profits, revenue, data, goodwill or other intangible losses (except where prohibited by law). Your eCommerce Payment Processors may provide invoices for any transaction fees associated with your eCommerce transactions.
11. Term And Termination
This Agreement will remain in effect until terminated by either you or us. To terminate this Agreement, you may contact us or simply stop using the Services at any time. We reserve the right to suspend or terminate the Services at any time at our sole discretion and without notice. For example, we may suspend or terminate your use of the Services if you're violating these Terms or our Acceptable Use Policy. All sections of this Agreement that by their nature should survive termination shall survive termination, including without limitation Your Content, Our Intellectual Property, Warranty Disclaimers, Limitation Of Liability, Indemnification, Dispute Resolution and Additional Terms.
12. Warranty Disclaimers
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Loan Factory makes no warranties, either express or implied, about the Services. The Services are provided "as is." Loan Factory also disclaims any warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement. No advice or information, whether oral or written, obtained by you from Loan Factory shall create any warranty. Loan Factory makes no warranty or representation that the Services will: (a) be timely, uninterrupted or error-free; (b) meet your requirements or expectations; or (c) be free from viruses or other harmful components. Some places don't allow the disclaimers in this paragraph, so they may not apply to you.
13. Limitation Of Liability
To the fullest extent permitted by law, in no event will Loan Factory be liable with respect to any claims arising out of or related to the Services or this Agreement for: (a) any indirect, special, incidental, exemplary, punitive or consequential damages; (b) any loss of profits, revenue, data, goodwill or other intangible losses; (c) any damages related to your access to, use of or inability to access or use the Services or any portion thereof, including without limitation interruption of use or cessation or modification of any aspect of the Services; (d) any damages related to loss or corruption of any content or data, including without limitation User Content and eCommerce data; (e) any User Content or other conduct or content of any user or third party using the Services, including without limitation defamatory, offensive or unlawful conduct or content; or (f) any Third Party Services or third party sites accessed via the Services. These limitations apply to any theory of liability, whether based on warranty, contract, tort, negligence, strict liability or any other legal theory, whether or not Loan Factory has been informed of the possibility of such damage, and even if a remedy set forth herein is found to have failed its essential purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, in no event shall the aggregate liability of Loan Factory for all claims arising out of or related to the Services and this Agreement exceed the greater of twenty dollars ($20) or the amounts paid by you to Loan Factory in the twelve (12) months immediately preceding the event that gave rise to such claim. Some places don't allow the types of limitations in this paragraph,so they may not apply to you.
14. Indemnification
To the fullest extent permitted by law, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Loan Factory from and against all damages, losses and expenses of any kind (including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising out of or related to: (a) your breach of this Agreement; (b) your User Content, Your Sites and Your eCommerce; (c) any claims from your End Users; and (d) your violation of any law or regulation or the rights of any third party.
15. Dispute Resolution
- 15.1. Informal Resolution. Before filing a claim against Loan Factory, you agree to try to resolve the dispute by first emailing email@example.com with a description of your claim. We'll try to resolve the dispute informally by following up via email, phone or other methods. If we can't resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days of our receipt of your first email, you or Loan Factory may then bring a formal proceeding.
- 15.2. Arbitration Agreement. You and Loan Factory agree to resolve any claims arising from or relating to the Services or this Agreement through final and binding arbitration and you and Loan Factory expressly waive trial by jury, except as set forth below. Discovery and rights to appeal in arbitration are generally more limited than in a lawsuit, and other rights that you and we would have in court may not be available in arbitration. There is no judge or jury in arbitration, and court review of an arbitration award is limited.
- 15.3. Arbitration Opt-Out. You can decline this agreement to arbitrate by emailing us at firstname.lastname@example.com within thirty (30) days of the date that you first agree to this Agreement ("Opt-Out Period"). Your email must be sent from the email address you use for your Account, and must include your full name, residential address and a clear statement that you want to opt out of arbitration. If you opt out of arbitration pursuant to this Section 15.3, then Sections 15.2, 15.4, 15.5 and 15.6 of these Terms do not apply to you. This opt-out doesn't affect any other sections of the Terms, including without limitation Sections 15.8 (Judicial Forum For Disputes; Time For Filing), 15.9 (No Class Actions) and 16.2 (Controlling Law). If you have any questions about this process, please contact email@example.com.
- 15.4. Arbitration Time For Filing. Any arbitration must be commenced by filing a demand for arbitration within one year after the date the party asserting the claim first knows or reasonably should know of the act, omission or default giving rise to the claim. If applicable law prohibits a one year limitation period for asserting claims, any claim must be asserted within the shortest time period permitted by applicable law.
- 15.5. Arbitration Procedures. JAMS, Inc. ("JAMS") will administer the arbitration in accordance with the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules & Procedures ("JAMS Rules") in effect at the time of the dispute. You and Loan Factory agree that this Agreement affects interstate commerce, so the US Federal Arbitration Act and federal arbitration law apply and govern the interpretation and enforcement of these provisions (despite the choice of law provision below). Any arbitration hearings will take place at a location to be agreed upon in New York, New York, in English, and shall be settled by one commercial arbitrator with substantial experience in resolving intellectual property and commercial contract disputes, who shall be selected from the appropriate list of JAMS arbitrators in accordance with the JAMS Rules. The arbitrator must follow this Agreement and can award the same damages and relief as a court (including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees and costs), except that the arbitrator may not award declaratory or injunctive relief benefiting anyone but the parties to the arbitration. Judgment upon the award rendered by such arbitrator may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
- 15.6. Arbitration Fees. The JAMS Rules will govern payment of all arbitration fees. We won't seek our attorneys' fees and costs in arbitration unless the arbitrator determines that your claim is frivolous.
- 15.7. Exceptions To Arbitration Agreement. Either you or Loan Factory may assert claims, if they qualify, in small claims court in San Jose, California or any United States county where you live or work. Either you or Loan Factory may bring a lawsuit solely for injunctive relief to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services, or intellectual property infringement or misappropriation (for example, trademark, trade secret, copyright or patent rights) without first engaging in arbitration or the informal dispute resolution process described above.
- 15.8. Judicial Forum For Disputes; Time For Filing. If our agreement to arbitrate is found not to apply to you or your claim, or if you opt out of arbitration pursuant to Section 15.3, you and Loan Factory agree that any judicial proceeding (other than small claims actions) must be brought exclusively in the federal or state courts of San Jose, California and you and Loan Factory consent to venue and personal jurisdiction in those courts. Any claim not subject to arbitration must be commenced within one year after the date the party asserting the claim first knows or reasonably should know of the act, omission or default giving rise to the claim. If applicable law prohibits a one year limitation period for asserting claims, any claim must be asserted within the shortest time period permitted by applicable law.
- 15.9. NO CLASS ACTIONS. You may only resolve disputes with us on an individual basis, and may not bring a claim as a plaintiff or a class member in a class, consolidated or representative action. Class actions, class arbitrations, private attorney general actions and consolidation with other arbitrations aren't allowed.
17. Additional Terms
- 17.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between you and Loan Factory regarding the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes and replaces any other prior or contemporaneous agreements, or terms and conditions applicable to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement creates no third party beneficiary rights.
- 17.2. Controlling Law. This Agreement and the Services shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of New York, without regard to its conflict of law provisions.
- 17.3. Waiver, Severability And Assignment. Our failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement is not a waiver of our right to do so later. If any provision of this Agreement is found unenforceable, the remaining provisions will remain in full effect and an enforceable term will be substituted reflecting our intent as closely as possible. You may not assign any of your rights under this Agreement, and any such attempt will be void. We may assign our rights under this Agreement to any of our affiliates or subsidiaries, or to any successor in interest of any business associated with the Services.
- 17.4. Modifications. We may modify this Agreement from time to time, and will always post the most current version on our site. If a modification meaningfully reduces your rights, we'll notify you (by, for example, sending you an email or displaying a prominent notice within the Services). The notice will designate a reasonable period after which the new terms will take effect. Modifications will never apply retroactively. By continuing to use or access the Services after any modifications come into effect, you agree to be bound by the modified Agreement. If you disagree with our changes, then you should stop using the Services.
- 17.5. Translation. This Agreement was originally written in English (US). We may translate this Agreement into other languages. In the event of a conflict between a translated version and the English version, the English version will control.


text:
Get 24/7 Help
Save money with our Affordable Rates
Feel confident with our 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
Need help? Call us
for a FREE quote
Google Maps New York
Reach more customers. Boost your sales. Scale your business.
Contact Us
Do you want more customers to find your business? As the leading google maps New York agency, we use the Google My Business (GMB) feature to list your business in local maps, making it much easier for new customers to find your business and visit your website or physical store location. Google is undoubtedly the most popular search engine, with over 70 percent of all searches being done on Google – which makes the decision to have your business listed in Google Maps a simple no brainer. GMB results usually appear near the top of the search results page, making it an essential tool for capturing high traffic and getting an increased number of customers to visit your business.
Make it easy for new consumers find you. Get help from the #1 New York google maps company, and start increasing traffic to your business. We will help you set up your business in Google maps, and create GMB account for your brand. With your new GMB account, we will connect you with new and qualified customers across all of Google's multiple platforms. In fact, when used properly, a GMB account will help your business increase sales and deliver extremely precise and useful insights about your customers. The truth is, if your brand does not have a GMB account, then your company is not taking full advantage of the opportunity to increase traffic and reach more qualified customers.
Increase your revenue. We are the top google maps New York agency, and we know how to scale businesses. After all, we are fellow entrepreneurs as well. As expert digital marketers, we fully understand and appreciate the power of Google Maps, and we harness the power of online media to grow your business and reach more customers in the shortest time frame possible. We can establish your business's presence in the local map listing, and help you uniquely position your brand in Google so that customers easily find you over the competition. With a verified GMB account, we can customize your brand's image to your liking and optimize it for Google search results.
10x your business. As the best New York google maps company, we set up a verified GMB account for your business and ensure that new and potential consumers are able to easily obtain information about your company when they are searching for similar products or services in Google. In short, we make it easy for customers to learn about you, develop trust for your brand, and think about you when they are ready to purchase. Relatedly, this benefits you by way of increased traffic higher revenue, stronger connections with customers that translate to more loyalty and lifelong business, and being viewed by customers as the ultimate authority in your industry.
Connect with new customers. Get help from the leading google maps New York agency to start setting up your verified GMB account today. Obtaining a Google My Business account for your brand will undoubtedly help to generate more opportunities and sales for your company. With an established presence in the local maps listing, we are able to help you:
Customize your brand's online profile so that customers receive the exact messaging you intend to deliver with crystal clear precision
Demonstrate your products or services through visuals that attract new consumers and gain interest
Enhance your company's credibility and trust through positive customer reviews
Collect detailed insights into the traffic that we drive to your page


text:
Ben Nye's Lipsticks are perfect for a variety of makeup designs. Lipsticks are moist, creamy and intensely saturated with color for vibrant, long lasting wear. Rev-up lip color by applying Ice shades over another color or directly on lips. Mix shades with Natural Lip Gloss LG-01 for a sheer, shiny "stain".
LS-4 Dusty Rose, Lustrous Lipsticks .12oz./3.4gm.
Makeup, Lustrous Lipsticks
10 in stock


text:
On August 31, 2017, Satelles announced the appointment of Dr. Per Enge to its Board of Directors.
Dr. Enge, is the Vance and Arlene Coffman Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics of Stanford University, where he is the Director of the Stanford Center for Position Navigation and Time. His laboratory has worked with the US Coast Guard to design a medium frequency (MF) radio system to broadcast differential GPS corrections to maritime users, and this system has been implemented as a worldwide standard. His laboratory also worked with the Federal Aviation Administration to develop the wide area augmentation systems (WAAS). This system provides GPS integrity data to airborne users. Today, WAAS is carried by over 100,000 aircraft, and similar systems have been implemented in Europe, India and Japan. He also serves on the Board of Directors of Amida Technologies, and he serves as a Technical Advisor to Polaris Wireless. He has received the Kepler, Thurlow and Burka Awards from the Institute of Navigation for his work. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). He is a Member of the National Academy of Engineering, and is a Fellow of the Institute of Navigation. Dr. Enge received his PhD in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois in 1983. In 2012, the U.S. Air Force inducted Per into the GPS Hall of Fame.
Dr. Enge commented, "I am eager to join the Satelles Board of Directors and look forward to supporting the management team. I am encouraged by the progress Satelles has made and continue to have confidence in the leadership team and future growth of the business.
"It is with great pleasure that we welcome Per to Satelles Board of Directors," said Dr. Michael O'Connor, Satelles CEO. "Per has distinguished himself as a technology innovator, and brings to our Board of Directors deep expertise in global navigation satellite systems. His wealth of experience and expertise in GPS and other technologies adds new depth to our board as we continue to deliver Satellite Time and Location (STL) to users around the world. We look forward to working with Per on our mission to deliver trusted time and location solutions that augment and enhance existing solutions – including GPS.
About Satelles
Satelles provides unique time and location solutions delivered over the Iridium® constellation of 66 low-earth-orbiting satellites. These time and location signals are available anywhere on Earth, without the need for local infrastructure, making the system perfect for augmenting GPS and other location-based technologies. Unlike standard GPS, these high power signals can reach into varied building structures. Most importantly, Satelles has customized the Iridium signal-in-space to provide a location-specific signature that can reliably prove (or authenticate) the location of a mobile device or other equipment, while being virtually impervious to spoofing and other attacks.


text:
2020-07-29 OrigiMed
• Bayer and OrigiMed reached a partnership to develop a next-generation sequencing (NGS) based companion diagnostic-in Vitro diagnostic (CDx-IVD) product in China for Larotrectinib. NTRK gene fusion detection
• The collaboration will begin with the development of a CDx-IVD for larotrectinib for the Chinese market. Larotrectinib is the world's first TRK inhibitor to be approved in patients with TRK gene fusion cancer in all solid tumors in the United States (2018) and Europe (2019)
• The collaboration aims to develop a kit for China that helps to identify all TRK fusion cancer patients who may benefit from therapy.
Beijing, Shanghai, April 30th, 2020 - Bayer and OrigiMed (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (referred to as "OrigiMed") today announced a strategic collaboration for the development and commercialization of NGS-based companion diagnostics – in vitro diagnostic (CDx-IVD) in China for detection of NTRK gene fusions. This collaboration will focus on developing a CDx-IVD for larotrectinib (Vitrakvi®) for the Chinese market, the first TRK inhibitor approved in the US (2018) and Europe (2019) for adult and pediatrics with TRK fusion cancer and is currently developed globally, including in China.
"Approved in various markets already including the US and EU, larotrectinib is a first-of-its-kind treatment exclusively designed for adults and children with TRK fusion cancer. It is also the first compound that received it's initial approved based on the molecular alteration (NTRK gene fusion) driving their cancer irrespective of the tumor site of origin," said Dr. Emmanuelle di Tomaso, Head of Oncology Precision Medicine, Bayer's Oncology Strategic Business Unit, "Cancer care is currently undergoing a paradigm shift, and as this new era of precision oncology treatment unfolds, we are continuing our effort of delivering innovative medicines such as larotrectinib, which can provide value to patients and their treating physicians around the world."
"As one of the first NGS companies to introduce NTRK gene fusion detection in China, we are looking forward to working with Bayer to develop larotrectinib CDx-IVD, jointly support clinical trials of larotrectinib in mainland China and provide therapeutic benefits for more patients." The genomic testing and analysis of cancer patients to determine whether they are suitable for the treatment of larotrectinib is also a very urgent clinical need," said Dr. Wang Kai, CEO of OrigiMed.
About Bayer
Bayer is a global enterprise with core competencies in the life science fields of health care and nutrition. Its products and services are designed to benefit people by supporting efforts to overcome the significant challenges presented by a growing and aging global population. At the same time, the Group aims to increase its earning power and create value through innovation and growth. Bayer is committed to the principles of sustainable development, and the Bayer brand stands for trust, reliability, and quality throughout the world. In fiscal 2019, the Group employed around 104,000 people and had sales of 43.5 billion euros. Capital expenditures amounted to 2.9 billion euros, R&D expenses to 5.3 billion euros. For more information, go to www.bayer.com .
About OrigiMed
OrigiMed is a medical science and technology transforming company and a partner of biopharmaceutical companies, who focuses on developing new technologies and clinical applications to help all types of cancer patients get access to precise treatment and help accelerate biomarker-driven drug development. By carrying out more comprehensive and high-throughput methods, leveraging wholesome bioinformatics analysis and clinical annotation to help match patients to approved targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and clinical trials-giving physicians and patients powerful actionable insights for navigating cancer care, ultimately aiming to fortify the evolution of cancer precision medicine. More information, please visit www.origimed.com
Website: www.origimed.com
Contact: Amy Huang
Telephone: 86-13052471970
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
San Francisco to cease Mac purchases without EPEAT certification
San Francisco Department of Environment officials who spoke with The Wall Street Journal said letters will be sent out over the next two weeks to the city's 50 agencies that Macs "no longer qualify" for purchase with city funds. Jon Walton, San Francisco's chief information officer, said city employees will still be able to buy Macs, but that doing so will require a "long" and "onerous" process that will make it "very problematic" to do so.
Tuesday's report portrayed the city's decision as "largely symbolic," as only between 500 and 700 of its municipal computers are Macs, representing 1 to 2 percent of its total usage.
Last week, it was revealed that Apple has asked the government-backed electronics standard setting group EPEAT to remove 39 desktops, laptops and monitors from its list of environmentally friendly devices. The move even removed legacy devices that already held EPEAT certification from the agency's list.
The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool was the result of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant awarded to the Zero Waste Alliance for an electronics assessment program.
The MacBook Pro with Retina display environmental information no longer mentions the EPEAT standard
and was not submitted for certification. | Source: Apple
San Francisco may be just the first government agency to move away from Macs following Apple's decision. Because of a 2007 executive order, 95 percent of all federal agency purchases must be EPEAT-registered products, and many manufacturers strive to attain the group's "Gold" rating.
EPEAT certification requires that a product must be easily disassembled with common tools to have toxic components like batteries separated from recyclable materials. Apple's products have become increasingly difficult to take apart, as evidenced by iFixit giving the company's new Retina display MacBook Pro its lowest ever repairability score of 1 out of 10.
Apple's decision to remove EPEAT certification from its Mac lineup is curious, because the company helped to create the EPEAT standards in 2006. The company also regularly discloses environmental assessments of its products and supply chain partners, and even touts how "green" its products are at keynote presentations.
But the new Retina display MacBook Pro would not have been eligible for EPEAT certification because its battery is glued to the case, the organization's CEO, Robert Frisbee, told the Journal. An Apple staffer reportedly told EPEAT in June that the Mac maker was leaving the registry because of changes to its "design direction."