text:
by Chuck Norris
Halloween just got scarier – much scarier.
I'm not talking about a new Hollywood slasher film or a new line of grotesque costumes, but a possible political nightmare scenario in which the White House could be positioned to sell out U.S. sovereignty, shred the Constitution and leave you and yours to the whims of foreign powers.
"Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"
Not according to Lord Christopher Monckton, once science policy adviser to Lady Margaret Thatcher, who read the treaty and said the Copenhagen conference is a cover for the beginnings of a one-world government. Monckton spoke to the Minnesota Free Market Institute in St. Paul, Minn.:
I have read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. And we've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. How many of you think the word "election," or "democracy" or "vote," or "ballot" occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once.
Monckton then warned, if Obama signs the treaty, he would be flushing U.S. sovereignty down the global toilet. He cautioned, "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever – and neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect would have any power whatsoever to take it back again."
Monckton further pointed out that, even though ratification of our president's signature on that treaty would take a 67 supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate, it could pass a simple majority as an amendment to the cap-and-trade bill.
Politifact.com (as well as many Left-leaning blogs) quickly criticized Monckton's conclusions as conspiratorial and climate-skepticism rhetoric, based upon the notion that the treaty is a draft and not a finalized document. But the apologetic of Politifact.com leaves the impression that the current draft is the roughest of cuts, when in reality it is the result of seven sessions of deliberations and revisions from several subgroups, including representatives from developed and developing countries ("parties"), "with a view to modifying it in the direction of consolidation and convergence."
(Column continues below)
Like with Congress' drafts of Obamacare, should we not be concerned because the current draft of the treaty may not be the final version, especially when the present language smacks of an abandonment of the principles upon which our republic was founded? As I myself read through the latest draft of the 181-page treaty, I noticed many lines that could warrant Monckton's and others' concerns (I've added italics for emphasis):
PP.6 Intending to renew and strengthen the global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among Parties, according to the principles of the Convention. (Page 6)
PP.7 Affirming a Shared Vision of a long-term goal to equitably, successfully and coherently integrate the ambitious efforts of all Parties. (Page 6)
PP.8 Recognizing that sustainable development is the first priority for developing countries. Therefore, that our commitment to a low carbon society would have to be linked to our development priorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. (Page 6)
PP.13 Recognizing that current and potential climate change impacts require a shift in the global investment patterns and that criteria for financing allocation shall clearly respond to the priorities identified by the international community, with climate change stabilization being one of these priorities. (Page 6)
10. Led by developed country Parties, an economic transition is needed that shifts in order to adjust global economic growth patterns towards a sustainable low-emission economy … (Page 8)
20. In order to fulfill this shared vision, Parties have agreed to establish a coherent, cohesive and integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the Convention and a follow up/compliance mechanism. (Page 10)
… ensuring that global crises, such as the financial crisis, should not constitute an obstacle to the provision of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in accordance with the Convention. (Page 11 – Please read that one again!)
… all developed country Parties should then be increased to achieve the global goal without the contribution of developing country Parties. (Page 13)
36. The new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework to be established for the implementation, monitoring, reporting and verification of the global cooperative action for mitigation, adaptation, technology and financing, should be set under the Convention. It should include a financial mechanism and a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention. (Page 18)
37. The new institutional arrangement will provide technical and financial support for developing countries in the following areas: (a) preparation, implementation and follow-up through monitoring, reporting and verification of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by developing countries. These activities could include options to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD); (b) preparation, implementation and follow-up of national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs) or national communications in developing countries; (c) technology needs assessments (TNAs) for adaptation and mitigation under the NAMAs and the NAPAs or national communications of developing countries; (d) capacity-building and enabling environments for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries; (e) education, awareness raising and public participation, focused on youth, women and indigenous peoples; (f) design and implementation of adaptation programmes and projects; (g) support for all technological cycle phases: research and development (R&D), diffusion and transfer, including acquisition of technologies for adaptation and mitigation, including the purchase or flexibility of patents. (Page 18)
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following … (Page 18)
52. Particular effort should be taken to enhance cooperation amongst intergovernmental organizations. (Page 47)
28. A global fund shall be established to support a global feed-in tariff programme, providing guaranteed purchase prices, over and above the retail energy price in developing countries. … The Global Fund shall aim at both inducing a shift to renewable energy without compromising development momentum in developing countries, and achieving economies of scale and a sustained reduction in the costs of generating renewable energy. (Page 138)
29. A special fund shall be established: (a) For the economic and social consequences of response measures … (b) To assist countries whose economies are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing and export, and/or on consumption of fossil fuels … (Page 138)
That last point (No. 29) is one of the most shocking. Not only are developed countries (like the U.S.) mandated in this treaty to provide for developing countries despite global or financial crises (p. 11). After becoming the wealthiest nations on the planet from the production and sale of oil, like those in the Middle East, this global governing body will establish a "special fund" to give them financial aid when the world is no longer dependent upon their commodities! Are they kidding?!
Now, if that isn't one powerful intergovernmental or global-governmental group overseeing and manipulating ours and others economic and political conditions, I don't know what is. Even if some of Lord Christopher Monckton's claims about the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are overstated, concerns about the extent of this body's political power and global economic sway are no more conspiratorial than the concern for Al Gore's comments in July (2009) at Oxford that change will be driven through "global governance."
And does anyone doubt that our president, as a Nobel peace laureate who believes he can negotiate with terrorists and dictators, has a global desire for international coalescence? Or should it not concern us that at the G-20 conference he would push world leaders to reshape the global economy? If he is already selling our nation to communist countries like China via our skyrocketing national debt, how much more difficult would it be to progressively replace the tenets of our Constitution with principles of "The Communist Manifesto"? Have we already started?
I've been so flabbergasted lately by Washington's abandonment of our founder's vision and principles that I expanded (to more than 300 pages) the new paperback version of my No. 14 New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism" (available in Jan. 2010). It includes new materials in every chapter explaining how, in just one year, the Obama administration has progressively dismantled our Constitution, buried our economy, forsaken our posterity, disintegrated our borders, abandoned our godly heritage, impaled the traditional family and crippled America's health and future. (Amended are also copies of the Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.)
One thing is certain: Obama wasn't kidding on the campaign trail when he said it's time for the U.S. to "turn the page" on its trivial culture wars. But who knew just how many pages he would be turning, even in his first year in office? Who knew he would actually swap the play books?
But then again, I'm sure the White House just thinks I've been watching too much Fox News


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Petitioner accounting firm was retained by a securities brokerage firm (Weis) registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and a member of the New York Stock Exchange (Exchange), and in this capacity audited Weis' books and records and prepared for filing with the SEC the annual reports of financial condition required by 17 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act) and implementing regulations. Subsequently, because of Weis' precarious financial condition, respondent Redington was appointed as trustee in the liquidation of Weis' business pursuant to the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA). During the liquidation, Weis' cash and securities on hand, as well as a sum of money advanced by respondent Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) to the trustee under the SIPA, proved to be insufficient to make whole those customers who had left assets or deposits with Weis. The SIPC and the trustee then filed an action for damages against petitioner in District Court, seeking to impose liability upon petitioner by reason of its allegedly improper audit of Weis' financial statements and alleging that because of such improper conduct petitioner breached duties owed to the SIPC, the trustee, and others under the common law, 17 (a), and the regulations, and that this misconduct prevented Weis' true financial condition from becoming known until it was too late to forestall liquidation or to lessen the adverse financial consequences to Weis' customers. The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that no claim for relief was stated because no private cause of action could be implied from 17 (a). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that 17 (a) imposes a duty on accountants, that a breach of this duty gives rise to an implied private right of action for damages in favor of a broker-dealer's customers, and that the SIPC and the trustee could assert this implied cause of action on behalf of Weis' customers.
There is no implied private cause of action for damages under 17 (a). Pp. 568-579.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 579. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 580. POWELL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. [442 U.S. 560, 562]
Arnold I. Roth argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Arthur S. Linker and Barry S. Berger.
Philip R. Forlenza argued the cause for respondent Securities Investor Protection Corp. With him on the brief were Wilfred R. Caron and Rafael Pastor. James B. Kobak, Jr., argued the cause for respondent Redington. With him on the brief was John W. Schwartz. *
[ Footnote * ] Kenneth J. Bialkin and Louis A. Craco filed a brief for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants as amicus curiae urging reversal.
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once again, we are called upon to decide whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one. During this Term alone, we have been asked to undertake this task no fewer than five times in cases in which we have granted certiorari. 1 Here we decide whether customers of securities brokerage firms that are required to file certain financial reports with regulatory authorities by 17 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 48 Stat. 897, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 78q (a), have an implied cause of action for damages under 17 (a) against accountants who audit such reports, based on misstatements contained in the reports. 2 [442 U.S. 560, 563]
Petitioner Touche Ross & Co. is a firm of certified public accountants. Weis Securities, Inc. (Weis), a securities brokerage firm registered as a broker-dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) and a member of the New York Stock Exchange (Exchange), retained Touche Ross to serve as Weis' independent certified public accountant from 1969 to 1973. In this capacity, Touche Ross conducted audits of Weis' books and records and prepared for filing with the Commission the annual reports of financial condition required by 17 (a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. 78q (a), and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder. 17 CFR 240.17a-5 (1972). 3 Touche Ross also prepared for Weis [442 U.S. 560, 564] responses to financial questionnaires required by the Exchange of its member firms.
This case arises out of the insolvency and liquidation of Weis. In 1973, the Commission and the Exchange learned of Weis' precarious financial condition and of possible violations of the 1934 Act by Weis and its officers. In May 1973, the Commission sought and was granted an injunction barring Weis and five of its officers from conducting business in violation of the 1934 Act. 4 At the same time, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), pursuant to statutory authority, applied in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for a decree adjudging that Weis' customers were in need of the protection afforded by the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA), 84 Stat. 1636, 15 U.S.C. 78aaa et seq. 5 The District Court [442 U.S. 560, 565] granted the requested decree and appointed respondent Redington (Trustee) to act as trustee in the liquidation of the Weis business under SIPA.
During the liquidation, Weis' cash and securities on hand appeared to be insufficient to make whole those customers who had left assets or deposits with Weis. Accordingly, pursuant to SIPA, SIPC advanced the Trustee $14 million to satisfy, up to specified statutory limits, the claims of the approximately 34,000 Weis customers and certain other creditors of Weis. Despite the advance of $14 million by SIPC, there apparently remain several million dollars of unsatisfied customer claims. 6
In 1976, SIPC and the Trustee filed this action for damages against Touche Ross in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The "common allegations" of the complaint, which at this stage of the case we must accept as true, aver that certain of Weis' officers conspired to conceal substantial operating losses during its 1972 fiscal year by falsifying financial reports required to be filed with regulatory authorities pursuant to 17 (a) of the 1934 Act. App. 8. SIPC and the Trustee seek to impose liability upon Touche Ross by reason of its allegedly improper audit and certification [442 U.S. 560, 566] of the 1972 Weis financial statements and preparation of answers to the Exchange financial questionnaire. Id., at 15-19. The complaint alleges that because of its improper conduct, Touche Ross breached duties that it owed SIPC, the Trustee, and others under the common law, 17 (a) and the regulations thereunder, and that Touche Ross' alleged dereliction prevented Weis' true financial condition from becoming known until it was too late to take remedial action to forestall liquidation or to lessen the adverse financial consequences of such a liquidation to the Weis customers. App. 8-9. The Trustee seeks to recover $51 million on behalf of Weis in its own right and on behalf of the customers of Weis whose property the Trustee was unable to return. SIPC claims $14 million, either as subrogee of Weis' customers whose claims it has paid under SIPA or in its own right. The federal claims are based on 17 (a) of the 1934 Act; the complaint also alleges several state common-law causes of action based on accountants' negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. 7
The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that no claim for relief was stated because no private cause of action could be implied from 17 (a). 428 F. Supp. 483 (SDNY 1977). 8 A divided panel of the Second Circuit reversed. 592 F.{4)d 617 [442 U.S. 560, 567] (1978). The court first found that 17 (a) imposes a duty on accountants. 592 F.2d, at 621. It next concluded, based on the factors set forth in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975), that an accountant's breach of his 17 (a) duty gives rise to an implied private right of action for damages in favor of a broker-dealer's customers, even though it acknowledged that the "legislative history of the section is mute on the issue." 592 F.2d, at 622. The court held that SIPC and the Trustee could assert this implied cause of action on behalf of the Weis customers. 9 We granted certiorari, 439 U.S. 979 (1978), and we now reverse. [442 U.S. 560, 568]
The question of the existence of a statutory cause of action is, of course, one of statutory construction. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 688 (1979); see National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Association of Railroad Passengers, 414 U.S. 453, 458 (1974) (hereinafter Amtrak). SIPC's argument in favor of implication of a private right of action based on tort principles, therefore, is entirely misplaced. Brief for Respondent SIPC 22-23. As we recently have emphasized, "the fact that a federal statute has been violated and some person harmed does not automatically give rise to a private cause of action in favor of that person." Cannon v. University of Chicago, supra, at 688. Instead, our task is limited solely to determining whether Congress intended to create the private right of action asserted by SIPC and the Trustee. And as with any case involving the interpretation of a statute, our analysis must begin with the language of the statute itself. Cannon v. University of Chicago, supra, at 689; Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U.S. 551, 558 (1979); Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462, 472 (1977); Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U.S. 1, 24 (1977); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 197 (1976).
At the time pertinent to the case before us, 17 (a) read, in relevant part, as follows:
The intent of 17 (a) is evident from its face. Section 17 (a) is like provisions in countless other statutes that simply require certain regulated businesses to keep records and file periodic reports to enable the relevant governmental authorities to perform their regulatory functions. The reports and records provide the regulatory authorities with the necessary information to oversee compliance with and enforce the various statutes and regulations with which they are concerned. [442 U.S. 560, 570] In this case, the 17 (a) reports, along with inspections and other information, enable the Commission and the Exchange to ensure compliance with the "net capital rule," the principal regulatory tool by which the Commission and the Exchange monitor the financial health of brokerage firms and protect customers from the risks involved in leaving their cash and securities with broker-dealers. 10 The information contained in the 17 (a) reports is intended to provide the Commission, the Exchange, and other authorities with a sufficiently early warning to enable them to take appropriate action to protect investors before the financial collapse of the particular broker-dealer involved. But 17 (a) does not by any stretch of its language purport to confer private damages rights or, indeed, any remedy in the event the regulatory authorities are unsuccessful in achieving their objectives and the broker becomes insolvent before corrective steps can be taken. By its terms, 17 (a) is forward-looking, not retrospective; it seeks to forestall insolvency, not to provide [442 U.S. 560, 571] recompense after it has occurred. In short, there is no basis in the language of 17 (a) for inferring that a civil cause of action for damages lay in favor of anyone. Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S., at 79 .
As the Court of Appeals recognized, the legislative history of the 1934 Act is entirely silent on the question whether a private right of action for damages should or should not be available under 17 (a) in the circumstances of this case. 592 F.2d, at 622. SIPC and the Trustee nevertheless argue that because Congress did not express an intent to deny a private cause of action under 17 (a), this Court should infer one. But implying a private right of action on the basis of congressional silence is a hazardous enterprise, at best. See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 64 (1978). And where, as here, the plain language of the provision weighs against implication of a private remedy, the fact that there is no suggestion whatsoever in the legislative history that 17 (a) may give rise to suits for damages reinforces our decision not to find such a right of action implicit within the section. See Cort v. Ash, supra, at 82-84; cf. Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, 421 U.S. 412 (1975); Amtrak, 414 U.S. 453 (1974); T. I. M. E. Inc. v. United States, 359 U.S. 464 (1959). 11
Further justification for our decision not to imply the private remedy that SIPC and the Trustee seek to establish may be found in the statutory scheme of which 17 (a) is a part. First, 17 (a) is flanked by provisions of the 1934 [442 U.S. 560, 572] Act that explicitly grant private causes of action. 16 (b), 15 U.S.C. 78p (b); 18 (a), 15 U.S.C. 78r (a). Section 9 (e) of the 1934 Act also expressly provides a private right of action. 15 U.S.C. 78i (e). See also 20, 15 U.S.C. 78t. Obviously, then, when Congress wished to provide a private damages remedy, it knew how to do so and did so expressly. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 734 (1975); see Amtrak, supra, at 458; T. I. M. E. Inc. v. United States, supra, at 471.
Second, 18 (a) creates a private cause of action against persons, such as accountants, who "make or cause to be made" materially misleading statements in any reports or other documents filed with the Commission, although the cause of action is limited to persons who, in reliance on the statements, purchased or sold a security whose price was affected by the statements. 12 15 U.S.C. 78r (a); see Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S., at 211 n. 31; Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, supra, at 736. Since SIPC and the Trustee do not allege that the Weis customers purchased [442 U.S. 560, 573] or sold securities in reliance on the 17 (a) reports at issue, they cannot sue Touche Ross under 18 (a). 13 Instead, their claim is that the Weis customers did not get the enforcement action they would have received if the 17 (a) reports had been accurate. 14 SIPC and the Trustee argue that 18 (a) cannot provide the exclusive remedy for misstatements made in 17 (a) reports because the cause of action created by 18 (a) is expressly limited to purchasers and sellers. They assert that Congress could not have intended in 18 (a) to deprive customers, such as those whom they seek to represent, of a cause of action for misstatements contained in 17 (a) reports.
There is evidence to support the view that 18 (a) was intended to provide the exclusive remedy for misstatements contained in any reports filed with the Commission, including [442 U.S. 560, 574] those filed pursuant to 17 (a). 15 Certainly, SIPC and the Trustee have pointed to no evidence of a legislative intent to except 17 (a) reports from 18 (a)'s purview. Cf. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 421 U.S., at 419 -420; Amtrak, 414 U.S., at 458 . But we need not decide whether Congress expressly intended 18 (a) to provide the exclusive remedy for misstatements contained in 17 (a) reports. For where the principal express civil remedy for misstatements in reports created by Congress contemporaneously with the passage of 17 (a) is by its terms limited to purchasers and sellers of securities, we are extremely reluctant to imply a cause of action in 17 (a) that is significantly broader than the remedy that Congress chose to provide. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, supra, at 735-736; see Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, at 210; Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, supra, at 421-423; Amtrak, supra, at 458; cf. T. I. M. E. Inc. v. United States, 359 U.S., at 471 . 16 [442 U.S. 560, 575]
SIPC and the Trustee urge, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the analysis should not stop here. Relying on the factors set forth in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S., at 78 , they assert that we also must consider whether an implied private remedy is necessary to "effectuate the purpose of the section" and whether the cause of action is one traditionally relegated to state law. SIPC and the Trustee contend that implication of a private remedy is essential to the goals of 17 (a) and that enforcement of 17 (a) is properly a matter of federal, not state, concern. Brief for Respondent Redington 30-35; Brief for Respondent SIPC 42-52. We need not reach the merits of the arguments concerning the "necessity" of implying a private remedy and the proper forum for enforcement of the rights asserted by SIPC and the Trustee, for we believe such inquiries have little relevance to the decision of this case. It is true that in Cort v. Ash, the Court set forth four factors that it considered "relevant" in determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one. But the Court did not decide that each of these factors is entitled to equal weight. The central inquiry remains whether Congress intended to create, either expressly or by implication, a private cause of action. Indeed, the first three factors discussed in Cort - the language and focus of the statute, its [442 U.S. 560, 576] legislative history, and its purpose, see 422 U.S., at 78 - are ones traditionally relied upon in determining legislative intent. Here, the statute by its terms grants no private rights to any identifiable class and proscribes no conduct as unlawful. And the parties as well as the Court of Appeals agree that the legislative history of the 1934 Act simply does not speak to the issue of private remedies under 17 (a). At least in such a case as this, the inquiry ends there: The question whether Congress, either expressly or by implication, intended to create a private right of action, has been definitely answered in the negative.
Finally, SIPA and the Trustee argue that our decision in J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426 (1964), requires implication of a private cause of action under 17 (a). In Borak, the Court found in 14 (a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. 78n (a), an implied cause of action for damages in favor of shareholders for losses resulting from deceptive proxy solicitations in violation of 14 (a). SIPC and the Trustee emphasize language in Borak that discusses the remedial purposes of the 1934 Act and 27 of the Act, which, inter alia, grants to federal district courts the exclusive jurisdiction of violations of the Act and suits to enforce any liability or duty created by the Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. 17 They argue that [442 U.S. 560, 577] Touche Ross has breached its duties under 17 (a) and the rules adopted thereunder and that in view of 27 and of the remedial purposes of the 1934 Act, federal courts should provide a damages remedy for the breach. 18
The reliance of SIPC and the Trustee on 27 is misplaced. Section 27 grants jurisdiction to the federal courts and provides for venue and service of process. It creates no cause of action of its own force and effect; it imposes no liabilities. The source of plaintiffs' rights must be found, if at all, in the substantive provisions of the 1934 Act which they seek to enforce, not in the jurisdictional provision. See Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, 421 U.S., at 424 . The Court in Borak found a private cause of action implicit in 14 (a). See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S., at 690 -693, n. 13; Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U.S. at 25; Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S., at 557 . We do not now question the actual holding of that case, but we decline to read the opinion so broadly that virtually every provision of the securities Acts gives rise to an implied private cause of action. E. g., Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., supra. 19 [442 U.S. 560, 578]
The invocation of the "remedial purposes" of the 1934 Act is similarly unavailing. Only last Term, we emphasized that generalized references to the "remedial purposes" of the 1934 Act will not justify reading a provision "more broadly than its language and the statutory scheme reasonably permit." SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, 116 (1978); see Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S., at 200 . Certainly, the mere fact that 17 (a) was designed to provide protection for brokers' customers does not require the implication of a private damages action in their behalf. Cannon v. University of Chicago, supra, at 688, and n. 9; Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, supra, at 421. To the extent our analysis in today's decision differs from that of the Court in Borak, it suffices to say that in a series of cases since Borak we have adhered to a stricter standard for the implication of private causes of action, and we follow that stricter standard today. Cannon v. University of Chicago, supra, at 688-709. The ultimate question is one of congressional intent, not one of whether this Court thinks that it can improve upon the statutory scheme that Congress enacted into law. [442 U.S. 560, 579]
SIPC and the Trustee contend that the result we reach sanctions injustice. But even if that were the case, the argument is made in the wrong forum, for we are not at liberty to legislate. If there is to be a federal damages remedy under these circumstances, Congress must provide it. "[I]t is not for us to fill any hiatus Congress has left in this area." Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647, 652 (1963). Obviously, nothing we have said prevents Congress from creating a private right of action on behalf of brokerage firm customers for losses arising from misstatements contained in 17 (a) reports. But if Congress intends those customers to have such a federal right of action, it is well aware of how it may effectuate that intent.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[ Footnote 2 ] In 1972, the date relevant to the instant case, 17 (a), as set forth in 15 U.S.C. 78q (a) (1970 ed.), read as follows:
In Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 194 n. 13 (1976), we reserved decision on the question whether the respondents in that case could assert a private cause of action against Ernst & Ernst under 17 (a).
[ Footnote 3 ] At the time Touche Ross performed auditing services for Weis, Commission Rule 17a-5 required Weis to file an annual report of its financial condition, including a certificate by an independent public accountant stating "clearly the opinion of the accountant with respect to the financial statement covered by the certificate and the accounting principles and practices reflected therein." 17 CFR 240.17a-5 (a), (h) (1972). See also SEC Release No. 3338 (Nov. 28, 1942), X-17A-5. The Rule also required the accountant's certificate to contain a "reasonably comprehensive statement as to the scope of the audit made, including a statement as to whether the accountant reviewed the procedures followed for safeguarding the securities of customers, . . . whether the audit was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards applicable in the circumstances; and . . . whether the audit made omitted any procedure [442 U.S. 560, 564] deemed necessary by the accountant under the circumstances of the particular case." 17 CFR 240.17a-5 (g) (2) (1972). Nothing in the Rule was to be interpreted to imply authority to omit any procedure the accountant ordinarily would employ in the course of an audit made for the purpose of expressing the opinions required by the Rule. 240.17a-5 (g) (3). Weis was required to attach an oath or affirmation to the report that the financial statements were true and correct. 240.17a-5 (b) (2). The Commission has amended Rule 17a-5 since 1972. See 17 CFR 240-17a-5 (1978).
[ Footnote 4 ] Some months later, several of Weis' officers were indicted, in part, for a conspiracy to violate and a number of substantive violations of the recordkeeping and reporting regulations adopted by the Commission under 17 (a). United States v. Levine, 73 Crim. 693 (SDNY); see United States v. Solomon, 509 F.2d 863, 865 (CA2 1975). Four of the defendants pleaded guilty to at least one substantive count; the other was found guilty of one substantive count. Ibid.
[ Footnote 5 ] SIPC is a nonprofit organization of securities dealers established by Congress in 1970 in the Securities Investor Protection Act. 15 U.S.C. 78ccc. SIPC maintains a fund, supported by assessments of its members, which is used to compensate, up to specified limits, customers of brokerage firms who incur losses as a result of broker insolvencies. 78ddd, 78fff (f). If SIPC determines that a member has failed or is in danger of failing to meet its obligations to customers and [442 U.S. 560, 565] finds any one of five specified conditions indicating possible financial instability, it may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a decree adjudicating that the customers of such member are in need of the protection afforded by the Act. 78eee (a) (2). SIPA also provides procedures for the liquidation of brokerage firms when required. 78fff. See generally Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, 421 U.S. 412, 415 -418 (1975).
[ Footnote 6 ] At the time Weis was liquidated, property on hand permitted the Trustee to return to the Weis customers 67% of the property they should have received. 592 F.2d 617, 620 n. 6 (CA2 1978). Subsequent marshaling of assets and recoveries in other litigation apparently have reduced the amount of the deficit in the fund of customer property. Brief for Respondent Redington 10 n. 5. The Weis customer accounts were protected by SIPA up to a maximum of $50,000 for each customer, except that cash claims were limited to $20,000. 15 U.S.C. 78fff (f).
[ Footnote 7 ] Approximately one year prior to institution of this action in federal court, SIPC and the Trustee commenced a nearly identical suit against Touche Ross in New York state court. Redington v. Touche Ross & Co., Index No. 13996/76 (N. Y. S. Ct., N. Y. County). The parties, factual allegations, claims, and requests for damages are the same in the state-court action as they are in the federal suit, except that there is no claim in the state-court action under 17 (a). Touche Ross has begun discovery in the state-court action, but otherwise it has remained virtually inactive since the filing of the complaint. 592 F.2d, at 620 n. 7.
[ Footnote 8 ] In the District Court's view, 17 (a) was essentially a bookkeeping provision. By its terms, it did not impose any duty on accountants and did not "create any rights in anybody." 428 F. Supp., at 489, 491. By contrast, the court noted that 18 (a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. 78r (a), did create an express private right of action for damages arising [442 U.S. 560, 567] from materially misleading statements in any report filed pursuant to the 1934 Act in favor of any person who, in reliance on the statements, purchased or sold a security whose price was affected by the statements. See n. 12, infra. SIPC and the Trustee could not sue under 18 (a) because neither they nor Weis' customers had bought or sold stock in reliance on the reports Touche Ross had prepared and certified. In view of 18 (a), the court declined to infer a private right of action under 17 (a) broader than the express remedy Congress had created in the very next section of the Act. The court concluded that the subject matter, titles, and juxtaposition of the two sections "strongly suggest a legislative intent that the only private claim for a violation of Section 17 was the claim created in Section 18." 428 F. Supp., at 489.
The District Court also held that since the 17 (a) claim should be dismissed, there was no basis for exercising pendent jurisdiction over the common-law claims, and that there was no other basis for exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over the common-law claims. 428 F. Supp., at 492-493. None of these latter rulings are before us.
[ Footnote 9 ] The court rejected the District Court's conclusion that 18 (a) was intended to be the exclusive remedy for violation of 17 (a). Because, in the court's view, it was plain that brokers' customers were the "favored wards" of 17 (a), it could not agree that "Congress simultaneously sought to protect a class and deprived the class [by virtue of 18's limiting language] of the means of protection." 592 F.2d, at 623. The court held that the Trustee could assert the 17 (a) action on behalf of the Weis customers as "bailee" of the customer property that he was unable to return, and that SIPC could sue on behalf of the customers as "subrogee" of the customers whose claims it had paid. 592 F.2d, at 624-625. The court also held that the Trustee could not maintain the 17 (a) action in its own right, and it [442 U.S. 560, 568] reserved decision on whether "SIPC could ever have a claim for damages other than on behalf of a broker's customers." 592 F.2d, at 624, and n. 13. The court remanded the case to the District Court for consideration of whether to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state actions in light of the Court of Appeals' ruling on 17 (a) and whether to stay the federal action pending determination of the state action. 592 F.2d, at 619 n. 3, 625. Since we hold that the Court of Appeals wrongly implied a private federal claim under 17 (a), it is unnecessary to reach these other rulings by the Court of Appeals.
[ Footnote 10 ] See, e. g., Study of Unsafe and Unsound Practices of Brokers and Dealers, Report and Recommendations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, H. R. Doc. No. 92-231, pp. 7-8, 15, 22, 24 (1971); Exchange Act Release No. 11497 (1975); National Assn. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 12 S. E. C. 322, 329 n. 9 (1942). The net capital rule requires a broker to maintain a certain minimum ratio of net capital to aggregate indebtedness so that the broker's assets will always be sufficiently liquid to enable him to meet all of his current obligations. See 15 U.S.C. 78o (c) (3); 17 CFR 240.15c3-1 (1978).
A number of provisions of the 1934 Act provide the Commission with the authority needed to enforce the reporting requirements of 17 (a) and the rules adopted thereunder. E. g., 15 (b) (4), 15 U.S.C. 78o (b) (4) (authorizes institution of administrative proceedings and imposition of sanctions against brokers for, inter alia, materially misleading statements in reports or applications required to be filed with the Commission); 21, 15 U.S.C. 78u (allows Commission to investigate and enjoin violations and to refer violations to the Attorney General for possible prosecution); 32, 15 U.S.C. 78ff (authorizes criminal sanctions for violations of statute and rules and for materially misleading statements in reports or documents required to be filed by the statute or rules); see n. 4, supra.
[ Footnote 11 ] What legislative history there is of 17 (a) simply confirms our belief that 17 (a) was intended solely to be an integral part of a system of preventative reporting and monitoring, and not to provide remedies to customers for losses after liquidation. S. Rep. No. 792, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 13, 21 (1934); H. R. Rep. No. 1383, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 25 (1934); Hearing on H. R. 7852 et al. before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 22, 225-226 (1934). See also S. Rep. No. 94-75, p. 119 (1975) (legislative history of the 1975 amendments to 17).
[ Footnote 12 ] Section 18 (a), as set forth in 15 U.S.C. 78r (a), provides:
[ Footnote 13 ] In another action arising out of the Weis financial collapse, the District Court has sustained a 18 (a) claim against Touche Ross by a bank that allegedly purchased securities of Weis in reliance upon the 17 (a) reports involved in this case. Exchange National Bank v. Touche Ross & Co., 75 Civ. 916 (SDNY); see 592 F.2d, at 631 n. 5 (Mulligan, J., dissenting). And in a case related to the instant case, the customers of Weis brought a class action against Touche Ross under 18 (a), claiming, inter alia, that Touche Ross violated Commission Rule 17a-5, 17 CFR 240.17a-5 (1972). The District Court in that case dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs did not meet the purchaser-seller requirement of 18 (a) and thus could not maintain an action under that section. Rich v. Touche Ross & Co., 415 F. Supp. 95, 102-104 (SDNY 1976). We express no view as to the correctness of either of these rulings.
[ Footnote 14 ] For example, the complaint alleges:
[ Footnote 15 ] For example, Senator Fletcher in introducing the bill that formed the basis for the 1934 Act, stated that "Section 18. imposes civil liability for false or misleading statements in any of the reports or records required under this act." 78 Cong. Rec. 2271 (1934) (emphasis added). Richard Whitney, President of the New York Stock Exchange, testified at length regarding the 1934 Act proposals. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, he indicated his understanding that 18 (a) liability extended to "persons transacting business in securities." Hearings on S. Res. 84 et al. before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 15, p. 6638 (1934).
[ Footnote 16 ] Touche Ross insists that the existence of SIPA also is relevant to the question whether to imply a private right of action in 17 (a). Congress specifically enacted SIPA in 1970 to afford customers of broker-dealers, such as Weis' customers, protection against losses they might incur as a result of the financial failure of their broker-dealer. SIPA established a comprehensive plan of insurance for customers of brokerage firms. See n. 5, supra. And recently, Congress has increased the amounts by which customer accounts are insured to $40,000 for cash claims and $100,000 for cash and securities claims. Securities Investor Protection Act Amendments of 1978, 9, 92 Stat. 265, 15 U.S.C. 78fff-3 (1976 ed., Supp. III). Touche Ross asserts that there is no indication in the legislative [442 U.S. 560, 575] history of SIPA or its amendments that Congress thought the 1934 Act contained a remedy for customers of insolvent brokerage firms. Brief for Petitioner 62 n. 37; Reply Brief for Petitioner 11-12. It claims that Congress believed it was "`filling a regulatory void'" when it passed SIPA. Id., at 12; see S. Rep. No. 91-1218, p. 3 (1970). Given the fact that our task is to discern the intent of Congress when it enacted 17 (a) in 1934, we doubt the relevance of SIPA to our inquiry. And even if the 91st Congress had believed that there was an implied right of action under 17 (a), SIPA still would have been needed to protect customers in situations where there was no fraud or where the fraud was committed only by the broker, who, because of its insolvency, would probably be judgment proof. Accordingly, our decision not to infer a right of action in favor of brokerage customers from 17 (a) is not influenced by the existence of SIPA.
[ Footnote 17 ] Section 27, as set forth in 15 U.S.C. 78aa, provides as follows:
[ Footnote 18 ] SIPC and the Trustee also appear to suggest that the rules adopted under 17 (a) can themselves provide the source of an implied damages remedy even if 17 (a) itself cannot. See Brief for Respondent SIPC 27-31; Brief for Respondent Redington 25-35; n. 3, supra. It suffices to say, however, that the language of the statute and not the rules must control. Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S., at 214 ; Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U.S. 462, 472 (1977).
[ Footnote 19 ] We also have found implicit within 10 (b) of the 1934 Act a private cause of action for damages. See Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U.S. 6, 13 n. 9 (1971). But we recently have stated that in Superintendent this Court simply explicitly acquiesced in the [442 U.S. 560, 578] 25-year-old acceptance by the lower federal courts of an implied action under 10 (b). Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S., at 690 -693, n. 13; see Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, at 196; Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 730 (1975). There is no similar history of longstanding lower-court interpretation in this case. Indeed, only one other court in the 45-year history of the 1934 Act has held that a private cause of action for damages is available under 17 (a). Hawkins v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Beane, 85 F. Supp. 104, 124 (WD Ark. 1949). In Hawkins, a national brokerage firm was held liable for damages under 17 (a) to a defalcating correspondent's customers for improperly advising the correspondent, who was found to be controlled by the national firm, to describe its business in such a way as to avoid filing certified financial statements with the Commission under 17 (a). Citing Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F. Supp. 512 (ED Pa. 1946), the District Court simply stated that violation of any of the provisions of the 1934 Act would give rise to a civil suit for damages on the part of the one injured, and that the defendants did not contend to the contrary. 85 F. Supp., at 121.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion. The Court of Appeals implied a cause of action for damages under 17 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78q (a), in favor of respondents, who purport to represent customers of a bankrupt brokerage firm, against petitioner accounting firm, which allegedly injured those customers by improperly preparing and certifying the reports on the brokerage firm required by 17 (a) and the rules promulgated thereunder. Under the tests established in our prior cases, no cause of action should be implied for respondents under 17 (a). Although analyses of the several factors outlined in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), may often overlap, I agree that when, as here, a statute clearly [442 U.S. 560, 580] does not "create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff," id., at 78, i. e., when the plaintiff is not "`one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted,'" ibid., quoting Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 39 (1916), and when there is also in the legislative history no "indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, . . . to create such a remedy," 422 U.S., at 78 , the remaining two Cort factors cannot by themselves be a basis for implying a right of action.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.
In determining whether to imply a private cause of action for damages under a statute that does not expressly authorize such a remedy, this Court has considered four factors:
Since respondents seek relief on behalf of brokerage firm customers, the first inquiry is whether those customers are the intended beneficiaries of the regulatory scheme. Under 17 (a), brokers must file such reports "as the [SEC], by rule, prescribes as necessary or appropriate . . . for the protection of investors." 15 U.S.C. 78q (a) (1) (emphasis added). Cf. [442 U.S. 560, 581] J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 432 (1964). Pursuant to this authority, the SEC requires brokers to provide a battery of financial statements, and directs independent accountants to verify the brokers' reports. 17 CFR 240.17a-5 (1978); see also ante, at 563-564, n. 3. The purpose of these requirements, as the Commission has consistently emphasized, is to enable regulators to "monitor the financial health of brokerage firms and protect customers from the risks involved in leaving their cash and securities with broker-dealers." Ante, at 570. 1 In addition, at the time of the events giving rise to this suit, the rules implementing 17 mandated that brokers disclose to customers whether an accountant's audit had revealed any "material inadequacies" in financial procedures. 37 Fed. Reg. 14608 (1972). Thus, it is clear that brokerage firm customers are the "favored wards" of 17, 592 F.2d 617, 623 (CA2 1978), and that the initial test of Cort v. Ash is satisfied here. 2
With respect to the second Cort factor, the legislative history does not explicitly address the availability of a damages remedy under 17. The majority, however, discerns an intent to deny private remedies from two aspects of the statutory scheme. Because unrelated sections in the 1934 Act expressly grant private rights of action for violation of their terms, the Court suggests that Congress would have made such provision under 17 had it wished to do so. But as we noted recently in Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 , [442 U.S. 560, 582] 711 (1979), "that other provisions of a complex statutory scheme create express remedies has not been accepted as a sufficient reason for refusing to imply an otherwise appropriate remedy under a separate section." The Court finds a further indication of congressional intent in the interaction between 17 and 18 of the 1934 Act. Section 18 (a), 15 U.S.C. 78r (a), affords an express remedy for misstatements in reports filed with the Commission, apparently including reports required by 17, but limits relief to purchasers or sellers of securities whose price was affected by the misstatement. In light of this limitation, the majority reasons, we should not imply a remedy under 17 which embraces a broader class of plaintiffs. However, 18 pertains to investors who are injured in the course of securities transactions, while 17 is concerned exclusively with brokerage firm customers who may be injured by a broker's insolvency. Given this divergence in focus, 18 does not reflect an intent to restrict the remedies available under 17. Indeed, since false reports regarding a broker's financial condition would not affect the price of securities held by the broker's customers, 18 would provide these persons with no remedy at all. I am unwilling to assume that "Congress simultaneously sought to protect to class and deprived [it] of the means of protection." 592 F.2d, at 623.
A cause of action for damages here is also consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme. Because the SEC lacks the resources to audit all the documents that brokers file, it must rely on certification by accountants. See J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, supra, at 432; Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 556 (1969); see also 592 F.2d, at 623 n. 12. Implying a private right of action would both facilitate the SEC's enforcement efforts and provide an incentive for accountants to perform their certification functions properly.
Finally, enforcement of the 1934 Act's reporting provisions is plainly not a matter of traditional state concern, but rather [442 U.S. 560, 583] relates solely to the effectiveness of federal statutory requirements. And, as the Court of Appeals held, since the problems caused by broker insolvencies are national in scope, so too must be the standards governing financial disclosure. Id., at 623.
In sum, straightforward application of the four Cort factors compels affirmance of the judgment below. Because the Court misapplies this precedent and disregards the evident purpose of 17, I respectfully dissent.
[ Footnote 1 ] See SEC, Study of Unsafe and Unsound Practices of Brokers and Dealers, H. R. Doc. No. 92-231, p. 24 (1971); Exchange Act Release No. 8024 (1967); Exchange Act Release No. 11497 (1975); see also 592 F.2d 617, 621-622 (CA2 1978).
[ Footnote 2 ] In the Court's view, it is inappropriate to imply a private remedy because 17 (a) "neither confers rights on private parties nor proscribes any conduct as unlawful." Ante, at 569. But 17 does impose duties for the benefit of private parties; in that sense, it both generates expectations, on which customers may appropriately rely, that those duties will be performed, and prohibits conduct inconsistent with the obligations created. [442 U.S. 560, 584]
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 442 U.S. 560
Docket No: No. 78-309
Argued: March 26, 1979
Decided: June 18, 1979
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Fifth Wheels - Rear Entertainment
Fifth Wheel
Stock #J1107Bourbon, MOAuto-Leveling • 4 Season RV • Full-Time Rated • Solar Kit • 3-Year WarrantyStock #J1107Bourbon, MOAuto-Leveling • 4 Season RV • Full-Time Rated • Solar Kit • 3-Year Warranty
Bourbon RV works hard to ensure the accuracy of all its listings, however, we are not responsible for any misprints, typos, or errors found in our website pages. Manufacturer provided pictures, specifications and features are included on our website and may not be a 100% accurate representation of a specific unit. Our inventory changes rapidly and the inventory shown may be only a partial listing of our entire inventory. Please contact us at 573-732-5100 for current availability.
*All payments are with approved credit through a dealer lending source. All RV prices exclude sales tax, title, and registration fees, including documentary service fees. All calculated payments are an estimate only and do not constitute a commitment that financing or a specific interest rate or term is available.
Manufacturer and/or stock photographs may be used and may not be representative of the particular unit being viewed. Where an image has a stock image indicator, please confirm specific unit details with your dealer representative.


text:
When? - Sunday 7 January at the following times:
- London 10:00 am,
- Paris 11:00 am,
- Brisbane 8:00 pm time.
- Los Angeles 8:00 am,
- Denver 9:00 am
- Dallas 10:00 am,
- New York 11:00am,
- London 4:00 pm
- Paris 5:00 pm etc.
Do not worry if you aren't available at the start of one of our sessions each one lasts 2-3 hours so pop up when you are available and say hello.
Where? - an on-line chat using Skype. with voice and video (if you wish)
What do I need? - just a micro-phone and some head phones(in ear phones work fine) and a free Skype account. Using headphones or earphone reduces 'echo' on the call. Video is optional, but a few of us will be on video as well.
Who - All of you... connect up with Philofaxy and we will attempt to get as many of us linked in to the audio conference as possible. Come and listen if you don't want to chat. What do we talk about? Filofax stuff... but anything else as well. It's like long lost friends meeting up for coffee and a catch up.. but don't worry if you have never joined in before... you are an old friend too!
If you have any questions you want to ask then please let us know in the group or before we start.
How -
- Connect to Philofaxy by firstly searching for Philofaxy in Skype, I will then add you as a contact.
- Then 'Send Contact Request', I will then add you in to the chat room.
- Then if you request it, I can add you to the audio conference as well. But if you just want to chat via keyboard that's fine. That way it's slightly less hectic for me!
As with previous round-tables there will also be a parallel text chat room going at the same time as the voice conference, so you can listen to the voice chat and type if you wish, just mute your microphone in Skype
If you need any assistance setting up Skype, please pop a comment in this post and I will try and help you get one line. Skype is free for computer to computer calls....
Here is my post on how to improve your Skype audio with headphones or a headset.
Hope to be chatting with you on Sunday 7 January 2018.


text:
Certain errors will cause a return to be sent back to the taxpayer for either correction or additional information. Such a return is not considered filed until it is corrected and resubmitted to the Office of Tax and Revenue. A late filing penalty and interest may be assessed if the return is not received by the due date. (The District of Columbia allows a 10-day grace period in which to "re-file" the corrected return.)
Many errors, while not serious enough to cause a return to be sent back, will delay processing and the issuance of any refund. Please read the helpful tips below to avoid common errors when preparing and filing your business tax return.
If you have questions, feel free to call or visit our Customer Service Center for additional assistance.
Some errors to be aware of on:
Business Franchise Tax Returns
- The return itself is not complete.
- Required schedules are either incomplete or missing.
- The tax identification number (FEIN/SSN) is either incomplete or is missing.
- Failure to notify the Office of Tax and Revenue when there is a change in the tax year or in the business address.
- Using the phrase "see attached" instead of completing the return. "See attached" is to be used only to indicate that additional information is being provided.
- Signatures of officer, title and/or corporate seal are missing from the return.
- Failure to include with the return full payment of the balance due.
- Requesting that the overpayment of tax from a prior year be credited as an estimated tax payment when a refund of the overpayment has already been issued.
- Failure to file a return when no tax is due. Filing a return in this situation will prevent a delinquency notice from being issued and other compliance actions.
- Tax payment is not made payable to the "DC Treasurer."
- Failure to make the full estimated tax payment.
- Failure to include the full payment of tax when filing an extension of time to file request. If the tax due when the return is filed is more than the payment included with the extension request, then penalties and interest may apply.
- Failure to complete the apportionment factor section or making an error in determining the factor.
- Failure to prorate the $5,000 exemption (line 33 of form D-30) when a D-30 is filed for a tax period of less than a full year.
- Failure to notify the Office of Tax and Revenue of adjustments made by the IRS to your federal return.
- Mailing multiple returns in the same envelope. (File one return per envelope)
- Making one check/money order to cover the tax liability for multiple returns. Please use a separate check/money order for each return. Enter your tax ID, the form being filed and the tax year on the payment.
- Using the incorrect return for the tax year.
- Failure to fill in the amended return oval on the form when filing an amended return.
Personal Property Tax Return
- Do not file multiple returns if you have several locations - file a single return with multiple schedules covering the locations.
Real Property Tax Return
- Provide the square, suffix and lot numbers and the address of the property.
Sales and Use Tax Return
- Do not file an "amended" sales tax return for a refund of sales tax - use Form FR-331 to claim a refund.
- Make sure that the tax identification number is correct and complete.
- Businesses must use Form FR-800 to report and pay a sales and use tax liability - do not use Form FR-329.
- Do not use the sales tax forms to report and pay the gross receipts tax.


text:
Last modified: 2023-06-03 by zachary harden
Keywords: nepal | star | crescent | triangle | face |
Links: FOTW homepage |
search |
disclaimer and copyright |
write us |
5:4, image by André Coutanche
Flag adopted 12 December 1962, coat of arms adopted 16 December 1962.
According to the very precise construction details contained in the Nepalese
Constitution, the proportions of the flag are 4:3 plus width of the blue border
(which makes the upper pendant longer than the lower because of its sharper
Christopher Southworth, 13 May 2003
The moon in the upper part represents the royal house. The sun in the lower part symbolizes a branch of the Rana family, members of which acted as prime ministers until 1961.
The charges are now said to represent the hope that Nepal itself will last as long as the sun and the moon. The style of these heavenly bodies was streamlined on December 16, 1962. The coat of arms still portrays these charges with facial features. Crimson is deemed the national color.
Motto on their coat of arms: "The mother and the Mother Earth are more important than the heavenly kingdom."
Alter (1986) Banderas y escudos del mundo (Flags and coats of arms of the world). Madrid: EASA (1986).
Flags. Philadelphia: Running Press (1994)
The Observer's Book of Flags. London: Frederick Warne & Co. Ltd. (1966)
Juan Vaquer, Jr., 25 February 1999
The faces were removed in 1962, I believe.
John Ayer, 30 September 2000
Some other attributions have been reported to FOTW concerning the origin and meaning of the flag:
The protocol manual for the London 2012 Olympics (Flags
and Anthems Manual London 2012) provides recommendations for national flag
designs. Each NOC was sent an image of the flag, including the PMS shades, for
their approval by LOCOG. Once this was obtained, LOCOG produced a 60 x 90 cm
version of the flag for further approval. So, while these specs may not be the
official, government, version of each flag, they are certainly what the NOC
believed the flag to be. For Nepal: PMS 186 red, 287 blue. The vertical flag is
simply the horizontal version turned 90 degrees clockwise.
Ian Sumner, 11 October 2012
Prior to the adoption of the present national flag on Dec 16 1962, flags with faces were used in Nepal:
Image based on Flaggenbuch:
image by Jaume Ollé, 27 June 2001
Image based on Flags of All Nations:
image by Jaume Ollé, 27 June 2001
Nozomi Kariyasu, 27 June 2001
Information on a more ancient representation of the Nepali flag can be found in MM. Lupant's book:
The first reproduction of the Nepali flag found by M. Lupant is shown in a book published by Perceval Laundon in 1928 (Nepal, vol. 1, pp. 233-236, Constable, London). The flag was crimson with a green border. It was made of two superposed isosceles triangles. The two points could have symbolized the royalty and the Rana family. The moon symbolized the King and the sun symbolized the Rana family. Moon and Sun expressed the hope that the Nation shall live as long as them. The faces are both shown with ears and a symbol in the middle of the forehead (probably one of the coloured spots used by Hinduists, whose name I forget), and the face in the upper triangle has a small neck putting it above the moon.Ivan Sache, 27 June 2001
History of the Nepal flag
Here's little bit about Nepal flag. The
national flag of Nepal is the only non-quadrangular national flag. The flag is a
simplified combination of two single pennants that represent, for some, the
mountains of Nepal while for others the Hindu flags. The flag was adopted, with
the formation of a new constitutional government, on December 16, 1962. The
individual pennants had been used for the last two centuries and the double
pennant since the 19th century.
See also discussion about the
Kirat flag.
Dilip Rai, 30 May 2010
Probably the answer is easier, if the question is asked the other way round:
Why are all national flags (except for the Nepali one) rectangular?
The pretty uniform shape of the national flag can be probably explained by the
fact that the national flag has its origin in a limited area (Europe and
Mediterranean), as ship flags. Certainly there had been different shapes in the
early times, but rectangular clothes of an approximate proportion of between
1.5:1 and 2:1 seemed the most practical ones, so the countries "standardized"
this shape. Afterwards the ship flags had been adapted for terrestrial use.
National flags of countries outside Europe only developed after European
national flags had standardized their shape, so they were imitating the
rectangular shape as well as some of the symbolic elements (vertical/horizontal
stripes, for instance). Older national symbols were transformed to the
"European" flag shape, for instance in Ethiopia, where the originally separated
red, yellow and green pennants were transformed into a horizontal triband of
rectangular shape. Nepal retained the original shape of its flag (basically two
pennants one above the other). The first origin of this flag is probably
elusive. However, other flags in the Indian area also showed non-rectangular,
often pennant-like shape, see
in-princ.html#alpha. The Nepali flag is
probably the only one surviving, something like a "living fossil". Usually
living fossils survive in rather secluded areas, such as Nepal (not having
coastal access, and being mountainous) or Switzerland (the same), still sticking
to the square shape of its flags.
M. Schmöger, 17 July 2004
The triangular shape reflects the historical shape of flags used by kingdoms
on the Indian subcontinent. Even today the flags flown on the masts of temples
in India are predominantly triangular.
Armano Grande, 19 March 2008
As far as I can find out the flag of Nepal will retain its current shape, and
amongst national flags it is indeed unique. A pennant with its lower edge at
right-angles to the hoist, is now obsolete in Western society, but was not
unknown in medieval times when it was called a "pavon". Such a shape is,
however, still seen in the East - witness the "dhvaja" of Hinduism - but the
only other "double pavon" (a term introduced by the Editors of the
DoV) I can think of - although there
will doubtless be different examples - is the flag of the former Princely State
of Dewas, India.
Christopher Southworth, 27 May 2009
image by BlinxCat, 20 March 2022
Kingdom-era cotton painted flag measuring around 12x18 inches, the exact maker is unknown but it was supplied to a flag store in Ohio, this variant has differing faces on the sun and moon and a more straight shape.
BlinxCat, 20 March 2022
image by André Coutanche (flag image) and the Wikimedia Commons, 22 June 2020
It was reported on June 13, 2020, that the political map of Nepal was changed by the House of Representatives. The unanimous decision on
Constitution (2nd Amendment) Bill No. 2077, also sought to amend Schedule 3 of the Constitution to update the national coat of arms by incorporating Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh and Kalapani in Nepal's map. It is worth noting
that these areas are under Indian administration at the time of the passage of the legislation.
Zachary Harden, 22 June 2020
image by Jan Oskar Engene, 20 December 2006
Nepal has seen political turmoil for some time, the latest developments seeing
the King hand over his powers to a parliamentarian government and the government
signing a peace treaty with Maoist rebels. Apparently searching for a new
national emblem has formed part of these developments. The front page of "The
Rising Nepal" newspaper reported on December 18 that a new national emblem
"incorporating national unity and people's sovereignty" has been adopted.
According to the newspaper, the new emblem "reflects spirit of loktantra marked
by inclusiveness and gender parity." The description of the emblem is as
follows: "It is round in shape with national flag on the top of its centre
encircled by rhododendron, the national flower. Inside the circle lies Mt.
Everest, hill, map of Nepal and handshake of a man and a woman. Below the circle
reads the Sanskrit verse 'janani janmbhumisch sworgadapi gariyasi' which means
the 'mother and the motherland are greater than heaven'."
Three artists are named as the people behind the new emblem: Nabindra Man
Rajbhandari, Himalaya Gautam and Krishna Shrestha.
It seems clear, then, that the national flag is not undergoing any changes.
Jan Oskar Engene, 20 December 2006
The coat of arms in use before 30 December 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coat_of_arms_of_Nepal.png)
consists of a white cow, a green pheasant (Himalayan Monal), two Gurkha soldiers
(one carrying a kukri and a bow, and the other a rifle), peaks of the Himalayas,
two crossed Nepalese flags and kukris, the footprints of Gorakhnath (the
guardian deity of the Gurkhas) and the royal headdress. It also contained the
same red scroll with the national motto. This coat of arms was preceded by the
Emblem of Nepal.
Esteban Rivera, 20 January 2008
image by Eugene Ipavec, 30 May 2006
Red six-pointed star (like a Magen David, filled)
bordered white and containing a black trident. national flag on the fin.
Željko Heimer, 3 July 2002
The Royal Nepalese Army, Air Wing, was formed in the mid 1960's and became
the Royal Nepal Air Force in July 1979 when it adopted the marking.
Dov Gutterman, 20 June 2004
The national flag serves as the fin-flash for Nepalese aircraft.
Zachary Harden, 12 September 2019
There were no physical flag on the photographs I saw but they were clearly drawn on signs used in different events.
So, the Katmandu section has a horizontal triband (red, blue, red), the middle strip being larger and bearing a white open book (with a green cover) and a pen. On the logo of their Facebook page there is a line of text in the upper red strip, written in Nepalese (I guess it is the name of the association : नेपाल शिक्षक संघ). On a sign another flag is drawn : red with a blue border and a yellow six-pointed star in a white circle.
The Jhapa section has a red flag with a white open book and a blue pen.
Corentin Chamboredon, 24 May 2020


text:
2 Ctw Oval Shape Diamond Lovebright Earrings in 14K White Gold
A fun and fanciful designed diamond lovebright earrings for her. Crafted in cool 14 karat white gold, these earring features a set of 20 invisible set round cut diamonds in oval shape bordered with a frame of dazzling 68 prong set round cut diamonds along with the front edge. These treats closes with a secure clasp. Total diamond weight is 2 ctw.


text:
Updated November 18, 2021 at 12:58 PM ET
The U.S. Census Bureau is again extending a final round of door knocking into early 2022 for a key survey that is expected to help determine the accuracy of last year's national head count.
The change is the latest in a series of delays tothe little-known but critical follow-up survey. The disruptions have raised concerns about whether the bureau can produce important indicators about who was missed and which groups were over- or undercounted in a census that was upended by both the coronavirus pandemic andinterference by former President Donald Trump's administration.
In the past, the results of the Post-Enumeration Survey have been factored into some of the population statistics that guide howfederal funds are distributed to local communities. The survey also helps the bureau determine how to better carry out future once-a-decade counts that are used to reallocate each state's share of congressional seats and Electoral College votes.
What was expected to be a monthlong operation for gathering information on housing units starting in late October is now set to begin on Nov. 29 and end in March, Judy Belton, the bureau's assistant division chief of special enumerations, confirmed to NPR during a virtual public forum before the bureau's announcement. As NPR had reported, that operation was previously expected to wrap up a month earlier in February.
"We adjusted the start date and operational length as a result of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the schedule of the preceding census operations," the bureau said in a statement in October about changes to the Post-Enumeration Survey, which does not involve college dorms, prisons or other group-living quarters and is not conducted in remote areas of Alaska.
About 1,100 of the bureau's field representatives — who, like all federal government employees,must be fully vaccinated for COVID-19 by Nov. 22 — will try to interview people at some 14,000 housing units while wearing masks and practicing social distancing.
The bureau has already finished gathering the demographic information it needs to produce the over- and undercount rates by population group, which are expected to be released within the first three months of next year.
"All the data collection and matching for the report in the first quarter of 2022, that's all done. And none of the housing-unit work will impact those reports," Timothy Kennel, assistant division chief of statistical methods, said at the forum organized by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on National Statistics.
Still, some census watchers outside the bureau say they're worried the difficulties of conducting in-person interviews during the pandemic could limit the usefulness of the survey's findings.
Were people of color undercounted by the census?
Decade after decade, the U.S. census has overcounted people who identify as white and not Latino, while undercounting other racial and ethnic groups. That unevenness often translates into inequities when census data is used to redraw voting districts and inform research and planning.
"I'm just worried that we're going to have a starting point for the next 10 years of enumeration counts that undercount people of color," Robert Santos, the president of the American Statistical Association who has been confirmed by the Senate to be the next Census Bureau director, told NPR in an interview before his April nomination by President Biden.
Santos, who is set to be sworn in early next year, added that not having reliable PES results runs the risk of baking racial inequities into other government statistics that rely on census data.
"I don't think that that's acceptable," Santos said.
Many people don't want to talk to Census Bureau workers because of COVID-19
Door knocking for the PES, which takes place in multiple phases, started as originally planned in January 2020. It was supposed to wrap up by mid-2021.
But COVID-19 quickly intervened.
Lower-than-expected levels of participation from the public in the final months of 2020 led the bureau to add another round of interviews about people's demographic information.
Those early response rates were hurt by a devastating new reality — "people don't want to open their doors to talk to a stranger during a pandemic," the bureau acknowledged in a March presentation to its scientific advisory committee. That raises the risk of the bureau missing certain people not only in the census, but also in the follow-up survey that determines who was not counted.
"When the PES comes out, I worry about its possible quality because the survey had to be conducted in the teeth of the winter COVID surge," says Connie Citro, a senior scholar with the National Academy of Sciences Committee on National Statistics who served as the senior study director of the committee's evaluation of the 2000 census.
Could COVID-19 stop the bureau from releasing survey results?
The delays to the survey make it harder for the bureau to collect accurate data. Tallying for the 2020 count has been over for nearly a year, and some people interviewed for the PES may have a hard time remembering exactly where they were living on Census Day, which was April 1, 2020. People who moved during the pandemic may not know who used to live at their current address.
And many households are experiencing census fatigue.
"They're not ready to see another census person come and knock at the door," Bob Leibowitz, a Census Bureau survey technician in the New York region, told the committee's panel on 2020 census quality during a virtual meeting in August.
Data quality issues brought on by the pandemic have already forced the bureau to cancel a release of American Community Survey results this year and replace them with "experimental" estimates. Some census watchers fear the Post-Enumeration Survey may be headed toward a similar fate.
There are early signs of a likely undercount of Black people
In the meantime, researchers outside the bureau have been comparing the latest census numbers with a set of benchmark data based on birth and death certificates, Medicare enrollment files and other government records about the country's residents.
"It does look like the 2020 census had some undercount problems for some groups," says Citro, who recently conducted an independent analysis that was not part of her work with the committee.
Using publicly available data and a method that is different from what's used for the PES, Citro estimates that nationally, the 2020 census may have produced a net undercount rate for Black people similar to what the bureau's PES estimated for the 2010 count (2.05%) or more than two times as high (4.36%).
"The Census Bureau did just a heroic and really outstanding job, but they faced a combination of circumstances for conducting a census that was unprecedented in our history," Citro, who once worked as a social science analyst at the bureau early in her career, says of the pandemic and the push by Trump officials to end counting early.
Children were likely undercounted in 2020, too
There are also signs the 2020 census likely didn't correct a decades-long flaw with the national tally: undercounting children.
"All the evidence I'm seeing from the 2020 census suggests that that's going to be a continuing problem," says Bill O'Hare, a demographer and former research fellow at the bureau who wrote the book The Undercount of Young Children in the U.S. Decennial Census.
O'Hare, who is currently consulting with the Count All Kids Campaign, estimates that the net undercount rate for children bumped up to 2.1% last year, while adults had a net overcount rate of less than a percent for the 2020 census, according to a report released this week. The report also cites preliminary estimates by Citro that suggest the net undercount rates for Black and Latinx children were about double that for all children.
Still, both Citro and O'Hare say they're waiting for the PES results to reveal a more comprehensive look at the count's accuracy.
Jeri Green, a former senior adviser for civic engagement at the bureau, remains concerned that the 2020 census — which the agency recently estimated to cost around $14.2 billion — will repeat the undercounting of Black people and Latinos, as well as Native Americans who live on reservations, in the 2010 census.
"The American taxpayer is being cheated, the congressional appropriators who funded the census also are not getting their dollars' worth, if the PES and the undercount are not accurate," Green says. "And we have to live with this for the next 10 years."
Copyright 2022 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Everyone's heard of the birds and the bees - why do they leave out the flowers that are being fertilized?
Maybe because it is too complicated. The fertilization process for flowering plants is particularly complex and requires extensive communication between the male and female reproductive cells. New research from an international team reports
in Nature Communications about discoveries in the chemical signaling process that guides flowering plant fertilization.
Flowering plants have a double fertilization system. Grains of pollen carry the male reproductive cells. When pollen grains land on the flower's female reproductive organ, they germinate and grow towards the deeply embedded ovules via a pollen tube. After fertilization, ovules develop into seeds. What makes the process unique is that the pollen tube releases two sperm cells, one of which fuses with an egg in a process like that in animals.
The other fuses with the so-called central cell to form a multi-nuclear entity that grows and provides nutrition for the developing embryo and seedling, respectively. This so-called endosperm is also the major source of nutrition for the animals and humans that eat these plants. Numerous cell-to-cell chemical interactions are necessary to guide this process as it takes place, many of which remain unidentified. In animals, calcium is key for communication between cells during fertilization.
The research team, led by Thomas Dresselhaus from the University of Regensburg and Guido Grossmann of the University of Heidelberg, focused on finding calcium-facilitated communication in the double fertilization of flowering plants.
It was already known that calcium is involved in the early stages of fertilization, including pollen tube growth control and the guidance that brings the sperm to the ovule. But more work was necessary to determine if it was as important in the later stages.
Using an advanced fluorescent calcium sensor the team was able to monitor calcium signatures in live cells throughout the whole double fertilization process. The work was performed using Arabidopsis, which is commonly used for research purposes. They found that calcium was involved in chemical signaling throughout the double fertilization process and is associated, for example, with sperm release and fusion with the egg cell. This type of real-time observation had previously been impossible due to the deeply imbedded location where double fertilization occurs.
"Thanks to technical advances we were able to observe the moment of plant fertilization at the cellular level and, at the same time, listen to the 'tête-à-tête' between male and female cells," Grossmann said. "Further work is necessary to decode the language and understand what is actually being said."


text:
March 17, 2017, 09:22 AM
Mohamed Tantawy Showreel 2017, CG Generalist – Visual Effects Supervisor.
Daniel George McDonald sits down to discuss creating the finale for Cheer Season 2.
Gordon sits down with the editorial team of The Black Lady Sketch Show to discuss their approach to ...
Gordon sits down with Philip to discuss his work with Tyler Perry and his latest film A Madea Homeco...
© 2007-2024 www.aotg.com Ver. 3.0 All Content created and posted by Art of the Guillotine users Art of the Guillotine graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Art of the Guillotine Inc. Use of this material outside of this site is strictly prohibited.


text:
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:36:57 -0800 (PST)
From: firstname.lastname@example.com
I spend a lot of time telnetting to my ISP from various sized terms
under X and from the good ol' prompt. Typing "stty cols x rows y" got
tedious, so I found a nice solution: Putting "eval `resize`" in my .cshrc.
Now my remote terms automatically resize themselves to whatever convoluted
geometry I've got locally.
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:57:17 -0500
From: Christopher Fortin,
I use fvwm2, and like to have four virtual screens,
each with a different background. However, I found myself editing
my .fvwm2rc file alot to change those backgrounds ( kept getting
bored with the selection ). So I came up with a little tcl
script to do the work for me. Now I just have a directory ( called
.backgrounds ) filled with .xpm files that I like as backgrounds.
On login, my .login file calls randBG.tcl, an executable tcl file
thats in your path, ( if tclsh is not in /usr/bin, change the first
line ).
#---CUT HERE------randBG.tcl--------------------------- #! /usr/bin/tclsh proc randomInit {seed} { global rand set rand(ia) 9301; #multiplier set rand(ic) 49297; #Constant set rand(im) 233280; #Divisor set rand(seed) $seed; #Last Result } proc random {} { global rand set rand(seed) \ [expr ($rand(seed)*$rand(ia) + \ $rand(ic)) % $rand(im)] return [expr $rand(seed)/double($rand(im))] } proc randomRange { range } { expr int([random]*$range) } randomInit [pid] random randomRange 100 ### CHANGE THIS ##################### set BGDIR /your.home.dir/.backgrounds # exec /bin/rm -f $BGDIR/desk1.xpm exec /bin/rm -f $BGDIR/desk2.xpm exec /bin/rm -f $BGDIR/desk3.xpm set files [ exec ls $BGDIR ] set nfiles [llength $files] set rnd1 [eval randomRange $nfiles] set rnd1file [lindex $files $rnd1] exec ln -s $BGDIR/$rnd1file $BGDIR/desk1.xpm set rnd2 [eval randomRange $nfiles] set rnd2file [lindex $files $rnd2] exec ln -s $BGDIR/$rnd2file $BGDIR/desk2.xpm set rnd3 [eval randomRange $nfiles] set rnd3file [lindex $files $rnd3] exec ln -s $BGDIR/$rnd3file $BGDIR/desk3.xpm #------------ #-----CUT HERE-----------------------------------------
The rand part of this was from Welch's TCL book. Now you just need .fvwm2rc to use the ~/.backgrounds/desk?.xpm, like
#---------------------------------------------- #### # Set Up Backgrounds for different desktops. #### Module FvwmBacker *FvwmBackerDesk 0 xpmroot ./.backgrounds/desk0.xpm *FvwmBackerDesk 1 xpmroot ./.backgrounds/desk1.xpm *FvwmBackerDesk 2 xpmroot ./.backgrounds/desk2.xpm *FvwmBackerDesk 3 xpmroot ./.backgrounds/desk3.xpm #----------------------------------------------and also
#---------------------------------------------- AddToFunc "InitFunction" Desk "I" 0 0 + "I" Exec xpmroot ./.backgrounds/desk0.xpm & #---------------------------------------------- to set desk0 prior to changing between desks. Just a little hack I thought someone might like. Note that this only changes desks 1-3, since I tend to keep desk0 constant ( I found a *really* nice background ).Chris
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:13:38 +0100
From: jurriaan, email@example.com
In an article in the October Linux Journal (or was it Gazette - I don't know) by Marc Ewing (firstname.lastname@example.com) a shell script was presented to allow a user to go to any directory on the system, without getting to all directories in between.
Much as this script apealed to me, it didn't work as I expected:
(A part of) my directory tree look like:
/root /root/angband /root/angband/2796 /root/angband/2796/src /root/angband/2796/lib /root/angband/2796/lib/edit /root/angband/2796/lib/data /root/angband/myang /root/angband/myang/src /root/angband/myang/lib /root/angband/myang/lib/edit /root/angband/myang/lib/data etc.Now when I typed cds myang, it offered me a choice between all directories containing myang. Instead I'd much prefer if the program decided that the one directory ending in myang would be the most logical choice.
I adapted this script, and the result is included below. Many comments are added, which you may or may not like. They may not even be correct, as I am not one of the guru-est of linux-dom, as Marc Ewing was described :-).
If you like it, use (ie include) it and let me know please.
If you don't, adapt it and then include it and let me know please.
If you really don't like it, consider this message not written.
Greetings from Holland,
Jurriaan (firstname.lastname@example.com)
function cds() { # no arguments? then do nothing if [ $# -ne 1 ]; then echo "usage: cds pattern" return fi # $1 seems to disappear later on, or change value, so we declare a real target target=$1 # find $target in file $HOME/.dirs set "foo" `fgrep $target $HOME/.dirs` # $# is the function return status, 1 means not found if [ $# -eq 1 ]; then echo "No matches" # 2 means just one found elif [ $# -eq 2 ]; then cd $2 # we found a couple of possible directories else # $ is the sign for end-of-line , -E tells fgrep to use extended regular # expressions # the \ before $ tells the shell not to see $ as an empty variable, but to # pass it right on to fgrep # if you are ever in doubt, use set -x to see what goes on in your scripts. # then use set +x to get rid of all the extra output set "foo" `fgrep -E $target\$ $HOME/.dirs` # we found a directory at the end of the tree, ie myang$ selects # /root/angband/myang, but not /root/angband/myang/src. if [ $# -eq 2 ]; then cd $2 # I'm not sure - in DOS you must reset your variables, in Linux too? target= return else # this is a copy of the original function: search for a match, even if it # is in the middle of a directory # one extra trick: we first count how many matches we find, using fgrep -c count=`fgrep -c $target $HOME/.dirs` # stty size gives on my terminal 51 116 (ie a 116x51 screen) # cut -b1-3 gives then 51 lines=`stty size | cut -b1-3` # if more than 2/3 of the terminal, it's too much lines=$[$lines*2/3] if [ $count -gt $lines ]; then echo "More than $lines matches - respecify please" count= lines= target= return fi # else we really go for it, just like the old version set "foo" `fgrep $target $HOME/.dirs` shift for x in $@; do echo $x done | nl -n ln echo -n "Number: " read C if [ "$C" = "0" -o -z "$C" ]; then return fi eval D="\${$C}" if [ -n "$D" ]; then #echo $D cd $D fi fi fi; }
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 12:03:57
From: firstname.lastname@example.com
#!/bin/sh # script for colorized prompts, by firstname.lastname@example.com # start this script to see all possible colors then # include this ... # ------------------------- snip ------------------------ BLACK='^[[30m' RED='^[[31m' GREEN='^[[32m' YELLOW='^[[33m' BLUE='^[[34m' MAGNETA='^[[35m' CYAN='^[[36m' WHITE='^[[37m' BRIGHT='^[[01m' NORMAL='^[[0m' # blink ;-) BLINK='^[[05m' REVERSE='^[[07m' # sample bash-prompt PS1=$BRIGHT$YELLOW'\u:'$NORMAL'/\t\w\$ ' # ------------------------- snip ------------------------ # .. in Your /etc/profile, .profile, .bashrc, .whatever, ... # ( don't cut & paste with the mouse, this would spoil the escape-characters ) echo $BLACK 'BLACK' echo $RED 'RED' echo $GREEN 'GREEN' echo $YELLOW 'YELLOW' echo $BLUE 'BLUE' echo $MAGNETA 'MAGNETA' echo $CYAN 'CYAN' echo $WHITE 'WHITE' echo $BRIGHT$BLACK 'BRIGHT BLACK' echo $BRIGHT$RED 'BRIGHT RED' echo $BRIGHT$GREEN 'BRIGHT GREEN' echo $BRIGHT$YELLOW 'BRIGHT YELLOW' echo $BRIGHT$BLUE 'BRIGHT BLUE' echo $BRIGHT$MAGNETA 'BRIGHT MAGNETA' echo $BRIGHT$CYAN 'BRIGHT CYAN' echo $BRIGHT$WHITE 'BRIGHT WHITE' echo $NORMAL
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:21:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Bain,
Here's how to use less to view gzipped files. Also, there is a way you can use this less feature that doesn't require temporary files and only needs one script file.
Put lesspipe.sh in your executable path.
#! /bin/sh case "$1" in *.Z) uncompress -c $1 2>/dev/null ;; *.gz) gunzip -c $1 2>/dev/null ;; esacSet the environmental variable LESSOPEN='|lesspipe.sh %s'. (Don't forget the pipe '|' symbol.) This works with less version 2.90.
Michael Bain
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:38:10 GMT
From: firstname.lastname@example.com
Hello there
We've all read all those ways to convert uppercased filenames to lowercased ones. But why did we need it?
One reason is because when we unzip a file, all filenames are uppercase.
Well, try this (much much shorter :) )
unzip -L filename.zipThis extracts the files as usual, but converts the filenames to lowercase, so there's no need to run any of those other two cent tips anymore... (and it's less to type, and faster)
Jan Gyselinck,
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:33:18 -0500
From: Raul D. Miller,
I don't know if you've touched on this yet -- if so, please ignore this message.
With bash, you can reliably set the titlebar. Just set the PROMPT_COMMAND variable to be a command that sets your title bar.
Aside: I usually use the shortened host name, with a # suffix if I'm root. The most portable way of testing if I'm root is [ -w / ]
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:45:59 +0200 (GMT+0200)
From: Markku J. Salama,
Hi there!
Here is a quick and dirty script for fetching your mail without a POP account. It does it's thing by using telnet and ftp.
--------------------------------BEGIN SCRIPT------------------------------ #!/bin/sh # Brought to you by email@example.com # Caveat emptor: You use this entirely at your own risk, I'm not # responsible for any damages or loss of mail it might cause. # There are 3 things to remember: # 1) Make sure this script is readable & executable _only_ by you, it # contains password information! # 2) You must have a .netrc-file in your home directory containing a # hostname, your username and your passwd for ftp. Make sure this file # is readable _only_ by you, too, and check the ftp man page for # details. # 3) You must, of course, edit this script to provide all the necessary # passwords, usernames etc. for telnet. Also, the remote system must # have dd installed to empty the mailbox. (echo open your.host # The sleeps are necessary so that telnet sleep 5 # doesn't get confused echo your.username sleep 5 echo your.password # For your eyes only... sleep 10 # 10 sec. break, let the motd etc. scroll by echo cp /remote/mailbox/file ./newmail # copy the mailbox file into sleep 5 # your remote home directory echo dd if=/remote/mailbox/file of=/remote/mailbox/file # Empty the sleep 5 # mailbox echo quit) | telnet -8E > /dev/null (echo binary # Now go get the mail using echo get newmail # ftp. Handy for those folks echo delete newmail # who don't have a POP account. echo bye) | ftp your.host > /dev/null mv ./newmail /local/mailbox/file # Move the new mail in place... chmod go-rwx /local/mailbox/file # Just in case it's readable # by someone else. # All done! Go read them. --------------------------------END SCRIPT--------------------------------There. Have a nice spring & be an excellent person.
Markku Salama
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:26:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Ian Main,
Hi, just going through issue #14 of the linux gazzette, and I noticed the tip on logging *.* to a file so you can read it in an rxvt in X. I do a similar thing here, but rather than logging to a file, I log to a pipe (ah ha! Why didn't I think of that? :-) ).
Works really well. No disk space used, and you can just use cat to view it, and it scrolls along nicely.
To make a named pipe (FIFO) in /var/log/message-pipe:
mknod /var/log/message-pipe pand add this to your /etc/syslog.conf (note the pipe symbol there.) :
*.* |/var/log/message-pipeand finally, just type:
cat /var/log/message-pipeOr of course.. you can stick it in a shells script or as the command rxvt runs when it starts.. whatever you like.
Hope you find it useful,
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:28:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Sean Murray,
The vi editor is built on the foundations of the "ed" editor. Whatever applies to ed applies to vi. So if you where wondering if there was a way to customize your vi sessions wonder no longer.
In your home directory create a file called ".exrc", every time vi starts it will parse that file and customize it's actions. The below 5 lines are the contents of my .exrc file.
set tabstop=8 map ^N {!}sort^M map v {^M!}fmt^M map V 1G^M!Gfmt^M map ^W :!ispell %^M^M:e!^MI didn't include any comments because I don't know if the .exrc file has a comment character, I'll comment theses lines later?
Ok the "set" command allows you to set various parameters in vi; in this case I've set the tab stop to 8 characters. So when ever I enter a tabstop in insertion mode the cursor will move over 8 spaces (8 spaces is what most printers will print tabs at regardless of your vi settings). But you can set it to what ever you like.
Sometimes when programming I manually set my tabstop to 4 spaces for indentation. To do this type in the following ":set tabstop=4". The nice thing about this is that the character is still really a tab and not a bunch of spaces, hence you don't force other ppl to view text with your spacing.
"map" maps a key or key combination to a sequence of commands. Note: that only ed commands work here so see view a list of ed commands while editing your .exrc file. It's a BAD idea to map key or key combinations that already have other meanings. The available combinations are:
letters: "g K k q V v" Control keys: "^A ^K ^O ^T ^W ^X" (where "^A" means press the control key and the letter a) Symbols: "_ * \ ="(These above four lines where shamelessly stolen from ORA's _Learning the Vi Editor_; it's a must get for any vi user)
So what does "map ^W :!ispell %^M^M:e!^M" do -- well the "map" is the keyword telling vi to map the next character to the following commands. (If you map a key combination like ^W then remember to enter this by typing the control key and "v" first and then the key combination of control key and the letter "w".) Here we are mapping ^W to a set of commands. The first command is telling vi to execute the external program ispell with the current file we are editing (the variable that holds the current files name is "%"). The ^M is actually the character that appears after you have typed ^V and then typed the return key hence ^M denotes the instance of a carriage return. The last command is the vi command to reload the current file; this is necessary as the ispell program will update the file and not the vi buffer.
assuming that you have the external programs "ispell", "fmt" and "sort" the theses mappings should work. "map ^N {!}sort^M" will sort a paragraph. "map v {^M!}fmt^M" will format a paragraph. "map V 1G^M!Gfmt^M" will format the whole document.
A final note: if you have the environment variable EXINIT set it will take precedence over the .exrc file settings.
Sean Murray