text:
Blog Post: Is A Mailing List Really Important?
Anyone who owns an online business will tell you that a mailing list is EXTREMELY important to your business. Think about it … Social Media is a tricky phenomenon. Both Facebook and Twitter have an algorithm that manipulates your post or tweets that are being seen. That reason right there along with the fact that all of your friends and followers are never in a billion years going to be online at the same exact time that you post an update means you have to find a better solution that will get your campaigns viewed.
For those of you that do not have many fans or followers, you are hugely at a disadvantage to competitors who are more known. That is why when starting out it is definitely extremely important for you to have a mailing list. Once you send that email it will be in their inbox forever. (At least until they check and delete it.) If your message or update is in their inbox they will have to view it at some point even if they don't act on your email.
Here are two mail list providers that I have personally used and will recommend to anyone who asks:
Mailchimp: This is a good free mailing list that I used when I first got started. You can get up to 2,000 subscribers and 20,000 in the forever free plan. It may not seem like much but it's just enough to get started. You can start building a good solid brand with the forever free package. Once you move up in subscribers and you start sending out more and more emails you can move up to a plan that can handle your email campaigns.
Aweber: Once I started getting more and more subscribers I switched over to Aweber. It has quite a bit more features than Mailchimp and it offers solid results at solid prices. I found that when I switched over Aweber had a better delivery rate for my emails. Mailchimp seemed to get more emails caught up in spam even though I was not offering anything or selling anything. Another thing that I like about Aweber is that they have excellent customer support. They offer phone support, chat, and email support which is always a win-win.
Both of these options have served me well within the different stages of my company and I am very proud to vouche for either of them.
To Your Sucess,
Que' A


text: Cute & roomy home in the middle of a cul de sac in the Oak Valley section of Deptford. Large kitchen with a breakfast area and huge family room with brick wood burning fireplace. Nice fenced in yard with a two car garage and new front patio area just installed. There is an extra bonus room which is currently being used as a playroom. This is an AS-IS sale even though its super nice. Motivated sellers!! Come and see this house that could be your perfect house!!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Awards and Rankings
Rob Brown has been named to the Best Lawyers in America (for Tax Law and Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law). Attorney Brown has been listed continuously in Best Lawyers since 1993.
Tim Jochim has been rated at Band 2 in Chambers USA (for Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation). People interviewed by Chambers singled him out as "interactive and approachable" and "very technically knowledgeable." Attorney Jochim was first ranked in the Chamber USA in 2010.
ESOP Plus® : Schatz • Brown • Glassman • Kossow has received a Tier 1 ranking for Rochester NY in the 2013 Edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms in tax law."


text:
The night Molly was killed, she discovered another...
From Day to Day
- by Floss
- Rating:
- Published: 16 Mar 2014
- Updated: 16 Mar 2014
- Status: In Progress
This is a poem I have written, it was given to me as a task, but, I love writing so it wasn't a problem. See if you can guess what it is! It's really obvious but I guess the poem just tests you anyways.
Join MovellasFind out what all the buzz is about. Join now to start sharing your creativity and passion
Loading ...


text:
FindLaw | Legal News & Information
[Print This] [Email This]
William Powers, Jr.
3600 Murillo Circle
February 1, 2002
To the Members of the Board of Directors
Enclosed is a copy of the Report of the Special Investigation Committee.
William Powers, Jr.
William C. Powers, Jr., Chair
February 1, 2002
The Special Investigative Committee of the Board of Directors of Enron Corp. submits this Report of Investigation to the Board of Directors. In accordance with our mandate, the Report addresses transactions between Enron and investment partnerships created and managed by Andrew S. Fastow, Enron's former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and by other Enron employees who worked with Fastow.
The Committee has done its best, given the available time and resources, to conduct a careful and impartial investigation. We have prepared a Report that explains the substance of the most significant transactions and highlights their most important accounting, corporate governance, management oversight, and public disclosure issues. An exhaustive investigation of these related-party transactions would require time and resources beyond those available to the Committee. We were not asked, and we have not attempted, to investigate the causes of Enron's bankruptcy or the numerous business judgments and external factors that contributed it. Many questions currently part of public discussion-such as questions relating to Enron's international business and commercial electricity ventures, broadband communications activities, transactions in Enron securities by insiders, or management of employee 401(k) plans-are beyond the scope of the authority we were given by the Board.
There were some practical limitations on the information available to the Committee in preparing this Report. We had no power to compel third parties to submit to interviews, produce documents, or otherwise provide information. Certain former Enron employees who (we were told) played substantial roles in one or more of the
transactions under investigation - including Fastow, Michael J. Kopper, and Ben F. Glisan, Jr. - declined to be interviewed either entirely or with respect to most issues. We have had only limited access to certain workpapers of Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"), Enron's outside auditors, and no access to materials in the possession of the Fastow partnerships or their limited partners. Information from these sources could affect our conclusions.
This Executive Summary and Conclusions highlights important parts of the Report and summarizes our conclusions. It is based on the complete set of facts, explanations and limitations described in the Report, and should be read with the Report itself. Standing alone, it does not, and cannot, provide a full understanding of the facts and analysis underlying our conclusions.
On October 16, 2001, Enron announced that it was taking a $544 million after-tax charge against earnings related to transactions with LJM2 Co-Investment, L.P. ("LJM2"), a partnership created and managed by Fastow. It also announced a reduction of shareholders' equity of $1.2 billion related to transactions with that same entity.
Less than one month later, Enron announced that it was restating its financial statements for the period from 1997 through 2001 because of accounting errors relating to transactions with a different Fastow partnership, LJM Cayman, L.P. ("LJM I"), and an additional related-party entity, Chewco Investments, L.P. ("Chewco"). Chewco was managed by an Enron Global Finance employee, Kopper, who reported to Fastow.
The LJM1 and Chewco-related restatement, like the earlier charge against earnings and reduction of shareholders' equity, was very large. It reduced Enron's reported net income by $28 million in 1997 (of $105 million total), by $133 million in -1998 (of $703 million total), by $248 million in 1999 (of $893 million total), and by $99 million in 2000 (of $979 million total). The restatement reduced reported shareholders' equity by $258 million in 1997, by $391 million in 1998, by $710 million in 1999, and by $754 million in 2000. It increased reported debt by $711 million in 1997, by $561 million in 1998, by $685 million in 1999, and by $628 million in 2000. Enron also revealed, for the first time, that it had learned that Fastow received more than $30 million from LJM l and LJM2. These announcements destroyed market confidence and investor trust in Enron. Less than one month later, Enron filed for bankruptcy.
This Committee was established on October 28, 2001, to conduct an investigation of the related-party transactions. We have examined the specific transactions that led to the third-quarter 2001 earnings charge and the restatement. We also have attempted to examine all of the approximately two dozen other transactions between Enron and these related-party entities: what these transactions were, why they took place, what went wrong, and who was responsible.
Our investigation identified significant problems beyond those Enron has already disclosed. Enron employees involved in the partnerships were enriched, in the aggregate, by tens of millions of dollars they should never have received-Fastow by at least $30 million, Kopper by at least $10 million, two others by $1 million each, and still two more
by amounts we believe were at least in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have seen no evidence that any of these employees, except Fastow, obtained the permission required by Enron's Code of Conduct of Business Affairs to own interests in the partnerships. Moreover, the extent of Fastow's ownership and financial windfall was inconsistent with his representations to Enron's Board of Directors.
This personal enrichment of Enron employees, however, was merely one aspect of a deeper and more serious problem. These partnerships - Chewco, LJM1, and LJM2 - were used by Enron Management to enter into transactions that it could not, or would not, do with unrelated commercial entities. Many of the most significant transactions apparently were designed to accomplish favorable financial statement results, not to achieve bonafide economic objectives or to transfer risk. Some transactions were designed so that, had they followed applicable accounting rules, Enron could have kept assets and liabilities (especially debt) off of its balance sheet; but the transactions did not follow those rules.
Other transactions were implemented-improperly, we are informed by our accounting advisors-to offset losses. They allowed Enron to conceal from the market very large losses resulting from Enron's merchant investments by creating an appearance that those investments were hedged-that is, that a third party was obligated to pay Enron the amount of those losses-when in fact that third party was simply an entity in which only Enron had a substantial economic stake. We believe these transactions resulted in Enron reporting earnings from the third quarter of 2000 through the third quarter of 2001 that were almost $1 billion higher than should have been reported.
Enron's original accounting treatment of the Chewco and LJMI transactions that led to Enron's November 2001 restatement was clearly wrong, apparently the result of mistakes either in structuring the transactions or in basic accounting. In other cases, the accounting treatment was likely wrong, notwithstanding creative efforts to circumvent accounting principles through the complex structuring of transactions that lacked fundamental economic substance. In virtually all of the transactions, Enron's accounting treatment was determined with extensive participation and structuring advice from Andersen, which Management reported to the Board. Enron's records show that Andersen billed Enron $5.7 million for advice in connection with the LJM and Chewco transactions alone, above and beyond its regular audit fees.
Many of the transactions involve an accounting structure known as a "special purpose entity" or "special purpose vehicle" (referred to as an "SPE" in this Summary and in the Report). A company that does business with an SPE may treat that SPE as if it were an independent, outside entity for accounting purposes if two conditions are met: (1) an owner independent of the company must make a substantive equity investment of at least 3% of the SPE's assets, and that 3% must remain at risk throughout the transaction; and (2) the independent owner must exercise control of the SPE. In those circumstances, the company may record gains and losses on transactions with the SPE, and the assets and liabilities of the SPE are not included in the company's balance sheet, even though the company and the SPE are closely related. It was the technical failure of some of the structures with which Enron did business to satisfy these requirements that led to Enron's restatement.
The following are brief summaries of the principal transactions and matters in which we have identified substantial problems:
The first of the related-party transactions we examined involved Chewco Investments L.P., a limited partnership managed by Kopper. Because of this transaction, Enron filed inaccurate financial statements from 1997 through 2001, and provided an unauthorized and unjustifiable financial windfall to Kopper.
From 1993 through 1996, Enron and the California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS') were partners in a $500 million joint venture investment partnership called Joint Energy Development Investment Limited Partnership ("JEW). Because Enron and CalPERS, had joint control of the partnership, Enron did not consolidate JEDI into its consolidated financial statements. The financial statement impact of non-consolidation was significant: Enron would record its contractual share of gains and losses from JEDI on its income statement and would disclose the gain or loss separately in its financial statement footnotes, but would not show JEDI's debt on its balance sheet.
In November 1997, Enron wanted to redeem CaIPERS' interest in JEDI so that CalPERS would invest in another, larger partnership. Enron needed to find a new partner, or else it would have to consolidate JEDI into its financial statements, which it did not want to do. Enron assisted Kopper (whom Fastow identified for the role) in
forming Chewco to purchase CalPERS' interest. Kopper was the manager and owner of Chewco's general partner. Under the SPE rules summarized above, Enron could only avoid consolidating JEDI onto Enron's financial statements if Chewco had some independent ownership with a minimum of 3% of equity capital at risk. Enron and Kopper, however, were unable to locate any such outside investor, and instead financed Chewco's purchase of the JEDI interest almost entirely with debt, not equity. This was done hurriedly and in apparent disregard of the accounting requirements for nonconsolidation. Notwithstanding the shortfall in required equity capital, Enron did not consolidate Chewco (or JEDI) into its consolidated financial statements.
Kopper and others (including Andersen) declined to speak with us about why this transaction was structured in a way that did not comply with the non-consolidation rules. Enron, and any Enron employee acting in Enron's interest, had every incentive to ensure that Chewco complied with these rules. We do not know whether this mistake resulted from bad judgment or carelessness on the part of Enron employees or Andersen, or whether it was caused by Kopper or others putting their own interests ahead of their obligations to Enron.
The consequences, however, were enormous. When Enron and Andersen reviewed the transaction closely in 2001, they concluded that Chewco did not satisfy the SPE accounting rules and-because JEDI's non-consolidation depended on Chewco's status-neither did JEDL In November 2001, Enron announced that it would consolidate Chewco and JEDI retroactive to 1997. As detailed in the Background section above, this retroactive consolidation resulted in a massive reduction in Enron's reported net income and a massive increase in its reported debt.
Beyond the financial statement consequences, the Chewco transaction raises substantial corporate governance and management oversight issues. Under Enron's Code of Conduct of Business Affairs, Kopper was prohibited from having a financial or managerial role in Chewco unless the Chairman and CEO determined that his participation "does not adversely affect the best interests of the Company." Notwithstanding this requirement, we have seen no evidence that his participation was ever disclosed to, or approved by, either Kenneth Lay (who was Chairman and CEO) or the Board of Directors.
While the consequences of the transaction were devastating to Enron, Kopper reaped a financial windfall from his role in Chewco. This was largely a result of arrangements that he appears to have negotiated with Fastow. From December 1997 through December 2000, Kopper received $2 million in "management" and other fees relating to Chewco. Our review failed to identify how these payments were determined, or what, if anything, Kopper did to justify the payments. More importantly, in March 2001 Enron repurchased Chewco's interest in JEDI on terms Kopper apparently negotiated with Fastow (during a time period in which Kopper had undisclosed interests with Fastow in both LJM I and LJM2). Kopper had invested $125,000 in Chewco in 1997. The repurchase resulted in Kopper's (and a friend to whom he had transferred part of his interest) receiving more than $ 10 million from Enron.
In 1999, with Board approval, Enron entered into business relationships with two partnerships in which Fastow was the manager and an investor. The transactions between
Enron and the LJM partnerships resulted in Enron increasing its reported financial results by more than a billion dollars, and enriching Fastow and his co-investors by tens of millions of dollars at Enron's expense.
The two members of the Special Investigative Committee who have reviewed the Board's decision to permit Fastow to participate in LJM notwithstanding the conflict of interest have concluded that this arrangement was fundamentally flawed 1 A relationship with the most senior financial officer of a public company-particularly one requiring as many controls and as much oversight by others as this one did-should not have been undertaken in the first place.
The Board approved Fastow's participation in the LJM partnerships with full knowledge and discussion of the obvious conflict of interest that would result. The Board apparently believed that the conflict, and the substantial risks associated with it, could be mitigated through certain controls (involving oversight by both the Board and Senior Management) to ensure that transactions were done on terms fair to Enron. hi taking this step, the Board thought that the LJM partnerships would offer business benefits to Enron that would outweigh the potential costs. The principal reason advanced by Management in favor of the relationship, in the case of LJM1, was that it would permit Enron to accomplish a particular transaction it could not otherwise accomplish. In
1 One member of the Special Investigative Committee, Herbert S. Winokur, Jr., was a member of the Board of Directors and the Finance Committee during the relevant period. The portions of the Report describing and evaluating actions of the Board and its Committees are solely the views of the other two members of the Committee, Dean William C. Powers, Jr. of the University of Texas School of Law and Raymond S. Troubh.
the case of LJM2, Management advocated that it would provide Enron with an additional potential buyer of assets that Enron wanted to sell, and that Fastow's familiarity with the Company and the assets to be sold would permit Enron to move more quickly and incur fewer transaction costs.
Over time, the Board required, and Management told the Board it was implementing, an ever-increasing set of procedures and controls over the related-party transactions. These included, most importantly, review and approval of all LJM transactions by Richard Causey, the Chief Accounting Officer; and Richard Buy, the Chief Risk Officer; and, later during the period, Jeffrey Skilling, the President and COO (and later CEO). The Board also directed its Audit and Compliance Committee to conduct annual reviews of all LJM transactions.
These controls as designed were not rigorous enough, and their implementation and oversight was inadequate at both the Management and Board levels. No one in Management accepted primary responsibility for oversight; the controls were not executed properly; and there were structural defects in those controls that became apparent over time. For instance, while neither the Chief Accounting Officer, Causey, nor the Chief Risk Officer, Buy, ignored his responsibilities, they interpreted their roles very narrowly and did not give the transactions the degree of review the Board believed was occurring. Skilling appears to have been almost entirely uninvolved in the process, notwithstanding representations made to the Board that he had undertaken a significant role. No one in Management stepped forward to address the issues as they arose, or to bring the apparent problems to the Board's attention.
As we discuss further below, the Board, having determined to allow the related-party transactions to proceed, did not give sufficient scrutiny to the information that was provided to it thereafter. While there was important information that appears to have been withheld from the Board, the annual reviews of LJM transactions by the Audit and Compliance Committee (and later also the Finance Committee) appear to have involved only brief presentations by Management (with Andersen present at the Audit Committee) and did not involve any meaningful examination of the nature or terms of the transactions. Moreover, even though Board Committee-mandated procedures required a review by the Compensation Committee of Fastow's compensation from the partnerships, neither the Board nor Senior Management asked Fastow for the amount of his LJM-related compensation until October 2001, after media reports focused on Fastow's role in LJM.
From June 1999 through June 2001, Enron entered into more than 20 distinct transactions with the UM partnerships. These were of two general types: asset sales and purported "hedging" transactions. Each of these types of transactions was flawed, although the latter ultimately caused much more harm to Enron.
Asset Sales. Enron sold assets to LJM that it wanted to remove from its books. These transactions often occurred close to the end of financial reporting periods. While there is nothing improper about such transactions if they actually transfer the risks and rewards of ownership to the other party, there are substantial questions whether any such transfer occurred in some of the sales to LJM.
Near the end of the third and fourth quarters of 1999, Enron sold interests in seven assets to LJM1 and LJM2. These transactions appeared consistent with the stated purpose of allowing Fastow to participate in the partnerships-the transactions were done quickly, and permitted Enron to remove the assets from its balance sheet and record a gain in some cases. However, events that occurred after the sales call into question the legitimacy of the sales. In particular: (1) Enron bought back five of the seven assets after the close of the financial reporting period, in some cases within a matter of months; (2) the I JM partnerships made a profit on every transaction, even when the asset it had purchased appears to have declined in market value; and (3) according to a presentation Fastow made to the Board's Finance Committee, those transactions generated, directly or indirectly, "earnings" to Enron of $229 million in the second half of 1999 (apparently including one hedging transaction). (The details of the transactions are discussed in Section VI of the Report.) Although we have not been able to confirm Fastow's calculation, Enron's reported earnings for that period were $570 million (pre-tax) and $549 million (after-tax).
We have identified some evidence that, in three of these transactions where Enron ultimately bought back LJM's interest, Enron had agreed in advance to protect the LJM partnerships against loss. If this was in fact the case, it was likely inappropriate to treat the transactions as sales. There also are plausible, more innocent explanations for some of the repurchases, but a sufficient basis remains for further examination. With respect to those transactions in which risk apparently did not pass from Enron, the LJM partnerships functioned as a vehicle to accommodate Enron in the management of its reported financial results.
Hedging Transactions. The first "hedging" transaction between Enron and LJM occurred in June 1999, and was approved by the Board in conjunction with its approval of Fastow's participation in LJM1. The normal idea of a hedge is to contract with a creditworthy outside party that is prepared-for a price-to take on the economic risk of an investment. If the value of the investment goes down, that outside party will bear the loss. That is not what happened here. Instead, Enron transferred its own stock to an SPE in exchange for a note. The Fastow partnership, LJM1, was to provide the outside equity necessary for the SPE to qualify for non-consolidation. Through the use of options, the SPE purported to take on the risk that the price of the stock of Rhythms NetConnections Inc. ("Rhythms'), an internet service provider, would decline. The idea was to "hedge" Enron's profitable merchant investment in Rhythms stock, allowing Enron to offset losses on Rhythms if the price of Rhythms stock declined. If the SPE were required to pay Enron on the Rhythms options, the transferred Enron stock would be the principal source of payment.
The other "hedging" transactions occurred in 2000 and 2001 and involved SPEs known as the "Raptor vehicles. Expanding on the idea of the Rhythms transaction, these were extraordinarily complex structures. They were funded principally with Enron's own stock (or contracts for the delivery of Enron stock) that was intended to "hedge" against declines in the value of a large group of Enron's merchant investments. LJM2 provided the outside equity designed to avoid consolidation of the Raptor SPEs.
The asset sales and hedging transactions raised a variety of issues, including the following:
Accounting and Financial Reporting Issues. Although Andersen approved the transactions, in fact the "hedging" transactions did not involve substantive transfers of economic risk. The transactions may have looked superficially like economic hedges, but they actually functioned only as "accounting" hedges. They appear to have been designed to circumvent accounting rules by recording hedging gains to offset losses in the value of merchant investments on Enron's quarterly and annual income statements. The economic reality of these transactions was that Enron never escaped the risk of loss, because it had provided the bulk of the capital with which the SPEs would pay Enron.
Enron used this strategy to avoid recognizing losses for a time. In 1999, Enron recognized after-tax income of $95 million from the Rhythms transaction, which offset losses on the Rhythms investment. In the last two quarters of 2000, Enron recognized revenues of $500 million on derivative transactions with the Raptor entities, which offset losses in Enron's merchant investments, and recognized pre-tax earnings of $532 million (including net interest income). Enron's reported pre-tax earnings for the last two quarters of 2000 totaled $650 million. "Earnings" from the Raptors accounted for more than 80% of that total.
The idea of hedging Enron's investments with the value of Enron's capital stock had a serious drawback as an economic matter. If the value of the investments fell at the same time as the value of Enron stock fell, the SPEs would be unable to meet their obligations and the "hedges" would fail. This is precisely what happened in late 2000 and early 2001. Two of the Raptor SPEs lacked sufficient credit capacity to pay Enron on the "hedges." As a result, in late March 2001, it appeared that Enron would be required to take a pre-tax charge against earnings of more than $500 million to reflect the
shortfall in credit capacity. Rather than take that loss, Enron "restructured" the Raptor vehicles by, among other things, transferring more than $800 million of contracts to receive its own stock to them just before quarter-end. This transaction apparently was not disclosed to or authorized by the Board, involved a transfer of very substantial value for insufficient consideration, and appears inconsistent with governing accounting rules. It continued the concealment of the substantial losses in Enron's merchant investments.
However, even these efforts could not avoid the inevitable results of hedges that were supported only by Enron stock in a declining market. As the value of Enron's merchant investments continued to fall in 2001, the credit problems in the Raptor entities became insoluble. Ultimately, the SPEs were terminated in September 2001. This resulted in the unexpected announcement on October 16, 2001, of a $544 million aftertax charge against earnings. In addition, Enron was required to reduce shareholders' equity by $1.2 billion. While the equity reduction was primarily the result of accounting errors made in 2000 and early 2001, the charge against earnings was the result of Enron's "hedging" its investments-not with a creditworthy counter-party, but with itself.
Consolidation Issues. In addition to the accounting abuses involving use of Enron stock to avoid recognizing losses on merchant investments, the Rhythms transaction involved the same SPE equity problem that undermined Chewco and JED1. As we stated above, in 2001, Enron and Andersen concluded that Chewco lacked sufficient outside equity at risk to qualify for non-consolidation. At the same time, Enron and Andersen also concluded that the LJM l SPE in the Rhythms transaction failed the same threshold accounting requirement. In recent Congressional testimony, Andersen's CEO explained that the firm had simply been wrong in 1999 when it concluded (and
presumably advised Enron) that the LJM1 SPE satisfied the non-consolidation requirements. As a result, in November 2001, Enron announced that it would restate prior period financials to consolidate the LJM l SPE retroactively to 1999. This retroactive consolidation decreased Enron's reported net income by $95 million (of $893 million total) in 1999 and by $8 million (of $979 million total) in 2000.
Self-Dealing Issues. While these related-party transactions facilitated a variety of accounting and financial reporting abuses by Enron, they were extraordinarily lucrative for Fastow and others. In exchange for their passive and largely risk-free roles in these transactions, the IJM partnerships and their investors were richly rewarded. Fastow and other Enron employees received tens of millions of dollars they should not have received. These benefits came at Enron's expense.
When Enron and 1JM I (through Fastow) negotiated a termination of the Rhythms "hedge" in 2000, the terms of the transaction were extraordinarily generous to LJM1 and its investors. These investors walked away with tens of millions of dollars in value that, in an arm's-length context, Enron would never have given away. Moreover, based on the information available to us, it appears that Fastow had offered interests in the Rhythms termination to Kopper and four other Enron employees. These investments, in a partnership called "Southampton Place," provided spectacular returns. In exchange for a $25,000 investment, Fastow received (through a family foundation) $4.5 million in approximately two months. Two other employees, who each invested $5,800, each received $1 million in the same time period. We have seen no evidence that Fastow or any of these employees obtained clearance for those investments, as required by Enron's Code of Conduct. Kopper and the other Enron employees who received these vast
returns were all involved in transactions between Enron and the LJM partnerships in 2000-some representing Enron.
Enron's publicly-filed reports disclosed the existence of the LJM partnerships. Indeed, there was substantial factual information about Enron's transactions with these partnerships in Enron's quarterly and annual reports and in its proxy statements. Various disclosures were approved by one or more of Enron's outside auditors and its inside and outside counsel. However, these disclosures were obtuse, did not communicate the essence of the transactions completely or clearly, and failed to convey the substance of what was going on between Enron and the partnerships. The disclosures also did not communicate the nature or extent of Fastow's financial interest in the LJM partnerships. This was the result of an effort to avoid disclosing Fastow's financial interest and to downplay the significance of the related-party transactions and, in some respects, to disguise their substance and import. The disclosures also asserted that the related-party transactions were reasonable compared to transactions with third parties, apparently without any factual basis. The process by which the relevant disclosures were crafted was influenced substantially by Enron Global Finance (Fastow's group). There was an absence of forceful and effective oversight by Senior Enron Management and in-house counsel, and objective and critical professional advice by outside counsel at Vinson & Elkins, or auditors at Andersen.
The actions and inactions of many participants led to the related-party abuses, and the financial reporting and disclosure failures, that we identify in our Report. These participants include not only the employees who enriched themselves at Enron's expense, but also Enron's Management, Board of Directors and outside advisors. The factual basis and analysis for these conclusions are set out in the Report. In summary, based on the evidence available to us, the Committee notes the following:
Andrew Fastow. Fastow was Enron's Chief Financial Officer and was involved on both sides of the related-party transactions. What he presented as an arrangement intended to benefit Enron became, over time, a means of both enriching himself personally and facilitating manipulation of Enron's financial statements. Both of these objectives were inconsistent with Fastow's fiduciary duties to Enron and anything the Board authorized. The evidence suggests that he (1) placed his own personal interests and those of the UM partnerships ahead of Enron's interests; (2) used his position in Enron to influence (or attempt to influence) Enron employees who were engaging in transactions on Enron's behalf with the LJM partnerships; and (3) failed to disclose to Enron's Board of Directors important information it was entitled to receive. In particular, we have seen no evidence that he disclosed Kopper's role in Chewco or LJM2, or the level of profitability of the LJM partnerships (and his personal and family interests in those profits), which far exceeded what he had led the Board to expect. He apparently also violated and caused violations of Enron's Code of Conduct by purchasing, and offering to Enron employees, extraordinarily lucrative interests in the Southampton Place
partnership. He did so at a time when at least one of those employees was actively working on Enron's behalf in transactions with ]LJM2.
Enron's Management. Individually, and collectively, Enron's Management
failed to carry out its substantive responsibility for ensuring that the transactions were fair to Enron-which in many cases they were not-and its responsibility for implementing a system of oversight and controls over the transactions with the LJM partnerships. There were several direct consequences of this failure: transactions were executed on terms that were not fair to Enron and that enriched Fastow and others; Enron engaged in transactions that had little economic substance and misstated Enron's financial results; and the disclosures Enron made to its shareholders and the public did not fully or accurately communicate relevant information. We discuss here the involvement of Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Richard Causey, and Richard Buy.
For much of the period in question, Lay was the Chief Executive Officer of Enron and, in effect, the captain of the ship. As CEO, he had the ultimate responsibility for taking reasonable steps to ensure that the officers reporting to him performed their oversight duties properly. He does not appear to have directed their attention, or his own, to the oversight of the LJM partnerships. Ultimately, a large measure of the responsibility rests with the CEO.
Lay approved the arrangements under which Enron permitted Fastow to engage in related-party transactions with Enron and authorized the Rhythms transaction and three of the Raptor vehicles. He bears significant responsibility for those flawed decisions, as well as for Enron's failure to implement sufficiently rigorous procedural controls to
prevent the abuses that flowed from this inherent conflict of interest. In connection with the LJM transactions, the evidence we have examined suggests that Lay functioned almost entirely as a Director, and less as a member of Management. It appears that both he and Skilling agreed, and the Board understood, that Skilling was the senior member of Management responsible for the LJM relationship.
Skilling was Enron's President and Chief Operating Officer, and later its Chief Executive Officer, until his resignation in August 2001. The Board assumed, and properly so, that during the entire period of time covered by the events discussed in this Report, Skilling was sufficiently knowledgeable of and involved in the overall operations of Enron that he would see to it that matters of significance would be brought to the Board's attention. With respect to the LJM partnerships, Skilling personally supported the Board's decision to permit Fastow to proceed with LJM, notwithstanding Fastow's conflict of interest. Skilling had direct responsibility for ensuring that those reporting to him performed their oversight duties properly. He likewise had substantial responsibility to make sure that the internal controls that the Board put in place-particularly those involving related-party transactions with the Company's CFO-functioned properly. He has described the detail of his expressly-assigned oversight role as minimal. That answer, however, misses the point. As the magnitude and significance of the relatedparty transactions to Enron increased over time, it is difficult to understand why Skilling did not ensure that those controls were rigorously adhered to and enforced. Based upon his own description of events, Skilling does not appear to have given much attention to these duties. Skilling certainly knew or should have known of the magnitude and the risks associated with these transactions. Skilling, who prides himself on the controls he
put in place in many areas at Enron, bears substantial responsibility for the failure of the system of internal controls to mitigate the risk inherent in the relationship between Enron and the IJM partnerships.
Skilling met in March 2000 with Jeffrey McMahon, Enron's Treasurer (who reported to Fastow). McMahon told us that he approached Skilling with serious concerns about Enron's dealings with the LJM partnerships. McMahon and Skilling disagree on some important elements of what was said. However, if McMahon's account (which is reflected in what he describes as contemporaneous talking points for the discussion) is correct, it appears that Skilling did not take action (nor did McMahon approach Lay or the Board) after being put on notice that Fastow was pressuring Enron employees who were negotiating with LJM--clear evidence that the controls were not effective. There also is conflicting evidence regarding Skilling's knowledge of the March 2001 Raptor restructuring transaction. Although Skilling denies it, if the account of other Enron employees is accurate, Skilling both approved a transaction that was designed to conceal substantial losses in Enron's merchant investments and withheld from the Board important information about that transaction.
Causey was and is Enron's Chief Accounting Officer. He presided over and participated in a series of accounting judgments that, based on the accounting advice we have received, went well beyond the aggressive. The fact that these judgments were, in most if not all cases, made with the concurrence of Andersen is a significant, though not entirely exonerating, fact.
Causey was also charged by the Board of Directors with a substantial role in the oversight of Enron's relationship with the UM partnerships. He was to review and approve all transactions between Enron and the LJM partnerships, and he was to review those transactions with the Audit and Compliance Committee annually. The evidence we have examined suggests that he did not implement a procedure for identifying all ]LJM l or LJM2 transactions and did not give those transactions the level of scrutiny the Board had reason to believe he would. He did not provide the Audit and Compliance Committee with the full and complete information about the transactions, in particular the Raptor III and Raptor restructuring transactions, that it needed to fulfill its duties.
Buy was and is Enron's Senior Risk Officer. The Board of Directors also charged him with a substantial role in the oversight of Enron's relationship with the LJM partnerships. He was to review and approve all transactions between them. The evidence we have examined suggests that he did not implement a procedure for identifying all LJM1 or LJM2 transactions. Perhaps more importantly, he apparently saw his role as more narrow than the Board had reason to believe, and did not act affirmatively to carry out (or ensure that others carried out) a careful review of the economic terms of all transactions between Enron and LJM.
The Board of Directors. With respect to the issues that are the subject of this investigation, the Board of Directors failed, in our judgment, in its oversight duties. This had serious consequences for Enron, its employees, and its shareholders.
The Board of Directors approved the arrangements that allowed the Company's CFO to serve as general partner in partnerships that participated in significant financial
transactions with Enron. As noted earlier, the two members of the Special Investigative Committee who have participated in this review of the Board's actions believe this decision was fundamentally flawed. The Board substantially underestimated the severity of the conflict and overestimated the degree to which management controls and procedures could contain the problem.
After having authorized a conflict of interest creating as much risk as this one, the Board had an obligation to give careful attention to the transactions that followed. It failed to do this. It cannot be faulted for the various instances in which it was apparently denied important information concerning certain of the transactions in question. However, it can and should be faulted for failing to demand more information, and for failing to probe and understand the information that did come to it. The Board authorized the Rhythms transaction and three of the Raptor transactions. It appears that many of its members did not understand those transactions-the economic rationale, the consequences, and the risks. Nor does it appear that they reacted to warning signs in those transactions as they were presented, including the statement to the Finance Committee in May 2000 that the proposed Raptor transaction raised a risk of "accounting scrutiny." We do note, however, that the Committee was told that Andersen was "comfortable" with the transaction. As complex as the transactions were, the existence of Fastow's conflict of interest demanded that the Board gain a better understanding of the LJM transactions that came before it, and ensure (whether through one of its Committees or through use of outside consultants) that they were fair to Enron.
The Audit and Compliance Committee, and later the Finance Committee, took on a specific role in the control structure by carrying out periodic reviews of the LJM
transactions. This was an opportunity to probe the transactions thoroughly, and to seek outside advice as to any issues outside the Board members' expertise. Instead, these reviews appear to have been too brief, too limited in scope, and too superficial to serve their intended function. The Compensation Committee was given the role of reviewing Fastow's compensation from the LJM entities, and did not carry out this review. This remained the case even after the Committees were on notice that the LJM transactions were contributing very large percentages of Enron's earnings. In sum, the Board did not effectively meet its obligation with respect to the LJM transactions.
The Board, and in particular the Audit and Compliance Committee, has the duty of ultimate oversight over the Company's financial reporting. While the primary responsibility for the financial reporting abuses discussed in the Report lies with Management, the participating members of this Committee believe those abuses could and should have been prevented or detected at an earlier time had the Board been more aggressive and vigilant.
Outside Professional Advisors. The evidence available to us suggests that Andersen did not fulfill its professional responsibilities in connection with its audits of Enron's financial statements, or its obligation to bring to the attention of Enron's Board (or the Audit and Compliance Committee) concerns about Enron's internal controls over the related-party transactions. Andersen has admitted that it erred in concluding that the Rhythms transaction was structured properly under the SPE non-consolidation rules. Enron was required to restate its financial results for 1999 and 2000 as a result. Andersen participated in the structuring and accounting treatment of the Raptor transactions, and charged over $1 million for its services, yet it apparently failed to provide the objective
accounting judgment that should have prevented these transactions from going forward. According to Enron's internal accountants (though this apparently has been disputed by Andersen), Andersen also reviewed and approved the recording of additional equity in March 2001 in connection with this restructuring. In September 2001, Andersen required Enron to reverse this accounting treatment, leading to the $1.2 billion reduction of equity. Andersen apparently failed to note or take action with respect to the deficiencies in Enron's public disclosure documents.
According to recent public disclosures, Andersen also failed to bring to the attention of Enron's Audit and Compliance Committee serious reservations Andersen partners voiced internally about the related-party transactions. An internal Andersen email from February 2001 released in connection with recent Congressional hearings suggests that Andersen had concerns about Enron's disclosures of the related-party transactions. A week after that e-mail, however, Andersen's engagement partner told the Audit and Compliance Committee that, with respect to related-party transactions, "[r]equired disclosure [had been] reviewed for adequacy," and that Andersen would issue an unqualified audit opinion. From 1997 to 2001, Enron paid Andersen $5.7 million in connection with work performed specifically on the LJM and Chewco transactions. The Board appears to have reasonably relied upon the professional judgment of Andersen concerning Enron's financial statements and the adequacy of controls for the related-party transactions. Our review indicates that Andersen failed to meet its responsibilities in both respects.
Vinson & Elkins, as Enron's longstanding outside counsel, provided advice and prepared documentation in connection with many of the transactions discussed in the
Report. It also assisted Enron with the preparation of its disclosures of related-party transactions in the proxy statements and the footnotes to the financial statements in Enron's periodic SEC filings.2 Management and the Board relied heavily on the perceived approval by Vinson & Elkins of the structure and disclosure of the transactions. Enron's Audit and Compliance Committee, as well as in-house counsel, looked to it for assurance that Enron's public disclosures were legally sufficient. It would be inappropriate to fault Vinson & Elkins for accounting matters, which are not within its expertise. However, Vinson & Elkins should have brought a stronger, more objective and more critical voice to the disclosure process.
Enron Employees Who Invested in the LJM Partnerships. Michael Kopper, who worked for Fastow in the Finance area, enriched himself substantially at Enron's expense by virtue of his roles in Chewco, Southampton Place, and possibly LJM2. In a transaction he negotiated with Fastow, Kopper, and his co-investor in Chewco received more than $10 million from Enron for a $125,000 investment. This was inconsistent with his fiduciary duties to Enron and, as best we can determine, with anything the Board which apparently was unaware of his Chewco activities-authorized. We do not know what financial returns he received from his undisclosed investments in LJM2 or Southampton Place. Kopper violated Enron's Code of Conduct not only by purchasing his personal interests in Chewco, LJM2, and Southampton, but also by secretly offering an interest in Southampton to another Enron employee.
2 Because of the relationship between Vinson & Elkins and the University of Texas School of Law, the portions of the Report describing and evaluating actions of Vinson & Elkins are solely the views of Troubh and Winokur.
Ben Glisan, an accountant and later McMahon's successor as Enron's Treasurer, was a principal hands-on Enron participant in two transactions that ultimately required restatements of earnings and equity: Chewco and the Raptor structures. Because Glisan declined to be interviewed by us on Chewco, we cannot speak with certainty about Glisan's knowledge of the facts that should have led to the conclusion that Chewco failed to comply with the non-consolidation requirement. There is, however, substantial evidence that he was aware of such facts. In the case of Raptor, Glisan shares responsibility for accounting judgments that, as we understand based on the accounting advice we have received, went well beyond the aggressive. As with Causey, the fact that these judgments were, in most if not all cases, made with the concurrence of Andersen is a significant, though not entirely exonerating, fact. Moreover, Glisan violated Enron's Code of Conduct by accepting an interest in Southampton Place without prior disclosure to or consent from Enron's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer-and doing so at a time when he was working on Enron's behalf on transactions with LJM2, including Raptor.
Kristina Mordaunt (an in-house lawyer at Enron), Kathy Lynn (an employee in the Finance area), and Anne Yaeger Patel (also an employee in Finance) appear to have violated Enron's Code of Conduct by accepting interests in Southampton Place without obtaining the consent of Enron's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
The tragic consequences of the related-party transactions and accounting errors were the result of failures at many levels and by many people: a flawed idea, self-
enrichment by employees, inadequately-designed controls, poor implementation, inattentive oversight, simple (and not-so-simple) accounting mistakes, and overreaching in a culture that appears to have encouraged pushing the limits. Our review indicates that many of those consequences could and should have been avoided.


text:
Congratulations to Alexis and Amanda.
Thank you for giving us this great opportunity to capture your once-in-a-lifetime moments.
Enjoy our favourite shots from their special day!
Archive for January, 2014
Church Wedding: Ba and Shin YeeJanuary 8, 2014
This is our first visit to Wesley Methodist Church Taiping. It's one of the most beautiful churches we have seen.
Thank you to Ba and Shin Yee for entrusting us to be your photographers on your big day. We enjoyed the moment very much and had a great time!
Wish you both all the best and many blessings ahead!


text:
We treat our VIPs like Family
We realize that there is no shortage of online casinos for players to choose from these days so we truly value and appreciate our VIP players at Paradise 8. That is why we have developed an innovative and exciting 5-level VIP Club system that will reward most players based on their VIP level. Some VIP players deposit big and deposit often, if this is you, we have massive promotions and rewards for you that you won't find anywhere else! Maybe you're not the biggest depositor but you've shown loyalty over the weeks/months/years. We're thrilled to have you with us too and consider you an important VIP member too!
Here is an outline of our VIP Clubs, how to become a member, and just some of the great perks you can expect:
Bronze Beach
Silver Shells
Golden Sun
Platinum Palms
The Jet Set Society
* Weekly Cashback Promotions based on ( Deposits - Withdrawals - Balance X Cashback% )
** Special Prize Weekly Tournament prizes are in the form of Free Chips. Number of Chips awarded will vary according to Tournament.
*** Monthly Prize Draw prizes range from Electronics to Gift packages, every prize will have a minimum value of at least $1000 USD. When a player wins they will be emailed a list of currently available prizes. Prizes are updated often, Winning players can choose their prize from the list of currently available prizes or wait until a prize of their liking is available. Players can also win more than one prize per month although players cannot request two prizes to be combined for a larger prize of their choosing.
VIP Levels and their membership requirements are subject to change based on players playing habits, withdrawals and/or at the judgement of the VIP manager.


text:
product no. 08512
free shipping above 136.13 US$
liquid (dilution): 1:2000 i.e. 5 ml to 10 L water (=spray mixture)The D6* is potentised in a special way after the instructions of Kaviraj to increase its effectivenessFor 1 hectar (10.000 sqaremeter) one needs 300-400 Liter water mixed with 150-200 ml homeopathic remedy
Globules: ca. 5 big globules (4mm) or 12 small globules (2-3 mm) to 10 L water (=spray mixture)
>> til remedy list


text:
1496: Art Project
|Art Project
Title text: It's my most ambitious project yet, judging by the amount of guacamole.
This comic appears to be satirizing art in two different ways. From one perspective Randall is describing various art forms in unusual ways (e.g. a portrait by Cueball, a video for the girl with the short hair (not a character named yet), and perhaps live action by Ponytail). From another perspective, Randall might be making fun of time-lapse photography movies. YouTube has a robust collection of videos taken from stitching together pictures or short video clips taken every day, or every week; in the 2015 Academy Awards, one of the Best Picture nominees, Boyhood, used a similar method, filming short sequences annually over the course of a decade and a half.
In each case the art described would be useless. A picture of oneself "every hundred years" will only happen once; a "picture every 1/24th of a second" is the standard frame rate for most small cameras for video, and "watching my face age in real time" is just life...
Then finally Megan pokes fun at all of them by simply watching their attempts at "art" while she eats a burrito. Randall may also be referencing the many perspectives on art by leaving this comic open to several interpretations. The use of a burrito as a punchline representing someone who is grounded in reality instead of engaging in esoteric pursuits has been seen before in 1269: Privacy Opinions.
The title text is just more snark, claiming that it's Megan's most ambitious project ever if the sole criterion for ambition is the amount of guacamole used.
- Cueball: I'm doing an art project where I take a picture of myself every hundred years.
- Girl with short hair: I'm doing an art project where I take a picture of myself every 1/24th of a second.
- Ponytail: I'm doing an art project where you can come to my house and watch my actual face age in real time.
- Megan: I'm doing an art project where you all do those things while I eat a burrito.
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ refresh comments!
What is "Cutie"? If we're introducing a new character name, I'd say it would be the last "Megan". Her hair is longer and therefore not the prototypical Megan. Should the names be switched? Azule (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Someone on the internet is wrong - so I'm switching things around. Megan is number 2, and Danish is number 4. Pmw57 (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not convinced. I think number 2 is a character we haven't seen before, and number 4 is Megan. Her hair's not much longer than usual, and a LOT shorter than Danish's.126.96.36.199 14:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The first one looks like a selfie?--18.104.22.168 06:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The art projects all appear to be examples of narcissism, as the artists are only showing themselves. 126.96.36.199 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
This comic is obviously poking fun at those projects of people taking a photo of themselves every day for several months/years and upload the resulting video to YouTube. --NeatNit (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The last seems to be a reference to "Andy Warhol eating a Hamburger" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejr9KBQzQPM 22.214.171.124 08:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it (partially) satire on "Boyhood"? --JakubNarebski (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The first art project also reminds me of the performance of John Cage's A(s)SL(ow)(a)SP(ossible) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Slow_as_Possible) in Halberstadt which has a sceduled duration of 639 years.--126.96.36.199 10:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Some people live long enough that a picture every 100 years could be taken twice in a lifetime. Djbrasier (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. People have lived to 122, and it's easy to imagine an 18-year old student starting this project and taking another picture at the age of 118. Lifespans will probably keep increasing too. 220.127.116.11 20:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- He could be one of these Singularitarian guys, and geniunely believe he'll live for multiple centuries. And to be fair, considering the clearly advancing tech level, if Cueball here is still a teenager, him surviving another 100 years isn't that unlikely. 188.8.131.52 14:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Do we need the long note about Megan? Djbrasier (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the long note on Megan/Not Megan is warranted on this page. I'm not sure where it would go, but this isn't the right place for a discussion on character designations. --Pudder (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Can it be moved to the Megan page? For example, the Cueball page states that there can be multiple Cueballs in a comic, perhaps this is a case with multiple Megans? Maybe the thing to do is to edit some of the discussion and move it to Megan's page with a note that this is a case where Megan (everywoman) appears twice in a comic. I concur with the consensus from the discussion above that her hair is too short for #4 character to be Danish. Djbrasier (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is important to put here to avoid people changing it again and again. As far as I know this is the first time two girls looking like Megan appears in the same comic (although I have not read all yet.) For Cueball this happens many times. --Kynde (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Can it be moved to the Megan page? For example, the Cueball page states that there can be multiple Cueballs in a comic, perhaps this is a case with multiple Megans? Maybe the thing to do is to edit some of the discussion and move it to Megan's page with a note that this is a case where Megan (everywoman) appears twice in a comic. I concur with the consensus from the discussion above that her hair is too short for #4 character to be Danish. Djbrasier (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Following the conventions set in 1441: Turnabout and 1436: Orb Hammer, I have taken the character that is seems is most Megan-like from the character's behavior and appearance and named her Megan and left the other character of similar appearance unnamed. I will be updating the Megan page presently. Djbrasier (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes that was a mistake that Cueball was mentioned in those to transcripts. When there are two identical Cueballs in one comic, neither of them can be identified as the "real" Cueball. Because there is no specific trait that you can claim makes one of the Cueballs the real one! I have corrected the two transcripts. I will thus also correct the Megan page. However, I do agree with you that it is the second of the two black haired girls in this comic that best represents Megan. First of all in the hair length. But also because the most typical behaviour of Megan, would fit the one commenting on the other artist feeble attempt of redefining art... I had at one point changed it exactly as you did here. So I approve. So it is fine to remove the note. It was mainly to stop people from changing so that the first, short haired, girl was made into Megan... --Kynde (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, I think we should merge Cueball and Rob, but that's another discussion. Djbrasier (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. This Cueball is specified in those comics to be Rob, and the category Rob is in itself made into an under category of Cueball. So if you look at Cueballs apperances, then comics with Rob is mentioned at the top! --Kynde (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


text:
Agriculture and conservation
In the past 10 years we conducted numerous projects in this subject area. In Schleswig-Holstein and in EU projects (Interreg IIb) all aspects of wetland and grassland protection as well as eco-tourism were covered – from surveys of habitats, breeding birds, resting birds and other species groups through the design of development and conservation concepts up to the implementation of these concepts in cooperation with farmers and other local stakeholders.
Germany-wide conservation issues, concerning land consolidation procedures in the federal states and with regards to the potential of ecological farming, were treated in collaboration with nature conservation organizations, environmental and agricultural administration and farmers.
Within the framework of the evaluation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), possible effects of recent changes in the cross-compliance regulations on biodiversity of grassland habitats are investigated. In this context the inventory of species in differently treated areas (mulch, mown grass and fallow land) is analyzed.


text:
Featured Brands
Recommended Products
Our Gear Advisors are Ready to Help.
Here's a piece of unheralded gear of supreme importance to cyclists. It's the Louis Garneau Hugo Headband. Sure, when used correctly it is hidden from site beneath the helmet, but that's exactly the idea. It's an item constructed with Heatmaxx, an element offering body heat retention. You know what they say about wearing a hat, right? This is the "hat" you wear, under your helmet, when the weather begins to cool. It includes DRYTEX 6000 material, a 2-way, 100% polyester mechanical knit with one brushed side to improve heat retention. Lots of anti-cold technology working for you here. Let it work in secret to make your rides more enjoyable.
Jenson USA ships worldwide, including APO/FPO addresses. For a quote, simply add the items you are interested in to your shopping cart and look for the "Shipping Options" box. You don't have to login or create an account to see shipping charges.
Some manufacturers restrict where we can ship their products. If this item has shipping restrictions, they are listed below. If you'd like to buy an item that we cannot ship to your preferred address, we can accept your foreign credit card and ship to a USA address for you.
Get free 1-day California shipping with your $50 purchase today, on most orders. Please note this offer is only available to physical shipping addresses in California(no PO Boxes), and oversize charges still apply on some heavy/large items


text:
This information is provided for your convenience and may no longer be valid.
Status: Closed
Know more about this business than we do? Cool! Please submit any corrections or missing details you may have.Help us make it right
Be the first NJ.com user to add photos or videos of Child Care Partners
Child Care Partners can be found at S Black Horse Pike 1708. The following is offered: Childcare Services. The entry is present with us since Sep 10, 2010 and was last updated on Nov 14, 2013. In Williamstown there are 2 other Childcare Services. An overview can be found here.
Child Care Partners is located at 1708 S Black Horse Pike, Williamstown, NJ. This business specializes in Child Care Services.


text:
Lace Front Blouse, Ivory
Item #: 33370
Simply stunning! This gorgeous blouse features delicate lace that adds such an AHHHmazing vintage feel! This pretty top elevates even the most basic pair of jeans so you know this magical number is a must-have! :) Material has no amount of stretch. Lined in the front. You might want a cami handy with this one! :) Aurora is wearing the 1XL. Length from shoulder to hem: 1XL- 28.5"; 2XL- 29.5"; 3XL- 30.5"
AttributesAdjustable: No
Main Color: Ivory
Length: 28.5"
Model Specs
- Height:
- Bust Size:
- Waist Size:
- Hip Size:
- Shoe Size:
- Model typically wears:
Be the first to write a review!


text:
Industrial Factory Unit - Secure Investment!
What a great opportunity to purchase a well presented solid 320 sqm (more or less), high stud tilt slab unit off popular Cryers Road in a secure lock up, fully fenced complex.
The office is on the upper level with kitchen/lunchroom located below.
Amenities include washroom and shower. There are extra storage rooms and options.
The zoning allows for a wide range of industrial uses.
In close proximity to the Southern Motorway and Highbrook Business Park.
If you are looking for a place to call your own, be it manufacturing, warehouse or to store the 'toys'.
Call Elbe for your own private viewing!.
270 sqm (mol) Floor
25 sqm (mol) Office upstairs
25 sqm (mol) Lunch room / kitchen / washroom downstairs
5 Car parks
Container friendly
Heavy Industry Zone
Unit is alarmed
Motorised roller door
Secure gated complex
Vacant possession
Capital value $780,000 (2017)
LIM (Available)
Information pack available upon request from the sole agent.
Call Elbe Pretorius on 021 277 5480 or email@example.com to view.


text:
SIBU – Three people died while six others sustained injuries in two separate road accidents in Mukah and Sarikei, yesterday.
Mukah district police chief, DSP Jimmy Panyau said lorry driver Edin Mil, 22, from Kapit and one of his passengers, Jacky Jasam, 23, from Betong perished while another passenger Augustine Donul Gasan, 19, from Miri sustained light injuries in a self accident at Km 7, Jalan Mukah-Balingian around 7.30pm.
In the other incident along Jalan Sarikei-Betong about 16.8 km from Sarikei town, around 4.10pm, a woman died while her husband sustained a broken leg when their Proton Saga collided with a van carrying four Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission personnel aged between 26 and 36 years.
Sarikei district police chief Supt Mat Jusoh Muhammad said trader Normadiah Awie, 57, and Samarin Mat, 57, who was driving the car, were heading to Kabong from Sibu when the van skidded on the slippery road following heavy downpour, and veered into the opposite lane, hitting the couple's vehicle.
The four MACC staff including the van driver who were heading to Bintulu from Kuching sustained minor injuries.


text:
Remember Webvan? The online grocer, whose initial public offering in March 2000 was among the most hotly anticipated during the dot-com boom, is now viewed as one of the greatest disasters of the era.
Fast forward 11 years and the feeding frenzy around Facebook and its exponentially expanding valuations are conjuring fears of a Bubble 2.0.
Goldman Sachs bankers have offered their private wealth clients less than a week to decide whether they want to hand over $2 million apiece for a sliver of the Web darling du jour: Facebook at a $50 billion valuation.
For one Goldman [GS 172.21 -1.79 (-1.03%) ] client, who was expecting a 100-page financial document on Facebook to be hand-delivered on Thursday, hours before the deadline to invest in the company—the whole thing "felt a bit like 1999."


text:
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Guided Math Chapter 6 Review and Reflect and FREEBIE
6 comments:
I love your easel! I am so jealous now! :)
Delighted in Second
- July 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM
- Lisa R. said...
I love how organized your math manipulatives are!! I desperately need to be that organized with my manipulatives!! :)
Learning Is Something to Treasure
- July 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM
- Sue said...
Great organization and I love your easel. Thanks for sharing your ideas.
The Very Busy Kindergarten
- July 5, 2012 at 5:48 PM
- Amanda said...
Yep jumping on the bandwagon to say love love your easel. It's the little things in life us teachers get excited about! Great ideas, so glad you shared with the book study! More math journals will definitely be happening in my room this year too!
Reaching for the TOP!
- July 5, 2012 at 7:56 PM
- Heather at Teach It Today! said...
You are great at organization! Check out my blog at noon today to see what I posted about you...
Heather at TeachItToday
- July 6, 2012 at 11:35 AM
- Patti Wilson said...
So jealous of your organized manipulatives. They look amazing!
I have met with my higher group last because I knew they understood the material, or at least had a good understanding. I'm also glad to have the suggestion of meeting with them first. It makes much more sense.
Thanks for sharing!
One Class, One Sound
- July 6, 2012 at 4:48 PM


text:
Here at Mr Spin Casino, we know how important bonuses are to our players, both new and old. That's why all of our generous casino bonuses are automatically added to players' accounts from the moment they sign up.
Our introductory no deposit free spins bonus* is free and gives you the opportunity to play our exclusive games without depositing any of your own money. All of our bonuses, whether it's the free spins sign-up bonus, the matched first deposit, our generous free spins refer a friend scheme, or the lifetime deposit top-up, are offered with no wagering requirements. This means that, unlike many other online casino bonuses, you get to keep what you win!
Mr Spin loves welcoming new players to his exclusive casino, that's why he offers ALL new players up to 50 free spins* as a welcome bonus, without them having to deposit a single penny! All new players receive their free spins bonus as soon as they activate their account*.
These free spins give you the chance to try out one of our most popular, exclusive mobile slots games, and – because all of Mr Spins' fantastic bonuses only have a 1x wagering requirement – you can keep what you win!
So what're you waiting for? Sign-up today, receive your free spins no deposit bonus, and find your favourite fling with Mr Spin!
Once you've created an account with Mr Spin, received your free welcome bonus, and found your favourite exclusive title, it's time to make your first deposit! When you do, we'll match it up to £100!
That's right; on top of their welcome bonus of up to 50 free spins, all new players receive a 100% matched first deposit, up to £100. That means if you deposit £50 you'll have £100 to play with, or if you deposit £100 you'll get £200 in your account!
It's double the fun with Mr Spin Casino!
We're proud of the community spirit amongst players at the Mr Spin Casino and that's in part caused by the fact that our players love recommending us to their friends. We know that you'll love the exclusive slots games hosted by Mr Spin, and we think your friends will too. That's why we give every player 50 free spins every time they refer a friend to our casino, without them having to make a deposit!
When they join, they'll receive the same great welcome offers as everyone else at the Mr Spin Casino, which means they'll get their free spins welcome bonus along with their first deposit match. But our refer a friend scheme doesn't end there; as their referrer, we'll give you an equivalent of 50% of their first deposit as bonus credit. That means if they join and deposit £100, they'll get £200 to play with AND you'll get a £50 bonus credit added to your account, for free!
Mr Spin doesn't just like welcoming new players to his online casino with welcome bonuses, he looks after his friends and long-term players as well. With our 10% deposit match bonus you receive a 10% top-up on every single card deposit you make, for free, for life.
Mr Spin's generosity has no limits, so no matter how many times you deposit by card, he will always give you an extra 10% on top.
That means that every time you deposit £10 you'll get £1 free as a bonus credit, or every time you deposit £100 you'll get £10 absolutely free!
As part of our drive to be a leading community-focused online casino, we're growing a strong social media following where Mr Spin gets to know his players and players can get to know each other!
Our Facebook page is a great place to speak to other players and win huge bonuses! With regular bonus competitions, fun quizzes, and conversations with Mr Spin himself - head on over and Like the Mr Spin Facebook page to become part of our community and be in for a chance to win free bonuses throughout the week!


text:
Now Hiring!
Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN: Avamere Crestview of Portland
Part-time Various Shifts Available
Please apply online at: https://careers-avamere.icims.com
Avamere Crestview of Portland
6530 SW 30th Ave
Portland, OR 97239
(503) 244-7533
The primary responsibility of this position is to provide direct nursing care to the residents, and to supervise the day-to-day nursing activities performed by nursing assistants.
The Avamere Family of Companies takes a holistic approach to post-acute care. We have designed a service that combines all of healthcare companies and healthcare professionals tied by the common goal of providing seamless care and support for all of our patients.
Avamere at Crestview has proudly served the long-term care and short-term rehabilitation needs of the community for more than 40 years. A newly remodeled, 127 bed facility, Crestview is the proud recipient of the AHCA National Bronze Award for Quality. Our therapy staff is unmatched in the industry with more than 100 years of combined experience. Avamere at Crestview is currently seeking top notch talent to join our all-star team of interdisciplinary professionals.
Software Powered by iCIMS


text:
When it comes to wellness, employers are looking for hard numbers.
A 2015 survey of CFOs bears this out. The overwhelming majority (85%) say they play a role in their companies' benefits decisions, and over a third (34%) view health and wellness benefits as an important tool for attracting and retaining talent.
But more than half (53%) of the CFOs surveyed by Integrated Benefits Institute (IBI) also say that to make those decisions about health benefits they need business metrics that link better employee health to improved job performance.
That creates a challenge for providers of wellness programs like Wellview Health. While he acknowledges that employers are looking for a hard number, Wellview Health CEO Geoff Duncan says they need to recognize that the return on investment for wellness comes in many different forms and is "not just a straight number."
ROI by any other name . . .
"There are many other forms of ROI, such as employee retention," Duncan says. "There are employees that will be calling in sick less and there will be people at the office who are more productive because they feel better."
Wellview, he argues, helps their clients' track the performance of their wellness programs by taking into account the employees' experience with the program. If employers focus on their employees' physical and financial wellness, while also seeing improved workforce morale and productivity gains, then the wellness program's ROI "will be clear in the long run."
Much of this has to do with providing employees with tools like telehealth at the right time, "so that they can have better outcomes," Duncan adds. "If we do these things, then the ROI happens and [employers] will realize those returns on their investment."
The IBI survey seems to support his reasoning. Although CFOs do want metrics to show whether or not the wellness program is working, only 6% of the respondents actually measure their benefits ROI, and only 23% measure any outcome.
Register or login for access to this item and much more
All Employee Benefit Adviser content is archived after seven days.
Community members receive:
- All recent and archived articles
- Conference offers and updates
- A full menu of enewsletter options
- Web seminars, white papers, ebooks
Already have an account? Log In
Don't have an account? Register for Free Unlimited Access


text:
For the Comprehensive Mercedes-Benz Experience near Los Angeles, Choose Mercedes-Benz of Arcadia
Simply put, Mercedes-Benz of Arcadia is the place to find a new or pre-owned Mercedes-Benz near Los Angeles. We offer comprehensive sales and service for the entire line of luxury vehicles. Our new Mercedes-Benz inventory includes all of the latest and more popular models, including the new E-Class, C-Class, GLE, and GLA.
Los Angeles is one of the most competitive automotive markets in the world. This makes our Mercedes-Benz Best of the Best Dealer Recognition Award and back-to-back DealerRater Consumer Satisfaction Awards even more impressive. Mercedes-Benz of Arcadia is a leader in the brand, and we are strongly committed to customer satisfaction. As such, in order to meet the needs of more Los Angeles, Arcadia, Pasadena, La Canada, Rosemead and Alhambra area drivers, we offer a variety of Mercedes-Benz lease specials to help bridge the gap between the sticker price and your budget.
Learn about the Many Distinct Mercedes-Benz Body Styles
Also called a convertible, an open-air Mercedes-Benz cabriolet has a way of turning every errand run and commute into an utter joyride. A convertible top allows you to enjoy the warm Los Angeles air -- from the fast lane, of course, thanks to quick-thinking engines. It's the ultimate blend of driving enjoyment and sporty elegance. Nimble and charismatic, the chiseled good looks of a cabriolet will not go unnoticed, no matter how swiftly you drive. Try a C-Class, E-Class or S-Class cabriolet on for size, or let your lead foot lead the way to an AMG® high-performance cabriolet.
Sleek and sophisticated, the coupe offers quintessential Mercedes-Benz elegance, power, and accommodations is a more simplistic, two-door design. Sculpted character lines, pillar-less appearance, and unapologetic muscle give Mercedes-Benz coupes a smooth and sharp look -- not to mention genuinely athletic performance. Enjoy the well-rounded design of CLA, C-Class, CLS, E-Class, and S-Class coupes, or the well-powered coupe versions of AMG® high-performance vehicles.
A Mercedes-Benz hatchback is the perfect fit for the lifestyles of many sedan-drivers in the Los Angeles area. An easy transition from a car, a hatchback sports a lower ride height than your average SUV, for more carlike driving dynamics. Its handy hatchback design makes for more SUV-like cargo carrying capability, which is ideal of urban adventurers. Folding rear seats also enhance the flexibility of these practical, premium vehicles, which are namely the B-Class and, arguably, the GLA.
Enjoy the open road with the open-air driving experience of a Mercedes-Benz roadster. These tenacious two-seaters offer youthful, high-end appeal in a power-filled package. Sculpted styling, wide stance, and classic proportions give these regal roadsters timeless appeal. An AIRSCARF® system and sun-reflecting leather make for a technologically forward design as well. Available in SLC, SL and Mercedes-AMG GT roadsters.
Classic proportions, lavish accoutrements, and cavernous cabins set the stage for C-Class, E-Class, and S-Class sedans to steal the show in their respective segments. Whether you're looking for something compact and classy, midsize and modern, or large and lavish, there's a Mercedes-Benz sedan to meet all of your four-door needs. You'll also appreciate their cutting-edge technology and advanced safety systems that are some of the most innovative on the market.
Equip your family to be able to seize every opportunity for Los Angeles adventures with the GLA, GLC, GLE, GLS, and G-Class SUVs. This are protective, powerful, thoughtful, and premium utility vehicles that value sophistication and style as much as safety and sportiness. Bold and brilliantly designed, these cargo-friendly crossovers are engineered to set the bar for the luxury-badged family vehicle, flaunting unmatched elegance, capability, and comfort.
Sprinter and Metris commercial vans allow Los Angeles business owners to build smarter from the ground up, thanks to a highly customizable design. This fleet-ready workhorses are both sophisticated and spacious, accommodating creature comforts as well as plentiful cargo. These mid- ad full-size vans boast the ideal blend of genuine capability and class, prioritizing easy upfits and hauling ability while delivering the luxuries you expect from a star-badged vehicle.
The Mercedes-Benz E-Class wagon is in a class of one. It low roof height makes for easy cargo loading, while its elongated design expands interior cargo-carrying capability. Breathtaking interior materials and designs will allow you to forget all about the style-stunted wagon of your childhood. This is the new-age of the family-friendly hatchback, boasting semi-autonomous driving features and a vast array of personalized options.
Plenty of Options For Drivers Looking to Buy or Lease a New Mercedes-Benz near Los Angeles
Leasing is an investment in options. You save at the time of signing by putting little to no money down. You save in the long-term with small monthly payments. You save at lease-end by trading in your current leased vehicle for a brand-new model, sometimes with little or no money out of pocket. We further enhance the cost-effectiveness of a Mercedes-Benz lease with special monthly payments, lease terms, and more.
Mercedes-Benz of Arcadia is one of the largest dealerships in the country, and we stock our showroom accordingly. You'll find a wide range of models in our new inventory, including a large selection of the most popular nameplates. Many of our customer favorites are paired with lease specials at one time or another, so be sure to visit this page first if you're interested in leasing a new Mercedes-Benz.
Please reach out to our team of sales consultants at 855-704-3477 for additional information. We encourage you to visit our facility to see firsthand why we are such a popular place to find a great lease offer on a new Mercedes-Benz in Los Angeles.
We encourage you to make the quick and easy trip from Los Angeles to our facility to see and experience the Mercedes-Benz of Arcadia. Feel free to reach out to our staff with questions at 844-268-6193.
New Mercedes-Benz for sale near Los Angeles.
Vehicles Located at: 101 N Santa Anita Ave, Arcadia, California 91006


text:
The 1960s, a time of feverish experimentation in almost all areas of human life: the sexual revolution is going on, new drugs are being taken for recreation, censorship is being pushed back, gender roles are...Read More →
It is that time when magazines and TV shows look back and pick highlights from the year as it approaches its end. Well, we are no exception at FPI and we've started our Best of...Read More →
Eric Powell's The Goon has always been one of the more unusual, not to mention downright cool comic book creations. And now, ladies, gentlemen and fellow geeks, we have The Goon action figures!!! Joey the...Read More →
No, it isn't the tale of a bunch of Van Halen fans – it is in fact a very groovy new series from the wonderfully deranged mind of Clive Barker. Clive has long been known...Read More →
I couldn't resist buying one of these for myself – a wonderfully-detailed 12 inch Cylon warrior. Articulated joints, weapon accessories and that very shiny armour means he looks quite splendid on his stand. There's also...Read More →
Okay, how nice are these? Lord of the Rings backgammon sets! The playing surface has a map of Middle Earth on it and the playing pieces consist of thirty die-cast versions of the One Ring...Read More →
Playskool have launched one of the more unusual – not to mention fun – items of Star Wars merchandise ahead of Revenge of the Sith: Darth Tater. What the smeg is a Darth Tater, some...Read More →
Courtesy of our top FPI buyer Isobel we bring you some cuddly goodness: Now – on a Cuteness scale of 1 to 10, how cute is this? Personally, I'd say this one goes up to...Read More →
Hot from New York Toy Fair are these fantastic images of series 2 of Charmed figures. We thought the first series was good but these look to be really outstanding with great likenesses of the...Read More →


text:
Primary School Enrichment
New for 2018 - Enrichment Programme for Primary Schools
Please click on a panel to view the relevant news items
New for 2018 - Enrichment Programme for Primary Schools
Business & Enterprise Group
Year 11 Spanish Class
RGS attend the MACH Exhibition in Birmingham
Our robotics team travelled to the NEC in Birmingham on Friday 16th March for the Robotics Challenge Finals.
Our newly elected team of Head and Deputy Head Girls
There were lots of visitors at school on Wednesday 14th March, for the latest Personal Development Day.
On Thursday 8th March, we held an Open Evening for our new Year 7 pupils coming to us in September.
On Monday 26 February, the robotics team made Reading Girls' School proud by winning the London heat of the Tomorrow's Engineers EEP Robotics Challenge.
Results Day 2017
Reading Girls' School recently hosted an enterprise day for Year 5 pupils from local primary schools, so help them develop their teamwork, creative thinking and communication skills. Activities were run by Enabling Enterprise who have reported on the event at the link below.
Healthcare Competition
You can subscribe to a feed of the latest news items, using the link below. Subscribing to this news feed is free and will keep you up-to-date with the latest news stories that have been posted.To subscribe, simply right-click on the link below, click "copy shortcut" and then paste the URL into your feed reader software.Subscribe via RSS (News Items)


text:
makes you think (146) inspirational (110) fun (60) technology (35) funny (34) Kindness (12) Leadership (10) instructional (10) bullying (9) Sexting (4) events (4) SFBC (1)
Monday, November 12, 2012
Keep it Tame
You can use phones, tablets and computers to do awesome stuff. But things can turn nasty if you use them to disrespect each other. Treat each other with respect and Keep It Tame.
Source: http://keepittame.youngandwellcrc.org.au/jenny-index.html
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
I had sex the first day of my Fertility day around 7 am in the morning, and the person that I had the intercourse with did not pull out. Therefore... (we get the drift). I did not purchase the pill until that following Mondat around 2 pm due to financial issues. Tuesday I was extremely tired ( I thought due to walking in the heat) I am trying to see how effective will the drug be for me due to the fact that it was my fertile day and being so close to the 72 hour mark.
Plan B One-Step - 17 hours before 72hrs Mark?
- Asked
- 31 Aug 2016 by tutugurl
- Updated
- 31 August 2016
- Topics
- plan b, emergency contraception, sex, fertility, plan b one-step, pill
Responses (1)
Plan B does not work if you were fertile! You needed the EllaOne emergency contraceptive pill, which could be taken within 5 days/120 hours. Either that, or you could have had an IUD fitted by a doctor, to act as emergency contraception & longer term contraception.
You're just going to have to hope that you weren't fertile. If you were relying on an app/website, they are just a guide.
Further Information
Search for questions
Still looking for answers? Try searching for what you seek or ask your own question.
Similar Questions
Plan B One-Step - Will plan b pill be effective if used just three weeks prior?
Posted 1 Aug 2013 • 1 answer
Plan B One-Step - Will plan b still be effective 32 hours later?
Posted 2 Aug 2014 • 1 answer
Hi everyone! So I took Plan B One Step on September 24th, less than 24 hours after my "fright"?
Posted 29 Oct 2015 • 2 answers
Does Plan B One-Step still work if you throw up 6 hours later after taking it?
Posted 26 Jul 2016 • 0 answers
I took the morning after pill 72hrs after sex. Can I still get pregnant?
Posted 25 Jul 2017 • 1 answer


text:
Welcome to the University of Plymouth!
- Want to make new friends?
- Want to enjoy chatting to others?
- Want to make the most out of life in the UK?
Then come and join our Global Buddies Group.
Global Buddies International Group is open to all international students at the University.
Just come along to one of the Wednesday afternoon sessions - we look forward to seeing you.


text:
We are Different Since 2016 June 20th
1. About Delivery time: Very Quick
These shoes are all in stock, all parcel would be arranged within 3 work days.
There are special air line for these country: united states, russia, UK, Spain, France,Ukraine. So the speed for these country are quicker than before, especially for russian country.
The more quick shipping method will be come into service after June 20th
2.About the size:
Please check the inner length in the size chart of description, choose size based on the inner length in size chart .
3.About The Returned policy and service:
You can keep our shoes and payment would be refund if it's our mistake. Do not worry about the order in our store, we are very honest store.
4. About the quality of products:
please check the comments from other buyers, our quality is excellent, Comfortable shoes, breathable upper material, good rubber sole. One word –Very Good .
All products would be checked quality before dispatched . So donot worry about the quality
|5. Please add our store and this shoes into your wish list .Thank you


text:
Other than a song by Marvin Gay, which tons of babies were made, what is sexual healing?
Come back for Goddess Renee's version of sexual healing and the benefits for men, women and couples.
Look for my upcoming tours schedule in Houston, Texas, Lake Charles, La. and Asbury Park, NJ.


text:
Tag Archives: Liberty Fire
#SkirballFire | 1 | AM Update
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA Current CA State Fire Facts: 6 large fires. 141,000 acres burned. 190,000 residents evacuated. 23,000 homes threatened. 5,700 firefighters on fire ground, 500 confirmed structures destroyed. – CALFIRE 12/7/2017 2012 hours PST. Incident Summary Start Date/Time. December 5, 2017 … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized Tagged Containment, Creek Fire, Evacuations, Fire Behavior, Liberty Fire, Lilac Fire, Rye Fire, Skirball Fire, Thomas Fire Leave a comment


text:
The wrongful death of a family member is an incredibly tragic and painful experience. Making this experience even more difficult is knowing that the death could have been avoided.
While monetary compensation cannot makeup for the loss in your life, holding the responsible party accountable can give you some peace of mind and lead to changes that will prevent future tragedies.
We Are Here To Help
At The Collins Law Firm in Naperville, Illinois, we can fight on your behalf to get you the compensation that you and your family deserve. Contact our experienced trial lawyers if you and your family have lost a loved one.
Do Not Suffer In Silence
In many accident cases, crucial evidence can be lost if not quickly preserved. We recognize this important issue and are ready to quickly mobilize to preserve evidence. We know how to thoroughly investigate all the factors that led to the fatal accident that took your family member from you. We will review any police reports that are available, consult with experts, and interview witnesses and other victims. We will leave no stone unturned in trying to recover compensation on your behalf.
Filing a personal injury lawsuit can be intimidating for many people going through the process for the first time. You can take comfort in the fact that we are trial attorneys who have recovered more than $100 million in compensation for our clients, and who have the skills, knowledge and resources to go toe-to-toe with the people and corporations responsible for your loss.
Let Our Personal Injury Lawyers Fight For You
Contact The Collins Law Firm at 630-687-9838 or 866-480-8223 (Shawn Collins is at extension 221 and Edward Manzke is at 226) if you are grieving the loss of a loved one because of someone else's negligence, whether it is another driver or a corporation. You can schedule a free consultation with an attorney who is committed to helping you get the justice you deserve.


text:
One month as a PHN....
....and I LOVE it. Love love love.
About exnavygirl-RN, ASN, BSN, MSN, RN
Joined: Aug '03; Posts: 731; Likes: 473Mar 19, '12What kind of public health are you doing?
I knew even before nursing school I wanted the be a public health nurse. I wanted the opportunity to build long-term relationships with my patients and to do a lot of teaching. A year after I graduated, I got my dream job. I work with pregnant and parenting teens (mostly low-income) in a home-based program. I absolutely LOVE it. Every day is different and has unique challenges. I work with a great team which makes it even better!Mar 20, '12Congrats!!! Im so glad that I have my mind made up to get into nursing.That is so awesome to be in the PHN field Anyone knowledgeable of scholarships, grants, loans for nursing in general?Mar 20, '12I would love to work with the young pregnant girls. I was pregnant and married at age 15 now married for 24 years. I had a" social service" visiting lady who came each week. I dont know what I would have done wihtout her. My mom was very involved but she didn't know all the resources this lady did. I knew since I was 7 I wanted to be a nurse but would love to work with girls/ families like I once was. Working on my FNP and I hope that I can get into a clinic and work with them.Mar 20, '12Most of the children I see have young parent's. I love the opportunity to teach and give encouragement. A lot of these children I'll see often. Our PHRM/ISS program deals with high risk mothers and infants. They do home visits. I may have to do some home visits this week.
I do child health (EPSDT) and some WIC. The Health Department is notified when newborns have a "trait". I notify the parent's and do counselling for this. Most of the time it is the sickle cell trait but I call for BARTS and other HgB diseases. I'm learning a lot about genetics and work with the genetics nurse.
I love it.
Mrsfocused, I'm not sure about scholarships, etc.Jun 3, '12@exnavygirl-RN: How did you find the job that you are currently at? Where did you search for a job with pregnant teens and infants? Websites? Something i'd be greatly interested in and would love some friendly advice when i need to start the search
Must Read Topics