text:
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
How Rare?
Does anyone know if the B1 version of Holmes was unusually rare? Or is it just that those who have the B1 version tend to treasure it more and thus not put them up for auction or otherwise sell them off? I'd really like to obtain a copy with B1, as it's one of my favorite modules of all time -- maybe even the top of the heap -- but it seems difficult to find for some reason and I'm curious as to why this might be.
14 comments:
So far as I've been able to tell, it's tough to find a copy with B1 in it. I've acquired three of them so far--one with dice, one with chits, and one incomplete (neither dice nor chits) and all of them had B2.ReplyDelete
Just doing some quick research, it seems only the 4th & 5th printings had B1 in them. 6th had either B1 or B2, and anything printings beyond that had only B2. Interestingly, it seems the 1st - 3rd printings had Dungeon Geomorphs Set One & Monster & Treasure Assortment Set One instead of a module. So comparatively speaking it would be fairly rare.ReplyDelete
When I bought my Holmes boxed set recently, I discovered the contents were completely wrong. The right box, but inside was an odd collection of stuff: an AD&D DM's screen, some geomorphs, etc. Kind of cool stuff to get by chance, but not Holmes.ReplyDelete
I ended up assembling my Holmes box set myself. I kept the box, and bought copies of the Holmes book and B1 separately. Not entirely authentic, but my box set now contains basically what I thought should have been there.
I guess my point is, if you're buying used, there's no guarantee you're really getting the original contents, unless you manage to pick up a still in shrink wrap copy. Is it really worth spending extra money on a set that contains B1 in the hopes it's really the B1 that originally came in the box?
Ah, it amazes me (though i suppose it shouldn't) that there are actual sets to be had. I recently uncovered my copies of the Holmes rule book and B1 in my parents' basement (which I moved out of long ago, TYVM), but the box and the dice are long gone. I wish I could find the dice, because the d20 was pretty much round by the time I replaced it.ReplyDelete
Which is to say, good luck, and I hope you find an intact set.
About 6 years ago I got a Holmes set off of ebay for $10. It was complete with the mono B1. (Chits, no dice.)ReplyDelete
Shoehorned inside the box (which was in remarkable condition considering the abuse) was an AD&D PHB with original demon-idol art. Completely unexpected. I looked back at the auction announcement after getting it and saw that it was actually included in the sale.
Needless to say, that was one of my better ebay finds.
My copy of the Holmes ed. came with B1, but it also came with some extras like the AD&D game screen with the Dave Trampier artwork and also some bookmark character sheets (I think homemade).ReplyDelete
I won a shrink-wrapped Holmes with B1 on eBay about 2 years back. I no longer remember the price but it couldn't have been ridiculous because I'm not a hardcore collector. My general limit on OOP D&D items is ~$30.ReplyDelete
I picked a copy of Holmes up on Ebay 3 years ago for about $20, and when I opened it (yes, it was still sealed...) it had a mono B1 in it. That made my day! So yes, they can be had, although they seem to be a bit rarer than copies with B2 as others have mentioned.ReplyDelete
My current copy of the Holmes boxed set is a mutant - 7th edition book (with intact chits!), but In Search of the Unknown as the module - I got it at Gencon last year for 5-10 bucks or so.ReplyDelete
You can still pick them up, and for reasonable prices - but it's kind of a crapshoot as to quality, and actual matched sets are kinda hard to find now, unless you manage to get one that's still sealed.
My first D&D box (now long-since gone the way of the Dodo) was 4th edition - In Search of the Unknown, non-inked dice.
I got my Holmes set for a very reasonable price, considering the condition. I got it for $30, but it was Cherry condition. The chits were new and uncut. The B1 Mod (!) was in beautiful shape, and the rulebook was crisp & clean.ReplyDelete
However, I will echo the comments of some other posters here. The B1, while quite pristine, was not the correct printing run that WOULD have come with the boxed set. So I got one that was pieced together, not the original box contents.
But I'm still happy to have the set and in such great shape! :)
This is off-topic, but I've always thought it was strange that D&D fans are able to refer to the modules by their abbreviations. On one hand, I did have a sort of collector's instinct toward them ("But if I got this I could complete the set!") but there were so many of them and some of them were so rare that using abbreviations never seemed like the right idea.ReplyDelete
Example: If I were to say "RotK", would you know I meant "Return of the King"? Of course you would, just like I would if you said "LBB". But if I said "QoE", would you know I was referring to "The Quest of Erebor" from the "Unfinished Tales" collection? Exactly (I'm going to admit, there probably is an abbreviation for those stories actually used in the Tolkein fandom, but I'm more of an observer to that). It's a peculiarity common to plenty of fandoms, I just think it's weird that it happened at all.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
I've never even SEEN a Holmes boxed set with the geomorphs. Both boxed sets I have came with the chits and the mono B1, although I notice that not long after I bought mine, they switched over to B2.ReplyDelete
One of my sets, I bought when it was new.
The other one, I found, sealed, at an antique and junk shop, for $3.
Seems like the easiest way to do this would be to assemble it piecemeal.
But the D&D modules had number/letter names in the original catalogs, and were organized by them. They also were clearly marked on the modules themselves. There weren't all that many modules, originally, so it was easy to remember them back then or pull them out of memory now.ReplyDelete
Surely there are old TSR catalogs that have been scanned onto the Web somewhere... you'll see just how easy it was to learn them. Especially if you read the catalogs over and over again, wishing desperately that your parents would give you an allowance or let you send away for stuff.


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rehearing Denied April 25, 1949.
See 336 U.S. 958 . [ Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co. 336 U.S. 342 (1949) ] [336 U.S. 342 , 343]
Mr. R. F. Barry, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioner.
Mr. B. W. Griffith, of Tulsa, Okl., for The Texas Co.
Mr. Robert W. Richards, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for Magnolia Petroleum Co.
Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The principal question is whether a lessee of mineral rights in allotted and restricted Indian lands is immunized by the Constitution against payment of non-discriminatory state gross production taxes and state excise taxes on petroleum produced from such lands. In effect the issue is whether this Court's previous decisions in Howard v. Gipsy Oil Co ., 247 U.S. 503 ; Large Oil Co. v. Howard, 248 U.S. 549 , and State of Oklahoma v. Barnsdall Refineries, 296 U.S. 521 , invalidating such taxes as applied to like lessees, have been so undermined by later decisions, in particular Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376 , that they should now be overruled.
With certain exceptions,1 the lands from which was extracted the petroleum sought to be taxed are held in [336 U.S. 342 , 344] trust by the United States, pursuant to allotments made under the General Allotment Act,2 for various members of the Pottawatomie, Apache, Comanche, and Otoe and Missouria Tribes. 3 All the lands are located within the State of Oklahoma and at all material times they were restricted4 against alienation by the Indian cestui owners without the consent of the Secretary of the Interior. 5 He [336 U.S. 342 , 345] approved each of the leases now in question. The respondents Texas Company ( No. 40) and Magnolia Petroleum Company (No. 41) acquired their leases before Oklahoma levied the assessments now in issue, either as original lessees or by assignment from non-Indians who were such lessees. The companies thus became owners of all right, title and interest in their respective leases, subject only to the one-eighth royalty interest reserved to the Indian lessors, and were such owners at the times of the respective assessments. It may be taken that they have operated the leases in conformity with the applicable regulations of the Department of the Interior6 and of the State of Oklahoma,7 except for the payment of the state taxes iin question. 8
The Oklahoma gross production tax requires payment of five per cent of the gross value of production, including royalty interests. It is imposed on every person engaged in the production in Oklahoma of petroleum, crude oil or other mineral oil, and natural gas and casinghead gas. The tax is exacted in lieu of all taxes by the state [336 U.S. 342 , 346] and its political subdivisions on property rights in minerals and mineral rights, producing leases, machinery used in connection with any oil or gas well, the oil and gas during the tax year in which it is produced, and any investment in any leases, minerals, or other property. The statute authorizes the state board of equalization to raise or lower the rate of tax to equate the amount payable with the amount which would be payable if the general ad valorem property tax were assessed against the property of the producers subject to taxation. The board's rate changes are subject to review by the state supreme court. 9 In consequence of these provisions, the tax has been construed consistently by the state courts to be a tax on the lessee's property, not an occupation or excise tax. 10 [336 U.S. 342 , 347] The petroleum excise tax requires payment of one mill, formerly one- eighth of one cent,11 per barrel on every barrel of petroleum produced in Oklahoma. The statute was enacted first in 1933 to defray the expenses of administering the state's newly adopted proration law12 and has been reenacted at each subsequent session of the legislature. 13 The tax, unlike the gross production tax, is construed by the Oklahoma Suprem Court as an excise tax on the production of oil. Barnsdall Refineries v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 171 Okl. 145, 41 P.2d 918, affirmed, 296 U.S. 521 .
In No. 40 the Oklahoma Tax Commission, petitioner here, assessed both gross production and petroleum excise taxes against the Texas Company for production, less royalties to the Indian lessors,14 during September, Oc- [336 U.S. 342 , 348] tober and November, 1942. In No. 41 the commission likewise assessed both taxes, less royalties, on the Magnolia Company's production for various periods between June 1, 1942, and March 1, 1946. The orders were entered after the cases were consolidated for hearing before the commission and were thus heard by it.
In No. 40 the Texas Company paid the taxes under protest and brought suit to recover them in an Oklahoma trial court. After hearing, that court sustained the commission's demurrer to the company's amended petition and ordered it dismissed. Appeal was duly taken to the state supreme court. In No. 41, following a different statutory procedure, the Magnolia Company appealed from the assessments against it directly to that court.
In both cases the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, with one judge dissenting, held the assessments invalid. The decisions rested flatly on the ground that the lessee was an instrumentality of the Federal Government and as such, under prior and controlling decisions of this Court, particularly in the Large Oil, Gipsy Oil, and Barnsdall Refineries cases, supra, not subject to the taxes in question. 15 In the Texas Company case the court expressly distinguished Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., supra, on the ground that the decision in that case related [336 U.S. 342 , 349] to income taxes assessed against the lessee there situated as were the lessees here. The opinion, indicating the writer's personal view that reconsideration of the earlier decisions well might be sought, nevertheless stated:
From the state supreme court's decisions16 the Oklahoma Tax Commission filed appeals in this Court. We dismissed the appeals for want of jurisdiction. But treating them as applications for certiorari,17 we granted the writs and consolidated the cases for argument. 333 U.S. 870 , 907. The Solicitor General was requested to file a brief as amicus curiae.
But for the course of decision here from Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U.S. 292 , decided in 1914, to [336 U.S. 342 , 350] State of Oklahoma v. Barnsdall Refineries, 296 U.S. 521 , decided in 1936, the problems of taxation and intergovernmental immunity these cases present would seem subject to solution on well- settled or fairly obvious legal principles.
It has long been established that property owned by a private person and used by him in performing services for the Federal Government is subject to state and local ad valorem taxes. 18 And the oil and gas produced is, of course, subject to such taxation. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Board of Equalization of Tulsa County, Okl., 288 U.S. 325 . Both by the substance of the statute's explicit provisions and by the consistent construction of the Oklahoma Supreme Court,19 that state's so-called gross production tax in its presently applicable form is a tax on the lessee's property used in carrying out its contractual obligations with the Federal Government and on the oil and gas during the tax year in which it was produced. The tax is levied expressly in lieu of all property taxes which the state might constitutionally impose in ad valorem form, the gross production levy being a tentative measure for the value of that property. To guard against that measure's being utilized to lay in effect a tax not actually of that character, the state board of equalization is authorized, indeed is required upon complaint, to equate the amount payable with what would be payable if the general ad valorem tax were assessed against the property of the producing lessees subject to taxation, with provision for judicial review of the board's action.
Unembarrassed by some of this Court's prior decisions, therefore, Oklahoma's so-called gross production tax [336 U.S. 342 , 351] would seem to be sustained by the well-established line of decisions cited above. 20
Moreover, even if the status of respondents as federal instrumentalities, in the sense in which they use the term, were fully conceded, it seems difficult to imagine how any substantial interference with performing their functions as such in developing the leaseholds could be thought to flow from requiring them to pay the small tax Oklahoma exacts to satisfy their shares of the state's expense in maintaining and administering its proration program. That system works for respondents' benefit in performing their producing function, as it does for the benefit of all other producers, by stabilizing production, eliminating waste, and preventing runaway competition in an industry notorious for those evils in the absence of some such control. Cf. Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 310 U.S. 573 ; Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62 , dissenting opinion Part III, 89, 987. Indeed respondents do not claim they are exempt from the plan's regulatory features. They claim only that they are constitutionally immune from con- [336 U.S. 342 , 352] tributing to the plan's support. As a matter entirely fresh, the contention would not seem weighty.
But neither issue is fresh. Each is complicated by this Court's prior decisions squarely ruling that the taxes are invalid as unconstitutional intrusions by the state upon the performance of federal functions. Those decisions have not been explicitly overruled. But it is strongly urged that our later decisions, especially in Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., supra, have stricken the foundation from beneath the Gipsy Oil, Large Oil and Barnsdall Refineries decisions, supra, so that the latter no longer can stand in reason and consistency with the former.
It is true that this Court's more recent pronouncements have beaten a fairly large retreat from its formerly prevailing ideas concerning the breadth of so-called intergovernmental immunities from taxation, a retreat which has run in both directions-to restrict the scope of immunity of private persons seeking to clothe themselves with governmental character from both federal and state taxation. The history of the immunity, by and large in both aspects, represents a rising or expanding curve, tapering off into a falling or contracting one.
Our present problem lies on the constitutional level. It requires reconsideration of former decisions specifically in point, together with later ones deviating in rationale. It is of substantial importance both for the states' powers of taxation and for the subjects on which they may impinge. Moreover, even though the immediate questions are closely related to federal policies concerning ndian lands, they are equally tangent to considerations affecting other types of situation raising questions of immunity. For these reasons it will not [336 U.S. 342 , 353] be amiss to consider the questions in the context of two conflicting courses of decision.
Before we turn to the survey, however, two delimitations of the specific issues should be made.
These cases present no question concerning the immunity of the Indian lands themselves from state taxation. There is no possibility that ultimate liability for the taxes may fall upon the owner of the land. Cf. Wilson v. Cook, 327 U.S. 474 , dissenting opinion, 489, 670. Nor, as has been noted, do the cases involve challenges to the immunity from state taxation of royalty oil, the Indian's share of production. 21
Despite the possibility that the prospect of taxation by the state may reduce the amount the United States might receive from the sale of its property, it is well established that property purchased by a private person from the Federal Government becomes a part of the general mass of property in the state and must bear its fair share of the expenses of local government. The theoretical burden which state ad valorem property taxation thus imposes upon the Federal Government is regarded as too remote and indirect to justify tax immunity for property purchased from that Government. City of New Brunswick v. United States, 276 U.S. 547 ; Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762 ; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. [336 U.S. 342 , 354] 527; see Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 468. Also subject to local ad valorem taxation, as has been noted above,22 is property owned by a private party and used by him in performing services for the Federal Government. Where oil produced by a private lessee from restricted Indian lands was owned solely by the lessee and had been removed from the leased lands and stored in the lessee's tanks, it was held subject to state ad valorem taxation. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Board of Equalization, 288 U.S. 325 . 23 And equipment used by a lessee of restricted Indian lands has been held subject to the same sort of exaction. Taber v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., 300 U.S. 1 . Cf. Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264 , sustaining a state tax on cattle grazing on tribal lands leased from Indians by the non-Indian owner of the cattle.
Anomalous in the light of these rulings was the evolution of a line of decisions of this Court condemning forms of taxation which would have imposed no more direct or substantial burden upon the United States than would an ad valorem property tax applied to property purchased from the United States. Private lessees of restricted or tribal Indian lands came to be held 'federal instrumentalities' like the lands themselves, and so immune from various forms of state taxation ranging from a gross production tax on production from the leased lands to a tax upon the lessee's net income. The theory of the Court was the one which was rejected in directly analogous cases: A state tax on the lessee, he lease, or the profits from the lease would be 'a direct hamper upon the effort of the United States to make the best terms that it can [336 U.S. 342 , 355] for its wards.' Gillespic v. Oklahoma, 257 U.S. 501, 506 , 173. Alternatively, 'A tax upon the leases is a tax upon the power to make them, and could be used to destroy the power to make them.' Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, 240 U.S. 522, 530 , 36 S. Ct. 453, 456.
The history of this development is a progression 'from exemption of the gross income of the lessee of Indian lands * * * through exemption of new receipts to serious impairment of the taxing powers of Oklahoma.' Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 257, n. 29(1942). The development is an outgrowth and a progressive extension of early rulings that tribal lands themselves are immune from state taxation. 24 More immediately it stems from the later ruling that allotted Indian lands held in trust by the United States were 'an instrumentality employed by the United States for the benefit and control of this dependent race,' and so were immune from state taxation. UnitedStates v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 437 -439, 23 S. Ct. 478, 480.
In 1908 Oklahoma imposed, in addition to ad valorem property taxes, a gross production tax, the progenitor of the present tax bearing that label, on oil, gas and other minerals produced within the state. Okla.Laws 1908, [336 U.S. 342 , 356] c. 71, Art. II, 6. The Oklahoma court held that the 1910 reenactment of the statute25 imposed a property tax. McAlester-Edwards Coal Co. v. Trapp, 43 Okl. 510, 141 P. 794. But the statute, as applied to a lessee of restricted Indian coal lands, was held by this Court to be an occupational tax and so an unconstitutional burden on the lessee, who was held to be an instrumentality of the Federal Government. Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co. v. Harrison, supra. Next the Court held the lease itself federal instrumentality immune from state taxation. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, supra.
The Oklahoma legislature revised the gross production tax statute in 1915 and again in 1916, a principal change being the provision that the tax was in lieu of all other ad valorem taxes. 26 The revised tax was held by the Oklahoma Supreme Court to be a property tax. 27 But this Court rejected that construction sub silentio and invalidated the tax in memorandum opinions citing only the Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co. case, 235 U.S. 292 , and [336 U.S. 342 , 357] the Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. case, 240 U.S. 522 . Howard v. Gipsy Oil Co., 247 U.S. 503 ; Large Oil Co. v. Howard, 248 U.S. 549 .
Suspicions that this Court had overlooked the fact that under the revised statute the gross production tax was in lieu of rather than in addition to all other ad valorem property taxes,28 were dispelled by Mr. Justice Holmes' remark in Gillespie v. Oklahoma, supra, 257 U.S. at pages 504-505, 42 S.Ct. at page 172, that the statutory change had been noticed and regarded as immaterial. 29 If a gross receipts tax was a burden on the Federal Government 'so as to interfere with the performance of its functions, it could not be saved because it was in lieu of a tax upon property, or was so characterized.' See James v. Dravo Contracting Co ., 302 U.S. 134, 158 , 220, 114 A.L.R. 318.
The high-water mark of immunity for non-Indian lessees of restricted and allotted Indian lands came in 1922 when the Gillespie decision, supra, invalidated an Oklahoma net income tax upon income derived by a lessee from sales of his share of oil produced from restricted lands.
The non-Indian lessee's immunity was last sustained here by State of Oklahoma v. Barnsdall Refineries, supra. That decision held, on application of a rule of strict construction of congressional waivers, that Congress' express waiver of immunity from gross production taxes on oil produced from the specified Indian lands did not extend to petroleum excise taxes. The state did not challenge [336 U.S. 342 , 358] the implied constitutional immunity but pitched its argument on the ground of statutory exemption. 30
The instrumentality doctrine has been applied to confer a correlative immunity upon private lessees of state-owned lands. The Texas rule that oil and gas leases are present sales to the lessees of the oil and gas in place caused this Court to sustain the imposition of the federal income tax upon income of the lessee derived from the sale of oil and gas produced from lands leased from that state. It was observed that '* * * the remote and indirect effects upon the one government of such nondiscriminatory tax by the other have never been considered adequate grounds for thus aiding the one at the expense of the taxing power of the other.' Group No. 1 Oil Corp. v. Bass, 283 U.S. 279, 282 , 433.
Although this decision may be taken to mark a turning point in expansion of the lessee's immunity, it was not immediately permitted to impair the Gillespie rationale. A tax on income would be no greater burden where, under applicable state law, 'title' to the oil did not 'p ss' until the oil was removed from the ground. And although Justices Brandeis, Stone, Roberts and Cardozo contended that the Gillespie decision could not stand consistently with the principles which had been reaffirmed in the Group No. 1 Oil case, a majority of one in Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 , provided a corollary to the rule of the Gillespie case. This was done by holding that the Federal Government was barred from taxing the income of a lessee of state lands as the state was barred from taxing the income of the lessee of federal lands.
A parallel immunity from state occupational or privilege taxes was once accorded private contractors with, or agencies of, the Government, Williams v. Talladega, [336 U.S. 342 , 359] 226 U.S. 404 , notwithstanding the venerable rule that the property of such a contractor or agency is liable to state property taxation. See the cases cited supra in note 18. Decisions curtailing this immunity were presaged by Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 . It held subject to federal income taxation income received by a consulting engineer from a state for services in connection with temporary work. Equally significant was Alward v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 509, 514 , 274, 75 A.L.R. 9, which sustained a state tax measured by gross receipts on the property of a stage line engaged in carrying the mails. 31
Later this Court sustained a state tax on the gross receipts of a contractor with the Federal Government, James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 , 114 A.L.R. 318; Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 186 ; a state tax on the net income of such a contractor, Atkinson v. State Tax Commission, 303 U.S. 20 ; state sales and use taxes on purchases of materials used by a contractor in performing a cost-plus contract with the United States, State of Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1 ; Curry v. United States, 314 U.S. 14 , 62 S. Ct. 48; and a state severance tax imposed on a contractor who severed and purchased timber from lands owned by the United States, Wilson v. Cook, 327 U.S. 474 . It was pointed out that
The opportunity to reexamine the Gillespie and Coronado cases arose in 1938 in Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376 , the decision upon which the Oklahoma commission relies most strongly to secure reversal of the judgments in the present cases. The Mountain Producers case involved the application of the federal income tax law to a cestui of an express trust which received the proceeds of the sale of oil taken from school lands owned by the State of Wyoming. The Court declined to distinguish the Gillespie and Coronado decisions on the narrow ground available, the fact that the taxpayer was a cestui of a trust which received the proceeds of the sale of the oil rather than the lessee itself. 303 U.S. at page 383, 58 S.Ct. at page 626.32
Rather the Court sought broader grounding, which lay in reconsideration of the foundations of the Gillespie and Coronado decisions. The opinion stated:
Noting that it had held that the Gillespie ruling should be limited strictly to cases closely analogous,33 and asserting that 'the distinctions thus maintained have attenuated its teaching and raised grave doubt as to whether it should longer be supported,' 303 U.S. at pages 384- 385, 58 S.Ct. at page 627, the Court went on to say:
That competing principle the Court found applicable to the case before it and to require that the decisions in the Gillespie and Coronado cases be overruled. Rejecting as insubstantial the distinction based on the passage of title to the oil at the time of making the lease, compare Group [336 U.S. 342 , 362] No. 1 Oil Corp. v. Bass, supra, with Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., supra, and after reviewing various other decisions denying the immunity when claimed by private persons, 303 U.S. at pages 385-386, 58 S.Ct. at page 627, the Court said:
Respondents strongly urge that the Mountain Producers decision is not controlling or effective to require reversal in these cases, since it involved a tax on ent income rather than gross production and excise taxes. And they insist that a sharp line should be drawn between what they call l ssees performing a governmental function and independent contractors doing work for the Government. 34 The latter distinction is largely, if not altogether verbal, in the context of the fact situations in these cases. As for the former difference, although the Court explicitly overruled only the Gillespie and Coro- [336 U.S. 342 , 363] nado cases, the groundings of the Mountain Producers decision do not permit limiting its effects to so narrow an application. 35
The language last quoted above is as applicable to the present cases as it was to the Gillespie and Coronado decisions. The taxes here are nondiscriminatory. The respondents are 'private persons' who seek immunity 'for their property or gains because they are engaged in operations under a government contract or lease.' The functions they perform in operating the leases are hardly more governmental in character than those performed by lessees of school lands or, indeed, by many contractors with the Government. The lessees in the Mountain Producers case stood identically with the respondents in all these respects.
Moreover the burdens of the taxes here, if any of a character likely to interfere with respondents in carrying out the terms of their leases, are as appropriately to be judged by 'regard * * * to substance and direct effects,' and as inappropriately to be determined 'by merely theoretical conceptions of interference with the functions of government,' as were those in the Mountain Producers case. 36 True, as respondents say, a net income [336 U.S. 342 , 364] tax may be a step farther removed from interfering effect than a gross production tax or excise tax on production. But this all depends upon the rate at which each tax is levied.
To the adaptation of Marshall's oft-quoted aphorism made by Mr. Justice McKenna in Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, 240 U.S. at page 530, 36 S.Ct. at page 456, and followed by Mr. Justice Holmes in Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U.S. at page 505, 42 S.Ct. at page 172, namely, that 'A tax upon the leases is a tax upon the power to make them, and could be used to destroy the power to make them,' Chief Justice Hughes in the Mountain Producers case did not explicitly make the rejoinder given by Holmes in another connection, 'The power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.' Panhandle Oil Co. v. Knox, 277 U.S. 218, 223 , 453, 56 A. L.R. 583. But this was the effect of the Mountain Producers decision, when in a single paragraph it challenged both the aphorism and the assumption that 'a tax upon the profits of the leases' was 'a direct hamper upon the effort of the United States to make the best terms that it can for its wards.'
The Mountain Producers case was not decided on narrow, merely technical or presumptive grounds. Its very foundation was a repudiation of those insubstantial bases for securing broad private tax exemptions, unjustified by actual interfering or destructive effects upon the performance of obligations to or work for the government, state or national. The decision came as the result of [336 U.S. 342 , 365] experience and of observation of the constant widening of the exempting process from tax to tax to tax.
Since that decision, as we have noted, the process has been reversed in direction. True intergovernmental immunity remains for the most part. But, so far as concerns private persons claiming immunity for their ordinary business operations (even though in connection with governmental activities), no implied constitutional immunity can rest on the merely hypothetical interferences with governmental functions here asserted to sustain exemption. In the light of the broad groundings of the Mountain Producers decision and of later decisions, we cannot say that the Gipsy Oil, Large Oil and Barnsdall Refineries decisions remain immune to the effects of the Mountain Producers decision and others which have followed it. They 'are out of harmony with correct principle,' as were the Gillespie and Coronado decisions and, accordingly, they should be, and they now are, overruled. This accords with the result reached in Santa Rita Oil & Gas Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 112 Mont. 359, 116 P.2d 1012, 136 A.L.R. 757. Moreover, since the decisions in Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co. v. Harrison, supra, and Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, supra, rest upon the same foundations as those underlying the Gipsy Oil, Large Oil and Barnsdall Refineries decisions, indeed supplied those foundations, we think they too should be, and they now are, overruled.
We do not imply, by this decision, that Congress does not have power to immunize these lessees from the taxes we think the Constitution permits Oklahoma to impose in the absence of such action. 37 The question whether immunity shall be extended in situations like these is [336 U.S. 342 , 366] essentially legislative in character. But Congress has not created an immunity here by affirmative action,38 and 'The immunity formerly said to rest on constitutional implication cannot now be resurrected in the form of statutory implication.' Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States, 319 U.S. 598, 604 , 1286. And see Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 480 , 598, 120 A.L.R. 1466: '* * * if it appears that there is no ground for implying a constituional immunity, there is equally a want of any ground for assuming any purpose on the part of Congress to create an immunity.'
The Oklahoma Supreme Court appears to suggest, though the opinions do not flatly so state, as a possible alternative support for its conclusion in these cases that 'Congress has acted on the theory that such immunity exists in the case of leases of this character unless waived,' that is, several congressional enactments permit Oklahoma to impose a gross production tax on minerals produced from the lands of the Osages,39 the Kaws,40 the Quapaws,41 and the Five Civilized Tribes,42 and authorize payment of taxes due on account of the Indians' royalty interest. But Congress' purpose in enacting these statutes was the removal of the immunities of the Indians themselves, immunities which are not challenged in these cases; the action was occasioned by the favorable eco- [336 U.S. 342 , 367] nomic position of the particular Indians. 43 The resulting removal of the immunity of private lessees of those Indian lands was an incidental effect of this legislation.
Finally, we refuse to infer from mere congressional silence approval of the doctrine of immunity enunciated in the Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co., Indian Territory Illuminating Oil, 240 U.S. 522 , Gipsy Oil, Large Oil and Barnsdall Refineries decisions, supra. Congress' silence prior to the Mountain Producers decision did not preclude this Court from curtailing the lessee's immunity in that case; and Congress seems to have accepted that decision with equanimity. Cf. Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 , 69-70, 829-830; Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 , 479-480, 59 S. Ct. 595, 597-598, 120 A.L.R. 1466. 44
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice JACKSON concurs in the result.
[ Footnote 1 ] Interests in the lands to which the United States does not hold title are of two kinds: (1) Undivided interests acquired by non-Indians; ( 2) an interest (which is still restricted) conveyed to the son of an allottee by approved noncompetent Indian deeds, pursuant to the Act of March 1, 1907, 34 Stat. 1018, 25 U.S.C. 405, 25 U.S.C.A. 405.
[ Footnote 2 ] February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 331 et seq., 25 U.S.C.A. 331 et seq.
[ Footnote 3 ] The allotments were made to members of the Apache and Comanche tribes pursuant to the agreement approved by Congress on June 6, 1900, 31 Stat. 676. Members of the Citizen Band of the Pottawatomie Tribe were allotted land pursuant to the agreement of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1016. Allotments were made to the Otoe and Missouria Indians under the General Allotment Act without special agreement. Mills, Oklahoma Indian Land Laws 438 (1924).
The nature of the Indians' interest has been described as follows: ' * * * the United States retained the legal title, giving the Indian allottee a paper or writing, improperly called a patent, showing that at a particular time in the future, unless it was extended by the President, he would be entitled to a regular patent conveying the fee.' United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 436 , 480.
[ Footnote 4 ] With these exceptions: (1) In a single immaterial instance in No. 40, an undivided 7/16th interest in one of the leases was alienable and was owned by non-Indians. The Texas Company paid without protest the taxes levied against it which were attributable to this 7/16th interest (2) In No. 41, an undivided 1/4th interest in the lands subject to one of the leases and an undivided 1/3d interest in the land subject to another lease were owned by non-Indians. The effect of the decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court was to deny the portion of the assessments applicable to these interests. However, it was conceded at the argument here that the assessments were valid insofar as they applied to interests in lands owned, when the assessments were made, by non-Indian owners or by Indian owners not under restriction.
[ Footnote 5 ] 24 Stat. 389, 390, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 348, 349, 25 U.S.C.A. 348, 349. See Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 108Ä109 (1942). Leases of allotted land for mining purposes may be made with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior under 35 Stat. 783, 25 U.S.C. 396, 25 U.S.C.A . 396.
[ Footnote 6 ] 52 Stat. 348, 25 U.S.C. 396d, 25 U.S.C.A. 396d; 30 C.F.R. 221.1Ä221.67.
[ Footnote 7 ] 52 Okla.Stat. 81Ä286.17 (Conservation of Oil and Gas), 291Ä 303 (Regulation and Inspection of Wells) (Cum.Supp.1947); Order No. 1299Ä Cause No. 2935, Thirty-seventh Annual Report of Corporation Comm'n of Okla ., 1944, p. 84.
The assumption stated in the text is made, although in No. 41 the commission excluded, as irrelevant, evidence tendered to show compliance with the federal and state regulations, and in No. 40 no evidence of compliance was introduced.
[ Footnote 8 ] The three oil and gas leases involved in No. 40 were made by members of the Apache Tribe to non-Indian lessees who assigned their interests to the Texas Company. In No. 41, in which eight leases are involved, the Indian lessors are members of the Apache, Comanche, Citizen Pottawatomie, and Otoe and Missouria Tribes.
Undivided interests in the lands subject to certain leases were held by non-Indians at the time of assessment. See notes 1 and 4.
[ Footnote 9 ] 68 Okla.Stat. 821 (1941). The (general) scheme of the tax is as follows: The tax falls due on the first day of each calendar month as to production during the preceding month. The purchaser pays the tax on oil or gas sold at the time of production and is authorized to deduct the amount of tax paid when settling with the producer (and with the royalty owner in cases in which the tax applies to him, see note 14). If the tax becomes due before the oil is sold, the producer is required to pay the tax for himself (and, in cases where the tax applies to royalties, see note 14, for the royalty owner and is permitted to deduct the amount of tax paid on royalty oil when settling with the royalty owner). 68 id. 833. The tax is a first and paramount lien against the property of the person liable for the tax. 68 id. 836.
Of the proceeds received from the tax, 78 per cent is paid into the state treasury to be used for the general expenses of state government. Ten per cent is paid to the county treasurer of the county in which the oil or gas was produced, and is used for the constitution and maintenance of county highways. Ten per cent is paid to the county treasurer for distribution among the county's school districts. The remaining two per cent is placed to the credit of the Oklahoma Tax Commission and is used for collection and enforcement activities. 68 id. 827 (Cum.Supp.1947).
[ Footnote 10 ] But see note 27 and text infra.
[ Footnote 11 ] The amount of the tax was one-eighth of one cent per barrel for the period prior to July 1, 1943, Okla.Laws, 1941, tit. 68, c. 26, and one mill per barrel after that date, Okla.Laws, 1943, tit. 68, c. 26. The Texas Company was assessed under the former act. Magnolia was assessed under both acts.
[ Footnote 12 ] Okla.Laws, 1933, c. 131, as amended, 52 Okla.Stat. 81 et seq. (Cum. Supp.1947).
[ Footnote 13 ] Okla.Laws, 1933, c. 132; Okla.Laws, 1935, c. 59, Art. 2; Okla.Laws, 1937, c. 59, Art. 2; Okla.Laws, 1939, c. 66, Art. 7; Okla.Laws, 1941, tit. 68, c. 26; Okla.Laws, 1943, tit. 68, c. 26; Okla.Laws, 1945, tit. 68, c. 26; Okla.Laws, 1947, tit. 68, c. 26. The present statute appears at 68 Okla.Stat. 1220.1 et seq. (Cum.Supp.1947).
The tax receipts, collected in the same manner as in the case of the gross production tax, present 68 Okla.Stat. 1220.1 (Cum.Supp.1947), are deposited to the credit of the 'Conservation Fund' and the 'Interstate Oil Compact Fund of Oklahoma.' 68 Id. 1220.3.
[ Footnote 14 ] Although the Oklahoma statutes in their general application lay the taxes on gross production, including royalties, cf. notes 9 and 13, they provide, with respect to the gross production tax, that the producer, in his required monthly statement to the Oklahoma Tax Commission, state, 'where such royalty is claimed to be exempt from taxation by law, the facts on which such claim of exemption is based.' 68 Okla.Stat. 821 ( 1941). This provision is made applicable to the petroleum excise tax by the first section of each of the several enactments establishing and continuing that exaction. See note 13 supra. Only the interests of the lessees were assessed in these cases.
[ Footnote 15 ] The Oklahoma Supreme Court rendered separate, unreported opinions. The principal opinion, filed in the Texas Company case, Ä- P.2d Ä-,* was followed in the later one filed iin the Magnolia Petroleum case, Ä- P.2d Ä-. * Rehearing was denied in both cases.
[ Footnote * ] Motion to stay mandate pending at date of publication.
The original judgment in the Texas Company case provided for reversal of the trial court' judgment, with directions to overrule the commission's demurrer 'and proceed consistent with the views here expressed.' On motion of counsel for the commission this was modified to provide that 'The trial court judgment * * * is reversed' and that 'final judgment is hereby rendered for plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum sued for,' thus eliminating all question concerning the finality of the judgment.
[ Footnote 16 ] See note 15 supra.
[ Footnote 17 ] Pursuant to former 237(c) of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U. S.C. 344(c), 28 U.S.C.A. 344(c), present 28 U.S.C. 2103, 28 U.S.C.A . 2103.
[ Footnote 18 ] Thomson v. Pacific R. Co., 9 Wall. 579; Union Pac. Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5; Central Pacific R. Co. v. People of State of California, 162 U.S. 91 ; Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U.S. 362, 371 , 502; Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co. v. Mackey, 256 U.S. 531, 535 Ä537, 41 S. Ct. 582, 583.
[ Footnote 19 ] See note 27 and text.
[ Footnote 20 ] But see text infra, Part III. nless the measure of a tax is fairly to be considered as designed to conceal or distort unduly its true nature, the tax is not to be invalidated because the measure is not one customarily employed if as applied it achieves fairly the purpose for which it is avowedly laid, that purpose of course being one within the legislative power to accomplish. American Mfg. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 250 U.S. 459 ; Hope Natural Gas Co. v. Hall, 274 U.S. 284 ; Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost, 286 U.S. 165 . Moreover, ordinarily the construction given to a state statute by the state's highest court capable of deciding the question is taken as binding on this Court. See e.g., Supreme Lodge, Knights of Pythias v. Meyer, 265 U.S. 30, 32 Ä33, 433; Guaanty Trust Co. v. Blodgett, 287 U.S. 509, 513 , 245; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. N. O. Nelson Mfg. Co., 291 U.S. 352, 358 , 394. Cf. Galveston, H. & S.A.R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U.S. 217, 227 , 640; Hanover Fire Insurance Co. v. Harding, 272 U.S. 494, 509 , 510, 183, 49 A.L.R. 713; Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363, 367 Ä368, 122Ä123.
[ Footnote 21 ] See note 14 supra. Cf. Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363 , holding that oil royalties received by Indian lessors from nontaxable allotted lands were not subject to a state gross production tax, the tax being regarded as on the lessor's interest rather than on the severed oil. But royalty income is subject to state and federal net income taxes. Choteau v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 691 ; Superintendent of Five Civilized Tribes v. Commissioner, 295 U.S. 418 ; Leahy v. State Treasurer, 297 U.S. 420 .
[ Footnote 22 ] At note 18.
[ Footnote 23 ] Distinguishing Jaybird Mining Co. v. Weir, 271 U.S. 609 , on the ground that there the interest of the Indian lessor had not been prepaid or segregated.
[ Footnote 24 ] See The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737; The New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761. Those early decisions seem to rest on the basis that the Indian tribes possessed many attributes of sovereignty.
As to the immunity from state taxation of lands acquired by individual Indians by treaty or under the general homestead laws rather than under the General Allotment Act, see Cohen, op. cit. supra note 5, at 257Ä258, 259Ä260.
Lands outside a reservation purchased with restricted Indian funds from a person who did not hold the land tax exempt were held subject to state taxes in Shaw v. Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corp., 276 U.S. 575 . But Congress specifically exempted such lands from taxation. Act of June 20, 1936, 49 Stat. 1542, as amended, 50 Stat. 188, to limit the exemption to homesteads, 25 U.S.C. 412a, 25 U.S.C.A. 412a. See Cohen, op. cit. supra, at 260Ä261. This legislation was sustained and applied in Board of Commissioners v. Seber, 318 U.S. 705 .
[ Footnote 25 ] Okla.Laws 1910, c. 44, 6, adding a provision permitting the producer to deduct the amount of royalties paid for the benefit of an Indian tribe.
[ Footnote 26 ] Okla.Laws 1915, c. 107, Art. 2, subd. A; Okla.Laws 1916, c. 39 Further amendments were made by Okla.Laws 1933, c. 103, and by Okla.Laws 1935, c. 66, Art. 4, 68 O.S.1941, 821. See note 9 and text supra.
[ Footnote 27 ] Large Oil Co. v. Howard, 63 Okl. 143, 163 P. 537, reversed per curiam, 248 U.S. 549 ; In re Gross Production Tax of Wolverine Oil Co., 53 Okl. 24, 154 P. 362, L.R.A.1916F, 141, which had held that the 1915 Act was an occupational rather than a property tax, was distinguished because of changes made by the 1916 Act. The Wolverine case was specifically overruled in In re Skelton Lead & Zinc Co.'s Gross Production Tax for 1919, 81 Okl. 134, 197 P. 495, accord, Bergin Oil & Gas Co. v. Howard, 82 Okl. 176, 199 P. 209. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has since consistently held that the tax is a property tax in lieu of all other ad valorem taxes. E.g., In re Protest of Bendelari, Agent, 82 Okl. 97, 198 P. 606. And see Meriwether v. Lovett, 166 Okl. 73, 26 P.2d 200; State v. Indian Royalty Co., 177 Okl. 238, 58 P.2d 601; Peteet v. Carmichael, 191 Okl. 593, 131 P.2d 767.
[ Footnote 28 ] The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed for a time that the statutory difference was overlooked by this Court and that an opposite result would have been reached had the difference been noticed. In re Skelton Lead & Zinc Co.'s Gross Production Tax for 1919, 81 Okl. 134, 197 P. 495; In re Protest of Bendelari, Agent, 82 Okl. 97, 198 P. 606.
[ Footnote 29 ] The Oklahoma Supreme Court capitulated in Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. McCurdy, 86 Okl. 148, 207 P. 321.
[ Footnote 30 ] See note 39 infra.
[ Footnote 31 ] Cf. the contemporary case of Willcuts v. Bunn, 282 U.S. 216, 51 S. Ct. 125, 71 A.L.R. 1260, holding capital gain resulting from resale of municipal bonds taxable under the federal income tax law.
[ Footnote 32 ] Cf. Burnet v. A. T. Jergins Trust, 288 U.S. 508, 516 , 441, in which a city leased oil and gas land to a private trust, which was held liable for a federal income tax on its share of the receipts, the Court stating that 'the doctrine of Gillespie v. Oklahoma is to be applied strictly and only in circumstances closely analogous to those which it disclosed.'
[ Footnote 33 ] Citing Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 , which the opinion characterized as 'a corollary' to the Gillespie case. 303 U.S. at page 383, 58 S.Ct. at page 626. The federal income tax in the Coronado case was levied upon the lessee of state school lands. Cf. note 32 supra.
[ Footnote 34 ] Among the cases which one or the other of respondents attempts to distinguish on the ground that the tax was imposed on an independent contractor rather than a 'true Federal instrumentality' are: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 , 114 A.L.R. 318; Buckstaff Bath House Co. v. McKinley, 308 U.S. 358 ; State of Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1 ; and Wilson v. Cook, 327 U.S. 474 .
It is also contended that cases sustaining taxes on the property of a federal instrumentality, e.g., Union Pac. Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5; Alward v. Johnson, 282 U.S. 509, 75 A.L.R. 9; Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Board of Equalization, 288 U.S. 325 , are not inconsistent with the view they ask us to take. Cf. Part I supra.
[ Footnote 35 ] The incongruity of the doctrine respondents ask us to perpetuate is underscored by decisions subsequent to the Mountain Producers case withdrawing income tax immunity for state and federal official salaries. Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405 ; Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 , 120 A. L.R. 1466.
See generally, Powell, The Waning of Intergovernmental Tax Immunities, 58 Harv.L.Rev. 633; Powell, The Remnant of Intergovernmental Tax Immunities, 58 Harv.L.Rev. 757.
[ Footnote 36 ] Respondents merely assert hypothetically that imposition of the taxes might in some instances make the margin between successful and unsuccessful operation. Leases approved by the Secretary of the Interior provided for the same rental and royalty payments both before and after the Mountain Producers decision. 25 C.F.R. 189.16. And rental and royalty payments provided for by the Department of the Interior are the same for lands allotted under the General Allotment Act as they are for lands of members of the Five Civilized Tribes, 25 C.F.R. 183.24, 189.16. Production from the latter lands has been subject to Oklahoma's gross production tax since 1928. See note 42 infra. The Government, in its brief amicus curiae, states that, because differences in the value of different tracts of land would be reflected in the bonuses which lessees are willing to pay, an exact comparison of bonuses is impossible.
[ Footnote 37 ] See James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 , 160Ä161, 221, 114 A.L.R. 318; Pittman v. Home Owners Co p., 308 U.S. 21 , 32Ä33, 17Ä18, 124 A.L.R. 1263; Maricopa County v. Valley Nat. Bank, 318 U.S. 357, 361 , 588; Board of Commissioners v. Seber, 318 U.S. 705 , 715Ä719, 925Ä927; Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States, 319 U.S. 598 , 606Ä607, 1287Ä1288; Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441, 446 , 1140, 147 A.L.R. 761; Smith v. Davis, 323 U.S. 111 , 116Ä119, 160Ä161.
[ Footnote 38 ] See Cohen, op. cit. supra, note 5, at 255Ä256.
[ Footnote 39 ] 41 Stat. 1250. As has been stated, State of Oklahoma v. Barnsdall Refineries, 296 U.S. 521 , held that this statute did not authorize the imposition of the state's petroleum excise tax. See text at note 30 supra.
[ Footnote 40 ] 43 Stat. 176.
[ Footnote 41 ] 41 Stat. 1248, as amended, 50 Stat. 68.
[ Footnote 42 ] 45 Stat. 496.
[ Footnote 43 ] H.R. Rep. No. 1377, 66th Cong., 3d Sess. 4; H.R. Rep No. 1278, 66th Cong., 3d Sess. 2Ä3; S. Rep. No. 704, 66th Cong., 3d Sess. 3 (all relating to the Osage Act, note 39 supra); H.R. Rep. No. 269, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 3; S. Rep. No. 433, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (both relating to the Kaw Act, note 40 supra); H.R. Rep. No. 431, 75th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 234, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (both relating to the Quapaw Act, note 41 supra); H.R. Rep. No. 1193, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 5; S. Rep. No. 982, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., 4Ä5 (both relating to the Five Civilized Tribes Act, note 42 supra).
[ Footnote 44 ] Respondents also urge that the Oklahoma legislature has recognized the immunity they assert here by authorizing the refund of 'payment made in error on account of the production being derived from restricted Indian lands and therefore exempt from taxation.' 68 Okl. Stat. 1941, 832. Although respondents tell us that this argument was urged upon the Oklahoma Supreme Court, that court did not mention this possible state ground but rested its decision exclusively on the federal ground. We do not purport to decide whether Oklahoma law affords the exemption which federal law denies.
See note 4 as to the assessments attributable to the undivided interests in lands held by non-Indians in No. 41.
Was this helpful?
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
No real shocks today on the episode, and let's face it, we've all been reeling from a certain news item today so it's hard to concentrate. And sometimes I feel like I'm just sapped emotionally. It's been so intense for so long now, I'm just exhausted. So I'll be brief(ish).
Gigi had applied on Shane's behalf to an art institute in London (named after Phil Jimenez -- very cool!), and he was accepted. Looks like the Gigi, Rex, and Shane departure story is going to be a move to London so Shane can delve into creating comic books! Sweet as can be, and a good exit story for three people who were not slated to continue online.
But poor Roxy! Of course she'll be happy for her grandson, but she'll be so lonely!
In other "cleaning up shop for those not continuing online" news, Shaun (Sean Ringgold was going online) broke up with Vivian (Kearran Giovanni was not) because she won't marry him, and Starr and James called it quits because she'll never be in love with him the way she was in love with Cole. (In that case, neither Alderson nor Rodriguez were going online, but I'd wager that they split them up to keep Kristen Alderson available to bring her back into a major story if it became an option.) And Starr got her own exit story later in the episode when Rick made a pitch to her that will be a major advance to her pop music career (Snooze.).
But it's always fun to see Rick, who was thrilled by her recent tragedy and how marketable it makes her!
Neela apologized to Jack for turning over his confession tape to Shane and then admitted she'd been falling for him. These scenes seemed more like laying groundwork for a longer arc had the show continued on, so they didn't exactly have me on the edge of my seat. I also understand that Andrew Trischitta (Jack) has an adoring teen girl fanbase, so you know, you gotta give 'em some crumbs and show the boy with the purty hair!
Man, I'm really running out of steam here, y'all! The emotional rollercoaster is taking it right out of me.
Matthew came back to town to check in on Bo and Nora after their ordeal and told Destiny he feels bad for the way he treated her, but that he's still not ready for fatherhood. Sounds about right. I'm sure we'll be treated to an awkward, over-the-top birthing scene in some unusual location that changes Matthew's mind or something (we've all seen soaps before), but on the other hand? Shenell Edmonds was going online and Eddie Alderson was not. So who's to say? I still don't like the repeat of the teen parents storyline here, but I do care about what happens to Destiny and Matthew (and their families) so I admit I'm still curious. Nervous, but curious.
The big story today, though, was of course John and Natalie finally having their big talk. I mean... I was rooting for it because they've been dangling it for so freaking long, but I have to admit it was a better payoff than I'd thought.
First of all, Liam!
And then...
Natalie: I was at my worst, I was full of pride. I was stubborn, scared. I lied to you. And even if, at the time, I thought it was for all the right reasons, I was willing to marry you with that lie between us and that is something that I never wanted to do. And I am ashamed of that. I didn't -- I didn't trust you enough to tell you the truth. But I didn't want to lose you. So I guess you can add "coward" to that list, too.
John: Are you done?
Natalie: Well, that depends! Can you forgive me?
John: You're gonna let me talk. I was angry. I don't like to be lied to, especially by someone that means this much to me.
Natalie: I'm so sorry. (Long pause.) I mean, does that mean that we can't get past this?
John: You made a serious mistake. But I could have handled it better. I drank too much too often, I slept with someone else, and I did all that to hurt you. I couldn't handle thinking that Liam wasn't mine. I look back at myself... and I see someone I don't even recognize and I am ashamed of that. I took a bad situation and made it worse. I failed you, and I failed Liam, and I failed myself. You want to know if I can -- if I can forgive you? The real question is, can you forgive me?
And of course, we know the answer. Wow! I've gotten so frustrated with this storyline these past several months but I have to give credit: this is exactly what they both needed to say to each other. And he talked instead of grunting, he smiled instead of brooding! This was a damn fine reunion scene. Color me impressed. (I'm just choosing to forget his little "then get those lips over here" line. It makes it all better.)
And then they finally got it on! And they were excited and it was awkward and full of nervous laughter, which I loved. Often those "handily rip each other's clothes off with total confidence" sex scenes look so forced to me, and this felt very human and real and, frankly, like they were dying for it.
And the pillow talk was just awesome. They talked about how this great moment doesn't mean everything's going to be perfect and they shouldn't expect that. And he was about to tell her he loved her and she tried to stop him since, you know, poor, haunted, brooding John has trouble saying "I love you" and she didn't want him to have to go through that traumatic ordeal, but he wouldn't let her stop him! He told her, and she said it was worth the wait. Very nice.
And oh yeah, he smiled.
Well done, writers and Melissa Archer and Michael Easton. Very, very sweet scenes for a couple I'd not always been able to really get behind. Pretty perfect.
So let's bask in this afterglow while we can. Both Archer and Easton were slated to move to the online version, so this was a complete reunion that was going to propel their relationship forward. Now with that off the table and Easton heading to General Hospital as John, who knows what's next (it's certainly possible that he's going to Port Charles on assignment and will check in back home, or that Archer will be headed west herself at some point, but who knows for now, it's all speculation). We have a while to bask in this being how Natalie and John's story was meant to be on One Life to Live. And somehow I find myself a believer!
So again, comment guidelines: be gentle with each other, and please leave us alone if you think the show sucks and deserves cancellation!
And again I ask: how's everyone holding up? And did today's big GH casting announcement ease the pain or stress you out? Or are you still just not sure? Is everyone crazy-psyched to see Agnes Nixon on tomorrow's episode? I know it'll make me cry in a nano-second.


text:
Bordeaux and Baseball Cards
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Given that background, I see so many parallels between wine and baseball cards- or fantasy baseball for that matter. Baseball seasons are vintages in wine. Rookie cards are hot new releases of cult Cabs. The Beckett Price Guide is eerily similar to Wine Spectator. I could go on and on.
The height of the sport card industry in the late '80s signaled the peak of overproduction and led to widespread devaluation of a generation of baseball cards. I see striking similarities between that peak and what the wine trade is going through right now. 2009 is either going to be remembered as the year of the deal -or- the beginning of a long steady decline.
Recently, I've been doing a bit of writing for a new online publication called Corkd Content- a new component of the wine tasting note sharing site Corkd.com. My latest contribution goes further into this Bordeaux and Baseball Card analogy. I'd love it if you headed over and had a look:
Is 2005 Bordeaux the "1990 Score Factory Set" of the Wine World?
Thanks for Rob Sobon from Sobon Family Winery for sharing his thoughts on this piece prior to publication. There are more baseball and wine fans out there than you realize!


text:
At the Prayer Breakfast July 2 for the National Right to Life Convention, Fr. Frank Pavone, founder and director of Priests for Life, spoke to the pro-life guests about the critical situation our country is in since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion. "It is no exaggeration to say that Roe v. Wade was the establishment of a different form of government in America. In denying that the unborn child was a human person, it separated ... human life from the protection of the Constitution, therefore declaring a new form of government, namely that we can decide that some human lives do not have to be protected."
Fr. Pavone explained there are basically two types of government: one that says that rights come from God, and one that says government is the source of those rights and the government can add or subtract from those rights.
Our founding fathers understood "that the great experiment in self-governance on which they were embarking would never succeed if God were separated from the state or if the state were separated from morality," Fr. Pavone said. In one example of this, he quoted Alexander Hamilton: "The law dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all people, all countries and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this."
"One thing we are going to be deciding on Nov. 2 is with which of those two types of government America will continue to be governed," the Priests for Life director declared.
Fr. Pavone emphasized how important it is "to use our vote this year to advance the culture of life. Because this is not a question of whether "pro-choice" wins or pro-life wins. If pro-life doesn't win, nobody wins. There is


text:
Hung Young Brit Organizes A Bareback Group Fuck And Gets A Creampie
Hung Young Brit continues to make some of the hottest amateur bareback gay sex videos you will find anywhere. The Xtube star with that huge uncut cock is really taking off. This weeks video is hotter than ever. Hung Young Brit wanted to organize a bareback group sex party so he invited one of his fuck buddies, Charlie Cole over. Charlie is a fucking hottie boy from Essex who is hung like an absolute horse. His horse cock will really make your ass twitch. He's also a nasty bastard and likes to have nasty raw sex with lots of cum play. Hung Young Brit also invited the sexy 18 year old pup Jake and his roommate were all there to join and watch the action. Hung Young Brit's roommate was filming the action which starts in Hung Young Brit's "Star Wars" themed bedroom. The guys make out for awhile to get horned up while taking off their clothes. They suck on each other's huge uncut cocks until they are both horned. Charlie barebacks Hung Young Brit with his big horse cock in the bed before they move to the bathroom to finish off. Hung Young Brit loves being a dirty cunt and begs for Charlie to cum in his ass. Charlie breeds this slut hard with his massive 9″ uncut cock until he shoots right inside of him. Hung Young Brit is literally dripping with cum when Charlie pulls out. You guys gotta see this one. Fuck yeah! Who doesn't love watching cum drip out of a slutty ass?
Click here to watch this full length big uncut cock bareback creampie a slutty ass gay sex video and many more big dick amateur bareback sex videos at Hung Young Brit.
Click here to watch this full length big uncut cock bareback creampie a slutty ass gay sex video and many more big dick amateur bareback sex videos at Hung Young Brit.


text:
Seizure treatment "special" recalled in UK after packaging problems
The recall – which was announced on the UK Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) site last night – affects three batches of midazolam buccal liquid – 008442, 009243 and 9259 – that were distributed between February and July this year.
The notice explains that the recall was initiated because "screw caps on some units have not been correctly placed during manufacture. This may result in evaporation of the aqueous component of the product and a consequent increase in the concentration of Midazolam."
The drug was made by contract manufacturing organisation (CMO) Penn Pharmaceuticals for fellow UK-based firm Quantum Pharmaceutical, which is a supplier of unlicensed drugs or "specials."
An MHRA spokesman told us "Our Defective Medicines Reporting Centre (DMRC) was informed of an issue by Penn Pharmaceuticals and recall was agreed with the company.
"For licensed products the MAH is responsible for recalls, however, in the case of this unlicensed special Penn Pharmaceuticals are responsible for recall and they are using their UK distributor for this product, Quantum Pharmaceuticals, to carry out the recall."
Recall and replacement
Burnopfield, County Durham-based Quantum said it has a list of all customers who have received midazolam from the affected batches, adding that it "will provide replacement stock free of charge."
Remarkable PR, which represents Penn, told us the firm had no comment when we asked for details of the manufacturing issues and whether the problems at the CMO's plant in Tredegar were likely to have affected other customers.
A Quantum spokesman told us the firm has "cooperated fully with the MHRA, the DMRC and the manufacturer, Penn Pharma, to resolve this promptly with minimum disruption to patients, pharmacies or prescribers."
"We had already begun providing patients with replacement product before the MHRA recall was announced and have been praised for our prompt and proactive response."
He added that: "We manufacture as many specials as possible in-house, however, buccal medication requires specific technology and for this reason we have it manufactured on our behalf by Penn Pharma" and confirmed that Penn supplied the replacement midazolam.


text:
Belly Fat Diet For DummiesExplore Book Buy On Amazon
Your waist circumference is one way to determine whether you have an increased amount of fat around your belly and whether you're at an increased health risk. The National Institutes of Health says that a high waist circumference is associated with an increased risk for health conditions like hypertension, elevated blood lipids, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
Even if your BMI has indicates you're at a healthy weight, it's possible to have too large of a waist circumference. On the other hand, if you're muscular and have a high BMI but suspect you have a lower body fat percentage, waist circumference is a great way to determine your risk.
To help reduce your risk of medical complications, your waist circumference should be:
Less than 35 inches for women
Less than 40 inches for men
To accurately measure your waist circumference, follow these steps:
Locate your upper hip bone.
You can find the proper spot by placing your hands around your waist, squeezing slightly, and then moving your fingers downward until you feel the top curve of your hips.
Place a tape measure around your bare stomach just above the upper hip bone.
Make sure the measuring tape is parallel to the floor (slanting can falsely increase your measurement). Also ensure that the tape measure is snug to your body, but not so tight that it compresses the skin. Exhale while measuring and relax your abdomen — sucking in is not allowed!
After you determine your waist circumference, you're ready to check out your waist-to-hip ratio, which is a measurement that compares the size of your hips to the size of your waist. The smaller your waist is in comparison to your hips, the lower your risk for heart disease. Even if you're overweight and have a high waist circumference, your waist-to-hip ratio is an important measurement.
If your waist circumference is high, but your waist-to-hip ratio is low, you may have less of a risk of heart disease than another individual with both an elevated waist circumference and elevated waist-to-hip ratio.
The waist-to-hip ratio is especially important for individuals at a normal body weight. This measurement is an excellent way to see whether you're storing too high a percentage of your body weight in your abdomen.
Follow these steps to determine your waist-to-hip ratio:
Using a tape measure, measure the circumference of your hips.
First look in a mirror and identify the widest part of your buttocks. Then place the tape measure at this location and measure around the circumference of your hips and buttocks.
Using your waist circumference measurement, calculate your waist-to-hip ratio by dividing your waist circumference by your hip measurement.
After you've determined your waist-to-hip ratio, use the following table to check your level of risk.
|Male Waist-to-Hip Ratio
|Female Waist-to-Hip Ratio
|Health Risk
|0.95 or below
|0.80 or below
|Low risk
|Moderate risk
|High risk


text:
Biel/Bienne, 28 June 2010 – With deep sadness and regret we inform you that Mr. Nicolas G. Hayek, Chairman and Delegate of the Board of Directors of The Swatch Group Ltd. unexpectedly passed away today due to heart failure during work at his beloved Swatch Group.
Mr. Nicolas G. Hayek's greatest merit was his enormous contribution to the saving of the Swiss watch industry and the foundation and the commercial development of the Swatch Group. Mr. Nicolas G. Hayek's extraordinary vision enabled him to realize and ensure the sustainability of a strong watchmaking enterprise with high Swiss added value. He is rightly recognized as a leading entrepreneur in this country. With the right personnel decisions, Mr. Nicolas G. Hayek also ensured that his ideas and beliefs will live on and that continuity is guaranteed in regard of shareholders, Board of Directors and the Group Management Board.
Contacts Media Béatrice Howald, Spokesperson The Swatch Group Ltd, Biel/Bienne Phone +41 32 343 68 33 e-mail: email@example.com


text:
Rolling Thunder1977 Action/Adventure | Drama | Suspense/Thriller
William Devane plays a rare sympathetic role in Rolling Thunder, though his behavior is just as cold-blooded and sharkish as in any of his villainous assignments. Devane is cast as Maj. Charles Rane, a recently released Vietnam POW who is given a hero's welcome in his Texas hometown. Things sour pretty quickly, however: Rane's wife has lost all love for him, his son doesn't recognize him, and there are those in town who consider him a loser or baby-killer. All he really has to show for his ordeal in Nam is a cache of silver coins bestowed on him by the more sympathetic townsfolk. A scumbag gang of thieves decides to relieve Rane of his money; they kill his family, then torture and disfigure Rane to ascertain the whereabouts of the coins. Now living only for vengeance, the taciturn Rane heads to Mexico to exact his own brand of justice on the fleeing crooks. Tommy Lee Jones co-stars as Rane's best friend, Johnny Vohden, who unquestioningly agrees to help Rane in his mission of revenge.~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide


text:
Last night in Newark, Villanova blew a
three four-point lead with 16.3 seconds left and lost to Seton Hall by one. The defeat dropped the Wildcats to 18-11 overall, 9-7 in the Big East. It also solidified their status as the country's most baffling college basketball team.
Back in November, 'Nova lost at home on campus to Columbia—Columbia—by 18 points. They then split their four games against the Philadelphia Big 5, including a loss to La Salle for the first time in 11 years. After opening Big East play with two victories, the Wildcats lost three in a row heading into a week in which they hosted then-No. 5 Louisville and then-No. 3 Syracuse at Philly's Whatever Bank Name Center. 'Nova won both games. Those wins were a huge boost to the Wildcats' profile, but they were followed immediately by losses to Notre Dame and Providence—and it was Providence's second win against 'Nova this season.
After two wins against Big East bottom-feeders DePaul and South Florida, 'Nova went to Cincinnati and lost by 18. The Bearcats did spend most of the season ranked in the Top 25, but that win against 'Nova was their lone victory in their last six games. From there, 'Nova kick-started a three-game winning streak that included wins at UConn and at home against Marquette, the team that's just one-half game out of first place in the Big East. Then there was last night's loss up the turnpike in North Jersey. Seton Hall had been 2-13 in the conference.
So with less than three weeks to go until Selection Sunday, where does this scattershot season leave Villanova? Both CBS Sports's Jerry Palm and ESPN's Joe Lunardi still have the Wildcats making the NCAA tournament, largely on the strength of those wins against Louisville, Syracuse, and Marquette. But that could change. 'Nova closes out the regular season at Pitt—where they've lost nine in a row and haven't won in 17 years—and at home in South Philly against Georgetown, which is riding a nine-game winning streak and is now in first place in the Big East. A pair of victories figures to make the Wildcats a lock for the NCAAs. With two losses, things are much less certain. A split would only make their status that much more difficult to pin down. And then comes the Big East tournament.


text:
The Smart User Slug Hider Plugin hides usernames in Author Pages URLs to enhance Security
The plugin automatically replaces user names with 16 digits coded strings. There are no settings. Just install and forget. Deactivating the Plugin restores the default WordPress behavior.
Version 4.0.0 Update Notice
Previous versions of this plugin used a function that was removed in PHP 7.2. Version 2 of this plugin introduced a so called Future Proof Mode, that used a different encryption method to work with PHP 7.2 and newer.
In version 4.0.0 only this new method is available. The old method was completely removed.
Unfortunately it is not possible to get the same result. This means that the coded User Slug changes if you haven't activated Future Proof Mode yet.
Why use this plugin?
WordPress uses the pattern
example.com/author/name for author page URLs where
name represents the users login name.
This means that the login names from all your users are publicly visible which is a serious security flaw.
The Smart User Slug Hider Plugin changes all author page URLs from e.g.
example.com/author/john to something like
The codes are generated automatically and its impossible to make conclusions about the user names. The WordPress default URLs will cause a 404 (not found) error.
Also works for BuddyPress member pages.
As of version 4.0.0 also the author class from body tag is removed (see this topic)
The plugin adds three shortcodes you can use in your posts:
[smart_user_slug]– the user slug of the post author – e.g. e9e716def73f76ac
[smart_user_url]– the url of the post author's profile page – e.g. example.com/author/e9e716def73f76ac
[smart_user_link]– adds a link to the post author's profile page
Theme Functions
The plugin adds two functions that can be used in theme files:
get_smart_user_slug( $author_id )to get the user slug for the author – the parameter $author_id is optional, if omitted the author`s ID of the current post is used
the_smart_user_slug( $author_id )to display the user slug for the author – the parameter $author_id is optional, if omitted the author`s ID of the current post is used
How to easily close a HUGE WordPress Security Gap using the free Plugin Smart User Slug Hider
Do you like this plugin?
I spend a lot of my precious spare time to develop and maintain my free WordPress plugins. You don't need to make a donation. No money, no beer, no coffee. If you like this plugin then please do me a favor and give it a good rating. Thanks.
Plugin Privacy Information
- This plugin does not set cookies
- This plugin does not collect or store any data
- This plugin does not send any data to external servers
Peters' Plugins Privacy Information Page
This plugin is compatible with ClassicPress.
More plugins from Peter
- 404page – Define any of your WordPress pages as 404 error page
- hashtagger – Tag your posts by using #hashtags
- smart Custom Display Name – Set your Display Name to anything you like
- See all
Perguntas frequentes
none so far
Contribuidores e programadores
"Smart User Slug Hider" é software de código aberto. As seguintes pessoas contribuíram para este plugin:Contribuidores
"Smart User Slug Hider" foi traduzido para 3 locales. Obrigado aos tradutores pelas suas contribuições.
Traduza o "Smart User Slug Hider" para o seu idioma.
Interessado no desenvolvimento?
Consulte o código, consulte o repositório SVN, ou subscreva o registo de alterações por RSS.
Registo de alterações
4.0.3 (2023-03-26)
- do not rely on SERVER_ADDR only (see support ticket)
4.0.2 (2022-05-28)
- just cosmetics
- Plugin Foundation updated to PPF08
4.0.1 (2020-08-23)
- minor UI adjustments
4.0.0 (2019-12-29)
- remove user class from body tag (See here)
- always use Future Proof Mode, old method removed
- rewritten based on my Plugin Foundation PPF03
3 (2018-12-31)
- Future Safe Mode renamed to Future Proof Mode
- automatically activate Future Proof Mode if mcrypt is not availabe
- code improvement
- UI improvements
- changed capability to manage_options to display admin page
2 (2018-03-14)
- Future Safe Mode
1.5 (2017-11-16)
- faulty display in WP 4.9 fixed
1.4 (2017-07-15)
- fix for BuddyExtender plugin
1.3 (2017-07-17)
- BuddyPress compatibility
- redesigned admin interface
- code improvement
1.2 (2016-10-04)
- Shortcodes added
- Theme Functions added
1.1 (2016-06-30)
- Code optimization
- Plugin info page added
1.0 (2014-10-02)
- Initial Release


text: Security researchers have discovered a complex spamming scheme that hijacks users' PCs in order to attempt to send junk mail via university and military systems.Researchers at Romania-based BitDefender said the scheme, based on a backdoor called Edunet, was one of the most complicated and mysterious they've come across."It's not every day that you stumble on the workings of an honest-to-God hacking ring, let alone one that has a predilection for using military and university-run mail servers as spam relays," said Sorin Dudea, BitDefender's head of anti-virus research, in a statement.The scam starts with junk emails that offer links to videos. When a user clicks on the link he is prompted to download a "media player" - something that should in itself ring alarm bells, since most videos currently use players embedded in a web page or in the operating system itself.The "media player" download is in fact the Edunet backdoor, which creates a botnet used to attempt to send spam via a list of mail servers, BitDefender said.One of the curiosities of Edunet is that these mail servers are mostly in the .edu and .mil domains. On these servers the botnet looks for open relays - a type of misconfiguration often used by spammers to disguise the real origins of the junk mail."It would be interesting to identify what, if anything, the institutions that own the targeted servers have in common," BitDefender's Dudea stated.So far, the scheme doesn't seem to have been very effective, since none of the targeted servers actually host open relays, BitDefender said.While the list of targets has remained fixed, the botnet takes its commands from a list of servers that is constantly changing, making it difficult to pin down where the commands are coming from, the company said.


text:
There's still no official timetable on when Sony will repair its PlayStation Network (for those of us counting, we're in week four – and sorry, "a few more days" doesn't quite cut it), but at least this note to its publishers and development partners offers a little more insight on the operation. Industry Gamers "managed to obtain" a copy, which was reportedly sent out on May 11.
Sony fails to divulge any inkling of when it will restore its services but gives as thorough an explanation as it can for the outage. While it's obviously disappointing that everyone is still left clueless as to when PlayStation is going to get everything up and running, it's minimally comforting to hear how Sony plans to head off any future problems. Still, it seems like in lieu of any technical progress repairing the network, we're being inundated with apologies, explanations, and plans to track down the culprit – when all that PSN customers really want is a date.
Here's a copy of the letter in its entirety:
Dear Partner:
As you know, certain PlayStation Network, Qriocity and Sony Online Entertainment service user account information was compromised in criminal attacks against our networks. I want to assure you, as a PlayStation partner, that it is Sony's top priority to restore our network operations and see that business is returned to usual as soon as possible. We are working around the clock to restore service, but will do so only when we can ensure that the network can operate safely and securely. In the meantime, we greatly appreciate your patience, understanding and goodwill.
What Happened?
• On Tuesday, April 19, 2011, Sony discovered that several PlayStation Network servers unexpectedly rebooted themselves and that unplanned and unusual activity was taking place on the network. This activity triggered an immediate response.
• Sony mobilized a larger internal team to assist the investigation of the four suspect servers. That team discovered the first credible indications that an intruder had been in the PlayStation Network system, and six more servers were identified as possibly being compromised. Sony immediately decided to shut down all of the PlayStation Network services in order to prevent any additional damage.
• The scope and complexity of the investigation grew substantially as additional evidence about the attack developed.
• The forensic teams were able to confirm that intruders had used very sophisticated and aggressive techniques to obtain unauthorized access, hide their presence from system administrators and escalate privileges inside the servers. Among other things, the intruders deleted log files in order to hide the extent of their work and activity within the network.
• On Sunday May 1, using information uncovered by the forensic teams, engineers at Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) discovered that data had also been taken from their servers. They, too, shut down operations and on Monday, May 2, announced the discovery.
What Data Are Affected?
As you may know, personal data was stolen from approximately 77 million PlayStation network and Qriocity service accounts.
As of this writing, there remains no evidence that the credit card information was stolen and the major credit card companies are still reporting that they have not seen an increase in fraudulent transactions due to this event.
What Steps Are Being Taken?
We have taken aggressive action to give consumers peace of mind, protect them against the abuse of their data, and enhance our security systems moving forward.
We have already advised our consumers in the U.S. that we will offer complimentary identity theft protection services through a leading provider, including an insurance program of up to $1 million. Similar programs are being developed in other markets around the world.
In addition, Sony is taking a series of steps to enhance security of our network infrastructure. They include but are not limited to:
• adding additional automated software monitoring and configuration management to help defend against new attacks;
• enhanced levels of data protection and encryption, as well as additional penetration and vulnerability testing;
• enhanced capabilities to detect software intrusions within the network, unauthorized access and unusual activity patterns;
• implementation of additional firewalls;
• expediting a planned move of the system to a new data center in a different location with enhanced security; and
• appointment of a new Chief Information Security Officer.
Finally, to thank our customers for their patience and loyalty, we are offering them "welcome back" packages as soon as the networks are restored, including free downloads of selected PlayStation entertainment, 30 days of free service as well as service extensions for the number of days PSN and Qriocity services were unavailable, with similar benefits for Music Unlimited subscribers.
Looking Ahead
We of course deeply regret that this incident has occurred. We are working closely with the FBI to identify and apprehend the culprits who committed this crime against our consumers, our partners and our company. I know you can appreciate how widespread the problem of cybercrime is in society today. Although no company is immune, we are confident our consumer data will be protected by some of the best security measures available today.
As a valued partner we aim to keep the lines of communication open so that you are aware of our progress. Our focus has been to confirm the security of the networks, protect customer data and get the services back on line as quickly as possible. We will do our best to respond to all of your inquiries and we will do everything we possibly can to support you.
We are doing everything we can to bring these services back online as soon as possible. We will update you with more information as soon as we can, but please call your account executive if you have further questions. We thank you for your patience and look forward to moving ahead together in the months and years to come.
Very truly yours,
Rob Dyer
SVP, Publisher Relations
Editors' Recommendations
- Take a closer look at Sony's special-edition Spider-Man 2 PS5
- The best PS5 exclusives
- How to use PS5 voice commands
- This console generation isn't about games or hardware. It's about services
- PS5 tips and tricks: how to get the most out of your new Playstation


text:
Your Cart is Empty
$1,436.00 $1,867.00
You Save 23% ($431.00)
Translation missing: en.products.notify_form.description:
Notify me when this product is available:
Start your new life together with this elegant diamond Insert wedding band. Crafted in 14 karat gold , this classic Insert band features 32 sparkling diamonds. Total diamond weight is 1/4 ct.
Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more …


text:
|This wiki: The development wiki is a work area where Jazz development teams plan and discuss technical designs and operations for the projects at Jazz.net. Work items often link to documents here. You are welcome to browse, follow along, and participate. Participation is what Jazz.net is all about! But please keep in mind that information here is "as is", unsupported, and may be outdated or inaccurate. For information on released products, consult IBM Knowledge Center, support tech notes, and the Jazz.net library. See also the Jazz.net Terms of Use.
New product names: The CE/CLM products were renamed in version 7.0. For details on the name change, see Renaming the IBM Continuous Engineering Portfolio. Some content might continue to use the previous names or contain a combination of the previous and current names.


text: Studio portrait of Frank Crnkovic Frank is awesome. Award winning portrait photography by Vancouver commercial, editorial and advertising photographer Jens Kristian Balle. This image has received awards from IPA - The International Photography Awards and from One Eyeland - and online community for high end advertising photography. Vancouver BC Portrait Photographer Conceptual, Portrait, Photography, commercial, advertising, Vancovuer, Toronto, photographers, still life, photographer, Vancouver area


text: The founder of an eavesdropping-resistant instant messaging application called Cryptocat has apologized over a now-fixed bug that made some types of messages more vulnerable to snooping.Cryptocat, which runs inside a web browser, is an open-source application intended to provide users with a high degree of security by using encryption to scramble messages. But Cryptocat warns that users should still be very cautious with communications and not to trust their life with the application.The vulnerability, found by Steve Thomas, affected group chats and not private conversations, said Nadim Kobeissi, in an interview from Germany Friday. The encryption keys used to encode those conversations were too short, which in theory made it easier for an attacker to decrypt and read conversations.The error was the result of an oversight spotted by Thomas, Kobeissi said. The encrypted conversations were still carried over SSL (Secure Sockets Layers), another overlay of encryption. But if an attacker broke the SSL encryption and had the underlying encrypted chats, "it would be significantly easier to crack" using brute-force techniques, he said.The bug was fixed in Cryptocat versions 2.0 and up about a month ago after Thomas notified the project. The vulnerability persisted for about seven months between September 2012 and April.Although Cryptocat noted the patch in its changelog, Kobeissi wrote a detailed blog post on Thursday explaining the issue after Thomas published a sharp critique."This is a really difficult situation," Kobeissi said. "I am not a person who will gloss over this kind of bug for absolutely no reason just to maintain the image of the project."The bug was completely unacceptable, but it is common for errors to be revealed in open-source projects, he said. Kobeissi said he gave Thomas a US$250 reward out of his own pocket even though Cryptocat has no formal bug bounty program."I wanted to be on the record that he was paid for his effort," Kobeissi said.Cryptocat has seen surging interest since the U.S. National Security Agency's surveillance program was detailed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Kobeissi said Cryptocat saw 65,000 new users in just a month since the revelations were published.Send news tips and comments to firstname.lastname@example.com. Follow me on Twitter: @jeremy_kirk


text:
Headlong: Missing Richard Simmons
Topic / Pineapple Street Media / Dan Taberski
On February 15, 2014, fitness guru Richard Simmons disappeared. He stopped teaching his regular exercise class at Slimmons, cut off his closest friends, and removed himself from the public eye after decades as one of the most accessible celebrities in the world. Nobody has heard from him - and no one knows why he left. Filmmaker Dan Taberski was a Slimmons regular and a friend of Richard's. Missing Richard Simmons is Dan's search for Richard - and the deeper he digs, the stranger it gets. Listen to the podcast The New York Times calls "a cultural phenomenon." Headlong is Dan Taberski's documentary podcast that explores the lives of overlooked people, moments and events in our culture. Season 2 is Surviving Y2K. Season 3 is Running From COPS.


text:
53°35' / 23°06'
Translation of
Khurbn Sukhovolye;
lezikaron fun a yiddish shtetl tsvishn Bialystok und Grodne
Published in Mexico 1947
Editor: Sh. Zabludovski
Project Coordinator
Zygmund Elton
This is a translation of: Khurbn Sukhovolye, lezikaron fun a yiddish shtetl tsvishn Bialystok und Grodne
(The Holocaust in Suchowola; in memory of a Jewish shtetl between Bialystok and Grodno),
ed. Sh. Zabludovski, Published in Mexico 1947 [Y, 72 pages].
JewishGen, Inc. makes no representations regarding the accuracy of
the translation. The reader may wish to refer to the original material
for verification.
JewishGen is not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in the original work and cannot rewrite or edit the text to correct inaccuracies and/or omissions.
Our mission is to produce a translation of the original work and we cannot verify the accuracy of statements or alter facts cited.
|The Old Synagogue which was burnt to the ground
by the Nazis in 1942
Drawing by Symcha Lazar
Yizkor Book Project JewishGen Home Page
Copyright © 1999-2023 by JewishGen, Inc.
Updated 24 September 2007 by OR


text:
A security guard tasers a woman, gets crowdsourced donations
Kevin James, move over, a new mall cop's in town.
Darien Long, a shopping mall security guard, has received a rush of donations after posting a video that showed him applying a Taser to an abusive woman outside an Atlanta mall.
After telling the woman to leave for disorderly conduct, Long is heard on the video saying, "Back it up," and shows her the Taser. The woman begins hitting him on the head anyway, and Long uses the Taser on the woman, who drops to the ground near the children she is with, who appear understandably upset.
The shocking video, filmed last May, went viral, and a crowdsourced campaign to raise money to get the mall guard even better equipment has already brought in some $20,000.
Long, who has been the property manager for a year, told local Atlanta news station WSB-TV, "I feel like the Taser and the camera are the two most effective tools that I have. Do what you're supposed to do, or you get what's coming to you."
The local TV network also reports that the woman shown in the video was charged with criminal trespass, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and simple battery.
Long records every confrontation, and many of the videos he has posted to YouTube have gone viral. One shows him chasing drug dealers out of the mall, pointing the Taser and using another effective tool: a clipboard where he records the incident. Amazingly, the drug dealers back down and walk away.
The mall guard said, "What you do is clean up the neighborhood so other businesses can come in and downtown Atlanta can prosper."