AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Possibly better than tootsie rolls, illustrated screenplays are tasty little nuggets of cinematic flavor in a convenient pdf wrapper. Download and read your favorite movie in a quarter of the time it takes to watch it. And you can grab quotes and images.

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:32 pm

Environmentalists’ campaign spending on midterms to see huge jump this year
By Juliet Eilperin
September 5, 2014

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


The League of Conservation Voters will spend $25 million in campaign funding this election season, a fivefold increase over what the group devoted to the last midterm elections, LCV President Gene Karpinski said in an interview.

The spending will be largely devoted to key Senate races but also will go to a handful of gubernatorial and state legislative contests. The increased funding reflects the growing role of environmentalists as political money players. Climate activist and billionaire Tom Steyer has already spent $22 million on federal and state candidates this election cycle and plans to devote at least $26 million more. Steyer is a major LCV funder.

“We are poised to make, by far, the biggest investment we’ve ever made in elections,” Karpinski said in an interview, adding that the group’s efforts are “making climate change part of the conversation” in races across the country.

The group has ramped up its spending in recent years, rising from $5 million in 2010 to $15 million in 2012. It also has joined with another major environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund PAC, to run the GiveGreen program, which has raised or contributed $4 million so far this election cycle to individual federal candidates.

The Environmental Defense Action Fund, which has traditionally only given money directly to candidates, has already spent more than $1 million in federal and state races in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan and New York this year.

FTI Consulting senior director Matt Dempsey, whose clients include several fossil-fuel industry interests, questioned whether green groups would be able to sway voters.

“Anti-fossil fuel groups, no matter how much money they spend, face an uphill battle at the ballot box because they simply cannot explain to the public how they plan to meet energy needs without fossil fuels, both now and in the future,” Dempsey wrote in an e-mail.

Dempsey noted that several of the Senate Democrats up for reelection, including Mark Begich (Alaska), Kay Hagan (N.C.) and Mary Landrieu (La.), support the Keystone XL pipeline, which most national environmental groups oppose. LCV is backing Begich and Hagan, as well as Mark Udall (Colo), who describes himself as “a champion of Colorado’s natural gas industry”; the three incumbents support mandatory federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.

Environmentalists’ deeper involvement in both state and federal campaigns represents, to a large extent, a recognition that legislation curbing greenhouse gas emissions on a broad scale will remain out of reach for years without a major political shift in Washington and state capitals.

Elizabeth Thompson, Environmental Defense Action Fund’s president, said in a statement that her organization is “making a major investment to build a bipartisan movement for environmental progress. . . . It won’t be easy or quick, but we’re convinced that solving the biggest challenges will require both parties at the table. Our goal is to show both sides that good climate policy is smart politics.”

The races LCV is targeting — including Senate contests in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire and North Carolina, as well as the Maine gubernatorial race, where it is opposing Gov. Paul LePage’s (R) reelection, and state legislative races in Oregon and Washington — all involve significant contrasts between the two candidates on climate change and other signature environmental issues.

It has endorsed just four Republicans this cycle — Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) and three state legislators, all of whom faced primaries. It also intervened in two Democratic primaries, successfully backing Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) and Maine state Sen. Emily Cain, who is trying to succeed Rep. Michael H. Michaud (D).

The issue of climate change has come up in several of these races, such as when former senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.), who is challenging Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), responded to a question of whether “the theory of man-made climate change has been scientifically proven” during a GOP primary debate by saying, “Uh, no.”

Brown spokeswoman Elizabeth Guyton said in a statement that he “believes that the climate is changing by a combination of natural and man-made causes.”

Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action Committee — which is giving money not only to environmental organizations but also to labor, abortion rights, veterans and Latino groups — “will be a seven-figure supporter of our work in 2014,” Karpinski said. The committee has donated $650,000 to LCV’s super PAC this election cycle, which was spent on various races including Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey’s special election.

“There’s not a day that goes by that someone on our team doesn’t talk to someone on the Steyer team,” Karpinski said.

NextGen Climate Action spokesman Bobby Whithorne wrote in an e-mail that his group is canvassing with LCV “in several states and supporting their efforts on the ground in numerous races. We look forward to working together over the next eight weeks to bring climate change to the ballot box.”

The spike in spending by environmental activists has sparked a response from groups aligned with industry and the GOP. The conservative group American Commitment has run ads in Colorado and Iowa questioning Steyer’s support for Democratic Senate candidates, and groups such as American Crossroads, Americans For Prosperity and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have run ads on the Keystone pipeline and energy in that state. Groups affiliated with the libertarian billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have provided financial support for the opponents of all of the Senate candidates LCV is backing, a fact it has highlighted in five separate ads in four states.

Some of the ads LCV has run so far, such as those attacking Iowa GOP Senate candidate Joni Ernst, address policies on education as much as the environment. Dan Weiss, LCV’s senior vice president for campaigns, said the group highlighted Ernst’s support for eliminating the Education Department and Environmental Protection Agency because “we want to make it clear to Iowans that she doesn’t share their priorities.”

While the ads have been the most visible sign of green groups’ spending, LCV will devote many of its resources to grass-roots efforts. Weiss said the group will have 2,000 people working in 19 offices and will contact 750,000 voters who typically don’t vote in off-year elections in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire and North Carolina.

Juliet Eilperin is The Washington Post's White House bureau chief, covering domestic and foreign policy as well as the culture of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She is the author of two books—one on sharks, and another on Congress, not to be confused with each other—and has worked for the Post since 1998.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17160
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:40 pm

DEMOCRAT / YALE

Tom Steyer
by Wikipedia
7/28/15

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Tom Steyer
Born Thomas Fahr Steyer
June 27, 1957 (age 58)
New York City, New York U.S.
Alma mater Yale University
Stanford University
Net worth IncreaseUS$1.6 billion
(March 2014)[1]
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Kathryn Ann Taylor
(1986–present)
Children 4
Website Official website

Thomas Fahr "Tom" Steyer (born June 27, 1957) is an American hedge fund manager, philanthropist, and environmentalist.[2]

Steyer is the founder and former Co-Senior Managing Partner of Farallon Capital Management, LLC and the co-founder of the OneCalifornia Bank, an Oakland-based community development bank.[2] Steyer is responsible for funding the creation of the TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy at Stanford University, part of the Precourt Institute of Energy.[3] Since 1986, he has been a partner and member of the Executive Committee at Hellman & Friedman, a San Francisco-based $8 billion private equity firm. Farallon Capital Management, LLC, manages $20 billion in capital for institutions and high-net-worth individuals. The firm’s institutional investors are primarily college endowments and foundations.[2][4]

In 2010, Steyer and his wife signed the Giving Pledge to donate half their fortune to charity.[5] Steyer is on the board of Next Generation, a non-profit that intends to tackle children's issues and the environment.[6][7] He serves on the Board of Trustees at Stanford University[8] and is active in political campaign fundraising.

Early life and education

Steyer was born in New York City in 1957. His mother, Marnie (née Fahr), was a teacher of remedial reading at the Brooklyn House of Detention, and his father, Roy Henry Steyer, was a partner in the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell.[9][10] His mother was Episcopalian and his father Jewish (a member of the Reform Jewish Congregation Emanu-El of New York).[11]

1950s: MK-Ultra

The outrages perpetrated by Ewen Cameron became the most notorious aspect of the postwar Anglo-American mind-control program. Cameron had trained at the Royal Mental Hospital in Glasgow, under eugenicist Sir David Henderson, and founded the Canadian branch of his friend John R. Rees's World Federation for Mental Health. In the various member countries and subdivisions, these channels of British intelligence operations are known as the national, provincial, or state Mental Health Associations. Cameron was also elected president of the Canadian, American, and world psychiatric associations. He became famous after the CIA was sued by some survivors of his work—because the CIA had financed the tortures. Cameron would drug his victims to sleep for weeks on end, waking them daily only to administer violent electric shocks to the brain. He used the British Page-Russell electroconvulsive method, an initial one-second shock, then five to nine additional shocks, administered while the patient was in seizure. But he increased the normal voltage and the number of sequences from one to two or three times per day. Patients lost all or part of their memories, and some lost the ability to control their bodily functions and to speak. At least one patient was reduced almost to a vegetable; then Cameron had the cognitive centers of her brain surgically cut apart, while keeping her alive. Some subjects were deposited permanently in institutions for the hopelessly insane. For the CIA, Cameron tested the South American poison called curare, which kills a victim while simulating natural heart failure. But Cameron claims to have used it only in non-lethal doses to further immobilize his subjects while they were kept in sensory deprivation tortures for as long as 65 days. Then they would be given lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) for “programmable” hallucinations. When the subject was sufficiently devastated, Cameron and his assistant, a veteran of the British Royal Signals Corps, would begin “Psychic Driving”: Through a loudspeaker hidden under the pillow, or through unremovable earphones, they would play a tape over and over again to burn certain phrases into what was left of the victim's memory. The CIA was found to have financed these horrors, as well as ghastly experiments in other locations, using a front called the Society for the Study of Human Ecology. (The society gave a grant for a study of the effects of circumcision on young Turkish boys, the grantees to be in Istanbul, studying five to seven year olds and their problems with their genitals. It is claimed that this was intended to give a cover to the CIA front as a real academic organization.)

The question of sponsorship

But the authorship of this enterprise cannot reasonably be assigned to the CIA, per se. Even before we review other agencies' direct involvement, we must understand that the CIA chief during MK-Ultra, Allen Dulles, was thoroughly attached to British Empire geopolitical aims. Introduced to British spies by his uncle Robert Lansing, Woodrow Wilson's secretary of state, Dulles had had a strong personal identification since childhood with the British Secret Intelligence Service. The Dulles family's upper class-status in America began when ancestor William Dulles arrived in South Carolina from India. With a fortune made in India by providing financial and security services for the British East India Company army, he bought a slave plantation which the family held through the American Civil War. The family's mental life was always that of the British Empire and its American colonial subordinates. Allen Dulles's main corporate activity was as a director of the J. Henry Schroder banking company in London, a prime instrument in Montagu Norman's nazification of Germany. As partners in the Sullivan and Cromwell firm, Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles represented the Rockefeller-Harriman-Warburg combination, I.G. Farben, and virtually every other Nazi corporate organization that danced on London's marionette strings. It was disclosed that for MK-Ultra, particularly for the experimental use and distribution of LSD, the CIA operated through another front, the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation. But the geometry of the “front” really worked the other way around. The Macy Foundation represented the British psychological warfare executive, as extended into U.S. and related institutions. In the midst of launching MK-Ultra, during 1954-55, the Macy Foundation's medical director Frank Fremont-Smith was president of British General Rees's World Federation of Mental Health. Under Rees as the director, the two together “made a journey to a number of countries in Asia and Africa to establish contacts and seek ways in which the organization may extend its activities in those regions.” Through official military and intelligence conferences over which it presided, and through various informal and secret operations, the Macy Foundation directed the spread of LSD by U.S. agencies during the 1950s. The Macy Foundation's chief LSD executive, Harold Abramson, was a psychiatric researcher at Columbia University and at the eugenics center in Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York. It was Abramson who first “turned on” Frank Fremont-Smith. Abramson also gave LSD for the first time to British anthropologist Gregory Bateson, sometime husband of Margaret Mead. Then in 1959, Bateson gave LSD to Beat poet Alan Ginsburg at Stanford University, under controlled experimental conditions. Following this, Dr. Leo Hollister at Stanford gave LSD to mental patient turned author Ken Kesey and others, and thus it was said to have spread “out of the CIA's realm.”

-- British Psychiatry: From Eugenics to Assassination, by Anton Chaitkin


He attended the Buckley School, Philips Exeter Academy and graduated from Yale University summa cum laude in economics and political science and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He was captain of the Yale soccer team. Steyer received his MBA from Stanford Business School, where he was an Arjay Miller Scholar.[12]

Career

Early career


Prior to joining Hellman & Friedman, Steyer worked at Goldman Sachs from 1983-85 as an associate in the risk arbitrage department under Robert Rubin. He began his professional career at Morgan Stanley in 1979.[2]

Farallon Capital Management

Steyer founded Farallon Capital Management, LLC in January 1986.[13] Farallon employs approximately 165 people in eight offices globally and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.[14] Farallon is considered a pioneer in the practice of “absolute return” investing, a strategy that aims to produce a positive absolute return regardless of the directions of financial markets.[2] To that end, Farallon makes credit investments, value investments, merger arbitrage, real estate-related investments and direct investments. It also invests in public and private debt and equity securities, and direct investments in private companies and real estate.[15]

Steyer announced in October 2012 that he would be stepping down from his position at Farallon in order to focus on political activism, in particular on advocating for alternative energy.[16] He cited his desire to focus on giving back "full time" and to revolve his life around service. In an interview he said, "I've tried to organize a business voice for what I call advanced energy....I think I'm going to be focused on how to, is there a way to move the needle in some way having to do with thought or policy. And I don't know what shape that's going to take.”[17]

Investments in coal projects

Steyer decided to dispose of his carbon-polluting investments in 2012, although critics say he didn't dispose of them fast enough. Steyer sold his ownership stake in Farallon, but still owns an investment, although his aides said he no longer earns profits. Some of the coal mines and coal power plants they invested in will continue to operate for as much as 30 years. For example, Farallon made tens of millions of dollars from developing the Maules Creek coal mine in Australia, which is opposed by environmentalists. [18][19][20]

Kilowatt Financial, LLC

In 2015, the Washington Free Beacon reported that documents filed with secretaries of state in California and Texas named Steyer as a manager of Kilowatt Financial LLC.[21]

Philanthropy

Giving Pledge


In August 2010, Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor, joined Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and 37 other American billionaires in pledging to give away at least half their fortunes during their lifetime.[22] Business people “are pretty widely mistrusted and seen as overwhelmingly self-interested,” Steyer said. “The point is that business people are not just laboring for themselves. They have bigger responsibilities and belong to a wider community.”[23]

Community development

Steyer and his wife founded OneCalifornia Bank, now known as One PacificCoast Bank, a community development bank.[24] The bank functions as a regulated financial institution, insured and for-profit just like other banks, but provides commercial banking services to underserved Bay Area businesses, nonprofits and individuals. Steyer and Taylor put up $22.5 million to start the bank and create the One PacificCoast Foundation to engage in charitable and educational activities, provide lending support, investments and other services for disadvantaged communities and community service organizations in California. Steyer and Taylor maintain mission focus and control of the bank, but take no economic benefit or repayment from their investment as they donated 100% of their economic interest in One PacificCoast Bank to One PacificCoast Foundation.[25][26] In August 2010, the University of San Francisco awarded OneCalifornia Bank and Foundation the 2010 University of San Francisco California Prize for Service and the Common Good.[27]

TomKat Ranch

The couple created the TomKat Ranch in Pescadero, California. The ranch's philanthropic endeavors include underwriting healthy food programs and co-producing an independent film, La Mission, starring Benjamin Bratt, about San Francisco's Mission neighborhood.[28]

OneRoof

Steyer and Taylor also helped found OneRoof, a social business designed to bring technology to rural India. Over the past four years OneRoof has opened computer centers to connect poor residents of India with the information revolution.[29]

Environmentalism

In 2008, Steyer and Taylor gave $41 million to create the TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy at Stanford University. The center focuses on the development of affordable renewable energy technologies and promotion of public policies that make renewable energy more accessible. Projects include the creation of lighter, less toxic, and more durable batteries and an analysis of the current power grid’s ability to support future renewable energy technologies.[3][30]

Political activism

Steyer is a leading Democratic activist and fundraiser. In 1983, he worked on the Walter Mondale for President campaign.[24] He raised money for Bill Bradley in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. An early supporter of Hillary Clinton for President, Steyer became one of Barack Obama’s most prolific fundraisers. Steyer served as a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions in 2004 and 2008, and has been a member of the Hamilton Project since 2005.[2] Steyer, one of the backers of Greener Capital, has been accused of reaping benefits from the anti-oil policies of the Obama administration.[31][32] In January 2013, rumors briefly arose that Steyer might be named as a replacement for Energy Secretary Steven Chu.[33] Asked whether he would accept such an appointment, Steyer said yes.[34]

Steyer is seen as an adversary to some of the political activities of the Koch brothers.[35][36]

Steyer is involved with the Democracy Alliance, a network of progressive donors whose membership in the group requires them to donate at least $200,000 a year to recommended organizations.[37][38]

Steyer co-chairs a group called Risky Business that raises awareness of the projected economic impact of climate change.[39]

No on Prop 23

Steyer donated $2.5 million and pledged to contribute $2.5 million more to the No on Prop. 23 campaign, the measure on the November 2010 ballot concerning California's environmental legislation, AB32. Steyer joined former Secretary of State and Republican George Shultz, to co-chair the No on Prop. 23 campaign.[40][41]

Steyer was reportedly "peeved" that out-of-state activists were backing a California measure, and was convinced that passage would hurt California's environment and economy. Steyer described "stepping up" and donating $5 million - the largest sum donated - and driving to people's homes to campaign.

Steyer's political emergence was a success and the proposition was defeated.[42]

DNC speech

Steyer gave a speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. He commented that the election was “a choice about whether to go backward or forward. And that choice is especially stark when it comes to energy.” Steyer said that Romney would take no action to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels; rather, he said he would increase it. Steyer went on to support Obama's policies, which he described as investments to "make us energy independent and create thousands of jobs.”[43]

Prop 39

Steyer was the leading sponsor of Proposition 39 on the 2012 ballot in California. Its purpose was to close a loophole that allowed multi-state corporations to pay taxes out of state, mandating that they pay in California. Steyer contributed $21.9 million, saying that he could wait no longer for the change.[44][45]

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said that the level of giving was unprecedented: "We’ve seen companies giving that much, and unions and PACs that have a lot at stake giving $10, $20 million in an election, but you didn’t see that so much for individual donors.”[44] While supporters of Steyer's effort said it would “help break the partisan gridlock in Sacramento,” critics objected that “the increasing involvement of rich individuals perverts the original intent of the initiatives.[44] The passage of Prop 39 was described as “a $1 billion corporate tax increase that somehow slipped under the radar” and a huge political story that somehow went unnoticed. It was noted that the backers' strategy was to eliminate political opposition before it could materialize. Tom Steyer added $30 million into the Yes on Proposition 39 campaign, warning opponents that “it would be impossible to wage an opposition campaign on the cheap.”[46][47]

2013 Virginia gubernatorial election

Steyer supported the campaign of Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the 2013 Virginia Gubernatorial race through his NextGen Climate Action political committee. This support consisted primarily of releasing ads meant to portray McAuliffe's rival, Ken Cuccinelli, as extreme on environmental issues, and in Get out the vote efforts.[48]

2014 political influence

In 2014, Steyer committed to funding political campaigns in at least seven states to influence climate change policy through his PAC, NextGEN Climate.[49] In June, Steyer said he planned to get involved in California legislature to affect climate change policy by targeting three to four races in each house of the Legislature.[50] In the summer, he founded a political action committee in Florida, leading a major investment in the Gubernatorial race. Steyer cited Florida's pivotal role in the 2016 presidential election and its geographic position, which makes it highly vulnerable to climate change, as reasons for his focus on the state. [51]

However, though spending $57 million of his personal fortune, he and his organization were largely unsuccessful, as of the seven Senate and governors’ candidates NextGEN Climate supported, only three won their races.[52]

Personal life

In August 1986, he married Kathryn Ann Taylor. She is a graduate of Harvard College and earned a J.D./M.B.A. from Stanford University. The Rev. Richard Thayer, a Presbyterian minister, and Rabbi Charles Familant performed the ceremony.[9] Steyer and his wife have four children.[42] His wife is on the President's Council for the United Religions Initiative whose purpose is to "promote enduring, daily interfaith cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence, and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings."[53]

Tom is the brother of attorney, author, and Stanford University professor Jim Steyer. [54]

References

• 1. "The World's Billionaires - Thomas Steyer" Forbes. March 2013.
• 2. Lashinsky, Adam (September 17, 2008). "California's hedge fund king". Fortune. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 3. Ritch, Emma. "Stanford launches $100M energy research institute". Cleantech Group. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 4. http://www.hf.com/team/Team.aspx?membercode=tSteyer[dead link]
• 5. "40 billionaires pledge to give away half of wealth". MSNBC. Retrieved 2010-08-05.
• 6. Strom, Stephanie (September 15, 2011). "Hedge Fund Chief Takes Major Role in Philanthropy". The New York Times.
• 7. "Thomas F. Steyer profile". Next Generation. Retrieved 2013-10-30.
• 8. "University Governance". Stanford University. Retrieved 2012-02-12.
• 9. New York Times: "Kathryn Taylor Weds T.F. Steyer" August 17, 1986
• 10. World Who's who in Commerce and Industry. Marquis-Who's Who. 1968. p. 1327.
• 11. New York Times: "Paid Notice: Deaths STEYER, ROY H."New York Times, June 26, 1997
• 12. "The World's Billionaires". Forbes. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 13. Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C. "Farallon Capital Management".
• 14. Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C. "Farallon Capital Management".
• 15. Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C. "Strategies".
• 16. Celarier, Michelle (23 October 2012). "Hedgie Steyer hanging it up". NY Post.
• 17. Henderson, Peter. "INTERVIEW-Billionaire Steyer sees clean energy in his future". Reuters.
• 18. Aims of Donor Are Shadowed by Past in Coal by MICHAEL BARBARO and CORAL DAVENPORT, The New York Times, JULY 4, 2014
• 19. Tom Steyer’s slow, and ongoing, conversion from fossil-fuels investor to climate activist, by Carol D. Leonnig, Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post, June 9, 2014
• 20. From black to green: U.S. billionaire's 'Road to Damascus' by Richard Valdmanis, Fergus Jensen and Sonali Paul, Reuters, May 13, 2014
• 21. "Tom Steyer Listed as Manager of Green Energy Investment Firm". Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved 10 July 2015.
• 22. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD9HCRI7G1[dead link]
• 23. "Buffett, Gates persuade 38 billionaires to donate half of wealth". The Joplin Globe. AP. 2010-08-04. Retrieved 2013-10-30.
• 24. http://www.onecalif.com/biotsteyer.aspx[dead link]
• 25. Sharma-Sindhar, Priyanka. "Oakland Fund Gets the Governor's Attention". The Oakbook. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 26. Stuhldreher, Anne (2009-04-08). "Traditional lending goes mainstream". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 27. "University of San Francisco Announces 2010 Recipient of Statewide Prize". PR Newswire. Retrieved 2013-10-30.
• 28. Trevenon, Stacy. "Film brings 'brown pride' to Pescadero". Half Moon Bay Review. Retrieved 2010-09-10.
• 29. http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.p ... les&ptid=9[dead link]
• 30. "Stanford starts new, $100 million energy institute". Greenbang. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 31. "The One Percent Gets Its Turn". Washington Free Beacon.
• 32. "OP-ED: Billionaire bullies - - San Mateo Daily Journal".
• 33. Sink, Justin (8 January 2013). "Obama looks to fill out Cabinet". The Hill.
• 34. Calvey, Mark (16 January 2013). "San Francisco's Tom Steyer reacts to rumors he'll be named U.S. Energy Secretary". Biz Journal.
• 35. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/magaz ... rties.html
• 36. POLITICO. "Obama targets GHG cuts with eye on politics, Paris – Saudis tell oil market prices could be low for a while – Ernst, Braley tussle over EPA – Hagel: Emerging Arctic resources present ‘potential threat". POLITICO.
• 37. Gold, Matea (April 12, 2015). "Wealthy donors on left launch new plan to wrest back control in the states". Washington Post. Retrieved 20 April 2015.
• 38. Vogel, Kenneth; Restuccia, Andre (April 13, 2015). "Tom Steyer stars as liberal donors gather". Politico. Retrieved 20 April 2015.
• 39. Template:Cie news
• 40. Maviglio, Steven. "No on Prop 23 Campaign Gets Big Backing from Major Democratic Donor, Releases Report on Valero's $9 Billion Export of California Energy Dollars". The California Majority Report. Retrieved 2010-07-26.
• 41. Nagourney, Adam. "California Braces for Showdown on Emissions". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-07-26.
• 42. Dolan, Kerry (21 September 2011). "Tom Steyer: Hedge Fund Billionaire's Foray Into Politics". Forbes.
• 43. "Tom Steyer DNC speech (text)". Politico. September 5, 2012.
• 44. Onishi, Norimitsu (16 October 2012). "California Ballot Initiatives, Born in Populism, Now Come From Billionaires". The New York Times.
• 45. Henderson, Peter (October 24, 2012). "INTERVIEW-Billionaire Steyer sees clean energy in his future". Reuters.
• 46. "Timm Herdt: And then, the opposition blinked". Contra Costa Times. December 25, 2012.
• 47. STEYER, THOMAS FAHR (TOM) contributions to ballot measure committees that supported or opposed ballot measures in elections in California 2012, FollowTheMoney.org http://beta.followthemoney.org/show-me? ... CA&y=2012#[{1|gro=f-eid
• 48. Meola, Olympia (9 August 2013). "Out-of-state funds pouring into Virginia race for governor". The Richmond Times Dispatch.
• 49. Gold, Matea. "Billionaire Tom Steyer will use clout and cash to boost Democrats, environment, in key races". The Washington Post. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
• 50. Metha, Seema. "Billionaire Steyer looking at spending on legislative races". LA Times. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
• 51. Caputo, Marc. "Billionaire climate-change supporter pledges to spend big to beat Florida Gov. Rick Scott". http://www.miamiherald.com. The Miami Herald. Retrieved 5 August 2014.
• 52. Davenport, Coral, "Meager Returns for the Democrats’ Biggest Donor, New York Times, 6 November 2014
• 53. United Religions Initiative: Kat Taylor retrieved march 30, 2013
• 54. http://csre.stanford.edu/major/steyer.htm
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17160
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:11 pm

DEMOCRAT

Bill Maher Gives $1 Million To Obama-Supporting Super PAC
By Max J. Rosenthal
The Huffington Post |
02/24/2012

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

WASHINGTON -- Stephen Colbert may not support the idea of super PACs, but fellow political satirist Bill Maher is buying into the system -- literally.

During a performance of his comedy special "CrazyStupidPolitics" Thursday night, Maher announced a gift of $1 million to Priorities USA Action, an Obama-supporting super PAC. While he mocked the group's clunky name, saying it was "named by Borat," his publicist said that Maher was deadly serious about the donation and believed a second term for Obama was “worth a million dollars."

GOP Super PACs like Restore Our Future, which supports Mitt Romney, have allowed major donors to pump massive sums into the Republican presidential primary. President Obama was a long-time critic of the groups, but the threat of their fundraising power prompted a controversial change of heart earlier this month.

With presidential approval, Democratic super PACs are gearing up for the fall, but lag behind their Republican counterparts. In addition to Maher, other big names like Steven Spielberg have made sizeable donations to Priorities USA. Still, according to ABC, the group received only $59,000 in donations in January.

Priorities USA Action did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Huffington Post.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17160
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:53 pm

DEMOCRAT

Michael L. Charney, M.D.
by climate-talks.net
7/28/15

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Michael L. Charney, M.D.
Co-Founder and Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Climate Action Network (MCAN)
Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Conventions
Publisher, the Cambridge Climate Calendar


Michael L. Charney is a psychiatrist, political activist, organizer and uncertified environmentalist, working to grow the climate protection movement in Massachusetts. Betting on the "Civil Society" solution - citizen action for greenhouse emissions reductions – Charney co-founded and co-chairs the Massachusetts Climate Action Network (MCAN). The purpose of this group is to incite environmental learning and activism in metro-Boston and beyond. As part of this effort Dr. Charney publishes the e-weekly Cambridge Climate Calendar (CCC) [since May 2000] (To write for subscription to the e-weekly Calendar, click here; for more information on the 'Climate Calendar,' click here). In addition, in order to promote the construction of green, high performance buildings Dr. Charney co-founded and co-chairs the Green Building Coalition for green building incentive legislation in Massachusetts.

MCAN now has autonomous climate groups in 15 Massachusetts cities and towns, and representation from MassPIRG, Clean Water Action and Mass Energy. It sponsors lectures and conferences on climate change and solutions, and speaker training . It supports and critiques legislation, provides testimony at regulatory hearings, works for fuel efficient transportation, protests SUV’s, and helps network and stimulate diverse climate activism at the local and state level.

Image

Dr. Charney’s activism began as a draft exempt student opposing the Vietnam War, graduating Yale College in 1968. As a Nader Raider for occupational safety and health, Charney drafted a "Health Bill of Rights for Workers" (UAW newletter, 1970), which contributed to the writing and passage of OSHA. Smitten by the 1970 National Student Strike, he founded and coordinated the 100 member O.M. Collective which wrote The Organizer’s Manual (Bantam Books 1971), an all-purpose and anti-war grassroots organizing text. In 1971 he started the New Haven Occupational Health Project to assist Southern Connecticut AFL-CIO in using OSHA.

Dr Charney evaded political controversy for the next decade, graduating Yale Medical School (1972), completing internship at Cambridge Hospital (1973), adult and child psychiatry residency training at Massachusetts Mental Health Center (1978), and the Boston Psychoanalytic Institute (1982). He opened private practice in 1978. In the early 1980’s he again juggled his career, joining Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility and initiating a variety of nuclear freeze advocacy projects. In 1984, with two 64K Kaypro II computers between them, law professor Richard Daynard of Northeastern and Dr. Charney devised a farfetched and long to be scoffed stratagem, the Tobacco Products Liability Project to stimulate and organize a tobacco plaintiffs’ bar, medical experts and victims, to pursue personal injury, third party and class action law suits against the tobacco industry as a public health intervention.

Image

In 1990 through 1994, in response to epidemic youth violence, Dr Charney created The Games Project/Chess Makes Kids Smart! training five hundred youth workers, college students, teachers, librarians and volunteers to teach chess to Boston kids. The Project established 60 neighborhood chess programs, distributed 3000 chess sets and enlisted architects locally and nationally to design and construct giant chess sets. For the 1992 American Institute of Architects convention, the Boston Society of Architects and the Games Project made and mounted the Giant Boston Architectural Chess Set shaped as old versus new landmark Boston buildings. Dr Charney then ran a two-week outdoor Chess Festival on Copley Square in Boston’s Back Bay. (Architecture, 11/92, photo).

During the mid 1990’s Dr Charney closed his practice and retooled in psychopharmacology and medicine for in-patient psychiatric employment. This led to several years work and travel between Alaska, Vermont and Massachusetts. For several months in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta he reported for The Tundra Drums newspaper, and while in Bethel gained a transforming appreciation for life’s struggle between vast earth and vaster sky. On resettling in Boston and resuming private practice, he began earnest environmental and climate self-education with a necessarily quixotic intent for climate activism. He first learned of global warming in 1988, but for years avoided and mulled depressed by it, a threat too pervasive to contemplate, a problem so massive, vested, complex and subtle, how could it be solved given the difficulty banishing mere cigarettes?

In 1998 upon reading The Heat is On, he contacted Ross Gelbspan across the Charles and Muddy Rivers in Brookline, and enlisted as apprentice to Ross’s ad hoc policy group which drafted the "World Energy Modernization Plan" (River Street Design, 12 pp, 1998).

Interestingly, far-off international debate, US Senatorial resistance, Kyoto weakness and daunting IPCC research, left a large empty niche at the bottom. The 1999 Tufts Climate Initiative conference, "Climate Change and Civil Society" featured I.C.L.E.I.’s Cities for Climate Protection campaign. It showed how to put climate action in citizen hands.

Charney began publishing the Cambridge Climate Calendar, and reconstituted a lapsed environmental group as Cambridge Climate Action (CCA). It then prodded creation of a taskforce to draft a climate action plan. In May 2000, CCA sponsored "Climate Protection: What You & U.S. Cities Can Do." Marc Breslow and Charney began Massachusetts Climate Action Network. In a related initiative Dr Charney drew attention to New York State’s new Green Building Tax Credit Act, and with the Boston Society of Architect’s Committee on the Environment, the Green Roundtable and others founded the Green Building Coalition which combines the Environmental League of Massachusetts, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, architects and MCAN together in support of green building incentive legislation.

As the 21st century unfolded, 9/11, Enron, and the Iraq and Afgan Wars highlighted, for those who would see, the further danger and liability of the U.S. oil addiction beyond the more readily ignored crisis of global warming. With Washington distracted and Bush/Cheney attacking the environment and promoting nuclear and fossil fuels, grassroots, outside the beltway efforts like MCAN, and state climate policy initiatives became, if only by comparison, the most promising arenas for climate hope.

Yet the national nightmares, the need for defensive enviro-policy action, and our market economy’s indecent descent, derailed many enviro and climate initiatives, including among many more ambitious, the MA Green Building Tax Credit effort. Yet our New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in a rare and estimable display of leadership and courage, promulgated a farsighted joint regional climate protection plan and goal (see Climate Change Action Plan - August 2001) calling for eventual deep GHG emissions reductions

But a succession of Massachusetts Republican governors sat on the state’s own draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) necessary to begin addressing necessary regional goals. Massachusetts’ Climate Action Plan was finally released in May 2004.

During this time Charney continued the Calendar and, with Breslow continued to build MCAN membership, hosting annual grassroots climate protection conferences at Tufts, and establishing a consumer presence in the oversight of the state’s annual 110+ million dollars of energy efficiency monies from a surcharge on electricity ratepayers.

In November of 2002, a week after that fall’s MCAN conference, the Democratic National Committee selected Boston to host their 2004 National Convention. Inspired by the suggestion of a colleague, Charney drafted and circulated a proposal to green the upcoming Democratic convention. He drew together a group of Massachusetts enviro leaders who, in short order, founded the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Conventions (CERC) to do just that and then some.

Charney now chairs the CERC Steering Committee Chair and manages the website while Dan Ruben is Executive Director and carries the major responsibility for the organization. CERC has direct working relationships now with both Democratic and Republican host committees in Boston and New York, and with the Democratic National Convention Committee here in Boston.

CERC is promoting best environmental practices in a number of areas , including the use of green building and demolition recycling practices for the Fleet Center’s stage, carbon offsets and wind power credits sufficient to make one or both conventions “climate neutral,” food waste rescue and composting from some of the major dinners and receptions, green hotel and event planning innovations, and together with Boston officials promotion of anti-idling compliance by tour bus and delivery drivers during July’s four day event.

If successful, CERC would raise national awareness that many excellent, economical practices already exist to help American businesses progress toward environmental sustainability and climate protection.

The Climate Calendar, MCAN, the green building legislative coalition, and CERC all share the same grassroots, civil society strategy. That is, to address climate and environmental challenges from the bottom up, starting in your own living room with phone, phonebook and paper – now phone, broadband and computer - raising consciousness, growing people power, fostering synergies and alliances, to move furniture by pulling the rug.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17160
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:13 am

DEMOCRAT

Class Action Law Pioneer Dies at 58
By NICOLE B. URKEN
CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
December 15, 2003

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Beverly Cooper Moore Jr., a major leader in the movement for class action suits known for his honesty and integrity, died on Nov. 24 of a blood clot to the brain. He was 58.

Moore, who graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School (HLS) in 1970, began his work with the class action movement—encouraging individuals with similar claims to sue together—while working for consumer advocate Ralph Nader’s Corporate Accountability Group.

“The loss of Beverly Moore Jr. will be felt by many Americans who would never come close to...the character and honesty that defined him,” Nader said in a eulogy that he e-mailed to The Crimson.

Mark J. Green, an HLS classmate who also worked for Nader, said that Moore embodied the passion necessary to mobilize the class action movement.

“Though his efforts in the 1970s were considered ‘far out,’ they have ripened into the core of the current corporate accountability movement,” Green said.

Moore’s focus on class action suits continued even after he left Nader’s office, when he became editor and publisher of “Class Action Reports,” a legal periodical, in 1974 and started his own law firm in 1979.

“Beverly was extraordinarily aware of the power class action suits held to carry out justice, and he was dedicated to make them serve that end,” said Arthur Bryant, executive director of the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Foundation.

Family and friends say they will remember Moore for his integrity.

Robert C. Fellmeth, another of Moore’s friends from his HLS days, said that Moore was both an honest person and an honest lawyer, who stood by the parties he represented—consumers, children, the future, the environment and minorities.

“He was part of the old school,” Fellmeth said. “Beverly was totally incorruptible. He cared not about money, but about justice.”

Moore passed the ultimate test of integrity time and time again, Fellmeth said, refusing large offers of money to settle his lawsuits and instead insisting on winning them.

His passion for his cause, coupled with his brilliance, made him a very effective lawyer, according to colleagues.

Green described Moore as uniquely intelligent, with a penchant for soaking up knowledge and also for creativity.

“I remember times when he would knock off hundreds of pages of texts that were densely progressive and visionary,” he said. “When you’re a guy with a name like Beverly, you’ve got to be good.”

Moore’s published works include The Closed Enterprise System, which he co-authored in 1972 with Green and law school friend Bruce J. Wasserstein. He also wrote articles in law publications such as the “Legal Times” and the “Yale Law Journal.”

In addition to his professional abilities, Moore, a southerner with a deep drawl, “was a real character with a good sense of humor,” Fellmeth said.

Moore grew up in Greensboro, N.C., and graduated from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in 1967.

Moore is survived by his wife, Deanna Isley Moore, daughter Caroline Hargrove Moore Rodier, daughter Alice Cooper Mitchell Moore, mother Irene Mitchell Moore, and sister Irene Warren Moore Miller.

A memorial service was held Friday at the Monaco Hotel in Washington, D.C.

—Staff writer Nicole B. Urken can be reached at urken@fas.harvard.edu.

________________________________________________


One Nader Raider, Beverly C. Moore, Jr., told the author [Justin Martin, Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon] "We always thought he was having sex with Joan Claybrook. But we never had any evidence whatsoever."

***

4 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev., No. 2 (Spring 1969)

FIELD INTERROGATION
Beverly C. Moore, Jr.

LOITERING AND RELATED OFFENSES
Beverly C. Moore, Jr.

VAGRANCY AND RELATED OFFENSES
Beverly C. Moore, Jr.

***

Mark J. Green, Beverly C. Moore, Jr., and Bruce Wasserstein, The Closed Enterprise System: Ralph Nader's Study
Group on Antitrust Enforcement (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1972), pp. 254-256.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17160
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:29 am

Richard G. Aird, et al., Beverly C. Moore, Jr., et al., appellants/cross-appellees, Landon G. Dowdey, Appellee, v. Ford Motor Company, Appellee/cross-appellant, 86 F.3d 216 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 86 F.3d 216 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

Argued April 12, 1996. Decided June 4, 1996. Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Denied July 9, 1996. *As Amended Aug. 12, 1996

[318 U.S.App.D.C. 143] Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 81cv01998).

Beverly C. Moore, Jr., Washington, DC, and John E. Price, Springfield, MO, argued the causes and filed the briefs for appellants/cross-appellees.

Carl R. Schenker, Jr., Washington, DC, argued the cause for appellee/cross-appellant Ford Motor Company with whom William T. Coleman, Jr., Richard C. Warmer and John Beisner were on the briefs.

Marya C. Young, Binghampton, NY, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellee Landon G. Dowdey.

[318 U.S.App.D.C. 144] Before: SILBERMAN, WILLIAMS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge:

The first time this case came to us, it held out the promise of hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for a nationwide class of millions of plaintiffs. Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915, 107 S. Ct. 3188, 96 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1987). The second time, not even one plaintiff remained to prosecute the appeal. Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 945 F.2d 1188 (D.C. Cir. 1991). The case now arrives in this court a third time, more than four years after we put an end to litigation of the merits, with only the lawyers left to argue over costs and sanctions. Unfortunately, after 15 years of litigation, we cannot end the case here, but must remand one final issue to the district court. While we affirm the district court's order assessing as costs the prevailing party's share of the special master's fees, we reverse the court's decision absolving one of the plaintiffs' counsel from joint and several liability for any costs, and we remand the case for the court to reconsider the special master's recommendation that sanctions be imposed on plaintiffs' counsel.

In its earliest incarnation, this case was a class action breach of warranty suit against Ford Motor Co. filed on behalf of owners of Ford vehicles. Plaintiffs, who brought the suit pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty--Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (Magnuson-Moss Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq., alleged a disconcerting tendency for the automatic transmissions to slip from "park" into "reverse". The district court ultimately denied class certification and dismissed the claims of the individual plaintiffs, determinations that became final when this court dismissed plaintiffs' appeal.

The district court also issued several orders in response to the parties' motions regarding costs and sanctions.1 Defendant Ford and two distinct groups of plaintiffs' counsel have appealed and cross-appealed the district court's resolution of those issues; a third member of the plaintiffs' legal team, while satisfied with the orders, appears here as both appellee and cross-appellee. To explain how this unusual alignment of parties came about, we set forth the events leading up to the plaintiffs' defeat on the merits.

Beverly C. Moore, Jr. acted as lead plaintiffs' counsel from the outset. Moore, who apparently had academic interest and practical experience in both class action litigation in general and the Magnuson-Moss Act in particular, put together a counsel team whose membership over the course of the litigation included both individual lawyers and large firms. One of the original members of the team was Landon G. Dowdey, a member of the District of Columbia bar and long-time trial lawyer. While other team members, including Moore, undertook labor-intensive aspects of the case such as motions relating to the Magnuson-Moss Act, discovery, and class certification, Dowdey's role was limited to advising Moore on other areas of strategy and local practice in which Dowdey was particularly knowledgeable. A few months after plaintiffs successfully moved for class certification, Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 106 F.R.D. 378 (D.D.C. 1985), attorneys associated with the firm of Woolsey, Fisher, Whiteaker & McDonald (collectively known to the parties as "Missouri counsel"), who had experience in litigating "park-to-reverse" cases against Ford, joined the plaintiffs' team and were assigned primary responsibility for handling discovery.

In September 1985, two months after Missouri counsel had entered the case, the district court appointed a special master to oversee discovery and a few other procedural matters. The order of reference provided that " [a]ll compensation and expenses in connection with this Order shall be paid 50% by plaintiffs and 50% by defendants." In the [318 U.S.App.D.C. 145] spring of 1986, the special master established a schedule for discovery.

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs suffered two major reversals. First, in August 1986, the firm with which Missouri counsel were associated suffered a "major schism" and lost one-third of its attorneys. The resulting turmoil, coming just when the pace of discovery was accelerating under the master's schedule, compromised Missouri counsel's ability to handle discovery as contemplated in their agreement with Moore. Moore attempted to enlist other firms as co-counsel to take up the slack, but his search was hampered by a second setback. In December 1986, this court vacated the class certification, Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915, 107 S. Ct. 3188, 96 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1987), making the case much less attractive to potential plaintiffs' counsel.

In the meantime, the plaintiffs' responses to Ford's interrogatories came due, and the plaintiffs failed to respond at all to many of the interrogatories. Ford moved to compel responses. The special master, while expressing sympathy for counsel's difficulties, concluded that it was too late for them to obtain an extension of time to respond. Accordingly, on December 11, 1986, the special master granted Ford's motion to compel and ordered the plaintiffs to respond to specified interrogatories by January 9, 1987.

After the plaintiffs responded to the interrogatories, Ford again moved to compel discovery, maintaining that the responses were inadequate. Ford also requested that the special master impose discovery sanctions. The plaintiffs responded that the detailed and technical interrogatories were "extraordinarily prolix," a contention with which the special master again showed some sympathy. The special master also found, however, that the "plaintiffs' responses to these interrogatories manifest an almost studied refusal to be specific. Many of plaintiffs' answers improperly substitute general pleading-type allegations for the detailed, fact-specific explicitness which the discovery process requires." The special master therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had not complied with the December 11 order compelling discovery, and issued an order on May 5, 1987, compelling further interrogatory responses. The special master deferred consideration of Ford's request for sanctions, however, until after the plaintiffs had an opportunity to supply satisfactory responses to the interrogatories. On Ford's motion for reconsideration, the special master again decided, on May 28, 1987, that the plaintiffs had violated the December 11 order and directed the plaintiffs to supplement their responses by June 4, 1987.

On July 9, 1987, the special master took up the sanctions question that he had deferred in May. Ford sought only its expenses relating to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the December 11 order and did not request sanctions for any alleged deficiencies in the plaintiffs' supplemental responses to the May orders. The special master, amplifying upon his earlier findings, concluded that the plaintiffs had violated the December 11 order and that the violation was unjustified. Noting that the entire plaintiffs' counsel team--Moore, Dowdey, and Missouri counsel--bore responsibility for the inadequate discovery responses, the special master concluded that there was no principled way to single out any one of them for punishment and held each of them jointly and severally liable for sanctions. Turning to the measure of sanctions, the special master decided that the expenses caused by the plaintiffs' noncompliance with the December 11 order were fairly measured by Ford's costs in obtaining the two May orders requiring the plaintiffs to supplement their deficient responses. He ordered the parties to confer and determine a reasonable award, but it appears that an amount was never fixed. Following a series of events not fully reflected in the record, the plaintiffs appealed the July 9 sanction order to the district court.

Throughout this period, relations among the plaintiffs' counsel deteriorated. Moore and Dowdey began to disagree over strategy, and the disagreements became heated and personal. In February 1987, after the plaintiffs had filed the deficient interrogatory responses pursuant to the December 11 order compelling discovery, Dowdey moved to have his name removed from some of the documents because he did not "want his name associated with procedures in this case of which he did not, and does not, approve." On October 30, 1987, Dowdey moved to withdraw as class counsel, and the district court [318 U.S.App.D.C. 146] granted his motion in December 1987. In the spring of the following year, Dowdey also moved for reconsideration of the July 9 sanction order, requesting that the special master relieve him of liability because he was not responsible for the deficient discovery responses. The special master held that motion in abeyance and never ruled on it.

The case lumbered on until 1990, when Ford (having defeated the class recertification motion) prevailed in the district court on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of the individual plaintiffs. Ford then filed a bill of costs, of which more than 70% ($24,947.77) represented the fees that it had paid to the special master pursuant to the order of reference. On May 10, 1994, the district court addressed both the bill of costs and plaintiffs' appeal of the special master's July 9 sanctions order. The court described the discovery sanctions issue as "moot" in light of the termination of the litigation and declined to pursue the issue further. It also concluded that the master's fees were properly taxed as costs, for which the plaintiffs' counsel personally were liable by the terms of their retainer agreements. However, because of the "limited involvement" of Missouri counsel, the court declined to tax costs against them.

Ford, Dowdey, and Moore each moved for reconsideration. By order of May 10, 1995, the district court adhered to its decision not to pursue the issue of discovery sanctions. The court believed that the special master had not finally concluded that the plaintiffs had violated the December 11 order because he had given them a final opportunity to supplement their responses after the May orders. The court also reaffirmed the amount of taxable costs, including the special master's fees. As to Missouri counsel, however, the court reversed its earlier ruling and ruled that their role in preparing a statistical database to be used in class certification warranted holding them jointly and severally liable for costs. Conversely, the court relieved Dowdey of responsibility, noting that he had withdrawn as counsel in 1987 and that his involvement in discovery was minimal.

These appeals and cross-appeals challenge the May 10, 1995 order on reconsideration. First, Moore and Missouri counsel, as appellants, contend that the special master's fees should not have been taxed as costs. Second, they contend that in any event Dowdey should have been held jointly and severally liable for whatever costs were properly taxed. Third, Missouri counsel alone maintain that they should have been relieved of liability for costs, as the district court originally ordered. Finally, Ford, as cross-appellant, contends that the district court erred in not assessing monetary discovery sanctions on the plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to the special master's July 9 order.

When Ford filed its bill of costs in 1990 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the rule provided that "costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs."2 28 U.S.C.App. (1988). Appellants contend that master's fees do not qualify as "costs" within the meaning of Rule 54(d). Unanimous authority, however, including two decisions from this court, is against them. Walutes v. Morrissette, 11 Fed.R.Serv.2d (Callaghan) 1201, 1202 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam); Dyker Bldg. Co. v. United States, 182 F.2d 85, 89 (D.C. Cir. 1950); National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 828 F.2d 536, 546 (9th Cir. 1987); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 601 F.2d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 1979); Southern Agency Co. v. LaSalle Cas. Co., 393 F.2d 907, 915 (8th Cir. 1968); Trout v. Ball, 705 F. Supp. 705, 707-08 (D.D.C. 1989); see also 9A Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2608 (1995). Appellants contend that these authorities cannot be considered good law after the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 107 S. Ct. 2494, 96 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1987), which they maintain holds that the only "costs" that can be awarded under Rule 54(d) are those explicitly listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920.3 Because master's [318 U.S.App.D.C. 147] fees are not among the costs enumerated ins 1920, appellants contend that Crawford Fitting prohibits district courts from ever taxing them as costs.

We need not address appellants' Rule 54(d) contentions because the district court properly approved Ford's request for reimbursement of special master's fees under Rule 53(a). Crawford Fitting makes clear not only that costs not enumerated in § 1920 may be taxed if there is a contractual or an express statutory source of authority to do so, id. at 439, 107 S. Ct. at 2496; accord West Va. Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 86-87, 111 S. Ct. 1138, 1140-41, 113 L. Ed. 2d 68 (1991), but also leaves Rule 53(a) unscathed. Rule 53 vests the district court with authority to allocate master's fees in favor of the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2071(a) (1994). Under Rule 53(a), " [t]he compensation to be allowed to a master shall be fixed by the court, and shall be charged upon such of the parties ... as the court may direct." As this permissive language suggests, the district court enjoys broad discretion to allocate the master's fees as it thinks best under the circumstances of the case. Apponi v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 809 F.2d 1210, 1220 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 820, 108 S. Ct. 77, 98 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1987); Morgan v. Kerrigan, 530 F.2d 401, 427 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 935, 96 S. Ct. 2648, 49 L. Ed. 2d 386 (1976); see also Dyker Bldg. Co., 182 F.2d at 89.

While in some cases the costs might best be divided among the parties,4 or charged at least to some extent against the party that created the need for reference to the master,5 the district court has the authority in appropriate cases to tax the master's fees as costs against the losing party.6 We therefore agree with the only other court to consider the matter in light of Crawford Fitting, under Rule 53(a) the court "may direct" that liability for master's fees await the outcome of the case. Fulton Fed., 143 F.R.D. at 294-96. Thus, once the district court exercised its discretion under Rule 53(a), Ford's share of the special master's costs was properly treated as taxable costs.

Appellants separately challenge the district court's assessment of master's fees against them on the ground that the assessment conflicted with the order of reference, which specified that the fees would be "paid 50% by plaintiffs and 50% by defendant," and did not expressly provide that the prevailing party could subsequently recover its share as costs. The order of reference, however, does not purport to allocate responsibility for special master's fees for all time, even after the prevailing party has been identified at the end of the case. See Order of Reference Memorandum, Civ. A. No. 81-1998-JLG (May 10, 1994), at 5 (citing Trout v. Ball, 705 F. Supp. 705, 707 (D.D.C. 1989)). The better practice might well be for the district court to advise the parties in advance that it plans to tax master's fees as costs, either specifically in the order of reference, see, e.g., Fulton Fed., 143 F.R.D. at 296, or generally by local rule, see, e.g., Calloway v. Marvel Entertainment Grp., 111 F.R.D. 637, 652 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), vacated in part on other grounds, 854 F.2d 1452 (2d Cir. 1988), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Grp., 493 U.S. 120, 110 [318 U.S.App.D.C. 148] S. Ct. 456, 107 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1989).7 Nevertheless, the district court did not abuse its discretion here by failing to give such advance notice, as evidenced by the apparently widespread practice of treating such fees as taxable costs.

Moore's further contention that he would not have consented to the reference of the case to a special master had he known that he and his co-counsel would be held liable for Ford's share if they lost the case misses the mark. Moore reads the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d) (2), to guarantee prevailing consumers--but not manufacturers like Ford--recovery of costs, including master's fees. How this feature of the Act could affect Moore's willingness to have the case referred is left unexplained. Whatever the precise contours of the argument, however, it mistakes the nature of the court's power to refer discovery matters to a master: reference does not require the parties' consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e) (4). Particularly when the parties are embroiled in repeated, fact-intensive discovery disputes, a district court may find it most efficient to impose on the parties, at their own expense and without their consent, a discovery master. The court's ability to manage its docket and enforce the discovery rules in such a case may depend greatly on its power to allocate the costs of reference as it deems appropriate. Cf. Ex parte Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 314-15, 40 S. Ct. 543, 547-48, 64 L. Ed. 919 (1920). While the rules do not endorse the routine reference of matters to masters, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b), it is nonetheless clear that masters can enhance a district court's ability pursuant to Rule 1 to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of suits before it, provided that the court has the discretion to tailor the terms of reference to the circumstances of each case.

For these reasons we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by taxing the master's fees against the plaintiffs' counsel.

The question remains who among the plaintiffs' counsel should have borne the costs. Initially, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in holding Missouri counsel liable for costs. Moore's retainer agreements with the individual class members provided that counsel would pay the costs of litigation, and Missouri counsel, aware of those agreements, joined the case as co-counsel. Moreover, Moore and Missouri counsel entered into an agreement regarding fees and costs, which provided that Missouri counsel would reimburse Moore for one-half of the costs and expenses of the case.

Missouri counsel nonetheless contend that their role in the case was so limited that it was an abuse of discretion to hold them jointly and severally liable for costs. If there were ever a case in which such an argument could be sustained, this is not it. Missouri counsel have been counsel of record in this matter since 1985. They assumed responsibility for managing discovery, one of the most crucial and labor-intensive aspects of this mammoth case. The district court could properly find significant Missouri counsel's efforts in compiling a database of park-to-reverse incidents involving Ford vehicles. Their inability to discharge their discovery responsibilities may have contributed to the plaintiffs' ultimate defeat, and regardless of whether the crippling "schism" at their law firm was their fault, it was not the fault of anyone else involved in this litigation.

Missouri counsel fault the district court's reliance on the database on the grounds that most of the work was done by paralegals and secretaries at their law firm. Again, it is difficult to understand what this proves, for if Missouri counsel are not responsible for the work done by their own employees, they have not explained who else in the case is. Finally, Missouri counsel compare their position to Dowdey's, contending that if Dowdey is not required to pay costs given his limited involvement in the case, neither should they. Because we conclude that Dowdey should not have been let off the hook either, this argument evaporates.

Unlike Missouri counsel, Dowdey had the foresight to withdraw as early as 1987. He maintains that because he was not counsel in the case when Ford became the prevailing party, and in fact left because he foresaw that Moore's tactics would lead to [318 U.S.App.D.C. 149] defeat, he cannot be saddled with costs that are contingent on Ford's victory. The district court agreed with this analysis, and also credited Dowdey's account of his minimal role in the litigation. Accepting the facts found by the district court, we nonetheless conclude that the court erred in not imposing joint and several liability on Dowdey.

Dowdey, unlike Missouri counsel, was counsel of record from the outset. He was on the brief in the first appeal to this court, when class certification was vacated. By the time he withdrew, the plaintiffs' case was in disarray on the eve of the crucial class recertification motion, with discovery sanctions outstanding and a counsel team that the special master suggested was incapable of handling a case of this magnitude and complexity. In fairness to his colleagues, it cannot be said the case was lost entirely after Dowdey left; this defeat was a team effort that was well underway by the time Dowdey withdrew.

Nor does Dowdey's limited role in discovery matters alter the situation. First, during the crucial months at the end of 1986 and the beginning of 1987, it appears that none of the plaintiffs' counsel were actually accomplishing much by way of responding to discovery. Thus, it is difficult to understand how Dowdey's inactivity distinguishes him from his erstwhile co-counsel. The special master acknowledged as much in holding all counsel liable for discovery sanctions. Second, and more important, the costs assessed by the district court reflected the litigation as a whole, not just discovery. By the time Moore tried to enlist Dowdey's assistance with discovery in 1987, the case had been active for the better part of a decade, including a trip to the circuit court and back. Throughout this period, Dowdey was part of the counsel team and presumably carried out the responsibilities that were apportioned to him, however limited those responsibilities might have been. Finally, if it is true that Dowdey did virtually nothing during the six years in which he was counsel of record, that is hardly to his credit. We cannot put it any better than did the special master:

Those attorneys who did not participate in preparation of these responses and papers have not shown that they had a reasonable basis to believe that plaintiffs' discovery obligations were or could be adequately discharged by those to whom the baton was apparently passed. These attorneys knew, or were required to know, that plaintiffs were not providing discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for even if they were no longer responsible for the discovery phase of this case, they must still supervise and remain aware of all aspects of the instant case. There is no evidence that these attorneys discharged that obligation. The record supports, if it does not compel, the conclusion that these attorneys permitted, or acquiesced in and thereby "condoned," serious discovery abuse extending over many months.

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Rather than simply insisting that his name be removed from offending pleadings, Dowdey had an obligation to the court and to his clients to see that the case was properly litigated. Cf. D.C.Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-107(A) (3)8 (1991 edition); id. DR 6-101(A).9 While it appears that Dowdey attempted in vain to persuade Moore and other members of the counsel team to take a more responsible course of action, the fact remains that he had cast his lot with them and must accept his share of the consequences of defeat.10

That said, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court in ruling that Dowdey was not responsible for the costs that were incurred by Ford after Dowdey withdrew [318 U.S.App.D.C. 150] from the case. Dowdey is jointly and severally responsible only for the costs incurred while he was counsel of record, as a member of the plaintiffs' counsel team. Unlike Missouri counsel, who agreed to contribute to those costs incurred before they joined the case, Dowdey entered into no agreement to pay for costs wholly unrelated to his duties and responsibilities as counsel.

Finally, on the question of discovery sanctions, the district court rebuffed Ford's request to assess monetary sanctions against the plaintiffs' counsel because, as the court read the special master's reports, the special master had not "finally" determined that the plaintiffs had violated a discovery order. It is true that even after the May orders, the special master gave the plaintiffs another chance to supplement their deficient discovery responses and never decided whether the supplemental responses were independently sanctionable. However, it is equally clear that the special master found that the plaintiffs violated the December 11 discovery order and that Ford was entitled to recover the expenses it incurred as a result of that violation.

To review the chronology briefly, the plaintiffs initially failed to respond at all to many of Ford's interrogatories. On Ford's motion, the special master entered the December 11 order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), ordering the plaintiffs to respond. The responses were inadequate. By again failing to file adequate responses in a timely fashion, the plaintiffs violated the December 11 order. That forced Ford to go back to the special master on May 5 and May 28 and obtain two more orders compelling supplemental responses. As the special master recognized, even if the supplemental responses produced in response to the May orders ultimately did satisfy the plaintiffs' discovery duties, Ford still deserved to be compensated for its costs in forcing the plaintiffs to make those supplemental responses. Consequently, the fact that the master gave the plaintiffs another chance to furnish adequate responses before imposing the litigation sanctions available under Rule 37(b) (2) (A-D) does not affect the plaintiffs' liability for monetary sanctions for the original violation of the December 11 order.

The July 9 order shows that this is how the special master understood the situation. " [D]isposition turns on whether plaintiffs have shown that failure to comply with the first [December 11] Rule 37 order was substantially justified.... Further discovery responses filed after entry of the second [May 5] Rule 37 order are relevant only insofar as those responses bear on claims advanced to justify noncompliance with the initial order." After rejecting the plaintiffs' purported justifications, the special master concluded:

Defendant has limited its application to the expenses reasonably attributable to the relief it obtained by orders entered on May 5 and 28, 1987. That is a conservative and fully fair measure of the "reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure" to comply with the December 11 order. The parties will be directed to confer concerning the amount of a reasonable award and, if agreement cannot be reached, to propose a schedule for evidentiary submissions addressed to remaining issues.

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) (2)) (other citations omitted). In an accompanying order, the special master concluded that Missouri counsel, Moore, and Dowdey were each jointly and severally liable to defendant for its reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and compensation and expenses paid under the order of reference, caused by plaintiffs' failure to comply with the order of December 11, 1986 and reasonably attributable to the relief defendant obtained by orders entered May 5 and May 28, 1987.

Given these findings, the district court erroneously declined to pursue the sanctions issue.

Ford contends that the only task for the district court on remand is to calculate the amount of the sanction. The special master's May 5 order, which the plaintiffs did not appeal, found that the plaintiffs had violated [318 U.S.App.D.C. 151] the December 11 order. Ford maintains that the plaintiffs therefore waived their challenge to the special master's finding that they were liable for a violation. We disagree. While the May 5 order did find a violation, it expressly reserved decision on whether to impose sanctions. Once the master decided to impose sanctions on July 9--although he never fixed an amount--the plaintiffs did seek district court review. We decline to hold that the plaintiffs waived an issue by failing to take what amounts to an interlocutory appeal. Thus, on remand, the plaintiffs' counsel may assert their claim that they never violated the December 11 order.

Loathe as we are to revisit upon the district court a case that it once described as a "trial court's nightmare of a litigation monster," Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 130 F.R.D. 260, 277 (D.D.C. 1990), one piece of it remains to be addressed: Ford's request for discovery sanctions for the plaintiffs' violation of the special master's December 11, 1986, discovery order. On remand the district court does not necessarily have to review in detail each of the interrogatories and responses, but may evaluate Ford's counsel's challenge in light of the special master's findings as well as any submissions that the court may order by either parties' counsel indexing or otherwise identifying material interrogatories and responses. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e) (" [T]he court shall accept the master's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous."). Any sanction thereafter imposed, of course, cannot duplicate recovery of a portion of the special master's fees that Ford has already recovered as taxable costs.

Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the district court's order declining to reach the sanctions issue and remand for a reevaluation; we otherwise affirm the order taxing as costs Ford's share of the special master's fees except insofar as the order excused counsel Landon Dowdey from joint and several liability with his co-counsel for costs incurred while he was counsel of record.

*
Circuit Judge Henderson did not participate in the order for rehearing in banc

1
Order Concerning Costs, Civ. A. No. 81-1998-JLG (Apr. 25, 1995); Memorandum, id. (Mar. 10, 1995); id. (May 10, 1994)

2
We do not consider Rule 54(d) as amended in 1993. Rule 54(d) (1) & (2) (1993)

3
Section 1920 provides:

A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;

(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case;

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;

(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case;

(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;

(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree.

28 U.S.C. § 1920 (1994).

4
See, e.g., United States v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d 772, 775 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Cline, 388 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1968)

5
See, e.g., Johnson Fare Box Co. v. National Rejectors, Inc., 269 F.2d 348, 351 (8th Cir. 1959); National Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 562 (N.D. Cal. 1987)

6
See, e.g., K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., 506 F.2d 471, 476-77 (9th Cir. 1974); Fulton Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. American Ins. Co., 143 F.R.D. 292, 295-96 (N.D. Ga. 1991)

7
Unlike the local rule cited in Calloway, District of Columbia District Court local rules do not specify whether master's fees are to be taxed. Cf. D.D.C. R. 210, 214

8
DR 2-107(A) (2) provides: "A lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services with another lawyer who is not a partner in or associate of his law firm or law office, unless ... [t]he division is made in proportion to the services performed and responsibility assumed by each."

9
DR 6-101(A) provides: "A lawyer shall not ... [h]andle a legal matter which he knows or should know that he is not competent to handle, without associating with him a lawyer who is competent to handle it [nor] [n]eglect a legal matter entrusted to him."

10
Dowdey, Moore, and Missouri counsel entered into a settlement agreement of a collateral interpleader action in February 1990. Dowdey contends that in this settlement the other members of the team agreed to indemnify him for costs that might be assessed against him in the instant litigation. We express no opinion on the legal effect of the settlement, nor should our opinion be read to prevent Dowdey from attempting to enforce his understanding of it
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17160
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:30 am

41 F.2d 1217
291 U.S.App.D.C. 300

DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Petitioners, v. The WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION, Respondent, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor.

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Nos. 21865, 24398, 24415 and 24428.

United States Court of Appeals,

District of Columbia Circuit.
Aug. 9, 1991.

[291 U.S.App.D.C. 301] On Motion for Attorney's Lien.

Before BUCKLEY and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges, and MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

1
PER CURIAM.

2
Beverly C. Moore, Jr., who was hired by Landon G. Dowdey, lead counsel for Democratic Central Committee ("DCC"), as an attorney to perform several tasks in the above entitled consolidated cases, moves the court to grant him "an attorney's lien, on funds in the possession of the court against DCC counsel Landon G. Dowdey ..." in the amount of $20,708, plus interest.

A. Background Facts

3
Mr. Moore asserts several separate bases for his claim to a lien and the amount thereof. Moore rendered legal services in preparing a "fee application" for Dowdey in the DCC consolidated cases. Moore and Dowdey entered into a written contract whereby Dowdey agreed to pay Moore $15,707.86 for legal services performed by Moore in the DCC case within 10 days of "Dowdey's receipt of any fee award proceeds" in that case. A subsequent Settlement Agreement between Dowdey and Moore in a separate interpleader action, not related to the DCC case, modified the prior attorney's fee contract between Dowdey and Moore, in consideration for monetary concessions made by Moore to Dowdey in cases unrelated to DCC. All the foregoing resulted in a total "amount to be paid to Moore by Dowdey [of] $20,708.00" from attorney's fees Dowdey would receive for his services in the DCC cases.

4
Upon the foregoing factual allegations Moore contends, in view of Dowdey's contractual obligation to pay him $20,708, that any payments for attorney's fees to which Dowdey becomes entitled in the DCC cases should "be subject to Moore's attorney lien and should by Order of this Court be paid [291 U.S.App.D.C. 302] [by the Trust Company] directly to Moore and not to Dowdey." Motion 5.

B. Jurisdiction

5
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact (the "Compact") defines this court's jurisdiction as follows:

6
Jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the ... United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ... to review orders of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission as provided by section 17, article XII, title II, of the Washington metropolitan area transit regulation compact....

7
D.C.Code § 1-1415 (1967), Pub.L. No. 86-794, § 6, 74 Stat. 1031, 1051 (1960) (emphasis added). The Compact vests in this court jurisdiction to enforce an appropriate attorney's lien in the present case based upon our continuing jurisdiction over the DCC case as reserved in the court's order of February 26, 19901 approving the Compromise Agreement, the court's inherent equitable powers to enforce its own order granting attorney's fees, and the common fund or benefit exception to the American Rule which allows a court to award fees and expenses to the prevailing party from a fund recovered through his efforts that benefit the class. See, e.g., Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 36 L.Ed.2d 702 (1973).

C. The Attorney's Lien

8
The existence and effect of an attorney's lien is governed by the law of the place in which the contract between the attorney and the client is to be performed. 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law § 351, at 354 (1980). Chief Judge Aubrey Robinson in Martens v. Hadley Memorial Hospital, 753 F.Supp. 371, 372 (D.D.C.1990), pointed out that "While there is no D.C. statute setting out an attorney's lien, D.C. case law has long recognized the validity of an attorneys' charging lien in proceeds obtained through judgment and recovery where the client and the attorney understood that the attorney would be paid out of the case's proceeds." (Emphasis added).

9
Moore's contractual claim does not satisfy the District of Columbia or common-law requirements for an attorney's lien. In fact, an attorney's lien is not an appropriate remedy for Moore to seek for his alleged claim. Attorney's liens are asserted by counsel against the client. Moore is not seeking a lien on his client's funds; rather, he wishes the court to assert a lien against Dowdey, who associated him to do some legal work in the case.

10
Furthermore, Moore, as an associate counsel, has no agreement with the client, DCC, providing that his fee would be paid from the judgment. An associate counsel can only obtain an attorney's lien if the client authorizes or ratifies his employment by the principal attorney and the client agreed to have his associate's fee paid from the judgment. Hahn v. Oregon Physicians' Service, 786 F.2d 1353, 1355 (9th Cir.1985) (An attorney associated with lead counsel has no right to a lien against the ultimate recovery in the absence of an independent contract between him and the clients.). There is no such agreement here between Moore and DCC. See also Snyder v. Smith, 132 Neb. 504, 272 N.W. 401, 402 (1937); Smith v. Wright, 153 Mo.App. 719, 134 S.W. 683 (1911); Harwood v. La Grange, 137 N.Y. 538, 32 N.E. 1000 (1893); Miller v. Miller, 83 S.D. 227, 157 N.W.2d 537, 541-42 (1968) (A valid contract for attorney's fees, express or implied, between attorney and client is necessary for the existence of an attorney's lien.); People ex rel. Stephens v. Holten, 304 Ill. 394, 136 N.E. 738, 740 (1922) (An attorney's lien for fees must be based upon some contract with the client in order to subject the results of an action to a lien.); Goodwin Film & Camera Co. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 222 F. 249, 250 (1915) ("Where an [291 U.S.App.D.C. 303] attorney employs associate counsel on his own account, such associate counsel has no lien on the results of the action."). In sum, in order to assert a valid attorney's charging lien, there must be an agreement between client and counsel, either express or implied, that the attorney's fee would be paid from any recovery in the case.2 7A C.J.S. Attorney & Client § 361, at 721; 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law § 324, at 337. This principle applies equally to lead counsel and associate counsel.

11
Further, the contract upon which Moore bases his lien claim provides that his attorney's fees were to be paid to Moore "out of any attorney fee award ... that Dowdey ultimately receives for his work in [the bus fare overcharge case]." July 14, 1989 Contract, 1. Thus, under their contract, upon which Moore relies, he has no claim to his fee against the Security Trust Company or any of the moneys in the custody of the court in the DCC case.

12
In fact, it would be inappropriate for this court to attempt to resolve the controversy between these attorneys in light of the manner in which the Compromise Agreement deals with the attorney's fees incurred and to be awarded in this case. The Compromise Agreement, approved by the parties, provides that "Landon G. Dowdey ... agrees to indemnify and hold D.C. Transit and the restitutionary fund harmless from liability for any and all claims for attorneys' fees and expenses of any person arising out of the cases covered by this Compromise Agreement." Compromise Agreement at p 5.2(a). This provision intended that associate counsels' fees would be paid from the attorney's fees awarded to Landon G. Dowdey and Gilbert Hahn, attorneys-in-fact for petitioners. It provides that the court will not be involved in attorney's fee controversies between Dowdey and Hahn and their respective associate counsel. As a result, the court should not now be in the business of resolving individual attorney's fee claims against either Dowdey or Hahn. To illustrate, Moore's individual fee application of April 28, 1989 became moot as a direct result of the Court's order of August 6, 1989, which approved the portion of the settlement agreement regarding attorneys' fees. Thus, it would be inappropriate to now attempt to resolve Moore's individual attorney's fee claim through his application for an attorney's lien.

CONCLUSION

13
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, upon consideration of Moore's Motion for Attorney's Lien, Dowdey's Opposition to the Motion and Moore's Reply to Dowdey's Opposition, the Motion is denied.

14
Order accordingly.

1
The Court's Order Approving Settlement and Establishing Riders' Fund provides:

ORDERED, that the Court retains jurisdiction of all matters in all subject cases until further order of the Court, and specifically retains jurisdiction to resolve any and all disputes arising under or relating to this settlement and with respect to all subject litigations.

February 26, 1990, Order 4.

2
Continental Casualty Co. v. Kelly, 106 F.2d 841, 844 (D.C.Cir.1939), cited by Moore is distinguishable from this case in that the attorney claiming the lien had a contingent fee contract with the client
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17160
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:42 am

James S. Turner, Esq.
By Raquel
October 7, 2007
http://consciouswoman.org/category/semi ... urner-esq/

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


James S. Turner, Esq. is the chair of Citizens for Health, a national nonprofit consumer advocacy group working to broaden health care options, create an integrative health system based on wellness, and advance the freedom to make health choices. One of the original Nader’s Raiders and long-time advocate of informed choice for safe food, drugs and other consumer products, he has authored two best-selling books, The Chemical Feast: The Nader Report on Food Protection at the Food and Drug Administration and Making Your Own Baby Food. As a partner in the Washington D.C. law firm of Swankin & Turner (organized in 1973), Jim represents businesses as well as individuals and consumer groups in a wide variety of regulatory matters concerning food, drug, health, environmental and product-safety matters. He has appeared before and/or advised the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission and Federal Trade Commission, as well as the Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health. He has served as Special Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Food, Nutrition, and Health, and to the Senate Government Operations Subcommittee on Government Research. Jim helped organize the successful campaign to lobby Congress for passage of the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 and lead the legal team that in 1996 persuaded the FDA to reclassify acupuncture needles as safe and effective for legal U.S. importation and distribution. He is a graduate of the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University (1969), holds a B.A. in history and political science from Ohio State University College of Arts and Sciences (1962) and served as a gunnery and nuclear weapons handling officer on ships in the U.S. Navy from 1962 to 1966.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17160
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:02 am

DEMOCRAT

An interview with Citizens for Health Board Chair James S. Turner
by Linda Bonvie
Food Identity Theft editor
February 18, 2014

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Jim Turner

In an age when it’s not unusual for consumer petitions and outrage to cause big food manufacturers to remove ingredients, when the “informed” consumer is becoming more the norm than not, and easy access to dietary supplements is a “given,” it may be difficult for those too young to recall the original campaigns calling for safer and healthier products to realize how dramatically things have evolved over the last four decades.

To get a better perspective on what’s been accomplished and what has yet to be, as well as the role that Citizens for Health (CFH) has played in enabling consumers to make informed choices, I spoke with CFH board chair and food consumer activist James S. Turner, a partner in the Washington D.C. law firm of Swankin & Turner.

Turner, author of the landmark 1970 book, The Chemical Feast: the Nader report on food protection at the FDA and co-author of a follow-up book, Making Your Own Baby Food and more recently, Voice of the People: the Transpartisan Imperative in American Life, was one of the original “Nader’s Raiders,” a group of graduate, medical, and law, students who, working with consumer advocate Ralph Nader, investigated and ultimately changed many policies and gave new life to investigative journalism in the 1960s and ’70s.

Turner recounted his first meeting with Nader after a nine-month attempt to get an audience with him, sparked by a law-school assignment in 1966 to study Nader and his role in bringing about auto-safety reforms. Although Nader at the time was known only as a critic of the auto industry (having authored the book Unsafe at Any Speed), Turner realized as the class progressed that he was much more — that he was someone who “was actually arguing for corporate responsibility.” Starting with their meeting in March of 1968, he used his growing knowledge of food issues (inspired by the birth of his son Chris in 1966) as the basis for a whole new collaboration with Nader, one that culminated is Turner’s authoring The Chemical Feast.

FIT: You call yourself a food consumer activist. How did you get into that line of work and do you find it satisfying?

TURNER: Absolutely satisfying. I started out in 1968 investigating food additives, and I’ve been doing it ever since.
In 1969, my 25-student Nader team (mostly from law and medical schools) went to the Food and Drug Administration to focus on food additives, including the artificial sweetener cyclamate, which after a review the FDA took off the list of chemicals that are Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for addition to food. As a result of the cyclamate manufacturers having been unable to prove the product’s safety to the satisfaction of the FDA, it has remained off the market ever since.

In 1975 I helped get a warning placed on saccharine, another synthetic sweetener, and from 1974 to 1981 I worked with the scientists who persuaded an FDA Public Board of Inquiry that aspartame (NutraSweet) needed more research before it could be marketed. However, Reagan’s newly appointed FDA commissioner reversed the board in July of 1981. Donald Rumsfeld, president of the Company seeking Aspartame/NutraSweet approval served on Reagan’s presidential transition team, had found the new commissioner among doctors who worked at the Defense Department in the mid-1970s when he was secretary, and decided not to redo research his company had done on the sweetener, which the FDA had found flawed.

In 1976 I worked with Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire to help protect consumer access to dietary supplements with the passage of the 1976 Proxmire Act, and again in 1994 as part of CFH, campaigned for the successful passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). The part I’ve played in all of these issues and many more is one I’ve found very gratifying

FIT: What was the issue with cyclamate?

TURNER: When I first advised Nader “let’s do food,” I pointed out that food would exemplify the same things he was talking about in cars. And sure enough, we found that just like the car market, where the mantra was “safety doesn’t sell,” the food industry said nutrition didn’t sell. With cars, they sold design and prestige, while in the food industry the focus was on convenience, and, of course, sweetness. An excellent example has been the reliance on artificial sweeteners. When the 1938 Food and Drug Act was passed, there were a number of things that needed to be addressed further. To this end, Congress appointed a Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics (1950-52) which came up with several major amendments: Three of these were the Pesticide Act of 1954, the Food Additive Act of 1958, and the Color Additive Act of 1960.

These acts each created a regulatory mechanism for the additive they were addressing. The Food Additive Act, for example, said no food additive could be put into the food supply until it had been proven to be safe by the food industry. So industry had to turn in data to the FDA that would show “this is safe.” There were several exceptions, one being the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list. In the 1958 Food Additives Act there was this GRAS list exception, and the idea was that if no scientists raised questions about an additive, then it was GRAS. They put out a list of about 100 or so chemicals to the scientific community asking, “Do you think these qualify as GRAS?” Virtually all the scientists who responded on cyclamate said no, but the FDA allowed it on the GRAS list anyway.

When we sent our students out we added the GRAS list as a subject that should be looked at. We talked to everybody we could find at the agency, and one of the things we uncovered was the cyclamate story. And the evidence was building up that not only shouldn’t it be on the GRAS list, but it was inherently dangerous and likely shouldn’t be used in the food supply at all. That’s how we got involved with it.

Due to our investigation into cyclamate, one night two network news programs led with that story and it developed into a big firestorm. Within a week the FDA announced plans to remove cyclamate from the GRAS list, and that launched all this public awareness of what we were doing. That’s the opening story in The Chemical Feast.

FIT: Have you been involved in similar efforts with other questionable sweeteners?

TURNER: Yes, both saccharine and aspartame. When I got involved with saccharine, I did not think banning it was a good idea based on the law and science, but I thought a warning was. Ultimately, Congress adopted a warning and that warning was on the saccharine packages until 2000, when it was ‘pardoned’ by President Clinton at the end of his term with a law he signed erasing the warning.

FIT: How did you get involved with aspartame?

TURNER: I became involved with a group of scientists led by Dr. John Olney, from Washington University in St. Louis who were investigating the addition of MSG to baby food.

Dr. Olney was doing studies on various kinds of food additives to determine whether they might be among the causes of mental retardation. He had an assay that he used to show when the brain is being damaged by a chemical. MSG was one such substance, as was aspartic acid, one of two amino acids in aspartame, which caused the same kind of brain damage in animals that MSG did.

In 1970 we started looking into NutraSweet (the brand name under which aspartame was first marketed). When the FDA approved it in 1974, we objected and the agency granted us a hearing before a Public Board of Inquiry which stopped the marketing of NutraSweet until the end of the hearing.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected president, and he placed Donald Rumsfeld, the president of Searle, the drug company that originally made NutraSweet, on his transition team. Rumsfeld facilitated the appointment of the new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, who quickly overturned the ruling not to allow NutraSweet to be marketed. So that which had been won by a scientific process was lost to a political process.

FIT: What is the focus of Citizens for Health?

TURNER: Basically it is choice, information, redress and safety that comprise our fundamental approach, because those are the consumer rights that President Kennedy envisioned in 1962 in a message to Congress. Those four things are what Kennedy said were the inherent rights of consumers in the marketplace.

CFH began by working hard for passage of The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in 1994, which passed Congress overwhelmingly. CFH coordinated a campaign that generated well over one million letters, which still remains the largest number of letters written to Congress on any single issue. The idea was to stop the FDA from blocking access to information about vitamins, minerals, amino acids and certain other dietary supplements.

CFH believes that provided with proper information, consumers can make sound choices and intelligently comment on and participate in marketplace decisions. Once that that process is run fairly, CFH believes, safer, healthier, and more nutritious and effective products will ultimately emerge.

FIT: Who are CFH’s allies?

TURNER: We’re work with a wide variety of groups and individuals, and in our campaigns we ally ourselves with business interests that share our goals. In the campaign for DSHEA in 1994 we worked very closely with the retail natural food industry. In fact the president and founder of CFH was a health-food store owner who was also the president of the trade association for that industry. He felt that the trade association wasn’t doing enough in the public interest, so if he could create a consumer group that worked with the same issues, consumer interests would better be served.

That was the philosophy CFH was created with and why and how we got involved promoting DSHEA. When organic food came under attack in 1999 we worked very closely with the Organic Trade Association as well. CFH has conducted several information campaigns on alternative sweetener issues, and recently we’ve also received funding from the Sugar Association individual consumers, bequests and foundations.

FIT: Why is high fructose corn syrup such an important issue for CHF?

TURNER: We’ve always found artificial sweeteners to be a particularly egregious example of how the entire food system works. The thing about synthetic sweeteners is that they offer no real benefits that justify the risks involved in ingesting them, beyond the argument that using the non-caloric ones to sweeten food or beverages help keep weight off. But scientists are increasingly concerned that man-made, non-caloric sweeteners contribute to the problem of weight gain rather than helping address it. With HFCS, however, there isn’t even that specious rationale. It became ubiquitous in our food supply because, as a result of advancements in technology, it can be processed cheaply, allowing the food industry to save money by substituting HFCS for sugar. In an effort to cloak HFCS as healthy, industry has spent a lot of money trying to portray it as “natural” to consumers. But the fact is, none of the HFCS formulations are found in nature and HFCS did not exist until scientists patented a process to synthesize it from starch—any starch –,and this is done by using advanced technology to change the starch at the molecular level.
There has been a great deal of data emanating from all kinds of different scientific sources about the effects of HFCS consumption. The CFH’s role is to let the public know about this information, as well as the disinformation it’s getting from the corn processors.

We want to promote awareness that scientists believe that HFCS is different from natural sugar, that sugar consumption has remained relatively constant over the last 100 years, that paralleling the rise in HFCS consumption has been a huge increase in diabetes and obesity (and bottled water sales to ensure that everybody understands that correlation is not causation). We want the public to know that FDA has not approved HFCS containing more than 55 percent fructose, but many products have well above 55 percent all the way up to 90 percent fructose. We believe consumers should be aware of these facts and that the corn industry is attempting to hide them.

We are not arguing that HFCS has caused health problems; what we’re saying is that scientists are concerned about the prevalence of HFCS in our food supply. And, if a fair market is to live up to its word that it allows informed consumers to choose the best products available, it is very important for the public and regulators to know what those scientists have said and to take that into consideration. That’s the dynamics of CFH, to enable people to make informed choices.

Also, even though the FDA says that 55 percent fructose in HFCS is the maximum amount it considers to be GRAS, the Corn Refiners Association has continued to say that much higher doses are allowed by the agency.

The HFCS process is a gold-plated example of how a business model is created, – i.e., let’s sell a sweetener to the food industry and then make up arguments that diverge from the core issues.

FIT: How can consumers make the biggest impact on the food supply?

TURNER: Without a doubt by the way they buy. More and more people are making buying choices based on what they learn, and those are often quite different from what the food industry would like them to do. It is through such collective purchasing decisions that reforms come about. Harmful additives are removed by manufacturers, and wholesome and organic products are made more readily available when consumers demand these choices.

Editor’s s note: The following sources offer further reading on the health implications of HFCS use:

Ed. [L. Cantley, Cancer, metabolism, fructose, artificial sweeteners, and going cold turkey on sugar, BMC Biology 2014, 12:8; S. Swithers, Artificial sweeteners produce the counterintuitive effect of inducing metabolic derangements. Cell Press (2013).] Ed, See, e.g. Global Public Health (2012) 1-10, High fructose corn syrup and diabetes prevalence: A global perspective, Goran, Ventura, Ulijaszekb; Eur J Nutr (2012) 51:445–454; Metabolic and behavioural effects of sucrose and fructose/glucose drinks in the rat, Sheludiakova, Rooney, Boakes; Metabolism Clinical and Experimental 61 (2012) 641-651, Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose on the pharmacokinetics of fructose and acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses in healthy subjects, Le, Frye, Rivard, Cheng, McFann, Segal, Johnson, Johnson; Eur J Nutr. (2010) 49:1–9, Comparison of free fructose and glucose to sucrose in the ability to cause fatty liver, Sánchez-Lozada, Mu, Roncal, Sautin, Abdelmalek, Reungjui, Le, Nakagawa, Lan, Yu, Johnson; Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 97 (2010) 101–106, High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels, Bocarsly, Powell, Avena, Hoebel; Experimental Biology and Medicine 234[6] (2009) 651-661, The type of caloric sweetener added to water influences weight gain, fat mass, and reproduction in growing Sprague-Dawley female rats, Light, Tsanzi, Gigliotti, Morgan, Tou.],

- See more at: http://foodidentitytheft.com/an-intervi ... 4MbyN.dpuf
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17160
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:18 am

JAMES S. TURNER
by Swankin & Turner, Attorneys at Law
7/28/15
http://www.swankin-turner.com/jim.html

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


James S. Turner, a principal in the firm, represents businesses as well as individuals and consumer groups in a wide variety of regulatory matters concerning food, drug, health, environmental and product-safety matters. He has appeared before every major consumer regulatory agency, including the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission and Federal Trade Commission, as well as the Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Turner has served as special counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Food, Nutrition, and Health and to the Senate Government Operations Subcommittee on Government Research. He has also been a policy consultant to major corporations in the food, pharmaceutical and telecommunications industries, including such companies as Kraft Foods, The Quaker Oats Company, Hoffmann-LaRoche and AT&T. Mr. Turner was the lead attorney on a successful petition to the FDA to reclassify acupuncture needles from Class III to Class II medical devices, permitting their legal importation and distribution. He is a graduate of The Ohio State University School of Law.

Articles and speeches by Jim

Adam Smith Without Arrogance
Jefferson's Flaws: Are They Beyond Redemption?
FDA and The Nutrition Community, Past, Present and Future…
Dietary Supplements -- Health Care Reform and The Congress
Articles about Jim

Megatrends, by John Naisbitt
Organizations Jim is affiliated with

Citizens for Health
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17160
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Illustrated Screenplays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron