Breed-specific legislation

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is a type of law that prohibits or restricts particular breeds or types of dog. Such laws range from outright bans on the possession of these dogs, to restrictions and conditions on ownership, and often establishes a legal presumption that such dogs are dangerous or vicious. Some jurisdictions have enacted breed-specific legislation in response to a number of fatalities or maulings involving pit bull–type dogs or other dog breeds commonly used in dog fighting, and some government organizations such as the United States Army and Marine Corps have taken administrative action as well. Due to opposition to such laws, anti-BSL laws have been passed in 21 of the 50 state-level governments in the United States, prohibiting or restricting the ability of jurisdictions within those states to enact or enforce breed-specific legislation.
Background.
It is generally settled in case law that jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have the right to enact breed-specific legislation; however, the appropriateness and effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing dog bite fatalities and injuries is disputed. One point of view is that certain dog breeds are a public safety issue that merits actions such as banning ownership, mandatory spay/neuter for all dogs of these breeds, mandatory microchip implants and liability insurance, or prohibiting people convicted of a felony from owning them. Another point of view is that comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and legally mandating responsible pet keeping practices, is a better solution than breed-specific legislation to the problem of dangerous dogs. A third point of view is that breed-specific legislation should not ban breeds entirely, but should strictly regulate the conditions under which specific breeds could be owned, "e.g.", forbidding certain classes of individuals from owning them, specifying public areas in which they would be prohibited, and establishing conditions, such as requiring a dog to wear a muzzle, for taking dogs from specific breeds into public places. Finally, some governments, such as that of Australia, have forbidden the import of specific breeds and are requiring the spay/neuter of all existing dogs of these breeds in an attempt to eliminate the population slowly through natural attrition.
Approximately 550 jurisdictions in the United States have enacted breed-specific legislation in response to a number of well-publicized incidents involving pit bull–type dogs, and some government organizations such as the U.S. Army and Marine Corps have taken administrative action as well. These actions range from outright bans on the possession of pit bull–type dogs, to restrictions and conditions on pit bull ownership. They often establish a legal presumption that a pit bull–type dog is "prima facie" a legally "dangerous" or "vicious" dog. In response, 16 states in the U.S. prohibited or restricted the ability of municipal governments within those states to enact BSL, though these restrictions do not affect military installations located within the states.
In a 2014 literature review, the American Veterinary Medical Association stated that "controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous", and that "it has not been demonstrated that introducing a breed-specific ban will reduce the rate or severity of bite injuries occurring in the community". In 2012, the American Bar Association passed a resolution urging the repeal of breed-specific legislation, stating that it is "ineffective at improving public safety". In 2013, researchers in Canada found no difference in incidence of dog bites between municipalities with breed-specific legislation and those without it, and in 2008, the Dutch government repealed a 15 year ban on pit bulls, concluding the law was ineffective. A 2017 study examining dog-bite characteristics in Ireland has suggested that targetting specific dog breeds can have significant negative outcomes. The study found that no significant difference existed between legislated and non-legislated dog breeds for the type of bite inflicted, and the medical treatment needed after the bite. The authors found that non-legislated dog breeds were less likely to be reported to the authorities both before and after the bite compared to legislated dog breeds. The publication suggests there is no scientifically valid basis for breed-specific legislation, and suggests significant negative consequences may result from its introduction. A study by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2000 concluded that fatal attacks on humans appeared to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull–type dogs and Rottweilers accounted for half of all fatal dog attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998). However, they also concluded that fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and suggested that there may be better alternatives for prevention of dog bites than breed-specific ordinances. Given many media sources reported that this study suggested that pit bull–type dogs and Rottweilers are disproportionately more dangerous than other dog breeds, the American Veterinary Medical Association whose journal published the original article released a statement detailing that this study "cannot be used to infer any breed specific risk for dog bite fatalities" (for lack of sufficient data on total breed ownership).
Australia.
The importation of the Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese tosa, American pit bull terrier and Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario into Australia is prohibited.
Canada.
The Canadian federal government does not regulate pit bull–type dogs, but two provincial governments and some municipal governments in Canada have enacted breed-specific legislation banning or restricting pit bull–type dogs. The following table discusses a sampling of the restrictions in force.
Legal challenges, Ontario 2007-2009.
In "Cochrane v. Ontario (Attorney General)", 2007 CanLII 9231 (ON S.C.), Ms. Catherine Cochrane sued the Province of Ontario to prevent it from enforcing the Dog Owner's Liability Act (DOLA) ban on pit bull–type dogs, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally broad because the ban was grossly disproportionate to the risk pit bulls pose to public safety, and that the law was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to provide an intelligible definition of pit bulls. She also argued that a provision allowing the Crown to introduce as evidence a veterinarian's certificate certifying that the dog is a pit bull violates the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.
The presiding judge ruled that the DOLA was not overbroad because,
"The evidence with respect to the dangerousness of pit bulls, although conflicting and inconclusive, is sufficient, in my opinion, to constitute a 'reasoned apprehension of harm'. In the face of conflicting evidence as to the feasibility of less restrictive means to protect the public, it was open to the legislature to decide to restrict the ownership of all pit bulls."
The presiding judge found the term "a pit bull terrier" was unconstitutionally vague since it could include an undefined number of dogs similar to the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. The judge also ruled that the government's ability to introduce a veterinarian's certificate certifying that the dog is a pit bull created a mandatory presumption that the dog was a pit bull, and that this placed an unconstitutional burden of proof upon the defendant.
In 2008, both Ms. Cochrane and the Attorney General of Ontario appealed different aspects of the decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
In "Cochrane v. Ontario" (2008 ONCA 718), the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's ruling:
On June 11, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear further appeal of the case, thereby upholding the Ontario ban on pit bulls.
Republic of Ireland.
The "Control of Dogs Regulations, 1998" place controls on 11 breeds of dogs: American Pit Bull Terrier, English Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Mastiff, Doberman Pinscher, German Shepherd (Alsatian), Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Japanese Akita, Japanese Tosa, and Bandog. Under Irish law the above breeds must be led by someone at least 16 years of age, kept on a short strong lead, be muzzled and wear a collar bearing the name and address of their owner in public at all times.
These dogs, or strains and crosses thereof, must be kept on a strong, short lead (less than 2 metres / 6′ 7″) by a person over 16 years of age who is capable of controlling them. The dogs must be securely muzzled and wear a collar with the name and address of the owner.
United Kingdom.
In the United Kingdom the main piece of breed-specific legislation is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which makes it illegal to own any 'Specially Controlled Dogs' without specific exemption from a court. The dogs have to be muzzled and kept on a lead in public, they must be registered and insured, neutered, tattooed and receive microchip implants. The Act also bans the breeding, sale and exchange of these dogs, even if they are on the 'Index of Exempted Dogs'.
Four types of dogs are specifically identified by the Act:
The Act also covers cross-breeds of the above four types of dog. Dangerous dogs are classified by "type", not by breed label. This means that whether a dog is prohibited under the Act will depend on a judgement about its physical characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited "type". This assessment of the physical characteristics is made by a court.
The Act applies in England, Wales and Scotland, with the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 having a similar effect in Northern Ireland.
United States.
As of 2018 there is some level of breed-specific legislation in 37 states and over 1,000 cities. Though the Federal Government of the United States has not enacted breed-specific legislation, four of the five branches of the United States Armed Forces have restricted certain breeds at almost 300 installations (mostly with respect to on-base housing and privatized housing). Over 20 American Indian Reservations have also enacted BSL.
Samples of legislation.
Below are summaries of some of the breed-specific legislation enacted in the United States. This is "not" an all-inclusive list of BSL throughout the USA.
Legal challenges.
Court challenges to breed-specific legislation on constitutional grounds have been largely unsuccessful. Dana M. Campbell summarized the legal challenges and the general court findings as of July 2009:
Court cases challenging BSL have focused on constitutional concerns such as substantive due process, equal protection, and vagueness. Most BSL will survive the minimum scrutiny analysis allowed by the due process clauses of the Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because there is no fundamental right at issue. This analysis requires that the law being challenged must be rationally related to a legitimate government goal or purpose. Because state and local jurisdictions enjoy broad police powers, including protecting the public's safety and welfare, courts have not had trouble finding that BSL is rationally related to the goal of protecting the public from allegedly dangerous breeds.
This has caused big problems for many who use them as police, guide or other service dogs, as they are not always excluded, and in some cases are confiscated and put down.
Challenges based on equal protection arguments are similarly difficult to sustain. Here courts are looking at whether there is a rational purpose for treating pit bull breeds differently from other dog breeds. Dog owners have attacked the rational purpose requirement by arguing either that BSL is over-inclusive, because it bans all dogs of a breed when only certain individuals within the breed have proven to be vicious, or under-inclusive, because many types of dogs have injured people and the BSL fails to include those other breeds. However, again under minimum scrutiny review, BSL will survive as long as the government can establish that the BSL is rationally related to its purpose, even if the law is found to be over-inclusive or under-inclusive.
Claims that BSL is unconstitutionally vague have brought dog owners mixed success. Procedural due process requires that laws provide the public with sufficient notice of the activity or conduct being regulated or banned. Here owners of pit bulls or other banned breeds argue that the breed ban laws do not adequately define just what is a "pit bull" (or other banned breed) for purposes of the ban. Another argument is that the laws are too vague to help the dog-owning public or the BSL enforcement agency—such as animal control or police—to be able to identify whether a dog falls under the BSL if the dog was adopted with an unknown origin or is a mixed breed.
Federal courts.
"Sentell v. New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company".
In "Sentell v. New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company", 166 U.S. 698 (1897), Mr. Sentell sued the New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company to recover the value of his female Newfoundland dog that he alleged to have been negligently killed by the railroad company. The company claimed that Louisiana law held that only people who licensed their dogs were entitled to sue for compensation if the dog were killed, and that Mr. Sentell was not entitled to damages since he had not licensed his dog. The trial court in Orleans Parish found for Mr. Sentell and awarded him $250 US, so the railroad company appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision of the trial court. The Louisiana Supreme Court declined to hear the case, so Mr. Sentell then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to hear the case.
The Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Sentell and established the precedent in U.S. jurisprudence that the regulation of dogs was within the police power of the state, and that the dogs were not as valuable as horses, cattle, sheep, or other domesticated animals:It is true that under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state can deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, but in determining what is due process of law, we are bound to consider the nature of the property, the necessity for its sacrifice, and the extent to which it has heretofore been regarded as within the police power. So far as property is inoffensive or harmless, it can only be condemned or destroyed by legal proceedings, with due notice to the owner; but, so far as it is dangerous to the safety or health of the community, due process of law may authorize its summary destruction...
Although dogs are ordinarily harmless, they preserve some of their hereditary wolfish instincts, which occasionally break forth in the destruction of sheep and other helpless animals. Others, too small to attack these animals, are simply vicious, noisy, and pestilent. As their depredations are often committed at night, it is usually impossible to identify the dog or to fix the liability upon the owner, who, moreover, is likely to be pecuniarily irresponsible [not responsible for financial compensation]. In short, the damages are usually such as are beyond the reach of judicial process, and legislation of a drastic nature is necessary to protect persons and property from destruction and annoyance. Such legislation is clearly within the police power of the state. It ordinarily takes the form of a license tax, and the identification of the dog by a collar and tag, upon which the name of the owner is sometimes required to be engraved, but other remedies are not uncommon.
"Vanater v. Village of South Point".
In "Vanater v. Village of South Point", 717 F. Supp. 1236 (D. Ohio 1989), the Ohio federal district court held that the criminal ordinance of South Point, Ohio, prohibiting the owning or harboring of pit bull terriers within the village limits was not overly broad, concluding:
The Court concludes that the definitions of a Pit Bull Terrier in this Ordinance are not unconstitutionally vague. An ordinary person could easily refer to a dictionary, a dog buyer's guide or any dog book for guidance and instruction; also, the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club have set forth standards for Staffordshire Bull Terriers and American Staffordshire Terriers to help determine whether a dog is described by any one of them. While it may be true that some definitions contain descriptions which lack "mathematical certainty," such precision and definiteness is not essential to constitutionality.
The court made the following findings of fact when it determined the village showed that pit bull terriers are uniquely dangerous and therefore, are proper subjects of the village's police power for the protection of the public's health and welfare:
"American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Dade County, Fla.".
In "American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Dade County, Fla.", 728 F.Supp. 1533 (S.D.Fla.,1989), dog owners sued in the federal district court of Florida to prevent Dade County from enforcing a pit bull ban, claiming that there is no such thing as a pit bull dog but rather three separate breeds; however, their own expert witnesses repeatedly identified dogs from the three separate breeds as "pit bull dogs" during the trial. The court upheld the Dade County ordinance, concluding:
Based upon the substantial evidence presented at trial, this court finds that Dade County Ordinance No. 89-022 provides sufficient guidance to dog owners, both in its explicit reference to pit bull dogs, and in its definitional section, to enable pit bull owners to determine whether their dogs fall within the proscriptions of the ordinance...Certainly there are some applications of the ordinance which pass constitutional muster. As long as the enactment is not impermissibly vague in all its applications, this court must uphold its constitutionality. Upon consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the pleadings, memoranda, exhibits and arguments of counsel and upon application of the controlling authority, this court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof and that the Court is required to uphold the constitutionality of Dade County Ordinance No. 089-22.
"American Canine Federation, v. City of Aurora, CO".
In "American Canine Federation and Florence Vianzon v. City of Aurora, Colorado", 618 F.Supp.2d 1271 (2009), the plaintiffs sued in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to prevent Aurora, Colorado, from enforcing a pit bull ban on the grounds that the law was unconstitutionally vague, that the law was an abuse of the city's police power, and that the ban represented an unconstitutional taking of property. The court rejected each of these claims based on existing legal precedents and upheld the city's ordinance.
State courts.
Arkansas.
In "Holt v. City of Maumelle", 817 S.W.2d 208 (AR., 1991), Mr. Steele Holt sued the city of Maumelle, Arkansas, in 1988 in an attempt to have its prohibition against pit bulls overturned on the grounds that the ordinance was impermissibly vague, that it was unreasonable to ban pit bull–type dogs, and that the city's Board of Directors committed a breach of contract by passing a pit bull ordinance that it had previously agreed to forego; Mr. Holt also asked that the city pay compensatory damages, punitive damages, and his attorney's fees. The Pulaski County circuit court made a summary judgment dismissing the suit, and Mr. Holt appealed. In 1991, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, finding that the pit bull ordinance was not impermissibly vague, that the restrictions were reasonable, and that any agreement made by the city to limit its own legislative powers was null and void since the city's first duty was to protect the public interest.
Colorado.
In "Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City and County of Denver", 820 P.2d 644, Colo., 1991, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld a Denver city ordinance that dog owners had complained was unconstitutional, along the following lines:
In "City & County of Denver v. State of Colorado", 04CV3756, Denver challenged a 2004 law passed by the Colorado General Assembly that prohibited breed specific laws on the grounds that the state law violated the city's home rule authority in regard to animal control legislation. The Denver District Court Judge ruled in favor of Denver, finding that:
Florida.
In "State of Florida v. Peters", 534 So.2d 760 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1988), the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reviewed the city of North Miami ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs within the city limits, and held: (1) the ordinance did not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution since the city's action in light of the evidence was neither arbitrary or irrational; (2) the ordinance's requirement to obtain liability insurance did not violate due process since the city had the right to regulate dogs under its police powers; (3) the definition of "pit bull" was not unconstitutionally vague, citing substantial precedent that laws requiring "substantial conformance" with a standard are not considered vague; and that mathematical certainty of a dog's identity as a pit bull was not required for a legal determination that a dog was in fact a pit bull.
Kansas.
In "Hearn v. City of Overland Park", 772 P.2d 758 (Kan. 1989), the Supreme Court of Kansas reviewed the ruling of a county court that overturned an ordinance of the city of Overland Park regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs within the city limits, and held: (1) The ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (2) the ordinance does not violate the due process rights of plaintiffs under the United States and Kansas Constitutions; (3) the ordinance does not violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions; and (4) the district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).
Kentucky.
In "Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court", 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ky.App.,2006), the Kentucky Court of Appeals reviewed a Bracken County ordinance that banned pit bull terriers. The appellants (Mr. Bess and Mr. Poe) had sought a temporary injunction against the ordinance in the Bracken County Circuit Court. The court dismissed the motion on the grounds that the police power of the Fiscal Court allowed it to ban pit bull terriers and seize them without compensation. The appellants appealed on the grounds that:
The Appeals court upheld the Bracken County ordinance, finding that:
Massachusetts.
In "American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Lynn", 404 Mass. 73, 533 N.E.2d 642 (Mass.,1989), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed a series of ordinances enacted by Lynn, Massachusetts, targeting dogs variously referred to as "American Staffordshire Terrier[s], a/k/a American Pit Bull Terrier[s] or Bull Terrier[s]" (July 1985); "American Staffordshire, Staffordshire Pit Bull Terrier or Bull Terrier, hereinafter referred to as 'Pit Bulls'" (June 1986); and ""American Staffordshire, Staffordshire Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier or any mixture thereof" (September 1986).
The Supreme Judicial Court determined that the issue was technically moot since each of the ordinances in question had been repealed by passage of a subsequent "pit bull" ordinance in June 1987; however, the court specifically observed (but did not rule) that the 1987 ordinance relied on the "common understanding and usage" of the names of the breeds in question, and warned that
the Lynn Pit Bull ban ordinance depends for enforcement on the subjective understanding of dog officers of the appearance of an ill-defined "breed," leaves dog owners to guess at what conduct or dog "look" is prohibited, and requires "proof" of a dog's "type" which, unless the dog is registered, may be impossible to furnish. Such a law gives unleashed discretion to the dog officers charged with its enforcement, and clearly relies on their subjective speculation whether a dog's physical characteristics make it what is "commonly understood" to be a "Pit Bull."
As a result of this case, breed-specific legislation in the United States often relies on the published standards of the American Kennel Club and United Kennel Club to clearly identify the characteristics of dogs subject to regulation as "pit bulls."
New Mexico.
In "Garcia v. Village of Tijeras", 767 P.2d 355 (1988), the New Mexico Court of Appeals reviewed an ordinance of the Village of Tijeras that banned the ownership or possession of a breed of dog "known as American Pit Bull Terrier"; any dog found in violation of the ordinance after a court hearing would be euthanized. The court held against each of the defendants' claims and upheld the ordinance on the following grounds:
New York.
The New York City Housing Authority updated their pet policy in 2010 to exclude dogs over 25 pounds and specifically prohibit Doberman Pinschers, Pit bulls, Rottweilers, and any mixes thereof.
Ohio.
In "Toledo v. Tellings" – Reversed – 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, 2007), the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeal struck down a portion of the Toledo, Ohio, municipal code that limited people to owning only one pit bull. The law relied on a state definition of a vicious dog as one that has bitten or killed a human, has killed another dog, or "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a Pit Bull dog." The court held that the legislation was void for violation of a Pit Bull owner's right to due process since the owner could not appeal a designation of his pet as a vicious dog. The court held that,"Since we conclude that there is no evidence that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or vicious, then the city ordinance limitation on ownership is also arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory."
The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Court of Appeal ("Toledo v. Tellings", 114 Ohio St.3d 278, 2007-Ohio-3724), and reinstated the Toledo ordinance for the following reasons:
Mr. Tellings appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, which declined to hear the case.
Texas.
In "City of Richardson v. Responsible Dog Owners of Texas", 794 S.W.2d 17 (Tex. 1990), several people ("Responsible Dog Owners") sued the city of Richardson, Texas, to prevent it from enforcing restrictions on pit bulls within its city limits on the grounds that the Texas state legislature had passed legislation preempting the a city's power to adopt an ordinance regulating the keeping of dogs. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, but the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision (781 S.W.2d 667). The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the original decision on the grounds that
Under article XI, section 5 of the Texas Constitution, home-rule cities have broad discretionary powers provided that no ordinance "shall contain any provision inconsistent with the Constitution of the State, or of the general laws enacted by the Legislature of this State..." Thus, the mere fact that the legislature has enacted a law addressing a subject does not mean that the subject matter is completely preempted...Although there is a small area of overlap in the provisions of the narrow statute and the broader ordinance, we hold that it is not fatal.
Texas Health and Safety Code.
In the state of Texas, the State Health and Safety Code prohibits breed-specific legislation as stated
Sec. 822.047. LOCAL REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS. A county or municipality may place additional requirements or restrictions on dangerous dogs if the requirements or restrictions:
(1) are not specific to one breed or several breeds of dogs; and
(2) are more stringent than restrictions provided by this subchapter.
Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 916, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 1991.
Washington.
In "McQueen v. Kittitas County", 115 Wash. 672, 677 (1921), the Washington Supreme Court established the broadly accepted precedent that cities have the power to regulate dogs, even to the point of banning specific breeds.[D]ogs do not stand on the same plane as horses, cattle, sheep, and other domesticated animals...On the general question, it is the almost universal current of authority that dogs are a subject of the police power of the state, and their keeping subject to any kind of license or regulation, even to absolute prohibition...since dogs are a subject of the police power, we see no reason why the legislature may not make distinctions between breeds, sizes and the localities in which they may be kept. The object of the statute is protection. The purpose is to prevent injuries to persons and property by dogs. Any distinction founded upon reasons at least, is therefore valid..."
In "American Dog Owners Ass'n v. City of Yakima", 777 P.2d 1046 (Wash.1989, "en banc"), the Washington Supreme Court reviewed a pit bull ban in the city of Yakima. The dog owners asked a state court to prevent Yakima from enforcing its ban on pit bull dogs. The trial court issued a temporary injunction against the city and accepted motions for summary judgment from both the dog owners and the city. The court decided in favor of the city and lifted the injunction, whereupon the dog owners appealed to the Washington Supreme Court on the grounds that the ordinance was vague because a person of ordinary intelligence could not tell what was prohibited, and that the trial court had improperly decided the summary judgment in favor of the city.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague because it specified the dog breeds that together fit the definition of "pit bull", whereas an earlier case in Massachusetts, "American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Lynn", 404 Mass. 73, 533 N.E.2d 642 (1989), had resulted in the pit bull ban being annulled because the ordinance did not specify in sufficient detail what a "pit bull" was; in addition, the higher court ruled that the summary judgment had been properly awarded, thus upholding the Yakima pit bull ban.
Wisconsin.
In "Dog Federation of Wisconsin, Inc. v. City of South Milwaukee", 178 Wis.2d 353, 504 N.W.2d 375 (Wis.App.,1993), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reviewed the appeal of a trial court decision upholding a pit bull ban in South Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court on the following grounds:
Worldwide.
Fifty-two countries have some form of breed-specific legislation, and 41 of those have BSL at the national level, as of December 2018.


Fatma Zohra Ksentini

Fatma Zohra Ouhachi-Vesely (née Ksentini) is an Algerian woman who was the first United Nations special rapporteur on toxic wastes from 1995 to 2004. Prior to her position, she was a Special Rapporteur in the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities from 1989 to 1994.
Career.
Ksentini was part of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities when she was named special rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment in 1989. For the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, she started a four-year investigation into environmental human rights in 1990. After completing her research in 1994, she submitted her findings and cosigned the Draft Declaration of Principles on Human Rights and the Environment.
In 1995, Ksentini became the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Toxic Wastes. During the beginning of her tenure, she gathered information on the health effects of disposing toxic wastes. After submitting her report in 1997, Ksentini criticized the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for not providing her the necessary funding to conduct on the ground research. After being reappointed in 1998, Ksentini began developing proposals on the elimination of toxic waste disposals into developing countries. Her final term as Special Rapporteur started in 2001 and ended in 2004.
Outside of her work as Special Rapporetur, Ksentini was the chairwoman of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery in 1991.
Personal life.
Ksentini was married to a Mr. Ouhachi-Vesely.


John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act

The John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act of 2019 is an omnibus lands act that protected public lands and modified management provisions. The bill designated more than of wilderness area, expanded several national parks and other areas of the National Park System, and established four new national monuments while redesignating others. Other provisions included making the Land and Water Conservation Fund permanent, protecting a number of rivers and historic sites, and withdrawing land near Yellowstone National Park and North Cascades National Park from mining.
Passage of the bill was hailed as a rare bipartisan environmental victory.
Legislative history.
The last major bill passed regarding public lands was the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. Since then many bills had been introduced but never passed; the Act incorporates over more than 100 pieces of legislation, collectively introduced by some 50 senators and a range of representatives.
S. 47, initially the Natural Resources Management Act, was sponsored by Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Maria Cantwell of Washington, the chair and former ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Senate voted for the bill 92–8 on February 12, 2019, and the House of Representatives passed it 363–62 on February 26. President Donald Trump signed it into law on March 12, 2019, as P.L. 116-9.
Following initial passage, an addendum named the bill for John Dingell, Jr. to honor the recently deceased former Congressperson who had sponsored multiple landmark conservation laws during his lengthy tenure, and was known as being an avid outdoorsman and conservationist.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would save $9 million in direct spending over 10 years and would generate substantial additional revenue.
Provisions.
The law is divided into nine titles, each containing a number of provisions. Selected major provisions are listed.
Title I.
Subtitle A.
Subtitle A authorizes land exchanges with and conveyances to local governments and private landowners.
Subtitle B.
Subtitle B addresses management of public lands and the National Forest System.
Subtitle C.
Subtitle C designates new wilderness areas and other protected areas, in total expanding designated wilderness area by across four states.
Title II.
Subtitle A.
Subtitle A calls for special resource studies of the President James K. Polk Home & Museum in Tennessee, the Thurgood Marshall School in Maryland, President Street Station in Maryland, Granada War Relocation Center in Colorado, and the George W. Bush Childhood Home in Texas for consideration of inclusion in the National Park System.
Subtitle B.
Subtitle B adjusts the boundaries of:
Subtitle C.
Subtitle C redesignates several NPS areas:
Subtitle D.
Subtitle D establishes new units of the National Park System:
Subtitle E.
Subtitle E amends miscellaneous management provisions.
Subtitle F.
Subtitle F relates to the National Trails System.
Title III.
Title III reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund indefinitely. At least 40% of the funds, derived from offshore drilling royalties, are to be used for federal lands, and at least 40% are allocated to the states.
Title IV.
Title IV states that public land managed by the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management is open to hunting, fishing, and shooting, unless closed under certain procedures.
Title V.
Title V establishes a National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System under the United States Geological Survey and reauthorizes the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.
Title VI.
Title VI designates new National Heritage Areas:
It also lays out procedures for planning and management of national heritage areas.
Title VII.
Title VII concerns wildlife management.
Title VIII.
Title VIII concerns water and power and the Bureau of Reclamation. Among its provisions, it reauthorizes the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, with the purpose of promoting water conservation, water supply, habitat, and stream enhancement improvements in the Yakima River basin.
Title IX.
Title IX has miscellaneous provisions:


Doris Ryer Nixon

Doris Ryer Nixon (October 1, 1893 – June 24, 1948) was an American civic leader, particularly on the home front during World War II. The granddaughter of one of California's first doctors, and daughter-in-law of a shipbuilder and industrialist, she became a national vice-president of the American Women's Voluntary Services (AWVS) during the war.
Ancestry.
Nixon's grandfather, Dr. Washington Ryer, was a New York doctor who settled in Stockton, California in the 1840s after serving as an assistant surgeon in General Winfield Scott's campaign in the Mexican-American War. He married Mary Fletcher of Boston in 1862, and they had one son, Fletcher Ryer. Ryer Island in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is named in their honor. Fletcher and his wife, Blanche, became wealthy pioneer agriculturalists.
Biography.
She was born on October 1, 1893.
In 1906 she was attending a school in Paris, France.
Debutante.
Fletcher Ryer died in 1911, before reaching age 50. As Doris reached her early twenties, she and her mother became increasingly involved in the social scenes on the east coast, taking Benjamin Thaw's "cottage" in Newport, Rhode Island, for the summer of 1915. She was formally presented as a debutante in Newport that year. As the Oakland Tribune would write, "Mrs. Ryer has had her eye on several members of the British aristocracy for Doris, but this cruel war, of course, smashed all of her well-laid plans to smithereens." (Her mother would later marry Clifford Erskine-Bolst, a British Conservative Party politician (who was elected to the British House of Commons in 1923 and again in 1931.)
Marriage and family.
She married Stanhope Wood Nixon January 23, 1917 in New York City. He was the son of Lewis Nixon I, a naval architect who briefly led Tammany Hall, and who was the namesake of Nixon Nitration Works and its home village of Nixon, New Jersey. Stanhope had become a subject of controversy several years before their marriage, after he was arrested for assaulting and seriously injuring a phone company engineer in New Haven following a wine party (an offense for which he was fined but not jailed). Doris and Stanhope were joined the following year by a son, Lewis Nixon III, and in 1923 by a daughter, Blanche Nixon. A second son was born in March 1922 but died two months later.
Doris and Stanhope were often apart, with Stanhope tending to the family business in New Jersey and Doris deeply involved in community activities in California. They were divorced in 1945.
Civic leadership.
Nixon was the founder and president of Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc., state commander of the California Cancer Society, and national vice-president of the American Women's Voluntary Services during World War II. The AWVS was a key organization for coordinating volunteer activities in support of the war effort. She had founded the California chapter, and had served as its first president. She also served as a member of the World Affairs Council and numerous organizations devoted to peace.
In June 1947 she and 119 other civic leaders signed a letter urging Congress to immediately adopt legislation providing for universal military training.
Death.
Nixon died in her home in San Francisco on June 24, 1948, at age 54. She left an estate valued at approximately $750,000, which included a half interest in a ranch on Ryer Island.
Legacy.
Her son, Lewis Nixon III, served as an officer in the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of it with E Company. His association with E Company would bring him fame after his 1995 death, when the company became the subject of the 2001 television mini-series "Band of Brothers" based on the Stephen Ambrose book.


Yuan Baojing

Yuan Baojing (; 16 February 1966 – 17 March 2006) was a Chinese billionaire from Liaoyang, Liaoning province. He was the president of the Beijing-based Jianhao Group. He was convicted of murder and executed in March 2006, after what appeared to be a feud with Sichuan businessman Liu Han (who was executed nine years later).
Biography.
Yuan was raised in a peasant family and made a fortune in Beijing. Upon losing CNY 100 million in futures trading, he believed that his loss resulted from manipulation of the broker by Liu Han, a businessman from Sichuan. He offered a former police officer, Wang Xing, CNY 160,000 to murder Liu. Wang in turn hired a contract killer named Li Haiyang. In 1997 February, Li shot at Liu twice in a Sichuan hotel but missed, and was sentenced to life in prison. Wang proceeded to blackmail Yuan, who, with his brother Yuan Baoqi, hired their cousins to murder Wang in 2003. Yuan was found guilty of Wang's murder in 2005 January and was scheduled to die by firing squad on 14 October 2005. However, the day before his execution date, his wife transferred ownership of shares worth CNY 49.5 billion to the government, including shares of an Indonesian oilfield, leading to a stay of Yuan's execution until 2006 March. Yuan was executed by lethal injection by 2006 March, along with his brother Yuan Baoqi and Yuan Baosen. Another cousin, Yuan Baofu, received a suspended death sentence.
The case regained attention in 2013 in the wake of the incident of Bo Xilai, when media outlets raised speculation about the proceedings of the case and the possible involvement of the former security official Zhou Yongkang, who, through his son Zhou Bin, served as a political patron for Liu Han. The media also questioned whether Yuan was indeed the culprit, and why his brother and cousin also needed to be put to death, raising the possibility that their punishments were influenced by Liu Han and his connection with Zhou Yongkang. In 2015, Liu Han was executed for other crimes.


Fehmarn Belt

Fehmarn Belt (), (, former spelling "Femer Bælt"; ) is a strait connecting the Bay of Kiel and the Bay of Mecklenburg in the western part of the Baltic Sea between the German island of Fehmarn and the Danish island of Lolland. Ferries operated by Scandlines connect Puttgarden and Rødby on the two islands.
The strait features an 18-kilometre (10 nmi) wide area with depths of 20–30 metres. Currents in the strait are weak and mostly dependent on wind.
Swimming.
It was initially swum across by Christof Wandratsch.
Tunnel proposal.
The Danish and German governments agreed on 29 June 2007 to build a fixed link to replace the ferry route. It is to save an hour on crossing the strait, and provide more crossing capacity.
In 2011, the Danish parliament voted overwhelmingly (with seven of eight parties supporting) for the €5.1 billion project that was intended to open in 2020. The tunnel is to have three separate bores, two containing two motorway lanes each, and one with a double-track railway line. Construction started on 1 January 2021.


Cyrus Vance Jr.

Cyrus Roberts Vance Jr. (born June 14, 1954) is an American attorney and politician serving as the District Attorney of New York County, New York, also known as the Manhattan District Attorney. He was previously a principal partner at the law firm of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello, & Bohrer, P.C. He is the son of Cyrus Vance, former Secretary of State under President Jimmy Carter.
Early life and education.
Vance was born and raised in New York City. He is the son of Grace Elsie (Sloane) and Cyrus R. Vance, who served as Secretary of the Army under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, Deputy Secretary of Defense under President Johnson, and Secretary of State to President Jimmy Carter.
Vance attended the Buckley and Groton Schools, and then went on to graduate from Yale University. He then earned his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center in 1982. While in law school, he planned campaign trips for Colorado Senator Gary Hart.
Career.
Legal work.
Upon graduating from Georgetown, Vance joined the Manhattan District Attorney’s office as an Assistant District Attorney, where he supervised grand jury investigations and prosecuted cases involving murder, organized crime, career criminals, political corruption, international art fraud, and white-collar crime.
In 1988, Vance moved to Seattle because, according to Vance, he wanted to build a name for himself independent of his father's influence. In 1995, Vance co-founded McNaul Ebel Nawrot Helgren & Vance. During this time, Vance taught trial advocacy as an adjunct professor at Seattle University School of Law.
In 2004, Vance returned to New York, where he joined Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, P.C. as a principal.
Vance is admitted to the bar in New York State, Washington state, and Washington, D.C., and to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and Western and Eastern Districts of Washington, and the U.S. Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals.
Vance is a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers, and is listed in "The Best Lawyers in America – The New York Area’s Best Lawyers" and "New York’s Superlawyers – Manhattan Edition".
Public service.
Vance was a consulting expert to the Office of Family and Children Ombudsman in its investigation of the Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions, and served as Special Assistant New York State Attorney General representing the state in investigations and litigation. He has served on sentencing commissions in two states, including New York, where he served on the Governor's Sentencing Commission, which helped overhaul New York's Rockefeller drug laws.
Vance also served, by appointment of the Governor of New York, as a member of the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, Judicial Screening Panel which makes recommendations on judicial appointments. Vance is a member of the Criminal Justice Council of the New York City Bar Association, the Federal Bar Council, and the New York Council of Defense Lawyers.
He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Fund for Modern Courts, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, and the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation.
2009 Manhattan District Attorney election.
In 2008, Vance announced his intention to seek the District Attorney's office only if current District Attorney Robert Morgenthau decided to retire. On March 9, 2009, ten days after Morgenthau made his decision to retire public, Vance officially announced his candidacy for the office. In an April 8, 2009 appearance on Charlie Rose, Morgenthau said of Vance, “I think Vance is by far the best qualified. Good lawyer, fair.” Morgenthau officially endorsed Vance on June 25.
Other Democrats who endorsed Vance included former Mayor David Dinkins, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, Gloria Steinem,
Caroline Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, and Innocence Project co-founders Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld. "The New York Times", "New York Daily News", "New York Post", and "New York Amsterdam News" also endorsed Vance.
Vance stated that as Manhattan District Attorney, he would develop a program of “Community Based Justice”, in which teams of prosecutors would be aligned to specific precincts and communities so as to develop a working relationship with community members, police officers, and local organizations. According to Vance, the Community Based Justice Program would make crime reduction a central measure of performance. Vance has also proposed a plan designed to reduce the year-long case backlog in the New York Criminal Court where the overwhelming majority of criminal cases are brought. In addition to processing cases, Vance has expressed his commitment to establishing a conviction integrity panel to carefully review allegations of wrongful conviction and promoting alternatives to incarceration that do not compromise public safety.
Vance states that he has always been opposed to the death penalty.
Vance emerged victorious after facing former judge and 2005 D.A. candidate Leslie Crocker Snyder, and Richard Aborn, another former Assistant District Attorney and gun control advocate, in the September 15, 2009 Democratic primary. The victory ensured that Vance would become only the fourth person to run the office since 1941, given the traditional absence during Morgenthau's tenure of a Republican backed opponent.
On November 3, 2009, Vance won the general election with a 91 percent share of the votes cast.
Manhattan District Attorney.
Vance was sworn into office as the Manhattan District Attorney on January 1, 2010. Within a few months, he established or consolidated numerous new bureaus and units in an effort to modernize the District Attorney's Office. Vance's administration established a Conviction Integrity Program, Crime Strategies Unit, Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau, Forensic Sciences/ Cold Case Unit, Hate Crimes Unit, Public Integrity Unit, Special Victims Bureau, and Vehicular Crimes Unit.
Notable cases.
In 2011, a New York prosecutor from Vance's office argued on behalf of billionaire and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, to New York Supreme Court Judge Ruth Pickholtz, asking for Epstein's sex offender status to be reduced. The reasoning was that Epstein had not been indicted and his underage victims had failed to cooperate in the case. The judge, however, denied the petition, and expressed bewilderment that a New York prosecutor would make such a request on behalf of a serial sex offender accused of molesting multiple girls: "I have to tell you, I’m a little overwhelmed because I have never seen a prosecutor’s office do anything like this. I have done so many [sex offender registration hearings] much less troubling than this one where the [prosecutor] would never make a downward argument like this,". Jennifer Gaffney, then deputy chief of Cyrus Vance Jr.’s sex-crimes unit, stated at the hearing that, “There is only an indictment for one victim. If an offender is not indicted for an offense, it is strong evidence that the offense did not occur.” Pickholz rejected Gaffney's arguments and gave Epstein the highest sex-offender status – Level 3. While Vance denies having been aware of the hearing until years later, some law enforcement sources find it unlikely that he was unaware his office was handling a sex-offender case involving a Manhattan mogul with close ties to Democrats and Republicans. In 2019, Epstein was arrested and charged with sex trafficking.
Vance's recent successes include the sentencing of a serial rapist to 428 years to life in prison; sentencing of a man to 23 years to life in prison for a domestic violence murder; indictments against 26 individuals living in Manhattan who possessed graphic images of child sexual assault; the sentencing of a man to at least 15 years in prison for a 2000 rape; a sentencing of a man to 25 to life in prison for a 1997 home invasion and murder; an indictment against another man for a 1986 rape and murder; and the guilty plea of a man for attacking a woman in the restroom of a bar in Hell's Kitchen.
Vance has also won convictions in an October 2009 drunk-driving incident that killed 11-year-old Leandra Rosado, resulting in the creation of Leandra's Law; and a case of two men in a 2005 murder-for-hire plot. In January 2011, the District Attorney's Forensic Sciences/ Cold Case Unit announced an indictment against noted serial killer Rodney Alcala for two Manhattan homicides in the 1970s.
Vance's newly created Major Economic Crimes Bureau has won convictions in the $120 million-dollar art fraud prosecution of the Salander-O'Reilly Gallery, the gallery's president Lawrence Salander and director Leigh Morse, in which Robert De Niro was one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution; a $100 million-dollar securities fraud scheme in which Yale University was one of the victims; a $100 million-dollar mortgage fraud case; and a $7 million-dollar Ponzi scheme. The District Attorney's Office in June 2011 announced indictments in a conspiracy involving 11 corporations who evaded U.S. economic sanctions on Iran by funneling tens of millions of dollars through Manhattan banks. To date, Vance's administration has brought hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements to New York City.
Cyrus Vance prosecuted programmer Sergey Aleynikov for duplicating computer code from Goldman Sachs, following the reversal of his federal conviction by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The state case found Aleynikov guilty. However, on July 6, 2015, a New York State Supreme Court justice overturned that decision, but an appellate court reinstated the jury's guilty verdict on January 24, 2017. 148 AD3d 77 [1st Dept 2017], affirmed, 31 NY3d 383 [2018].
In 2020, a New York City police officer was filmed punching and pepper-spraying a homeless man in the face. According to the police officer, he sustained swelling to his hand after the man allegedly kicked him while handcuffed to the platform. Vance's office has charged the homeless man with felony assault, punishable by up to seven years in prison. The Legal Aid society notes that the police originally charged the man with lesser crimes, but Vance's office chose to upgrade the charges: "It's shocking that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, despite seeing this video, chose to bump up the charges against our client. We are calling on them to dismiss these charges immediately in the interest of justice." Following scrutiny and criticism after footage was released to the public, Vance's office dropped some of the charges, but Legal Aid calls for the other charges to also be dropped (resisting arrest, obstruction, taking up an extra seat on the train), as well as for the officers to be sanctioned
Abacus Federal Savings Bank case.
In 2009, Abacus Federal Savings Bank, a small Chinese-American family-run bank in New York City's Chinatown, self-reported a mortgage fraud committed by an ex-employee to its regulators. It led Cyrus Vance's office to later accuse the bank itself of mortgage fraud. In an unusual move characterized by critics as an effort at grandstanding, Vance's office orchestrated a parade of ex-employees of the bank in a chain, handcuffed to each other, in front of reporters. After Vance spent five years and $10 million prosecuting the bank for larceny, the bank and its employees were found not guilty on all 80 charges.
The bank was the only New York bank so charged during the Great Recession, although Vance said that Citibank, among others, had behaved badly. The episode was covered in a feature-length documentary by Steve James, "", which characterized Vance as throwing the bank's owners under the bus in an effort to appear tough on white-collar crime. The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2016, was broadcast on PBS Frontline in 2017, and was nominated for an Oscar.
Motor vehicle driver prosecution.
In spite of recently passed vulnerable user laws and Vance's own initiatives, some media commentary has questioned whether New York City cyclists can reasonably expect protection from Vance's office.
In July 2010, no charges were filed when an MTA tow truck struck and killed a seven-year-old boy standing on the sidewalk. In October 2010, Vance declined to press charges in the dooring death of Marcus Ewing, on the rationale that, because the engine was not running and because the person who opened the door into Ewing's path did not have the keys in his possession, that person could not be prosecuted as a driver.
In August 2013, a cab driver hopped a curb, injuring several pedestrians and severing the leg of a British tourist. Despite a history of driving offenses, and admitting that he intentionally hit the gas before entering the sidewalk, the driver was able to regain his cab license, and after a two-month investigation, no charges were filed.
In October 2014, Vance's office offered a plea to a driver accused of intentionally striking a cyclist with his car. The deal reduced charges of third-degree assault, punishable by up to a year in jail, to leaving the scene of an accident with property damage. The motorist paid a $250 fine.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn case.
Vance initially came under criticism by the media for ultimately dismissing charges in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case, after the French head of the International Monetary Fund was arrested, based on accusations by a hotel maid at the Sofitel hotel who said he had forced her to perform oral sex when she came to clean his room. Kahn admitted the encounter had taken place, but maintained the sex was consensual. However, Vance was praised by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor Ed Koch, former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, and other prominent litigators and government officials for adhering to prosecutorial protocol and acting "with integrity". Vance has also been applauded in editorials by the "New York Times," "Wall Street Journal," and the "New York Daily News" for making a "tough but fair and just call" in "an exceptional case" in which a woman made a "credible" accusation against a very powerful man. The "Wall Street Journal" wrote: "DSK got neither more nor less than he deservedsomething for which he can blame, and thank, Cy Vance and America's justice system." He dropped all charges against the defendant on August 11, stating that he could not prove Kahn's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to questions about the credibility of the accuser Nafissatou Diallo.
Paul Manafort.
On March 13, 2019 Vance filed 16 indictments charging mortgage fraud against Paul Manafort, former chairman of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Vance said the charges stemmed from an investigation launched in March 2017. These charges were subsequently dismissed by a judge.
Political contributions and non-prosecutions.
From August 2017, allegations appeared across various news media outlets concerning Vance's associations, and certain contributions made to his office in relation to past cases. Under scrutiny are the Manhattan DA's handling of allegations of sexual assault against film producer Harvey Weinstein, and allegations of his handling of improper conduct by members of the Trump family around the Trump SoHo development. Critics have suggested that contributions to the DA around these times were directly linked to Vance not prosecuting these cases. Vance has defended the actions of his office, citing insufficient evidence to prosecute in each case.
In March 2018, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that the New York State attorney general will investigate the Manhattan district attorney's handling of a 2015 sexual abuse case involving disgraced media mogul Harvey Weinstein. NYPD investigators who investigated the 2015 case believed that the sexual abuse case was strong enough to be prosecuted, but Vance opted not to prosecute the case.
The case concerned a 22-year old Filipina-Italian model – Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, who went straight to the police after Weinstein lunged at her, groping her breasts and attempting to put a hand up her skirt while she protested. The next day she met with Weinstein, equipped with a NYPD wire tap. In the recording, published by The New Yorker and ABC News, Weinstein insists – "I'm telling you right now, get in here." Gutierrez explicitly refuses, adding "yesterday was kind of aggressive for me" and asks why he had groped her breast the day before. “Oh, please, I’m sorry, just come on in. I’m used to that. Come on. Please” he says. “You are used to that?” Gutierrez asks. “Yes,” Weinstein replies, later adding: “Don’t ruin your friendship with me for five minutes.”
According to "The Guardian", the investigators were at the time under the belief that Vance would undermine the case, given that he had previously dropped a similar case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. David Boies, an attorney who has represented Harvey Weinstein, had donated $10,000 after Vance's office refused to prosecute on the Ambra Gutierrez case. Vance has countered that no contribution has influenced his decision making.
Vance has prosecuted possession of gravity knives with a broad interpretation. The law banning them is enforced mainly in Manhattan, and has been the subject of several repeal efforts in the New York state legislature. Governor Andrew Cuomo has vetoed two such repeal bills passed in two years. On March 27, 2019, in Cracco v. Vance, No. 14 Civ. 8235 (SDNY), a federal judge ruled that Vance's office had applied the law unconstitutionally, resulting in a lack of notice of prohibited behavior as well as allowing for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Soon after, state lawmakers Dan Quart and Diane Savino introduced a third iteration of the bill repealing the gravity knife ban. On May 31, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law, making gravity knives legal to possess in the state of New York.
Investigation into Donald Trump.
As part of his office's ongoing criminal investigation arising from the Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal, Vance subpoenaed Trump's accounting firm Mazars for eight years' worth of Trump's personal and business tax returns and related documents in August 2019. Trump filed suit against Vance and Mazars in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to block the subpoena, claiming that as president he was immune from criminal investigation of any kind. The case was appealed through district and appeals courts and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. In July 2020 the Supreme Court held that the president is not immune from state criminal subpoenas which are directed at his private papers, and remanded the case to lower courts for further review. District and appeals courts again found the subpoena to be valid, and Trump appealed those findings to the Supreme Court on October 13, 2020, asking for a stay of the lower court rulings. In an unsigned opinion issued on February 22, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the stay, and Vance's office received the documents by February 25.
Earlier in February, Vance's office had hired a consulting company to analyze and manage the documents, and engaged prominent New York attorney Mark F. Pomerantz to assist in the investigation. Among other issues, the investigation is reportedly looking into whether different values for the same properties were reported to lenders, insurance companies, and government taxing authorities.
Vance, and separately New York Attorney General Letitia James, also investigated the Trump Organization's Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg and his family. Vance's inquiry into whether the Weisselbergs had received untaxed benefits from the Trump Organization was widely perceived as part of a strategy to gain more information about Trump. Financial records were obtained from Jennifer Weisselberg in April 2021. The investigation of the Trump Organization turned to criminal matters, as announced on May 18, 2021 by the New York Attorney General's office which was jointly pursuing the criminal investigation with Vance.
Personal life.
He and his wife, printer and photographer Peggy McDonnell, were married in 1984 and have two children.


Elizabeth Hirschboeck

Elizabeth Hirschboeck (March 10, 1903 – September 20, 1986), also known as Sister Mary Mercy, was a religious sister of the Maryknoll Sisters of St. Dominic and an international humanitarian.
Early life and education.
On December 2, 1922, while a student at Marquette University, Hirschboeck survived a serious automobile accident. She was convinced that God spared her life so she could consecrate it more fully to him. She expressed her desire to join the Maryknoll Sisters at that time; however, Mother Mary Joseph encouraged her to first complete her medical studies.


Jack Ferguson

Laurie John Ferguson AO (4 September 1924 – 17 September 2002) was an Australian politician and member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly for the Australian Labor Party (New South Wales Branch). He served in Neville Wran's state government as the Deputy Premier of New South Wales from 1976 to 1984.
Early life.
Born in the inner Sydney suburb of Zetland, Ferguson was educated at Granville Convent and Marist Brothers College, Parramatta, both Catholic schools.
After leaving school he was variously a farmhand, textile worker, builder's labourer and bricklayer and was an organiser for the Building Workers' Industrial Union. From 1942 to 1946 he served in the Second Australian Imperial Force.
Following his demobilisation, he became active in municipal, and then state, politics. He was an alderman on Parramatta Council from 1954 to 1959, and Deputy Mayor in 1959. He married Mary Ellen Bett; the couple had three sons (Laurie, Martin and Andrew) and two daughters.
Political career.
Ferguson was the member for Merrylands from March 1959 to 1962 and 1968 to 5 March 1984. From 1962 to 1968, he was member for Fairfield. A member of the Labor Party's left wing, he was best known as Deputy Premier and Minister for Public Works and Minister for Ports, from May 1976 until February 1984, in the cabinet headed by Neville Wran. He was also Minister for Housing from May 1976 to February 1977.
Death.
Ferguson died in Sydney aged 78, from mesothelioma according to his son Andrew.


Southern Youth and Family Services

Southern Youth and Family Services (SYFS) is a non-profit organisation which operates a number of youth homelessness programs in regional New South Wales, Australia. Among the organisation's program is a crisis youth refuge in Wollongong, a youth and family centre in Warilla, as well as the Resourcing Adolescents to Gain Essentials Scheme (RAGE) in Nowra which provides material/financial support for bond, moving expenses, travel, financial support, detox and rehab.
People.
Narelle Clay is the organization's CEO.
Narelle has served as the Chairperson for Homelessness Australia, a national peak body organisation on homelessness. And currently serves as the Social and Community Services President for the Australian Services Union.
Narelle is a 2005 recipient of the Order of Australia award.


North Sea Volunteer Lifeguards

North Sea Volunteer Lifeguards (commonly abbreviated to NSVL) is a volunteer lifeguard club based in Tynemouth, North Tyneside, Tyne and Wear, England. It was founded in 1998, and has since become one of the largest lifeguard clubs in the UK with over 250 members from age 6 to 66. It is affiliated to the Royal Life Saving Society UK, but is also a charity in its own right, registered with the Charity Commission.
It offers the full range of Royal Life Saving Society UK programmes and awards, and also some programmes affiliated to other organisations, such as the Heartstart programme which is co-ordinated by the British Heart Foundation. Its main focus is the beach lifeguard qualification, indeed in 2002 it was responsible for over 10% of all the beach lifeguard awards taken in the United Kingdom.
The club has regular training sessions throughout the year, training in the North Sea from its headquarters on Tynemouth Longsands and also at Tynemouth Pool.
NSVL is run by a committee of 10 club members, who are elected at the Annual General Meeting. However other club members play an important role in running the club, for example by teaching for courses and awards.


FBI files on Michael Jackson

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) kept records on the American singer Michael Jackson, which were released under the Freedom of Information Act on December 22, 2009. In response to perceived threats against Jackson and allegations of child sexual assault made against him, the FBI "made several investigations" into Jackson, "none of which led to charges". Between 1993 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies due to allegations of child abuse. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases. They also investigated threats made against Jackson and others by Frank Paul Jones who was later imprisoned for these crimes. These investigations occurred between 1993 and 2005 and in each allegation, the FBI found no evidence of criminal conduct on Jackson's behalf.
The records released consist of 333 pages of over 600 pages total and appear divided into 7 parts on their official website. These files include copies of letters from members of the public commenting on his performances, newspaper clippings, and various documents reporting that Jackson was the target of extortion attempts, terrorist threats, and more. Many of these topics were dissected in significant media coverage of the FBI files on Michael Jackson upon release, and for years that followed.
FBI monitoring and investigation of Jackson.
Prior to events recorded in Jackson's file, the FBI began monitoring Michael Jackson by 1992, when they "looked into death threats against Jackson by a man obsessed with his sister, Janet." Starting in 1993, federal agents began looking into Jackson's alleged involvement with young children. This continued for almost 10 years before the 2003 arrest. In 2004, the FBI assisted with investigating abuse allegations against Jackson. At Jackson's trial in 2005, Santa Maria law enforcement reached out to the FBI as they feared the trial could be a "soft target" for terrorism. 2005 also marks the last year of the FBI's investigations into Jackson according to the released files.
Part one: FBI monitoring tabloid articles on Jackson.
Part 01 of 07 of the FBI files consisted of 10 pages, primarily legal documents and tabloid newspaper clippings. The clippings make mention of an alleged 1993 phone call that took place between Jackson and Terance George, a British disc jockey, where phone sex was alleged. Allegedly, the phone call took place in 1979 when Jackson was 20 and George was 13 years old. Revelations from the tabloid clippings in the FBI files show that it was the British native that pursued contact with Jackson and not the other way around and that "the final rejection came four years later when Terry tried to rekindle their friendship when Jackson came to London again. Terry tracked him down and was even photographed alongside his idol, but now the management was on hand to issue the polite brush-off."
In 2003, 10 years after George accused Jackson, he cheerfully recalled his 1979 interview with him in Louis Theroux’s documentary, "Louis, Martin & Michael". When asked about the accusation he said "it came out really without my authority" and "it developed from somebody who had a big mouth, basically, one of my close friends who knew about the story." Regarding whether the story was true George told Theroux "parts of it are true yeah...parts of the story are true...I mean I would say the majority is true but papers get their bit and they twist it and they make things a bit sensationalized really." With no proof, no recorded phone call, and nothing reported to law enforcement or lawsuits filed, nothing ever materialized over George's allegation and Legat London and the FBI took no further action.
Part two: forensics analysis of Jackson's computers.
Part 02 of 07 of the FBI files consisted of 44 pages orbiting around the forensics analysis of Jackson's computers and hard drives. As a result of investigatory raids on Jackson's properties in 2003, 16 hard drives were confiscated in total. The results of what the FBI's Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) found on these hard drives were in a report addressed to Sheriff Jim Anderson, dated April 5, 2004. The FBI meticulously went through all 16 hard drives and found nothing incriminating on them. The hard drives contained no form of illegal material, and the computer's history contained no record of accessing or searching for such material. On March 29, 2004, CART forwarded 4 DVDs to the Forensic Audio Video Image Analysis Unit (FAVIAU) for file formatting issues and requested that the files be converted to a readable format. Sometime after the conversion, it was noted that "there are no outstanding leads or evidence items."
Part three: LAPD seeks Mann Act assistance and investigators determine the credibility of other allegations.
The 59 pages that inhere part 03 of 07 of the FBI files provide an early timeline for the 1993 allegations against Jackson. This file indicates that it was on September 8, 1993, when there was a request for the FBI assistance with investigations into the first accusations of sexual abuse against Michael Jackson. It is learned that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) wanted the FBI to assist with prosecuting Jackson under the Mann Act, also known as the White-Slave Traffic Act. The law prohibited the transportation of anyone over state borders for the purpose of illegal sexual acts and was first used as a tool for political prosecution against boxing champion, Jack Johnson. It is also revealed that the request was short-lived as on September 8, 1993, the United States Attorney declined to prosecute Jackson for violating the Mann Act.
The remaining pages in this file include various allegations against Jackson throughout 1993, with many of the pages being replicated from file part one. Other allegations being tracked by various newspaper clippings included detectives traveling to the Philippines to interview a couple who use to work for Jackson. Due to credibility issues over back pay, their claims were dismissed. Other accusations against Jackson included a writer who claimed that Jackson sexually molested 2 Mexican boys in 1985 or 1986. The writer contradicted this by also claiming that after being investigated by the FBI, the government-assisted in a cover-up because Jackson was to receive an honor in 1984, from the President at the White House. After checking their own archives, the FBI concluded that no such reference was found.
Part four: video analysis.
Containing only 9 pages, Part 04 of 07 focuses on the analysis of a multi-generational poor quality VHS tape seized by US Customs in West Palm Beach, Florida in 1995. The tape was labeled "Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology" but the files do not mention that Jackson himself owned the tape or had anything to do with it. The investigation of whether it contained child pornography was concluded on January 24, 1997. No charges were filed.
Part five: 2003–2005 period accusations.
The 18 pages in Part 05 of 07 of the FBI files provide documentation of a brief timeline of the 2003–2005 accusations from an indictment, to arrest, to CART and the FBI's investigatory assistance, to the trial's acquittal. The documents found here also reveal that police in Santa Barbara, where Jackson stood trial, contacted the FBI because they feared he might become a terrorist target. At the molestation trial, the FBI concluded there was little risk of terrorism. They noted that a Nation of Islam follower and a New Black Panther Party member attended one court appearance. Both parties remained unnamed in the file. Jackson was acquitted of all charges on June 13, 2005.
Part six: death threats and extortion attempts.
Part 06 of 07 is the FBI's largest released file on Jackson, consisting of 199 pages. This part examines death threats against Jackson and others by Frank Paul Jones, who served two years in prison for sending threatening letters. Jones' conviction was the result of a letter that read, "I am going to Washington, D.C., to threaten to kill the president of the United States, George Bush." The letter also mentions threats against Jackson where Jones writes, "I will personally attempt to kill if he doesn't pay me my money." Jones was arrested for trespassing on June 22, 1992 at the Jackson family compound in Encino, California.
Part seven: law enforcement interviews the 1993 accuser for 2005 trial.
With only 5 pages, part 07 of 07 is the shortest part of the released FBI files on Jackson. This part reveals investigators’ attempt to pursue the 1993 accuser as a second case to coincide with the 2003 accuser. After a meeting in June 2004 between Santa Barbara Assistant District Attorneys (SBADAs) and the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), it was concluded that a Federal case could still be pursued with the 1993 accuser. A conference call was then held on August 30, 2004, where it was agreed that Santa Maria RA should open a case on the 1993 accuser. A meeting was later held in New York in an attempt to get the 1993 accuser to testify for the 2005 trial. The 1993 accuser informed the two agents in the meeting that he would not testify against Jackson and would "legally fight any attempts to do so." A document dated December 9, 2004, indicates that the case was closed, citing "no outstanding leads or evidence items."
Media reaction.
News media began covering the content of the FBI files after they were released on December 22, 2009. These outlets included "The Guardian", "USA Today", "Variety", MTV, CNN, "Billboard", ABC News, CBC News, BBC, France 24, and Reuters. In a December 2009 edition of "Good Morning America" (GMA), Robin Roberts interviewed former Jackson Family lawyer, Brian Oxman. Oxman revealed that there was a total of 673 pages in the FBI files, and that out of the 333 pages that were released, he says: In all these pages, hundreds of pages, many many hours of investigations ... there's not one scrap of evidence that Michael Jackson ever did anything wrong, committed any crime. It's almost a vindication, when you look at this. The FBI looked at all of these matters and said, 'There's nothing here.' In the same segment of the show, a former investigator for the FBI told GMA that due to local law enforcement's limited capabilities, it was common that the FBI get involved as they were well-resourced to assist in such manners.
The FBI files would again attract media attention when in 2013 a London tabloid reported that there were "secret FBI files" that revealed Jackson paid millions in hush money to dozens of other boys he allegedly abused. Journalists soon started to question tabloid reports. Drew Griffin, a CNN Special Investigations reporter said, "It just sounds like recycled tabloid reports from 20 years ago." Thomas Mesereau, Jackson's 2005 criminal defense attorney, mentioned that the FBI case into Jackson was closed and that there was no inclusion of the tabloid's claims in the files as he dismissed the reporting by saying, "it sounds like a bunch of utter nonsense." Diane Dimond, who is not a Jackson defender, also dismissed the reports by saying, "The problem is there's no evidence to back up the claim that Jackson made that many payoffs."
In 2016, Radar Online alleged that child pornography was found in the 2003 raid of Jackson's properties, though Part 2 of the FBI files reveal no such evidence was found. The allegation was based on documentation that allegedly was from the police department that investigated Jackson. However, Kelly Hoover, a spokesperson for the police department told "USA Today" the following: Some of the documents appear to be copies of reports that were authored by Sheriff's Office personnel as well as evidentiary photographs taken by Sheriff's Office personnel interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the internet or through unknown sources. The Sheriff's Office did not release any of the documents and/or photographs to the media. The Sheriff's Office released all of its reports and the photographs as part of the required discovery process to the prosecution and the defense. Judge Melville, the presiding judge of Jackson's 2005 trial, also signed a press statement stating that no child pornography or anything illegal was ever found in Jackson's possession or on his properties.


Compensating variation

In economics, compensating variation (CV) is a measure of utility change introduced by John Hicks (1939). 'Compensating variation' refers to the amount of additional money an agent would need to reach their initial utility after a change in prices, a change in product quality, or the introduction of new products. Compensating variation can be used to find the effect of a price change on an agent's net welfare. CV reflects new prices and the old utility level. It is often written using an expenditure function, e(p,u):
where formula_4 is the wealth level, formula_5 and formula_6 are the old and new prices respectively, and formula_7 and formula_8 are the old and new utility levels respectively. The first equation can be interpreted as saying that, under the new price regime, the consumer would accept "CV" in exchange for allowing the change to occur.
More intuitively, the equation can be written using the value function, v(p,w):
one of the equivalent definitions of the "CV".
Notice that in this second example the CV is computed from the point of view of the government, in this case the CV measures the tax (or if negative the subsidy) the government has to give to the consumer in order to let him reach his old utility with the new system of prices. The only practical change is that the sign of the CV is changed. This change of perspective often occurs in order to have the same sign of the Equivalent variation.
Compensating variation is the metric behind Kaldor-Hicks efficiency; if the winners from a particular policy change can compensate the losers it is Kaldor-Hicks efficient, even if the compensation is not made.
Equivalent variation (EV) is a closely related measure that uses old prices and the new utility level. It measures the amount of money a consumer would pay to avoid a price change, before it happens. When the good is neither a normal good nor an inferior good, or when there are no income effects for the good, then EV (Equivalent variation) = CV (Compensating Variation) = ΔCS (Change in Consumer Surplus)


Directorate General of Marine and Fisheries Resources Surveillance (Indonesia)

The Directorate General of Marine and Fisheries Resources Surveillance () is a government agency under the management of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of Indonesia. Formally established on 23 November 2000 according to Presidential Decree No. 165/2000, the PSDKP is the agency responsible for supervising the marine and fishery resources of the Republic of Indonesia. The main mission of PSDKP is the prevention of Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in Indonesian waters, which has caused a substantial loss for Indonesia's fishing industry. In its mission to prevent illegal fishing, PSDKP has conducted joint-operations with the Indonesian Navy, Water Police, Sea and Coast Guard, the Maritime Security Agency and Customs. PSDKP is however is not associated with these agencies.
Background.
Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities in Indonesian waters have caused huge losses for Indonesia. Overfishing, overcapacity, threats to the preservation of fish resources, unfavorable fishery business climate, the weakening of the competitiveness of firms and the marginalization of fishermen are the real impact of illegal fishing and destructive fishing activities. Another disadvantage that can not be assessed materially but is strongly related to the national pride, is the negative image of the Indonesian nation among the international community because it is considered not able to manage marine and fishery resources properly.
Task and Function.
Based on Presidential Regulation No. 63/ 2015 on the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and Regulation of the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries No. 23/PERMEN-KP/2015 on the Organization and Working Procedures of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, PSDKP's primary task formulation and execution of marin and fisheries management. Its function are as follows:
The legal basis for PSDKP in carrying out its task are as follows:
In addition, supervision of marine and fishery resources is also mandated by the following international conventions:
Organisation.
PSDKP is an Echelon I Unit under the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. PSDKP is also coordinate with other unit within Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries in performing its duties.
Technical Execution Unit.
The Technical Execution Unit (UPT) of PSDKP was established based on the Decree of the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries No.33/PERMEN-K /2016 on the Organization and Working Procedures of the Technical Execution Unit in the Field of Marine and Fishery Resources Control. In accordance with the Ministerial Regulation, UPT PSDKP is tasked for execution of supervision of marine and fishery resources based on the prevailing laws and regulations.
The UPT PSDKP is categorized into 2 (two), which are Marine and Fishery Resource Base (Echelon II Equivalent Working Unit) and Marine and Fishery Resource Control Station (Echelon IVA equivalent Working Unit). 14 UPTs have been formed:
UPT PSDKP is also supported by the Working Unit ("Satuan Kerja/ Satker") PSDKP and PSDKP office spread throughout the territory of Indonesia. To date, 58 Working units and 142 PSDKP offices have been formed.
Equipment.
Manpower.
The total number of civil servants in the environment of PSDKP until 2012 is 904 persons, consisting of structural officials, functional Officials, supervisor and operator.
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS).
VMS is the application of information technology which is one form of surveillance system in the field of fishing and / or transporting of fish, which uses the fishing equipment monitoring equipment that has been determined. The use of VMs has been started since 2003 to date, and in its Execution strengthened by the issuance of Regulation of the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Republic of Indonesia number PeR.05 / Men / 2007 concerning Execution of Fishery Ship Monitoring System. In the framework of implementing this system, in Jakarta has been built Fishing Monitoring Center (FMC) at the Head Office of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries. VMs Executions are implemented through the installation of transmitters on fishing vessels so that their movements can be monitored when performing fishing operations (ship position, velocity of vessel, track lane, and the occurrence of fishing activities indicated to be infringing). Policies related to VMs continue to be updated in line with the strategic development of the fisheries sector and the development of monitoring technology.
To further optimize the function of VMS, the Directorate General of PSDKP is designing an integrated system (Integrated Surveillance System / ISS) which is done by overlaying VMS data with data obtained through other monitoring means such as coastal radar (Coastal Radar) and Marine Surveillance Aircraft MSA).
Vessels.
Supervisory Boats function to carry out supervision and law enforcement in the field of fisheries. Up to date, PSDKP already has 27 Supervisory Boats in various types / sizes (14 m - 42 m) with 89 speed surveillance boats placement allocated to areas assessed as vulnerable to violations and divided into two work areas, namely the Western Region and Eastern Region.
Cooperation with other agencies.
Some important cooperation that has been and continues to be woven by the Directorate General. PSDKP is the Indonesia-Australia Fisheries Surveillance Forum (IAFSF) and Regional Plan of Action (RPOA) to the Promote Responsible Fishing Practices including Combating IUU Fishing in the Southeast Asia Region.
The Indonesia-Australia Fisheries Surveillance Forum (IAFSF) is part of the Indonesia-Australia Ministerial Forum (IAMF) dedicated to cooperation in the supervision of the SDKP, including the cooperation of illegal fishing in the border waters of both countries. In 2013 a series of Indonesia-Australia cooperation within the framework of IAFSF that has been implemented include: Coordinated patrols, Technical Assistance, etc.
It is a regional initiative initiated by Indonesia-Australia and agreed by 11 countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Timor Leste, Australia and Papua New Guinea. The goal is to realize responsible fishing activities including the IUU Fishing in the area of cooperation, namely: South China Sea, Sulu-Sulawesi Sea and Arafura Sea. This cooperation has been inaugurated by Indonesia and Australia since 2007, Indonesia has become the RPOA Secretariat.


Crossing the ditch

Crossing the ditch can refer to: