Below are results for Rhode Island from the 2011/2012 Water Efficiency and Conservation State Scorecard survey.
"All water suppliers and institutional water suppliers which obtain, transport, purchase, or sell more than 50,000,000 gallons of water per year shall be required to prepare, maintain, and carry out a Water Supply Systems Management Plan (WSSMP) as described by these procedures."
"Water Supply System Management Plans shall address each of the topics listed in this section, to the extent that each is relevant to the water supplier, the water source(s), the water system(s), and the area served or eligible to be served."
96-110-008 R.I. CODE R. § 8.08: "The emergency management component shall assess system risks and response capabilities, and shall describe a practicable contingency plan for water supply emergencies. The plan shall at a minimum: (a) Identify known and potential natural and human-caused risks to the water system and assess the extent and severity of each water supply emergency situation on each component of the water supply system. Identification of system risks shall include but not be limited to ...short and long term droughts which exceed the water supply systems' design drought, seasonal water shortages..."
96-110-008 R.I. CODE R. § 8.09: "(1) WSSMPs . . . shall contain provisions in anticipation of drought that will direct suppliers to respond promptly and effectively."
The Water Use Efficiency Rule establishes targets for per capita per day water use, leakage, efficient use, and accurate metering [3.0]; lists required and optional methods for reaching targets, including metering, education, rate structure, and leak detection programs [4.0], and requires progress reporting [5.0].
96-110-008 R.I. CODE R. § 5.2: "Suppliers shall prepare a Water Efficiency and Demand Management Strategy (DMS) to achieve targets identified in section 3.0 through the application of required methods in section 4.1 and through the application of selected optional methods listed in section 4.2 and or any other methods as appropriate."
96-110-008 R.I. CODE R. § 7.00: "All water suppliers and institutional water suppliers which obtain, transport, purchase, or sell more than 50,000,000 gallons of water per year shall be required to prepare, maintain, and carry out a Water Supply Systems Management Plan (WSSMP) as described by these procedures."
96-110-008 R.I. CODE R. § 8.00: "Water Supply System Management Plans shall address each of the topics listed in this section, to the extent that each is relevant to the water supplier, the water source(s), the water system(s), and the area served or eligible to be served."
96-110-008 R.I. CODE R. § 8.06: "The plan shall describe measures to reduce the demand for, and to effectuate efficient use of, the state’s water resources. The plan shall include a program to retrofit existing water uses not in conformance with the RI State Building Code, Plumbing Code Regulations SBC-3 (1990) for watersaving plumbing equipment."
"The DMS [Demand Management Strategy] is subject to review and approval by the [Rhode Island Water Resources Board]."
"If progress toward meeting the water efficiency and demand management targets and the supplier specific measurable goals have not been met after implementing the DMS or after 5 years, whichever is sooner, the Board may require the DMS be revised."
96-110-008 R.I. CODE R. § 5.2.1: "The DMS shall be submitted by August 1, 2012, shall constitute an amendment to the Water Supply System Management Plan (WSSMP)."
96-110-008 R.I. CODE R. § 5.2.6: "Subsequent versions of the DMS shall be submitted and reviewed pursuant to the Rules and Procedures of the Water Supply System Management Program."
96-110-008 R.I. CODE R. § 10.02: "Each water supplier shall review its plans at least once every 5 years from the date of board approval or whenever a significant component of the plan is no longer valid, and shall amend or replace its plan as required so as to remain current."
Yes, suppliers must implement the required methods of achieving efficiency targets, at least, or be subject to enforcement action.
"6.1 The Board may issue a Notice of Violation to any major public water supplier that fails to comply with provisions of these regulations. . . . 6.2 The Board may issue to any major public water supplier failing to comply with the requirements of rule 5.0 (Water Use and Efficiency Reporting) an order requiring submission of the required information. 6.3 Any finding by the Board of non-compliance by a major public water supplier listed in R.I. General Laws § 39-15.1-2(4) with the requirements of R.I. General Laws § 46-15.3-7.5 or § 46-15.3-7.6 shall be forwarded to the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers as required by R.I. Gen. Laws § 46-15.3-20. 6.4 Failure to comply with any administrative order issued by the Board may subject a major public water supplier to the penalties set forth in R.I. General Laws § 46-15-11(b)."
Yes, through the Water Resource Board.
"The RI Water Resources Board and the RI Water Resources Board Corporate are established by Chapter §46-15 of the RI General Laws. The General Assembly recognized that Rhode Island's water resources are among the state's most valuable-if not the most valuable-of all its natural resources.
Together, these two agencies of government support the proper development, protection, conservation and use of the state's water resources while providing for economic development and protection for the environment."


Companies that are formed “for the purposes of abstracting title to real estate, furnishing information in relation thereto, and insuring owners and others interested therein against loss by reason of encumbrances and defective titles,” must obtain a certificate (i.e., license) from the Mississippi Insurance Department. Miss. Code Ann. §83-15-1. Once licensed, these companies must file an annual statement of its condition with the Department. Id. Subject to filing the annual statement, the Department will issue an annual license to the title insurance company. Miss. Code Ann. §83-15-3.
In order to issue title insurance policies, title insurance companies must comply with certain minimum capital and surplus thresholds. Miss. Code Ann. §83-15-5. The total amount of any policy issued by such a company without reinsurance may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the capital and surplus of the company, as reflected by its latest statement to the commissioner. Id. In addition, title insurance companies must establish and maintain a “reserve for losses” in an amount not less than the lesser of ten percent of the amount of all premiums received or fifty thousand dollars. Miss. Code Ann. §83-15-7. Finally, title insurance companies must establish and maintain a “reserve for unearned premiums.” Miss. Code Ann. §83-15-9.
Coverage (e.g., title insurance) protecting an insured against risk resulting from defective titles or invalidity or adverse claim to title is considered a “limited line insurance.” Miss. Code Ann. § 83-17-53. In order to “sell, solicit or negotiate” title insurance, one must be appropriately licensed for that line of authority. Miss. Code Ann. § 83-17-55.
An “insurance producer” cannot act as an agent of an insurer unless the producer is an appointed agent of the insurer. Miss. Code Ann. § 83-17-75. For an individual to become a licensed title insurance agent, or “producer,” he must file a Limited Lines Insurance Producer license application with the Mississippi Insurance Department. However, attorneys licensed in Mississippi are not required to file a licensing application and are not required to pay licensing or renewal fees. Miss. Code Ann. § 83-15-3. For non-attorney agents (i.e., law firms and non-Mississippi licensed attorneys), the licensing fee is $100 and renewal fees are $100. Licenses must be renewed on a biennial basis and will expire on the last day of the licensee’s birth month. Both the applications and renewals can be submitted online.
Once the license application is submitted, the insurer then submits a notice of appointment with the Department.
In order to license an entity (e.g., a law firm), a separate application must be filed after the individual license application is filed and approved and the title insurer appoints the agent as a producer. As part of the application, the entity will be required to designate a Mississippi-licensed producer responsible for the entity’s compliance with Mississippi insurance laws. The entity will be authorized to produce title insurance if the designated responsible producer is licensed to produce title insurance. Entities with multiple locations are not required to obtain multiple licenses. Entity licenses expire biannually on May 31 and may be renewed online within 67 days prior to expiration. Both the applications and renewals can be submitted online.
More instructions and information on licensing can be found on the Department’s website. The licensing updates and frequently asked questions link may also be helpful.


text:
We are in 2 Corinthians 1:3-11 today. It seems especially appropriate to share on this passage and its message, given that a number of our congregation are going through some real times of testing and hardship right now. Let’s look at this Scripture and see what God has to say to us this morning.
“3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.
5For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. 6If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, producing in you an endurance of the same sufferings which we also suffer. 7Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.
Let’s break this down into four points.
The word “affliction” shows up four times. It means “trouble that inflicts distress” due to the outward circumstances of life. It can also be translated “trouble” or “tribulation.” It also refers to “inward experiences of distress.” The pain that we have because of our difficulties.
In these verses Paul is referring specifically to suffering because of his ministry – suffering lack and being persecuted. In v. 5 he talks about how “we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings” as he and Timothy fulfill their calling to preach the gospel. Later in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29 we get a taste of what Paul is talking about: imprisonments, beatings, near death encounters, including being stoned; being shipwrecked, adrift at sea, exposed to dangers as he traveled, exposed to the cold; often hungry and thirsty.
In our verses, he is giving thanks to God for a specific deliverance. v. 8 mentions “the affliction we experienced in Asia,” that is, in the Roman province of Asia in what would be Western Turkey today. We don’t know specifically what he’s talking about, but probably the Corinthians do.
This is what we know. In v. 9 he says, “we felt that we had received the sentence of death.” And in v. 10 he called it a “deadly peril.” He thought for sure he and Timothy were going to die. The result was that “we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself” (v. 8). Now notice he was not just burdened, he was “utterly burdened,” weighed down, or crushed. So much so that he had no strength to deal with it and had no hope of living. So this was really intense testing he was in.
And certainly sometimes we feel “utterly burdened beyond our strength” by the circumstances of life that we are in. So much so that we think we aren’t going to make it. That is, we too can have despair; we can give up hope. This is a part of the inward pain that such suffering and affliction bring to us. This is what trials can do to us.
v. 3 says, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort.” This whole passage is blessing God for God’s mercy and comfort.
The title that Paul gives to God, “the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,” doesn’t just point to God as being merciful and comforting, but to God as the source of our mercy and comfort.
God’s mercy is seen in that God delivered Paul from his trial. He didn’t die. God’s comfort has to do with God’s help in the midst of his trial.
The word “comfort” here can also be translated “encouragement,” or “consolation.” In its verbal form it means to give strength, to give hope; to lift another’s spirits; to ease their pain and sorrow. And this is a real theme in vs. 3-7. The root word shows up 10 times.
Paul is saying that he has experienced this from God. God comforted him in his desperate trial. In v. 4 he speaks of him “who comforts us in all our affliction” and talks about being “comforted by God.” He experienced God encouraging him and giving him strength. He experienced God’s presence and love which allayed some of the pain he was going through.
He also teaches us in v. 5 that God’s grace is sufficient to our need. “For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so though Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.” He is saying that if we have many afflictions, we can have a corresponding measure of comfort as well.
Well, just as God comforted Paul, God will comfort us in our sufferings too. God is there with us and for us in our hard times. God can encourage us, let us know that he loves us, strengthen us and hold us up, so that we endure (v. 6). And so, like Paul, we should look to God to do just this.
Suffering equips us to minister to others; to help and bless others who are enduring suffering. And through such comfort we strengthen them to endure, as Paul says in v. 6.
His situation was beyond anything that he could take are of, and since it involved him dying he had to look to the one who can raise the dead. Death isn’t fixable by human means, only by God. He has to learn in a new way what full reliance on God meant.
Now, none of us like to go through trials.
But it is true that often, we minister most effectively when we are in the midst of trials or have gone through deep waters. As here we are enabled to minister comfort to others.
And it is true that often, we grow in our faith the most when we are in trials. As here we are taught to rely on God more fully.
And so although we pray to be spared trials, we also pray to be effective ministers to others and to grow in our faith. Although we pray to be spared testing, we also pray, your name be hallowed, your kingdom come, your will be done.
So we don’t want trials, but we have to trust God to sort through all this in terms of what is truly best for us from the perspective of our faith and of eternity, and what will bring glory to his name and advance his kingdom purposes.
We can share how God has been faithful to us. We can encourage them to hang in there; to look to God for help. We can ask what practical things we can do to ease their burden. But most of all we can simply be present and express our love. Love is more powerful than evil or whatever evil we find ourselves going through. Love is what truly comfort and heals.
And God uses us when we do these things, to give his comfort to people in need.
2) Like Paul asks the Corinthians to do, we can pray for others, for deliverance from trials, both now and in the future.
Now, Paul was not always delivered. According to tradition he was eventually killed by Emperor Nero. So this praying is subject to God’s will, of course. But nevertheless he asks for prayers for deliverance so that he can continue on with the ministry that God has given to him. And we can pray the same for those who are going through hard times.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Please type your desired tags, e.g. Mathematical Science, Geospatial Information Science, Public Policy, Cognition and Neuroscience, Psychological Sciences, HiC, Software Engineering, Supply Chain, water power, Asian Studies, Poverty, History of Medicine, Twentieth-Century American Literature, Texas History, Poetry, and etc.
He is a founding member of the SAGE geophysical field camp, a consortium of academic geophysicists and the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Starting in 1983, SAGE has had over 500 students from institutions around the world. In addition, the faculty and students publish research on the Rio Grande Rift on a regular basis. In 1998 SAGE won the American Geophysical Union Excellence in Geophysical Education Award.
Lai, S. F., J. F. Ferguson, C. L. V. Aiken and D. Ziegler (1985), A test of gravity and magnetic anomaly inversion in defining the structure of the Sanford Basin, NC as an example of a Triassic basin, 1985 SEG Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Axilrod, H. D. and J. F. Ferguson (1989), SH-wave modeling in laterally inhomogeneous media: an evaluation of four discrete wavenumber techniques, 1989 SEG Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX.
Aiken, C. L. V., M. F. de la Fuente, M. Balde, K. H. Fleischmann, J. Fishman, A. T. Daniels, J. Hare and J. F. Ferguson (1994), The Ecuadorian geodetic/gravity observations (EGO) project: GPS/Gravity acquisition from the Pacific Coast of the Amazon Basin, 1994 SEG Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA.
Brady, J. L., D. S. Wolcott, P. H. Daggett, J. F. Ferguson, J. L. Hare, C. L. V. Aiken, M. Balde, J. E. Seibert and G. Mader (1995), Water movement surveillance with high resolution surface gravity and GPS: A model study with field test results, SPE Annual Technical Conf. and Exhibition, Dallas, TX.
Smith, D. N. and J. F. Ferguson (1997), Constrained inversion of seismic refraction data using the controlled random search, 1997 SEG Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX.
Hare, J. L., J. F. Ferguson, C. L. V. Aiken and J. L. Brady (1997), 4-D microgravity modeling and inversion for waterflood surveillance: A model study for the Prudhoe Bay reservoir, Alaska, 1997 SEG Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX.
Brady, J. L., J. F. Ferguson, C. L. V. Aiken, J. E. Seibert, T. Chen, and J. L. Hare (2002), Performing a high resolution surface gravity survey to monitor the gas cap water injection project, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint Meeting, Anchorage, AK.
Brady, J. L., J. Ferguson, J. Seibert, T. Chen, J. Hare, C. Aiken, F. Klopping and J. Brown (2002), Surface gravity monitoring of the gas cap water injection project - Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, SPE 2002 Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX.
Brown, J. M., F. J. Klopping, D. van Westrum, T. M. Niebauer, J. Brady, J. Ferguson, T. Chen and J. Seibert (2002), Preliminary absolute gravity survey results from water injection monitoring program at Prudhoe Bay, SEG 2002 Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT.
Hodges, J., J. F. Ferguson and L. Pellerin, (2005), An archaeological investigation of San Marcos Pueblo New Mexico, USA, SAGEEP 2005 Proceedings and Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
Hinz, E., J. Peacock, J. Ferguson and L. Pellerin, (2006), An ongoing investigation of the San Marcos Pueblo, New Mexico, SAGEEP 2006 Proceedings and Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.
Brady, J. L., J. L. Hare, J. F. Ferguson, J. E. Seibert, F. J. Klopping, T. Chen and T. Niebauer, (2006), Results of the world's first 4D microgravity surveillance of a waterflood - Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, SPE 2006 Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX.
Hare, J., J. F. Ferguson, J. Brady, J. Seibert and F. Klopping, (2008), 4D Microgravity surveillence of the gas cap waterflood, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, SEG Workshop on Unconventional Time-Lapse Geophysics, SEG 2008 Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV (invited).
Aiken, C. L. V., M. Balde, J. F. Ferguson, G. D. Lyman, X. Xu, and A. H. Cogbill (1998), Recent developments in digital gravity data acquisition on land, The Leading Edge, v. 17, p. 93-97.
Ferguson, J. F., W. S. Baldridge, G. R. Jiracek, V. Gonzalez and P. A. Pope (1998). Students investigate environmental restoration site in New Mexico, EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. U., v. 79, p. 329-335. (Also Earth in Space, v. 11, p. 6-9).
Jiracek, G. R., W. S. Baldridge, S. Biehler, L. W. Braile, J. F. Ferguson, B. E. Gilpin, D. L. Alumbaugh, (2000), SAGE: Learning geophysics by immersion, The Leading Edge, v 19, p. 986-990.
Chen, T., J. F. Ferguson, C. L. V. Aiken and J. Brady, (2005), Real-time data acquisition and quality control for gravity surveys, The Leading Edge, v 24, p 702-704.
Jiracek, G. R., W. S. Baldridge, A. Sussman, S. Biehler, L. W. Braile, J. F. Ferguson, B. E. Gilpin, D. K. McPhee and L. Pellerin, (2008), SAGE celebrates 25 years of learning geophysics by doing geophysics, The Leading Edge, v 27, p 1340-1344.
RICHARDSON, Texas (Aug. 4, 2005) – Dr. John F. Ferguson, a noted geophysicist and long-time faculty member at The University of Texas at Dallas (UTD), was appointed head of the university’s Geosciences Department, effective Monday.
Ferguson succeeds Dr. Robert J. Stern, department head for the past eight years, who will begin a year-long leave – known as a “special faculty development assignment” – this fall, after which he will return to UTD to teach and conduct research. Stern will teach classes and pursue research projects during the coming fall semester at Stanford University, then move to the California Institute of Technology for the spring semester.
Campus events this week will help members of the UT Dallas community not only make sense of the tragedy in Haiti but also play a part in relief efforts.
“The Haiti Earthquake: From Natural Phenomena to National Disaster” is the topic of a lecture planned for Thursday, Jan. 21, by Dr. John Ferguson of the Department of Geosciences. The event is scheduled for noon in the TI Auditorium (ECSS 2.102).
RICHARDSON, Texas (Jan. 14, 2004) - The next time you feel the earth move under your feet, geoscientists at The University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) will be able to tell you when and how much - on a newly-installed seismograph in Founders Hall.
The sensitive scientific instrument, one of only a very few of its kind in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, records seismic waves generated by earthquakes - whether it occurs in an adjoining state or as distant as the other side of the globe. But mostly what it displays — on a computer screen in real-time digital readouts that resemble an electrocardiogram printout - is the "ordinary background noise of the planet," according to one of the instrument's builders, Dr. John F. Ferguson, associate professor in UTD's Department of Geosciences.
Review of proposals for the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and other agencies.
Review of manuscripts for the Journal of Geophysical Research, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Geophysics and other publications.
Service on the faculty of the SAGE Geophysical Field Course, Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, since 1983.
Associate Editor for the Special Section on 4D Gravity Monitoring, Geophysics, v. 73, n. 6, 2008.
Service on a number of ad hoc third-year and tenure review committees in the Schools of Natural Sciences and Mathematics and the Eric Jonnson School of Engineering and Computer Science.
Service on a number of academic search commitees for Departments of Geosciences, Physics and the Geographical Information Sciences Program.
Doctor of Philosophy: 1) Harry, Dennis L., Ph.D., 1989, Lithospheric Flexure: Applications of Geophysical Inverse Theory and Empirical Studies of Rock Deformation. 2) Karabulut, Hayrullah, Ph.D., 1996, Application of Boundary Element Method and Simulated Annealing to Seismic Data. 3) Hare, Jennifer, Ph.D., 1998, High Resolution Techniques for Monitoring Fluid Levels Over Time. 4) Zhou, Yu, Ph.D., 2002, Wavelet Transforms in Seismic Data Processing and Imaging. 5) Chen, Tianyou, Ph. D., 2004, Applications of High Accuracy Gravity and Space Geodesy Methodologies. Master of Science: 1) Grotte, James R., M.S., 1985, The Development and Application of the Werner Deconvolution and 2-D Filtering to Gravity and Magnetic Data in S.E. Virginia. 2) Reamer, Sharon K., M.S., 1986, Improvements to the Fourier Gravity Inversion Method with Applications. 3) Hersey, David R., M.S., 1986, Geophysical Investigation of the Eastern Margin of the Espanola Basin, New Mexico. 4) Heidesch, Russell J., M.S., 1987, A Wide Angle Seismic Investigation of Pahute Mesa, Nevada. 5) Madtson, Eric A., M.S., 1990, Seismic Polarization Analysis. 6) Axilrod, Herbert D., M.S., 1996, SH Wave Scattering from a Sinusoidal Grating. 7) Searcy, Amy M., M.S. (Mathematics), 1998, Geological Surface Evolution Modeling: Numerical Simulations Using Diffusion-Type Equations. 8) Smith, David, M. S., 2000, Constrained Inversion of Seismic Refraction Data and Re-Mapping of Quaternary Deposits in Dallas County, Texas. 9) Thavoris, Ioannis, M. S., 2001, Geophysical Survey of MDA-B Waste Disposal Site at DP Mesa Los Alamos, NM. 10) Henderson, Tracey, M. S., 2002, Integrated Seismic and Gravity Study in Offshore Oman. 11) Hinz, Emily, M.S., 2007, Geophysical Applications to Archaeological Investigations.

matches: V. V. V. V. v. V. v. v. V. v.


text:
#Jewpon .com : Trademark holder reached out to #domain owner - what happened next? :DomainGang #Jewpon .com : Trademark holder reached out to #domain owner - what happened next?
#Jewpon .com : Trademark holder reached out to #domain owner – what happened next?
The trademark owner of JEWPON reached out to the matching .com domain owner, offering $3,000 dollars for Jewpon.com.
The domain was registered in 2010, according to DomainTools, while the trademark was registered in 2017.
That’s a seven year difference, and the domain owner was working on a business plan all these years, apparently, intending to offer a “Jewish Groupon” service.
Wanting to recoup their investment, they countered with $50,000 dollars. That price tag triggered the trademark owner’s filing of a UDRP at the National Arbitration Forum.
Basically, the sole panelist said that since it was the Complainant that initiated the offer, there was not a case of a bad faith registration to be found, and denied the Complainant’s request for a domain transfer.
Full details on this decision on Jewpon.com follow.
Complainant is JYDR Consulting (“Complainant”), represented by Isabelle Jung Greenberg of CRGO Law, Florida, USA. Respondent is joshua orbach (“Respondent”), represented by Jason B. Pear of The Bernstein Law Firm, Florida, USA.
The domain name at issue is <jewpon.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 26, 2018; the Forum received payment on March 26, 2018.
On March 27, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <jewpon.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 3, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 27, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@jewpon.com. Also on April 3, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 27, 2018.
Additional Submission of the Complainant was received on May 2, 2018.
On May 10, 2018, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Katalin Szamosi as Panelist.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <jewpon.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, as the WHOIS information lists the Respondent as “Joshua Orbach” and makes no mention or reference to the JEWPON mark. See Compl. Ex. C. Respondent also does not use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent has failed to make an active use of the resolving website associated with the domain name since at least as early as January 1, 2014. See Compl. Exs. D (current webpage) and F (historical screenshots of the resolving webpage).
Respondent registered and uses the <jewpon.com> domain name in bad faith. While Complainant initiated negotiations to purchase the domain name, Respondent rejected all of Complainant’s offers and instead offered to sell the domain name for no less than $125,000. See Compl. Ex. I. Further, while Respondent registered the domain name prior to Complainant acquiring rights in the JEWPON mark, Respondent’s re-registration of the domain name was done in bad faith. Additionally, Respondent has failed to make an active use of the resolving webpage since at least as early as January 1, 2014. See Compl. Exs. D & F.
Respondent does not make any contentions under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has been commonly known by the <jewpon.com> domain name, as it offered items for sale and was covered by the press at least as early as 2010. Respondent’s use of the domain name to offer items for sale is a bona fide offering of goods and services in regards to the domain name.
While Respondent did offer to sell the domain name to Complainant after Complainant contacted Respondent, Respondent is only attempting to recoup some of the money it lost in its failed business venture associated with the domain name. Respondent did not register the domain name for the purpose of selling it at a later date. Further, Respondent could not have registered the domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark because the Respondent registered the domain name long before the Complainant either (a) registered <jewpon.me> or (b) registered its trademark. Additionally, Respondent previously used the domain name, and has been developing business plans for the <jewpon.com> domain name over the past few years.
While Respondent may have made a minor use of the domain name for a short period of time after it purchased the domain name, it has since abandoned the website located at the domain name, and thus has abandoned the name itself. Further, Respondent did not originally register the domain name, and only acquired rights in the domain name after it purchased it in 2013. Additionally, Respondent contacted Complainant once again on May 2, 2018 in efforts to sell the domain name to Complainant, and attempted to engage in scare tactics by threatening to commence legal action in an unknown forum with unspecified damages.
Complainant is the owner of the JEWPON mark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 5,177,687, registered Apr. 4, 2017, filing date of January 22, 2016).
The <jewpon.com> domain name was registered on October 5, 2010.
Complainant offered to purchase the <jewpon.com> domain name, Respondent refused Complainant’s initial offer, but it expressed a willingness to sell the domain name for a significantly improved offer.
Complainant holds rights in the JEWPON mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 5,177,687, registered Apr. 4, 2017), and asserts rights back to the filing date of January 22, 2016. See Compl. Ex. B. Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (“There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register at Exhibit 1, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The relevant date for Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) can be the date a complainant filed for the trademark registration. See ADP, LLC v. Dennis Shifrin / Streamline, FA 1732114 (Forum June 13, 2017) (holding that “the relevant date for Complainant’s mark is the filing date.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the JEWPON mark, dating back to the filing date of January 22, 2016, for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <jewpon.com> domain name. Relevant information can include the WHOIS registration information and any other information in the record. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). The WHOIS identifies “Joshua Orbach” as the registrant. See Compl. Ex. C. Complainant asserts that there is no other indication in the WHOIS or anywhere else that indicates Respondent is commonly known by the JEWPON mark. Accordingly, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the <jewpon.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Further, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves in a website that lacks any content, save for one word in the upper corner of the webpage. Failure to make active use of a confusingly similar domain name can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the webpage associated with the domain name, as well as historical screenshots, which show that the current webpage displays the word “pageok” in the upper right hand corner, and has not displayed any substantive content since October 10, 2013. See Compl. Exs. D & F. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name and thus fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel notes that if Respondent’s registration of the <jewpon.com> domain name predates Complainant’s first claimed rights in the JEWPON mark, Complainant generally cannot prove registration in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), as the Policy requires a showing of bad faith registration and use. See Faster Faster, Inc. DBA Alta Motors v. Jeongho Yoon c/o AltaMart, FA 1708272 (Forum Feb. 6, 2017) (“Respondent registered the domain name more than a decade before Complainant introduced the ALTA MOTORS mark in commerce. Respondent therefore could not have entertained bad faith intentions respecting the mark because it could not have contemplated Complainant’s then non-existent rights in [the mark] at the moment the domain name was registered.”).
Respondent avers that while it did offer to sell the domain name to Complainant after Complainant contacted Respondent, Respondent is only attempting to recoup some of the money it lost in its failed business venture associated with the domain name, and Respondent did not register the domain name for the purpose of selling it at a later date. When a complainant initiates purchase negotiations, and when evidence does not support a finding that sale was the initial purpose for registering a domain name, a respondent may avoid a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Key II, Inc. v. Confino, Vico, FA 954029 (Forum June 5, 2007) (“that Respondent never approached Complainant with an offer to sell the name; rather the Complainant sought to purchase the name for $3,000 and Respondent said that it had valued the disputed domain name on its books at $50,000. Even if this statement was an implied counter-offer to sell the name to Complainant for $50,000, in connection with a showing of bad faith it is important to note that it was Complainant who initially approached Respondent about the sale.”); see also KARACA ZÜCCACIYE TICARET VE SANAYI ANONIM SIRKETI v. Karaca Yacht LTD., FA1206001448308 (Forum July 31, 2012) (“While there is evidence that Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for an amount far in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs related to the domain name, the evidence falls short of establishing that the domain name was registered “primarily” for the purpose of selling it to Complainant. As noted by Respondent, its offer to sell the domain name was made only after an initial inquiry by Complainant.”) Respondent does not provide any evidence to further this assertion, however Complainant confirms that it initiated the sale negotiations. See Compl. Ex. I. As such, the Panel finds that Complainant initiated contact with Respondent in regard to the transfer of the domain name, and hold that Respondent did not register the domain name for the purpose of selling it to Complainant or another third-party.
Further, Respondent claims it could not have registered the domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark because the Respondent registered the domain name long before the Complainant either (a) registered <jewpon.me> or (b) registered its trademark. When the registration of a domain name predates a complainant’s rights in a mark, a respondent generally can avoid a finding of bad faith. The domain name was registered in 2010, while Complainant acquired and claims rights in the mark in 2016. See Compl. Exs. B & C. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s rights in the domain name predate Complainant’s rights in the JEWPON mark and holds that Respondent did not register the domain name in bad faith. The Panel notes that according to Complainant, Respondent purchased the domain name on or about August 12, 2013. As also the purchase of the domain name far predates the Complainant’s first claimed rights in the JEWPON mark, it could not be established either that the domain name was purchased by Respondent with bad faith intentions.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <jewpon.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
why no rdnh? why these entitled fucks are allowed to get away with this is beyond me. but icann is doing such a great job. this new whois thing is so totally them.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Real property taxes; delinquent tax list; publication and posting of notice; publication charges; publication on Department of Revenue web site.
(1) The county treasurer shall cause the list of real property subject to sale and accompanying notice to be published once a week for three consecutive weeks prior to the date of sale, commencing the first week in February, in a legal newspaper and, in counties having more than two hundred fifty thousand inhabitants, in a daily legal newspaper of general circulation, published in the English language in the county, and designated by the county board. The county treasurer shall also cause to be posted in some conspicuous place in his or her office a copy of such notice. The treasurer shall assess against each description the sum of five dollars to defray the expenses of advertising, which sum shall be added to the total amount due on such real property and be collected in the same manner as taxes are collected.
(2) The county treasurer shall also forward an electronic copy of the list of real property subject to sale to the Property Tax Administrator who shall compile a list for all counties and publish the compiled list on the web site of the Department of Revenue.
Laws 2014, LB697, § 1.
For legal rate for publications, see section 33-141.
Treasurer is not required to include in private sale taxes becoming delinquent subsequent to the taxes levied and advertised for previous year. McGerr v. Bradley, 117 Neb. 841, 223 N.W. 132 (1929).
Statute providing rate for publishing notices in general governs rate for publishing delinquent tax lists and not above section which applies to amount to be charged to delinquent taxpayer. Wisner v. Morrill County, 117 Neb. 324, 220 N.W. 280 (1928).
Notice of tax sale must contain substantially all of the matter specified in statute. Tate v. Biggs, 89 Neb. 195, 130 N.W. 1053 (1911).
County board may change designation of paper in which notice is published from time to time. World Pub. Co. v. Douglas County, 79 Neb. 849, 113 N.W. 539 (1907).
Where county board recognizes and deals with newspaper as official paper of county, it is a paper designated for purpose of publication of notices of tax sales. Continental Trust Co. v. Link, 79 Neb. 29, 112 N.W. 352 (1907).
Action by board, in designating paper if in good faith, will not be interfered with by court of equity. Getzschmann v. Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, 76 Neb. 648, 107 N.W. 987 (1906).
Week means period of time beginning and ending Saturday following. Requirements of section are discussed. Medland v. Linton, 60 Neb. 249, 82 N.W. 866 (1900).
Treasurer has no authority to sell real estate without including in sale all taxes delinquent for all previous years, with interest and costs. Grant v. Bartholomew, 57 Neb. 673, 78 N.W. 314 (1899); Medland v. Connell, 57 Neb. 10, 77 N.W. 437 (1898); Adams v. Osgood, 42 Neb. 450, 60 N.W. 869 (1894); O'Donohue v. Hendrix, 13 Neb. 257, 13 N.W. 281 (1882); Tillotson v. Small, 13 Neb. 202, 13 N.W. 201 (1882); State ex rel. Whiffen v. Helmer, 10 Neb. 25, 4 N.W. 367 (1880).
If county board fails to designate paper, treasurer should cause notice to be published. Hamilton County v. Bailey, 12 Neb. 56, 10 N.W. 539 (1881).

matches:
§ 1
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.


text:
The persistent dynamic secrets of senescence.
Mechanical regulation of transcription controls Polycomb-mediated gene silencing during lineage commitment.
Le, H.Q. and Ghatak, S. and Yeung, C.Y.C. and Tellkamp, F. and Günschmann, C. and Dieterich, C. and Yeroslaviz, A. and Habermann, B. and Pombo, A. and Niessen, C.M. and Wickström, S.A.
Orchestrating Wnt signalling for metabolic liver zonation.
Blood flow drives lumen formation by inverse membrane blebbing during angiogenesis in vivo.
Gebala, V. and Collins, R. and Geudens, I. and Phng, L.K. and Gerhardt, H.
In vivo reprogramming for tissue repair.
Heinrichs, C. and Spagnoli, F.M. and Berninger, B.
Rsp5/Nedd4 clears cells of heat-damaged proteins.
Sommer, T. and Weber, A. and Jarosch, E.
The role of differential VE-cadherin dynamics in cell rearrangement during angiogenesis.
Bentley, K. and Franco, C.A. and Philippides, A. and Blanco, R. and Dierkes, M. and Gebala, V. and Stanchi, F. and Jones, M. and Aspalter, I.M. and Cagna, G. and Weström, S. and Claesson-Welsh, L. and Vestweber, D. and Gerhardt, H.
Der1 promotes movement of misfolded proteins through the endoplasmic reticulum membrane.
Mehnert, M. and Sommer, T. and Jarosch, E.
Diverse epigenetic strategies interact to control epidermal differentiation.
Mulder, K.W. and Wang, X. and Escriu, C. and Ito, Y. and Schwarz, R.F. and Gillis, J. and Sirokmany, G. and Donati, G. and Uribe-Lewis, S. and Pavlidis, P. and Murrell, A. and Markowetz, F. and Watt, F.M.
VEGFR-3 controls tip to stalk conversion at vessel fusion sites by reinforcing Notch signalling.
Tammela, T. and Zarkada, G. and Nurmi, H. and Jakobsson, L. and Heinolainen, K. and Tvorogov, D. and Zheng, W. and Franco, C.A. and Murtomäki, A. and Aranda, E. and Miura, N. and Ylä-Herttuala, S. and Fruttiger, M. and Mäkinen, T. and Eichmann, A. and Pollard, J.W. and Gerhardt, H. and Alitalo, K.
FOXO1 is an essential regulator of pluripotency in human embryonic stem cells.
Zhang, X. and Yalcin, S. and Lee, D.F. and Yeh, T.Y. and Lee, S.M. and Su, J. and Mungamuri, S.K. and Rimmele, P. and Kennedy, M. and Sellers, R. and Landthaler, M. and Tuschl, T. and Chi, N.W. and Lemischka, I. and Keller, G. and Ghaffari, S.
Di Micco, R. and Sulli, G. and Dobreva, M. and Liontos, M. and Botrugno, O.A. and Gargiulo, G. and dal Zuffu, R. and Matti, V. and d'Ario, G. and Montani, E. and Mercurio, C. and Hahn, W.C. and Gorgoulis, V. and Minucci, S. and d'Adda di Fagagna, F.
Endothelial cells dynamically compete for the tip cell position during angiogenic sprouting.
Jakobsson, L. and Franco, C.A. and Bentley, K. and Collins, R.T. and Ponsioen, B. and Aspalter, I.M. and Rosewell, I. and Busse, M. and Thurston, G. and Medvinsky, A. and Schulte-Merker, S. and Gerhardt, H.
Jarid2 is a PRC2 component in embryonic stem cells required for multi-lineage differentiation and recruitment of PRC1 and RNA Polymerase II to developmental regulators.
Landeira, D. and Sauer, S. and Poot, R. and Dvorkina, M. and Mazzarella, L. and Jorgensen, H.F. and Pereira, C.F. and Leleu, M. and Piccolo, F.M. and Spivakov, M. and Brookes, E. and Pombo, A. and Fisher, C. and Skarnes, W.C. and Snoek, T. and Bezstarosti, K. and Demmers, J. and Klose, R.J. and Casanova, M. and Tavares, L. and Brockdorff, N. and Merkenschlager, M. and Fisher, A.G.
MTCH2/MIMP is a major facilitator of tBID recruitment to mitochondria.
Zaltsman, Y. and Shachnai, L. and Yivgi-Ohana, N. and Schwarz, M. and Maryanovich, M. and Houtkooper, R.H. and Vaz, F.M. and De Leonardis, F. and Fiermonte, G. and Palmieri, F. and Gillissen, B. and Daniel, P.T. and Jimenez, E. and Walsh, S. and Koehler, C.M. and Roy, S.S. and Walter, L. and Hajnoczky, G. and Gross, A.
Stolz, A. and Ertych, N. and Kienitz, A. and Vogel, C. and Schneider, V. and Fritz, B. and Jacob, R. and Dittmar, G. and Weichert, W. and Petersen, I. and Bastians, H.
Ageing-related chromatin defects through loss of the NURD complex.
Pegoraro, G. and Kubben, N. and Wickert, U. and Goehler, H. and Hoffmann, K. and Misteli, T.
Normal brain development in importin-alpha5 deficient-mice.
Shmidt, T. and Hampich, F. and Ridders, M. and Schultrich, S. and Hans, V.H. and Tenner, K. and Vilianovich, L. and Qadri, F. and Alenina, N. and Hartmann, E. and Koehler, M. and Bader, M.
Ring1-mediated ubiquitination of H2A restrains poised RNA polymerase II at bivalent genes in mouse ES cells.
Stock, J.K. and Giadrossi, S. and Casanova, M. and Brookes, E. and Vidal, M. and Koseki, H. and Brockdorff, N. and Fisher, A.G. and Pombo, A.
Qi, M.L. and Tagawa, K. and Enokido, Y. and Yoshimura, N. and Wada, Y.I. and Watase, K. and Ishiura, S.I. and Kanazawa, I. and Botas, J. and Saitoe, M. and Wanker, E.E. and Okazawa, H.
A complex of Yos9p and the HRD ligase integrates endoplasmic reticulum quality control into the degradation machinery.
Gauss, R. and Jarosch, E. and Sommer, T. and Hirsch, C.
Chromatin signatures of pluripotent cell lines.
Azuara, V. and Perry, P. and Sauer, S. and Spivakov, M. and Jorgensen, H.F. and John, R.M. and Gouti, M. and Casanova, M. and Warnes, G. and Merkenschlager, M. and Fisher, A.G.
Ubx2 links the Cdc48 complex to ER-associated protein degradation.
Neuber, O. and Jarosch, E. and Volkwein, C. and Walter, J. and Sommer, T.
Meusser, B. and Hirsch, C. and Jarosch, E. and Sommer, T.
Ion channels: function unravelled by dysfunction.
Jentsch, T.J. and Huebner, C.A. and Fuhrmann, J.C.
EGFR activation coupled to inhibition of tyrosine phosphatases causes lateral signal propagation.
Reynolds, A.R. and Tischer, C. and Verveer, P.J. and Rocks, O. and Bastiaens, P.I.
Friedlander, R. and Jarosch, E. and Urban, J. and Volkwein, C. and Sommer, T.
Smooth-muscle contraction without smooth-muscle myosin.
Morano, I. and Chai, G.X. and Baltas, L.G. and Lamounier-Zepter, V. and Lutsch, G. and Kott, M. and Haase, H. and Bader, M.
This list was generated on Tue Apr 23 02:38:41 2019 CEST.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
Cases and Clients | Fox and Weiss, P.A.
Call 770-317-1767 for free consultation.
Access General Insurance Agency; American Casualty Ins. Co.; AmSouth, Inc.; Atlantic Limousines, Inc.; Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP); Balfour Residential, LLC; Bank of America; Ben Meadows Company; BioMed Plus, Inc; The Bombay Company; Capetown Diamond/Capetown Luxury Group, Inc.; CNA Insurance Co.; Continental Casualty Ins. Co.; Datatex TIS, A.G.; Formula 1 Imports, Inc.; The Frick Co.; Gallagher Bassett Insurance Services; Gorin’s/Great Wraps/J. Brenner’s Restaurants; Hearthstone of Roswell Personal Care Home; Home Focus Services, LLC; Kitchen Fronts of Georgia, Inc.; Leisure Bay Industries (Recreational Factory Warehouse); Pilgrim Dust Control, Inc./Pilgrim Mat Services; Preferred Administrative Services, Inc.; Rock-Tenn Corp.; Sheakley Uniservice, Inc.; Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.; Swiss Watch Expo, LLC; Temple Beth Tikvah; Travelers Insurance Companies; and Unicomp, Inc.
Peters v. Rock-Tenn Co., 903 N.E.2d 1256, 180 Ohio App.3d 10, 2008 Ohio 6444 (Ohio App., 2008); Peters v. Rock-Tenn Co., 2011 Ohio 6771 (Ohio, 2011); Cantrell v. Currey, 407 F.Supp.2d 1280 (M.D. Ala., 2005); Turntime v. State, 424 S.E.2d 877, 206 Ga.App. 226 (Ga. App., 1992); Clack v. Rock-Tenn Co., 304 Fed.Appx. 339 (6th Cir. 2008); Gilreath v. Rock-Tenn Co., No. 1:10-cv-7 (E.D. Tenn. 2011); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Rock Tenn Co., 774 F.Supp.2d 961, 111 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1825 (E.D. Ark., 2011); Trimble v. Alliance-DeKalb, 801 F.Supp.2d 764 (N.D. Ill., 2011); Zeese v. Smurfit–Stone Container Corp., 487 B.R. 455 (E.D. Va., 2011); Robinson v. Rocktenn CP, LLC, 986 F.Supp.2d 1287 (N.D. Ala., 2013). Additionally, we have litigated numerous other cases in county courts throughout the United States, which were not reported.
Copyright © 2018 Fox and Weiss, P.A. - All Rights Reserved.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Ang ating uniporme ay ang pagpapahayag natin ng ating pagtanggap sa ating mga kapatid na mga Moro at Katutubo. Iisang bansa lang tayo at dapat natin tanggapin ang ating pagkakaiba sapagkat kung sa lupang ito ay iisa ang mangingibabaw at babaliwalain lang ang mga sari-saring pag-kakaiba na nagaganap at nangyayari sa bawat sulok ng ating bansa ay para na rin binubura natin ang ating pagka Pilipino sapagkat ang ating pagkaka-iba ay kung ano tayo.
Imagine yourself confined at a Quezon City hospital with inadequate means to bankroll the surgery that is urgently needed to be performed upon you. Although there is a property in Quezon province that you may use as collateral for a loan with which to pay the required expenses, it is nonetheless one that you co-own with 3 other siblings. Thus, they separately executed 3 sets of Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of your wife (since the 1st is already an American resident, the 2nd has a service contract in Singapore, and the 3rd is stationed in Cebu, being the branch manager of Jollibee in said city) authorizing the latter to constitute a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) over the said Quezon province property. You also executed a similar SPA in your wife’s favor.
However, when Mr. Ravi Singh and your wife presented the REM, the 4 SPAs, and other necessary documents for the registration of the REM so he (Mr. Singh) may release the amount of the loan to your wife, the Register of Deeds (RD) refused to act on the same unless the 4 principals who executed the 4 sets of SPAs appear before him and acknowledge that the same are indeed their voluntary acts & deeds or in the alternative, he (RD) demanded that the Philippine Consular officers in America and Singapore as well as the Notaries Public in Quezon City & Cebu to appear before him and certify that the principals in the 4 SPAs indeed appeared before them and executed said documents in their presence.
If the RD in the above illustration is performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function, you may no longer see the light of day by the time he resolves to register the subject REM for he is entirely acting within his jurisdiction when he proceeded to inquire into the validity and genuineness of the 4 subject SPAs. Fortunately, RDs in this jurisdiction have been ruled to be performing ministerial functions so much so that he must forthwith register the REM & the 4 SPAs (Sec. 10, PD No. 1529) with no necessity of inquiring into their intrinsic validity (Gonzales v. Basa, 73 Phil. 704) so long as they are complete and executed in due form (Sec. 112 in relation to Sec. 55, PD No. 1529).
If there is one principle of law where the Supreme Court has been consistent, it is the High Tribunal’s ruling that Registers of Deeds (RDs) perform purely ministerial functions. The Supreme Court never deviated from its finding that the duties imposed upon RDs by the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) and PD No. 1529 are clearly ministerial and mandatory in character ever since the issue first reached its attention for disposition (In re Consulta of Atty. Vicente Francisco on behalf of Domingo Cabantog, 67 Phil. 222; Seton v. Rodriguez, 110 Phil. 548; Sanchez v. Rosauro, 40 Phil. 231; Smith, Bell & Co. v. Register of Deeds, 48 Phil. 656; Standard Oil Co. v. Jaramillo, 44 Phil. 630).
Thus, the Court ruled, and so holds to this very moment, that when the document sought to be registered is complete and in due form, it is presumed to be valid and acceptable for registration in its entirety (Gonzales v. Basa, supra). Needless to say, the RD is without any authority to inquire into the intrinsic validity of the deed sought to be registered such as whether the signature of any of the parties therein is genuine or falsified since that function peculiarly lies within the province of the courts of justice (Tinatan v. Serilla, 54 O.G. 23, Sept. 16, 1968, CA).
The foregoing jurisprudence on the ministerial character of the duty imposed by our land registration laws on RDs to effect the immediate registration of deeds, documents and similar transactions involving real and personal property (Sec, 10, PD No. 1529) proceeds from the fact that the only purpose of registration is to give notice thereof to all persons (Sec. 51, Act No. 496). Contrary to common and popular belief, registration does not declare that the recorded deed, contract or transaction is a valid and subsisting interest in the land subject matter thereof (Seton v. Rodriguez, 110 Phil. 548). If the function of registration is merely to give notice, then questions regarding the validity or invalidity of instruments must be decided after, not before, registration (Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co. v. Reyes and Tantoco, 92 Phil. 177). Consequently, registration must first be allowed by the RDs concerned and validity or effect litigated afterwards before courts of competent jurisdiction (Samanilla v. Cajucom, 107 Phil. 432).
Obviously, the foregoing rulings are anchored not only on statutes declaring the duty imposed on RDs to be ministerial in character (Sec. 57, Act No. 496; Sec. 193, Administrative Code) but more so on legal practicality and common sense that bear far reaching consequences upon the country’s economy.
If RDs all over the country are under constant threat of being sued for falsification every time a deed, contract or instrument involving real and personal property is presented to them for registration, they will no longer discharge their duty to immediately register the same as required by Sec. 10, PD No. 1529. To insulate themselves from possible criminal and administrative action for falsification of public documents, RDs will be forced to inquire into the intrinsic validity of every such deed, contract or instrument. This entails the cumbersome process of requiring all parties to said deeds, their witnesses, and notaries public to appear before them and asking them if they indeed executed the subject instruments. This process could become more tedious and burdensome in the event a party, witness or notary public can no longer attend the hearing for one reason or another; hence, the necessity for expert witnesses and/or the introduction of secondary evidence such as copies of the deeds at the notarial sections of every court in the country and requiring representatives from said courts to testify on the same.
Thus, to forestall the disastrous effect of such an abhorrent possibility on the economy (for definitely every delay in land and chattel transactions at the registry offices will exact heavy tolls on the banking, property development, housing, construction, car manufacturing/dealership, employment and related sectors), our land registration laws and jurisprudence mandate in no uncertain terms that RDs need no longer inquire into the intrinsic validity of the documents presented to them for registration upon proofs aliunde (Tinatan v. Serilla; Seton v. Rodriguez; Samanilla v. Cajucom; supra.) because the same are already accorded the presumption of validity provided that they are complete and in due form at the time they were entered (Gonzales v. Basa, supra.).
Please take note that the doctrine of ministerial duty has for its purpose the speedy registration of transactions since RDs need not hold hearings and require the parties to the deeds sought to be registered to present evidence allunde as well as offer ordinary and/or expert witnesses to prove the intrinsic validity or the genuineness of their documents before the same could be registered. The law (Sec. 53, PD No. 1529) and jurisprudence (Gonzales v. Basa, supra.), provide the necessary presumption of validity and conclusive authority to register as substitutes for such tedious hearings and inquiries. Expeditious registration of transactions therefore is a natural consequence of the ministerial function of RDs for settled is the rule that registration must first be allowed, and validity, effect or genuineness to be litigated afterwards (Gurbax Singh Pablo & Co. v. Reyes; Samanilla v. Cajucom, supra.).
Imagine the inconvenience that the wife of the registered owner who is scheduled to undergo surgery has to go through if she will be required by the RD to bring said owner (her husband who is presently hospitalized) before him to prove that he indeed executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) in favor of his wife to mortgage his property. It is not an uncommon practice in the money lending industry especially among individual money lenders to withhold the amount of the loan until after the registration of the SPA and the Real Estate Mortgage (REM) with the Office of the Registry of Deeds (ROD).
The ministerial nature of RDs’ function is precisely designed to address dire situations such as the immediately described illustration. Dire necessities require immediate actions. This cannot be achieved if RDs perform their functions not as ministerial but quasi-judicial officers.
The doctrine on the presumption of validity of the instrument sought to be registered and the law on the conclusive authority to register the same on the part of the RDs are the State’s assurance to the latter that no automatic presumption of liability and/or complicity shall arise from their act alone of immediately registering documents that deal with real and personal property simply on basis of a subsequent finding that the documents previously registered by them were actually manufactured in a felonious manner.
Of course, the foregoing doctrine and law on the presumption of validity of instruments and conclusive authority to register are not absolute guarantees against possible prosecution for falsification. If relevant and competent evidence establish the complicity of the RD concerned, the protective mantle of the presumption of validity and conclusive authority will be unavailing to him/her.
Our land registration laws charge RDs with the exclusive authority to register immediately deeds, documents and other transactions involving rights and interests over real and personal property after their determination that the same are complete and in due form (Secs. 10, 55, 112, PD No. 1529). There is no other officer in the entire officialdom of the State who may exercise such function.
Theoretically, RDs cannot delegate their ministerial functions even to their subalterns (the laws are consistent to the effect that the function of registration shall be performed by RDs without any mention that the same may also be performed by their DRDs or Deputy Registers of Deeds except in the instances cited in Sec. 11, PD No. 1529, viz., vacancy, absence, illness, suspension, and inability of the RD to discharge his duty) although in the higher interest of service to the public and in compliance with mandates of the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA), they can and must resort to such delegation of power.
In reality therefore, the RDs and their respective DRDs (where there is proper delegation of functions) are the only officers charged with the exclusive duty to register instruments involving rights and interests over real and personal property. Both officers cannot delegate their ministerial duty to register or not to register to their rank and file employees since there is no provision both in Act No. 496 and PD No. 1529 that authorizes them to make such further delegation.
What then will be the liability of said officers for their erroneous discharge of their exclusive function to register? Both could be held administratively and criminally responsible for their erroneous actions.
It must be stressed that the ministerial function of RDs (& DRDs) is not limited to the registration or denial of transactions alone (Sec. 10, PD No. 1529). It transcends both actions (registration and denial) since they are likewise charged with the duty to require the surrender of owner’s duplicate certificates of title before they could proceed with the registration of voluntary transactions (Sec. 53, PD No. 1529), to carry over subsisting liens in the new titles that they issue (Sec. 59, PD No. 1529), among other collateral duties related to their registration function.
Thus, if in discharging their duty to register a Deed of Absolute Sale (DOS), they failed to carry over existing liens of which they are aware such as Lis Pendens into the new titles that they issue, they could be held criminally liable for Falsification of Public Document through Reckless Imprudence (People v. Leopando, CA 36 O.G. 2937). Similarly, if RDs introduce corrections on titles issued by them sans prior court approval, they could be dismissed from the service and criminally charged with violating the provisions of Sec. 3 (a) & (e) of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Ampil v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 192685 & 199115, July 31, 2013).
It is opined that the invocation of the doctrine laid down in the case of Arias v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 81563, Dec. 19, 1989) may not excuse RDs from prosecution for liabilities arising from the performance of their exclusive authority to register transactions dealing with real and personal property for the simple reason that they alone are charged with the duty to determine the registrability or non-registrability of transactions sought to be registered in their respective offices (Sec. 10, PD No. 1529). In fine, they cannot set up the defense that, as heads of their respective offices, they have the right to rely on the recommendations of their subordinates since the law does not at all authorize the latter to make any such recommendations nor the RDs to act on said recommendations.
Thus, when an RD registers a voluntary transaction such as a Deed of Sale (DOS) without requiring the surrender of the owner’s duplicate copy of the registered owner of the property subject matter of the DOS, he could be held liable for giving undue advantage to the transferee at the expense of the registered owner which is a violation of R.A. No. 3019, a crime made possible thru the RD’s disregard of Sec. 53, PD No. 1529. The Arias doctrine cannot save the RD in this particular example even if he alleges that he merely relied upon the recommendation of his deeds examiner that the same is registrable since the duty to require the surrender of the owner’s duplicate copy in the registration of voluntary transactions (Sec. 53, PD No. 1529) is imposed upon him alone.
By the same token, an RD who fails to carry over a Lis Pendens on the new title that he issues which appears on the title from which the new certificate emanated could be held liable for falsification thru reckless imprudence (People v. Leopando, supra.) and his plea for exoneration based on the failure of his encoder to carry over the same and the recommendation of the deeds examiner to proceed with the registration of the transfer transaction despite the non-carry over of the Lis Pendens will fall on deaf ears. This is so since the duty to carry over subsisting encumbrances on the new certificate of title is imposed on the RD alone (Sec. 59, PD No. 1529) and no one else.
Not even the ridiculous innovation (Arias-RD Ops variation) which members of the Registry of Deeds Operations (RD Ops) introduced/inserted in the electronic system that governs the present registration process could exonerate the RD from liability in the illustrations cited above. No amount of certifications from the rank & file registry employees (in reality, admissions against their interests craftily inserted by RD Ops members in the respective modules of said employees) could exculpate/excuse the RD from the exclusive obligations (to require the surrender of owner’s copy, carry over of existing liens, etc.) imposed upon him by our land registration laws in relation to the performance of his exclusive registration duty! This insertion is not only ridiculous but highly irregular as well since it is akin to allowing a crook with criminal proclivities to lay down the foundation for his exoneration in the event he decides to implement his criminal/nefarious enterprise in the future!
It is the humble submission of the author that the Arias doctrine applies only in instances where the RD is made to affix his signature in respect to activities that are alien to his exclusive registration duties. Thus, when the RD signs the Report prepared by the cashier relative to the monthly income of the registry office generated from entry, registration & other fees that the latter collected from registrants (an activity over which the RD has no actual participation since the law does not oblige him to intervene in the collection of fees nor issuance of receipts for said fees) and the facts entered therein were inaccurate or, worse, could have been feloniously manufactured by the cashier following audits made by the Resident Auditor of the Commission on Audit (COA), no presumption of conspiracy could be attributed to the RD simply because he affixed his signature on said document. As head of office, the RD has every right to presume that the cashier regularly performed her exclusive duties (to collect fees, issue receipts therefor, and prepare the corresponding Report thereon) and to rely on the report that the latter presented to him for his concurrence/approval (Arias v. Sandiganbayan, supra.).
RDs may secure themselves from liabilities that may arise from the performance of their ministerial duty to register by resorting to the remedy provided for in Sec. 117, PD No. 1529. By elevating an issue relative to the registrability of an instrument sought to be registered, RDs are in effect praying for an administrative ruling from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) Administrator. Any Consulta Resolution issued by the LRA Administrator in the exercise of his quasi-judicial function under Sec. 117, PD No. 1529 on the issue enjoys the presumption of validity and legality until declared otherwise by the courts for being contrary to law or the constitution (Art. 7, New Civil Code).
Being in the form of an administrative ruling, the Consulta Resolution is binding not only on the RD who availed of said remedy but upon RDs all over the country (4th par., Sec. 117, PD No. 1529). Accordingly, it maybe validly annotated by the RD concerned on the title subject matter of the Consulta Resolution.
However, the defense provided by Consulta Resolution is not available in cases where the RD merely wrote a letter to the LRA Administrator in which he seeks the latter’s advice or guidance on a particular issue concerning the registrability of an instrument pending before his office. This is so since our land registration laws does not at all provide for such remedy. EXPRESSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS! Any reply that the Administrator may issue on the matter partakes only the nature of an opinion which is far from being an administrative ruling contemplated by Sec. 117, PD No. 1529 and Art. 7, New Civil Code. That being the case, it has no binding effect not even on the RD concerned, who may or may not act on the basis of the opinion given.
Consequently, any injury that the RD concerned may cause upon any interested party by reason of his having acted on the opinion expressed by the LRA Administrator may warrant the filing of criminal as well as administrative actions against the former. The RD in this illustration cannot use the opinion given by the LRA Administrator as defense since it does not at all enjoy the presumption of validity or legality (Art. 7, New Civil Code). In fact, he cannot even annotate the opinion on the subject title, the same not being in the form of an administrative ruling that can be raised on appeal to the Court of Appeals (4th par., Sec. 117, PD No. 1529). And if he made such annotation, he could be charged with falsification for having made an untruthful statement in a narration of fact, in addition to having made an alteration in the title which changed the tenor thereof sans judicial approval (Art. 171, Revised Penal Code, 4th & 7th par., in relation to Sec. 108, PD No. 1529).
Of course, the LRA Administrator cannot be held liable for issuing the questioned opinion since the act of expressing one’s opinion, as a general rule, is never a crime in this jurisdiction.
Committing mistakes per se in the performance of one’s official duty (with no attendant factor of negligence) is, as a rule, no invitation to criminal and administrative actions (Art. 11, par. 5, Revised Penal Code; People v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil 488). It is what the RD does or neglects to do after learning about his mistake that spells the difference between conviction and exoneration (or lessening of liability depending on the nature of mistake or degree of negligence).
The land registration laws are cognizant of the universal truth that no person is perfect. Stated otherwise, all persons commit mistakes. The framers of the land registration laws anticipated this eventuality such that they provided the necessary course of action to correct mistakes in the event they are committed by the RDs in the performance of their mandatory function to register transactions dealing with real and personal property (Sec. 10, PD No. 1529). Thus, the inclusion of Sec. 108 in the Property Registration Decree (PD No. 1529) and Sec. 112 in the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496).
In the illustration where the RD failed to carry over an existing LIs Pendens on the new certificate of title that he issued, he could have avoided conviction for falsification thru reckless imprudence (People v. Leopando, supra.), had he acknowledged his mistake early on and tried to correct the same by seeking judicial approval to carry over the omitted encumbrance into the new certificate.
The rule is settled that RDs should not be held liable for injuries suffered by parties claiming interests on registered land if said injuries were occasioned by their (RDs) compliance with orders issued by courts of competent jurisdiction. Act No. 496 and PD No. 1529 are awash with provisions to this effect especially those that govern involuntary dealings on registered lands.
However, not all court orders are subject to mandatory compliance by RDs since the foregoing rule admits of certain limitations as well. Thus, an order from the court directing the RD to transfer the property of a deceased registered owner to his heirs, being a transfer transaction and therefore taxable, should not be registered by the RD unless the taxes due on the subject estate had been previously settled with the BIR (LRC Circular No. 238; Consulta No. 1356).
Let us go back to the 1st illustration where a hospitalized person was awaiting the release by Mr. Singh of the amount of the loan that was secured by a REM over the Quezon province property which said patient co-owns with 3 other siblings. The surgery went well due to the timely release of the sum borrowed. Of course, this was made possible because of the ministerial function of RDs to immediately register transactions dealing with real & personal property (Sec. 10, PD No. 1529) provided they are complete and in due form (Gonzales v. Basa, supra.).
However, a few months after the registration of the REM, the heirs of one of the brothers who is stationed in Cebu City filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against the former patient, his wife, Mr. Singh, the Notary Public & the RD concerned for falsification of public document on the ground that their father (brother in Cebu) could not have executed any kind of SPA in favor of the former patient-brother’s wife, having died 3 years earlier or before the execution of the alleged SPA. Thus, their father’s purported signature therein was feloniously and criminally falsified by the respondents.
The case against the RD should be dismissed on the ground that when he performed his ministerial function (registration of the REM on the basis of the 4 SPAs, one of which turned out to be falsified), he did so on the basis of his mandatory duty to immediately register the same (Sec. 10, PD No. 1529), guided only by the legal presumption that the questioned SPA was valid and registrable in its entirety (Gonzales v. Basa, supra.) and the rule that the surrender of the owner’s duplicate copy of the title covering the Quezon province property provided a conclusive authority on the part of the RD to register the REM, together with the 4 SPAs, the questioned SPA included (Sec. 53, PD No. 1529).
The presumption of validity (Gonzales V. Basa, supra.) and conclusive authority to register (Sec. 53, PD No. 1529) are the State’s assurance to RDs that no presumption of criminal complicity on their part shall arise simply because they chose to perform their ministerial duty to immediately register transactions that deal with real and personal property (Sec. 10, PD No. 1529).
Requiring RDs to immediately register documents dealing with real and personal property (Sec. 10, PD No. 1529) while prohibiting them at the same time from conducting any hearing to inquire into the intrinsic validity and genuineness of said documents (Gonzales v. Basa, supra.) and thereafter, leaving them to their own devices in the event they are sued for falsification is unfair, unjust, and inhuman! No, this was not the intention of our land registration laws and existing jurisprudence when they provided the presumption of validity of documents & conclusive authority to register as substitutes for hearings on the authenticity and genuineness of documents sought to be registered! These principles of law were instituted precisely to protect RDs from falsification suits that may arise from the performance of their ministerial duty to register.
Supposed no document was falsified in the above illustration. But 3 months after the RD registered the REM, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) filed before the OMB criminal as well as administrative actions for tax evasion against the RD and the parties to the REM on the ground that the requisite documentary stamp tax (DST) due on the REM was not settled before the same was registered.
The RD in this situation is in for big trouble for allowing the registration of the REM without requiring the surrender of the requisite proof of prior payment of the DST that the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) as amended, prescribes. He cannot pass on the blame to his low ranking employees (particularly, the examiner) and invoke the defense recognized in the case of Arias v. Sandiganbayan (supra.) that he merely relied on the recommendation of said employees. The reason for this is simple - the duty to make sure that the transaction sought to be registered is in due form and complete (which includes the determination that all supporting documents required by special laws such as DST in REMs & leases, DAR Clearance in case of transfers of agricultural lands, and acts incident to his duty to register such as requiring the surrender of owner’s copy in voluntary transactions, to carry over subsisting liens and not to carry over cancelled ones, among other duties) is imposed by law on RDs alone and upon no one else!
Neither the recent insertion by members of the RD Ops of the questionable certifications by low ranking registry employees to the effect that they have read and examined the documents that they are about to endorse to the RDs for their approval (apparently designed to reinforce the Arias doctrine which as above explained is not applicable to the exclusive registration duty of RDs) will save the RD in our illustration from charges of tax evasion.

matches:
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
In fine
v.
v.
Art. 7
v.
v.
v.
v.
V.
v.
v.


text:
Metallic nanoparticles arranged in arrays have been shown to support both localized surface plasmons (LSPs) and diffractive grating behavior, related to the inter-particle period. By selecting both the period and particle size, it is possible to generate lattice modes that are caused by interference of the LSP and the grating Rayleigh anomaly. These hybrid modes show a Fano-like lineshape with reduced linewidth relative to the LSP mode. In this paper, we study the lattice modes supported by gold and aluminum nanoparticle arrays in the visible and UV, both experimentally and theoretically. The measured and simulated dispersion curves allow us to comprehensively analyze the details of the LSP coupling in the array. We show that when the spectral position of the Rayleigh anomaly, dependent on the period of the array, is slightly blue-shifted with respect to the LSP resonance, the quality factor of the lattice mode is significantly increased. We also provide evidence that the formation of the lattice modes critically depends on the incident light polarization, with maximum coupling efficiency between LSPs and the in-plane scattered light when the polarization direction is perpendicular to the propagation direction of the grazing wave. The results obtained provide design rules for high quality factor resonances throughout the visible and ultraviolet spectral ranges.
A. V. Zayats, I. I. Smolyaninov, and A. A. Maradudin, “Nano-optics of surface plasmon polaritons,” Phys. Rep. 408, 131–314 (2005).
V. Giannini, A. I. Fernández-Domnguez, S. C. Heck, and S. A. Maier, “Plasmonic nanoantennas: fundamentals and their use in controlling the radiative properties of nanoemitters,” Chem. Rev. 111, 3888–3912 (2011).
K. L. Kelly, E. Coronado, L. L. Zhao, and G. C. Schatz, “The optical properties of metal nanoparticles: the influence of size, shape, and dielectric environment,” J. Phys. Chem. B 107, 668–677 (2003).
K. A. Willets and R. P. Van Duyne, “Localized surface plasmon resonance spectroscopy and sensing,” Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 58, 267–297 (2007).
P. West, S. Ishii, G. Naik, N. Emani, V. Shalaev, and A. Boltasseva, “Searching for better plasmonic materials,” Laser Photon. Rev. 4, 795–808 (2010).
D. Gérard and S. K. Gray, “Aluminium plasmonics,” J. Phys. D 48, 184001 (2015).
F. Bisio, R. P. Zaccaria, R. Moroni, G. Maidecchi, A. Alabastri, G. Gonella, A. Giglia, L. Andolfi, S. Nannarone, L. Mattera, and M. Canepa, “Pushing the high-energy limit of plasmonics,” ACS Nano 8, 9239–9247 (2014).
J. Martin, M. Kociak, Z. Mahfoud, J. Proust, D. Gérard, and J. Plain, “High-resolution imaging and spectroscopy of multipolar plasmonic resonances in aluminum nanoantennas,” Nano Lett. 14, 5517–5523 (2014).
Q. Zhang, G. Li, X. Liu, F. Qian, Y. Li, T. C. Sum, C. M. Lieber, and Q. Xiong, “A room temperature low-threshold ultraviolet plasmonic nanolaser,” Nat. Commun. 5, 5953 (2014).
S. J. Tan, L. Zhang, D. Zhu, X. M. Goh, Y. M. Wang, K. Kumar, C.-W. Qiu, and J. K. W. Yang, “Plasmonic color palettes for photorealistic printing with aluminum nanostructures,” Nano Lett. 14, 4023-4029 (2014).
J. Olson, A. Manjavacas, L. Liu, W.-S. Chang, B. Foerster, N. S. King, M. W. Knight, P. Nordlander, N. J. Halas, and S. Link, “Vivid, full-color aluminum plasmonic pixels,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 14348–14353 (2014).
B. Y. Zheng, Y. Wang, P. Nordlander, and N. J. Halas, “Color-selective and CMOS-compatible photodetection based on aluminum plasmonics,” Adv. Mater. 26, 6318–6323 (2014).
M. B. Ross, C. A. Mirkin, and G. C. Schatz, “Optical properties of one-, two-, and three-dimensional arrays of plasmonic nanostructures,” J. Phys. Chem. C 120, 816–830 (2016).
N. Bonod and J. Neauport, “Diffraction gratings: from principles to applications in high-intensity lasers,” Adv. Opt. Photon. 8, 156–199 (2016).
V. Giannini, Y. Francescato, H. Amrania, C. C. Phillips, and S. A. Maier, “Fano resonances in nanoscale plasmonic systems: a parameter-free modeling approach,” Nano Lett. 11, 2835–2840 (2011).
B. Gallinet and O. J. F. Martin, “Relation between near-field and far-field properties of plasmonic Fano resonances,” Opt. Express 19, 22167–22175 (2011).
A. Väkeväinen, R. Moerland, H. Rekola, A.-P. Eskelinen, J.-P. Martikainen, D.-H. Kim, and P. Törmä, “Plasmonic surface lattice resonances at the strong coupling regime,” Nano Lett. 14, 1721–1727 (2013).
M. Meier, A. Wokaun, and P. Liao, “Enhanced fields on rough surfaces: dipolar interactions among particles of sizes exceeding the Rayleigh limit,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 2, 931–949 (1985).
K. T. Carron, W. Fluhr, M. Meier, A. Wokaun, and H. W. Lehmann, “Resonances of two-dimensional particle gratings in surface-enhanced Raman scattering,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 3, 430–440 (1986).
S. Zou, N. Janel, and G. C. Schatz, “Silver nanoparticle array structures that produce remarkably narrow plasmon lineshapes,” J. Chem. Phys. 120, 10871–10875 (2004).
N. Félidj, G. Laurent, J. Aubard, G. Lévi, A. Hohenau, J. R. Krenn, and F. R. Aussenegg, “Grating-induced plasmon mode in gold nanoparticle arrays,” J. Chem. Phys. 123, 221103 (2005).
B. Auguie and W. L. Barnes, “Collective resonances in gold nanoparticle arrays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 143902 (2008).
V. Giannini, G. Vecchi, and J. Gómez Rivas, “Lighting up multipolar surface plasmon polaritons by collective resonances in arrays of nanoantennas,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 266801 (2010).
A. I. Kuznetsov, A. B. Evlyukhin, M. R. Gonçalves, C. Reinhardt, A. Koroleva, M. L. Arnedillo, R. Kiyan, O. Marti, and B. N. Chichkov, “Laser fabrication of large-scale nanoparticle arrays for sensing applications,” ACS Nano 5, 4843–4849 (2011).
W. Zhou, M. Dridi, J. Suh, C. Kim, M. Wasielewski, G. C. Schatz, and T. W. Odom, “Lasing action in strongly coupled plasmonic nanocavity arrays,” Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 506–511 (2013).
A. Nikitin, T. Nguyen, and H. Dellaporta, “Narrow plasmon resonances in diffractive arrays of gold nanoparticles in asymmetric environment: experimental studies,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 221116 (2013).
J. Marae-Djouda, R. Caputo, N. Mahi, G. Lévêque, A. Akjouj, P.-M. Adam, and T. Maurer, “Angular plasmon response of gold nanoparticles arrays: approaching the Rayleigh limit,” Nanophotonics 6, 279–288 (2016).
G. Vecchi, V. Giannini, and J. Gómez Rivas, “Shaping the fluorescent emission by lattice resonances in plasmonic crystals of nanoantennas,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 146807 (2009).
R. Czaplicki, A. Kiviniemi, J. Laukkanen, J. Lehtolahti, M. Kuittinen, and M. Kauranen, “Surface lattice resonances in second-harmonic generation from metasurfaces,” Opt. Lett. 41, 2684–2687 (2016).
A. Yang, T. B. Hoang, M. Dridi, C. Deeb, M. H. Mikkelsen, G. C. Schatz, and T. W. Odom, “Real-time tunable lasing from plasmonic nanocavity arrays,” Nat. Commun. 6, 6939 (2015).
G. Lozano, D. J. Louwers, S. R. K. Rodrguez, S. Murai, O. T. A. Jansen, M. A. Verschuuren, and J. Gómez Rivas, “Plasmonics for solid-state lighting: enhanced excitation and directional emission of highly efficient light sources,” Light: Sci. Appl. 2, e66 (2013).
G. Lozano, G. Grzela, M. A. Verschuuren, M. Ramezani, and J. Gómez Rivas, “Tailor-made directional emission in nanoimprinted plasmonic-based light-emitting devices,” Nanoscale 6, 9223–9229 (2014).
F. Liu and X. Zhang, “Fano coupling between Rayleigh anomaly and localized surface plasmon resonance for sensor applications,” Biosens. Bioelectron. 68, 719–725 (2015).
F. J. G. de Abajo, J. J. Sáenz, I. Campillo, and J. S. Dolado, “Site and lattice resonances in metallic hole arrays,” Opt. Express 14, 7–18 (2006).
F. J. G. de Abajo, “Colloquium: light scattering by particle and hole arrays,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 1267–1290 (2007).
M. Kataja, T. K. Hakala, A. Julku, M. J. Huttunen, S. van Dijken, and P. Törmä, “Surface lattice resonances and magneto-optical response in magnetic nanoparticle arrays,” Nat. Commun. 6, 7072 (2015).
M. Laroche, S. Albaladejo, R. Gómez-Medina, and J. J. Sáenz, “Tuning the optical response of nanocylinder arrays: an analytical study,” Phys. Rev. B 74, 245422 (2006).
Lumerical Solutions, “FDTD Solutions,” https://www.lumerical.com/tcad-products/fdtd .
E. D. Palik, ed., Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids (Academic, 1985).
P. B. Johnson and R. W. Christy, “Optical constants of the noble metals,” Phys. Rev. B 6, 4370–4379 (1972).
A. Aminian and Y. Rahmat-Samii, “Spectral FDTD: a novel technique for the analysis of oblique incident plane wave on periodic structures,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 54, 1818–1825 (2006).
M. A. Lieb, J. Zavislan, and L. Novotny, “Single-molecule orientations determined by direct emission pattern imaging,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 21, 1210–1215 (2004).
G. Lérondel, S. Kostcheev, and J. Plain, “Nanofabrication for plasmonics,” in Plasmonics, S. Enoch and N. Bonod, eds., Vol. XVI of Springer Series in Optical Sciences (Springer, 2012) pp. 269–316.
J. Martin, J. Proust, D. Gérard, and J. Plain, “Localized surface plasmon resonances in the ultraviolet from large scale nanostructured aluminum films,” Opt. Mater. Express 3, 954–959 (2013).
J. Martin and J. Plain, “Fabrication of aluminium nanostructures for plasmonics,” J. Phys. D 48, 184002 (2015).
F. Cheng, P.-H. Su, J. Choi, S. Gwo, X. Li, and C.-K. Shih, “Epitaxial growth of atomically smooth aluminum on silicon and its intrinsic optical properties,” ACS Nano 10, 9852–9860 (2016).
J. Lu, J. Li, C. Xu, Y. Li, J. Dai, Y. Wang, Y. Lin, and S. Wang, “Direct resonant coupling of Al surface plasmon for ultraviolet photoluminescence enhancement of ZnO microrods,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 6, 18301–18305 (2014).
de Abajo, F. J. G.
Fig. 1. (a) Schematic of the considered geometry: an array of metal nanoparticles deposited onto a dielectric substrate of refractive index n1. The superstrate can be air or a dielectric with refractive index n2. (b) AFM image of a square array of gold nanodisks with D=480 nm, d=160 nm, and h=50 nm. (c) Scanning electron microscopy image of an array of aluminum nanodisks with D=300 nm, d=120 nm, and h=50 nm.
Fig. 2. Normal incidence extinction cross-section spectrum calculated with FDTD for a square array of gold nanodisks with diameter d=80 nm and thickness h=50 nm for different lattice periods (from 300 to 700 nm with a 10 nm step) in a homogeneous dielectric environment (n1=n2=1.5). Solid lines show the theoretical position of Rayleigh anomalies, and the dotted horizontal line is the position of the dipolar resonance from the isolated gold nanodisk.
Fig. 3. Normalized electric field modulus maps for different lattice periods. The insets on the top of each of the columns are line cuts of Fig. 2, showing the extinction cross section σext versus wavelength for three different periods: D=300 (left column), D=500 nm (center column), and D=650 nm (right column). The arrows indicate the wavelengths where the field maps were calculated. (a) FDTD maps of the normalized electric field modulus computed in a plane located at mid-height of the metal nanoparticles for an array with D=300 nm at λ=620.3 nm. The black arrow denotes the incident polarization. The same field maps were computed for (b) D=500 nm and λ=619.9 nm; (c) D=500 nm and λ=754.8 nm; (d) D=650 nm and λ=615.1 nm; and (e) D=650 nm and λ=692.9 nm.
Fig. 4. Linewidth engineering using lattice modes. (a) Calculated quality factor of the lattice mode of arrays of gold nanodisks as a function of the lattice period for different disk diameters at normal incidence. The dielectric environment is symmetric (n1=n2=1.5). (b) Same, with air as the superstrate (n2=1).
Fig. 5. Experimental (a), (c) and simulated (b), (d) dispersion curves of the gold nanodisk arrays for s (a), (b) and p (c), (d) polarizations. The period of the array is D=480 nm, and the diameter of the nanodisks is d=180 nm. White lines represent the position of the Rayleigh anomalies computed using Eq. (1) with n1=1.52 and n2=1.52 (solid lines) or n2=1 (dotted lines).
Fig. 6. Experimental (a), (b) and simulated (c)–(h) dispersion curves of the PMMA-covered gold nanodisk arrays for s and p polarizations. The period of the array is D=480 nm, and the diameter of the nanodisks is d=180 nm. White lines represent the position of the Rayleigh anomalies computed using Eq. (1) with n1=1.52 and n2=1.52 (solid lines) or n2=1 (dotted lines). The simulations were performed using three different geometries as pictured in the insets: (c), (d) a semi-infinite PMMA superstrate; (e), (f) a 180 nm thick PMMA layer onto the top of the substrate, and (g), (h) a 180 nm thick PMMA standing onto the top of the nanoparticles.
Fig. 7. Experimental dispersion curves of PMMA-covered aluminum nanodisk arrays for (a)–(c) s-polarization and (d)–(f) p-polarization. The diameter of the nanoparticles is d=120 nm. The period of the array is (a), (d) D=250 nm; (b, e) D=300 nm; and (c), (f) D=350 nm. White lines represent the position of the glass/glass (solid lines) or glass/air (dotted lines), and Rayleigh anomalies were computed using Eq. (1).
Fig. 8. Experimental dispersion curve of d=60 nm aluminum nanodisk arrays in the ultraviolet for s-polarization. The period of the array is D=260 nm. White lines represent the position of the glass/glass (solid lines) or glass/air (dotted lines) Rayleigh anomalies were computed using Eq. (1).

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V.