text:
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO YOUR USE OF THIS SITE AND THE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES PROVIDED HEREUNDER CAREFULLY. By i) using this site, ii) purchasing any products or services from Regan Hillyer International (“COMPANY”) or iii) utilizing any of the products or services from COMPANY through this site, you are deemed to have agreed to these Terms and Conditions. We reserve the right to modify them at any time. You should check these Terms and Conditions periodically for changes. By using this site after we post any changes to these Terms and Conditions, you agree to accept those changes, whether or not you have reviewed them. With regard to products and services purchased or utilized from COMPANY, the version of these Terms and Conditions that were posted at the time of purchase or utilization apply. If at any time you choose not to accept these Terms and Conditions of use, do not use this site.
These Terms and Conditions apply to your use of all of the website at http://www.reganhillyer.com as well as any of its sub-domains and related domains such as https://successhub.clickfunnels.com/, http://reganhillyersuccesshub.com/ or http://reganannehillyer.com(collectively the “Site”), as well as to products and services purchased or utilized from the Site. Unless stated otherwise, all references to the Site in these Terms and Conditions include this Site. These Terms and Conditions do not apply to your use of unaffiliated sites to which the Site only links.
APPLICABLE LAW MAY NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THE ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. TO THE EXTENT ANY WARRANTY CANNOT BE DISCLAIMED, A LIMITED EXPLICT WARRANTY IS GIVEN BY US TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY OTHER REMEDY TO, IN OUR DISCRETION, EITHER A) REPLACE THE SERVICES, PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS WITH SUCH SERVICES, PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS THAT DO NOT BREACH A WARRANTY IF SUCH BREACH IS IDENTIFIED TO US WITHIN 30 DAYS OF PURCHASE OR B) REFUND OF THE MONIES PAID FOR THE PARTICULAR SERVICES, PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS IF APPLICABLE TO SITUATION.
Unless specifically stated on registration materials, the deadline to receive a refund for an individual event registration is 90 calendar days before the event.
Cancellations received after the stated deadline will not be eligible for a refund. Refunds will not be available for registrants who choose not to attend an event. Cancellations will be accepted in writing only (email to [email protected]) and must be received by the stated cancellation deadline. All refund requests must be made by the attendee or credit card holder. Refund requests must include the name of the attendee and/or transaction/invoice number.
Because of the nature of our products, we do not offer a cancellation or refund for products and services purchased, unless expressly offered in writing through a product/services page, cart page or email, or expressly required by law.
By providing your credit card and other information, agreeing to this Terms and Conditions, or selecting the “Purchase” button (or similar such button for monthly subscription) displayed on Site, you are purchasing a monthly subscription and are agreeing to allow us to charge your credit card for amounts payable to us pursuant to this subscription.
We may collect, use, store, transfer and processing (including cross-border processing) a variety of personal data, including: identity data: first name, last name, username, or similar identifier, title, date of birth and gender; contact data: email address and telephone numbers; technical data: internet protocol (IP) address, your login data, browser type and version, time zone and location, browser plug-in types and versions, operating system and platform, and other technology on the devices you use to access this website and our services; profile data: your username and password, preferences, feedback, and survey responses, the date and time of the registration; comments on our Success blog, as well as information on the date of the commentary and on the user’s (pseudonym) chosen by the data subject; usage data: information on how you use our website and services.
According to Art. 13 of GDPR, we inform our users about the purposes of processing personal data. The prime purpose of collecting your data is to provide users with services offered by our website/app, whether that's using our website/app to find information, to contact us, to enter into training program, or for some other reason. No matter how you use our website, our aim is to allow you to interact with it as effortlessly as possible.
Other purposes for processing personal data are as follows: to provide users with our services and offer them our products; for subscription to our enterprise’s newsletters; for registration of new user; to manage the relationship between us and the user (notification of changes of these Terms and Conditions, requesting of feedback, etc.); to administrate and protect our business and the information on our website/app (including data analysis, testing, system maintenance, support, reporting and hosting of data); to use data analytics to improve our website, products and services, customer relationships and experience.
Right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.
You are not required to pay a fee to access your personal data (or to exercise any of the other rights). However, we may charge a reasonable fee if your request is clearly unfounded, repetitive, or excessive. Alternatively, we may refuse to comply with your request in these circumstances. These are our rights in accordance with GDPR.
Above-listed data subjects’ rights are subject to certain exceptions and exclusions, and we may be unable to comply in full with your request.
We will provide the requested information within one month of receipt of the request. In rare cases, that period may be extended by two further months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of the requests. Of course, the users will be informed about that. If we have reasonable doubts concerning the identity of the natural person making the request, we may request the provision of additional information necessary to confirm the identity of the data subject.
Users have the right to file a complaint at any time with ………………..…… – the supervisory authority for data protection issues. However, we would appreciate the opportunity to resolve all concerns before you approach the authority, so please consider contacting us first.
Art. 6 (1) lit. b, c, d, f GDPR serve as legal basis to process users’ personal data. Art. 6 (1) lit. b GDPR – for the performance of a contract to which the user is party or in order to take steps at the request of the user prior to entering into a contract. If the processing of personal data is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the user is party, as is the case, for example, when processing operations are necessary for the supply of products or to provide any other service, the processing is based on Article 6 (1) lit. b GDPR. The same applies to such processing operations which are necessary for carrying out pre-contractual measures, for example in the case of inquiries concerning our products or services. Art. 6 (1) lit. c GDPR – for compliance with a legal obligation to which we are subject. Art. 6 (1) lit. d GDPR – to protect vital interests of the user or of another natural person. This would be the case, for example, if a visitor were injured in our Company and his name, age, health insurance data or other vital information would have to be passed on to a doctor, hospital or other third party. Then the processing would be based on Art. 6(1) lit. d GDPR. Article 6 (1) lit. f GDPR – this legal basis is used if processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by our Company or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data. Legitimate interest means the interest of our business in conducting and managing our business to enable us to give you the best service/product and the best and most secure experience. Such processing operations are particularly permissible because they have been specifically mentioned by the European legislator. He considered that a legitimate interest could be assumed if the data subject is a client of the controller or for direct marketing purposes (Recital 47 GDPR).
We do not rely on your consent as a legal basis to process your personal data. Your personal data may be processed for more than one lawful ground, depending on the specific purpose for its use. Please contact us at ……………….…….. if you require additional information.
If you choose not to provide the personal information we request, you can still visit most areas of our website but you may be unable to access certain options and services. You have the final decision on whether to proceed with any activity that requests personal information.
In some cases, the collection of personal data may be a statutory or contractual requirement, and we will be limited in the services we can provide you if you don't provide your personal data – for example, if you do not provide us with your personal data, you will not be able to enter into new training program. We will let you know how this will affect you at the time.
Users’ personal data will be retained only as long as necessary to fulfill the purpose(s) for which it was collected, including legal, accounting, or reporting requirements. After expiration of that period, the corresponding data is routinely deleted, as long as it is no longer necessary for the fulfillment of the contract or the initiation of a contract.

matches:
Art. 13
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6


text:
90944 - Lee Builder's, Inc.v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
92286 - Conner v. Occidental Fire & Casualty Co.
92700 - Johnson v. Westhoff Sand Co.
94,968 -- State v. Mathenia -- Per Curiam -- Affirmed in part and dismissed in part -- Sedgwick.
95,006 -- State v. Pittman -- Per Curiam -- Affirmed -- Sedgwick.
95,044 -- State v. Kiger -- Per Curiam -- Appeal dismissed -- Johnson.
95,047 -- State v. Sublett -- Per Curiam -- Affirmed in part and dismissed in part -- Sedgwick.
95,050 -- State v. Noble -- Per Curiam -- Affirmed -- Sedgwick.
95,060 -- State v. Blackwell -- Per Curiam -- Affirmed in part and dismissed in part -- Sedgwick.
95,092 -- State v. Thompson -- Per Curiam -- Appeal dismissed -- Saline.
95,121 -- State v. Dupree -- Per Curiam -- Affirmed in part and dismissed in part -- Sedgwick.
95,128 -- State v. James -- Per Curiam -- Affirmed in part and dismissed in part -- Cowley.
95,131 -- State v. Taylor -- Per Curiam -- Affirmed in part and dismissed in part -- Saline.
95,170 -- State v. Armstead -- Per Curiam -- Appeal dismissed -- Leavenworth.
95,174 -- State v. Sanders -- Per Curiam -- Affirmed -- Douglas.
95,175 -- State v. Torres -- Per Curiam -- Affirmed in part and dismissed in part -- Wichita.
95,328 -- State v. Fisher -- Per Curiam -- Affirmed in part an dismissed in part -- Harvey.
95,383 -- State v. Rodriguez -- Per Curiam -- Appeal dismissed -- Grant.

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


text:
Kari is a former Special Agent with the United States Secret Service. She is a trial attorney and focuses her practice on pharmaceutical and medical device product liability litigation. She has tried cases in various jurisdictions across the country, and her significant pharmaceutical product liability defense verdicts include those resulting from trials in California, Illinois and Louisiana. Kari is recognized by Benchmark Litigation Magazine as one of its Top 250 Female Litigators in America (2016-2018). She also received a 2017 Burton Award and a 2018 Mississippi Defense Lawyers Association “The Quarterly” Editorial Award for her written work.
Kari is a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America and a member of the Trial Attorneys of America. She has broad trial experience and has served in key roles, including co-lead trial counsel, in several significant trials. Her trial work includes giving opening statements and closing arguments, cross-examining particularly sympathetic plaintiffs, and skillfully cross-examining nationally-known plaintiff’s experts. She has ample experience directing company witnesses at trial, as well as in defending depositions of company witnesses and other key fact witnesses in underlying litigation.
Her experience includes currently serving as a crucial part of a national counsel team defending prescription medical devices and working as international coordinating counsel. She also serves as a national expert coordinator in pharmaceutical and medical device litigation. She draws on her broad knowledge of FDA regulatory issues in working with experts to defend litigation and in counseling clients on risk avoidance and management strategies. She also works with clients on media responses as part of comprehensive litigation defense strategies.
Kari is active in several industry organizations, including Trial Attorneys of America and Defense Research Institute (DRI). Her speaking engagements include giving a closing argument at DRI’s prestigious Trial Tactics seminar in 2017 and presenting a webinar for FDANews on OTC labeling guidances. She authors articles on litigation and trial-related topics for Butler Snow’s Pro Te: Solutio and other publications such as Law360.
Keshia Hunt v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Eastern District of Louisiana (March 2014), judgment for defense – Trial Counsel.
Christopher Trejo v. Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Consumer Healthcare - Superior Court of California, Los Angeles (August-October 2011) – Trial Counsel; judgment rendered on design defect claims; remanded for new trial on warnings claim.
Justice Brakefield, et al. v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare - Superior Court of California, San Francisco (March 2011), defense verdict – Trial Counsel.
Brianna Maya v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. - Philadelphia trial involving product liability case in connection with Children's Motrin and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; resulted in plaintiff verdict (2011) – Assisted Trial Counsel.
Thomas B. Gaines v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. – California wrongful death action involving Children’s Motrin and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; resulted in defense verdict (2010) – Assisted Trial Counsel.
Karen Robinson v. Johnson & Johnson and McNeil Consumer Healthcare - U.S. District Court, N. D. Illinois (August 2009), judgment for defense – Trial Counsel.
Kimberly Zundel, et al., v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. - New Jersey trial product liability action involving Children's Motrin and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; resulted in defense verdict (2009) – Assisted Trial Counsel.
Sabrina Brierton Johnson v. Johnson & Johnson, et. al. - California product liability action involving Children's Motrin and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; resulted in defense verdict (2008) – Assisted Trial Counsel.
National Regulatory Expert Coordinator, Pelvic Mesh Litigation, Johnson &Johnson.
Regulatory Expert Coordinator, NSAID Litigation, Johnson & Johnson.
Foreign Litigation Liaison, Pelvic Mesh Litigation, Johnson & Johnson.
Steede v. General Motors LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184628 (W.D. Tenn. 2012).
Steede v. General Motors LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184873 (W.D. Tenn. 2012), aff’d 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5557 (W.D. Tenn. 2013).
Steede v. General Motors LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81103 (W.D. Tenn. 2012), aff’d 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79465 (W.D. Tenn. 2012).
Steede v. General Motors LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81292 (W.D. Tenn. 2012), aff’d 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79467 (W.D. Tenn. 2012).
Murray v. General Motors LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11323 (5th Cir. 2012).
Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 361 F.3d 862 (5th Cir. 2004); wrongful death/product liability action in which the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for firm’s client, the manufacturer of a news van’s telescoping mast.
Betterton v. Evans, et al., 351 F.Supp.2d 529 (N.D.Miss. 2004); granting summary judgment to pacemaker manufacturer under preemption principles of Medical Device Amendments.
Willow Creek Exploration LTD v. Tadlock Pipe & Equipment, Inc., et al., 186 F.Supp.2d 675 (S.D.Miss. 2002); granting motion to dismiss of manufacturer of well tubing for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2001); Section 1983 claims, reversed in favor of city.
Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 2000); First Amendment retaliation claims, reversed in favor of city.
Author, “What We Wish We Knew Ten Years Ago,” Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 11 No. 1, Winter 2018.
Author, "My Time on the Inside: A Juror’s Tale," MDLA Quarterly, October 26, 2017.
Presenter (Plaintiff Closing Argument), “DRI Trial Tactics,” Defense Research Institute Seminar, Las Vegas, Nev., March 2017.
Author, “Funding Litigation and Treatment: Leveling The Playing Field?” Law360, August 29, 2016.
Author, “Funding Litigation and Treatment: Leveling the Playing Field or Exploiting the Little Guy?” Pro Te Solutio, Vol. 8, No. 5, 5-11, Spring 2016.
Presenter, “Opening Statements: Case-maker or Case-breaker?” MDLA Chapter at the University of Mississippi Law School, October 16, 2014.
Author, “Medical Devices: The Modern Age,” Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 7 No. 3, Fall 2014.
Author, “Medical Devices: The Beginnings,” Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 7 No. 2, 5-13, June 2014.
Presenter, “Trial: Objections and Evidence,” MDLA Chapter at the University of Mississippi Law School, November 20, 2013.
Presenter, “New OTC Labeling Guidances,” FDANews webinar, August 8, 2013.
Author, “Forecast for the Physician Payments Sunshine Act: Partly Cloudy,” Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 5 No. 4, November 2012.
Author, “The Quest for the Holy Grail: The Fully Informative, yet Fully Understandable, OTC Label,” Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 3 No. 3, 12-19, August 2010.
Author, “Reducing Verdicts: Who’s Up First?” MDLA Quarterly, Spring 2010.
Author, “The Thorny Problem of Advertising,” Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 3 No. 1, 6-10, January 2010.
Author, “Case Law: A Fifty State Survey Concerning the Admissibility of Expert Testimony,” Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 2 No. 1, 14-15, February 2009.
Author, “Risk Management Prior Approval for New Drugs,” Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 1 No. 3, 12-16, July 2008.
Presenter, “Daubert Your Expert,” Greater Memphis Paralegal Alliance, March 2008.
Author, “Fifth Circuit Reporter,” Quarterly Civil Procedure Update, approximately 2000-2002.
Author, “Expert Testimony: Frye is Dead; Long Live Frye,” 15 Miss. C.L. Rev. 163 (1994).
The Dog Ate My Homework!!

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


The claimant was represented by Richard Stabnick, Esq., Pomeranz, Drayton & Stabnick, 95 Glastonbury Boulevard, Glastonbury, CT 06033.
The respondent was represented by Michael Belzer, Esq., Assistant Attorney General., 55 Elm Street, P. O. Box 120, Hartford, CT 06141-0120.
This Petition for Review from the January 23, 1998 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District was heard January 8, 1999 before a Compensation Review Board panel consisting of the Commission Chairman Jesse M. Frankl and Commissioners Angelo L. dos Santos and Stephen B. Delaney.
JESSE M. FRANKL, CHAIRMAN. The respondent has petitioned for review from the January 23, 1998 Finding and Award of the Commissioner acting for the Sixth District. It argues on appeal that the trier erred by concluding that the claimant was entitled to cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) retroactive to October 1, 1969. We affirm the trial commissioner’s decision.
The claimant was enrolled as a student at the St. Francis Hospital School of Nursing in 1956 when, as part of her student training, she was sent to the tuberculosis isolation ward at Cedarcrest Hospital in Newington. The following summer, she was diagnosed as suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis in the upper lobe of her right lung and was subsequently admitted as a patient at Cedarcrest. The Attorney General’s Office acknowledged in writing that she had contracted an occupational disease which was “approved as compensable under the provisions of Section 2131d of the 1955 Supplement to the Connecticut General Statutes.” Findings, ¶ 4.
The state Comptroller’s office then began paying the claimant $12.00 per week, the minimum rate under the provisions of § 2287c of the Workers’ Compensation Act as it existed on August 19, 1957, and informed her that they would cover the bills she incurred for necessary medical, surgical and hospital care. The claimant has been totally disabled since her diagnosis of tuberculosis. She has continued to receive $12.00 per week, with some periods of interruption, and without any COLAs to reflect the substantial changes in the cost of living over the last few decades. Her prescriptions have been paid by the state, but other medical bills have been paid by the claimant and/or her husband’s medical insurance carrier. Findings, ¶ 7.
The trial commissioner found that, at the time she was exposed to tuberculosis, the claimant had been working at the hospital full time, periodically interrupting her duties to attend training classes. Though her three-month stint at Cedarcrest during 1956 was part of her nursing school training, she was regularly paid wages for working shifts. The claimant, who testified concerning her duties and her medical condition, could not recall the amount of wages she received after being diagnosed with tuberculosis, and there was no other evidence introduced to establish those amounts.
Section 2131d, now codified at § 5-142(b), provides that each state employee who comes into contact with a communicable disease during the performance of her duties, and is found to be infected with that disease based on such exposure, is entitled to payment of all medical and hospital expenses by the state. Also, if incapacity results, “such employee shall be removed from the payroll the first day of incapacity and shall receive compensation at the rate of one-half the salary [s]he was receiving at the time of infection.” As noted, however, no evidence was introduced regarding the claimant’s wages, and there were no salary figures in the record on which to base compensation. Instead, the respondent accepted the injury’s compensability in writing, and proceeded to begin paying her twelve dollars per week.
The twelve-dollar-per-week figure appears to be derived not from § 2131d, but from § 2287c (now codified at § 31-307), which provided at the time of injury that compensation for total incapacity resulting from an injury compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act “shall in no case be more than forty dollars or less than twelve dollars weekly.” The trier thus inferred that the state had accepted the claimant’s pulmonary tuberculosis as a compensable injury under the Act, which explained the use of the twelve-dollar figure. Accordingly, he ruled that the claimant was entitled to the payment of COLAs under § 31-307a(b) from October 1, 1969 forward. The respondents have appealed that decision.
A recent decision of this board, Courtright v. State of Connecticut/Connecticut Valley Hospital, 3573 CRB-6-97-4 (June 5, 1998), explains why the formula for COLAs under § 31-307a is incompatible with the compensation method used by § 5-142(a). Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, all benefits are limited by the maximum weekly compensation rate of § 31-309, and COLAs are applied to those benefits based upon the annual changes in that maximum weekly compensation rate. “Section § 5-142(a), on the other hand, does not implicate the maximum weekly wage prescribed by § 31-309 in any way. . . . [A]llowing subsequent changes in that maximum weekly wage to have an effect on the amount of benefits payable under § 5-142 would be random and arbitrary.” Id. The same analysis applies to § 5-142(b). However, a state employee eligible for benefits under § 5-142(a) or (b) may also elect to receive total disability benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act instead of § 5-142. Jones v. Mansfield Training School, 220 Conn. 721 (1992); Trinkley v. Ella Grasso Regional Center, 220 Conn. 739 (1992); Courtright, supra. By doing so, the employee would potentially be eligible for COLA increases, though she would forgo other advantages inherent to § 5-142(a) and (b).
The trier found that, in this case, the claimant did not make any kind of election to receive compensation under § 5-142(b) [again, § 2131d at the time of her infection]. Instead, the respondent explicitly accepted her case as compensable, and the claimant passively accepted the $12.00 weekly payments that the respondent sent her. This is borne out by the claimant’s testimony. See Claimant’s Exhibit B. No agreement was reached between the parties to specify under which statute the claimant was receiving benefits, and the trier reasonably concluded from the circumstances that the respondent was compensating her under the total disability provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Thus, she would be entitled to COLAs under § 31-307a.
The respondent argues that the 1957 letter from the Attorney General’s office was really an “extralegal document,” and that the state was paying the claimant $12.00 per week voluntarily, as the case was not truly compensable under the statute. This interpretation of the facts, though plausible, was certainly not inevitable. The claimant testified that she did work as an employee of the state, and did receive wages for some of her nursing work (albeit not her training at Cedarcrest). Claimant’s Exhibit B, p. 31-32. The respondent could have reasonably determined that the claimant’s tuberculosis arose out of and in the course of her employment with the state, and could have chosen to accept the condition as compensable. Despite the lack of evidence regarding wages in the record, it was not unreasonable for the trial commissioner to conclude that the respondent had accepted this case under § 2287c of the Workers’ Compensation Act, and that the claimant was entitled to COLAs. In fact, the compensability of this injury was not raised as an issue by the respondent either in their Motion to Correct or during the proceedings below, and it is inappropriate for the state to raise it for the first time here.
The trial commissioner’s decision is hereby affirmed. Interest is also awarded pursuant to § 31-301c(b), insofar as the commissioner’s award has remained unpaid.


District Court for the Northern District of California has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1) to hear and determine the habeas corpus application of petitioner, who was on unattached, inactive Army reserve duty while domiciled in California, where military authorities processed his application for conscientious objector discharge, though he was under the nominal command of the commanding officer of the Reserve Officer Components Personnel Center in Indiana. Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U. S. 487, distinguished. Pp. 406 U. S. 342-346.
DOUGLAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART WHITE, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in Part I of which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 406 U. S. 346.
he went to law school after graduating from college. During the period of deferment and at the time this action was commenced, his military records were kept at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana. His nominal commanding officer was the Commanding Officer of the Reserve Officer Components Personnel Center at Fort Benjamin Harrison. Petitioner was, however, at all times domiciled in California, and was never in Indiana or assigned there. On finishing law school, he took the California Bar examination, and, on March 5, 1970, he was ordered to report for active duty at Fort Gordon, Georgia, beginning April 13, 1970. Before that time, however, he had filed an application for discharge as a conscientious objector. That application was processed at Fort Ord, California, where hearings were held. Fort Ord recommended his discharge, and review of that recommendation was had in Indiana. The result was disapproval of the application.
Petitioner thereupon filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in California. The District Court denied a motion to dismiss, holding that it had jurisdiction (3 S.S.L.R. 3152), but ruled against petitioner on the merits. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court as to jurisdiction, but disagreed with it on the merits and granted the writ. 3 S.S.L.R. 3784. Shortly thereafter, our decision in Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U. S. 487, was announced. Thereupon, the Court of Appeals granted a petition for rehearing and dismissed the action, holding that the District Court had no jurisdiction under the habeas corpus statutes. 445 F.2d 843. The case is here on a petition for certiorari, which we granted. We reverse the judgment below.
custodian or one in his chain of command, or one to whom he was to report. While the Habeas Corpus Act extends to those "in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (1), we held in Schlanger that the presence of the "custodian" within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court was a sine qua non. In Schlanger, the only "custodian" of the serviceman was in Moody AFB, Georgia. While there were army officers in Arizona, there was none to whom the serviceman was reporting and none who was supervising his work there, though he was on active duty. Moreover, the serviceman in that case was in Arizona only temporarily for an educational project.
In the present case, California is Strait's home. He was commissioned in California. Up to the controversy in the present case, he was on reserve duty, never on active duty, and, while he had gone east for graduate work in law, California had always been his home. Fort Ord in California was where his application for conscientious objector discharge was processed, and where hearings were held. It was in California where he had had his only meaningful contact with the Army, and his superiors there recommended his discharge as a conscientious objector.
his own expenses, and he was as much on his own as any serviceman on leave. We held in Schlanger that, while an active duty serviceman in such a status light be in military "custody," see Donigian v. Laird, 308 F.Supp. 449 (Md.1969), his custodian may not be deemed present wherever the serviceman has persuaded the service to let him go. The jurisdictional defect in Schlanger, however, was not merely the physical absence of the Commander of Moody AFB from the District of Arizona, but the total lack of formal contacts between Schlanger and the military in that district.
Strait's situation is far different. His nominal custodian, unlike Schlanger's, has enlisted the aid and directed the activities of armed forces personnel in California in his dealings with Strait. Indeed, in the course of Strait's enlistment, virtually every face-to-face contact between him and the military has taken place in California. In the face of this record, to say that Strait's custodian is amenable to process only in Indiana -- or wherever the Army chooses to locate its recordkeeping center, see n 3, infra -- would be to exalt fiction over reality.
"Quite unlike a commanding officer who is responsible for the day to day control of his subordinates, the commanding officer of the Center is the head of a basically administrative organization that merely keeps the records of unattached reservists. To give the commanding officer of the Center 'custody' of the thousands of reservists throughout the United States, and to hold at the same time that the commanding officer is present for habeas corpus purposes only within one small geographical area, is to ignore reality."
sufficiently broad to allow us to say that the commanding officer in Indiana, operating through officers in California in processing petitioner's claim, is in California for the limited purposes of habeas corpus jurisdiction.
We intimate no opinion on the merits of the controversy -- whether petitioner is entitled to a discharge or whether, by denying that relief, the Army has acted in accordance with the prescribed procedures. We hold only that there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1) for consideration of this habeas corpus petition and for decision on the merits.
At the time Sergeant Schlanger received his assignment, Air Force Regulation 326 (Mar. 6, 1968) defined "permissive temporary duty" as "duty of a quasi-official nature performed at other than the permanent duty station, without costs to the Government for per diem and travel." So defined, primary difference between "leave" and "permissive temporary duty" appears to be that the latter status requires the serviceman to convince the military that his proposed activity, while away from his permanent duty station, would be of some direct or indirect benefit to the service.
That such "presence" may suffice for personal jurisdiction is well settled, McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220; Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, and the concept is also not a novel one as regards habeas corpus jurisdiction. In Ex parte Endo, 323 U. S. 283, 323 U. S. 307, we said that habeas corpus may issue "if a respondent who has custody of the prisoner is within reach of the court's process. . . ." Strait's commanding officer is "present" in California through his contacts in that State; he is therefore "within reach" of the federal court in which Strait filed his petition. See Donigian v. Laird, 308 F.Supp. 449, 453; cf. United States ex rel. Armstrong v. Wheeler, 321 F.Supp. 471, 475.
This concentration would be exacerbated in the extreme by the fact that the Reserve Components Personnel Center at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, has now been moved to St. Louis, Missouri, and has been there merged into the United States Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center (RCPAC). RCPAC has recordkeeping and nominal administrative responsibility for approximately 2,000,000 servicemen, all unattached, inactive reservists such as petitioner.
The Court today emasculates Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U. S. 487 (1971), by permitting habeas corpus when the custodian against whom the writ must run is not within the forum judicial district. It stretches the concept of custody beyond anything contained in any of our previous decisions, and permits the federal courts, through habeas corpus, to exercise broader review of military administration than has ever been permitted. I therefore dissent.
that case was in Arizona only temporarily for an educational project."
"In the present case, California is Strait's home. He was commissioned in California. Up to the controversy in the present case, he was on reserve duty, never on active duty, and, while he had gone east for graduate work in law, California had always been his home. Fort Ord in California was where he processed his application for conscientious objector discharge and where hearings were held. It was in California where he had had his only meaningful contact with the Army; and his superiors there recommended his discharge as a conscientious objector."
district. Petitioner's presence in his home State to take the bar examination, after a three-year absence while attending law school, affords him no more support than did Schlanger's presence in Arizona.
The Court substitutes the approach of Arlen v. Laird, 451 F.2d 684 (CA2 1971), for its Schlanger rule. Arlen, incorrectly concluding that Schlanger reserved the question presented here, [Footnote 2/1] held that the type of contacts between the commanding officer and a reservist that have been found to support state jurisdiction over nonresidents under cases like McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co., 355 U. S. 220 (1957), and Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945), would also suffice for habeas jurisdiction. To adopt Arlen is to abandon Schlanger. But the reasons given by the Second Circuit in Arlen do not support a result in that case different from Schlanger. Arlen noted that Government counsel were adequately available in any judicial district, and the records could be forwarded from petitioner's command to the forum district. The same could have been said of Schlanger. Moreover, the Government can assert that Indiana would be the appropriate forum, for the actions of which petitioner complains were taken by the commanding officer and his advisory board at Fort Benjamin Harrison, and presumably the proper witnesses for this litigation were there. These factors would be appropriately considered in a determination as to venue or forum non conveniens, but they are not a substitute for the actual presence of a custodian, which Schlanger held was required by statute.
While I am satisfied that the Ninth Circuit correctly applied Schlanger and ordered dismissal of the habeas corpus petition for want of a custodian within the district, the analysis of the Court in reaching the opposite conclusion highlights what is, for me, the more substantial issue of whether petitioner was in the custody of anyone.
The Court believes that petitioner's commanding officer was merely a record center, and says that the realistic approach is to rule that such a record center is present in all States where there are reservists over whom it has custody. I believe that, where the control exercised over petitioner is so attenuated as to require the contacts between himself and his commanding officer to be weighed for a jurisdictional nexus, the problem is not where the custodian may be found, but whether the petitioner is in custody at all. The most realistic approach is to recognize that custody as a prerequisite for habeas corpus simply does not exist for an unattached reservist who is under virtually no restraints upon where he may live, work, or study, and whose only connection with the Army is a future obligation to enter active duty. This Court has recognized that a person on active duty with the armed forces is sufficiently "in custody" to invoke habeas corpus. Eagles v. Samuels, 329 U. S. 304 (1946); Schlanger v. Seamans, supra; Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U. S. 34 (1972). Aside from ruling that release from active to inactive duty does not moot a habeas proceeding, [Footnote 2/2] however, the Court has never considered whether a future obligation to commence Army duty is a sufficiently severe restraint to support habeas jurisdiction.
are substantial. The requirement of custody is a primary parameter for preserving the great writ for appropriate situations. It is undefined by statute, but depends upon the severity of restraint upon liberty that is involved. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U. S. 236 (1963); Developments in the Law -- Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv.L.Rev. 1038, 1073 (1970).
Notions of custody have changed over the years. In 1885, this Court held that a military order restricting a serviceman to the confines of the District of Columbia did not place him in custody. Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564 (1885). Recent decisions dealing with nonmilitary petitioners have admittedly broadened the concept of custody. Jones v. Cunningham, supra; Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234 (1968). Jones held that a parolee was in custody because he was restricted to the community of his parole, needed special permission to undertake some activities such as driving an auto, and was subject to prompt reincarceration with only administrative proceedings if he violated parole conditions. In Carafas, a convicted felon who was neither in prison nor on parole was held to be "in custody" because the disabilities of his conviction prevented him from engaging in many types of businesses, voting at any state election, or serving as a labor official or juror.
be in custody for habeas corpus purposes until after induction. DeRozario v. Commanding Officer, 390 F.2d 532 (CA9 1967). Neither precedent nor the raison d'etre of the writ sanctions the result reached in this case. Petitioner would be in "custody" only when he reported to Fort Gordon, Georgia, pursuant to his orders, and only then would he be entitled to bring habeas corpus.
upon reviewing the administration of the armed services.
A district court has power to grant a writ of habeas corpus only where a prisoner "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States" [Footnote 2/4] or "is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States." [Footnote 2/5] Petitioner has voluntarily assumed a reserve officer's commission, and there is no indication from the record that his present obligation violates either the Constitution or laws of the United States. Nor is he restrained under any color of authority of the United States that cannot be traced to legitimate statutory authorization. Our inquiry should go no further.
In Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137 (1953), the Court reiterated the rule that the scope of habeas corpus has always been narrower in military cases than when a prisoner is in civil custody. That case permitted review of a court-martial conviction for claimed violations of constitutional due process where the military justice system had failed to fully consider such claims. Except for constitutional violations, however, relief is proper only if the military had no jurisdiction to take the action complained of.
rel. Schonbrun v. Commanding Officer, 403 F.2d 371 (CA2 1968) (no habeas corpus or mandamus jurisdiction to review denial of hardship discharge request); Antonuk v. United States, 445 F.2d 592 (CA6 1971) (no jurisdiction to review promotions).
It is said that jurisdiction is established to review military exercise of administrative discretion where the promulgated procedures are not followed. Authority for this proposition is stated to be Service v. Dulles, 354 U. S. 363 (1957), and Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U. S. 535 (1959). Although the principles of those cases might not carry over undiminished to the military services, [Footnote 2/6] some lower courts have assumed that they do. [Footnote 2/7] Reviewing an administrative decision for conformity to regulations, however, would afford no relief to petitioner in this case. If his application for discharge was processed as required by DOD Directive 1300.6, the Army has fulfilled its responsibility regardless of whether its ultimate conclusion corresponds to the decision that a court of law would make. In this case, the provisions of DOD Directive 1300.6 were applied to petitioner by Army Regulation 135-25. It requires submission of a form request by petitioner, subsequent interviews with a chaplain, medical officer, and an "O-3" hearing officer, consideration of the application by a board of recommendation, and finally action by petitioner's commanding officer. All these procedures were followed in petitioner's case. The Army acted within its jurisdiction in denying the request.
Habeas corpus will issue where a person is held in custody under color of federal authority, or in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(1) and (c)(3). There is no question that the Army had jurisdiction over petitioner at least to the limited extent discussed above in reference to the issue of custody. There is also no question that the Army is under no statutory command to discharge petitioner before the expiration of his contracted period of military service. Acting in accordance with its own procedures, it has chosen not to do so. For me, this ends the permissible scope of habeas corpus inquiry.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, and MR. JUSTICE POWELL join Part I of this dissent, and, on that ground, would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
"The Supreme Court reserved decision on this precise question, 401 U.S. at 401 U. S. 489, 491 n. 5 . . . and cited, apparently with approval, Donigian v. Laird, 308 F.Supp. 449 (D.Md. 1969),"
451 F.2d at 686. But the cited portions of Schlanger dealt only with the question of custody, and not with the separate jurisdictional requirement that a custodian be present within the judicial district.
Gillette v. United States, 401 U. S. 437, 401 U. S. 440 n. 2 (1971).
Most of the circuits have permitted habeas corpus review of an application for discharge under DOD 1300.6. E.g., United States ex rel. Sheldon v. O'Malley, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 141, 420 F.2d 1344 (1969); Bates v. Commander, 413 F.2d 475 (CA1 1969); Hammond v. Lenfest, 398 F.2d 705 (CA2 1968); Brown v. McNamara, 387 F.2d 150 (CA3 1967); United States ex rel. Brooks v. Clifford, 409 F.2d 700 (CA4 1969); Brown v. Resor, 407 F.2d 281 (CA5 1969); Packard v. Rollins, 422 F.2d 525 (CA8 1970); Sertic v. Laird, 418 F.2d 915 (CA9 1969).
This Court has considered petitions for habeas corpus under DOD 1300.6 in Craycroft v. Ferrall, 397 U. S. 335 (1970), and Gillette v. United States, 401 U. S. 437 (1971).
"[W]e cannot review the merits of appellant's present claim that the Air Force in the case at bar did not comply with its own regulations in regard to appellant. Such a claim must indeed be strained to contain an overtone of constitutional invalidity giving rise to immediate judicial review of its application."
Nold v. McNamara, 378 F.2d 538, 540 (CA10 1967).
E.g., Antonuk v. United States, 445 F.2d 592 (CA6 1971); Smith v. Resor, 406 F.2d 141 (CA2 1969).


text:
In this paper, we present a basis for treating, evaluating and measuring knowledge as an energy acquired by knowledge centric objects in society. The energy level acquired is indicated as their knowledge potential or KnP. Some objects get more charged in the knowledge domain and exhibit a longer and/or more intense energy trail. The Rate of knowledge acquisition, intellectual caliber and need intensity driving to acquire knowledge all play a role in the knowledge energy (Kenergy) thus acquired. Bounded by established principles of measurement, units, quantification and equations for dealing with knowledge, it becomes amenable to its own (knowledge) science with laws derived from the many disciplines and their own distinctive principles. We fall back on equations from thermodynamics, electrical engineering, fluid mechanics and transmission theory to quantify the flow-properties of knowledge. Though not completely precise and accurate at this stage of development in the science of knowledge, these disciplines offer a framework for utilizing the wealth of knowledge to stand on the shoulders of many a giant in their respective expertise. In the computational domain, symbols denote both the tangible and intangible objects and linkages handle the connectivity and updating reflecting an active and dynamic profile of knowledge. Hence, objects in the physical world and their actions become symbols and their interactions become processes in the programming domain.
Knowledge Science, Flow of Knowledge, Velocity of Knowledge, Social Sciences.
Knowledge science (KS) has been an evolving field. Knowledge has been studied for millennia from religious and spiritual (Aryan, Hindu, Greek, Judaic, Biblical, Islamic, etc.), perspectives. More recently knowledge has also been seriously studied from scientific (management, medical, educational, statistical, etc.) perspectives. However, since the beginning of this century attempted to study knowledge from a quantitative perspective have appeared [1, 2]. As far back as 1990, for bus and Fakenhainer  have provided a framework of qualitative physics for organizing and using quantitative knowledge and provided three numerical simulations. However, the results ignore individual differences, human adaptation towards new and derived knowledge, dynamic social setting of individuals, interactive cyclic process between human beings and miss the major factor of social and human considerations in making knowledge a unified science and a firm discipline of self, mind and society. Numerous magazines have gained a foothold in Great Britain [4, 5]. The interest in knowledge science appeared to have peaked in 2008 when BBC knowledge Magazine was chosen as one of the top ten magazines launched by Library Journal .
In certain practical situations, the quantitative knowledge is indispensable and crucial. For instance, the medical field is dominated by laboratory test and the quantification of the biological data.This data (measured, derived, or synthesized) is essential for diagnosis and for the remedy of diseases and ailments. Most doctors use quantified medical data and its associated science to diagnose the patient ailments and prescribe medication. Medical application programs .in conjunction with communication networks offer the medical community procedures, cures and remedies. Most of these applications provide quantitative information. As the modern society is becoming more dependent on digital devices, networks and data processing, the impact of KS in its quantitative form is becoming increasingly important. As another instance, modern corporations are more and more involved with accounting, inventory control and decision-support-systems. In order to navigate the human science of management, KS is an invaluable tool to balance finances, inventory and make appropriate decisions. Other applications (such as weather prediction, tsunami warning systems, geological and seismic studies are also dependent on quantitative knowledge in data.
The topics underlying KS are vast, interdisciplinary and innumerable and the foundations of expertise are not firmly established in any one specific discipline. For this reason, the contributors are few and diversified leading to the absence of knowledge science as a discipline in its own right. However, the situation is more promising during this decade due to the availability of more knowledge bases (KBs), greater human expertise, wider and more far reaching networks and hand held devices.
The demise of BBC Knowledge Magazine in 2012 ,(even though the web page is still active) is indicative of the lack of cohesion and synergy in numerous discipline to make KS an area of consorted research and expertise. However, we do not believe that KS is going to disappear from the domain of sciences. Instead it needs to draw its root from numerous well established sciences. In this paper, we allude to the hard sciences (physics, electrical engineering, fluid mechanics, magneto-hydro dynamics, electric and magnetic field distribution), software sciences (application, software, and higher-level programming, microprogramming, nano-programming) to bridge the gap into social sciences (psychology, economic basis of human behavior, social sciences). The root for the since of knowledge have spread and its flowers have blossomed in many cultures and societies in harmony as the plants in the diversified geographical areas of the world.
Knowledge being an essential ingredient of life itself, evolution and knowledge are symbiotic as much as quantification and mathematics are symbiotic. Knowledge has had a profound impact on how human have learned to behave thus altering the mode of behavior to survive. Knowledge, behavior and survival form a tightly knit triad of continued existence. This chain is well founded and deeply rooted. This continuum of the cyclic processes has enhanced and enriched the total energy of knowledge or their kenergy, thus accelerating the evolution of some species over that of others. Mankind has been the prime beneficiary and the accompanying creativity has further accelerated the evolutionary patterns leading into the computer, information and knowledge ages for most societies.
Individual actions and acceptable social behavior have also been intertwined since historic times. Individual actions form the strands in the fabric of social behavior. Science of knowledge needs the reinforcement of social science and vice versa.Being anchored deep in the personalities of interacting individuals, behaviorism in social sciences relies heavily on motivation and needs of human beings. The gratification of such needs leads to behavior of any particular human being in any particular society.
From a modern perspective Maslow has offered a five layer need hierarchy . Ahamed has suggested two additional layers at the top of Maslow’s five-level hierarchy to include the impact of information age and Internet. The search in the Internet knowledge space and higher intellectual needs are accommodated in these sixth and seventh levels  of the enhanced need triangle. The cohesion between needs stratified in five or seven layers and behavior is strong and subtle .
The stratification of the layers and the principles of social psychology  thus become a series of programmable computational steps . Styles, traumas, whims and fancies are generally transient but the social fabric of most cultures has a longer life. Being alive and well founded in the needs of all humans, it changes gradually and continuously, but it is governed by the social norms and ethics . Having a deep foundation in being congenial and benevolent, they are adaptive to changing whims and fancies do not stray too far, nor too long to become outcast destructive to humankind .
Like most scientific objects, the mind retains the energy of knowledge. In Newtonian physics, moving objects designate the kinetic energy as ymv2; in electrical engineering, the capacitors and inductors retain the electrical energy as y CV2, and as y LI2. Other examples also exist. In the knowledge field, the measure of the knowledge energy (or kenergy) is measured in a similar fashion. The retained kenergy is proportional to the square of knowledge potential or KnP and a knowledge attribute or KA of the knowledge centric object (KCO) .
Kenergy is initially symbolized as kenergy and computed as (y .KA.(KnP)2) and is equal to the work done by the particular KCO in attaining a knowledgepotential of KnP. The energy attribute can change over the life time of KCO and KnP can dissipate, degenerate, decompose, etc. for the worse or it can invigorate, reorganize, recompose, etc. for the better.
Most KCOs lose energy exponentially over time. Knowledge though abstract and intangible has structure, connectivity and become quantifiable in terms of two basic attributes, the humanist property of a noun object and the KnP achieved by the object. In the framework of these two basic and quantifiable attributes, the acquired knowledge energy becomes quantification. These invisible lineages and linkages to other bodies of knowledge, communicate the value and validity of knowledge in the particular society where it exists. Knowledge also exhibits dynamic features such as flow and velocity since it can migrate, expand and/or shrink. This flow and velocity have both directionality and measures thus offering the discipline of fluid mechanics to quantify one aspect in the flow of knowledge. Although the assumption of conservation of energy well-founded in fluid mechanics is not applicable in the knowledge domain, the mathematical principles embedded in generalized nonlinear Bernoulli equations may offer a good basis to import the concepts into the knowledge domain. To this extent, the abstract nature of knowledge is akin to the nature good-will and/or virtue that do not diminish when they are shared.
Uncertainty becomes a key ingredient in the science of knowledge since it encompasses human beings and mankind per se. We start by asserting that every human being is unique and distinctive and these individualist traits become parameters in equations within knowledge science(s). However, statisticians have developed strategies and techniques  to deal with uncertainty. More than being just strategies, they are incorporated as managerial tools [12, 13] in Management Science and used repeatedly to maximize profits, minimize risks, mini-max and maxi-min, etc. Such approaches are deployed in most business communities in seeking their specific goals.
In the digital age of the last few decades, the role of computers has become progressively intense. In line with the tradition of computer architecture, binary data is grouped as nibbles, bytes, words or any form of data structure and represented as the second node in a trail of knowledge depicted in Figure 1 and discussed in Ref . Operation codes (opc’s) or a series of opc’s process data  structures and become programmable steps in solving a variety of scientific, business or information based problems. There are seven nodes in Figure 1. The pattern of movement from any node (i) to the next node (i + 1) can be generalized. There is considerable similarity in the approach in the progression of knowledge and science, in building one computer platform after an earlier one, or even in introducing one computer language after an earlier version (e.g., FORTRAN V after FORTRAN IV, C+ after C, C++ after C+).
When sufficient expertise is gathered in processing at each of the seven nodes (B through E), under the current rules of compilation, a more generic, powerful, and encompassing format is conceived or invented for the nodes I, K, C, W, and E. Backward compatibility is generally adhered and sometimes abandoned in light of a breakthrough process, technology or invention. In applying these guidelines to machines for processing information, knowledge, concepts, wisdom, and ethical/social values, the generic migratory path from any node (i) to next node (i + 1) can be extrapolated.
The role of human beings for content processing becomes evident and assumes a role similar to the role of opc’s on operands. From a macroscopic perspective, the contents of the databases at each of the nodes become the operands and the human control by using the appropriate programs or applications becomes the opc’s. Globally, the human beings retain all the control by providing the access to the correct data and content bases and again by choosing the most appropriate pro Grams/applications to Process the contents.
Figure 1Successive processing of binary data in computer systems leads to key concepts, wisdom, ethical and social values in any given society. Seven nodes are shown with reality of digital data that flows through the networks on the left side to ethicsand values on the right side. Microscopic functions on the left side are cumulated to achieve major functions on the right side. Currently the functions on data structures and information form a basis of programmable steps in solving scientific, business or information problems.
The platform for the next-generation computers to process information, knowledge, concepts, or wisdom starts at platforms (i = 2, 3, 4, and 5) respectively in Figure 1. The content (full lines) comes from all the databases of prior domains and from all sources including Internet, WWW, knowledge bases, broadband and digital networks, and library databases. It is important that the content satisfy the processing capability of content at that particular node.
A structure for the upward migration of knowledge is shown in Figure 2. During the early days of evolution of knowledge at the lowest (seventh) level of the pyramid, structure and functionality were emphasized. In the Internet age, flow analysis of data and information is feasible and practiced by most Federal and State government agencies. Police and Intelligence agencies practice this to keep surveillance records on ordinary citizens, suspects and criminals. The data-flow records are available to most IP servers and to their personnel. The social and ethical aspects, though questionable are also in use for spam, unsolicited mail and generating junk information on theInternet at the lowest levels of this knowledge pyramid.
Figure 2 Pyramid of Knowledge Science for the upward migration of knowledge. During the times of the Greek philosophers at the lowest (seventh) level of the pyramid, structuralism & functionalism were emphasized. Social sciences though not apparent still formed the basis of early learning and communication of knowledge from one generation to the next.
Unfortunately, spammer have access to the user preferences, habits and machine learning algorithms that makes the targeted marketing more annoying than ever before. Such issues can be most easily curtailed by limiting the access to user and customer data bases by encryption or indirect addressing this preventing spammers and junkies to abuse information.
The stagnancy in the design and architecture of social computers is evident. Human problems and issues are more prevalent and pressing over longer duration. In a sense, even the elementary practice of medicine (such as billing and counseling) had suffered similar drawbacks during 1980s and early 1990s while other disciplines (such as design of VLSI and of communication systems) were experiencing exponential rates of growth .
Figure 3 depicts a pyramid of knowledge for the growth of adjoining discipline for the next generation machines such as concept, wisdom and social machines to follow a firm structure of knowledge machines shown at Node 4 in Figure 1. Human inputs and skills are also shown to be able to design personalized social machines capable of solving interpersonal and inter-social problems. The hierarchy in Figure 3 is generic and can be used in any area of expertise such as mathematics or physics and can be used in most circumstances such as to resolve dissertation issues of a given doctoral student.
Figure 3. The need for an interdisciplinary platform of science for the systematic and cogent development of knowledge science (KS) is illustrated to include the significant contribution in knowledge domain. Solution of Social, Individual and Personal problems in the modern society will thus be resolvable by KS based on scientific basis.
This major cycle of current knowledge (K), behavior (B), learning (L), adaptation (A), survival (S), enhanced knowledge (EK); is depicted in Figure 4. Denoted as (KàBàLàAàSàEK), this cycle of global social progress is well founded and deeply root. Acceleration of social and cultural growth (or its decay) is the ultimate result of the high-speed data networks, ATM switches and the TCP/IP protocol.Human skills and knowledge tools have evolved more successfully in selected segments of the population around the globe, thus causing a knowledge divide between the “know-hows” and the “know-nots”. This knowledge divide has acquired unprecedented momentum with new social problems between the knowledge-elite and the knowledge-impoverished. Different patterns of intellectual behavior and conduct arise and likely to become more severe. After all, wars and Mafia were a way of life till a sense of justice prevailed around the globe. Yet, isolated families practice cruelty and violence. Perhaps social workers equipped with pocket-sized social machines may help resolve such issues as much as a thermometer or a blood pressure machine helps a visiting nurse.
Unfortunately, the self-interest that is common to both segments offers the tools of Mafia to the unjust and a tainted sense of fairness to the elite. Behavior assumes a mode of cruelty for the know-nots (like the tribal kingpins in remote areas) or a mode of deception (like most of the politicians) in western democracies.
In this paper we have presented the precepts of the evolving science of knowledge intertwined with social and computer sciences. These precepts have been informally deployed in the continued evolution of knowledge coupled with behavior, learning, adaptation and survival of species over a long time. The role and influence of computer sciences and diffusion of data, information and knowledge over the Internet have been more recent but radical and dramatic. This paper presents an integrated perspective leading to the design and development of social machines to solve age-long social problems by using the technological strides during the computer and networks times of the recently passed decades. A similar situation existed during the days of Charles Babbage while he used his primitive (1820’s) “Difference Engine” and his primitive (1830’s) “Analytical Engine” together to generate the “Mathematical Tables” that were manually generated before his “Babbage” machines.
Nearly two centuries have elapsed before the current generation of multidisciplinary scientists can build a Hand held Tablet of “Social Tables” duly accurate and individually tailored to the user by imaging the user personality attributes into the global knowledge banks. Such “social tables” should attempt to improve the accuracy and precision of solutions to most of the human needs and problems as much as the Babbage machines contributed to the accuracy and precision of the “Mathematical Tables” of the past era. Knowledge sciences in numerous disciplines would offer a generic platform for the design and architecture of such generic social machines of the 2020’s.
 “Quantified self: The Algorithm of Life”, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/arts-and-books/quantified-self-the-algorithm-of-life, web page accessed September 05, 2017.
 Forbus, K. D., and Falkenhainer, B., “An Integration of Qualitative and Quantita-tive Knowledge”, AAAI-90 Proceedings, AAAI-90 Proceedings, 1990, pp. 380-387. Also available at qrg.northwestern.edu/papers/Files/ For-bus_Falkenhainer90.pdf.
 “Top 10 of Everything”, BBC Knowledge – December 2014, http://www.bbcknowledgemagazine, web page accessed September 05, 2017.
 “BBC Focus”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Knowledge_(magazine), web page accessed September 05, 2017.
 “Ten new launches buck the downturn”, Library Journal, May 1, 2009.
 Maslow, A. H. (1970b), Religions, values, and peak experiences. New York: Penguin, (originally published in 1964. Abraham H. Maslow has written 20 books and significantly contributed to numerous fields in sociology, behavior, motivation, and social psychology.
 Ahamed, S. V. (2005) “An enhanced need pyramid for the information age hu-man being”, in Proceedings of the Fifth Hawaii International Conference, Fifth International Conference on Business, Hawaii, May 26–29, 2005.
 Ahamed, S. V. (2005 a) “An enhanced need pyramid of the information age human being, paper presented at the International Society of Political Psycholo-gy”, (ISSP) 2005 Scientific Meeting, Toronto, July 3-6, 2005.
 Baron, R.A., Byrne, D. E., and Suls, J. M., (1989), Exploring Social Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, 3rd Edition 1989.
 Ahamed, S. V. (2007) Intelligent Internet Knowledge Networks, Wiley (2007), Chapter 9, pp 241-265.
 Deaux, K, and Synder, M., “Goal-driven cognition and functional behavior: The fundamental-motives framework”, Current Directions in Psychological Sci-ence, 19(1), 63-67.
 Taha, H.A.(2010), Operations Research: An Introduction (2010), Prentice Hall, 9th Ed., 2010.
 Drucker, P. F. (2006), The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done, Harper Business Essentials, (2006); also see, Drucker, P. F., Management Challenges for the 21st Century, Harper Business; 1st edition (June 26, 2001).
 Ahamed, S. V. (2007), Intelligent Internet Knowledge Machines: Processing of Concepts and Wisdom, Wiley, 2007. See Chapter 15, “Looking Ahead: Social and Ethical Implications” (pp. 444-582) and Section 15.1 for the seven node (BDIKCWE) Knowledge Trail and node transition analysis.
 http://www.teach-ict.com/as_as_computing/ocr/H447/F453/3_3_8/features/miniweb/pg4. htm; web page accessed on September 05, 2017.
 Loukaka, Alain and Rahman, Shawon; “Discovering New Cyber Protection Approaches From a Security Professional Prospective”; International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC) Vol.9, No.4, July 2017.
 Rader, A., Marc and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “Exploring Historical and Emerging Phishing Tech niques and Mitigating the Associated Security Risks”; International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications (IJNSA), Vol.5, No.4, July 2013.
 Opala, John, Omondi and Rahman, Syed (Shawon);“Corporate Role in Protecting Consumers from the Risk of Identify theft ”; International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC), Vol.5, No.5, September 2013.
 Todd, S., Margie and Rahman, Syed (Shawon);“ Complete Network Security Protection for SME’s Within Limited Resources”; International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC), Vol.5, No.6, November 2013.
 DeVoe, Charles and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “Incident Response Plan for Small to Medium Sized Hospital”; International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications (IJNSA), Vol.5, No.2, March 2013.
 Rahman, Syed (Shawon) and Lackey, Robert; “E-Commerce Systems Security for Small Businesses”; International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications (IJNSA), Vol.5, No.2, March 2013.
 Henderson, James and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); ” Working Virtually and Challenges that must be overcome in today’s Economic Downturn”; International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT); ISSN : 0975-5586 (Online) ;0975-5926 (Print).
 Dreelin, S., Gregory and Rahman, Syed (Shawon);“ Enterprise Security Risk Plan for Small Business”; International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC), ISSN : 0974 – 9322 [Online] ; 0975- 2293 [Print]).
 Donahue, Kimmarie and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “Healthcare IT: Is your Information at Risk?”; International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications (IJNSA), Vol.4, No.5, September 2012.
 Rice, Lee and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “Non-Profit Organizations’ need to Address Security for Effective Government Contracting”; International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications (IJNSA), Vol.4, No.4, July 2012.
 Neal, David and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “Video Surveillance in the Cloud?”; The InternationalJournal of Cryptography and Information Security (IJCIS), Vol.2, No.3, September 2012.
 Lai, Robert and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “Analytic of China Cyberattack”; The International Journal of Multimedia & Its Applications (IJMA), June 2012, Volume 4, Number 3.
 Halton, Michael and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “The Top 10 Best Cloud-Security Practices in Next-Generation Networking”; International Journal of Communication Networks and Distributed Systems (IJCNDS); Special Issue on: “Recent Advances in Next-Generation and Resource-Constrained Converged Networks”, Vol. 8, Nos. ½, 2012, Pages:70-84.
 Mohr, Stephen and Rahman, Syed (Shawon);“IT Security Issues within the Video Game Industry”; International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol. 3, No 5, Oct 2011.
 Hood, David and Rahman, Syed (Shawon);“IT Security Plan for Flight Simulation Program”; International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Applications (IJCSEA), Vol.1, No.5, October 2011.
 Schuett, Maria and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “Information Security Synthesis in Online Universities”; International Journal of Network Security & Its Applications (IJNSA), Vol.3, No.5, Sep 2011.
 Jungck, Kathleen and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); ” Cloud Computing Avoids Downfall of Application Service Providers”; International Journal of Information Technology Convergence and services (IJITCS), Vol.1, No.3, June 2011.
 Slaughter, Jason and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); ” Information Security Plan for Flight Simulator Applications”; International Journal of Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT), Vol. 3, No 3, June 2011.
 Benson, Karen and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “Security Risks in Mechanical Engineering Industries”, International Journal of Computer Science and Engineering Survey (IJCSES), Vol.2, No.3, August 2011.
 Bisong, Anthony and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “An Overview of the Security Concerns in Enterprise Cloud Computing “; International journal of Network Security & Its Applications (IJNSA), Vol.3, No.1, January 2011.
 Mullikin, Arwen and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “The Ethical Dilemma of the USA Government Wiretapping”; International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT); Vol.2, No.4, November 2010.
 Ahamed, Syed and Rahman, Syed (Shawon); “Architecture and Design of Medical Processor Units for Medical Networks”; International journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC), Vol.2, No.6, November 2010.
 Rahman, Syed (Shawon) and Donahue, Shannon; “Convergence of Corporate and Information Security”; International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS), Vol. 7, No. 1, 2010.
 Rahman, Syed (Shawon) and Ahamed, Syed; “Intelligent Network Applications for Medical Systems”; The Second International Workshop on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiC-2010),(In conjunction with WiMo 2010) – June 26- 28, 2010, Ankara, Turkey.
 Rahman, Syed (Shawon); Ahamed, Syed, and Erdogan, Sevki; “IT Security Assessment for Interdisciplinary Research”; The First International workshop on Communications Security & Information Assurance (CSIA) (In Conjunction with WiMo – 2010) June 26-28, 2010, Ankara, Turkey.
 Ahamed, Syed and Rahman, Syed(Shawon); “Design Constructs of a Knowledge Machine”; 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC2010); 10-13, October 2010, Istanbul, TURKEY.
Dr. Shawon Rahman: Dr. ShawonS. M. Rahman is an Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Hawaii-Hilo, USA. Dr. Rahman’s research interests includeInformation Assurance and Security, Software Engineering education, Software Testing & QA, Cloud Computing, Mobile Application Development, and Web Accessibility. He has earned his Ph.D. in Software Engineering and MS in Computer Science from the North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. He has published over 100 peer-reviewed articles and is a member of many professional organizations including IEEE, ACM, ASEE, ASQ, ISACA, and UPE.
Dr. Syed V. Ahamed: Dr. Syed V. Ahamed is a Professor Emeritus at the City University of New YorkStaten Island, New York, NJ. Dr. Ahamed obtained his Ph.D. from VictoriaUniversity of Manchester in the United Kingdom. Dr. Ahamed alsoholds the Doctor of Science (D.Sc.) degree from Victoria University ofManchester as well as an M.B.A. in economics from New YorkUniversity.Dr. Ahamed, a Fellow of IEEE, has a broad spectrum of teaching and research interests including,Intelligent Sensing Systems, Computer Architecture, CPU and KPU Designs, Telecommunications,Intelligent Networks, Knowledge Systems, Management Information Systems, and Economics. He hasreceived many European and US patents and published many books and hundreds of articles.

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


text:
G.R. No. L-10397 October 16, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO IZON, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-12019 October 16, 1958 - FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-13396 October 22, 1958 - GREGORIO A. VENTURANZA, ET AL. v. ANTONIO CANIZARES, ETC., ET AL.
G.R. No. L-11884 October 27, 1958 - STANLEY WINCH v. P. J. KIENER CO. LTD.
G.R. No. L-11177 October 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO MONROY, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-8418 October 31, 1958 - JOSE TIAOQUI v. G. A. CU UNJIENG, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-10912 October 31, 1958 - IN RE: ANSELMO LIM HOK ALBANO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. L-11637 October 31, 1958 - IN RE: WILLIAM ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

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


Both the language and legislative history of the Acts of 1904, 1907, and 1910, whereby land in certain counties in South Dakota located within the boundaries of the Rosebud Sioux Reservation as defined in an 1889 Treaty was required to be ceded by the Reservation Indians to the Government for sale to settlers under the homestead and townsite laws with the proceeds to be credited to the Indians only as received or, with respect to certain parcels, for transfer to South Dakota for school use, held clearly to evidence a congressional intent to diminish the boundaries of the Reservation. Although such Acts were unilateral Acts of Congress without the consent of three-fourths of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe's adult male members, as was required by the original 1868 Treaty establishing the Reservation, that fact does not directly bear on the question whether Congress, by these later Acts, intended to diminish the Reservation boundaries. Nor is it conclusive with respect to congressional intent that these Acts changed the method of payment from an outright, fixed-sum payment to the Indians required by a 1901 Agreement that would have amended the 1889 Treaty and would have resulted in a diminution of the Reservation boundaries, but which, although approved by three-fourths of the Tribe's adult male members, was never ratified by Congress. Pp. 586-615.
REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and STEWART, JJ., joined, post, p. 615.
Mattz v. Arnett, supra at 505, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
When established, the Rosebud Indian Reservation contained somewhat over 3.2 million acres, and covered all or a portion of what later became five counties in South Dakota: Gregory, Tripp, Lyman, Mellette, and Todd. The three Acts we are asked to construe successively disposed of all unallotted lands in Gregory County (1904 Act), in Tripp and Lyman Counties (1907 Act), and in Mellette County (1910 Act). Only Todd County remains unaffected by these post-1889 enactments. The contention of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe is that these Acts, while opening up the unallotted land outside of Todd County to non-Indian settlement, did not thereby change the Reservation boundaries, which continued to encompass these five counties.
the general rule that "[d]oubtful expressions are to be resolved in favor of the weak and defenseless people who are the wards of the nation, dependent upon its protection and good faith."
status. Mattz v. Arnett, supra; see also Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U.S. 351 (1962). But the "general rule" does not command a determination that reservation status survives in the face of congressionally manifested intent to the contrary. DeCoteau v. District County Court, supra. In all cases, "the face of the Act," the "surrounding circumstances," and the "legislative history," are to be examined with an eye toward determining what congressional intent was. Mattz v. Arnett, supra at 505.
The Rosebud Sioux are one of the tribes of Indians of the Sioux Nation. The Treaty of April 29, 1868, 15 Stat. 635, set aside all the land in South Dakota west of the Missouri River as the Great Sioux Reservation, consisting of some 25 million acres. Article 12 of the Treaty provided that no subsequent treaty for the cession of any part of the reservation would be valid without the written consent of three-fourths of the adult male Indians on the reservation. Despite this provision, in 1877, approximately 7.5 million acres, consisting of the Black Hills portion of the Great Sioux Reservation, were removed from the Reservation by the Act of February 28, 1877, 19 Stat. 254. See Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 97 Ct.Cl. 613 (1942), cert. denied, 318 U.S. 789 (1943). Of the remaining Reservation, approximately one-half was "restored to the public domain" under the Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 896, § 21,5 while six separate Reservations were carved out of the remainder, §§ 1-6. Section 2 set apart the Rosebud Reservation, encompassing what were later organized as three full counties (Todd, Mellette, and Tripp), a major portion of Gregory County, and a small portion of Lyman.6 This Reservation, as originally delimited, contained over 3.2 [97 S.Ct. 1365] million acres.


text:
Banakh V.A., Gerasimova L.O. Propagation of broadband pulsed optical beams. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 5-10 [in Russian].
Geints Yu.E., Zemlyanov A.A. Filamentation of high-power ulta-short laser radiation. Size factor of light beam. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 11-17 [in Russian].
Geints Yu.E. and Zemlyanov A.A. Filamentation of High-Power Ultrashort Laser Radiation: Size Factor of a Light Beam. // Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics, 2013, V. 26. No. 05. pp. 357–363.
Klimeshina T.E., Rodimova O.B. Line shape variations from band to band for Н2О and СО2. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 18-23 [in Russian].
Аntokhin P.N., Arshinov M.Yu., Arshinova V.G., Belan B.D., Davydov D.K., Rasskazchikova T.M., Fofonov A.V., Inoue Gen., Machida Toshinobu., Shimoyama Ko., Maksutov Shamil.Shamil. СО2 concentration variation above the West Siberia area in different seasons during passes of atmospheric fronts. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 24-31 [in Russian].
Konstantinov O.G., Pavlov A.N. Complex monitoring of sea areas state by optical methods. Part 3. The dynamic processes registration by slics on the sea surface. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 32-39 [in Russian].
Konstantinov O.G. and Pavlov A.N. Complex Monitoring of the State of Sea Water Basins by Optical Methods. Part 3. Recording of Dynamic Processes by Slicks on the Sea Surface. // Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics, 2013, V. 26. No. 04. pp. 300–307.
Kulchin Yu.N., Voznesenskii S.S., Gamayunov E.L., Korotenko A.A., Popik A.Yu., Maior A.Yu. Complex monitoring of sea areas by optical methods. Part 4. Fiber optics system for measurements of the phytoplankton concentration. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 40-45 [in Russian].
Kul’chin Yu.N., Voznesenskii S.S., Gamayunov E.L., Korotenko A.A., Popik A.Yu., and Mayor A.Yu. Complex Monitoring of the State of Sea Water Basins by Optical Methods: Part 4. Fiber Optic System for Measurements of the Phytoplankton Concentration. // Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics, 2013, V. 26. No. 05. pp. 432–437.
Rokotyan N.V., Zakharov V.I., Gribanov K.G., Jouzel J., Warneke T., Notholt J. The possibility of atmospheric remote sensing of carbon gases isotopologues using ground-based high-resolution FTIRs. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 46-51 [in Russian].
Razenkov I.A. Aerosol lidar for continuous atmospheric measurements. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 52-63 [in Russian].
Razenkov I.A. Aerosol Lidar for Continuous Atmospheric Monitoring. // Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics, 2013, V. 26. No. 04. pp. 308–319.
Konoshonkin A.V., Borovoy A.G. Specular scattering of light by cloud's ice crystals and wavy water surfaces. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 64-69 [in Russian].
Konoshonkin A.V., and Borovoi A.G. Specular Scattering of Light on Cloud Ice Crystals and Wavy Water Surface. // Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics, 2013, V. 26. No. 05. pp. 438–443.
Bobrovnikov S.M., Gorlov E.V., Zharkov V.I. Experimental estimation of the sensitivity of the UV Raman lidar. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 70-74 [in Russian].
Bobrovnikov S.M., Gorlov E.V., and Zharkov V.I. Experimental Estimation of Raman Lidar Sensitivity in the Middle UV. // Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics, 2013, V. 26. No. 04. pp. 320–325.
Leonovich L.A., Mikhalev A.V., Tashchcilin A.V., Rahmatulin R.A., Leonovich V.A., Pashinin A.Yu. The response of mid-latitude upper atmospheric parameters to January 21, 2005 geomagnetic storm as deduced from optical, magnetic and radio-physical measurements. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 75-80 [in Russian].
Ishmatov A.N., Akhmadeev I.R. Application of the low-angle laser light scattering method for studying the pulse liquid atomization. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 81-84 [in Russian].
Ishmatov A.N. and Akhmadeev I.R. The Low-Angle Laser Light Scattering Method in the Study of Pulse Liquid Atomization. // Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics, 2013, V. 26. No. 05. pp. 444–448.
Rybka D.V., Andronikov I.V., Evtushenko G.S., Kozyrev A.V., Kozhevnikov V.Yu., Kostyrya I.D., Tarasenko V.F., Trigub M.V., Shut'ko Yu.V. Corona discharge in air at atmospheric pressure under modulated voltage pulse with a duration of 10 ms. // Optika Atmosfery i Okeana. 2013. V. 26. No. 01. P. 85-90 [in Russian].
Rybka D.V., Andronikov I.V., Evtushenko G.S., Kozyrev A.V., Kozhevnikov V.Yu., Kostyrya I.D., Tarasenko V.F., Trigub M.V., and Shut’ko Yu.V. Corona Discharge in Atmospheric Pressure Air under a Modulated Voltage Pulse of 10 ms. // Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics, 2013, V. 26. No. 05. pp. 449–454.

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


In our last newsletter we reviewed joint ownership and assignments of patents.1 Here, we turn to a review of some of the significant issues surrounding joint ownership and transfer of copyrights. Both copyrights and patents are based on the same constitutional foundation and grant the owners similar rights.2 However, the rights granted to joint owners of patents and copyrights differ in several important aspects.
Joint owners of both patents and copyrights are free to exploit the property without the consent of their joint owner(s) absent agreement to the contrary. However, only joint copyright owners are obligated to account to each other for any profits earned from licensing or use of the copyright.
A brief review of the copyright ownership rules is worthwhile before reviewing a few cases in which the joint ownership of copyright rules have been applied.
However, an initial difference between copyrights and patents is that copyright ownership arises automatically at creation. In the case of patents, an affirmative act of filing a patent application is required to initiate creation of the right.
The rights granted to joint copyright and patent owners to exclude and license are similar except with respect to the right to use issue, for example. The copyright law grants the owner[s] of a copyright the exclusive right to use the copyrighted work, so long as there has been independent creation thereof.14 This right is broader than rights given to patent owners, which do not include a right to use the patented invention — only to exclude others from use - and the patent owner cannot use "independent creation" as a defense if commercializing the invention also happens to infringe upon the patent rights in the invention of another.
Notwithstanding the similarities on the issues of creation, transfer and joint ownership for copyrights and patents, the rights and duties of coowners of a copyrighted work differ substantially from those for joint owners of a patent. Joint owners of a copyright have an obligation to account to the other coowner[s].
These default rules strongly suggest that a suitable ownership agreement between joint owners of copyright may be beneficial, and, depending on the facts of a particular case, it may be desirable to define in writing the rights of the respective coowners as to use, license and accounting prior to creation of the work.
The default rules allowing a joint owner of a copyright to use the work without consent — yet be under an obligation to account — allows for unintended consequences. This is true especially in the case where one co-author contributes a substantial portion of the work. Thus, it may be beneficial to address allocation of the respective use and ownership rights to an income stream by written agreement at an early time in the relationship, and such an agreement may best be in writing.
* This article was prepared by Michael I. Wolfson, who is a former partner of McCarter & English, LLP. Michael Wolfson can be reached at miwolfson@aol.com.
1 See Joint Ownership and Assignments of Intellectual Property Rights, Intellectual Property &Technology Update Vol. 5, No. 3 (2010). Click here to read Part I.
2 See U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8 ("The Congress shall have Power…To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries[.]").
3 See 17 U.S.C. § 201(a).
4 35 U.S.C. § 116.
5 Erickson v. Trinity Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061, 1071 (7th Cir. 1994).
7 H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 at 120 (1976).
8 See 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
9 See Goodman v. Lee, 78 F.3d 1007, 1012 (5th Cir. 1996); Oddo v. Ries, MME, 743 F.2d 630, 633 (9th Cir. 1954).
10 17 U.S.C. § 201(d).
11 17 U.S.C. § 204(a).
12 See 35 U.S.C. § 261.
13 See Oddo, 743 F.2d 630 and Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co., 140 F.2d 266, 268 (2d Cir. 1944). The law on this point differs in foreign jurisdictions, and, in many countries, all coowners must join in licensing to a third party. In the United Kingdom, for example, one joint owner may not even exploit the copyright without the consent of the other coowners. See Melville B. Nimmer and David Nimmer, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT §6.10[D] (Mathew Bender, Rev. Ed.).
14 See 17 U.S.C. § 106.
15 35 U.S.C. § 262.
16 Oddo v. Ries, MME, 743 F.2d at 633 (internal citations omitted).
17 35 U.S.C. § 262 (emphasis added).
18 H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 at 121.
19 See 17 U.S.C. § 204(b).
21 See Oddo, 743 F.2d 630.
22 Goodman, 78 F.3d 1007.
23 Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004).
24 Janky v. Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, 576 F. 3d 356 (7th Cir. 2009).
25 See Oddo, 743 F.2d 630.
26 Goodman, 78 F.3d at 1013.
27 See Janky, 576 F. 3d 356 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 201(a)).


text:
This application claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/484,189, filed Jul. 1, 2003, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/516,680, filed Nov. 3, 2003, both of which are herein incorporated by reference. This application is additionally a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/608,513, filed Jun. 26, 2003 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,374,644 (hereinafter referred to as the “'513 application”), which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/140,010, filed May 7, 2002 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,979,248. The '513 application is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/211,626, filed Aug. 2, 2002 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,125,477, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/033,732, filed Dec. 27, 2001 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,055,800, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/505,899, filed Feb. 17, 2000 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,537,144. The '513 application is additionally a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/210,972, filed Aug. 2, 2002 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,303,662, which is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/505,899, filed Feb. 17, 2000 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,537,144. The '513 application is further continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/151,538, filed May 16, 2002 now abandoned. This application is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/244,697, filed Sep. 16, 2002 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,991,526, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/244,688, filed Sep. 16, 2002 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,848,970, and of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/391,324, filed Mar. 18, 2003. All of the above referenced applications are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.
This application is additionally related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/455,941, filed Jun. 6, 2003; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10,455,895, filed Jun. 6, 2003, all of which are also incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
The housing 402 is fabricated from a dielectric material compatible with process chemistries. In one embodiment, the housing 402 is made of PEEK. The housing 402 has a first end 408 and a second end 410. A drive feature 412 is formed in and/or on the first end 408 to facilitate installation of the contact assembly 250 to the contact plate 320. The drive feature 412 may be holes for a spanner wrench, a slot or slots, a recessed drive feature (such as for a TORX® or hex drive, and the like) or a projecting drive feature (such as wrench flats or a hex head, and the like), among others. The first end 408 additionally includes a seat 426 that prevents the ball 406 from passing out of the first end 408 of the housing 402. The seat 426 optionally may include one or more grooves 448 formed therein that allow fluid flow to exit the housing 402 between the ball 406 and seat 412. Maintaining fluid past the ball 406 may minimize the propensity of process chemistries to attack the ball 406.
Alexander, Jr., "Electrically Conductive Polymer Nanocomposite Materials", http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Sept02/ML0206.html printed Feb. 19, 2003.
Communication pursuant to Article 96(2) EPC for Application No. 02728965.4, dated Jun. 11, 2004.
Contolini, "Electrochemical Planarization of ULSI Copper," Solid State Technology, vol. 40, No. 6, Jun. 1, 1997.
European Examination Report dated Sep. 9, 2007 for European Application No. 05077958.6.
European Search Report dated Sep. 27, 2005 for Application No. 03254807.5.
European Search Report for 03252801.0, dated Jan. 16, 2004 (7047 EP).
First Office Action dated Nov. 7, 2008 for Chinese Patent Application No. 200480022037.9.
First Office Action issued Feb. 20, 2009 in Chinese Patent Application No. 200480019124.9.
International Search Report for PCT/US 02/11009 dated Feb. 25, 2003.
Invitation to pay additional fees dated Nov. 11, 2004.
Japanese Office Action, Patent Application No. P2003-205790, dated Jan. 27, 2009.
Korean Office Action dated Mar. 26, 2008 for Korean Application No. 10-2007-7023166.
Korean Office Action, Korean Patent Application No. 10-2007-7023166, dated Dec. 19, 2008.
Nogami, "An Innovation in Integrate Porous Low-K Materials and Copper," InterConnect Japan 2001; Honeywell Seminar Dec. 6, 2001, p. 1-12.
Notification of Transmittal of International Preliminary Examination Report dated Nov. 10, 2003.
Notification of Transmittal of International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 21, 2005.
Notification of transmittal of the International Search report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 14, 2005.
Notification regarding review of justification for invitation to pay additional fees for PCT/US/02/11009 dated Feb. 25, 2003.
Partial International Search / PCT Invitation to pay additional fees dated Nov. 14, 2002.
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 28, 2005 for PCT/US04/037870.
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2006/004114, dated Jul. 14, 2006.
PCT Written Opinion dated Apr. 1, 2003 for PCT/US02/11009.
Search Report issued by the Austrian Patent Office for corresponding Singapore Patent Application No. 200302562-4, provided by letter dated Oct. 7, 2004.
Taiwan Office Action dated Dec. 25, 2007 for Taiwan Application No. 092121222.
Taiwan Office Action issued Oct. 27, 2008, in Taiwan Patent Application No. 93136038.

matches:
Application No. 02728965
Application No. 05077958
Application No. 03254807
Application No. 200480022037
Application No. 200480019124
Application No. 10
Application No. 10
Application No. 200302562
Application No. 092121222
Application No. 93136038


text:
Ubelaker, Dr. Douglas. Bones. A Forensic Detective's Casebook. New York. Edward Burlingame. 1992. Octavo. Hard cover. Illustrated. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Udvardy, Milos. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds. Western Region. New York. Alfred A. Knopf. 1977. 850 pps. Octavo. Vinyl cover. Reprint. Illustrated in color and black & white. Fine copy, with wrapper.
Underwood, Dr. John. Sires of Distinction. Inscribed to the author. The M.F.A. Artificial Breeding Association and Its Impact on Missouri's Diary Industry. Photo available. Virginia Beach. Donning. 2012. 136 pps. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Missouri Holstein Assoc. prospectus laid in. Inscribed "To John Underwood, a true friend & Professional Mike Hutjons Feb 25, 2014". Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Unitt, Philip. The Birds of San Diego County. Inscribed by the author. Memoir 13. Photo available. San Diego. San Diego Society of Natural History. 1984. 276 pps. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Full number line. Illustrated in black, white and color. Important reference work. Inscribed by the author "To Rusty Bodrero with best wishes. Philip Unitt". Fine copy in edge chipped dust jacket (in mylar).
Unterseher, Fred. Holography Handbook. Making Holograms the Easy Way. Berkeley. Ross Books. 1982. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy.
Vallery-Radot, Rene. The Life of Pasteur. Garden City. Doubleday. 1927. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Fine copy in very good (piece missing at spine tip) dust jacket (in mylar).
van Andel, Tjeerd. Science at Sea. Tales of an Old Ocean. San Francisco. W.H. Freeman. 1981. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated. Near fine copy (very light shelf wear).
van Nouhuys, Tabitta. The Age of Two-Faced Janus. The Comets of 1577 and 1618 and the Decline of the Aristotelian World View in the Netherlands. Photo available. Leiden. Brill. 1998. 604 pps. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Important reference work. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
van Staalduinen, Jan et al. Naktuinbouw. Dedicated to Quality. Photo available. np. Self published. 2010. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Rare. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Van Vechten, Carl. The Tiger in the House (cats). Photo available. New York. Bonanza Books. nd. 367 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. Reprint. Illustrated. Fine copy in near fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Vandivert, Rita. To the Rescue. Seven Heroes of Conversation. New York. Frederick Warne. 1982. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Varmus, Harold. Genes and the Biology of Cancer. New York. Scientific American. 1993. Octavo. Hard cover. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Venter, J. Craig. A Life Decoded. My Genome: My Life. New York. Viking Press. 2007. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Verney, Peter. The Earthquake Handbook. New York. Paddington. 1979. Octavo. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).

matches:
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine
in fine