text:
KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO. v. CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO.
[271 U.S. 445, 446] Messrs. Samuel W. Sawyer, of Kansas City, Mo., Edward J. White, of St. Louis, Mo., N. H. Loomis, of Omaha, Neb., and Bruce Scott and Gardiner Lathrop, both of Chicago, Ill., for Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co.
[271 U.S. 445, 449] Mr. Joseph M. Bryson, of St. Louis, Mo., for Central Union Trust Co. of New York.
This cause is here on certificate from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Judicial Code, 239 (Comp. St. 1216). The relevant facts and the submitted questions follow.
In a proceeding by creditors, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, appointed a receiver for the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. Appellees asked foreclosure of liens upon the whole property, and procured an order of sale. According to a plan for purchase and reorganization, with definite offers to lien creditors, unsecured creditors, and stockholders, Blumenthal and another bid in the assets and then assigned the rights so acquired to the Missouri-Kansas- Texas Railroad Company, a newly organized Missouri corporation.
Pending entry of the final decree, appellants asserted preferential rights. These were denied, and they were held to be unsecured contract creditors. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co. v. Central Union Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 294 F. 32. Thereupon they challenged the reorganization plan as unfair to them and unduly preferential to stockholders of the insolvent corporation. The trial court overuled their objection, the matter went to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and it has asked for instruction.
(1) Prior lien mortgage bonds (authorized, $250,000,000).
(2) Cumulative adjustment, or income, bonds (authorized, $100,000,000 ), secured by mortgage as to principal.
(3) Preferred stock (authorized, $200,000,000).
(4) Common stock, without par value (authorized, 2,500,000 shares).
Specified amounts of each of these were reserved for future use by the new company. Some of the prior lien [271 U.S. 445, 451] bonds bore interest at 4, some at 5, and some at 6 per cent.
Of these eighteen outstanding issues, five were offered new prior lien bonds and cash; one was offered new prior lien bonds; five were offered new prior lien bonds and new adjustment bonds; three were offered new prior lien bonds, new adjustment bonds, and new preferred stock; one was offered new adjustment bonds and new preferred stock; three were offered new adjustment bonds, new preferred stock, and new common stock.
In all cases the new prior lien bonds and the new adjustment bonds ( whether offered to secured creditors, unsecured creditors, or stockholders) were to bear interest from January 1, 1922.
As to stockholders and unsecured creditors, it was provided: (1) Preferred stockholders might receive $14 in prior lien bonds (bearing 6 per cent.), $6 in adjustment bonds, and one share of common stock in the new company, upon payment of $20 for each $100 share of old stock. (2) Common stockholders might receive $17,50 in 6 per cent. prior lien mortgage bonds, $7.50 in adjustment bonds, and one share of common stock, upon payment of $25 for each $100 share of old stock. (3) Unsecured creditors were given the choice of two plans: [271 U.S. 445, 452] (a) One-third of a share of preferred stock, $100 par value, and two- thirds of a share of common stock without par value, for each $100 of their claims, plus interest to January 1, 1922 (whereas the receiver was appointed and took possession of the property September 27, 1915, foreclosure decree was entered June 30, 1922, offer to creditors was dated July 15, 1922, foreclosure sale was had December 13, 1922, order confirming the sale was entered February 9, 1923, and order approving the master's deed conveying the property to the new company was entered on March 10, 1923); (b) $14 in prior lien mortgage 6 per cent. bonds, $6 in adjustment mortgage bonds, and one share of common stock, upon payment of $ 18 for each $100 of their claims.
I. Is a plan of reorganization of a railway company sufficient as to unsecured creditors, and binding upon them, which does not give precedence to the entire claim of the creditor over any part or interest of a stockholder in the old company?
II. Is such a plan fair and binding upon such creditors, even though they be offered securities of the same grade as the stockholders, the difference being only in the [271 U.S. 445, 453] greater amount offered the creditors, provided the court shall be of the opinion that the offer tenders to such creditors all that could reasonably be expected under all of the existing circumstances?
III. Is such offer as to such creditors fair and binding, if it consists only of the same grade of securities as offered the stockholders, the difference being that the right of the stockholders to participate is conditioned upon the payment of an assessment or the payment of a relatively greater assessment than that asked of such creditors, provided the court shall be of the opinion that the offer tenders to such creditor all that could reasonably be expected under all of the existing circumstances?
These questions lack precision, and the accompanying statement of facts fails to reveal the detail of the situation with desirable clearness. There is nothing to show the amount or character of the insolvent company's outstanding securities, or the amount of the unsecured indebtedness, or the probable value of the equity in the property beyond secured debts, or the amount of money deemed necessary to insure successful operation of the new company. The questions, therefore, must be defined and answered with certain qualifications.
Chicago, etc., Railroad Co. v. Howard, 7 Wall. 392, 1. L. Ed. 117, Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville Railway Co., 174 U.S. 674 , 19 S. Ct. 827, and Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Boyd, 228 U.S. 482 , 33 S. Ct. 554, gave much consideration to the general principles which must control the present cause. These were applied in Kansas City, etc., Railway Co. v. Guardian Trust Co., 240 U.S. 166 , 36 S. Ct. 334, and Pierce v. United States, 255 U.S. 398 , 41 S. Ct. 365.
We accept those opinions as authoritative, and it now may be announced as settled doctrine that, where the value of corporate property to be sold under foreclosure is so great as to render co-operation between bondholders and stockholders essential in order to secure a bidder and [271 U.S. 445, 454] prevent undue sacrifice of their interests, they may enter into a fair and open arrangement to that end. But 'no such proceedings can be rightfully carried to consummation which recognize and preserve any interest in the stockholders, without also recognizing and preserving the interests, not merely of the mortgagee, but of every creditor of the corporation. In other words, if the bondholder wishes to foreclose and exclude inferior lienholders, or general unsecured creditors and stockholders, he may do so; but a foreclosure which attempts to preserve any interest or right of the mortgagor in the property after the sale must necessarily secure and preserve the prior rights of general creditors thereof. This is based upon the familiar rule that the stockholder's interest in the property is subordinate to the rights of creditors, first of secured and then of unsecured creditors. And any arrangement of the parties by which the subordinate rights and interests of the stockholders are attempted to be secured at the expense of the prior rights of either class of creditors comes within judicial denunciation.' Louisville Trust Co. v. Louisville Railway Co., 174 U.S. 683 , 684 (19 S. Ct. 830).
This doctrine is the 'fixed principle' according to which Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Boyd, 228 U.S. 507 (33 S. Ct. 554), declares the character of reorganization agreements must be determined, and to it there should be rigid adherence. But, as that opinion states, this does not require the impossible, and make it necessary always to pay unsecured creditors in cash before stockholders may retain any interest whatever in the reorganized company. By way of illustration it further pointed out, that such creditors can be protected 'by the issuance, on equitable terms, of income bonds or preferred stock.' And we now add that, when necessary, they may be protected through other arrangements, which distinctly recognize their equitable right to be preferred to stockholders against the full value of all property belonging to the debtor corporation, and afford each of them [271 U.S. 445, 455] fair opportunity, measured by the existing circumstances, to avail himself of this right.
Unsecured creditors of insolvent corporations are entitled to the benefit of the values which remain after lienholders are satisfied, whether this is present or prospective, for dividends or only for purposes of control. But reasonable adjustments should be encouraged. Practically, it is impossible to sell the property of a great railroad for cash and, generally, the interests of all parties, including the public, are best served by co-operation between bondholders and stockholders. If creditors decline a fair offer based upon the principles above stated, they are left to protect themselves. After such refusal they cannot attack the reorganization in a court of equity. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Boyd, 228 U.S. 508 (33 S. Ct. 554).
Question I, if interpreted strictly and according to the ordinary meaning of the words employed, must be answered in the negative. We assume that to 'give precedence' implies recognition of superior importance. As above stated, to the extent of their debts creditors are entitled to priority over stockholders against all the property of an insolvent corporation. But it does not follow that in every reorganization the securities offered to general creditors must be superior in rank or grade to any which stockholders may obtain. It is not impossible to accord to the creditor his superior rights in other ways. Generally, additional funds will be essential to the success of the undertaking, and it may be impossible to obtain them, unless stockholders are permitted to contribute and retain an interest sufficiently valuable to move them. In such or similar cases the chancellor may exercise an informed discretion concerning the practical adjustment of the several rights.
Question II is answered in the affirmative, with the qualifications which follow. The primary right of unsecured creditors to the assets of an insolvent corporation [271 U.S. 445, 456] remaining after lienholders are satisfied, must be adequately protected, and to each one of them there must be given such opportunity as the circumstances permit to secure the full enjoyment of this preference.
Question III is also answered in the affirmative, subject to the following qualification. No offer is fair which does not recognize the prior rights of creditors, as above pointed out; but circumstances may justify an offer of different amounts of the same grade of securities to both creditors and stockholders. Whenever assessments are demanded, they must be adjusted with the purpose of according to the creditor his full right of priority against the corporate assets, so far as possible in the existing circumstances.

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


text:
Chiral superconductivity, which breaks time-reversal symmetry, can exhibit a wealth of fascinating properties that are highly sought after for nanoscience applications. We identify doped graphene monolayer as a system where chiral superconductivity can be realized. In this material, a unique situation arises at a doping where the Fermi surface is nested and the density of states is singular. In this regime, d-wave superconductivity can emerge from repulsive electron–electron interactions. Using a renormalization group method, we argue that superconductivity dominates over all competing orders for generic weak repulsive interactions. Superconductivity develops simultaneously in two degenerate d-wave pairing channels. We argue that the resulting superconducting state is of chiral type, with the phase of the superconducting order parameter winding by 4π around the Fermi surface. Realization of this state in doped graphene will prove that superconductivity can emerge from electron–electron repulsion, and will open the door to applications of chiral superconductivity.
DasSarma, S., Adam, S., Hwang, E. H. & Rossi, E. Electronic transport in two-dimensional graphene . Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 407–470 (2011).
Guinea, F. Viewpoint: Peeling back the layers or doubling the stakes? Calculations of bilayer graphene reveal the possibility of new electronic phases . Physics 3, 1 (2010).
Gonzalez, J. Kohn–Luttinger superconductivity in graphene . Phys. Rev. B 78, 205431 (2008).
Valenzuela, B. & Vozmediano, M. A. H. Pomeranchuk instability in doped graphene . New. J. Phys. 10, 113009 (2008).
Martin, I. & Batista, C. D. Itinerant electron-driven chiral magnetic ordering and spontaneous quantum Hall effect in triangular lattice models . Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 156402 (2008).
Li, T. Spontaneous quantum Hall effect in quarter doped Hubbard model on honeycomb lattice and its possible realization in quarter doped graphene system. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2420 (2011).
Makogon, D., van Gelderen, R., Roldan, R. & Morais Smith, C. Spin-density-wave instability in graphene doped near the van Hove singularity . Phys. Rev. B 84, 125404 (2011).
Volovik, G. E. Quantized hall effect in superfluid helium-3 film . Phys. Lett. A 128, 277–279 (1988).
Sigrist, M. & Ueda, K. Phenomenological theory of unconventional superconductivity . Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 239–311 (1991).
Vojta, M., Zhang, Y. & Sachdev, S. Quantum phase transitions in d-wave superconductors . Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4940–4943 (2000).
Moore, G. & Read, N. Nonabelions in the fractional quantum hall effect . Nucl. Phys. B360, 362–396 (1991).
Ivanov, D. A. Non-Abelian statistics of half-quantum vortices in p-wave superconductors . Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 268–271 (2001).
Qi, X. L., Hughes, T., Raghu, S. & Zhang, S-C. Time-reversal-invariant topological superconductors and superfluids in two and three dimensions . Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 187001 (2009).
Cheng, M., Sun, K., Galitski, V. & Das Sarma, S. Stable topological superconductivity in a family of two-dimensional fermion models . Phys. Rev. B 81, 024504 (2010).
Kopnin, N. B. & Salomaa, M. M. Mutual friction in superfluid 3He: Effects of bound states in the vortex core . Phys. Rev. B 44, 9667–9677 (1991).
Volovik, G. E. & Yakovenko, V. M. Fractional charge, spin and statistics of solitons in superfluid 3He film . J. Phys. Condens. Matter 1, 5263–5274 (1989).
Laughlin, R. B. Magnetic induction of dx2−y2+idxy order in high-Tc superconductors . Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5188–5191 (1998).
Volovik, G. E. On edge states in superconductors with time inversion symmetry breaking . J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett. 66, 522–527 (1997).
Senthil, T., Marston, J. B. & Fisher, M. P. A. Spin quantum Hall effect in unconventional superconductors . Phys. Rev. B 60, 4245–4254 (1999).
Horovitz, B. & Golub, A. Superconductors with broken time-reversal symmetry: Spontaneous magnetization and quantum Hall effects . Phys. Rev. B 68, 214503 (2003).
Sato, M., Takahashi, Y. & Fujimoto, S. Non-Abelian topological orders and Majorana fermions in spin-singlet superconductors . Phys. Rev. B 82, 134521 (2010).
Mao, L., Shi, J., Niu, Q. & Zhang, C. Superconducting phase with a chiral f-wave pairing symmetry and Majorana fermions induced in a hole-doped semiconductor . Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 157003 (2011).
Mackenzie, A. P. & Maeno, Y. The superconductivity of Sr2RuO4 and the physics of spin-triplet pairing . Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 657–712 (2003).
Black-Schaffer, A. M. & Doniach, S. Resonating valence bonds and mean-field d-wave superconductivity in graphite . Phys. Rev. B 75, 134512 (2007).
Uchoa, B. & Castro Neto, A. H. Superconducting states of pure and doped graphene . Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 146801 (2007).
Kohn, W. & Luttinger, J. M. New mechanism for superconductivity . Phys. Rev. Lett. 15, 524–526 (1965).
Schulz, H. J. Superconductivity and antiferromagnetism in the two-dimensional Hubbard model: Scaling theory . Europhys. Lett. 4, 609–615 (1987).
Dzyaloshinskii, I. E. Maximal increase of the superconducting transition temperature due to the presence of van Hove singularities . Sov. Phys. JETP 66, 848–854 (1987).
Furukawa, N., Rice, T. M. & Salmhofer, M. Truncation of a two-dimensional Fermi surface due to quasiparticle gap formation at the saddle points . Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3195–3198 (1998).
McChesney, J. L. et al. Extended van Hove singularity and superconducting instability in doped graphene . Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 136803 (2010).
Ye, J. T. et al. Liquid-gated interface superconductivity on an atomically flat film . Nature Mater. 9, 125–128 (2010).
LeHur, K. & Rice, T. M. Superconductivity close to the Mott state: From condensed-matter systems to superfluidity in optical lattices . Ann. Phys. 324, 1452–1515 (2009).
Maiti, S. & Chubukov, A. V. Renormalization group flow, competing phases and the structure of superconducting gap in multiband models of iron-based superconductors . Phys. Rev. B 82, 214515 (2010).
Thomale, R., Platt, C., Hanke, W. & Bernevig, B. A. Mechanism for explaining differences in the order parameters of FeAs-based and FeP-based pnictide superconductors . Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 187003 (2011).
Wallace, P. R. The band theory of graphite . Phys. Rev. 71, 622–634 (1947).
Son, D. T. Superconductivity by long-range colour magnetic interaction in high-density quark matter . Phys. Rev. D 59, 094019 (1999).
Moon, E. G. & Chubukov, A. V. Quantum-critical pairing with varying exponents . J. Low Temp. Phys. 161, 263–281 (2010).
Pathak, S., Shenoy, V. B. & Baskaran, G. Possible high-temperature superconducting state with a d+id pairing symmetry in doped graphene . Phys. Rev. B 81, 085431 (2010).
Honerkamp, C. Density waves and Cooper pairing on the honeycomb lattice . Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 146404 (2008).
Roy, B. & Herbut, I. F. Unconventional superconductivity on honeycomb lattice: Theory of Kekule order parameter . Phys. Rev. B 82, 035429 (2010).
Mineev, V. P. & Samokhin, K. V. Introduction to Unconventional Superconductivity 69 (Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1998).
R.N., L.S.L. and A.V.C. jointly identified the problem, performed the analysis and wrote the paper.
Correspondence to A. V. Chubukov.

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


§ 40-5.2-38. Application and effect of this chapter on applicants and recipients.
(a) All provisions of this chapter with the exception of paragraph (b) below shall be effective and apply to all applicants and recipients on or after July 1, 2008.
(b) For all current recipients as of July 1, 2008 who have received cash assistance, either state or federally funded, since May 1, 1997 under Rhode Island's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (federal TANF described at Title IV A of the federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.), formerly entitled the Family Independence Program, or received cash assistance from another state, either state or federally funded, since May 1, 1997 under that state's similar Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (federal TANF described at Title IV A of the Federal Society Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.), prior to October 1, 2008, application and implementation of the time limits described in subsection 40-5.2-10(h) will occur on and after July 1, 2009.
(c) All cash assistance received, either state or federally funded, since May 1, 1997 under Rhode Island's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (federal TANF described at Title IV A of the Federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.) formerly entitled the Family Independence Program, or in another state under that state's similar Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (federal TANF described at Title IV A of the Federal Social Security Act 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.) prior to July 1, 2009 shall be counted toward the time limits of cash assistance described in subsection 40-5.1-10(h).
(d) The department will not close families who previously received cash assistance, either state or federally funded, since May 1, 1997 under Rhode Island's Temporary Assistance for Needy Program (federal TANF described at Title IV A of the federal Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.), formerly entitled the Family Independence Program, or in another state under that state's similar Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (federal TANF described at Title IV A of the Federal Society Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.) prior to the effective date of the Rhode Island Works Program due to the time limit outlined in subsection 40-5.2-10(h) of this chapter until July 1, 2009. Except, however, all those families who previously received Family Independence Program cash assistance, either state or federally funded or in another state, as described above, and who will reach the Family Independence Program sixty (60) month lifetime time limit in accordance with prior Rhode Island General Law, subsection 40-5.1-8(d), prior to July 1, 2009 shall be closed at the time they would have reached the sixty (60) month time limit in accordance with prior Rhode Island General Law, subsection 40-5.1-8(d). Nothing in this section shall be deemed to mean that any recipient of cash assistance, either state or federally funded, through the prior Family Independence Program shall receive more than the time limit of sixty (60) months of cash assistance which had been permissible under prior Rhode Island General Law, subsection 40-5.1-8(d).
(e) Those families or assistance units receiving cash assistance shall be notified in writing as to the time limits imposed on the receipt of cash assistance in accordance with the Rhode Island Works Program under this chapter, as well as all the other program requirements.


text:
(a) "Code" means the standards adopted by this act.
(b) "Dealer" means any person, other than a manufacturer, as defined in this act, who sells, leases or rents three (3) or more mobile homes or recreational vehicles in any consecutive twelve-month period.
(c) "Manufacturer" means any person who manufactures mobile homes or recreational vehicles.
(d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, "mobile home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which has a body width of eight (8) feet or more and a body length of thirty-six (36) feet or more and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling, with or without a permanent foundation, when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air-conditioning and electrical systems contained therein.
(2) "Mobile home" does not include any structure which is subject to the federal mobile home construction and safety standards established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5403.
(e) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation or other legal entity.
(f) "Recreational vehicle" means a vehicular-type unit built on or for use on a chassis and designed primarily as living quarters for recreational, camping, vacation or travel use and which has its own motive power or is mounted on or drawn by another vehicle, and which has a body width not exceeding eight (8) feet and a body length not exceeding forty (40) feet; but such term shall not include a unit which has no electrical system which operates above twelve (12) volts and has no provisions for plumbing, heating and any other component or feature for which a standard is adopted by this act.
History: L. 1972, ch. 338, § 2; L. 1973, ch. 337, § 1; L. 1974, ch. 377, § 1; L. 1978, ch. 339, § 1; L. 1978, ch. 336, §6; L. 1979, ch. 281, § 1; April 13.

matches:
§ 2
§ 1
§ 1
§ 1
§6
§ 1


1. Proceedings to forfeit a motor boat under § 26 of Title II of the National Prohibition Act may be maintained even if the seizure of the boat was by a person not authorized, since subsequent adoption of the seizure by the government is retroactive. P. 272 U. S. 531.
2. The jurisdiction of the court in such a case was secured by the fact that the res was in the power of the prohibition director when the libel was filed. P. 272 U. S. 532.
Certiorari (271 U.S. 655) to a judgment of the circuit court of appeals which reversed a judgment of the district court (7 F.2d 189) dismissing a libel brought by the United States to forfeit a motorboat under § 26 of the National Prohibition Act.
This was a proceeding in the district court of the United States for the condemnation of the motorboat Ray of Block Island. The owners appeared as claimants and moved that the libel be dismissed on the ground that the facts alleged did not warrant a condemnation. The district Court granted the motion. 7 F.2d 189.
The circuit court of appeals reversed the decree. 11 F.2d 522. As there was a conflict of decisions between different circuit courts of appeals, a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 271 U.S. 655.
qualified, however, by the same court in the later case of United States v. One Studebaker Seven-Passenger Sedan, 4 F.2d 534.
The circuit court of appeals relied on the often quoted language of Mr. Justice Story in The Caledonian, 4 Wheat. 100, to the effect that anyone may seize any property for a forfeiture to the government, and that, if the government adopts the act and proceeds to enforce the forfeiture by legal process, this is of no less validity than when the seizure is by authority originally given. The statement is repeated by the same judge in Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342, 41 U. S. 359, and Taylor v. United States, 3 How. 197. See also Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246, 16 U. S. 310. The owner of the property suffers nothing that he would not have suffered if the seizure had been authorized. However effected, it brings the object within the power of the court, which is an end that the law seeks to attain, and justice to the owner is as safe in the one case as in the other. The jurisdiction of the court was secured by the fact that the res was in possession of the prohibition director when the libel was filed. The Richmond, 9 Cranch 102; The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391, 22 U. S. 403. The Underwriter, 13 F.2d 433, 434. We can see no reason for doubting the soundness of these principles when the forfeiture is dependant upon subsequent events any more than when it occurs at the time of the seizure, although it was argued that there was a difference. They seem to us to embody good sense. The exclusion of evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure stand on a different ground. If the search and seizure are unlawful as invading personal rights secured by the Constitution, those rights would be infringed yet further if the evidence were allowed to be used. The decree of the circuit court of appeals is affirmed.


65-6803. Same; appointment of task forces; health care data policies and procedures. (a) The secretary of health and environment may appoint a task force or task forces of interested citizens and providers of health care for the purpose of studying technical issues relating to the collection of health care data. The secretary of health and environment or the secretary's designee shall be a member of any task force appointed under this subsection.
(b) The department of health and environment shall develop policy regarding the collection of health care data and procedures for ensuring the confidentiality and security of these data.
History: L. 1993, ch. 174, § 3; L. 1997, ch. 75, § 1; L. 2000, ch. 131, § 1; L. 2004, ch. 169, § 1; L. 2005, ch. 187, § 31; L. 2012, ch. 102, § 26; July 1.


text:
INSTRUCTION ON THE FESTIVAL OF THE HOLY ROSARY.
ST. DOMINIC preached for a long time with untiring zeal against the heresy of the Albigenses, but few returned to the Church; he, therefore, redoubled his prayers and penitential works, and with special devotion besought the Queen of Heaven to assist him in his labors for the salvation of souls. The Mother of Mercy then appeared to him and taught him the rosary. Strengthened by the high privilege shown him by the Mother of God, he everywhere announced and taught this devotion. In a short time over a hundred thousand heretics were brought back to the bosom of the holy Catholic Church, and the devotion spread rapidly over the whole Christian world. Fraternities were formed and the Supreme Pontiff permitted the Friar Preachers to celebrate the Festival of the Rosary; this was observed with great solemnity. On the 7th of October 1571, the Christians, under the special protection of Mary, the Queen of Heaven, gained a glorious victory over the Turks; the Festival of the Rosary being at that time celebrated at Rome and in the provinces by public processions, in order that by her intercession the Turks might be restrained in their oppressions.
This victory was justly considered as the effect of Mary's intercession, and the holy Pope Pius V. instituted on this day in gratitude a festival which was called "Mary of Victory". This was united by Pope Gregory XIII. with the Festival of the Rosary, and fixed for the first Sunday in October. Finally, on account of another victory gained by Mary's intercession over the Turks in 1715 at Belgrade, Pope Clement XL ordered it to be celebrated by the whole Church, "that the hearts of the faithful might be thereby incited to the greater veneration of the Blessed Virgin, and that the grateful remembrance of the help received from above might never pass away."
It is a form of prayer in which there is said the Apostles' Creed, the Glory be to the Father, and fifty times the Hail Mary, with an Our Father before each ten Hail Marys; each decade is followed by a meditation upon one of the mysteries of the redemption. This is the smaller and more common rosary. The larger consists of the Apostles' Creed, of fifteen decades , every decade of ten Hail Marys preceded by an Our Father, and of fifteen meditations on the mysteries of our redemption. It is called the Psalter, because it contains a hundred and fifty Hail Marys as David's psalter contains a hundred and fifty psalms. This prayer is called the rosary, because every Hail Mary is like a flower in the wreath crowning the heavenly Queen, whom the Church calls by the significant title of "Mystical Rose." Every rose has green leaves and sharp thorns besides the flower itself; in the rosary the thorns represent the sorrowful, the green leaves the joyful, and the flower the glorious mysteries of the redemption which are meditated upon while reciting the rosary. The holy Fathers also compare this devotion to a crown, of which they say: "Its twelve diamonds are the twelve articles of the Apostles' Creed, the fifteen Our Fathers so many brilliant golden stars, and one hundred and fifty Hail Marys the roses."
How many parts are there in the rosary"?
Three: the joyful, the sorrowful and the glorious.
I. The joyful' are the first five decades by which we meditate upon the mysteries of the Incarnation and the joy of Mary's heart in her divine Child. This rosary is usually said from Advent until Lent, during which time the Church commemorates the joyful coming of Christ.
II. The sorrowful has also five decades in which are especially represented for meditation the sorrowful mysteries of the passion of Christ. This rosary is .usually said during Lent, because the Church at that time places before us the sufferings of Jesus.
III. The glorious mysteries have likewise five decades, in which we meditate upon the glory of Christ and His blessed Mother. This rosary is said from Easter to Advent, because the Church then presents to us these mysteries for our veneration and meditation.
THE method consists in raising corresponding affections in the heart during the recital of each decade, such as the devotion of each one may suggest; for example, in the first part, sentiments of joy for the coming of our Redeemer. In the second, of compassion for the sufferings of our Lord, and contrition for our sins, which were the occasion of them. In the third, of thanksgiving for the exaltation and the glory of our Saviour, and His Blessed Mother, hoping through the merits of His passion and her intercession to be made partakers of their glory.
Assigned for Mondays and Thursdays throughout the Year, the Sundays in Advent, and after Epiphany till Lent.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, etc.
R. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
V. Thou, O Lord, wilt open my lips.
V. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son. and to the Holy Ghost.
Alleluia is said at all times, except from Septuagesima till Easter, during which period say: Praise be to thee, O Lord, King of eternal glory.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how the angel Gabriel saluted our Blessed Lady with the title full of grace, and declared unto her the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
O Holy Mary, Queen of virgins, through the most high mystery of the Incarnation of thy beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, by which our salvation was so happily begun: obtain for us, through thy intercession, light to be sensible of the greatness of the benefit He hath bestowed on us, in vouchsafing to become our Brother, and thee, (his own beloved Mother) to be our Mother also. Amen.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how the Blessed Virgin Mary, understanding- from the angel that her cousin, St. Elizabeth, had conceived, went with haste into the mountains of Judea to visit her, and remained with her three months. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
O Holy Virgin, most spotless Mirror of humility, by that exceeding charity which moved thee to visit thy holy cousin, St. Elizabeth, obtain for us, through thy intercession, that our hearts being visited by thy most holy Son, and freed from all sin, we may praise and give thanks for ever. Amen.
III. The Birth of our Saviour in Bethlehem.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how the Blessed Virgin Mary, when the time of her delivery was come, brought forth our Redeemer Jesus Christ at midnight, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for Him inthe inns at Bethlehem. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
O most pure Mother of God, through thy virginal and most joyful delivery, whereby thou gavest the world thy only Son our Saviour; we beseech thee to obtain for us, through thy intercession, the grace to lead such pure and holy lives in this world, that we may become worthy to sing without ceasing, both day and night, the mercies of thy Son, and his benefits to us by thee. Amen.
IV. The Offering of our Blessed Lord in the Temple.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how the Blessed Virgin Mary, on the day of her purification, presented the child Jesus in the Temple, where holy Simeon giving thanks to God, with great devotion received Him into his arms. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
O Holy 'Virgin, most admirable mistress and patroness of obedience, who didst present in the Temple the Lord of the Temple: obtain for us, of thy beloved Son, that with holy Simeon and devout Anna, we may praise and glorify Him for ever. Amen.
V. The Finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how the Blessed Virgin Mary, after having lost, without any fault of hers, her beloved Son in Jerusalem, sought Him for the space of three days, and at length found Him the third day in the Temple, in the midst of the doctors, disputing with them, being of the age of twelve years. Our Father once. Hail Mary, ten times.
Him that we may so seek Him, and find Him in the holy Catholic Church, as to be never more separated from Him. Amen.
Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope; to thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears: turn, then, most gracious advocate, thy eyes of mercy towards us, and after this our exile is ended, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus! O clement,O pious, O sweet Virgin Mary.
O God, whose only-begotten Son, by His life, death and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life; grant, we beseech thee, that meditating upon these mysteries , in the most holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may both imitate what they contain, and obtain what they promise. Through our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son, Who livest and reignest with Thee and the Holy Ghost, now and forever. Amen.
THE DOLOROUS OR SORROWFUL MYSTERIES.
For Tuesdays and Fridays throughout the Year , and the Sundays in Lent.
I. The Prayer and Bloody Sweat of our Blessed Saviour in the Garden.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how our Lord Jesus was so afflicted for us in the Garden of Gethsemane, that His body was bathed in a bloody sweat, which ran trickling down in great drops to the ground. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
Most holy Virgin, more than martyr, by that ardent prayer which thy beloved Son poured forth unto His Father in the Garden, vouchsafe to intercede for us, that our passions being reduced to the obedience of reason, we may always, and in all things, conform and subject ourselves to the will of God. Amen.
II. The Scourging of our Blessed Lord at the Pillar.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how our Lord Jesus Christ was most cruelly scourged in Pilate's house, the number of stripes they gave Him (as it was revealed to St. Bridget) being about five thousand. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
O Mother of God, overflowing fountain of patience, through those stripes thy only and most beloved Son vouchsafed to suffer for us: obtain of Him for us grace, that we may know how to mortify our rebellious senses, and cut off all occasions of sinning, with that sword of grief, and compassion which pierced thy most tender soul. Amen.
III. The Crowning of our Blessed Saviour "with Thorns.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how those cruel ministers of Satan plaited a crown of sharp thorns, and most cruelly pressed it on the sacred head of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
which our sins deserve. Amen.
IV. Jesus carrying His Cross.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how our Lord Jesus Christ being sentenced to die, bore, with the most amazing patience, the cross, which was laid upon Him for his greater torment and ignominy. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
O Holy Virgin, example of patience, by the most painful carrying of the cross in which thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ bore the heavy weight of our sins; obtain for us, of Him, through thy intercession, courage and strength to follow His steps , and bear our cross after Him unto the end of our lives. Amen.
V. The Crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ.
O Holy Mary, Mother of God, as the body of thy beloved Son was for us extended on the cross,so may our desires be daily more and more extended in His service, and our hearts wounded with compassion for His most bitter passion; and thou, O most Blessed Virgin, graciously vouchsafe, by thy powerful intercession, to help us to accomplish the work of our salvation. Amen.
The Salve Regina. Hail, holy Queen, with the verse and prayer as above.
For Wednesdays and Saturdays throughout the Year, and the Sundays from Easter until Advent.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how our Lord Jesus Christ, triumphing gloriously over death, rose again the third day, immortal and impassible. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
O glorious Virgin Mary, by that unspeakable joy thou receivedst in the resurrection of thine only Son, we beseech thee obtain of Him for us, that our hearts may never go astray after the false joys of this world, but may be ever and wholly employed in the pursuit of the only true and solid joys of heaven. Amen.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how our Lord Jesus Christ, forty days after His resurrection, ascended into heaven, attended by angels, in the sight and to the great admiration of His most holy mother, and His holy apostles and disciples. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
O Mother of God, comfortress of the afflicted, as thy beloved Son, when He ascended into heaven, lifted up His hands and blessed his apostles, so vouchsafe, most holy Mother, to lift up thy pure hands to Him for us, that we may enjoy the benefit of His blessing, and thine also on earth, and hereafter in heaven. Amen.
III. The Descent of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how our Lord Jesus Christ, being seated on the right hand of God, sent, as He had promised, the Holy Ghost upon his apostles, who, after He was ascended, returning to Jerusalem, continued inprayer and supplication with the Blessed Virgin Mary, expecting the performance of His promise. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
of salvation and make us walk in the path of virtue and good works. Amen.
IV. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how the glorious Virgin, twelve years after the resurrection of her Son, passed out of this world unto Him, and was by Him assumed into heaven, accompanied by the holy angels. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
O most prudent Virgin, who entering the heavenly palace didst fill the holy angels with joy, and man with hope, vouchsafe to intercede for us at the hour of our death, that being delivered from the illusions and temptations of the devil, we may joyfully and securely pass out of this temporal state, to enjoy the happiness of eternal life. Amen.
V. The Coronation of the most Blessed Virgin Mary in Heaven.
Let us contemplate in this mystery, how the glorious Virgin Mary was, to the great jubilee and exultation of the whole court of heaven, and the special glory of all the saints, crowned by her Son with the brightest diadem of glory. Our Father, once. Hail Mary, ten times.
O glorious Queen of all the heavenly citizens, we beseech thee, accept this Rosary, which as a crown of roses we offer at thy feet: and grant, most gracious Lady, that, by thy intercession, our souls may be inflamed with so ardent a desire of seeing thee so gloriously crowned, that it may never die in us, until it shall be changed into the happy fruition of thy blessed sight. Amen.
The Salve Regina. Hail, holy Queen, and the Litany of The Blessed Virgin.
Are unbelievers, and those who call themselves enlightened Catholics, right when they look with contempt upon the rosary?
continually: "Holy, Holy, Holy!" Can the heart filled with the true, sincere love of God and of Mary repeat their praises often enough? Do wo not daily, even often during the day, partake of the same bread without it losing its relish or becoming distasteful to us?
Church exhorts the faithful to its diligent practice, attaching many indulgences which she grants to all those who say the Rosary devoutly in the state of grace.* Do not; therefore, my dear Christian, permit yourself to be misled by those who not only do not perform this devotion, but even despise it, and in their proud self-conceit often pay no attention to the most important regulations of the Church. To them are applicable the words of Christ: I confess to Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. (Matt. xi. 25.) Practice this devotion all the more zealously in the spirit and sense of our holy Church, and you will perceive the benefit that will accrue to your soul therefrom.
We should let nothing prevent us from saying the rosary and never be ashamed to carry our rosary with us, always as a sign that we love and honor Jesus and Mary. For the rosary has justly become a badge of the true follower of Jesus and Mary, of the real Catholic; and who is ashamed of being a Catholic!
PRAYER OF THE CHURCH. O God, whose only begotten Son, by His life, death and resurrection, hath purchased for us the rewards of eternal salvation: grant, we beseech Thee, that meditating upon these mysteries in the most holy Rosary of the blessed Virgin Mary, we may both imitate what they contain, and arrive at what they promise. Through our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son, Who livest and reignest with Thee and the Holy Ghost, now and forever. Amen.
LESSON. (Ecclus. xxiv. 14 16.) FROM the beginning and before the world, was I created, and unto the world to come I shall not cease to be, and in the holy dwelling-place I have ministered before him. And so was I established in Sion, and in the holy city likewise I rested, and my power was in Jerusalem. And I took root in an honorable people, and in the portion of my God his inheritance, and my abode is in the full assembly of saints.
* As by Pope Alexander IV. in the year 1291, Sixtus V. in 1474, and Pius V. an indulgence of five years and forty days.


15. The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any witness in a criminal case after a subpoena has been issued for such witness by the court, the clerk, or an attorney, when the killing is for the purpose of interfering with the person’s duties in such case.
Code 1950, §§ 18.1-21, 53-291; 1960, c. 358; 1962, c. 42; 1966, c. 300; 1970, c. 648; 1973, c. 403; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1976, c. 503; 1977, c. 478; 1979, c. 582; 1980, c. 221; 1981, c. 607; 1982, c. 636; 1983, c. 175; 1985, c. 428; 1988, c. 550; 1989, c. 527; 1990, c. 746; 1991, c. 232; 1995, c. 340; 1996, cc. 876, 959; 1997, cc. 235, 313, 514, 709; 1998, c. 887; 2002, cc. 588, 623; 2007, cc. 844, 845, 846; 2010, cc. 399, 428, 475.
If you’re reading this for anything important, you should double-check its accuracy—read § 18.2-31 on the official Code of Virginia website.
. . . capital murder, under the provisions of Code § 18.2-31(d).*791 The jury, in the bifurcated trial . . .
. . . attempted robbery, Code § 18.2-31(d) is not. To be convicted under Code § 18.2-31(d), the . . .
. . . commission of armed robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-31(d). That same day, in the separate . . .
. . . commission of armed robbery in violation of Code § 18.2-31(d). The jury fixed his punishment for . . .
. . . the officer's official duties. *125 Code § 18.2-31(f). Then, in the second stage, the jury . . .
. . . that killed Bennett, see Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-31(7) (Michie Supp.2001); the murder of Bennett, . . .
. . . weapon in violation of Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-31(d) (1988). His conviction and sentence were . . .
. . . with the capital murder of Hsiang Liu, Code § 18.2-31(a) and -31(d); with the abduction of . . .
. . . deliberate, and premeditated killing for hire, Code § 18.2-31(b), and his punishment was fixed at . . .
. . . capital murder charged in the indictment. Code | 18.2-31(e). "[Where] consent is advanced as a . . .


Anything else I should be considering? Any opinions on these?
Forget the Thumps as they'll run out of gas quickly.
With your budget, American Audio's new Sense12's are $ 500.00 a pair and the Sense15's are $ 600.00 a pair.
If you want great quality sound just buy a single RCF 312A. It will easlily handle your backyard. If you don't need anything super loud, can sacrafice sound quality and want a pair you can try the M-Audio GSR-12's for $300/pair. Hell you could get 4 of them within your budget.
Here is a link to a review thread of both the GSR 12's and GSR 10's. http://www.djforums.com/forums/showthread.php?4888-M-Audio-GSR-10-Review Read through the thread for links on where to buy. Ebay has the best deal at $300 shipped or $350 shipped with stands and cables.
Aren't the sense series passive?
Mackie Thump 15s or Samson Auro D415s would be fine for a back yard and actually sound very good while providing nice bottom end as well. These are somewhat limited output wise, but for back yards and even smaller wedding type gigs, either will do just fine.
You might want to check the Alto Truesonic series too.
Save up to increase your budget and go with the RCF 's best price point, and overall sound quality.
Willing to go used... just need to know what to look for.
Currently, home monitoring and backyard parties. Perhaps some small bar, lounges in the future. Sounds like the RCFs are what I'm looking for.
No one likes the JBL Eons?
I've used the Eon 515's several times, was my first soundsystem. I really liked using them, lightweight and impressive soundpressure. The bass was also quite strong on the 515's.
Later on I sold the 515's and bought the QSC KW153. Great sound, but very very heavy. Now I'm using the QSC K10 with the K-sub. Small, portable soundsystem, with a small footprint. The sound of the K10 is really great. For small party's, up to 50/60 people, I use the K10 stand-alone.
My mistake, the Sense series is passive.
If size, weight and sound quality are most important, I would get a single rcf art312a and a small mixer with 2 line/Mic inputs + a stereo rca input. Peavey PV series or soundcraft notepad series for the mixer. The mixer will sum to mono safely.
Or if substantial bass trumps size, weight and sound quality, consider a used B52 Matrix 1000 v2.
Also consider whether you will be wanting to upgrade. The RCF would be the clear choice to expand upon.
Cheers... but at that point, I'd rather just save for 2.
This is a big consideration.
Are the RCFs XLR only? Says the inputs are xlr/jack - is jack = line?
A review on amazon mentioned the 315 lacks on.
Oh, any reason the 312 is preferred over the 315?
The 315a lacks bass response since it uses the same size box as the 312A and the woofer doesn't have enough room to breathe properly. Ultimately I would buy one RCF 312A for now and buy a second if you feel the need later. They are incredibly loud and great sounding speakers for the price.
S115V or S115IV (basically same speaker, one has speakon, the other doesn't.) Are heavy, fairly muddy, carpeted passive speakers - need to add an amp and preferably a DSP unit to those - but they're pretty sturdy and one of the best known speakers out there. Truthfully, I think the design is really starting to show its age and the price differential when buying new between these and a pair of ART312A's is so small esp. after adding an amp, it becomes a no brainer for those buying new. The only reason resale on them hasn't dropped more right now is that there aren't a ton of the better value powered speakers on the used market yet.
Excellent performers when they're not broken down. Mackie has had some significant quality problems on the HD line. I wouldn't buy without a comprehensive aftermarket warranty like GC's pro coverage.
Yes @ XLR only. Someone already covered why the 315 isn't preferred. A rare RCF blunder IMO.
I'd recommend spending a bit more and buying something that would last you a lot longer.
I just recently bought 2 JBL PRX612M's and loving them so far. So much improvement from my previously owned Audioline speakers.
The photo of the back makes its look like there is a 1/4" input or output above the XLRs... what is that?
I may have been mistaken. All I see are photos with the 1/4" jack you mention and the spec sheet does mention unbalanced input plus saying plug/XLR on input. It doesn't have RCA's though and single input only. You wouldn't use both the 1/4" and the XLR like the K series which have dual combo 1/4"/XLR jacks plus stereo RCA jacks. (the RCA here can actually be used in addition to the combo jacks but mixes with the B channel without its own level control.) I guess the photos I had looked at before on the ART3 series were dark and the 1/4" jack didn't show up so well.
Also, it is worth noting that the ART3 series has more than one iteration. The current being the MKIII. Previous versions before the price drop had more robust I/O sections on them. When buying used you might run into these others.
I haven't seen anyone recommend the Alto whose opinion I respect and I've seen at least one dis them. They might be okay for certain applications but not at their current pricing -- not really sure. I've only seen them (@GC) not heard them.
What do you mean by K-series?
Cheers... not seeing any used at the moment.
Cheers again - they look decent spec wise but you don't listen to a piece of paper. Leaning toward the 312s.
The QSC K8, K10 and K12 which all have identical mixer sections which they share with the KW series tops.
Are QSC's nicer than RCFs?
That's arbitrary. After hearing both, I happen to have a preference for the RCFs, but that is just me.
RCF makes the better sounding speaker IMO (the high frequency drivers are truly excellent), but QSC has a better mixer section and warranty. The difference is not night and day though, both RCF Art and QSC K speakers sound very good, offer plenty of output and to be honest most people would be happy with either... The RCF 312A was simply a better value for a long time but now the prices seem to be going back up.
As for the 1/4'' input, the 1st generation 3 series did have both XLR and 1/4'' as well as different EQ settings and remote capability. When generation 2 came out, these features were removed and replaced with a simple XLR in and out. Now the MKIII version has a completely different amplifier module (digital and 400 watts) and now you have a choice of flat or music setting and it looks like some components that were neodymium, have been switched back to ferrite due to the rising cost of neo. This does increase weight a little BUT the new lighter digital amps kind of balance that out.
I guess I should've asked what the reputation is - I imagine both are nice speakers? The QSCs are a bit much.
Actually, having a hard time finding the 400w one.
AFAIK the first shipment of MarkIII ART3 series will arrive in the US in mid-May. They will have Digipro amp modules with both XLR & 1/4" input jacks. The cabinets will be black instead of grey. If anyone wants to preorder some email or message me.
So does the MKII or whatever have the line input?
EDIT - the MKIIs are XLR only. The MK3's appear to have the line. Sort of a pain, but not a deal breaker.
Yeah. Both are great speakers but I just happen to have a preference for the RCFs. The reason is that bang-for-buck, the RCFs offer a bit more. And in my opinion, sound more natural.
If I were doing DJ work only and not live sound too, and I were buying right now, I'd probably go with the RCF over the K10's I already own, not because I don't like the K10 better, but because the price difference is too much to ignore.
what is the price going to be for the rcf mark III?
I have seen the k12's for $650 shipped so I dont see a huge price difference against the art 312a.
Mike - Just out of curiosity, if I decide to get another 312 (to add to the 3 I bought from you), would you be able to get me the same one I have MK2 and the full grill?
I'm out of them and RCF USA is out of them. If you can find a new or used one somewhere I can get a grill for you.
At around $425 to $500, that's up to $450 and at least $250 difference for a pair. If you don't need what the K's have to offer, that can be significant enough. It could allow for an upgrade on another piece of equipment. In the long run, you're right though. When you consider how much use they get, and how the features could make a difference, that could easily pay for itself.
Another point. Not sure where I saw it, but I heard the price on K-series were going up, so even if the RCF's go up, I think there's still a differential and when you're running a business, a 20-25% price difference can be a determining factor if both products are capable to do the job asked of them.
Seeing $700+ minimum on a quick search. Can get the 312's for under $500 a piece on Amazon - $400 difference is a lot, IMO.
That's a great price. I haven't seen them that low unless it was open box.


D.C. Law Library - § 22–3234. Altering or removing bicycle identification numbers.
↪ Subchapter IV. Stolen Property.
↪ § 22–3234. Altering or removing bicycle identification numbers.
§ 22–3233. Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers.
§ 22–3234. Altering or removing bicycle identification numbers.
(a) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly remove, obliterate, tamper with, or alter any identification number on a bicycle or bicycle part.
(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned for not more than 180 days, or fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.
(1) “Bicycle” shall have the same meaning as provided in § 50-1609(1).
(2) “Identification number” shall have the same meaning as provided in § 50-1609(1A).
For temporary (90 days) amendment of this section, see § 205(r) of the Criminal Fine Proportionality Emergency Act of 2013 (D.C. Act 20-45, April 1, 2013, 60 DCR 5400, 20 DCSTAT 1300).


text:
Mathews, Basil. Young Isam on Trek. A Study in the Clash of Civilizations (Muslim, Islamic). New York. Friendship Press. 1926. 224 pps. Octavo. Decorated hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy.
Matsen, Bradford. Northwest Coast. Essays and Images from the Columbia River to the Cook Inlet. Photo available. San Diego. Thunder Bay. 1991. Folio. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color by Pat O'Hara. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Matson, Walter. Reminiscences of a Town with Two Names: Greenwood, Known Also as Elk. Greenwood. Greenwood Hobbyists. 1986. 4to. Soft cover. Second edition. Illustrated. Fine copy.
Matthiessen, Peter and Eliot Porter The Tree Where Man Was Born and the African Experience. New York. E.P. Dutton & Co. 1972. 247 pps. 4to. Hardcover. Stated first edition (unpriced jacket). Illustrated. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Matthiessen, Peter. Sand Rivers. New York. Viking Press. 1981. 213 pps. Octavo. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in near fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Mattill, John and Robert Llewellyn. MIT. A Portrait. Photo available. Cambridge. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1986. 4to. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Mattos, Rick & Erik Estrada. California Highway Patrol. Images of America. Photo available. Charleston. Arcadia. 2008. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated. Important reference work. Fine copy.
Mauger, Edward Arthur. Philadelphia. Then and Now. Photo available. San Diego. Thunder Bay. 2002. 4to. Decorated hard cover. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy (front end paper lightly creased).
Mauger, Edward Arthur. Philadelphia. Then and Now. Photo available. San Diego. Thunder Bay Press. 2002. 4to. Hard cover. Reprint. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Mayer, Phililp. Townsmen or Tribesmen. Conservatism and the Process of Urbanization in a South African City. Urbanization in a Divided Society. Ahosa in Town. Photo available. Cape Town. Oxford University Press. 1961. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated. Fine copy in very good (edge chipped) dust jacket (in mylar).
Mayers, Doug. Charlotte. Nothing Could Be Finer. Memphis. Turner. Charlotte Chamber of Commerce. 1996. 368 pps. 4to. Hardcover. First edition. Illustrated in color and black & white. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Mayes, Frances. Bella Tuscany. The Sweet Life in Italy. Photo available. New York. Broadway. 1999. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Near fine (name on end paper) in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Mayes, Frances. In Tuscany. New York. Broadway. 2000. Octavo. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
Mayes, Frances. In Tuscany. Photo available. New York. Broadway Books. nd. 4to. Hard cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Fine copy in fine dust jacket (in mylar).
McAdams, Cliff. Grand Teton National Park. Guide and Reference Book. Caldwell. Caxton Printers. 1983. 86 pps. Octavo. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated in color and black & white. Fine copy.
McAllister, Bruce. Wings Over The Alaska Highway. A Photographic History of Aviation on The Alaska Highway. Photo available. Boulder. Roundup Press. 2001. 4to. Soft cover. First edition. Illustrated in black, white and color. Important reference work. Fine copy.

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


In December 2016, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued final regulations regarding foreign-owned domestic disregarded entities. Under these regulations, the IRS will treat foreign-owned domestic disregarded entities as domestic corporations for the record-keeping and reporting requirements of Internal Revenue Code § 6038A.
These regulations come after many countries assert that the U.S. is one of the largest tax havens in the world due to relaxed reporting requirements for disregarded entities. The use of U.S. disregarded entities by foreign persons has increased exponentially due to several planning opportunities. One potential benefit of using a U.S. disregarded entity is that it can provide limited liability protection. Additionally, it can provide a U.S. holding vehicle while business is conducted entirely outside of the U.S. However, the primary use of U.S. disregarded entities by foreign owners (under the old reporting environment) was to purposely shield certain activities and owners from disclosure, whether in the U.S. or abroad.
Prior to the new regulations, foreign-owned disregarded entities were, in most cases, not subject to the requirement to obtain a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) in the U.S., thus keeping their existence and ownership information essentially hidden from both the IRS and foreign tax agencies. Additionally, foreign owners did not have to report transactions between themselves and the disregarded entity.
The new regulations treat a U.S. disregarded entity owned by a foreign person as a separate corporation for information reporting and record-keeping purposes. Specifically, § 6038A requires U.S. corporations that are 25 percent foreign-owned to report information about its foreign owners. Also, the corporation's transactions with such owners will now apply to foreign-owned U.S. disregarded entities.
Under the new regulations, any transaction described in Treasury Regulation § 1.482-1(i)(7) is now a reportable transaction. This includes sales and purchases, borrowings and loans, rents, interest, royalties, service fees, commissions or other amounts paid or received in transactions between the corporation and a foreign related party. A related party is any direct or indirect 25 percent shareholder, any person related to the corporation or a 25 percent shareholder as defined by § 267(b) or § 707(b)(1), and any other person related to the corporation as defined in § 482.
The regulations also amend Treasury Regulation § 301.7701-2 to treat a U.S. disregarded entity owned by a foreign person as a U.S. corporation for the information reporting and record-keeping requirements of § 6038A. The new rules, however, do not otherwise affect the entity classification or the entity's general treatment for U.S. tax purposes. Because a foreign-owned U.S. disregarded entity is now treated as a U.S. corporation for information reporting purposes, it is required to file Form 5472 for reportable transactions between the entity and foreign related parties. The entity is also required to maintain adequate records to establish the accuracy of this information return.
As a result of this new filing obligation, the entity would have to obtain an Employer Identification Number (EIN) by filing Form SS-4. This can be a potentially expensive and time-consuming process but it is necessary to identify its responsible party including the responsible party’s identifying number (i.e., Social Security Number (SSN), Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) or EIN).
Entity owners would be subject to a $10,000 penalty for every unfiled Form 5472 that should have been filed. For companies that have multiple foreign-owned disregarded entities the penalty impact could be considerable.
The regulations go into effect for all tax years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2017 and ending on or after Dec. 31, 2017. If you or your company are involved with foreign-owned U.S. disregarded entities and would like to learn more about these new regulations please contact a KSM advisor.


text:
A taxpayer owning fee simple title to certain lands leased the lands for the production of oil, gas, and other minerals for a cash bonus, a royalty in the usual form, and a share of the net profits realized by the lessees from their operations under the lease.
1. The taxpayer is entitled to deduct the depletion allowance permitted under §§ 23 (m) and 114(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code from his share of the net profits from the oil extracted from the leased lands, as well as from the income derived from bonuses and royalties. Pp. 326 U. S. 600, 326 U. S. 607.
2. Since the "net profit" payments flow directly from the lessor's economic interest in the oil and partake of the quality of rent, rather than of a sale price, the capital investment of the lessor is reduced by the extraction of the oil, and the lessor is entitled to depletion. Helvering v. O'Donnell, 303 U. S. 370; Helvering v. Elbe Oil Land Development Co., 303 U. S. 372, and Anderson v. Helvering, 310 U. S. 404, differentiated. Pp. 326 U. S. 605-606.
3. The lessor's economic interest in the oil is no less when his right is to share a net profit from its sale than when it is to share the gross receipts. P. 326 U. S. 604.
148 F.2d 80, reversed; 148 F.2d 776, affirmed.
No. 56. Certiorari, 325 U.S. 845, to review a judgment reversing a decision of the Tax Court, 2 T.C. 1258.
No.197. Certiorari, post, p. 703, to review a judgment affirming a decision of the Tax Court.
allowance of 27 1/2 percentum of gross income from the property during the taxable year, permitted by those sections from the taxpayer's gross income for 1940 from certain oil leases.
The taxpayer owned the fee simple title to certain Texas lands, except for a minor mineral interest which is not here involved. It leased the lands to two companies for the production of oil, gas, and other minerals for a cash bonus, a royalty in the usual form, and an agreement, executed contemporaneously with the lease and as part consideration therefor, that the taxpayer should receive twenty percent of the net money profits realized by the lessees from their operations under the lease.
The same narrow issue is in Commissioner v. Crawford. In this latter case, the taxpayer owned an interest in fee in certain real estate in California. She, together with her co-owners, entered into several leases for portions of the property for the production of oil, gas, and other minerals. For an understanding of the issues here presented, it is unnecessary to analyze the leases further than to say that they were given in consideration of bonuses, royalties in the usual form, and additional payments from the net profits of the operation. [Footnote 2] The Commissioner assessed a deficiency because of the denial of a claimed depletion allowance for 1938, 1939, and 1940. The Tax Court supported the taxpayer's position. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 148 F.2d 776.
to the bonuses and royalties. [Footnote 3] The statutory provisions are identical for all years. The 27 1/2 percentum allowed by Section 114(b)(3) was therefore properly deducted by the taxpayers from these bonuses and royalties. In each of these years, there was also income to these taxpayers from the lease provisions for the lessors to share in the net profits from the oil extracted from the leased lands. The taxpayers claim the right to deduct the 27 1/2 percent depletion from these receipts also. These are the deductions which the Commissioner disallowed. On account of the conflicting decisions of the Circuits in these cases on the point, certiorari was granted by us. Kirby Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 325 U.S. 845; Commissioner v. Crawford, 326 U.S. 703.
acquisition by the taxpayer, so that, at the exhaustion of the resource, the taxpayer would have recovered through depletion exactly his investment. The administrative difficulties in taxation of oil and gas production in view of the uncertainties of quantities and time of acquisition, that is, at the purchase of the property or at the discovery of oil or gas, finally have brought Congress to the arbitrary allowance of 27 1/2 percent now embodied in Section 114(b)(3). [Footnote 5] Thus, the 27 1/2 percent is appropriated by the statute to the restoration of the taxpayer's capital and the rest of the proceeds of the natural asset becomes gross income. Anderson v. Helvering, 310 U. S. 404, 310 U. S. 407-408. It follows from this theory that only a taxpayer with an economic interest in the asset -- here, the oil -- is entitled to the depletion. Palmer v. Bender, 287 U. S. 551, 287 U. S. 557; Thomas v. Perkins, 301 U. S. 655. By this is meant only that, under his contract, he must look to the oil in place as the source of the return of his capital investment. The technical title to the oil in place is not important. Title, in a case of a lease, may depend upon the law of the state in which the deposit lies. Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U. S. 103, 287 U. S. 109-110. The test of the right to depletion is whether the taxpayer has a capital investment in the oil in place which is necessarily reduced as the oil is extracted. See Anderson v. Helvering, 310 U. S. 404, 310 U. S. 407.
The taxpayers here involved were lessors. Under the leases and our previous decisions, these taxpayers had an economic interest, a capital investment, in so much of the extracted oil as was used by the lessee to pay to the taxpayers the royalties and bonuses. See note 3 supra. The taxpayer lessors were entitled to the depletion allowance on these royalties and bonuses, whether they were paid to them in oil or cash, the proceeds of the oil. Helvering v. Twin Bell Oil Syndicate, 293 U. S. 312, 293 U. S. 321.
The depletion allowance, in the aggregate, is always the same amount -- 27 1/2 percentum of the "gross income from the property." [Footnote 7] "In the case of leases, the deductions shall be equitably apportioned between the lessor and lessee." Section 23(m). An equitable apportionment is obtained by excluding from the lessee's gross income from oil or gas produced from the property, Helvering v. Twin Bell Oil Syndicate, supra, 293 U. S. 321, "an amount equal to any rents or royalties paid or incurred by the taxpayer in respect of the property." Section 114(b)(3). [Footnote 8] Such deductions become the gross income of the lessor. We think these taxpayers had an economic interest in the oil sufficient to support depletion on the sums received as net profit.
was the portion of "net income" paid under the leases, it would be clear that such payment of "net income" would, tax-wise, be rent or royalty paid by the lessees for the privilege of extraction. Since Section 114(b)(3) would require the lessees to deduct this rent or royalty from their gross incomes from the sale of oil from the property before taking the lessees' depletion, a gross receipt from oil sold, equal to the amount of the "net income" paid to the taxpayer lessors, would not be subject to depletion unless the taxpayer lessors are permitted to apply depletion to this payment. This would be contrary to the purpose of the depletion statute, which is to allow to the lessor and lessee together a depletion of 27 1/2 percent of the gross sale price of the oil. On the other hand, if depletion on the "net income" payments is allowed to the lessors, the lessees are allowed depletion on the gross income from oil sales less the net income payment and the entire allowable depletion is allocated between the lessors and lessees.
"A share in the net profits derived from development and operation, on the contrary, does not entitle the holder of such interest to a depletion allowance even though continued production is essential to the realization of such profits."
The Anderson case involved the taxability to the oil operator of the gross proceeds of the oil, which his contract for the purchase of the oil property required him to turn over to the seller as a means of satisfying a deferred payment for the property. As the deferred payment also had to be satisfied out of any sale of the fee simple title to the land, we held the operator liable as a purchaser because the seller was not "entirely dependent"
upon the oil production for his purchase price. This gave the operator the benefit of the applicable depletion. 310 U.S. at 310 U. S. 413. Only the reservation of an interest in the fee differentiated the Anderson case from Thomas v. Perkins, 301 U. S. 655, where deferred payment in oil or its proceeds, payable only from production, was held subject to depletion when paid to the assignors.
The part just quoted from the Anderson case occurs in setting out the series of cases dealing with depletion. No net income was involved in the Anderson case. The statement was supported by the citation of Helvering v. O'Donnell, 303 U. S. 370, and Helvering v. Elbe Oil Land Development Co., 303 U. S. 372. In the O'Donnell case, the taxpayer, who received the "net income" from an oil operation was a stranger to the lease, who had contracted for a share of its net profits as consideration for his stock in a corporation which was the owner of the lease.
"The question is whether respondent had an interest -- that is, a capital investment -- in the oil and gas in place. . . . As a mere owner of shares in the San Gabriel Company, respondent had no such interest."
Page 303 U. S. 371. In the Elbe Oil Land case, there was a specific provision that consideration other than the "net profit" payment should result in "full ownership" to the buyer. The transaction which included the clause for "net profit" was a sale of all the right, title, and interest in the property, which consisted of tangible personalty and drilling permits, agreements, and leases. This Court said the additional payment of a share of net profits did not qualify "in any way the effect of the transaction as an absolute sale." Page 303 U. S. 375. Thus, the Anderson case correctly stated that a share in "net profits," disassociated from an economic interest, does not entitle the holder to a depletion allowance. The facts of each transaction must be appraised to determine whether the transferor has made an absolute sale or has retained an economic interest -- a capital investment.
In our view, the "net profit" payments in these cases flow directly from the taxpayers' economic interest in the oil, and partake of the quality of rent, rather than of a sale price. Therefore, the capital investment of the lessors is reduced by the extraction of the oil, and the lessors should have depletion.
* Together with No.197, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Crawford, on certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued November 6, 7, 1945.
"(m) DEPLETION. -- In the case of mines, oil and gas wells, other natural deposits, and timber, a reasonable allowance for depletion and for depreciation of improvements, according to the peculiar conditions in each case, such reasonable allowance in all cases to be made under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary. . . . In the case of leases, the deductions shall be equitably apportioned between the lessor and lessee. . . ."
"(b) BASIS FOR DEPLETION. --"
"When, and as soon as, the 'Income Credits' of said account shall exceed the 'Operating Charges' of the Lessee, the Lessor shall be entitled to a secondary and additional royalty, the amount thereof to be one-half of such difference between the 'Operating Charges' and 'Income Credits' of said account."
The leases defined methods of computation.
Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U. S. 103, 287 U. S. 111; Palmer v. Bender, 287 U. S. 551, 287 U. S. 557. See Anderson v. Helvering, 310 U. S. 404, 310 U. S. 409.
"Under such provisions, the owner of an economic interest in mineral deposits or standing timber is allowed annual depletion deductions. An economic interest is possessed in every case in which the taxpayer has acquired, by investment, any interest in mineral in place or standing timber, and secures, by any form of legal relationship, income derived from the severance and sale of the mineral or timber to which he must look for a return of his capital. But a person who has no capital investment in the mineral deposit or standing timber does not possess an economic interest merely because, through a contractual relation to the owner, he possesses a mere economic advantage derived from production. Thus, an agreement between the owner of an economic interest and another entitling the latter to purchase the product upon production or to share in the net income derived from the interest of such owner does not convey a depletable economic interest."
For the background of the present provisions, see Helvering v. Twin Bell Oil Syndicate, 293 U. S. 312.
While the reservation of royalties shows an economic interest in the oil necessary for the satisfaction of the royalties, such reservation would not show an economic interest in oil not necessary for the payment of the royalties. But see Estate of Jophet, 3 T.C. 86.
Sec. 114(b)(3). The gross income refers only to oil and gas. Helvering v. Twin Bell Oil Syndicate, 293 U. S. 312, 293 U. S. 320-321; Anderson v. Helvering, 310 U. S. 404, 310 U. S. 408.
See Helvering v. Twin Bell Oil Syndicate, 293 U. S. 312, 293 U. S. 322.

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