text:
This article complements the previous article, Evidence for Atlantis, by Hutton Commentaries subscriber, Norman Scherer.
Since 1932, deep-sea-floor rock-coring and dredge-haul sampling techniques have been greatly improved. Several nations now routinely investigate the ocean floor record in the rocks from specially outfitted ships operating globally. Thus, because the field of ocean floor rock investigation has widened dramatically, new interpretations of Earth's history are brought forward ever more rapidly. We will look here at one area of the Atlantic Ocean floor that seems to provide evidence of sinking “of the southernmost portion” of the Atlantean continent. (See 364-6 below).
Here are two reading extracts that bear upon the boundaries of Atlantis. We will use their information, together with that in 364-3 above, to plot the outline of Atlantis at the time of an individual named Amilius.
In the period, then - some hundred, some ninety-eight thousand years before the entry of Ram2into India there lived in this land of Atlantis one Amilius, who had first NOTED that of the separations of the beings as inhabited that portion of the earth's sphere or plane of those peoples into male and female as separate entities, or individuals.
I am not a student of East Indian ancient history. My impression from the scant reading I've done, however, is that the latest that an “entry of Ram into India” could have occurred is about 3500 years ago, with the entry of Aryan tribes into the country. This is known as the Aryan invasion. But this particular individual, Ram, could have come to India far earlier, in an entry either peaceful or warlike. Thus the “time of Amilius,” mentioned in 364-6 below, would have been at minimum about 100,000 years ago.
Q) How large was Atlantis during the time of Amilius? [100,000-plus years ago]?
A) Comparison, that of Europe including Asia in Europe - not Asia, but Asia in Europe - see? This composed, as seen, in or after the first of the destructions [about 19,400 years ago; see Table 1], that which would be termed now - with the present position - the southernmost portion of same - islands as created by those of the first (as man would call) volcanic or eruptive forces brought into play in the destruction of same.
That [westernmost portion of Atlantis] along the Atlantic board formed the outer portion then, or the lowlands of Atlantis.
Using a Webster's Geographical Dictionary, published by Merriam in 1949, I followed the word description for the boundary of Europe on page 347, and the maps found on Plates X and XI. I learned that the operative boundary specifications for Europe include the far northern islands of Novaya Zemlya, Kolguev, and Svalbard. Also, the eastern boundary of Europe is the Ural Mountains, the Ural River and the Caspian Sea.
Turkey in Asia is, obviously, not considered part of Europe, whereas Turkey in Europe is considered to be.3 The islands and peninsulas of the Mediterranean Sea are part of Europe. The most southerly point of Europe is in Spain, at 36º 2' N.
I placed a piece of tracing paper on my globe and traced the outline of Europe. Then I cut out the tracing and transferred it to the Atlantic Ocean part of the globe. The cutout fit comfortably into the north Atlantic basin without overlapping adjacent lands anywhere. After marking the boundary of the “European Atlantis” cutout on the globe, I added some “protruding portions” for the Bahamas and southern Atlantis. Then, after expanding the boundary of the legendary island to the 2000-fathom (12,000 ft) depth contour adjacent to the continents, I got the approximate boundary of Atlantis shown on Figure 1.
The northern shore of the legendary continent could not have extended farther north along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge MAR) than 44º N. See the label, “Core M15612,” on Figure 1. Three scientists (M-H. Park, and Others, 2001, in Atlantic Geology, v. 37, pp. 153-160) analyzed 14 radiocarbon dates run on samples of foraminifera tests at various depths in the core. The carbon dates ran from 2,000 to 40,000 years before the present (B.P.). They then interpreted the age of the undated lower part of the core to represent uninterrupted sediment deposition going back as far as 160,000 B.P. Thus, assuming that the scientists did their research properly, this point on the MAR has been under the ocean for 160,000 years and could not have been part of Atlantis.
I assumed that, just as the Bahamas were said to have been at one time a part of the Atlantean continent (364-3), so also might one expect that the Madeira, Canary, and Cape Verde islands had also once been part of Atlantis.
And so also might portions of the equatorial Mid-Atlantic Ridge and surrounding areas once have been “- with the present position - the southernmost portion of same [Atlantis].” Note that the phrase, “with the present position” (in 364-6), clearly implies that a shift of Earth's rotational axis brought Atlantis, as well as planet Earth, to its present orientation in space. This is important because, as we shall see, six scientists working with the record of the rocks in the equatorial Atlantic require a pole shift to explain 1) a shift in the location of an ocean trench, and 2) how crustal blocks were once uplifted or submerged there.
Fig. 1. Approximate outer limits of Atlantis at its greatest extent. Vertical-stripe pattern indicates “protruding portions within this [Atlantis] that must have at one time or another been a portion” of the legendary lost continent. MAR = Mid-Atlantic Ridge; FZ = fracture zone.
The above heading is the same as the title of a paper published in 1981 in the journal Tectonophysics. Enrico Bonatti, of Columbia University and the Marine Geology Laboratory in Bologna, Italy, and Andy Chermak, of the University of Miami, are the authors. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) sponsored their work, and it was carried out on the Romanche fracture zone shown on Figure 2.
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the structural pattern associated with the Romanche and other equatorial Atlantic fracture zones. SPSP = St. Peter/St. Paul islets. DSDP 25 = Deep Sea Drilling Project, sea-floor boring no. 25. Solid black triangle indicates sites where shallow water limestones were recovered. Modified from Fig. 1 of Bonatti and Chermak.
Among the results of their study, Bonatti and Chermak identified a strip of sea floor over 300 miles in length along the Romanche fracture zone (FZ) that is anomalously shallow by at least six-tenths of a mile relative to predicted depths. They suggest that the sea-floor high spots are capped by carbonate banks representing stages when they reached close to, and possibly above, sea level. They then estimate that the rate of uplift and sinking of the anomalous crustal blocks was about twice as fast as other crust of equivalent age.
The authors note further that at the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) hole 25 (Fig. 2), Eocene age shallow water limestones were recovered. They suggest that the emergent crust “may even have provided ‘land bridges' for faunal migrations between Africa and South America in early Cenozoic times after the two continents had already been separated.” It is here that they bow to the hypothesis of sea-floor spreading and plate tectonics to explain their findings. That was in 1981. Only ten years later, however, the authors' sea-floor spreading interpretation was to be disputed.
Ten years later we learn of Russian oceanographers hauling up all kinds of unusual dredge samples from the vicinity of the MAR, or from the slopes of the St. Paul FZ (see Fig. 2). I won't describe all of the various rock types recovered except to say that many dredge samples contained continental type rocks and microfossils.4 This led the authors to conclude, as follows.
The finds of continental rocks and sediments whose age is older than that determined by paleographic reconstruction in accordance with the ‘canons' of plate tectonics are an important addition to geophysical data suggesting the ‘non-spreading' origin of flank plateaus in the equatorial segment of the MAR…..A platform still persists on the downwarped flank plateaus of the MAR because sea-floor spreading was limited entirely to the axial part of its equatorial segment.
It's time for scientists to start trying to understand vertical sea-floor changes over time through more than the predominantly horizontal sea-floor spreading/plate tectonics model. Recall that we have presented a different model to explain what could have been going on along the MAR in our review of Prof. MacKenzie Keith's article on the plate tectonics theory's “house of cards.” Our review is entitled: “New Hypothesis Provides A Basis For The Reality Of The Legendary Continents Of Atlantis And Lemuria --The demise of the current sea-floor spreading and plate-tectonics theory.” In our review we explain how Keith's new model contributes to an understanding of the origin and destruction of the Atlantis of Cayce's readings.
Fine, but I really don't believe it necessary to do mental handsprings to make everything one observes fit into the plate tectonics mold. Rather than try to do so, let's just take Bonatti's finding, and see if it might not fit in with the readings' story of the first destruction of Atlantis.
Suppose that the continent was in fact broken up 19,400 years ago by a man-induced, super-massive, volcano-like eruption that caused Atlantis near the Sargasso Sea to “go into the depths.” This was the upheaval that broke up the continent into five large islands and many smaller ones. The upheaval probably even started a pole shift.
Could it not be possible that this event might also have massively affected the equatorial Atlantic sea floor as well? If so, the uplift of sub-continental, or sub-oceanic mantle would not have been much of an aberration, would it? And the sinking of any above-sea-level oceanic crust wouldn't be much of an aberration either.
Date In Years Before The Present (B.P.) Geophysical Event(s) Reading Nos.
20,000 Age of an entire woolly mammoth found @ 62° N, 150° E.
19,400 Man-induced eruption causes the portion of Atlantis near the Sargasso Sea to go "into the depths." Volcano-like upheaval separates Atlantis into five islands and induces a pole shift (author's interpretation) causing ice sheets to melt in Europe, Asia, and North America. 364-11, 364-4, 877-26, 440-5, 1291-1 (?) 488-5?
Beginning and ending dates of the Younger Dryas climatic event during the middle of the ongoing deglaciation of the North Atlantic region. This 1,300 ± 70-year period marked a return to glacial-like climatic conditions. It terminated abruptly with a 7°C rise in temperature over a few years' time.
Note that the final destruction of Atlantis and the construction of the Great Pyramid occurred during this Younger Dryas period.
Bonatti's most recent paper,6 co-authored with five others, tries further to explain vertical tectonics at the Romanche fracture zone.
Flat-top peaks on the summit of the transverse ridge are capped by acoustically transparent, weakly stratified, shallow water platform/lagunal/ reef limestones. This limestone unit is a few hundred meters thick and overlies igneous basement. Evaluation of the seismic reflection data as well as study of samples of carbonates, ventifact basaltic pebbles and gabbroic, peridotitic and basaltic rocks recovered on the transverse ridge, suggest that … the summit of the transverse ridge was above sea level at and before about 5 Ma [five million years ago].
So there you have it, a submerged, ridge-shaped former island right smack in the middle of the equatorial Atlantic. Is this island part of the remains of the southernmost portion of the Atlantis of Cayce's readings? Maybe. Read further.
But how are we to explain Bonatti and Others' five million years of submergence, when the readings would indicate that the island sank less than 19,400 years ago? If this transverse ridge was one of the remaining islands after a man-induced blowup, then it sank before about 12,000 BP because the last island of Atlantis, Poseidia, sank in 11,900 BP, according to two readings (see Table 1). But Bonatti and Others infer that the island sank long before the ice age, at the beginning of the Pliocene epoch, roughly five million years ago.
The only way to explain the time discrepancy is to assume that the Earth has experienced many pole shifts through the ages. A pole shift can radically alter sea levels and raise and lower blocks of the crust. What appears to Bonatti and Others to have happened only once, and five million years ago at that, could have happened many times over such a long period, if Cayce's readings can be believed.
The Mediterranean Sea almost dried up (became desiccated) around five million years ago. This event occurred within the time frame proposed by Bonatti and Others for jostling of crustal blocks in the equatorial Atlantic.
between 5.96 and 5.33 million years (Myr) ago—was one of the most dramatic events on Earth during the Cenozoic era. It resulted from the closure of marine gateways between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, the causes of which remain enigmatic. Here we use the age and composition of volcanic rocks to reconstruct the geodynamic evolution of the westernmost Mediterranean from the Middle Miocene epoch to the Pleistocene epoch (about 12.1-0.65 Myr ago). Our data show that a marked shift in the geochemistry of mantle-derived volcanic rocks, reflecting a change from subduction-related to intraplate-type volcanism, occurred between 6.3 and 4.8 Myr ago, largely synchronous with the Messinian salinity crisis. Using a thermomechanical model, we show that westward roll back of subducted Tethys oceanic lithosphere and associated asthenospheric upwelling provides a plausible mechanism for producing the shift in magma chemistry and the necessary uplift (1 km) along the African and Iberian continental margins to close the Miocene marine gateways, thereby causing the Messinian salinity crisis.
The shift in magma chemistry and 1 km (0.62 mi) uplift of the African and Iberian continental margins seems clearly to find a match with Bonatti and Others' findings of transform migration and vertical tectonics at the Romanche fracture zone some 5 Myr or so ago. And Bonatti's team believes that a pole shift was responsible for the vertical motions that it found in the equatorial Atlantic, not so far from Africa and Spain. Where Duggen and others worked.
One wonders whether Duggen and Others (2003) ever read the article by Bonatti and Others (1994). It's clear, however, that even though Bonatti and Others had the sense to invoke a pole shift to supply the energy for the block motions that they studied, both Bonatti's and Duggen's groups attempt to explain their requirements for vertical tectonics, either largely or exclusively, by resorting to the plate-tectonics model of geodynamics.
There is plenty of evidence for formerly emerged crustal blocks in the floor of the equatorial Atlantic. And it is just possible that, for up to a few thousand years, these now-submerged blocks may have been islands left by the destruction of the Atlantis of Cayce's readings. Destructions of various parts of Atlantis began 19,400 years ago (the first destruction) and continued until 11,900 BP when the final island of Poseidia sank, or over a period of 7,500 years. The islets of St. Peter and St. Paul could have been upthrust any time during or after the first destruction of Atlantis.
Bonatti and Others' most recent paper (1994) makes a valiant attempt to explain the equatorial Atlantic tectonics scene, almost exclusively according to the sea-floor spreading and plate-tectonics theory. The authors invoke “jumping” ridges, uplift and sinking of micro crustal plates, and “migrating transform faults.” At one point, the authors invoke a pole shift. This is done to try to explain the migration of the “fossil” Romanche rift valley.
Actually, the article by Bonatti and Others is brilliant and who am I to cast aspersions on it. Our differences stem from contrasting sets of assumptions, and from the models of crustal dynamics that are built upon those assumptions.
Bonatti and Others assume that sea-floor spreading must be taking place in the equatorial Atlantic floor. Our model assumes that sea-floor spreading is not the driving mechanism behind sea-floor tectonics, except in near-MAR areas, following M. Keith's model for the development and later submergence of the Atlantic Ocean floor. (Remember also that the Russian oceanographers reached the same conclusion, from their “hard data,” with regard to the limited amount of sea-floor spreading, and that localized only near the axis of the MAR).
Furthermore, our model of Atlantis's geophysical history is based upon information channeled by Edgar Cayce that is assumed by us to be true for the broad history of sea-floor tectonics of the Atlantic Ocean basin. This psychic information is “tested” with our computerized procedure for determining the effects of pole shift on worldwide crustal dynamics and sea levels.
There is a major qualifier to the story of the submergence of southern Atlantis that I have woven in this article. Assuming that the Cayce readings on Atlantis are true, the following qualifier obtains. Mention of the sinking “of the southernmost portion” of the Atlantean continent in 364-6 may actually refer to sinking of a region that is farther north along the MAR, “near what would be termed the Sargasso Sea [that] first went into the depths” (364-4).
Let's review three important readings on the destruction of Atlantis.
With the continued disregard of those that were keeping the pure race and the pure peoples, of those that were to bring all these laws as applicable to the Sons of God, man brought in the destructive forces as used for the peoples that were to be the rule, that combined with those natural resources of the gases, of the electrical forces, made in nature and natural form the first of the eruptions that awoke from the depth of the slow cooling earth, and that portion now near what would be termed the Sargasso Sea first went into the depths.
(Q) Describe in more detail the causes and effects of the destruction of the part of Atlantis now the Sargasso Sea.
(A) As there were those individuals that attempted to bring again to the mind of man more of those forces that are manifest by the closer association of the mental and spiritual, or the soul forces that were more and more as individual and personal forms in the world, the use of the these elements - as for the building up, or the passage of individuals through space - brought the uses of the gases then (in the existent forces), and the individuals being able to become the elements, and elementals themselves, added to that used in the form of what is at present known as the raising of the powers from the sun itself, to the ray that makes for disintegration of the atom, in the gaseous forces formed, and brought about the destruction in that portion of the land now presented, or represented, or called, Sargasso Sea.
The use of these influences by the Sons of Belial brought, then, the first of the upheavals; or the turning of the etheric rays' influence FROM the Sun - as used by the Sons of the Law of One - into the facet for the activities of same -produced what we would call a volcanic upheaval; and the separating of the land into SEVERAL islands - five in number.
One of the hypotheses for the formation of the Atlantis Massif proposes that the Atlantis Massif is rising along faults, such as a detachment fault on the east side of the Massif. If so, rock types found at depth should begin to be exposed along the east flank of the Massif (also the footwall of the proposed detachment fault).
Again, the first destruction of Atlantis occurred around 19,400 years ago when a huge portion of the island continent near or in the Sargasso Sea sank into the depths. The cause of this destruction was man-made. It produced a volcano-like eruption of unprecedented fury, originating as it did in the Earth's lower crust and mantle. Would we not expect to find evidence for this upheaval somewhere in or around the Sargasso Sea?
Consider now the expedition of an international team of scientists to a submerged mountain on the MAR, in November and December 2000. The scientists studied the Atlantis Massif9, a large mountain of mantle rock that has been upthrust through younger rocks of the ocean floor. Check their website article, “Descent to Mid-Atlantic Ridge” for a marvelous virtual adventure. The two graphics used here are linked from this web article.
Note the square of light blue (“Field Area” to right) for the location of the Atlantis Massif, and recall that the first destruction of Atlantis affected the part of Atlantis near (or in) the Sargasso Sea. The location of the Atlantis Massif (Fig. 3) is in such a place. In my book, Coming Earth Changes, I suggested (p. 156) that the Sargasso Sea is bounded by 23º to 35º N and 35º to 72º W. This puts the location of the Atlantis Massif in the extreme northeastern corner of the Sargasso Sea.
…carbon-14 age dating indicates that normal faulting, breccia formation, sedimentation, veining, and venting [episodes at the massif] have been broadly contemporaneous and commenced at least 30,000 to 34,000 years ago…[and] …the carbon-14 dates of the veins are close to true ages.
Q) What was the date of the Peruvian incarnation as given in Life Reading, and what was the disturbance in the earth as mentioned? Give such details as will clear up this period.
A) As indicated from that just given, the entity was in Atlantis when there was the second period of disturbance -which would be some twenty-two thousand, five hundred (22,500) before the periods of the Egyptian activity covered by the Exodus; or it was some twenty-eight thousand (28,000) before Christ, see?
Then we had a period where the activities in the Atlantean land became more in provinces, or there were small channels through many of the lands.
Did the scientists investigating the Atlantis Massif just happen to do so because they had funding for an expedition? In part. Or were they drawn by karma to the Atlantis of the Cayce readings, where they had once lived? Indeed, is it not possible that their descent to the MAR represents a confirmation, however minimally, of reading 1602-3 below?
Q) Three hundred years ago Jacob Boehme decreed Atlantis would rise again at this crisis time when we cross from this Piscean Era into the Aquarian. Is Atlantis rising now? Will it cause a sudden convolution and about what Year?
A) In 1998 we may find a great deal of the activities as have been wrought by the gradual changes that are coming about. These are at the periods when the cycle of the solar activity, or the years as related to the sun's passage through the various spheres of activity become paramount or Catamount [?] [Tantamount?] to the change between the Piscean and the Aquarian age. This is a gradual, not a cataclysmic activity in the experience of the earth in this period.
The following description and the chart are from Jan Alvestad's site, “Solar Terrestrial Activity Report“ for June 19, 2003.
“[The chart shows] a graphical comparison of solar cycles 2, 10, 13, 17, 20 and 23. Solar cycles 2, 10, 13, 17 and 20 are those that most easily compare to the development of cycle 23, particularly cycles 17 and 20 developed similarly to cycle 23. The chart below displays the development of all those cycles during their 6 first years.
Alvestad's chart shows clearly the double peaked nature of this latest solar cycle. It was “paramount” between roughly months 42 and 72 after it began.
Solar Cycle 23 began in about February 1996.
Yes, the years 2000-2002 did represent the peaking of solar cycle 23, and, presumably, the change between the Piscean and Aquarian ages. Well what about “Atlantis rising” during this period?
When scientists take samples of a mantle mountain (the Atlantis Massif) located in or near the Sargasso Sea and bring them to the surface, is that not a sort of rising of physical Atlantis? Too much of a stretch, I say. But then again, who knows what may follow? Are we not close to a paradigm shift in our understanding of Earth history?
Before that we find the entity was in the Atlantean land, when there were the constructive forces as to the activities of the children of the Law of One, - in all of those influences during the periods when the land was being broken up.
We find the entity was as the leading influence for the considering of ways and means in which there would be the preserving of records, as well as ways, means and manners in which either the few or the numbers might be preserved from the destruction of the lands.
It would be well if this entity were to seek either of the three phases of the ways and means in which those records of the activities of individuals were preserved, - the one in the Atlantean land, that sank, which will rise and is rising again [Hutton's emphasis added]; another in the place of the records that leadeth from the Sphinx to the hall of records, in the Egyptian land; and another in the Aryan or Yucatan land, where the temple there is overshadowing same.
Christian O'Brien in Chapter 18 of The Shining Ones features the basic historical and geological evidence which identifies the Azores as the site of the Island of Atlantis. In an outstanding career as exploration geologist he is no stranger to successfully challenging established perceptions and raises the key issue of the deep crustal rifting associated with such flood basalt constructions.
The technology needed to prove or disprove the Atlantis issue is now available. Science has reached the point of being able to understand both the creation of' such large structures and the subsequent catastrophic movements in the Earths crust, which have destroyed them. Finding and dating the remains of fresh water life at depths of up to 4000 meters, finding coral, sandy beaches and volcanic material below sea level and identifying former river valleys is within reach and we look forward to providing further news on this subject later in the year.
So far this century [last century actually, Hutton's correction] there has been a confirmed report of a one mile rise in the floor of the ocean 576 miles north of the Azores when a trans-Atlantic cable broke. [Emphasis added by Hutton]. Dr David F. Zhirov [Prof. N. Zhirov, Hutton's correction] in 1970 reported sand beaches and coral at depths of 2 miles south of the Azores. Confirmed evidence exists that sections of the Mid-Atlantic ridge have been above sea level in the past and [fresh-] water diatoms have been found 2 miles down in the Azores area dated 10,000 to 12,000 BC.
Try as I might, I have been unable to confirm this assertion of a one-mile rise in the floor of the ocean some 567 miles north of the Azores. Others may be able to determine the veracity of the statement.
Note also that Christian O'Brien produces an interesting map of his concept of the last big island of Atlantis to be submerged. This is called Poseidia in Cayce's readings, and its final destruction was said (readings 364-1, 288-1, and 339-1) to taken place between 12,700 and 11,900 B.P. (years before the present), or approximately 10,700 to 9,900 B.C. Although I have not studied O'Brien's data and assumptions behind his map, it brings an exploration geologist's perspective to the same area that The Hutton Commentaries believes was the last part of Atlantis above the waves before the final destruction; i.e., Poseidia.
Seismic evidence. We searched the National Earthquake Information Center's database for quakes within the area enclosed by the boundaries of Figure 3. This is the Poseidian-Atlantis “target area” that we believe is described in reading 2012-1 at the beginning of this section. This search, from 01/01/1973 through 06/27/2003, turned up 724 earthquakes greater than M 3.0, with focal depths between 5 and 33 km (3.1-20.5 miles) out of a possible depth of 100 km. The three largest earthquakes had magnitudes of M 6.2, one of M 6.3, and one of M 6.6. Over the period, there were three clusters of 8 closely-spaced-in-time quakes, one cluster of 9 (in 2003),one cluster of 13 (in 1997), one cluster of 24 (in 1974), one cluster of 28 (in 2001), and one cluster of 35 (in 1996-1997). For further information on the earthquakes statistics is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Statistics for Earthquake Survey of Figure 3 Area Discussed in the Text.
Note well that the Poseidia that we believe could have existed is not in the vicinity of Bimini in the Bahamas. It is in the Azores region. Thus, it seems probable to us that the M 7.6 earthquake shown on Figure 3 could simply have been heralding the beginning of the first portions (here the Poseidian portion) of Atlantis's slow rising.
What is striking to Hutton is the location of the 35-quake cluster of 12/21/1996 -03/04/1997. The two-month quaking of the crust, including seven quakes greater than M 5.0, occurred to the west of the median valley of the MAR, almost at the end of the 1958-1998 period mentioned in 3976-15 as being the period during which the Earth changes would be beginning.
The next largest cluster (28 quakes in 03/2001) occurred in the "Anomalous Area," again, west of the median valley of the MAR. If anyone is going to find evidence of the rising of this part of Atlantis (sunken Poseidia of the readings), he or she will probably find it most readily in one of these two places. The evidence would be obtained from analysis of old and new bathymetric surveys that traversed the areas. Bottom depths from surveys before 1960 should be deeper than those found in the years 2000-2003.
Then again, we must remember that aseismic slip might play a role in the gradual elevation of Atlantis. This is the process by which crustal blocks move along fault surfaces without producing easily detectable earthquakes.
Fig. 3. Physiographic reconstruction of Poseidia (called here Poseidonis), after N. Zhirov, as based on a diagram by B. Heezen and M. Tharp. Note the location of the major (M7.6) earthquake of 1968. (Recall too this reading fragment, "And Poseidia will be among the first portions of Atlantis to rise again. Expect it [to begin clearly to rise?] in sixty-eight and sixty-nine…."[958-3]). A repository for the records of the Atlantean civilization may be found in the area shown by blue shading. The Atlantean records repository will be found in a specific temple "where a portion of the temples may yet be discovered." (See reading 440-5). See text for an explanation of red dots A-C, sites of deep-water sampling of subaerial material representative of an emergent continent. (Subaerial refers to conditions and processes that exist or operate in the open air on and immediately adjacent to a land surface).
Here is information on a former emergent continent in the Atlantic Ocean that was summarized by MacKenzie Keith10 for former shallow water or emergent sites sampled by the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP). The sampling sites are currently underwater in the region of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR). Locations for three of these sites (Keith, 2001, Table 1) are shown by large red dots on Figure 3, a relief map of the Azores region we have used in previous articles on THC's website. The red dots are rather large because, while the sampling coordinates that are listed give degrees north latitude, they do not give degrees west longitude. It is understood, however, that the samples were taken in the vicinity of the MAR's axial valley, clearly visible on Figure 3.
Here's what was found at point A, at a depth of 12,802 ft.: highly vesicular basalt, weathered and oxidized basalt, and a major gap in the basal sedimentary section that indicates subaerial erosion. At site B, at a depth of 12,440 ft, basaltic pebbles and weathered and oxidized basalt were found. And at site C, in 12,313 ft of water, once again basaltic pebbles and weathered and oxidized basalt were found. All of the above findings are strong indicators of a formerly emerged MAR. And they suggest that this volcanic terrain has sunk a minimum of 12,300 ft since being exposed to the atmosphere. Note that Keith's Table 1 lists six additional MAR sampling sites-to the south of those plotted on our Figure 3 and on down to the equator. Two of these sampling sites show ridge tops flattened by wave erosion, one revealed Tertiary-age shallow water sediment, and another revealed Cretaceous-age shallow water sediment. A final, rather startling finding consists of canyons and a trellis drainage system, quite possibly formed subaerially at a depth greater than 9800 ft. That MAR location is between 26º and 27ºN, to the south of the area covered in Figure 3.
The Azores Volcanic Plateau--A Hot Spot at a Triple Junction?
Other geophysicists think that a hot spot lies beneath the plateau and that the plateau is an expression of a persistent rising plume of hot mantle material. The hot spot itself is perhaps 60 to 120 miles in diameter and the center is usually designated to be at about 38.5º N and 28.0º W, or located roughly at the red dot labeled ‘C' in Figure 3.
…[men on Atlantis] brought in the destructive forces as used for the peoples that were to be the rule, that combined with those natural resources of the gases, of the electrical forces, made in nature and natural form the first of the eruptions that awoke from the depth of the slow cooling Earth, and that portion [of Atlantis] now near what would be termed the Sargasso Sea first went into the depths.
….the turning of the etheric rays' influence from the Sun – as used by the Sons of the Law of One – into the facet for the activities of same – [that] produced what we would call a volcanic upheaval; and the separating of the land into several islands – five in number ?
This scientific inference is hugely at variance with the readings' explanation, as is the very idea of a formerly above-the-sea continent called Atlantis. Could the geologists' sea-floor-magnetic-stripe, age-determination procedures, and their hypothesis of exclusively horizontal sea-floor motions (with no appreciable vertical motions) be in error? If not, Atlantis is merely a thought form with no physical reality.
If N. Zhirov's Poseidonis (Poseidia of the Cayce readings)13 was at the location shown on Figure 3 before its submergence, when the records of the history of Atlantis were being written, we can further assume that the Atlantean repository for these records will be found in the area shown by shading on Figure 3. This Atlantean records repository will be found in a specific temple "where a portion of the [submerged Atlantean] temples may yet be discovered."
In attempting to speculate further on the location of this Atlantean temple, we find the following tantalizing information from p. 363 of Zhirov's book. It seems that in May 1968, Dr. R. Malise, the noted Swedish Atlantologist, wrote the following to Zhirov.
The Danish engineer, M. Frandsen, was looking at a depth-chart of the Azores and observed that at a depth of 600-700 fathoms (3600 - 4200 ft) above the surrounding sea-bottom there was an even plateau to the south of the islands.
This plateau is sheltered from the north by the present Azores with their summits 4,000-5,000 meters (13,120-16,400 ft) higher than it, and to the west by the main range [the MAR terrain]. To the southwest the plateau is limited by a somewhat lower mountain swell studded with high, flat-topped, now-submarine seamounts. The most prominent of these seamounts have been named by American oceanographers Atlantis, Plato, Cruiser, and Great Meteor. [See Figure 3].
As an experiment, Frandsen made a sketch with the measurements of the Atlantis Plain given by Plato, viz., 400 by 600 kilometers (250 by 375 miles) [Frandsen counted a stadius as 200 meters] and on the same scale as the chart. It fitted very well to the submarine plateau-land of the chart. By studying the depth-curves he found the declination of the plateau to be on an average 1:900; the plateau consisted accordingly of a real plain of a size about 2/3 of present-day Finland. On his sketch he drew in the contours of the mentioned canals and the circular ditch and likewise the squared lots of 'ten stadia each way.' According to Plato, the surrounding ditch had a length of ten thousand stadia (about 2,000 kilometers) and the number of squared lots was 60,000. By measuring the ditch on his sketch, Frandsen found it to be 2,040 kilometers and the number of lots to be 60,700, an acceptable difference. Having worked with irrigation in open and closed canals for thirty years he wanted to control the declination of the water level in the canals if adequate. He found the fall of the water to be 1:300 and1:600, which according to modern principles is acceptable, although barely for the last figure. The current in the canals was accordingly too slow to cause difficulties of navigation for the row-galleys of the time.
If this plain housed the last portion of Atlantis to sink beneath the sea, we might expect that it held the major temples as well. This area of the Atlantic seafloor looks like a very interesting one for oceanographers to explore. Multi-beam bathymetry surveys should be able to pick up signatures of canals without too much trouble.
The famous marine geologist, Francis P. Shepard, once wrote something to this effect. "If we could look down from the Moon at the Earth without her oceans, the most prominent relief features that one could see would be the steep continental slopes. They look suspiciously like giant fault scarps."
A variation to scientist Shepard's observation might read, "The steep continental slopes look like giant fault scarps surrounding a sunken region of Earth's crust, a region called, in some foolish quarters, Atlantis."
In 1998 we may find a great deal of the activities as have been wrought by the gradual changes that are coming about. ...This is a gradual, not a cataclysmic activity in the experience of the Earth in this period.
“This period” is linked in 1602-3 to the current, double-peaked solar cycle (number 23) that became “paramount” in 2000-2002. Cycle 23 is now in decline. Atlantis did not rise above the waves in 2000-2002, but consider that any evidence of a gradually rising Atlantis could easily still be concealed beneath the ocean's waters.
To the foregoing I would add that geological processes like the elevation or sinking of large tracts of Earth's crust occur slowly in “human time.” Thus, the slow pace of Earth changes that occur in geologic time must temper the expectations of people used to thinking in terms of human time.
An exception to this consideration is found, however, in accelerated Earth changes that would be caused by a sudden shift in Earth's poles of rotation. Without such a pole shift, predicted in 3976-15 to occur any day now, the predicted rising of parts of Atlantis will forever be judged to have been only a figment of the imagination for those of us living today.
William Hutton's efforts in 1965-1968 to sample and analyze Bimini rocks by drilling, and by examining rock fragments from a deep sand-dredging operation at the Bimini inlet, are reviewed in his book, “Coming Earth Changes” (A.R.E. Press, 1996, pp. 165-180). Partial costs for that research were funded by the Edgar Cayce Foundation (ECF). Results of a 2002 study of rocks dredged from the Bimini lagoon can be found in the article entitled, "Bimini Revisited". That study was self-funded by William Hutton and Jonathan Eagle.
An attempt to sample rocks and projections from the submerged cliff off Bimini was made in 1998-2000, under ARE sponsorship, but the results of that effort indicated nothing but carbonate rock had been sampled (J. Hanley, personal communication, 5/2003).
Turkey in Europe is bounded on the north by Bulgaria, on the east by the Black Sea, and the Bosporus, on the south by the Sea of Marmara and Dardanelle's, and on the west by the Aegean Sea and Greece.
Udintsev, G. B., and Others, 1990, “Finds of continental rocks and sediments of anomalous age in the equatorial segment of the mid-Atlantic ridge,” Doklady Akademii Nauk, v. 312, no. 2, pp. 450-454.
Bonatti, E., 1990, “Subcontinental mantle exposed in the Atlantic Ocean on St. Peter-Paul islets,” Nature, v. 345, pp. 800-802. While Bonatti concluded that the midocean ridge is underlain by material left behind as the continents were rifted apart, there is a serious flaw in his argument. As explained by by A. Meyerhoff and H. Meyerhoff (1974, "Ocean magnetic anomalies and their relations to continents," in Kahle, C., plate tectonics--Assessments and reassessments, Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geol., Tulsa, OK p. 415), "If the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is underlain by continental-type mantle, how are the allegedly young magnetic anomalies formed at the crests of the midocean ridges with attendant seafloor spreading? Bonatti fails to explain this. It is difficult to conceive of a mobile crustal layer at the surface of the midocean ridge underlain by what Bonatti terms a "stagnant" mantle. By his own admission, the newly formed basalt has to pass through the "stagnant" continental mantle." [Meyerhoff and Meyerhoff were citing Bonatti's 1971 paper in the Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 76, no.17, p. 3825-383, entitled “Ancient continental mantle beneath oceanic ridges.”]. Bonatti ignored the Meyerhoff criticisms in his 1990 Nature paper.
Bonatti, E., and Others, 1994, “Transform migration and vertical tectonics at the Romanche fracture zone, equatorial Atlantic,” Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 99, pp. 21,779-21,802.
Jardetzky, W., 1962, Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 67, no. 11, pp. 4461-4472.
Duggen, S. and Others, 2003, “Deep roots of the Messinian salinity crisis,” Nature, v. 422, pp. 602-606.
A massif (mas-sif') is a massive topographic and structural feature, especially in a mountain belt, commonly formed of rocks more rigid than those of its surroundings. These rocks may be protruding bodies of basement rocks, consolidated during earlier mountain building periods, or younger rocks of deeper origin.
Keith, M., 2001, "Evidence for a Plate Tectonics Debate," Earth-Science Reviews, 55 pp. 235-336.
Lourenco, N., and Others, 1998, “Morpho-tectonic analysis of the Azores Volcanic plateau from a new bathymetric compilation of the area,” Marine Geophysical Researches v. 20, pp. 141-156, plus map.
Information in this paragraph comes from three abstracts in the Proceedings Volume for the December 1998 meeting of the American Geophysical Union (Abstracts T72F-07, T22C, and T12C-11). These abstracts describe the results of detailed sea-floor mapping programs southwest of the Azores hot spot, closer to the central Sargasso Sea. The studies cover an area where the normal V-shaped median valley of the MAR is interrupted by a messed-up area of the sea floor.
Zhirov, N., 1970, “Atlantis,” Progress Publishers, Moscow.

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


Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Nos. 57564, 57752, Administrative Judge Elizabeth W. Newsom, Administrative Judge Mark N. Stempler, Administrative Judge Owen C. Wilson, Admin- istrative Judge Richard Shackleford.
However, in appeals from some other tribunals, the names of the administrative judges are not recited in the caption. This appears to be the case for ITC and PTAB appeals.
The first question, i.e., whether software may be a “component” of a patented invention under § 271(f), was answered in the affirmative in Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed.Cir.2005), which issued while the instant appeal was pending. In that case, we held that “[w]ithout question, software code alone qualifies as an invention eligible for patenting,” and that the “statutory language did not limit section 271(f) to patented `machines’ or patented `physical structures,'” such that software could very well be a “component” of a patented invention for the purposes of § 271(f). Id. at 1339.
AT & T CORP. v. Microsoft Corp., 414 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(Judge Lourie writing for the court), cert. granted 127 S.Ct. 467 (U.S. 2006) and judgment rev’d on other grounds, 127 S.Ct. 1746 (U.S. 2007).
Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
During the oral argument of PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, LLC v. Amazon. com, Inc., No. 2017-1441 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2018), the Federal Circuit seemed rather receptive of Amazon’s color coded brief reflecting the evolution of a claim during prosecution.
You can see the brief [here].
I was wondering to myself how panel stacking and panel manipulation would be viewed under the canons of judicial ethics. The uscourts.gov site has a good link to the Code of Conduct for US Judges. It is available [here].
Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law.
The Canons are rules of reason. They should be applied consistently with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules and decisional law, and in the context of all relevant circumstances. The Code is to be construed so it does not impinge on the essential independence of judges in making judicial decisions.
The Code is designed to provide guidance to judges and nominees for judicial office. It may also provide standards of conduct for application in proceedings under the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), 351-364). Not every violation of the Code should lead to disciplinary action. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline, should be determined through a reasonable application of the text and should depend on such factors as the seriousness of the improper activity, the intent of the judge, whether there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the improper activity on others or on the judicial system. Many of the restrictions in the Code are necessarily cast in general terms, and judges may reasonably differ in their interpretation. Furthermore, the Code is not designed or intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. Finally, the Code is not intended to be used for tactical advantage.
The Federal Circuit will be hearing some of its oral arguments in Chicago in October. You can see more information about the Chicago visit at this [link].
Judge Dyk has apparently been loaned out to the U.S.District Court of Delaware where he is sitting by designation. You might have noticed that he did not hear oral arguments at the Federal Circuit in August — nor in July if I remember correctly.
You can read Judge Dyk’s recent district court opinion and order in BAXALTA INCORPORATED v. GENENTECH, INC., Civil Action No. 17-509-TBD (D. Del. Aug. 7, 2018) at this [link].
I suppose it is somewhat fun for appellate judges to be fact finders in district court bench trials — fact finding expeditions are not something they have an opportunity to do at the appellate level . . . .
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
You are currently browsing the 717 Madison Place blog archives for August, 2018.


UNITED CONGREGATIONAL AND EVANGELICAL CHURCHES OF MOKU'AIKAUA AND HELANI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HEIRS OF Victoria KAMAMALU, Trustees of the Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, Deceased, Department of Land and Natural Resources of the State of Hawaii, and all other persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real property described in the Complaint adverse to the ownership of the Plaintiff, or constituting any cloud upon their title, and to Whom it May Concern, Defendants, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellant.
*209 Andrew S.O. Lee, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of Hawaii, Honolulu, for defendant-appellant.
Thomas P. Gill, Honolulu (Gill, Park & Park, Honolulu, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before RICHARDSON, C.J., KOBAYASHI, OGATA, KIDWELL, JJ., and SHINTAKU, Circuit Judge, in place of MENOR, J., disqualified.
This appeal arises out of an action brought by the United Congregational and Evangelical Churches of Moku'aikaua and Helani (hereinafter, the United Churches) to quiet title to two church lots, situated in the North Kona district of the island of Hawaii at Holualoa and Kahalu'u. The heirs of Victoria Kamamalu and various other defendants either defaulted or disclaimed any interest in the lots. The only dispute at trial was between the United Churches and the State of Hawaii, defendant-intervenor. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the United Churches.
The two disputed lots lie within the ahupua'a of Holualoa and Kahalu'u. In 1848 both these ahupua'a were allotted to Victoria Kamamalu by the Great Mahele, but title was not conveyed until 1852, when Land Commission Award No. 7713, covering both ahupua'a, was issued to Kamamalu. This Award was by name only; the boundaries of the ahupua'a were not defined. The Award contained no clause excepting or reserving the two lots to the government.
The lots were the subjects of separate surveys made by J.W. Makalena on December 4, 1854 and subsequently recorded in the Land Book of the Department of Public Instruction. The survey of the Holualoa lot described it as a "School lot", while the Kahalu'u lot was described as a "School and Church lot". On September 30, 1882, King Kalakaua issued a Royal Patent which purported to formally grant the lots to the Board of Education. However, the trial court found that actual school uses of the lots continued for only about eight years, between about 1880 and 1888.
Church activity has continued at these two sites, without evidence of interruption for any significant period of time, up until 1967 in the case of Kahaluu and 1951 at Holualoa. Graveyard use was established at the two sites at some undisclosed date in the past and continues to the present time, the most recent burials at Kahaluu being Lucy Kaopua in the 1950's and her husband Naluahine in the 1960's, and at Holualoa that of Garnett Watson in 1959. In the case of the Kahaluu parcel, no serious gaps in use have been shown between the date of building of the Old Helani Makai Church in the 1860's and 1967 when the small wooden church was dismantled.... This action was taken partly because of the insistence of the State during the 1960's that it owned the property and the failure of the plaintiff (United Churches) and the State to arrive at any arrangement by which use, unchallenged by the State, could be continued... . The "user" for church purposes of the Holualoa parcel is similarly established by the evidence. The existing church building was reportedly constructed in 1855. The church continued to operate up until about 1951 when the roof became unsafe. After that date, the congregation attended Mokuaikaua at Kailua, but at various and rare occasions, up to and including the present, religious functions have been held at the premises. While the major portion of the Holualoa site has not been consistently cleared and maintained since 1951, the cemetery area has been continually attended to and maintained to the present date by the plaintiff's membership. Permission was granted by the plaintiff to a religious group, the "Pilgrim Fellowship," in about 1971 to clear, maintain, and use the premises. In the case of Kahaluu, following the removal of the wooden building in 1967, the lot has been allowed to deteriorate and is now overgrown with vegetation. This again has been due in large part to the State's insistence upon its ownership and the inability of the plaintiff to obtain reasonable concessions from it during the period of the 1960's. But at all times the plaintiff and its membership have continuously attended to and maintained the graveyard site at Kahaluu. At no time, except possibly during the eight years of school use, has the State (or any other party for that matter) done any maintenance on either of the parcels. The evidence is clear that for over 100 years, except for the period of school use, [between] about 1880 and 1888, the sites at issue have been continuously and exclusively utilized and possessed by the plaintiff and its predecessors for church, graveyard, and related activities, although their use for strictly religious services have varied in extent, especially in more recent times.
The trial court found for the United Churches on the two-step theory that (1) any title to the lots which the government may have possessed was lost by operation of a reverter statute which returned the lots to their "original grantor" (Victoria Kamamalu) upon discontinuance of school uses in 1888, and (2) that the United Churches acquired title from the heirs of Victoria Kamamalu by adverse possession.
*211 On appeal the State contends that the lots have remained government property since at least 1850, when the School Lands Act of 1850, infra, provided that school and church lots "shall be reserved as government property". The State does not dispute the discontinuance of school uses in 1888, but interprets the reverter statute as requiring discontinuance of both school and church uses before reverter could occur. Since church uses continued until after the repeal in 1896 of the reverter statute, the State contends that the government's ownership has been absolute since 1896.
As discussed more fully below, this court agrees with the State's interpretation of the reverter statute. Because reverter failed to occur prior to repeal of the reverter statute, and because adverse possession cannot run against the sovereign, this court finds that the government has retained to this day its original title to the lots. This court further rejects the United Churches' alternate theory that the churches have acquired title by presumption of a lost grant. However, the churches' continuous occupation of the lots since mid-nineteenth century leads us to conclude that the State's title to the lots is subject to the churches' enjoyment of an equitable right akin to a prescriptive easement, entitling the churches to continue to use the lots for religious or educational purposes, without interference from the State, until such uses are abandoned.
Penal Code & Laws of 1850, at 136; RLH 1925, at 2184 (emphasis added).
In the instant case there is no evidence to rebut the presumption arising from the Makalena surveys that the Holualoa and Kahalu'u lots were reserved as government property pursuant to the 1850 Act. Given such reservation by operation of law, an express clause of reservation in the 1852 land commission award to Victoria Kamamalu was unnecessary. Knudsen, supra, 8 Haw. at 64.
All sites for school houses and ... public worship... which have been granted by or to the government, for the purpose of promoting ... education or religion, shall be reserved as government property, so long as they are devoted to the purposes for which they were granted ...; and in case they shall cease to be used for the purposes for which they were granted, for not less than one year, they shall revert to the original grantors, or their representatives.
Civil Code 1859, § 752; RLH 1925, at 2185 (emphasis added). See also Laws 1864, at 46; RLH 1925, at 2186-2187. Thus the "original grantors" of school and church lots gained possibilities of reverter in such lots. But the government was presumably the "original grantor" in a number of instances, in which event the government's possibility of reverter merged with its fee simple determinable so as to leave undiminished the government's fee simple absolute.
The 1859 reverter statute was repealed by an 1864 statute, which however contained a nearly identical reverter provision. Laws 1864, at 46. In 1896, the entire 1864 statute was repealed in a sentence, thus inter alia repealing the reverter clause. Laws 1896, c. 57 § 44.
In the instant case it is unnecessary to decide whether or not Victoria Kamamalu was the "original grantor" of the Holualoa and Kahalu'u lots and thereby possessed of a possibility of reverter under the 1859 and 1864 statutes. The events which would have triggered reverter, i.e., discontinuance of school and church uses, failed to occur prior to repeal in 1896 of the 1864 statute. It is true that the trial court found a discontinuance of school uses on both lots after 1888, but this court interprets the reverter statutes as requiring a discontinuance of both school and church uses before reverter could occur. The language of the 1859 and 1864 reverter statutes, taken in conjunction with the broad language of the 1850 Act and with the fact that many of the early school teachers were also missionaries, indicates that religion and education were then deemed interrelated, joint purposes. Under a proper construction of the early statutes, the school and church lots were set aside to promote the joint purposes of education and religion, as those terms are broadly defined, and as opposed to the idea that some lots were granted solely for "education" in its limited modern sense while other lots were granted solely for "religion".
The State now owns the Holualoa and Kahalu'u lots in fee simple absolute, either under the theory that the Hawaiian government was the "original grantor" and has always owned both lots in fee simple absolute, or under the theory that the government's title, made defeasible by the 1859 reverter statute, ripened into fee simple absolute in 1896 when the 1864 reverter statute was repealed.
Although the fee to the Holualoa and Kahalu'u lots is in the State, and although it is well established that adverse possession may not run against the sovereign, this court further finds that the United Churches have acquired an equitable right, akin to a prescriptive easement, to continue to use the lots for religious and educational purposes until such uses are abandoned.
Our finding is based largely on those facts which the trial court relied upon in finding adverse possession as against the heirs of Victoria Kamamalu. But at the same time we affirm the trial court's rejection of the United Churches' alternate argument that the doctrine of a presumed lost grant of title should be applied in the instant case.
In contrast to the doctrine of adverse possession, the doctrine of a presumed lost grant, arising out of adverse, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession for a substantial number of years, may be applied against the sovereign. United States v. Fullard-Leo, 331 U.S. 256, 67 S. Ct. 1287, 91 L. Ed. 1474 (1947) (applying pre-annexation Hawaii law); In re Kioloku, 25 Haw. 357 (1920). However, the trial court concluded that any presumption of a lost grant of title in the instant case was rebutted by (1) the explicit Royal Patent grants of the lots to the Board of Education in 1882, (2) an application in 1911 by the United Churches' predecessor requesting a grant of the Kahalu'u lot (thus admitting a present lack of title), and (3) "subsequent events and conduct on the part of the plaintiff", apparently referring to written statements in the 1960's by various officers of the United Churches' parent organization in Honolulu, admitting that title is in the government. It is well established that the presumption of a lost grant may be rebutted. In re Kioloku, supra, 25 Haw. at 366; United States v. Chavez, 175 U.S. 509, 520, 20 S. Ct. 159, 44 L. Ed. 255 (1899). Further rebuttal of the lost grant theory is given in part I, supra, where we hold that title to the lots was vested in the government under the School Lands Act of 1850.
The trial court found that the presumption of a lost grant had been rebutted, despite the following evidence establishing a longstanding occupation of the lots by the United Churches under a good faith claim of right: (1) continuous user since mid-nineteenth century; (2) the United Churches' 1912 petition for a charter of incorporation (subsequently approved by the treasurer and governor of the Territory) in which an appendix purported to list "property now held by the United Churches" including "Land and building at Holualoa" and "Land and Building at Kahaluu"; (3) a 1939 warranty deed from the United Churches' parent organization to the County of Hawaii, purporting to grant a portion of the Kahalu'u parcel (obviously for road widening purposes); (4) a 1948 letter, from the territorial Commissioner of Public Lands to a third party interested in acquiring the Holualoa parcel, wherein the Commissioner stated that the parcel belonged to the United Churches' parent organization; (5) testimony by the current pastor of Moku'aikaua Church that when he checked the state tax maps in the early 1960's the lots were shown under the name of the United Churches' parent organization; and (6) testimony by the pastor that "the people" had told him "we own it [the lots]. We owned it ever since the early 1880's."
*214 Although we are constrained to agree with the trial court that the presumption of a lost grant of title has been rebutted by the circumstances outlined supra, nevertheless, the above evidence showing religious and educational uses by the United Churches and its predecessors since the infancy of modern Hawaiian property law, under a good faith claim of right, leads us to the conviction that, under the special facts of this case, justice requires our recognition that the United Churches possess limited equitable rights in the lots.
The above circumstances rebutting a lost grant rebut the existence of a grant of title. They do not rebut a presumption of a lost grant of lesser rights. In the law of prescriptive easements, it is well established that a lost grant of easements may be presumed. Lalakea v. Hawaiian Irrigation Co., 36 Haw. 692, 706 (1944), and cases cited therein. In furtherance of basic considerations of justice and equity, and by analogy with the law regarding presumed lost grants of easements, we hold that the United Churches possess equitable rights in the lots which entitle the churches to continue to use the lots for religious and educational purposes, including burial purposes, until such uses are abandoned. The State, as holder of the title, is free to use and develop the lots so long as the State does not interfere substantially with religious and educational uses by the churches. As a matter of sound administrative policy, the State presumably will in any event give full consideration to the historical and cultural values which have attached to the lots.
The case is remanded for entry of judgment recognizing title in the State but also recognizing the enjoyment of equitable rights by the United Churches.
OGATA, J., and LEONARD Y. SHINTAKU, Circuit Judge, concur.
KOBAYASHI, Justice, concurring and dissenting.
I concur with parts I and II of the opinion of the majority. However, in my opinion the legal conclusion of the majority in part III, as stated hereinafter, is not plausible, and is unsubstantiated by any probative findings of fact by the trial court or by the record or supported by any established principle of law.
The majority conclude that "the United Churches have acquired an equitable right, akin to a prescriptive easement". In my opinion, an "equitable right akin to a prescriptive easement" is a legal non-entity in property law. What is the substantive legal meaning and legal impact? The majority fail to be helpful by providing a definitive rationale and explanation. The majority further state: "Our finding is based largely on those facts which the trial court relied upon in finding adverse possession... ." Yet, the majority not only fail to state what findings of fact of the trial court are relied upon, but contradict themselves on their previous rejection of the same findings of fact and conclusions of law. In addition, the circumstances which rebut the presumption of a lost grant of title equally rebut a presumption of a lost grant of the equitable right.
I confess that my heart says: "Find some legal right on behalf of the United Churches!" But, regretfully, I conclude that the United Churches have no legal claim to the premises in question.
 Laws 1864, at 46, superseding Civil Code 1859, § 752, which in turn replaced the School Lands Act of 1850. These statutes are discussed more fully infra.
 The disputed lots in both Knudsen and Land Title were school lots as opposed to church lots, but the Knudsen court made it clear that it was addressing "the nature and validity of the titles of a large majority of the sites of schoolhouses and churches throughout this Kingdom." 8 Haw. at 62 (emphasis added).
 Knudsen, supra, explains that the clause "not owned by private parties" was "introduced for the purpose of excepting private schools, of which there are a few instances, mainly in Honolulu." 8 Haw. at 65.
 The 1850 Act by its terms applied to lots "granted either by the government, or by individuals". As explained in In re Land Title, supra, 49 Haw. at 549-50, n. 20, 425 P.2d at 90-91, the government and future land commission awardees possessed joint claims in awarded land prior to the Great Mahele of 1848. In the instant case, where the presumed grant occurred sometime prior to the 1850 Act (and thus prior to the 1852 land commission award, but not necessarily prior to the Great Mahele), it is difficult to determine whether Victoria Kamamalu, the Hawaiian government, or both, should be deemed the "original grantor" of the two church lots.
 Thus it is not dispositive that the Makalena survey described the Holualoa lot as a "School lot" (as contrasted to the description of the Kahalu'u lot as a "School and Church lot").
 The parties have not questioned the constitutionality of the extinguishment of possibilities of reverter by simple repeal of the 1864 statute. Possibilities of reverter (1) offend the policy underlying the rule against perpetuities: J. Gray, Rule Against Perpetuities, § 41 (4th ed. 1942); (2) pose a threat of automatic forfeiture contrary to the policy against forfeitures: Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Chapman, 35 N.J. 177, 171 A.2d 653 (1961); and (3) tend to clog land titles: Trustees of Schools v. Batdorf, 6 Ill. 2d 486, 130 N.E.2d 111 (1955). Most jurisdictions which have considered the issue have upheld statutes extinguishing longstanding possibilities of reverter. See, e.g., Hiddleston v. Nebraska Jewish Education Society, 186 Neb. 786, 186 N.W.2d 904 (1971); Trustees of Schools v. Batdorf, supra; Gillis v. King County, 42 Wash. 2d 373, 255 P.2d 546 (1953).
 State v. Zimring, 52 Haw. 477, 478, 479 P.2d 205, 206 (1970); Application of Kelley, 50 Haw. 567, 581, 445 P.2d 538, 547 (1968).
 See the recital of facts and the long excerpt from the trial court's opinion set out at the beginning of this opinion.
 Although there is evidence in the record tending to show that abandonment may have occurred during the past decade, the trial court's opinion, as quoted supra, indicates that any abandonment has not been voluntary but has been induced by the State's insistence on its ownership of the lots.


(c) Disqualification. A deposition must not be taken before a person who is any party's relative, employee, or attorney; who is related to or employed by any party's attorney; or who is financially interested in the action.
In effect this rule is substantially the same as U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §639 (Depositions de bene esse; when and where taken; notice). U.S.C., Title 28, [former] §642 (Depositions, acknowledgements, and affidavits taken by notaries public) does not conflict with subdivision (a).
The added language [in subdivision (a)] provides for the situation, occasionally arising, when depositions must be taken in an isolated place where there is no one readily available who has the power to administer oaths and take testimony according to the terms of the rule as originally stated. In addition, the amendment affords a more convenient method of securing depositions in the case where state lines intervene between the location of various witnesses otherwise rather closely grouped. The amendment insures that the person appointed shall have adequate power to perform his duties. It has been held that a person authorized to act in the premises, as, for example, a master, may take testimony outside the district of his appointment. Consolidated Fastener Co. v. Columbian Button & Fastener Co. (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1898) 85 Fed. 54; Mathieson Alkali Works v. Arnold, Hoffman & Co. (C.C.A.1st, 1929) 31 F.(2d) 1.
The amendment of clause (1) is designed to facilitate depositions in foreign countries by enlarging the class of persons before whom the depositions may be taken on notice. The class is no longer confined, as at present, to a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States. In a country that regards the taking of testimony by a foreign official in aid of litigation pending in a court of another country as an infringement upon its sovereignty, it will be expedient to notice depositions before officers of the country in which the examination is taken. See generally Symposium, Letters Rogatory (Grossman ed. 1956); Doyle, Taking Evidence by Deposition and Letters Rogatory and Obtaining Documents in Foreign Territory, Proc. A.B.A., Sec. Int'l & Comp. L. 37 (1959); Heilpern, Procuring Evidence Abroad, 14 Tul.L.Rev. 29 (1939); Jones, International Judicial Assistance: Procedural Chaos and a Program for Reform, 62 Yale L.J. 515, 526–29 (1953); Smit, International Aspects of Federal Civil Procedure, 61 Colum.L.Rev. 1031, 1056–58 (1961).
Clause (2) of amended subdivision (b), like the corresponding provision of subdivision (a) dealing with depositions taken in the United States, makes it clear that the appointment of a person by commission in itself confers power upon him to administer any necessary oath.
It has been held that a letter rogatory will not be issued unless the use of a notice or commission is shown to be impossible or impractical. See, e.g., United States v. Matles, 154 F.Supp. 574 (E.D.N.Y. 1957); The Edmund Fanning, 89 F.Supp. 282 (E.D.N.Y. 1950); Branyan v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij, 13 F.R.D. 425 (S.D.N.Y. 1953). See also Ali Akber Kiachif v. Philco International Corp., 10 F.R.D. 277 (S.D.N.Y. 1950). The intent of the fourth sentence of the amended subdivision is to overcome this judicial antipathy and to permit a sound choice between depositions under a letter rogatory and on notice or by commission in the light of all the circumstances. In a case in which the foreign country will compel a witness to attend or testify in aid of a letter rogatory but not in aid of a commission, a letter rogatory may be preferred on the ground that it is less expensive to execute, even if there is plainly no need for compulsive process. A letter rogatory may also be preferred when it cannot be demonstrated that a witness will be recalcitrant or when the witness states that he is willing to testify voluntarily, but the contingency exists that he will change his mind at the last moment. In the latter case, it may be advisable to issue both a commission and a letter rogatory, the latter to be executed if the former fails. The choice between a letter rogatory and a commission may be conditioned by other factors, including the nature and extent of the assistance that the foreign country will give to the execution of either.
In executing a letter rogatory the courts of other countries may be expected to follow their customary procedure for taking testimony. See United States v. Paraffin Wax, 2255 Bags, 23 F.R.D. 289 (E.D.N.Y. 1959). In many non-common-law countries the judge questions the witness, sometimes without first administering an oath, the attorneys put any supplemental questions either to the witness or through the judge, and the judge dictates a summary of the testimony, which the witness acknowledges as correct. See Jones, supra, at 530–32; Doyle, supra, at 39–41. The last sentence of the amended subdivision provides, contrary to the implications of some authority, that evidence recorded in such a fashion need not be excluded on that account. See The Mandu, 11 F.Supp. 845 (E.D.N.Y. 1935). But cf. Nelson v. United States, 17 Fed.Cas. 1340 (No. 10,116) (C.C.D.Pa. 1816); Winthrop v. Union Ins. Co., 30 Fed.Cas. 376 (No. 17901) (C.C.D.Pa. 1807). The specific reference to the lack of an oath or a verbatim transcript is intended to be illustrative. Whether or to what degree the value or weight of the evidence may be affected by the method of taking or recording the testimony is left for determination according to the circumstances of the particular case, cf. Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A.G. v. Brownell, 121 F.Supp. 420 (D.D.C. 1954); Danisch v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 19 F.R.D. 235 (S.D.N.Y. 1956); the testimony may indeed be so devoid of substance or probative value as to warrant its exclusion altogether.
Some foreign countries are hostile to allowing a deposition to be taken in their country, especially by notice or commission, or to lending assistance in the taking of a deposition. Thus compliance with the terms of amended subdivision (b) may not in all cases ensure completion of a deposition abroad. Examination of the law and policy of the particular foreign country in advance of attempting a deposition is therefore advisable. See 4 Moore's Federal Practice 28.05–28.08 (2d ed. 1950).
This revision is intended to make effective use of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, and of any similar treaties that the United States may enter into in the future which provide procedures for taking depositions abroad. The party taking the deposition is ordinarily obliged to conform to an applicable treaty or convention if an effective deposition can be taken by such internationally approved means, even though a verbatim transcript is not available or testimony cannot be taken under oath. For a discussion of the impact of such treaties upon the discovery process, and of the application of principles of comity upon discovery in countries not signatories to a convention, see SocieÿAE1teÿAE1 Nationale Industrielle AeÿAE1rospatiale v. United States District Court, 482 U.S. 522 (1987).
The term “letter of request” has been substituted in the rule for the term “letter rogatory” because it is the primary method provided by the Hague Convention. A letter rogatory is essentially a form of letter of request. There are several other minor changes that are designed merely to carry out the intent of the other alterations.
The language of Rule 28 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.


Chapter 72.33 RCW Dispositions: STATE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS — RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT, ETC.
STATE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS — RESIDENTIAL PLACEMENT, ETC.
Repealed by 1988 c 176 § 1007. See Title 71A RCW.
72.33.030 Lakeland Village, Rainier, Yakima Valley, and Fircrest Schools and Frances Haddon Morgan Children's Center established.
72.33.040 Superintendents — Qualifications — Powers and duties.
72.33.050 School educational program created and maintained for each residential and certain state schools — Scope.
72.33.060 Division of vocational rehabilitation to make services available.
72.33.070 Department of social and health services to determine capacity of residential quarters.
72.33.080 Department of social and health services to aid placement in foster homes.
72.33.090 Seal of state school — Use.
72.33.100 Superintendent as witness in judicial proceedings — Depositions — Exempt from jury service.
72.33.110 Gifts to state school — Acceptance, use, record.
72.33.120 Admission to school — Voluntary application.
Repealed by 1975 1st ex.s. c 246 § 12.
72.33.125 Services or facilities as alternative to state residential schools — Application — Determination of eligibility — Applications for alternative care — Criteria — Implementation.
72.33.130 Admission to suitable facility — Commitment by court.
72.33.140 Withdrawal of resident from school or other residential placement — Placement, discharge basis.
72.33.150 Preventing withdrawal from residential custody — Procedure.
72.33.160 Return of resident to community placement.
72.33.161 Return of resident to community — Placement — Hearing — Initial decision — Review by secretary — Judicial review — Effect of appeal on implementation of placement decision.
72.33.165 Payments for nonresidential services — Authorized — Eligibility of developmentally disabled parents for.
72.33.180 Personal property of resident — Superintendent as custodian — Limitations — Judicial proceedings to recover.
72.33.190 Contracts with United States for admission to state schools.
72.33.200 Department not responsible until person is resident of school or other state operated facility.
72.33.210 Resident to be provided with clothing — Cost.
72.33.220 Transfer of resident between schools and other residential placements.
72.33.230 Chapter does not affect parental or other rights.
72.33.240 Review of secretary's decision — Court review.
72.33.250 Chapter to be liberally construed.
Repealed by 1959 c 28 § 72.98.040. Later enactment, see RCW 72.33.900.
72.33.260 Escape of resident — Penalty for assisting.
72.33.500 Parental successor for resident of state school — Appointment authorized.
72.33.510 Parental successor for resident of state school — Who may serve.
72.33.520 Parental successor for resident of state school — Methods of appointment.
72.33.530 Parental successor for resident of state school — Evidence of appointment to be served upon superintendent.
72.33.540 Parental successor for resident of state school — Written consent.
72.33.550 Parental successor for resident of state school — Rights and privileges of parental successor.
72.33.560 Parental successor for resident of state school — Successor's whereabouts — Emergencies — Decisions concerning resident's welfare.
72.33.570 Parental successor for resident of state school — Termination of designation or appointment.
72.33.580 Parental successor for resident of state school — Successor's responsibilities and duties limited.
72.33.590 Parental successor for resident of state school — Construction — Effect on other laws.
72.33.650 Financial responsibility for costs of care, support and treatment of residents — Declaration of purpose.
Recodified as RCW 43.20B.410 pursuant to 1987 c 75 § 49.
72.33.655 Financial responsibility for costs of care, support and treatment of residents — Liability of estates of admitted persons for costs — Limitation.
Recodified as RCW 43.20B.415 pursuant to 1987 c 75 § 49.
72.33.660 Financial responsibility for costs of care, support and treatment of residents — Ascertainment of charges — Establishment of rates on per capita basis — Collection.
Recodified as RCW 43.20B.420 pursuant to 1987 c 75 § 49.
72.33.665 Financial responsibility for costs of care, support and treatment of residents — Investigation and determination of assets of estates of residents — Ability to pay — Exemptions.
Recodified as RCW 43.20B.425 pursuant to 1987 c 75 § 49.
72.33.670 Financial responsibility for costs of care, support, and treatment of residents — Notice and finding of financial responsibility — Service — Appeal — Hearing.
Recodified as RCW 43.20B.430 pursuant to 1987 c 75 § 49.
72.33.675 Financial responsibility for costs of care, support and treatment of residents — Attorney general as guardian of estate — Powers and duties.
Repealed by 1970 ex.s. c 75 § 3.
72.33.680 Financial responsibility for costs of care, support and treatment of residents — Modification or vacation of finding of financial responsibility.
Recodified as RCW 43.20B.435 pursuant to 1987 c 75 § 49.
72.33.685 Financial responsibility for costs of care, support and treatment of residents — Charges payable in advance.
Recodified as RCW 43.20B.440 pursuant to 1987 c 75 § 49.
72.33.690 Financial responsibility for costs of care, support and treatment of residents — Reimbursement from persons liable not prohibited or prevented — Placement outside institution — Death of resident, liability of estate.
Recodified as RCW 43.20B.445 pursuant to 1987 c 75 § 49.
72.33.695 Financial responsibility for costs of care, support and treatment of residents — Liabilities created apply to care, support and treatment after July 1, 1967.
Recodified as RCW 43.20B.450 pursuant to 1987 c 75 § 49.
72.33.700 Financial responsibility for costs of care, support and treatment of residents — Discretionary allowance of increased amount in resident's fund.
Recodified as RCW 43.20B.455 pursuant to 1987 c 75 § 49.
72.33.800 Agreements to pay others for care, treatment, maintenance of developmentally disabled — Authorized — Definitions.
72.33.805 Agreements to pay others for care, treatment, maintenance of developmentally disabled — Payments by department are supplemental to payments made by developmentally disabled persons — Limitation on amount.
72.33.810 Agreements to pay others for care, treatment, maintenance of developmentally disabled — Certification of facilities.
72.33.815 Agreements to pay others for care, treatment, maintenance of mentally retarded or developmentally disabled — Application by parent or guardian for payments by department — Special provision for group training homes — Investigation — Acceptance or rejection — Limitation on amount.
72.33.820 Agreements to pay others for care, maintenance and training of persons acceptable for admission to residential school — Facilities to be nonsectarian.
72.33.825 Purchase of products and services provided by group training homes and day training centers.
Decodified by the code reviser, April 1988.
72.33.830 Residents of residential schools placed in group homes — Payment of costs of care, support and training authorized.
72.33.840 Residents of residential schools placed in group homes — Payments by department are supplemental to payments from estate or other resources of resident — Direct payments authorized.
72.33.850 Residents of residential schools placed in group homes — Rules and regulations.
72.33.860 Death of resident, payment of funeral expenses — Limitation.
72.33.900 Chapter to be liberally construed.


text:
The Data Controller is Blu Hotels Spa, with headquarters in Via Enrico Fermi, 7/b - 25087 Salò Loc. Cunettone (BS) - ITALY.
The Data Controller will process your personal data and, if necessary and only in specific situations, some sensitive data (in particular, any health conditions related to the provision of the service, such as food intolerances or the presence of motor disabilities) provided by you in connection with the provision of catering and/or hotel services.
- to send you by e-mail, post and/or SMS and/or telephone, communication and/or information and promotional material on the initiatives and offers promoted by the Data Controller.
C) Only your personal data and data relating to any stays, with your prior and explicit consent, will be used for purposes of analysis and processing of your habits and preferences (profiling), so that we can send you personalised promotional information, as well as any offers from the Data Controller.
You are free to change your consent at any time (grant or withdraw), in whole or in part, by sending an email with the subject line “WITHDRAW MARKETING CONSENT” to: privacy@bluhotels.it.
The processing of your personal data is carried out by means of the operations indicated in Art. 4 No. 2) GDPR and more precisely: collection, recording, organisation, storage, consultation, processing, modification, selection, extraction, comparison, use, interconnection, blocking, communication, cancellation and destruction of data. Your personal data is processed both in paper and electronic format and/or automatically.
The Data Controller will process personal data for the time necessary to fulfil the above purposes and, in any case, for no more than 10 years from the termination of the relationship for the Service Purposes and for no more than five years from the collection of data for Marketing Purposes. The Data Controller will process sensitive data for the time necessary to fulfil the above purposes and, in any case, no later than 30 days from the end of your stay, except in special situations that determine the need to keep such data for a longer period of time (by way of example, if you are entitled to tax exemption due to disability).
- employees and collaborators of the Data Controller, in their capacity as data processors and/or persons in charge of processing and/or system administrators. All the appointed subjects will exclusively carry out processing operations, on behalf of the Data Controller and/or of the person in charge, within the limits, in the forms and according to the methods expressly indicated in the related deeds of appointment.
- to third-party companies or other subjects (by way of example, professional studios, consultants, insurance companies, service companies, etc.) that perform outsourcing activities on behalf of the Data Controller, in their capacity as external data processors.
The provision of data for the purposes referred to in Art. 2.A) is mandatory. If you do not provide your data to us, we will not be able to provide the services indicated in Art. 2.A). The provision of data for the purposes referred to in Art. 2.A), instead, is optional. You may therefore decide not to provide any data or to subsequently oppose to the processing of the data you have already provided: in this case, you will not be able to receive newsletters, commercial communications and advertising material relating to the Services offered by the Data Controller. In any case, you will continue to be entitled to the Services referred to in Art. 2.A).
With no need for your explicit consent (as per former Art. 6 par. b) and c) GDPR), the Data Controller can disclose your data for the purposes indicated in Art. 2.A) to supervisory and judicial Authorities, as well as to parties to whom such communication must be made by law for the fulfilment of such purposes. These parties will process the data in their capacity as autonomous data controllers. Moreover, the list of outsourced data controllers, which the undersigned uses, can be consulted at any time at the company’s registered office.
Your data will not be disclosed and will not be transferred to countries outside the EU or to international organisations.
As a data subject, you have the rights under Art. 15 GDPR, and precisely the rights to: request and obtain from the data controller - without “justified delay” - confirmation as to whether or not your personal data is being processed and the following information: a) the purposes of the processing; b) the categories of personal data concerned; c) the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed; d) the envisaged period for which the personal data will be stored; e) the existence of the right to request from the controller rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing of personal data concerning the data subject or to object to such processing; the data subject also has the right to obtain the updating, supplementing of data, cancellation, transformation into anonymous form or blocking of data processed in violation of the law; the data subject may, for legitimate reasons, oppose to the processing of data.
Where applicable, you also have the rights under Articles 16-21 GDPR (Right to rectification, right to erasure, right to restriction of processing, right to data portability, right to object to processing), as well as the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority.
You may exercise your rights at any time by sending an e-mail to privacy@bluhotels.it.

matches:
Art. 4
Art. 2
Art. 2
Art. 2
Art. 2
Art. 6
Art. 2
Art. 15


text:
With the following privacy information, Laminam SpA, with office in Via Ghiarola Nuova n. 258, Fiorano Modenese (MO), Italy, advises you that – pursuant to the provisions of art. 13 of European Regulation 2016/679 on the protection of personal data (“GDPR”) – your personal data will be processed through electronic and manual tools, including social networking sites, in Italy and abroad.
This information has been written on the basis of the principle of transparency and of all elements required by the GDPR and is divided into individual sections to make reading it quicker, easier and more readily comprehensible (hereinafter, the “Information”).
The Data Controller (hereinafter “Controller”) is Laminam SpA, with office in Via Ghiarola Nuova n. 258, Fiorano Modenese (MO), Italy.
The legal foundations of the processing of your personal data are the consent you have given, the fulfilment of contractual obligations and the fulfilment of legal obligations.
It will in any case always be possible to request clarification concerning the concrete legal basis of all instances of processing and in particular specification of whether the processing is based on the law, envisaged by a contract or necessary to enter into a contract.
taking part, through the site, in initiatives organised by the controller (e.g. events).
b) the collection and analysis of behaviour and habits in use of the web content and our services, including through cookies, for the purpose of carrying out market research, improving the services provided and customising them, as well as reducing the number of repetitions of advertising messages and facilitating the forwarding of information and commercial offers referred to in letter a). Your personal data will be processed for profiling purposes with both automated and non-automated tools and methods, through data processing tools that will create a commercial and web behavioural profile of you. This data processing tool correlates the data collected during your browsing on the Site through the use of profiling cookies.
The provision of your data is necessary to achieve the purposes referred to in point 1) letters a) and b).
Failure to provide the data or partial or inaccurate provision will make it impossible for Laminam SpA to provide you with the services requested.
The processing of your data for the purposes referred to in point 2) letter a) is justified by legitimate interest; in any case, with reference to these purposes, you may at any time withdraw your consent through the methods stated in point 8).
Processing your data for the purposes referred to in point 2) letter b) is optional; however, failure to provide it or partial or inaccurate provision will make it impossible for Laminam SpA to improve the services offered and personalise them through profiling activities.
Your personal data will be processed solely by persons authorised for processing and by persons appointed as Data Processors, in compliance with the GDPR regulations, in order to perform all the processing activities required to achieve the purposes detailed in this Information. The personal data may be communicated to public bodies or judicial authorities, where required by law or to prevent or suppress a crime.
The personal data will be retained for the period necessary to achieve the purposes referred to in point 3). In particular, the personal data will be processed for the minimum necessary period, that is, until the termination of the contractual relationships existing between you and the Data Controller, except in the case of an additional retention period that may be required by law. In relation to the marketing purposes referred to in letter a), the data will be retained, except in the case of withdrawal of consent, for a period of time no greater than that required for achieve the purposes. If consent is given with reference to profiling purposes, the data will be retained, except in the case of withdrawal of consent, for a period of time no greater than that required to achieve the purposes.
The data will be retained for an additional period in the event that necessities emerge concerning the management of any claims or disputes.
The data subject has the right to withdraw the consent that you have given at any time, fully and/or in part. This shall not affect the lawfulness of the Processing based on the consent given before the withdrawal.
To withdraw your consent, you need only to contact the Controller at the addresses published in this information. In the case of registration on the website, you may access your personal profile and modify the consents given.
Your personal data will be processed by the Controller within the European Union.
Should it be necessary for reasons of a technical and/or operational nature to employ parties located outside the European Union, such parties will be appointed Data Processors and the transfer of personal data to such parties, limited to the performance of specific Processing activities, will be governed in compliance with the provisions of the GDPR.
All necessary precautions will be adopted to guarantee the complete protection of personal data, basing such transfer on the assessment of appropriate safeguards including, by way of example, adequacy decisions on non-EU recipient countries expressed by the European Commission; appropriate guarantees expressed by the recipient third party in accordance with article 46 of the GDPR.
In any case, you may request further details from the Data Controller should your personal data be processed outside the European Union, requesting evidence of the specific safeguards and guarantees adopted.
• objection to processing at any time, for reasons connected to your particular situation, to the processing of personal data concerning you in full compliance with the existing privacy regulations, as well as for purposes related to marketing and profiling.
You will in any case always have the right to lodge a complaint with the competent Supervisory Authority (Italian Data Protection Authority), in accordance with art. 77 of the GDPR, should you consider that the processing of your data be contrary to the Privacy Regulations in force.
Pursuant to the provisions of art. 13 of European Regulation 2016/679 on the protection of personal data (“GDPR”), we inform you that your personal data will be processed through electronic and manual tools, in Italy and abroad. This information, written on the basis of the principle of transparency and of all elements required by the GDPR, is divided into individual sections that each deal with a specific subject to make reading it quicker, easier and more readily comprehensible (hereinafter, the “Information”).
The Data Controller is Laminam SpA, with office in Via Ghiarola Nuova n. 258, Fiorano Modenese (MO), Italy.
2. Legal basis of the processing.
The legal foundation of the processing of your personal data is the contract you have signed with Laminam SpA.
3. Categories of data processed.
The subject of the processing is common personal data (such as, merely by way of example: name, title, tax ID code, VAT no., residential address, place and date of birth, citizenship, number of ID document, telephone and fax number, e-mail address).
The provision of your data is necessary to achieve the purposes referred to in letters a) b) c) d) e) and f).
The processing of your data for the purposes referred to in letters a) b) c) d) e) and f) is justified by legitimate interest; in any case, with reference to these purposes, you may at any time withdraw your consent through the methods stated in point 8).
Your personal data may become known to expressly authorised data processing staff pursuant to art. 29 of the GDPR, as well as third parties expressly appointed Data Processors pursuant to art. 28 of the GDPR for requirements strictly connected to the performance of the contract or fulfilment of legal obligations.
6. Period of data retention.
The personal data collected will be processed by the Data Controller for the time strictly necessary to achieve the purposes referred to in point 4).
In particular, the data will be processed for the minimum necessary period, that is, until the termination of the existing contractual relationships, except in the case of an additional retention period that may be dictated by legal obligations.
With reference to the commercial purposes of the processing, the data will be retained until consent is expressly withdrawn.
8. Rights of the data subject.
objection to processing at any time, for reasons connected to a particular situation and/or to the processing of personal data concerning you in full compliance with the existing Privacy Regulations, as well as for any commercial purposes.
supervisory Authority (Italian Data Protection Authority), in accordance with art. 77 of the GDPR.

matches:
art. 13
art. 77
art. 13
art. 29
art. 28
art. 77