Production still from the Art in the Twenty-First Century Season 3 episode, Power, 2003. Segment: Ida Applebroog. © Art21, Inc. 2005.
Artist Ida Applebroog discusses her Photogenetics series—works created through a combination of photography, sculpture, painting, and digital editing.
ART21: Describe the steps of your process for these new pieces.
APPLEBROOG: The photographs actually start off making art out of children’s modeling clay. When I say art, I mean just doing some very primitive-feeling sculptures. And that’s just the beginning. It’s like making art out of art and continuing the process all the way through. For the first time, technology is at my service when I go from working with the material to the next step and the next.
These little pieces seem so ordinary and like nothing. If I place them on my stage, these little mounds of clay become monumental. You photograph them any way you like, zoom in on any part of the body, and they become something totally different. I take each one, and they’re very small. I set them up as though I’m posing them, the way a photographer would. Whatever else goes on has to do with the camera because they have to be posed in such a way that they do something, say something. They’re able to express the next few steps, and I never know what they are. The best part is that I really never know what these things are going to morph into. The good part about working with the camera is that you have no sense of what the camera’s going to give you until you see your contact sheets.
Right now, these are all proofs. I’m just working with them, and I haven’t really made any decisions as to which ones I’m going to take all the way. This one is one of those little figures. I decided to put some hair on her and give her some features. And then, of course, there’s always the change in hairstyle.
ART21: Did you do that in the computer?
APPLEBROOG: You become a hairdresser, a stylist, a photographer; it doesn’t matter. The art really makes itself: art creating art with the use of technology, as I’ve never used technology before, except to turn on a light or a radio or a TV.
ART21: Do you do the photography yourself?
APPLEBROOG: [My assistant] Rita and I do the photography. And it’s wonderful because it’s this very simple kind of modeling material, but this is what happens.
I’ll start with these little sculptures. The part that is most important is that I have the single figure I will pose and place in front of the black curtain. Everything else has to happen with the camera at that point, in terms of how many ways you can pose it, whether you’re putting it at a slant, the lighting, or anything else that would make it different. By the time I got my contact sheets back, this is the one that I ended up using, but I have an awful lot to pick from.
This happens to be the face that I finally chose, putting on hair. I have my own hair; I have lots and lots of files of hair and mouths and eyes. I don’t use noses at all. I also have lots of samples of hair that I use, wigs and different things, so I can make my own hairdos. It’s not so much the color of the hair, but what I want the hair to say. Every time you change something, the significance changes, and the kind of portrait that I’m doing changes.
ART21: Where do you collect the images from?
APPLEBROOG: Fashion magazines, they give the best images of all kinds of hair and hairdos. And then, for the most part, it’s—whatever. I’ve been an image scavenger for so many years; there is no magazine that I don’t go through and pick away. The doctor’s office and the dentist’s office would be terrified of me because I’d screw up all their magazines. I’m always tearing out pages from them.
This is the one that’s been selected. This figure is actually the only male figure I have. At one time, I was making clothes for them. This is a loincloth, and I just sort of tried changing the color a bit. This is what came out and it was kind of interesting, but I didn’t really want the body.
ART21: Why didn’t you want to use the body?
APPLEBROOG: At that moment, the head was much more interesting. If I feel that something is more interesting, I’ll go for that. It’s almost like the skeletal structure of what will come about. When I start out with something at the very beginning, I can just take that and just go with it any way I like. I choose to eliminate the head or have them pose differently; that takes place and makes it an entirely different artwork.
ART21: You’ve learned how to do this kind of manipulation?
APPLEBROOG: When I first started this, I knew nothing about a computer. I didn’t know how to turn it on. So, I went to Apple, and I sat through their workshops. And during that period I met Rita McDonald, who works with me. Apple workshops gave me this much knowledge; Rita gave me this much knowledge. So, I learned an awful lot.
ART21: Have you decided to move on from the computer part alone?
APPLEBROOG: I’ve started, yes. Right now I’m trying to figure out what kind of paper to use. For many years I’ve used gampi, and I treat the gampi in such a way that it looks like skin. I could put them on traditional paper and do them a very traditional way with little borders, but I don’t think I’m going to. I have a very large printer, so I can do them large scale, and they change drastically [at] large scale. I can work them in the way I’ve always worked: fragmentations. The parts will be able to be put together and make it one piece. You know, putting pieces together, which pull together the narrative.
ART21: How will the pieces be shown?
APPLEBROOG: I will be doing some editions, some small editions. But for the most part they will be single unique pieces. With the sculptures, I will be doing editions, but not in the traditional way. I’ve just started on scaling up the sculptures and using some kind of material that will be a bit more quirky than the usual expectation of what sculptures look like. And they will be quite large.
ART21: What part of the process are at you at, now?
APPLEBROOG: Someone once said this (I don’t remember who): “The nice part about making art is that it has to be either too much or not enough.” And right now, I’m not at the “not enough” stage anymore. I’m at the “too much” point, and it’s feeling very good.
ART21: What about making this work feels new?
APPLEBROOG: The only thing that’s new is the computer. I shouldn’t say that. You know the act of painting in the studio, by yourself? I remember everyone would say, “Doesn’t it get lonely being by yourself? Don’t you miss having people around?” And I’d say, “I would die if I had to have anybody in the studio while I was working.” That’s changed drastically. I used to wonder how other artists have an entire atelier of assistants and all kinds of people coming in and out. That was something that was just completely outside of anything that I could imagine. And here I am with people in my studio while I work, and I like it a lot!
APPLEBROOG: Well, it’s the people. If I had anybody that was obnoxious or annoying, I’d have to hang myself.
ART21: But your practice remains as it was the past?
APPLEBROOG: Well, I’m using technology, if that’s any different. I don’t feel that’s different from doing painting or sculpting or drawing or anything else. It’s just another way of making art.
ART21: Who are the artists who are important to you?
APPLEBROOG: Well, it’s a range of people, from Beckett to Käthe Kollwitz to Otto Dix. There is a long, long list, including some old time actresses, which as far as I’m concerned were as influential as anyone else out there: Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Crawford, Ida Lupino. The idea of these very strong women—they were my first models of what a woman could do, so they were very important for me.
ART21: Why are they so fascinating to you?
APPLEBROOG: I would go to the movies every Sunday afternoon, sit through four features until it was night and they would drag me out. They were the women stars in those days. And what did I know? Did I say while I was sitting in the theater, “Oh, what a great model, she’s a feminist!” No, I just knew that was a really strong lady, she could really do this and this, or she could holler at that person and get away with it. It was only in later years that I put two and two together and figured out, “Yeah, they were very strong women,” and it probably served as a fantastic model.
ART21: Talk about the filmic quality of these pieces.
APPLEBROOG: They’re very cinematic. They always have been. When I’m doing these pieces, a lot of it has to do with creating my own characters, creating my own narratives. They never have a beginning, an end, a middle, but they are people. They are characters that have a life, and everyone can interpret that particular character very differently. In this way, I’ll never say, “This is supposed to be a long skinny lady who’s been unhappy.” And you know someone will look at it and say, “I can’t stand looking at that; it makes me very uncomfortable.” Well, that’s good, too.
ART21: Where do these characters come from?
APPLEBROOG: I’m just interested in narratives. Everyone has a way of remembering storytelling when they were very young and piecing it together in their own way. And I guess mine started out in terms of the actual sending out of books. Those images told a story without really saying very much. And from there, it was like a snowball that gains momentum. You have this one idea and this one concept—it’s what you do the first time. And even though it might feel like a one-liner, how much can you push it and explore it the next time?


text:
Their ”mission is to educate the public about the history of copyright, and to promote methods of distribution that do not depend on restricting people from making copies”. They say they want copyright reform, but ”if abolition is that better policy, then so be it”.
At the Question Copyright site, authorship of the various articles is not quite clear. I get the impression that Karl Fogel has written most of the texts but there is also a FAQ submitted by ”admin”.
The first copyright law was a censorship law. It had nothing to do with protecting the rights of authors, or encouraging them to produce new works. Authors’ rights were in no danger in sixteenth-century England, and the recent arrival of the printing press (the world’s first copying machine) was if anything energizing to writers.
What he refers to is when the Stationers’ Company in 1557 (not 1556 as is stated on the FAQ page) was granted the monopoly of printing in England and in return let themselves be used as an instrument for censorship. But this was not a copyright law and definitely not the first, not even in the old sense, that is, a guild member’s license to print copies of a certain work, sometimes referred to as a print patent. Such copyright had existed since the rise of printing, although the word was not used. The word copyright was probably not used until 1701 (in an entry in the Stationers’ Registry), at least not in writing or in print. And censorship had, of course, also existed earlier. (Even in France there was a printers’ droit de copie long before the droit d’auteur.) What happened in 1557 was that the Stationers’ Company was ”incorporated” with the royal prerogative.
Fogel’s idea is that the statutory copyright of 1710 was a direct continuation of the ideas that granted the monopoly of the Stationers’ Company. But this is not correct. Censorship ended in 1695 when the Licensing Act was abolished. The Act of 1710 granted copyright to authors or their assignees. So it is definitely an authors’ right, although it is true that authors (as today) seldom published their books themselves but were dependent upon booksellers and printers.
It would also be wrong to say that the act was a distributors’ law and not an authors’ law. The famous ”Battle of the booksellers” that took place approx. 1740-1774 is a well known series of court cases, but there were also authors who sued booksellers and others, using their new right, for instance Burnet v. Chetwood 1720, Gay v. Read 1729, Pope v. Curll 1741 (Pope also went to court four more times), Webb v. Rose 1732 (the son of an author) and Forrester v. Waller 1741.
It is true, however, that the Statute of Anne was not the result of a widespread concern for the wellbeing of authors. After censorship was abolished, the Stationers wanted to save what they could of their old privileges, so they strongly advocated the right for authors, hoping that they would assign the rights to the printers/sellers for ever, as the old common law rules allowed. In Parliament there were several members who wanted an antimonopoly law for the book trade, and they also favored the Lockean idea to encourage learning.
There were also some authors who published pamphlets supporting this, Defoe among others. He said that ”‘Twould be unaccountably severe, to make a Man answerable for the Miscarriages of a thing which he shall not reap the benefit of if well perform’d …” The booksellers’ hopes for a perpetual copyright practically came to naught as we know. 14 years at a time was all they got.
On the FAQ page, apart from the already covered question concerning the origins of copyright legislation, the web site’s ”admin” also addresses a few other topics.
That depends on whether you mean hobby musicians, writers, and artists or people who more or less work full time. It is true, of course, that many artists, musicians and writers before their careers take off, drive taxis or work in hospitals at the same time as they develop their artistic skills and try to find an audience. Avantgarde artists may not be able to support themselves on their art even after they have become well-known. This is typical for several branches, however. You could have a small firm for manufacturing some kind of kitchen gadget, for example, that also has a pretty modest commercial impact. This, however, seldom makes people say that since your income is so low, you might as well earn nothing. I think it is appropriate, that the person who does the work, also should reap the fruits of his or her efforts, even if it sometimes is ”beer money”, as it is said on the FAQ page.
Well, if copyright legislation is successful in preventing plagiarism is of course another matter – but the fact is that plagiarism constitutes copyright infringement if it is not mere ideas or facts which are taken, but considerable amounts of the exact expression of a work – and if it is published, not just used in a limited classroom environment. That the FAQ also extenuates the use of plagiarism as a method is serious. The educational system today has immense problems with students who don’t learn and write themselves, but copy other people’s texts from the web. One could argue about which is most severe, the infringement or the fact that many students copy things they don’t understand, and never will learn. I would say the latter is the bigger problem.
Then the FAQ writer launches the notorious question about whether immaterial works can be stolen or not: ”If I steal your bicycle, now you have no bicycle. If I copy your song, now we both have it.” Of course, immaterial assets can be stolen. If you steal money, you don’t steal a few scraps of paper or pieces of metal – you steal symbols of value. Money we may not copy; only the national bank has that right. When it comes to cultural goods, those who oppose copyright always try to make the point that when you steal or take away a digital copy, for instance, nothing has been lost. But what is taken away in such a case is not the work itself but a piece of its market. What is also taken away is the creator’s control. The artist may not wish to appear with his/her work in a certain context. Maybe a song writer doesn’t want his/her work to appear in, for example, a TV commercial or in a movie advocating neo-nazism.
”Would creativity dry up without copyright?”, the FAQ asks next and says that ”the world before modern copyright was hardly a barren cultural desert: Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, J.S. Bach, Li Bo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo…” But most great pre-copyright artists were supported by patrons, if they were not rich and financially independent themselves. When copyright came it gave opportunity to many writers and artists to exploit their own talent and earn a living from their own work. Note that for quite some time, writing for money was out of the question for a gentle or nobleman. That is why even early remuneration for writing was called honorarium, a honorary payment.
Several Swedish writers – to name a few examples from my own country – could earn a living on their writings when the first Swedish copyright law (1810) had come into force. Thus, writers such as Magnus Jacob Crusenstolpe, Karl August Nicander, and C.J.L. Almquist found a market for their writings in the 1830’s. Copyright together with an emerging public sphere, to a large extent formed by the liberal press, was the basis also for several women writers to succeed: Emilie Flygare-Carlén and Fredrika Bremer, for instance. Flygare-Carlén even managed to tenfold her income between the 1830’s and 1840’s.
The FAQ concludes by saying that the best solution would be to abolish copyright altogether. I agree with many of the copyright critics, that there are several problems with copyright today – for instance is there urgent need to defend the public domain, urgent need to uphold the right to quote, the right to copy for private use, etc.
I am quite sure though, that if we abolished copyright law, we would rather soon have to reinvent it – or at least something very similar to copyright. The information age needs instruments that may ensure cultural ”content providers” that it is possible to embark on big cultural projects, with large personal and financial investments, that will pay off to those who did the work. The information age also needs instruments to secure the integrity of works. Today, when copying is done so easily, it is more important than ever to make sure that the information copied is correct and that it has not been tampered with. Handing down corrupt information to future generations will not further knowledge, but quite the opposite. Copyright is a great help for both these purposes.
1) Patterson certainly has merits, but even he is not always to trust. For instance, he says that the famous court case of Donaldson v. Becket, where the Statute of Anne’s status in relation to earlier common law was finally settled, ”carefully avoided the use of the term copy or copyright” (Copyright in Historical Perspective, 1968, p 16.). But this is not true. In the court proceedings, copy is mentioned eight times (as a noun), and copyright twelve times (footnote text not counted).

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


text:
The National Conference of Personal Managers (NCOPM) lost the first round of its fight against the constitutionality of the California Talent Agencies Act (TAA), California Labor Code Section 1700 et seq., on March 5, when U.S. District Court Judge Dean Pregerson granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the TAA. NCOPM v. Edmund G. Brown, No. CV 12- 09620 (C.D. Cal.). So where does this leave the current regulation of talent agents and personal managers?
The state Legislature has grappled with the procurement of employment in the entertainment industry for decades. The ongoing regulatory tension comes from the attempt to simultaneously govern personal managers and talent agents – professions which overlap. Managers often have no choice but to seek employment for clients who are unable to get licensed agents.
The enactment of the TAA in 1978 established the current regulatory framework. The growing concern was the attempt to bifurcate the roles and regulation of “personal managers” and “talent agents.” The TAA aimed to clarify this distinction by redefining “artists’ managers” as “talent agents.” According to the TAA, talent agents are individuals engaged in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising or attempting to procure employment for an artist. Personal managers, in theory, act strictly as coordinators and advisors for an artist’s career opportunities. The TAA establishes that no person can act as a “talent agent” without first obtaining a license from the labor commissioner.
Managers often have no choice but to seek employment for clients who are unable to get licensed agents.
Until 2008, the vast majority of claims resulted in management contracts being voided ab initio and all earned commissions being forfeited or, if previously paid, ordered disgorged. That year, the state Supreme Court decided Marathon Entertainment v. Blasi, 42 Cal. 4th 974 (2008), which held that while fully voiding the parties’ contract is an available remedy, the labor commissioner has discretion to apply the doctrine of severability to enforce the remaining lawful portions of management agreements.
Following Blasi, the labor commissioner began applying severability and awarding managers a portion of their earned commissions. For example, in Dwight Yoakam v. The Fitzgerald Hartley Co., No. TAC-8774 (2010), the commissioner chose not to void ab initio oral contracts between Dwight Yoakam and Gary Ebbins, a former personal assistant turned “in-house” manager, and between Yoakam and The Fitzgerald Hartley Co. (FHC), Yoakam’s music management firm. The commissioner instead severed the various unauthorized procurement provisions. FHC had repeatedly violated the TAA by negotiating for certain services that did not fall within the act’s recording contract exemption for music managers, but the commissioner was persuaded to apply the severability because the William Morris Agency performed many of the licensed agent activities. This demonstrated the collateral nature of the procurement activities in a personal manager agreement, thus warranting severability.
Despite the increasing use of severability, however, the commissioner still voids management contracts ab initio when the evidence demonstrates that the “central purpose” of the contract is to unlawfully procure engagements.
For instance, in Kyle Bluff v. Paris Djon, No. TAC-17277 (2011), the commissioner voided a music management agreement in its entirety and ordered the management company to disgorge all of the earned and previously paid commissions. Similarly, in Duane Chapman v. Boris Krutonog, No. TAC-3351 (2012), Duane “Dog” Chapman was awarded $534,450 in a claim against Boris Krutonog, an executive producer on the series “Dog the Bounty Hunter.” The commissioner determined that Krutonog’s actions to recover producer’s fees on the series were in fact a veiled attempt to recover compensation for managing the Chapmans.
Of course, the TAA provides personal managers with a safe harbor when they “act in conjunction with and at the request of a licensed talent agency in the negotiation of an employment contract.” In Tony Plana v. Tracy Quinn, No. TAC-15652 (2012), Tracy Quinn, Tony Plana’s talent manager, had agreed with Plana’s talent agent that she would reach out to a casting talent executive for the TV show “Ugly Betty.” The commissioner cited the historical tendency to treat acts completed in furtherance of securing employment as part of “the negotiation,” and held that Tracy Quinn was entitled to the safe harbor. Deciding not to void the management agreement in its entirety, the commissioner held that Quinn’s additional unlawful procurement activities were entitled to severance.
Conversely, in Josh Todd v. Todd A. Meagher, No. TAC-13418 (2012), the commissioner held the TAA did not provide Todd Meagher, rocker Josh Todd’s personal manager, with safe harbor protection where he agreed with Todd’s talent agent that they “should work every angle” together. The commissioner ultimately held that Meagher’s entire management agreement was illegal, void and unenforceable. Likewise, in Brian Transeau v. 3 Artist Management, No. TAC-7306 (2009), the commissioner held that 3 Artist Management was not entitled to safe harbor protection when the evidence demonstrated that manager’s practice was “to solicit, procure, negotiate and then pass off the contract to a licensed talent agent” to finish the deal. Simply having a licensed talent agent finalize the deal is not sufficient to warrant safe harbor protection.
This history leads us to the TAA‘s most recent court challenge. In November 2012, the NCOPM filed a constitutional challenge against the TAA on the grounds that it unfairly singles out personal managers without due process, is unconstitutionally vague for failing to define “procure employment,” violates the First Amendment by restricting commercial speech, violates the Commerce Clause by discriminating against out-of state personal managers, and violates the 13th Amendment – resulting in involuntary servitude – because personal managers are not properly compensated for labor, and violates the Contracts Clause.
Judge Pregerson dismissed each NCOPM argument, stressing that California courts have interpreted the phrase “procure employment” on multiple occasions and determined that it is not vague. The court found no merit in the First Amendment challenge, noting that the TAA regulates conduct, not speech, nor was the court persuaded by the Commerce Clause challenge, as there was no proof that the managers were ever refused licenses because they were located outside of California. The 13th Amendment challenge was found wanting because personal managers have full discretion to refrain from procuring employment for their clients or to obtain a license to do so. Finally, the court ruled that the Contract Clause is only relevant when a law is enacted after the formation of a contract, which did not occur in this case. The NCOPM has appealed this decision.
Since Blasi was decided, the commissioner has heard 39 TAA disputes. Managers have found themselves on the losing end of all 15 cases that directly addressed unlicensed procurement activities. Of these, 11 have resulted in the management contracts being voided ab initio, while only four have been held to be severable.
Severability is far from a guarantee. The most comprehensive protection for personal managers against voided management contracts is to engage talent agents at the earliest feasible stage, something often very difficult to do. Due to the consistently adverse rulings by the labor commissioner, which so often result in voided contracts and disgorged commissions, personal managers should seriously consider and probably negotiate mandatory arbitration clauses in their management agreements to present their cases in forums that are more favorable to their position. Managers should weigh the cost of a labor commissioner hearing and a superior court trial and attendant appeals against the cost and speed of arbitration. Until the Legislature modifies the law relating to procurement in the entertainment industry – unlikely given the politics involved – personal managers must continue to tread lightly.
Neville L. Johnson is a founding partner specializing in entertainment litigation at Johnson & Johnson LLP.
Eric Mueller is a 3L at UCLA and editor-in-chief of the UCLA Entertainment Law Review.

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


text:
Non-toxic nanomaterials have gained significant importance recently in the treatment of industrial wastewater that sometimes contains organic dyes such as methylene blue. We report here an easy approach for the synthesis of γ-alumina (Al2O3) nanoparticles via a method that incorporates the use of formamide and the non-ionic surfactant Tween-80. Together, formamide and Tween-80 serve as an effective precipitating agent and a convenient synthetic template, respectively, in directing the growth of the alumina nanoparticles. The morphology and structure of the nanoparticles were investigated by FT-IR, XRD, TGA, SEM, EDX, elemental mapping and TEM methods. The sizes of the nanoparticles are in the 30–50 nm range. The maximum pore size is 4.13 nm and the surface area is 112.9 m2 g−1 as determined by the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) method. The nanomaterials are excellent adsorbents for the cationic methylene blue dye from aqueous solution. The effects of pH, time, temperature and concentration on the adsorption have been examined and the adsorption capacity increased from 490 to 2210 mg g−1 as the initial concentration was increased from 50 to 400 mg L−1 under the following conditions: pH 9, 10 min reaction time, and 60 °C. The adsorption mechanism is considered to encompass electrostatic interactions in water between the Al2O3 nanoparticles and the cationic methylene blue dye. These readily made nanoparticles may well prove useful in both wastewater treatment and industrial catalysis.
Organic dyes are cost-effective materials with many industrial uses, for example, in coatings, paper making, leather tanning, plastics, food, detergents, textiles and agriculture.1,2 Owing to their widespread use, however, they now pose a serious environmental problem throughout the world.3 The safe disposal of organic dyes is a crucial issue as they contaminate not only surface water but also underground water reservoirs.4,5 Prior treatment of industrial wastewaters is an important concern that must be addressed before they can be safely discharged from industrial sites. Several physical, chemical and biological methods have been developed recently for the destruction, removal and shipment of organic dyes prior to their release in wastewaters.6–10 These methods include adsorption, absorption, membrane separation, flocculation and coagulation, as well as electrochemical and catalysis approaches.11–13 Despite these developments, the complete removal of organic dyes from the environment is still a challenge owing to possible by-product formation.14–17 Consequently, the design of an easy, inexpensive and green method of removal of organic dyes from wastewater is an important research area.
We have recently described some new cross-linked hybrid materials, based on ferrocene and cyclotriphosphazene, that have excellent electrochemical and fluorescence properties. These materials have been shown to be excellent adsorbents for the removal of MB, when used together with Tween-80 to produce CuO nanostructures.35,36 This dye is toxic if swallowed or when it comes into direct contact with skin. It can also cause damage to various human organs, e.g., eyes, and the central nervous system.37. γ-Alumina (Al2O3) materials have been the subject of significant research, but they have been less studied for the removal of toxic organic dyes. We report here the facile synthesis of these nanoparticles with the help of formamide and Tween-80. These nanoparticles may possibly exhibit quantum confinement effects.37 In addition, the possibility of using these particles for the adsorption of the hazardous MB dye from aqueous solutions was examined and the results are described here.
AlCl3·6H2O, HCl and NaOH, liquid ammonia, methylene blue and highest purity ethanol (98%) were obtained from Beijing Chemical Works.
Fourier transform infrared spectra (30 co-added scans) were obtained using a Bruker Vertex 70 FT-IR spectrometer. The ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) absorbance spectra were recorded on a Lambda 950 UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Perkin-Elmer, Inc., USA). Thermogravimetric analyses (TGA) were conducted on a Netzsch STA 449C system with a heating rate of 20 °C min−1 in a nitrogen atmosphere. The surface morphologies of the products were examined on a JOEL JSM-6701F field emission scanning electron microscope (SEM) at an accelerating voltage of 20 kV after the samples had been coated with ∼5 nm of a palladium–gold alloy. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images were obtained on a JEOL JEM-100CX microscope from samples obtained by adding a few drops of ethanol into the sample tubes prior to ultra-sonication and then placing a drop of this mixture onto copper grids coated with carbon. The pore sizes of the samples were determined from the nitrogen adsorption–desorption isotherms obtained at 77 K on a Micrometrics ASAP 2460 system using the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) method. X-ray powder diffraction analyses were performed on a D8 Advance Bruker system using CuKα (=0.15406 nm, 2θ = 5–90°) radiation. Finally, a Hitachi EDX elemental microanalysis and mapping system and a JEOL-3010 instrument were used to obtain the elemental compositions.
The γ-alumina nanoparticles were synthesized via a precipitation method in water. 0.4 M AlCl3·6H2O was dissolved in 120 mL of deionized water and 4 mL of Tween-80 was added to this solution. After 1 h, a 50% aqueous solution of formamide, as the precipitation agent, was added dropwise to the mixture with continuous ultrasonication (150 W and 40 kHz) at 60 °C for 3 h. A gelatinous white precipitate was produced indicating the formation of Al(OH)3. This precipitate was filtered off and washed with ethanol and water several times. After drying, the resulting white gel was calcined in a muffle furnace at 550 °C for 5 h in the presence of air at a heating rate of 5 °C min−1, thus transforming the Al(OH)3 into Al2O3 nanoparticles.
The adsorption capacity of the nanoparticles was tested with methylene blue dye (MB). Ten milligrams of the nanoparticles were dispersed in 100 mL of 50–400 mg L−1 MB aqueous solution. The mixture was stirred magnetically to ensure that the particles were fully suspended and that the surfaces of nanoparticles were saturated with the dye. A 10 mL sample was withdrawn every 30 min and filtered. The UV-vis absorbances of these MB solutions at λmax = 666 nm were measured every 2 min (ref. 35) from which the adsorption capacity could be calculated. A control mixture with no nanoparticles present was also monitored. The equilibrium adsorption amount (Qe) of the PCPF nanoparticles for MB dye was calculated using the following equation (eqn (1)).
where C0 and Ce (mg L−1) are the initial and equilibrium concentrations of the dye solution, respectively, ν is the volume of the dye solution and m is the weight of nanoparticles.
In aqueous solution, Tween-80 disperses in the form of spherical, core–shell micellar structures in which the core is made up from hydrophobic C–C chains and the shell consists of polar –OH groups.38 The formation of the alumina nanoparticles proceeds inside the cores of the small micelles of Tween-80 in two steps. The first step is nucleation and the second is the growth of the nanoparticles. Formamide (HCONH2) plays an important role in the formation of the nanoparticles as it decomposes into NH4+ and OH− ions in water. The OH− ions react with Al3+ ions to form Al(OH)3 and precipitation occurs once the pH value of the solution reaches the level necessary for precipitation. This process is referred to as homogeneous precipitation.39,40 Subsequently, calcination of the Al(OH)3 in an inert atmosphere leads to the formation of the alumina nanoparticles (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 Synthesis scheme for the formation of alumina nanoparticles.
The functional groups of nanoparticles were examined by FT-IR spectroscopy [Fig. 2(A)]. The prominent peak at 3410 cm−1 is associated with the OH stretching vibrations of the Al–OH moieties. Moreover, Tween-80 introduces three additional –OH groups onto the surface of the synthesized nanoparticles and these groups may play an important role in the surface stabilization of these nanostructures. The peaks in the 400–1000 cm−1 range confirmed the formation of the γ-phase of alumina. The peaks at 880, 795 and 630 cm−1 are attributed to the asymmetric stretching, symmetric stretching and bending vibrations of the Al–O–Al bonds, respectively.41 The peak at 680 cm−1 confirmed the octahedral arrangement of Al3+.39 The other peaks in the region may be due to an impurity from Tween-80 and formamide. Fig. 2(B) shows the XRD pattern of the nanoparticles, which establishes their amorphous nature. There are four reflections at 2θ = 25.5, 47.3, 57.1 and 67.4 with their corresponding reflection planes of 220, 311, 400 and 440, respectively,42 which indicate the formation of the nanoparticles. The thermal behavior of the nanoparticles was examined by TG analysis throughout the 30–800 °C temperature range under a flow of nitrogen (Fig. 3). There is 4–6% weight loss at around 410 °C, which is the thermal degradation temperature (Td) indicating the existence of strong interactions within the alumina structure. The total weight loss is only 23% when the temperature reaches 800 °C establishing the superior thermal stability of the nanoparticles, a crucial property for any future industrial applications, such as high-temperature catalysis and the production of biomaterials.
Fig. 2 FT-IR (A) and XRD (B) analyses of the nanoparticles.
Fig. 3 TGA curve of the nanoparticles.
The morphology of the nanoparticles was examined by SEM and TEM analyses (Fig. 4 and 5). Without the addition of Tween-80 and formamide, aggregation of the particles occurred. Clearly, Tween-80 and formamide play important roles in controlling the size and uniform shape of the particles. The particle size distribution was also investigated through SEM analysis and most of the particles are in the 30–50 nm range. The size distribution also confirmed that most of the nanoparticles are almost uniform in size and have definite proportions. In addition, EDX mapping of the elements (Fig. 6) shows that the nanoparticles are mainly composed of Al and O atoms, while the existence of the C peaks may be due to a small amount of impurity.
Fig. 4 SEM images of the nanoparticles: (A) in the presence of Tween-80 and formamide, (B) in the absence of Tween-80 and (C) in the absence of formamide. The inset in (A) illustrates the size distribution of the nanoparticles.
Fig. 5 TEM images of the nanoparticles (A) in the presence of Tween-80 and formamide, (B) in the absence of Tween-80 and (C) in the absence of formamide.
Fig. 6 EDX elemental mapping (A) and EDX (B) spectra of the nanoparticles.
Fig. 7 shows the N2 adsorption–desorption curve of the nanoparticles. Before testing, the particles were degassed at 100 °C under vacuum for 12 h. The BET specific surface area of the nanoparticles is 16.00 m2 g−1 and the maximum pore size is about 4.13 nm, as shown in Fig. 7 (inset). This specific surface area results from the porous structure of the nanoparticles. Such a structure is favorable for adsorption applications.
Fig. 7 Nitrogen adsorption–desorption isotherms and pore size distribution of the nanoparticles.
Fig. 8 Effect of pH (2.0–12.0) on the adsorption of MB (1.0 g L−1) on γ-alumina nanoparticles at 30 °C.
Fig. 9 Schematic of the chemistry of the adsorption of MB (100 ppm) by γ-alumina nanoparticles under different pH conditions.
The 666 nm absorption peak of MB in the visible spectrum of an aqueous solution of MB was measured with different pH values at different time intervals (2–10 min) in the presence of 10 mg of the nanoparticles. This peak decreased rapidly [Fig. 10(A)] owing to the removal of MB from solution by adsorption on the nanoparticles. At the initial period of 10 min, the adsorption capacity rapidly increased while it became stable after 10 min. The adsorption capacity reached a value of 1000 mg g−1 within 10 min while it became almost constant in the next 10 min (Fig. 10(B)), while the peak was less decreased at pH 7.0 as compared to pH 9.0 as illustrated in Fig. 10(C) and the adsorption capacity for it was 808 mg g−1 as shown in Fig. 10(D).
Fig. 10 Effect of contact time of 100 ppm of MB on 10 mg of the γ-alumina nanoparticles at pH 9.0 (A) and pH 7.0 (C), and their adsorption capacities (B) and (D), respectively. The inset is the linear correlation between ln[At/A0] and time for the degradation of MB.
The effect of temperature (30, 40, 50 and 60 °C) was investigated with respect to time (5–20 min) and concentration of MB (50, 100, 150, 200, 300, and 400 ppm) at a pH of 9.0 as illustrated in Fig. 11(A and B). Increasing the temperature increases the adsorption capacity, which went from 868 to 1000 mg g−1. When the initial concentration of MB was 50 ppm, the adsorption capacities were 422, 431, 481 and 490 mg g−1 and when the initial concentration reached 400 ppm, the adsorption capacities increased to 1812, 2061, 2164 and 2210 mg g−1 at 30, 40, 50 and 60 °C, respectively. Thus, the increase of adsorption capacity is fast at relatively high concentrations and temperatures within 10 min. This high adsorption is considered to be due to strong interaction of MB with the active sites of the nanoparticles. The active sites on the γ-alumina nanoparticles have a large surface area and good porosity, two properties that favor adsorption of the planar MB molecule owing to its aromatic backbone and cationic structure under basic conditions.
Fig. 11 Adsorption capacities at certain temperatures (30, 40, 50 and 60 °C): 100 ppm (A), and 50, 100, 150, 200, 300, and 400 ppm (B) of MB on 10 mg of the γ-alumina nanoparticles within 10 min at pH 9.0.
The adsorption efficiencies of the recycled γ-alumina nanoparticles were also studied. The recycled nanoparticles were recovered from the original suspensions by centrifugation (4000 rpm for 30 min). Adsorption by the nanoparticles proved to be only minimally affected, even after three cycles (Fig. 12).
Fig. 12 Catalytic activity of MB in the presence of recycled nanoparticles under the same conditions.
γ-Alumina nanoparticles (30–50 nm) have been prepared and characterized; these nanoparticles are active for the adsorption of methylene blue (MB) dye from water. The excellent adsorption properties of these materials under basic conditions (especially at pH 9.0), even upon recycling several times, are considered to result from the electrostatic interactions between the surfaces of the nanoparticles and the cationic dye. The adsorption capacity reached a value of 1000 mg g−1 within 10 min. Increasing the temperature from 30 to 60 °C significantly affected the adsorption capacity, which went from 868 to 1000 mg g−1. From the results of this study, it appears that γ-alumina nanoparticles will be excellent adsorbent materials for the removal of MB, an environmentally dangerous material, from industrial wastewater in the future.
This research work was supported by Tsinghua University, China and McGill University, Canada.
M. Madkour and F. Al Sagheer, Opt. Mater. Express, 2017, 7, 158–169 CrossRef CAS.
R. Nivedhitha and S. Velmurugan, Int. J. Chem. Pharm. Sci., 2015, 6, 18–21 CAS.
M. Hao, D. Fa, L. Qian and Y. Miao, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol., 2018, 18, 4788–4797 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
N. R. Rane, V. V. Chandanshive, R. V. Khandare, A. R. Gholave, S. R. Yadav and S. P. Govindwar, RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 36623–36632 RSC.
Y. Wu, L. Chen, X. Long, X. Zhang, B. Pan and J. Qian, J. Hazard. Mater., 2018, 347, 160–167 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
J. Wang, Q. Zhang, X. Shao, J. Ma and G. Tian, Chemosphere, 2018, 207, 377–384 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
J. Tian, P. Tian, G. Ning, H. Pang, Q. Song, H. Cheng and H. Fang, RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 5123–5130 RSC.
R. Kumar and R. Shunmugam, ACS Omega, 2017, 2, 4100–4107 CrossRef CAS.
M. Schwarze, Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol., 2017, 3, 598–624 RSC.
M. M. Khin, A. S. Nair, V. J. Babu, R. Murugan and S. Ramakrishna, Energy Environ. Sci., 2012, 5, 8075–8109 RSC.
M. M. Ibrahim, S. A. El-Molla and S. A. Ismail, J. Mol. Struct., 2018, 1158, 234–244 CrossRef CAS.
X. Luo, H. Liang, F. Qu, A. Ding, X. Cheng, C. Y. Tang and G. Li, Chemosphere, 2018, 200, 237–247 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
C. Regmi, D. Dhakal, T.-H. Kim, T. Yamaguchi and S. W. Lee, Nanotechnology, 2018, 29, 154001 CrossRef PubMed.
C. N. Britos, J. E. Gianolini, H. Portillo and J. A. Trelles, Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol., 2018, 14, 221–227 Search PubMed.
A. Kausar, M. Iqbal, A. Javed, K. Aftab, Z.-i.-H. Nazli, H. N. Bhatti and S. Nouren, J. Mol. Liq., 2018, 256, 395–407 CrossRef CAS.
S. B. Khan, M. Hou, S. Shuang and Z. Zhang, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2017, 400, 184–193 CrossRef CAS.
Y. H. Magdy and H. Altaher, J. Environ. Chem. Eng., 2018, 6, 834–841 CrossRef CAS.
A. H. Abd El-Salam, H. A. Ewais and A. S. Basaleh, J. Mol. Liq., 2017, 248, 833–841 CrossRef CAS.
K. M. Joshi, Asian J. Chem. Environ. Res., 2016, 9, 83–88 CAS.
H. Sadegh, G. A. M. Ali, V. K. Gupta, A. S. H. Makhlouf, R. Shahryari-ghoshekandi, M. N. Nadagouda, M. Sillanpaa and E. Megiel, J. Nanostruct. Chem., 2017, 7, 1–14 CrossRef CAS.
S. G. Shinde and V. S. Shrivastava, Asian J. Chem. Environ. Res., 2016, 9, 129–132 CAS.
M. Arshadi, M. Mehravar, M. J. Amiri and A. R. Faraji, J. Colloid Interface Sci., 2015, 440, 189–197 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
Q. Huang, M. Liu, J. Chen, Q. Wan, J. Tian, L. Huang, R. Jiang, Y. Wen, X. Zhang and Y. Wei, Appl. Surf. Sci., 2017, 419, 35–44 CrossRef CAS.
Y. Jiang, Y.-N. Chang, C.-H. Deng, J. Zhang, H.-Y. Liu, J.-L. Gong, G.-M. Zeng, X.-M. Ou and S.-Y. Huang, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2016, 82, 702–710 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
E. Gharibshahian, M. J. Tafershi and M. Fazli, J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 2018, 116, 241–249 CrossRef CAS.
X. Chu, J. Wang, L. Bai, Y. Dong, W. Sun and W. Zhang, Sens. Actuators, B, 2018, 255, 2058–2065 CrossRef CAS.
J. Liu, Q. Jin, S. Wang, P. Yu, C. Zhang, C. Luckhardt, Z. Su, R. Barua and V. G. Harris, Mater. Chem. Phys., 2018, 208, 169–176 CrossRef CAS.
D. Sharma and R. Jha, Mater. Lett., 2017, 190, 9–12 CrossRef CAS.
Q. Zhao, H. Zhang, X. Zhang, F. Qiu and Q. Jiang, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 2018, 718, 305–310 CrossRef CAS.
X. Han, F. Liao, Y. Zhang, Z. Yuan, H. Chen and C. Xu, Mater. Lett., 2018, 210, 62–65 CrossRef CAS.
E. Vaghri, D. Dorranian and M. Ghoranneviss, Mater. Chem. Phys., 2018, 203, 235–242 CrossRef CAS.
L.-L. Zhang, Y. Song, G.-D. Li, S.-L. Zhang, Y.-S. Shang and Y.-J. Gong, Acta Phys.-Chim. Sin., 2015, 31, 2139–2150 CAS.
M. Sahal, J. Magnesium Alloys, 2014, 2, 293–298 CrossRef CAS.
J. Xiong, S. Xiong, Z. Guo, M. Yang, J. Chen and H. Fan, Ceram. Int., 2012, 38, 1815–1821 CrossRef CAS.
S. Ali, Z. Zuhra, I. S. Butler, S. U. Dar, M. U. Hameed, D. Wu, L. Zhang and Z. Wu, Chem. Eng. J., 2017, 315, 448–458 CrossRef CAS.
M. U. Hameed, Y. khan, S. Ali, Z. Wu, S. U. Dar, H. Song, A. Ahmad and Y. Chen, Ceram. Int., 2017, 43, 741–748 CrossRef CAS.
K. Takei, H. Fang, S. B. Kumar, R. Kapadia, Q. Gao, M. Madsen, H. S. Kim, C.-H. Liu, Y.-L. Chueh, E. Plis, S. Krishna, H. A. Bechtel, J. Guo and A. Javey, Nano Lett., 2011, 11, 5008–5012 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
M. Cheng, G. Zeng, D. Huang, C. Yang, C. Lai, C. Zhang and Y. Liu, Chem. Eng. J., 2017, 314, 98–113 CrossRef CAS.
S. Banerjee, S. Dubey, R. K. Gautam, M. C. Chattopadhyaya and Y. C. Sharma, Arabian J. Chem., 2017, 10, s1629–s1638 CrossRef CAS.
J. Wang, L. Ge, Z. Li, L. Li, Q. Guo and J. Li, Ceram. Int., 2016, 42, 8545–8551 CrossRef CAS.
D. S. Won, I.-S. Park, M. Park, Y. Sohn, B.-G. Kim, K. S. Nahm, K.-S. Chung and P. Kim, Curr. Appl. Phys., 2014, 14, 1245–1250 CrossRef.
S. Banerjee, in Nanomaterials for Wastewater Remediation, ed. R. K. Gautam and M. C. Chattopadhyaya, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 2016, pp. 239–272, DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-804609-8.00010-8.
Z. L. Meng, Y. H. Zhang, Z. L. Zhang, Q. Zhang, P. K. Chu, S. Komarneni and F. Z. Lv, J. Hazard. Mater., 2016, 318, 54–60 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
B. Pant, M. Park, S. J. Park and H. Y. Kim, Ceram. Int., 2016, 42, 15247–15252 CrossRef CAS.
D. Wiedmer, E. Sagstuen, K. Welch, H. J. Haugen and H. Tiainen, Appl. Catal., B, 2016, 198, 9–15 CrossRef CAS.
M. Wawrzkiewicz, P. Bartczak and T. Jesionowski, Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2017, 99, 754–764 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
A. Majhi, P. Monash and G. Pugazhenthi, J. Membr. Sci., 2009, 340, 181–191 CrossRef CAS.
C. Lei, X. Zhu, B. Zhu, C. Jiang, Y. Le and J. Yu, J. Hazard. Mater., 2017, 321, 801–811 CrossRef CAS PubMed.
Y.-M. Zheng, N. Li and W.-D. Zhang, Colloids Surf., A, 2012, 415, 195–201 CrossRef CAS.

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


text:
Supreme Court Ruling Set to Increase Minnesota Tax Revenue by up to $200 Million - Trepanier MacGillis Battina P.A.
On June 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court overturned Quill Corp v. North Dakota, which prohibited states from collecting sales tax on sales made over the internet. Under this previous holding, online retailers, without a physical presence in the state, were not required to collect sales tax on transactions made with citizens of the state. This holding applied to remote sellers and marketplace providers, as well. The recent holding in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. now allows states to collect sales tax revenue from its citizens’ transactions with out-of-state online retailers, remote sellers, and marketplace providers. In the minutes following the Supreme Court’s decision, giant online retailers such as Amazon, Overstock, and Etsy saw their stock value plunge as investor confidence waned. Minnesota stands to collect as much as $150 million to $200 of new sales taxes based on the decision.
In a controversial 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Dakota, reversing and overturning the 1992 case of Quill Corp v. North Dakota. South Dakota’s victory over online retailer Wayfair marks a groundbreaking decision in favor of states’ rights. Now, for the first time in history, states may choose to require out-of-state businesses to collect sales tax on transactions made with citizens of the state. Put another way, all states, including Minnesota, are now allowed to impose a sales tax requirement on internet sales to citizens of the state, regardless of whether the retailer has a physical presence within the state.
This controversy began when the state of South Dakota sued Wayfair, seeking to enforce the state’s newly enacted legislation that required the collection of sales tax on transactions made between citizens of the state and retailers with no physical presence in the state. The trial court and South Dakota Supreme Court found in favor of Wayfair, holding that South Dakota’s new legislation violated the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Thereafter, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
The Court emphasized its obligation to interpret the Constitution, considering the changes in modern online commerce. The Court ultimately held that the previous analytical test for determining the constitutionality of sales tax collection, provided by Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, does not align itself with modern e-commerce, where massive amounts of sales are made over the internet with out-of-state businesses.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Wayfair issued statements expressing its support of a level playing field between online retailers and brick-and-mortar storefronts on main street USA, while suggesting that the imposition of sales tax on internet transactions was not the right solution.
The real-world implications for business owners have yet to be determined, with the Minnesota Department of Revenue currently reviewing and analyzing the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Minnesota Department of Revenue has issued a statement indicating that the department plans to provide more detailed guidance to business owners within 30 days. Click here: Minnesota Department of Revenue Statement on Internet Sales Tax.
Except for a few large-scale companies with a physical presence in Minnesota, a large majority of out-of-state online retailers have not been collecting sales tax from transactions with Minnesota citizens made over the internet. With the Supreme Court’s holding in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc., businesses selling to Minnesota citizens and operating without a physical presence in the state may now be subject to sales tax collection requirements yet to be implemented by the Minnesota Legislature.
Some businesses, without a physical presence in the state of Minnesota, may be exempt from collecting sales tax on transactions made with Minnesota citizens. The controversy in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. was a question of South Dakota law, which required the collection of sales tax from businesses making more than $100,000 in sales annually. Similarly, here in Minnesota, the legislature may decide to exempt small businesses making less than $100,000 in sales annually from sales tax collection requirements in the future. Minnesota businesses selling to out-of-state individuals will likely not be required to collect sales tax from their customers under Minnesota law, but will be subject to the sales tax collection requirements imposed by the states in which their customers reside.
Although the specific effects of the Supreme Court’s holding are unknown today, it seems likely the Minnesota Legislature will eventually mandate the collection of sales tax on internet sales into the State of Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Revenue intends to issue guidance to business owners within 30 days.
Contact one of the Minnesota business law attorneys of Trepanier MacGillis Battina P.A. if you have questions regarding the collection of sales tax for internet sales into the State of Minnesota. TMB will continue to monitor state legislation regarding this topic and stands ready to advise Minnesota business clients on their sales tax obligations.
Minnesota business attorney Nathan R. Snyder advises clients in a variety of business law matters, including entity formation, governance, licensing, registration, contracts, sales and purchase agreements, and tax collection. Nate may be reached at 612.455.6218 or nsnyder@trepanierlaw.com. Trepanier MacGillis Battina P.A. is a Minnesota business law firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


Pursuant to the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act ("APPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 16 (b)-(h) ("Tunney Act"), the United States hereby responds to the two public comments received regarding the proposed Final Judgment in this case.
The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on March 9, 1998, alleging that the proposed merger of Pacific Enterprises ("Pacific"), a California natural gas utility, and Enova Corporation ("Enova"), a California electric utility, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. The Complaint alleges that as a result of the merger, the combined company ("PE/Enova") would have both the incentive and the ability to lessen competition in the market for electricity in California and that consumers would be likely to pay higher prices for electricity.
The Complaint further alleges that prior to the merger, Pacific's wholly owned subsidiary, Southern California Gas Company, was virtually the sole provider of natural gas transmission and storage to natural gas-fueled electric generating plants in Southern California ("gas-fired plants"). As a consequence and without regard to the merger, it had the ability to use that market power to control the supply and thus the price of natural gas available to the gas-fired plants. Prior to the merger, however, Pacific did not own any electric generation plants, so it did not have the incentive to limit its gas transportation, sales or storage or to raise the price of gas to electric utilities in order to increase the price of electricity.
The Complaint alleges that in early 1998, the California electric market experienced significant changes as the result of a legislatively mandated restructuring. In this new competitive electric market, gas-fired plants, which are the most costly electric generating plants to operate, set the price that all sellers receive for electricity in California in peak demand periods. Thus, if a firm could increase the cost of the gas-fired plants by raising their fuel prices, it could raise the price all sellers of electricity in California receive, and increase the profits of owners of lower cost sources of electricity.
Once Pacific's pipeline is combined with Enova's low cost electricity generation facilities, PE/Enova would have the ability to raise the pool price of electricity either by (a) limiting the availability of natural gas to competing gas- fired plants that supply the most expensive units of electricity into the pool, or (b) by limiting gas or gas transportation to gas-fired plants that are more efficient and would otherwise have kept the pool price for electricity down. PE/Enova would have the incentive to raise the pool price after the merger because, through its ownership of low cost generation facilities, it could profit substantially from any increase in the pool price of electricity and its incremental profits would more than offset any losses of gas transportation sales that would result from withholding gas from competing gas-fired plants. PE/Enova thus will have the incentive and ability to lessen competition substantially and increase the price of electricity in California during periods of high demand.
As part of the settlement, the United States also obtained the Defendant's agreement to protections that are beyond those needed to remedy directly the harm created by the acquisition. The proposed decree includes limitations on PE/Enova's ability in the future to acquire other low cost gas-fired generating assets that could give the merged firm the same incentive and opportunity to raise electricity prices that the acquisition of the divested Enova assets would have presented. Recognizing that PE/Enova would have numerous acquisition opportunities over the next few years as a consequence of the State of California's orders that many generating assets be divested (see CIS at 13), the proposed decree requires PE/Enova to seek prior approval from the United States before acquiring ownership or ownership-like rights to other low-cost, California generating assets. The United States can, at its sole discretion, disallow any acquisition of such assets, without incurring the costs and risks of litigation.3 The types of transactions subject to this prior approval process include outright acquisition of any existing California Generating Assets (Final Jmt. § V.A.1); any contract that allows PE/Enova to control such assets (Final Jmt. § V.A.2); any contract for the operation and sale of the output from generating facilities owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("LADWP"), the second largest generator of electricity in California and an entity owning more generation than Enova even prior to the divestiture) (Final Jmt. §§ V.A.2, II.B); power management contracts of California Generating Facilities with the LADWP (Final Jmt. §§ V.C.4, II.C); and future tolling arrangements of the type that would most clearly mimic true ownership of the tolled facilities (Final Jmt. §§ V.A.2, V.C.3).
In addition, the United States has the ability to monitor PE/Enova's entry into many power management contracts not subject to prior approval (Final Jmt. § V.C.5). The United States thus has the opportunity to review these contracts, which are relatively new in the deregulated California market, and determine whether they would give PE/Enova the same incentive to raise electricity prices that ownership of the divested Enova assets would have created. The United States can then challenge any contracts that would do so.
In sum, the decree provides two types of relief for the United States. First, it achieves a direct remedy for the harm caused by Pacific's acquisition of Enova's low-cost generating assets by ordering divestiture of those specific assets. Second, it provides the additional benefits of the prior approval and contract monitoring provisions. These additional provisions are not meant to (nor can they) prevent PE/Enova from entering any transaction or acquiring any asset that could give it the incentive to exploit Pacific's pipeline market power in the electricity market. Instead they provide the United States with a check on potentially anticompetitive transactions, where the acquisition of such assets would again create incentives similar to these created by the assets acquired (and divested) in the transaction before this Court.
The United States and Enova have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA.
On June 8, 1998, the United States filed the CIS in this docket and on June 18, 1998, the Complaint, Final Judgment and CIS were published in the Federal Register. The Federal Register notice explained that interested parties could provide comments to the Department for a period of 60 days. Two parties filed comments with the Department: Edison International ("Edison") and the City of Vernon.
Entering into financial contracts (derivatives) tied to prices in the California Electric market.
But Edison's criticism misses the mark, because each of the potential transaction it lists is a transaction that Pacific could engage in whether or not it merges with Enova. Thus, Edison's comments do not focus on the harm caused by the merger, but rather on the harm to competition that might result from Pacific's premerger ownership of a monopoly gas pipeline. In contrast, the United States' Complaint is focused only on the effects that flow from the merger.
Nevertheless, Edison argues that the Final Judgment is defective because the United States did not also "understand, anticipat[e], and then prohibit all the various means by which the merged company could seek to retain or create incentives to earn profits through electricity price manipulations." (Edison Comments at 20.) To the extent that Edison means to suggest that, once any merger transaction is found to violate the Clayton Act, a merger decree should enjoin any and all other means by which the defendant might violate the antitrust laws in the future, the suggestion plainly is incorrect.5 Contrary to Edison's suggestions, enforcement of the merger laws, Section 7 of the Clayton Act, is aimed at remedying the competitively harmful changes in market structure or other conditions that result from the merger. Here, the merger takes Pacific's ability to profitably raise electric prices and adds the incentive provided by Enova's low cost generating assets. The proposed decree severs those assets from the merged company, remedying the change in incentive and ability from the status quo ante. The Final Judgment requires these assets to be sold to a party that will not own the monopoly pipeline and removes the new incentive provided by the acquired Enova assets for PE/Enova to use the pipeline's already existent market power.6 Edison Comments at 5. Edison's statement that "The merger dramatically and unlawfully changes the landscape by immediately coupling Enova's incentive and electricity- expertise with Pacific's natural gas muscle." begs the question of whether the Final Judgment remedies the problem thus created.
In the end, Edison's preference for a different remedy is not relevant to the Court's inquiry. Under the Tunney Act, the Court may not chose or fashion a remedy that is "better" in someone's opinion than the one negotiated and agreed to by the parties. To the contrary, "a proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is å±¤ithin the reaches of the public interest.'"9 The proposed Final Judgment meets and exceeds this legal standard.
The City of Vernon recognizes in its comments that the Proposed Final Judgment focuses entirely on the potential of PE/Enova to reduce competition in the electricity market in Southern California. It comments that the proposed judgment "ignores" the effect of the merger on the natural gas transmission market in Southern California. The case brought by the Department, however, involved the electricity market in Southern California, and the relief addressed in the Proposed Final Judgment remedies the competitive harm posed by the proposed acquisition to that market. The Complaint does not allege violations in the natural gas transmission market, and the City of Vernon's proposed relief is thus not relevant to this proceeding.
Once the United States moves for entry of the proposed Final Judgment, the Tunney Act directs the Court to determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment ''is in the public interest.'' 15 U.S.C. § 16(e). In making that determination, ''the court's function is not to determine whether the resulting array of rights and liabilities is one that will best serve society, but only to confirm that the resulting settlement is within the reaches of the public interest.'' United States v. Western Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1576 (D.C. Cir.) (emphasis added, internal quotation and citation omitted), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 487 (1993).
The Court is not ''to make de novo determination of facts and issues.'' Western Elec., 993 F.2d at 1577. Rather, ''[t]he balancing of competing social and political interests affected by a proposed antitrust decree must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General.'' Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). In particular, the Court must defer to the Department's assessment of likely competitive consequences, which it may reject ''only if it has exceptional confidence that adverse antitrust consequences will result -- perhaps akin to the confidence that would justify a court in overturning the predictive judgments of an administrative agency.'' Id.10 The Court may not reject a decree simply ''because a third party claims it could be better treated,'' United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448, 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1995), or based on the belief that ''other remedies were preferable,'' id. at 1460.
Further, the Tunney Act does not contemplate judicial reevaluation of the wisdom of the government's determination of which violations to allege in the Complaint. The government's decision not to bring a particular case on the facts and law before it, like any other decision not to prosecute, ''involves a complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within [the government's] expertise.'' Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). Thus, the Court may not look beyond the Complaint ''to evaluate claims that the government did not make and to inquire as to why they were not made.'' Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; see also United States v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 534 F.2d 113, 117-18 (8th Cir. 1976).
American Tel. & Tel., 552 F. Supp. at 151. This Judgment has the virtue of bringing the public certain benefits and protection without the uncertainty and expense of protracted litigation. See Armour, 402 U.S. at 681; Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459.
Finally, the entry of a governmental antitrust decree forecloses no private party from seeking and obtaining appropriate antitrust remedies. Defendants will remain liable for any illegal acts, and any private party may challenge such conduct if and when appropriate.
After careful consideration of the public comments, the United States concludes that entry of the proposed Final Judgment will provide an effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violation alleged in the Complaint and is in the public interest. The United States will therefore ask the Court to enter the proposed Final Judgment after the public comments and this Response have been published in the Federal Register, as 15 U.S.C. § 16(d) requires.
1 The Final Judgment provides that the approvals by the United States required by this decree for sale of these assets are in addition to the necessary approvals by the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") or any other governmental authorities for the sale of such assets. Enova must submit required applications to divest the assets no later than ninety days after entry of the Final Judgment, and complete the divestiture as soon as practicable after receipt of all necessary government approvals, in accordance with the proposed Final Judgment.
2 As explained in the Competitive Impact Statement ("CIS"), the decree does not require the divestiture of the merged company's nuclear assets, as the price of electricity from those assets will be regulated during the critical first years of the decree, which means that ownership of those assets will not give the merged firm an incentive to raise prices. In 2001, if the nuclear power prices become deregulated, the decree provides for safeguards to ensure that any incentive to use these assets to raise price is minimized or eliminated.
3 The Final Judgment does not prevent PE/Enova from building new capacity in California, or from acquiring capacity built in California after January 1, 1998. New capacity will only be built in California if the output is inexpensive enough to be sold in many hours. By increasing the amount of less expensive power available to meet demand, new, low-cost capacity will reduce the number of hours in which the most costly gas-fired capacity is needed. This in turn will limit PE/Enova's ability to raise the pool price since it is more costly and difficult for PE/Enova to restrict gas to more numerous low-cost plants. For the same reasons, the Final Judgment allows the merged company to acquire or gain control of plants that are rebuilt, repowered, or activated out of dormancy after January 1, 1998. Output from such plants is the equivalent of output from new-build capacity. CIS at 13-14.
4 Edison's comments, which mention Enova's "electricity expertise" in one sentence, do not define this term, identify where in Enova it resides, or assert that Pacific, the pipeline's parent company, did not already have such expertise prior to the merger or have the ability to obtain it by a number of means, including hiring employees with electric experience.
5See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 133 (1969) (explaining that a court may not enjoin "all future violations of the antitrust laws, however unrelated to the violation found by the court"); Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386, 409-10 & n.7 (1945) (citing NLRB v. Express Publ'g Co., 312 U.S. 426, 433, 435-36 (1941)).
6 Edison also makes the same argument from the opposite perspective -- that competition is separately harmed because Enova has gained an ability via the merger to raise price. (Edison Comments at 5.) Again, there is no additional pipeline monopoly power created by the merger. The proposed remedy is effective against the harm caused by the combination (the pipeline and Enova's low cost generating assets), whether the Southern California Gas Company pipeline's monopoly power is wielded by Enova or by Pacific.
7 Edison compares its preferred options with the proposed Final Judgment, calling the remedy in the proposed Final Judgment "the least attractive option" from Edison's perspective. (Edison Comments at 3 ("The last but least attractive option is to try to lessen the merged firm's incentive to exercise its monopoly power in order to profit from higher electric prices.").) Edison finds this course less attractive because "it requires a complex latticework of provisions . . . [that is] difficult to write and even harder to administer." Id. The alternative it suggests, creating an independent system operator for the pipeline system, has never been done anywhere in the United States and, while possible, cannot be assumed to be easy to write and easier to administer.
8 For example, Edison argues that the FTC's consent decree in PacificCorp (PacifiCorp/The EnergyGroup, FTC File No. 9710091) provides a superior remedy. It mischaracterizes the FTC decree as equivalent to the divestiture of Pacific's gas pipeline assets that constitute virtually all of the assets Pacific contributed to the merger with Enova. Unlike this case, however, the divesture of coal assets in PacifiCorp was not the equivalent of recission of the merger. PacifiCorp is a large integrated electric utility with coal holdings in the western United States. It was acquiring the Energy Group, an international electric company, the second largest electric distribution company in the United Kingdom, which also held coal reserves in both eastern and western United States. The FTC decree did not require the Energy Group to divest its coal business, much less its primary utility business, as Edison would have the decree in the instant case require divestiture of Pacific's utility pipeline business. Instead, the FTC decree required a specific subset of the Energy Group's western coal mines to be divested. The FTC's PacifiCorp decree stopped with divesture of those specific assets and, unlike the Final Judgment proposed here, did not go further to limit the merged company's reacquisition of assets that would create the same vertical problem as the divested assets.
9United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 153 n.95 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983) (mem.).
10 The Tunney Act does not give a court authority to impose different terms on the parties. See, e.g., American Tel. & Tel., 552 F. Supp. at 153 n.95; accord H.R. Rep. No. 93- 1463, at 8 (1974). A court, of course, can condition entry of a decree on the parties' agreement to a different bargain, see, e.g., American Tel. & Tel., 552 F. Supp. at 225, but if the parties do not agree to such terms, the court's only choices are to enter the decree the parties proposed or to leave the parties to litigate.
United States v. Thomson Corp., 949 F. Supp. 907 (D.D.C. 1996), cited by Edison (Edison Comments at 9-10), does not support Edison's argument to reject the Proposed Final Judgment. That case involved the Tunney Act review of a proposed final judgment that required one of the merging companies to license a copyright that it claimed but had not licensed prior to the merger. While there was some controversy as to whether the decree's license provisions could have been extracted as the result of a trial, see Thomson, 949 F. Supp. at 927, the Court nevertheless considered comments on the specific terms of the license proposal because of the potential anticompetitive harm that could result from "the merger of these two publishing giants in conjunction with" the asserted copyright claim. Id. at 928. The Thomson Court addressed comments on the license provision on that ground, and not because the decree would remedy preexisting wrongs; nor did the court add or alter any provisions to the Final Judgment that had not been agreed to by the parties. Here, in contrast, Edison is not commenting on a specific remedy agreed to by the parties as a means of addressing the harms related to a merger. Instead, Edison is asking this Court to insert an entirely new mechanism for relief into the decree, in order to address Pacific's preexisting pipeline market power as it could be exercised in relation to the acquisition of any electricity assets, regardless of Pacific's merger with Enova. Edison's proposed approach is completely at odds with Judge Friedman's actions in the Thomson case. Judge Friedman, as Edison concedes, was careful not to substitute his judgment for the government's and, further, did not adopt proposed remedies that were unrelated to the merger. (See Edison Comments at 10).


(3) against any person who proposes to construct or constructs any new or modified major emitting facility without a permit required under part C of subchapter I of this chapter (relating to significant deterioration of air quality) or part D of subchapter I of this chapter (relating to nonattainment) or who is alleged to have violated (if there is evidence that the alleged violation has been repeated) or to be in violation of any condition of such permit.
The district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce such an emission standard or limitation, or such an order, or to order the Administrator to perform such act or duty, as the case may be, and to apply any appropriate civil penalties (except for actions under paragraph (2)). The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to compel (consistent with paragraph (2) of this subsection) agency action unreasonably delayed, except that an action to compel agency action referred to in section 7607(b) of this title which is unreasonably delayed may only be filed in a United States District Court within the circuit in which such action would be reviewable under section 7607(b) of this title. In any such action for unreasonable delay, notice to the entities referred to in subsection (b)(1)(A) of this section shall be provided 180 days before commencing such action.
except that such action may be brought immediately after such notification in the case of an action under this section respecting a violation of section 7412(i)(3)(A) or (f)(4) of this title or an order issued by the Administrator pursuant to section 7413(a) of this title. Notice under this subsection shall be given in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe by regulation.
(1) Any action respecting a violation by a stationary source of an emission standard or limitation or an order respecting such standard or limitation may be brought only in the judicial district in which such source is located.
(2) In any action under this section, the Administrator, if not a party, may intervene as a matter of right at any time in the proceeding. A judgment in an action under this section to which the United States is not a party shall not, however, have any binding effect upon the United States.
(3) Whenever any action is brought under this section the plaintiff shall serve a copy of the complaint on the Attorney General of the United States and on the Administrator. No consent judgment shall be entered in an action brought under this section in which the United States is not a party prior to 45 days following the receipt of a copy of the proposed consent judgment by the Attorney General and the Administrator during which time the Government may submit its comments on the proposed consent judgment to the court and parties or may intervene as a matter of right.
The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, may award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party, whenever the court determines such award is appropriate. The court may, if a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is sought, require the filing of a bond or equivalent security in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
against the United States, any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or any officer, agent, or employee thereof under State or local law respecting control and abatement of air pollution. For provisions requiring compliance by the United States, departments, agencies, instrumentalities, officers, agents, and employees in the same manner as nongovernmental entities, see section 7418 of this title.
which is in effect under this chapter (including a requirement applicable by reason of section 7418 of this title) or under an applicable implementation plan.
(1) Penalties received under subsection (a) of this section shall be deposited in a special fund in the United States Treasury for licensing and other services. Amounts in such fund are authorized to be appropriated and shall remain available until expended, for use by the Administrator to finance air compliance and enforcement activities. The Administrator shall annually report to the Congress about the sums deposited into the fund, the sources thereof, and the actual and proposed uses thereof.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) the court in any action under this subsection 6 to apply civil penalties shall have discretion to order that such civil penalties, in lieu of being deposited in the fund referred to in paragraph (1), be used in beneficial mitigation projects which are consistent with this chapter and enhance the public health or the environment. The court shall obtain the view of the Administrator in exercising such discretion and selecting any such projects. The amount of any such payment in any such action shall not exceed $100,000.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (d), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
Section was formerly classified to section 1857h–2 of this title.
A prior section 304 of act July 14, 1955, was renumbered section 311 by Pub. L. 91–604 and is classified to section 7611 of this title.
1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–549, §707(a), (f), in closing provisions, inserted before period at end ", and to apply any appropriate civil penalties (except for actions under paragraph (2))" and inserted sentences at end giving courts jurisdiction to compel agency action unreasonably delayed and requiring 180 days notice prior to commencement of action.
Subsec. (a)(1), (3). Pub. L. 101–549, §707(g), inserted "to have violated (if there is evidence that the alleged violation has been repeated) or" before "to be in violation".
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–549, §302(f), substituted "section 7412(i)(3)(A) or (f)(4)" for "section 7412(c)(1)(B)" in closing provisions.
Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 101–549, §707(c), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: "In such action under this section, the Administrator, if not a party, may intervene as a matter of right."
Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 101–549, §707(d), added subsec. (c)(3).
Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 101–549, §707(e), struck out "any condition or requirement of section 7413(d) of this title (relating to certain enforcement orders)" before ", section 7419 of this title", substituted "subchapter VI of this chapter" for "part B of subchapter I of this chapter", and substituted "; or" for period at end.
Subsec. (f)(4). Pub. L. 101–549, §707(e), which directed that par. (4) be added at end of subsec. (f), was executed by adding par. (4) after par. (3), to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 101–549, §707(b), added subsec. (g).
1977—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 95–190, §14(a)(77), inserted "or modified" after "new".
Pub. L. 95–95, §303(a), added subsec. (a)(3).
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 95–95, §303(c), inserted provisions which prohibited any construction of this section or any other law of the United States which would prohibit, exclude, or restrict any State, local, or interstate authority from bringing any enforcement action or obtaining any judicial remedy or sanction in any State or local court against the United States or bringing any administrative enforcement action or obtaining any administrative remedy or sanction against the United States in any State or local administrative agency, department, or instrumentality under State or local law.
Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 95–190, §14(a)(78), inserted ", or" after "(relating to ozone protection)", substituted "any condition or requirement under an" for "requirements under an", and struck out "or" before "section 7491".
Pub. L. 95–95, §303(b), added par. (3).
Pub. L. 101–549, title VII, §707(g), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2683, provided that: "The amendment made by this subsection [amending this section] shall take effect with respect to actions brought after the date 2 years after the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 [Nov. 15, 1990]."
For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of reporting provisions in subsec. (g)(1) of this section, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and the 6th item on page 165 of House Document No. 103–7.
All rules, regulations, orders, determinations, contracts, certifications, authorizations, delegations, or other actions duly issued made, or taken by or pursuant to act July 14, 1955, the Clean Air Act, as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of Pub. L. 95–95 [Aug. 7, 1977] to continue in full force and effect until modified or rescinded in accordance with act July 14, 1955, as amended by Pub. L. 95–95 [this chapter], see section 406(b) of Pub. L. 95–95, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 7401 of this title.
1 So in original. The period probably should be ", or".
4 So in original. The semicolon probably should be a comma.
5 So in original. The period probably should be a comma.
6 So in original. Probably should be "this section".


text:
International Law is more than a scholarly collection of abstract and immutable principles. It is an outgrowth of treaties or agreements between nations and of accepted customs. But every custom has its origin in some single act, and every agreement has to be initiated by the action of some state. Unless we are prepared to abandon every principle of growth for International Law, we cannot deny that our own day has its right to institute customs and to conclude agreements that will themselves become sources of a newer and strengthened International Law. International Law is not capable of development by legislation, for there is no continuously sitting international legislature. Innovations and revisions in International Law are brought about by the action of governments designed to meet a change in circumstances.
Boister, Neil and Robert Cryer 2008. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal: A Reappraisal (Oxford University Press).
Cassese, Antonio 2010. “B. V. A. Röling - A Personal Recollection and Appraisal,” Journal of International Criminal Justice 8.
Cryer, Robert 2010. “Röling in Tokyo: A Dignified Dissenter,” Journal of International Criminal Justice 8.
International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg) 1946. Judgment.
International Military Tribunal for the Far East 1948. Judgment.
Pal, Radhabinod 1948. Judgment of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pal, Member from India. Reprinted in Neil Boister and Robert Cryer, eds. 2008. Documents on the Tokyo International Military Tribunal: Charter, Indictment and Judgments (Oxford University Press).
Röling, B. V. A. 1948. Opinion of Member for the Netherlands. Reprinted in Boister and Cryer, eds. 2008. Documents on the Tokyo International Military Tribunal.
Röling, B. V. A. 1960. “The Tokyo Trial in Retrospect,” in Susumu Yamaguchi, ed., Buddhism and Culture (Kyoto: Planning Committee for the Commemoration of Dr. Suzuki’s Ninetieth Birthday).
Röling, B. V. A. 1973. “The Nuremberg and the Tokyo Trials in Retrospect," in M. C. Bassiouni and Ved P. Nanda, eds., A Treatise on International Criminal Law. Reprinted in Guénaël Mettraux, ed., 2008. Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trial (Oxford University Press).
Röling, B. V. A. and Antonio Cassese 1993. The Tokyo Trial and Beyond: Reflections of a Peacemonger (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press).
Schrijver, Nico 2010. “B. V. A. Röling - A Pioneer in the Pursuit of Justice and Peace in an Expanded World,” Journal of International Criminal Justice 8.
Totani, Yuma 2008. The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal: The Pursuit of Justice in the Wake of World War II (Harvard University Asia Center).
Ushimura, Kei (trans. Steven Ericson) 2003. Beyond the “Judgment of Civilization”: The Intellectual Legacy of the Japanese War Crimes Trials, 1946-1949 (Tokyo: International House of Japan).
van der Wilt, Harman 2010. “A Valiant Champion of Equity and Humaneness: The Legacy of Bert Röling for International Criminal Law,” Journal of International Criminal Justice 8.
Vining, Elizabeth Gray 1952. Windows for the Crown Prince: Akihito of Japan (Reprint 1989, Tuttle Publishing).


text:
Will the Marine Aquarium run on Intel Macs and OSX 10.6 Leopard? We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us. KEYGENS.PRO - the site that generates cracks and keygens online. Just enter the name of software to unlock. After keygen generating it can be downloaded for free. Furk.net is your personal secure storage that fetches media files and lets you stream them immediately You can use it to stream video or listen to your music from PC. =0day= Anydvd & Anydvd Hd 6.1.9.3 - Final 007 Spy Software V3.874 123 Flash Menu V2.6 3 Programmi X Creare Gif 3danimation 3wdecoder - Decodificatore Di Fimati Protetti. UpdateStar is compatible with Windows platforms. UpdateStar has been tested to meet all of the technical requirements to be compatible with Windows 10, 8.1, Windows 8.
Tempatnya Download Software Gratis di Indonesia, Download Software dan Games terbaru Full Version, Download IDM Full Crack, Free Download Software. TurboBit.net provides unlimited and fast file cloud storage that enables you to securely share and access files online. Store & share your files with uploaded.net Learn more about our services (video). Serenescreen.com is the proud home of the best selling Marine Aquarium 3 screensaver for your Mac or PC.
Windows 1. 0, 8. 1, Windows 8, Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2. Windows. XP, 3. 2 bit and 6. Simply double- click the downloaded file to install it.
Update. Star Free and Update. Star Premium come with the same installer. Update. Star includes support for many languages such as English, German, French, Italian, Hungarian, Russian and many more. You can choose your language settings from within the program.
DOWNLOAD] Programmi pc (megaupload rapidshare megashare mediafire megaerotic filefactory torrent),=0day= Anydvd & Anydvd Hd 6. Final. 00. 7 Spy Software V3. Flash Menu V2. 6.
Programmi X Creare Gif. Decodificatore Di Fimati Protetti. Portable / Compressione. Absolute Mp. 3 Splitter & Converter 2. Acdsee 9 Photo Manager+serial. Acdsee Pro 2 V2. 0. Acronis True Image 1.
Build 4. 94. 2 Home Retail. Acronis True Image Home V1. Active Password Changer Professional. Ad Aware 2. 00. 7 Pro (v. Ad- aware 2. 00. 7 Professional Edition 7. Adaware Personal 1.
Ad- aware Se Personal Edition 1. Adobe Acrobat 8 Professional. Adobe Audition 3 Ita Multilanguage + Manuale+ Keygen.
Adobe Cs. 3 Illustrator 1. Adobe Cs. 3 Keygen Collection. Adobe Photoshop 1. Cs. 3 Portable New! Adobe Photoshop Cs. Adobe Photoshop Cs. Versione Lite! Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.
Adobe Photoshop Elements 6 - Ita [mu]Adobe Premiere 6. Adobe Premiere Pro 7. Adobe Reader 7. 0.
Advance Registry Optimizer (aro)Advance Windowcare Pro 2. Advanced Encryption Package 2. Pro V4. 6. 0. Advanced Office Password Recovery V3. Advanced Uninstaller Pro 8. Agnitum Outpost Firewall Pro 2.
Aimersoft Video Conveter. Aio. rapidshare. pack. Spostato: < a href='t. Aiuto Vodafone Box E Linux [/url]Alchemy Mindworks Graphic Workshop Professional V3.
Alcohol 1. 20% +serial. Alcohol 1. 20% 1. Crack. Allok 3gp Psp Mp. Ipod Video Converter. Altri Software. Amsn.
Amule. Andreamosaic. Animated Gif Producer. Anime Episodes Manager. Anime Studio Pro 5. Anti- keylogger Elite 3.
Antivirus Nod 3. 2Any Password 1. Any Video Converter. Anydvd & Anydvd Hd 6. Anydvd & Anydvd Hd 6.
Anydvd & Anydvd Hd 6. Crack. Anydvd 6. 1. Hd Final. Anydvd 6.
A- patch. Apollo Dvd Copy 4. A- ray. Ares 2. 0.
Ares Turbo Accelerator. Artweaver 0. 4 Portable / Grafica. Ascgen. 2 0. 9. 5. Ascii Art Studio V2. Ashampo Antispyware 2. Ashampoo Antivirus V 1. Ashampoo Burning Studio 7.
Ashampoo Firewall Pro V1. Ashampoo Internet Accelerator 2. Ashampoo Magical Snap 2. Ashampoo Powerup Xp Platinum 2 (v.
Ashampoo Uninstaller Platinum 2. Ashampoo Winoptimizer 4. Audacity. Audacity.
Audiopaint. Aurora Media Workshop V3. Auslogics Boostspeed V3. Auto Power- on & Shut- down V2. Autocad 2. 00. 7Autoplay Media Studio 6.
Avant Browser 1. 1. Build 2. 1Avast! Professional Edition 4.
Keygen. Avast. v. Avg Anti- spyware Plus 7. Avg Antivirus Professional Edition 7. Build 1. 10. 3Avg. Avi Chop. Avi/mpeg/rm/wmv Splitter. Avira Premium Security Suite 7. Avirecomp. Avs Disc Creator.
Babylon 7 (nuova Versione Del Traduttore Istantaneo)Babylon Pro V6. Babylon Pro V6. 0. R4 Ita_eng_ita. Babylon_pro_7. Badcopy Pro 3. 8. Bart Xpe [mu]Bearshare Lite 5. Installer. Bearshare Pro V6.
Final. Bear. Share v. Bee Icons 4. 0. 2. Benvista Photozoom Pro. Bit. Comet 0. 9. 9 e 0. Bit. Torrent. Blaze Dvd Pro 4. Blaze Hdtv Player V2. Blockcad. Boilsoft Rm Converter.
Bpm Studiopro 4. 9. Bs Player Pro V. 2. Multilingua + Keygen. Bsplayer Pro V2. 2.
Burn. 4free. Burstcopy V2. Bye- bye Rapidshare. Camstudio. 20. Camtasia Studio 4. Camtasia Studio 4. Caricature Studio 3. Ccleaner 1. 3. 5. Cd Catalog Expert 9.
Cd Recovery Toolbox. Cdex 1. 7. 0Celestia. Cfosspeed V4. 2. 0Cinema 4d Release 1. Clamwin 0. 9. 1. 2. Click 'n Burn Cd & Dvd 2.
Clone Cd 5. 0. 4. Clone Dvd V4. 0 Portable / Masterizzazione. Clonedvd Mobile 1. Codec Pack. Collezione Imtoo.
Come Velocizzare Mozilla Firefox. Comodo Firewall Pro V. E 6. 4 Bit [rs]Convertxtodvd. Coreavc H. 2. 64 Video Codec V1. Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo Х2 1. Corel. paint. shop.
Counterspy 2. 5. 1. Cpu- z. Craagle. Cryptload.
Crystal Video Converter. Crystalcpuid. Cuteftp 8. Pro Edition Build 6. Cyberlink Makedisc V3. Cyberlink Power Director 6. Deluxe Edition. Cyberlink Power.
Deluxe V5. 5. 0. 2. Cyberlink Powercinema 5. Cyberlink Powerdvd Ultra V7. D3loo's Msn Own Account Creator.
Daemon Tools. Daemon Tools 4. Daemon Tools Pro Advanced 4. Daemon Tools Pro Advanced V4.
Daoisoft Hdd Observer V1. Dap 8. 1. 2. 1. Dap 8. Dap Premium. Data Eraser 2. Dbpoweramp. Deck Space.
Demon Tools. Derive 6. Derive 6 [ita]Deskcalc Pro Business. Desktop Lock - Business Edition. Desktop Toys , Destroy Your Screen ! Desktopicontoy. Disk Cleaner. Disk Defrag 1. 1.
Diskeeper 2. 00. 8Disktrix Ultimatedefrag V1. Divx Pro V6. 5. 1. Down Them All. Download Accelerator Plus 8. Con Premium. Download Bootvis. Download Manager- Internet Download Manager. Dreamweaver 8 + Keygen.
Dustbuster Xp. Dvd Cloneriv 4. Portable / Masterizzazione. Dvd Decrypter 3. 5. Dvdfab Platinum 3. Final. Dvdfab Platinum 4. Final. Easeus Data Recovery Wizard Pro V4.
Retail. Easy Creator Roxio 9+ Seriale. Easy Gif Animator V4. Easy Hide Ip 1. 4. Easy Rs Get Points. Easy Video 1. 3. 7.
Elby Clonedvd 2. 9. Email Privacy 2. 9. Emoticon, Animoticon E Avatar Animati Per Msn! Emulatore Mouse E Tastiera Con Joypad. Emule 0. 4. 7 CEmule 0.
Stullemule 4. 5. Emule 0. Emule Adunanza + Speedbooster.
Emule Adunanza 3. Emule Applejuiced (6. Extreme Mod**Emule Plus 1. Emule Plus 1. 2a.
Emule Plus 1. 0Emule Scarangel 1. Emule Xtreme 5. 4. Encarta Enciclopedia 2. Premium + Student. Encarta Premium 2.
Ita. Enciclopedia Didattica Della Chitarra 1. Cd+ Di 1. 00. 0 Filmati.
Enciclopedia Didattica Della Chitarra Full. Eset Smart Security Suite V3.
Eset Smart Security V. Nod. 32. Eset Smart Security V3. Final. Everest Home Edition 2. Everest Ultimate Edition 2. V4. 2. 0. 1. 17. 0Evillyrics. Exlade Cryptic Disk V2.
Exploreanywhere Spybuddy V3. Retai. Fake Voice 1.
Svago. Fake Webcam V2. Crack. Faststone Capture 5. File Scavenger V3. Final Eset Smart Security E Nod. V. 3. 0. 5. 66. 0 [rs]Finestre In 3d. Firefox 2. 0. 0. 3 Portable: Avviabile Da Chiavetta Usb. Firefox 3. 0 Alpha.
Firefox. 2. 0. 0. Fl Studio 7. Flash And Media Capture 1. Flash Favorite V1. Flashchat 4. 7. 1.
Flip 3d: effetto Finestre 3d![full][mu]Folder Lock 5. Folderico 3. 7. 2 - ita [mu]Foxit Pdf Reader. Fps Creator + Model Packs + Tools. Fraps. Fraps 2. 9 Crackato & Fixato Per Vista. Fraps V2. 9. 2. 6. Free Download Manager 2.
Freehand Mix Macromedia. Freerip 2. 9. 51. Freez Flv To Avi Converter. Fruity Loops Studio V. Xxl Edition (2. 00. F- secure Internet Security 2. V8. 0. 0 Build 1.
Ftp Commander Pro 7. Ftp Explorer. Ftp Free.
Fxhome Visionlab Studio V1. Genie Backup Manager Pro 8. Get Data Back. Getright Professional. Getright Professional V6.
Giant Disk Cleaner V1. Gif Movie Gear. Gimp. Gimp. Giochi Software E Un Pò Di Tutto. Gom Player. Gonsoft Proxy Manager V2.
Goo Easy Dvd Converter V1. Google Earth. Google Earth + Sky. Google Earth 4. 2+sky+crack 2. Flight Simulator. Google Hacks. Graffiti Studio 2. Graffiti Studio V 2.
Guitar Pro 5 + Serial. Hamachi. Hddlifepro.
Hide Ip Platinum. Hiren's Bootcd 9. Hjsplit. Hotkeycontrol V6. Houdini 8. 1. Httrack. I Suoni Di Windows Vista Su Xp. Ibm Viavoice Pro 1. Italiano. Icecold Reloaded.
Icq 5. 0. 4Idm (internet Download Manager) V 5. Build 4 + Patch. Im Too Mpeg Encoder 3. Image Incon. Image To Text. Imageshackert. Imahe Converter 1. Install)Imesh 6. 0. Imtoo Dvd Ripper Platinum V4. Imtoo Mpeg Encorder [full]Imtoo Software Aio.
Incredimail. xe. premium. Infra Recorder 0.
Inkscape 0. 4. 5. Italiano [rs]Internet Cleaner V3. Internet Download Accelerator 5. Internet Download Manager. Internet Download Manager. Internet Download Manager 5.
Build 8 + Patch. Internet Download Manager V5. Internet Download Manager V5.
Build 7. Internet Explorer 7 Ita. Intervideo Windvd Platinum 8. Inviare Fax Gratis Dal Pc.
Ipget. Ipmodifier By Vergil. Ipod Library. Irfanview 4. Full. Isobuster. Jasc Animation Shop. Joost: La Tv Su Internet! Jv. 16 - Pulitore Di Registro. Jv. 16 Powertools 2.
V1. 7. 0. 4. 16. Kaspersky 6. Ita + Key. Kaspersky Anti- hacker V1.
Kaspersky Internet Security 2. Kaspersky Internet Security 2. Beta 1. Kaspersky Internet Security 7.
Kaspersky Internet Security 7. Beta. Kaspersky Tool Blacklisted. Kingdia Dvd Ripper 3. Koma- mail 3. 5. 4Kooldock & Rocketdock. L'alternativa A Msn: Skype! Lavasoft Ad- aware Pro 2. Layton Technology Advanced Registry Fix V4.
Limewire 4. 1. 0. Limewire 4. 1. 4 Italiano. Limewire Pro. Limewire Pro 4. Limewire Pro 4. 1. Link Premium Rapidsher. Lista Software. Logon Studio. Loquendo. Macromedia Flash 8.
Magic Video Converter. Magicbit Dvd To Divx Converter V6. Masterra Bytesweeper V2.
Mayoko - Rapidshare Search Engine[rs/en]Mcafee Virusscan Plus 2. Mediacenter Italiano!
Megaupload Hack. Megaupload Premium Link Generator V7. Memoptimizer V3. 0. Memory Release Master V5. Messenger 2. 00. 8Messenger Discovery Live. Messenger Plus! Live 4. Messenpass. Microsoft Expression Design - Ita [rs]Microsoft Expression Web.
Microsoft Math 2. Microsoft Math 2. Microsoft Office 2. Enterprise (Microsoft Office 2.
Ita Enterprise Edition. Minilyrics. Mirc. Mirc 6. 1. 2Mixsense Dj Studio 1. Morpheus. Motorola Phone Tools 4.
Ita. Movie Collector Pro V5. Movie Label 2. 00. V3. 0. 4. 91. Moyea Flv To Video Converter Pro. Mozilla Firefox 2.
Ita. Mozzilla Firefox 3. Gran Paradiso Setup Alpha 8. Mp. 3 Direct Cut. Ms Office 2. 00. 7 - Enterprise Edition + Key. Msn 8. 5 Portable / Messaggistica Instantanea. Msn Backup. Msn Cleaner 1. Msn E- fix. Msn fantasy account.
Msnspacefucker. Mu][multilingue]ashampoo Office 2. V3. 0. 0 Portabile.
Naruto Ninja Icone. Nasa World Wind. Nature Illusion.
Nero 7. 7. 5. 1. Nero 7. Premium. Nero 8 Portable, Avviabile Da Usb! Masterizzazione. Nero 8 Ultra [craacked]Nero 8. Cura. Nero Premium 7. Plus Keygen. Nero Registry Checker.
Nero- 8. 1. 1. 3_micro [rs]Nero. Net Compact Framework 2. Sp. 2Netplay Instant Demo Professional. Neuview Media Player Professional V6. Neuview Player 6. Nick Tribe V. 2. Nidesoft Dvd Ripper V3.
No Limit. Nod 3. 2 Versione Italiana. Nod. 32 3. 0 Antivirus For Win Xp/2. V3. 0. 5. 60. 0. Nod. Norton 3. 60 + Keygen. Norton Antibot V1.
Norton Antivirus 2. Con 1. 0 Anni Di Abbonamento.
Norton Internet Security 2. Nti Cd & Dvd Maker 6. Platinum. Nuovi Tools Per Rapidshare.
Nuovo Msn Messenger 8. Beta. O & O Defrag 1. Professional Edition. O& o Defrag Professional V1. Build 1. 63. 4Object Dock Plus. Office 2. 00. 7 Enterprise Edition + Key - Italiano. Office Visio Professional 2.
Officerecovery Enterprise 2. Omnipage Professional 1.
Openoffice. org 2. Ita. Opera. Orbit Downloader. Orbit Downloader.

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