If you cannot read today's e-Journal, please visit this link:?
http://www.michbar.org/e-journal/051701.html Or to receive a plain text
version, please send an e-mail to lyris@lists.michbar.org? In the body,
type:? unsubscribe ejournal and on the next line type:? subscribe
ejournal-text

[IMAGE]

Ad 1

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

The  e-Journal is available to members of the State Bar of Michigan at no
additional  charge thanks in part to the generous support of our advertisers.
Please  be sure to support these State Bar partners and visit their Internet
sites  frequently for information about their products and services.  	?

		[IMAGE]

		State  Bar of Michigan e-Journal for Thursday, May 17, 2001

		?qlink

		?Use  our specifically designed hypertext links --Quicklinks --  to jump to
the desired area of today's
		e-Journal

		?cases
		Cases  affecting the following practice areas are summarized  in today's
e-Journal:

		Administrative Law
		Civil  Rights
		Constitutional  Law
		Construction Law
		Corrections
		Criminal  Law
		Employment  & Labor Law
		Family Law
		Litigation
		Municipal
		Negligence  & Intentional Tort
		Real  Property

		Special  Notes: Today's e-Journal includes summaries of four  Michigan
Supreme Court opinions and six Michigan Court of  Appeals published opinions
in the following practice areas:  Administrative Law, Civil Rights,
Constitutional Law, Construction  Law, Employment & Labor Law, Family Law,
Litigation,  Negligence & Intentional Tort, and Real Property.

		Due  to technical difficulties, a summary of the Supreme Court  decision in
Bolt v City of Lansing will appear in  tomorrow's e-Journal.

		[IMAGE]

		?editorial
		Please click  here to read today's Other  Editorial
		[IMAGE]

		Tell  Us What You Think
		Visit Our New Townhall Forum Electronic Bulletin Board

		Amendment  of Local Court Rules 2.100 and 8.108 of the Wayne Circuit  Court,
and Repeal of Local Court Rules 2.301, 2.401 and  2.503

		?classified
		Listings  in the following areas are in today's Classified  Section:

		Confidential  Records Destruction
		Expert  Witness
		Lawsuit  Financials
		Legal  Research
		Office  Space Available
		Positions  Available
		Services

		?fieldspractice

		Need  to refer a case? See today's Fields of Practice  Listings:

		ADR/Arbitration/Mediation

		Administrative  Law
		Adoption

		Alternative  Dispute Resolution

		Antitrust/Advertising/Trade  Regulation

		Appeals

		Appellate  Law

		Automotive  Warranty Law

		Business  & Taxation

		Construction  Law

		Copyrights

		Criminal  Law

		Environmental  Law

		Family  Law

		Federal  False Claims (Qui Tam) Actions
		Health  Law

		Hospital  & Medical Negligence

		Immigration  & Naturalization

		Immigration  Law

		Insurance  Law

		Intellectual  Property Law

		Labor  & Employment Law

		Litigation

		Medical  Malpractice

		Real  Estate

		Special  Education Law

		Tax  Litigation & Disputes

		Transportation  Law

		Worker's  Compensation

		?newsandmoves

		See  this week's News  & Moves for information about your colleagues:

		barevents?

		See  today's  Bar  Events section for news about upcoming programs and
activities:

		Criminal  Law Brown Bag "Therapeutic Drug Court"
		Eighth  Trailblazers Dinner

		case  summaries

		Administrative Law

		Back               to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Registration fees for interstate motor carriers under the 1991
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); Whether  effect of
reciprocity agreements must be considered in determining  amount of fee
charged or collected on November 15, 1991; Interstate  Commerce Commission
(ICC)
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. State of Michigan
		e-Journal  Number:? 10238
		Judge(s):?  Weaver, Corrigan, Taylor, Young, Jr., and Markman; Dissent )
Kelly; Dissent ) Cavanagh

		In an issue  of first impression in any state court, the court held that
under  the plain language of the ISTEA, reciprocity agreements were
irrelevant  in determining what registration fees were charged or collected
as of November 15, 1991. Plaintiff alleged that defendants collected
registration fees in excess of the amount allowed under ISTEA, contending
that Michigan could not alter its reciprocity agreements because  these were
frozen at their November 15, 1991 levels. The court declined  to defer to the
ICC,s interpretation banning states from charging  registration fees in
excess of preexisting reciprocal discounts.  The court determined that the
plain meaning of the ISTEA was clear  and applied the statute as written
without reaching the agency interpretation.  The ISTEA itself referred only
to the fees collected or charged,  and contained no reference to reciprocity
agreements. The court  concluded that it must look at the generic fee
Michigan charged  or collected from carriers as of November 15, 1991, not at
the fees  paid by plaintiff in any given year. Reversed and remanded.

		Justice Kelly,  dissenting, disagreed with the conclusion that reciprocity
agreements  were not relevant to determining the registration fees that
Michigan  charged and would have affirmed the decisions of the Court of
Appeals  and Court of Claims in favor of plaintiff.

		Justice Cavanagh,  also dissenting, likewise found the statutory language
ambiguous  and that the ICC permissibly construed it in taking into account
reciprocity agreements.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Civil  Rights

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law

		Issues:?  Whether an alleged adverse employment action against an employee
on the basis of her former intimate relationship with her supervisor
presented a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the CRA;  Quid pro
quo sexual harassment; Hostile work environment;  Respondeat superior; Sex
discrimination; Breach of contract;  Intentional infliction of emotional
distress
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.
		e-Journal  Number: 10218
		Judge(s):?  Neff, Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen

		In  an issue of first impression regarding whether alleged adverse
employment  action against an employee on the basis of her former intimate
relationship  with her supervisor presents a cognizable claim of sex
discrimination  under the CRA, the court held that it does.  Therefore,
summary disposition of plaintiff,s sexual harassment  claim in favor of
defendants was improper. Plaintiff alleged that  she was subjected to a
hostile work environment, sexual harassment,  disparate treatment, and
unlawful termination because of her sex  and her prior relationship with
defendant-Smith. Plaintiff established  sufficient facts to survive a motion
for summary disposition under  either quid pro quo sexual harassment or
hostile work environment.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law

		Issues:  Alleged discrimination based on race and marital status; The  CRA
statute of limitations; Wrongful discharge; Failure to timely  initiate an
appeal of an administrative agency's final decision  to the circuit court;
Constitutional issues not within the agency's  jurisdiction may be raised in
the circuit court through the Administrative  Procedures Act (APA) review
procedure
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name: Womack-Scott v. Department of Corrections
		e-Journal  Number: 10219
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Doctoroff, Hoekstra, and Markey

		Since the plaintiff-former  employee failed to bring her CRA claims within
three years of the  date of her initial discharge for violation of one of
defendant's  work rules, the trial court properly granted summary
disposition  to defendant. Plaintiff argued that the trial court used the
wrong  date when calculating the limitation period and should have used  the
last day she was employed by defendant. Although plaintiff was  technically
reinstated for a period of time as a result of administrative  decisions and
again discharged, the court disagreed that the second  and final discharge
should apply for purposes of calculating the  limitations period.
Accordingly, plaintiff's race and marital status  discrimination claims
accrued on the date of her initial discharge  that was for allegedly
discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff's wrongful  discharge claim was also
properly dismissed by the trial court because  plaintiff failed to appeal the
final administrative decision to  the circuit court within the 60-day time
limitation provided by  the APA. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law

		Issues:?  Age, gender, and race discrimination; Retaliation
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Jones v. Wayne State Univ.
		e-Journal  Number: 10195
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam ) Bandstra, Zahra, and Meter

		Plaintiff,s  claims of age, gender, and race discrimination were properly
dismissed.  Plaintiff, a 55-year old African-American female, alleged that
her  reassignment was motivated by defendant-employer,s administrators,
desire to assemble a young, Caucasian male staff. Plaintiff alleged  that a
statement by defendant,s manager was direct evidence defendant  discriminated
against her based on age. However, at most, plaintiff,s  testimony
established that defendant,s manager observed that the  department was made
up of young, inexperienced employees. Further,  plaintiff,s subjective
impressions of her reassignment as a dead-end  job were insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of  discrimination. Plaintiff,s discriminatory
replacement arguments  based on gender and race failed because she was not
replaced by  a nonmember of the protected class. Summary disposition in
favor  of the defendant was affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Constitutional Law

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Real Property

		Issues:  The constitutionality of the Opening of Private Roads and Temporary
Highways Act (the Private Roads Act (MCL 229.1 et seq.));  Whether the act
authorizes a taking primarily benefiting a private  rather than a public
purpose; Overruling Bieker v. Suttons Bay  Twp. Supervisor and McKeighan v.
Grass Lake Twp. Supervisor  II
		Court:  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name: Tolksdorf v. Griffith
		e-Journal  Number: 10240
		Judge(s):  Kelly, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Taylor, Young, Jr.; Not
participating  - Markman

		The court struck  down the Private Roads Act (allowing a private landowner to
petition  a township supervisor to open a private road across another
landowner's  property) as providing for an unconstitutional taking under
art.  10, o 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, because it authorizes  a
taking that primarily benefits a private rather than a public  purpose.
Plaintiffs owned landlocked property and defendants owned  a neighboring
parcel. Defendants refused plaintiffs' requests seeking  a paved road across
their parcel and an easement for utility lines.  Plaintiffs sued requesting a
writ of mandamus compelling the township  supervisor to proceed under the
act. The trial court ruled against  plaintiffs and the Court of Appeals found
error in the refusal to  issue the writ. The court concluded that since the
act gives individuals  a permanent and continuous right to pass over
another's property,  it allowed a permanent physical occupation of private
property by  means of government action, and was a taking. The taking
authorized  by the act appeared to merely be an attempt by a private entity
to use the state's powers to acquire what it could not get through  arms'
length negotiations with defendants, and the primary benefit  inured to the
landlocked private owners, rather than the public.  Reversed and the trial
court's ruling for defendants was reinstated.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Construction Law

		Back               to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Statute of limitations for civil claims brought under the Michigan
builder,s trust fund act; Accrual of civil claims under builder,s  trust fund
act
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? DiPonio Constr. Co., Inc. v. Rosati Masonry Co., Inc.
		e-Journal  Number:? 10217
		Judge(s):?  Smolenski, Zahra, and Gage

		In an issue  of first impression, the court ruled that the six-year statute
of  limitations found in MCL 600.5813 applies to civil claims brought  under
the Michigan builder,s trust act therefore, the trial court  erred in
dismissing plaintiff-subcontractor,s action on the basis  it was time-barred.
Applying analysis found in case precedent, the  court concluded that when a
statute itself does not provide a limitation  period, a cause of action
arising from a statutory violation is  subject to the six-year limitation
period found in o 5813. Plaintiff,s  claim accrued when defendants were paid
on the project and defendants  failed to pay plaintiff the amounts due on
that project. Reversed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Negligence & Intentional Tort

		Issues:?  Retained control over the construction project; Immunity under the
exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA; Reliance on the Supreme  Court,s
plurality opinion in Bitar v.Wakim; Expert,s testimony  on the vibration from
a bulldozer theory; Duty to warn
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Piraine v. BDP Dev.
		e-Journal  Number: 10192
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam- Griffin, Holbrook, Jr., and Murphy

		The court corrected  a clerical error and ordered that the final paragraph of
the earlier  opinion (see e-Journal  # 10080 in the 5/3/01 edition) be
stricken and replaced  with the following language: &The lower court,s orders
denying summary  disposition are affirmed and the matter is remanded for
further  proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain
jurisdiction.8  The opinion remained the same in all other respects. The
earlier  release date was vacated.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Corrections

		Back               to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Parole; Legitimate reasons for parole board to deny parole to  a
prisoner assessed with only an average probability of parole
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Searles v. Parole Bd.
		e-Journal  Number:? 10210
		Judge(s):?  Memorandum ) Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder

		Defendant-parole  board did not abuse its discretion in denying parole to
plaintiff,  a prisoner assessed with only an average probability of parole,
and the trial court erred in reversing the parole board,s decision.  The
parole board identified several legitimate reasons for denying  plaintiff
parole, including (1) the type of crime (CSC II), (2)  the identity of the
victim, (3) plaintiff,s unstable domestic and  employment histories, and (4)
her inability to follow rules, reflected  in her misconduct record. The trial
court,s order was reversed and  the parole board,s decision denying parole
was reinstated.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Criminal  Law

		Back               to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Sufficiency of evidence to support conviction of third-degree
fleeing  or eluding a police officer; Alleged police brutality
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? People v. Buchanan
		e-Journal  Number: 10198
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder

		There was sufficient  evidence to support defendant,s conviction of
third-degree fleeing  or eluding a police officer. Defendant argued that the
evidence  failed to show that he refused to obey a clear signal to stop his
vehicle. The evidence showed that defendant continued to drive at  a high
rate of speed, even after a marked police vehicle activated  its overhead
lights, and that defendant only pulled into a parking  lot because two police
vehicles blocked his path. The evidence also  demonstrated that defendant was
driving with an unlawful blood alcohol  level, had a suspended license, and
was a parole absconder, which  supported an inference that he was
intentionally trying to evade  the police. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Whether the trial court's refusal to give the requested instruction
on the lesser included offense of larceny from a person was harmless  error;
The Carines/Olano plain error rule
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: People v. Davidson
		e-Journal  Number: 10187
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Holbrook, Jr. and McDonald; Dissent - Wilder

		Since the erroneous  unarmed robbery instructions seriously affected the
fairness, integrity,  or public reputation of judicial proceedings
independent of the  defendant's innocence and the error was not harmless,
defendant's  conviction of two counts of unarmed robbery was reversed and
the  case remanded for a new trial. The prosecution conceded that the  trial
court erred in refusing to give the requested instruction  on the lesser
included offense of larceny from a person, but argued  that the error had a
negligible effect on the outcome of the case  and was harmless. The court
disagreed because the jury was improperly  instructed on the crime of unarmed
robbery, the crime for which  defendant was convicted, and specific intent.
The court could not  conclude that the jury's verdict would have been the
same had it  been given the proper instruction for unarmed robbery. The
court  also concluded that the instructions given by the trial court
conflated  the crime of unarmed robbery and accessory after the fact.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Motion for a new trial; Whether complainant,s recanting affidavit
was newly discovered evidence; Whether defendant demonstrated a  miscarriage
of justice; Whether constitutional rights were violated;  Waiver of trial by
jury
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? People v. Felder
		e-Journal  Number: 10201
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly

		Defendant,s  motion for a new trial was properly denied because complainant,
s  affidavit recanting her testimony was unreliable. The record relating  to
the circumstances immediately preceding complainant,s recantation  supported
the trial court,s finding that defendant engaged in inappropriate  and
harassing behavior toward complainant, which indicated that  defendant
coerced the complainant,s recanting testimony. The record  indicated that
defendant contacted the complainant four times by  telephone, followed her in
her vehicle, confronted her in the presence  of her children, and drove by
her home. The complainant testified  that she was afraid, that she agreed to
recant her trial testimony  because she wanted no further contact with
defendant, and wanted  him to stop harassing her. Defendant,s conviction of
assault with  a dangerous weapon was affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Whether defendant revoked his waiver of rights and unambiguously
requested an attorney; Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions  of
second-degree murder and felony-firearm; Whether defendant had  a
constitutional right to present witnesses at the preliminary examination
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: People v. Harris
		e-Journal  Number: 10202
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Gage, Cavanagh, and Wilder

		Since conduct  and silence do not constitute an assertion of the right to
remain  silent, the trial court did not err by admitting defendant's
statements  made after he placed his hand over a question on the police
officer's  statement form and told the officer, "don't write that".  After
being informed of his Miranda rights before questioning  began, defendant
chose to voluntarily answer questions. Defendant  answered the first nine
questions, however after initially answering  the next question, he put his
hand over the question on the form  and asked the officer not to write down
his response because it  was untruthful. Defendant did not answer two more
questions he was  asked, then informed the officer he would not answer any
more questions,  and wanted an attorney. Defendant claimed that his act of
placing  his hand over the statement form and telling the officer not to
write down his response constituted an assertion of the Fifth Amendment
right to remain silent and revoked his previous waiver of that right.  The
court disagreed because it was not until after the officer asked  two
subsequent questions, that defendant verbally and unambiguously  invoked his
right to an attorney. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Sufficiency of evidence to convict of first-degree felony murder
and felony-firearm; Failure to instruct on lesser included offenses;
Distinction between lesser included offense and a cognate lesser  included
offense; Prosecutorial misconduct; Jury instructions on  stricken testimony;
Ineffective assistance of counsel
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: People v. Williams
		e-Journal  Number: 10193
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Kelly, Smolenski, and Meter

		Even in the  absence of direct evidence identifying defendant as the
perpetrator,  the circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from it
were  sufficient for the jury to conclude that defendant knew the victim's
daily routine of leaving for work about 5:00 a.m., knew of the victim's
habit of carrying large sums of money, and thus shot and ultimately  killed
the victim while attempting to rob him. At 5:03 a.m., the  victim's widow
heard a gunshot, discovered her husband outside with  a gunshot in the neck,
and that his wallet was missing. A neighbor  saw defendant leave her house,
where he lived, just before the shooting.  Another neighbor saw defendant
walking very fast down the street  right after the shooting. A gunshot
residue test performed about  three hours after the shooting revealed that
defendant had residue  on his hands and that the residue came from a gun
being fired. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Employment & Labor Law

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Family Law

		Issues:?  Whether certain categories of payments made by defendant to its
employees constituted &earnings8 within the meaning of the Federal  Consumer
Credit Protection Act (CCPA); Support and Parenting Time  Enforcement Act
(SPTEA)
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? Genesee County Friend of the Court v. General Motors  Corp.
		e-Journal  Number: 10241
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Taylor, Young,
Jr.,  and Markman

		The  court held that all categories of payments (profit-sharing, recognition
awards, and signing bonuses) made by defendant to its employees  constituted
&earnings8 within the meaning of CCPA and are subject  to a limitation on the
amount that may be captured by income withholding  orders under SPTEA. The
lower courts held that profit-sharing payments  and recognition awards were
not earnings, but that signing bonus  payments were. After receiving the
income withholding orders, defendant  paid to the Friend of the Court 50% of
the disposable earnings because  it believed that the category of payments at
issue were subject  to the federal percentage limits on garnishment. The
judgments of  the Court of Appeals and the circuit court were reversed in
part,  and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Civil Rights

		Issues:?  Whether an alleged adverse employment action against an employee
on the basis of her former intimate relationship with her supervisor
presented a cognizable claim of sex discrimination under the CRA;  Quid pro
quo sexual harassment; Hostile work environment;  Respondeat superior; Sex
discrimination; Breach of contract;  Intentional infliction of emotional
distress
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Corley v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.
		e-Journal  Number: 10218
		Judge(s):?  Neff, Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen

		In  an issue of first impression regarding whether alleged adverse
employment  action against an employee on the basis of her former intimate
relationship  with her supervisor presents a cognizable claim of sex
discrimination  under the CRA, the court held that it does.  Therefore,
summary disposition of plaintiff,s sexual harassment  claim in favor of
defendants was improper. Plaintiff alleged that  she was subjected to a
hostile work environment, sexual harassment,  disparate treatment, and
unlawful termination because of her sex  and her prior relationship with
defendant-Smith. Plaintiff established  sufficient facts to survive a motion
for summary disposition under  either quid pro quo sexual harassment or
hostile work environment.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Civil Rights

		Issues:  Alleged discrimination based on race and marital status; The  CRA
statute of limitations; Wrongful discharge; Failure to timely  initiate an
appeal of an administrative agency's final decision  to the circuit court;
Constitutional issues not within the agency's  jurisdiction may be raised in
the circuit court through the Administrative  Procedures Act (APA) review
procedure
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name: Womack-Scott v. Department of Corrections
		e-Journal  Number: 10219
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Doctoroff, Hoekstra, and Markey

		Since the plaintiff-former  employee failed to bring her CRA claims within
three years of the  date of her initial discharge for violation of one of
defendant's  work rules, the trial court properly granted summary
disposition  to defendant. Plaintiff argued that the trial court used the
wrong  date when calculating the limitation period and should have used  the
last day she was employed by defendant. Although plaintiff was  technically
reinstated for a period of time as a result of administrative  decisions and
again discharged, the court disagreed that the second  and final discharge
should apply for purposes of calculating the  limitations period.
Accordingly, plaintiff's race and marital status  discrimination claims
accrued on the date of her initial discharge  that was for allegedly
discriminatory reasons. Plaintiff's wrongful  discharge claim was also
properly dismissed by the trial court because  plaintiff failed to appeal the
final administrative decision to  the circuit court within the 60-day time
limitation provided by  the APA. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Civil Rights

		Issues:?  Age, gender, and race discrimination; Retaliation
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Jones v. Wayne State Univ.
		e-Journal  Number: 10195
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam ) Bandstra, Zahra, and Meter

		Plaintiff,s  claims of age, gender, and race discrimination were properly
dismissed.  Plaintiff, a 55-year old African-American female, alleged that
her  reassignment was motivated by defendant-employer,s administrators,
desire to assemble a young, Caucasian male staff. Plaintiff alleged  that a
statement by defendant,s manager was direct evidence defendant  discriminated
against her based on age. However, at most, plaintiff,s  testimony
established that defendant,s manager observed that the  department was made
up of young, inexperienced employees. Further,  plaintiff,s subjective
impressions of her reassignment as a dead-end  job were insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of  discrimination. Plaintiff,s discriminatory
replacement arguments  based on gender and race failed because she was not
replaced by  a nonmember of the protected class. Summary disposition in
favor  of the defendant was affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Litigation

		Issues:  Whether the trial court erred in affirming the arbitration award
because the arbitrators? exceeded their authority; Whether defendants
breached the employment agreement (EA); Interpretation of the EA  and related
documents; Whether the trial court erred in refusing  to award statutory
interest from the date of the arbitration award;  Whether plaintiffs were
entitled to 12% interest because the arbitration  award was rendered on a
written instrument; Economic development  commission (EDC)
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: Young v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
		e-Journal  Number: 10190
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Collins, Jansen, and White

		The arbitrators  did not exceed their authority when they issued the
arbitration  award against the defendant-tribe EDC for breach of plaintiff's
EA, therefore the trial court did not err in confirming the award.
Defendants argued that the joint venture master agreement, which  was signed
by the tribe EDC, contained an arbitration provision  and a waiver of
sovereign immunity, but contended that the arbitrators  did not have
authority to decide whether the tribe EDC breached  the EA because the tribe
EDC did not sign the EA and was not a party  to it. The court concluded that
when the various documents, which  referred to each other, were read together
the parties intended  that the documents be construed as one agreement.
Accordingly, a  breach of the EA constituted a breach of the joint venture
master  agreement, the claim was subject to arbitration, and the tribe EDC
could be held liable for the breach. Affirmed, but remanded for  modification
of the judgment to include post-arbitration award interest  at 12%.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Family Law

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law

		Issues:?  Whether certain categories of payments made by defendant to its
employees constituted &earnings8 within the meaning of the Federal  Consumer
Credit Protection Act (CCPA); Support and Parenting Time  Enforcement Act
(SPTEA)
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? Genesee County Friend of the Court v. General Motors  Corp.
		e-Journal  Number: 10241
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Taylor, Young,
Jr.,  and Markman

		The  court held that all categories of payments (profit-sharing, recognition
awards, and signing bonuses) made by defendant to its employees  constituted
&earnings8 within the meaning of CCPA and are subject  to a limitation on the
amount that may be captured by income withholding  orders under SPTEA. The
lower courts held that profit-sharing payments  and recognition awards were
not earnings, but that signing bonus  payments were. After receiving the
income withholding orders, defendant  paid to the Friend of the Court 50% of
the disposable earnings because  it believed that the category of payments at
issue were subject  to the federal percentage limits on garnishment. The
judgments of  the Court of Appeals and the circuit court were reversed in
part,  and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Divorce; Judicial review of property division award rendered
pursuant to binding arbitration; Alimony in gross as property division;
Arbitration award providing that if sum certain awarded to spouse  is not
paid it shall be considered spousal support and nondischargeable  in
bankruptcy; Arbitrator,s factual findings; Whether arbitrator  violated
Michigan law
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Krist v. Krist
		e-Journal  Number:? 10220
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly

		Defendant-spouse  did not satisfy the exacting &manifest disregard of the
law8 standard  required for judicial intervention in a property division
award  issued after binding arbitration and incorporated into the parties,
divorce judgment. Defendant argued that the arbitration decision  contained
an award of spousal support in contravention of the settlement  agreement.
The offending paragraph in the award actually provided  for a lump sum
payment, or alimony in gross, which was in the nature  of the division of
property and was completely consistent with the  parties, binding arbitration
and settlement agreement. The court  also found no error with the arbitrator,
s provision that if the  sum certain awarded to plaintiff was not paid, that
amount would  be considered spousal support and nondischargeable in
bankruptcy.  The language employed in the award was a mechanism to frustrate
any attempt by defendant to circumvent the property division by  filing for
bankruptcy and discharging the obligation owed to plaintiff.  Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Divorce; Marital assets; Whether the trial court invaded
defendant's  separate property; Pre-marital agreement; Spousal support;
Whether  plaintiff's first husband should share in the burden of the spousal
support award
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Cowen v. Cowen
		e-Journal  Number: 10204
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Wilder, Cavanagh, Hood

		The trial court  properly held that the parties, home and Florida condominium
were  part of the marital estate. It was undisputed that both the home  and
condominium were purchased after the parties married. Defendant  testified
that plaintiff was a joint owner of the marital home and  that he intended
the condominium to be owed jointly between them,  which showed that defendant
intended that plaintiff be the joint  owner of the properties. By adding
plaintiff,s name to each deed  of title, defendant willingly included both
properties in the marital  estate, therefore whether plaintiff helped
acquire, improve, or  accumulate the property was irrelevant. Affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Termination of parental rights; Alleged denial of right to jury
trial
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: In re Curry
		e-Journal  Number: 10212
		Judge(s):  Memorandum - McDonald, Smolenski, and Kelly

		Since the respondent-father  had notice of the proceedings but chose to
remain uninvolved until  after the adjudication, and waited until the
termination hearing  to request a jury, the trial court did not err in
denying his request  for a jury trial. The trial court's order terminating
respondent's  parental rights was affirmed.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Termination of parental rights; Whether release of parental  rights
should be revoked; Failure to petition the family court to  revoke release
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: In re Kelly
		e-Journal  Number: 10211
		Judge(s):  Memorandum - McDonald, Smolenski, and Kelly

		Since the respondent-mother  failed to petition the family court to revoke
her release of parental  rights, the issue was not properly before the court.
The court affirmed  the family court's order terminating respondent's
parental rights  to one of the children following her voluntary release of
parental  rights pursuant to MCL 710.29.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Litigation

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Negligence & Intentional Tort

		Issues:?  Alleged negligence by violating state and local law in providing
alcohol to minors; Jury instruction regarding the impairment defense;
Failure to strike plaintiff,s testimony regarding her percentage  of fault;
Failing to cure the violation of plaintiff,s substantial  rights when defense
counsel improperly referred to a fee agreement  and improperly elicited
testimony from police officers that had  been excluded
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Piccalo v. Nix
		e-Journal  Number: 10215
		Judge(s):?  Hood and McDonald; Dissent ) Zahra

		The  trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the impairment
defense because it would be absurd to allow the defense of impairment  to an
individual who caused or created the impairment of the injured  person. Due
to the cumulative effect of errors regarding the trial  court,s rulings there
was cumulative prejudice. Plaintiff, a passenger  in a van where there were
only two seats, laid or sat in the back  of the van and was injured by tires
inside the van, when the driver,  an underage drinker, who was served alcohol
at defendant,s home,  failed to manipulate a slight curve in the gravel road
and drove  the van into a tree. The case was reversed and remanded for a new
trial.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Employment & Labor Law

		Issues:  Whether the trial court erred in affirming the arbitration award
because the arbitrators? exceeded their authority; Whether defendants
breached the employment agreement (EA); Interpretation of the EA  and related
documents; Whether the trial court erred in refusing  to award statutory
interest from the date of the arbitration award;  Whether plaintiffs were
entitled to 12% interest because the arbitration  award was rendered on a
written instrument; Economic development  commission (EDC)
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name: Young v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
		e-Journal  Number: 10190
		Judge(s):  Per Curiam - Collins, Jansen, and White

		The arbitrators  did not exceed their authority when they issued the
arbitration  award against the defendant-tribe EDC for breach of plaintiff's
EA, therefore the trial court did not err in confirming the award.
Defendants argued that the joint venture master agreement, which  was signed
by the tribe EDC, contained an arbitration provision  and a waiver of
sovereign immunity, but contended that the arbitrators  did not have
authority to decide whether the tribe EDC breached  the EA because the tribe
EDC did not sign the EA and was not a party  to it. The court concluded that
when the various documents, which  referred to each other, were read together
the parties intended  that the documents be construed as one agreement.
Accordingly, a  breach of the EA constituted a breach of the joint venture
master  agreement, the claim was subject to arbitration, and the tribe EDC
could be held liable for the breach. Affirmed, but remanded for  modification
of the judgment to include post-arbitration award interest  at 12%.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Municipal

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This  summary also appears under Real Property

		Issues:  Circuit court order compelling city to approve site plan for  a fast
food restaurant; Writ of mandamus; Superintending control;  Decision
involving discretionary authority; Decision based on competent,  material,
and substantial evidence; Insufficient stacking spaces  to support
drive-through windows; Traffic study report; Absence  of clear right to legal
performance
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Kanakry v. City of St. Clair Shores
		e-Journal  Number:? 10194
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly

		The court could  not uphold the trial court,s order compelling defendants to
approve  plaintiffs-property owners, site plan for a McDonald,s restaurant
because the decision to deny approval of the plan involved discretionary
authority and was supported by competent, material, and substantial
evidence. The trial court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus instead  of an
order for superintending control, but this was not the basis  for reversal.
Plaintiffs, site plan only provided for 9 stacking  spaces, but 14 were
required for plaintiffs to have two drive-through  windows. This
nonconformance with the zoning ordinance alone was  sufficient for defendants
to deny the site plan. Defendants also  found that the deficient number of
stacking spaces would create  a traffic hazard and cause an unduly harmful
impact on the city  as a whole. Reversed and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Negligence & Intentional Tort

		Back               to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Premises liability; Whether the volunteer doctrine barred plaintiff,
s  premises liability action
		Court:?  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name:? James v. Albert
		e-Journal  Number: 10239
		Judge(s):?  Taylor, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Kelly, Young, Jr., and
Markman

		The  court abolished the volunteer doctrine and agreed, but for different
reasons, with the Court of Appeals that this doctrine did not bar  plaintiff,
s claim, and affirmed reversal of the trial court,s grant  of summary
disposition for defendant. The court returned this area  of the law to
traditional agency and tort principles, because it  believed that they will
better resolve the matters to which the  doctrine might have applied.
Plaintiff incurred injuries while assisting  defendant in digging a trench on
defendant,s property. The parties  disagreed about whether defendant invited
plaintiff to assist him  in digging the trench. Affirmed, and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Litigation

		Issues:?  Alleged negligence by violating state and local law in providing
alcohol to minors; Jury instruction regarding the impairment defense;
Failure to strike plaintiff,s testimony regarding her percentage  of fault;
Failing to cure the violation of plaintiff,s substantial  rights when defense
counsel improperly referred to a fee agreement  and improperly elicited
testimony from police officers that had  been excluded
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name:? Piccalo v. Nix
		e-Journal  Number: 10215
		Judge(s):?  Hood and McDonald; Dissent ) Zahra

		The  trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the impairment
defense because it would be absurd to allow the defense of impairment  to an
individual who caused or created the impairment of the injured  person. Due
to the cumulative effect of errors regarding the trial  court,s rulings there
was cumulative prejudice. Plaintiff, a passenger  in a van where there were
only two seats, laid or sat in the back  of the van and was injured by tires
inside the van, when the driver,  an underage drinker, who was served alcohol
at defendant,s home,  failed to manipulate a slight curve in the gravel road
and drove  the van into a tree. The case was reversed and remanded for a new
trial.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:?  Premises liability; Whether plaintiff,s premises liability action
was preempted by the dramshop act; Instructing jury with both SJI2d  19.03
and SJI2d 19.05; Additur; Application of collateral source  rule; Offset for
payment by a codefendant insurer
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Mann v. Shusteric Enters., Inc.
		e-Journal  Number:? 10188
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Kelly, White, and Wilder

		Plaintiff,s  premises liability action against defendant for injuries
sustained  in a slip and fall in the parking lot of defendant,s bar was not
preempted by the dramshop act. Defendant,s service of alcohol was  only
implicated as it related to defendant,s knowledge of plaintiff,s  condition
and whether defendant,s conduct in failing to inspect  or clear the parking
lot and failing to warn plaintiff was reasonable.  The trial court did not
err in instructing the jury with both the  general duty to business invitee
instruction and the duty regarding  natural accumulation of ice and snow
instruction, because the instructions  are not inconsistent. The jury,s
verdict, denying all noneconomic  damages, was inadequate because the jury
ignored an entire category  of damages for which plaintiff produced
uncontroverted evidence.  The trial court abused its discretion in denying
plaintiff,s motion  for additur. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Construction Law

		Issues:?  Retained control over the construction project; Immunity under the
exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA; Reliance on the Supreme  Court,s
plurality opinion in Bitar v.Wakim; Expert,s testimony  on the vibration from
a bulldozer theory; Duty to warn
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Piraine v. BDP Dev.
		e-Journal  Number: 10192
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam- Griffin, Holbrook, Jr., and Murphy

		The court corrected  a clerical error and ordered that the final paragraph of
the earlier  opinion (see e-Journal  # 10080 in the 5/3/01 edition) be
stricken and replaced  with the following language: &The lower court,s orders
denying summary  disposition are affirmed and the matter is remanded for
further  proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain
jurisdiction.8  The opinion remained the same in all other respects. The
earlier  release date was vacated.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Real Property

		Back               to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Constitutional Law

		Issues:  The constitutionality of the Opening of Private Roads and Temporary
Highways Act (the Private Roads Act (MCL 229.1 et seq.));  Whether the act
authorizes a taking primarily benefiting a private  rather than a public
purpose; Overruling Bieker v. Suttons Bay  Twp. Supervisor and McKeighan v.
Grass Lake Twp. Supervisor  II
		Court:  Michigan Supreme Court
		Case  Name: Tolksdorf v. Griffith
		e-Journal  Number: 10240
		Judge(s):  Kelly, Corrigan, Cavanagh, Weaver, Taylor, Young, Jr.; Not
participating  - Markman

		The court struck  down the Private Roads Act (allowing a private landowner to
petition  a township supervisor to open a private road across another
landowner's  property) as providing for an unconstitutional taking under
art.  10, o 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, because it authorizes  a
taking that primarily benefits a private rather than a public  purpose.
Plaintiffs owned landlocked property and defendants owned  a neighboring
parcel. Defendants refused plaintiffs' requests seeking  a paved road across
their parcel and an easement for utility lines.  Plaintiffs sued requesting a
writ of mandamus compelling the township  supervisor to proceed under the
act. The trial court ruled against  plaintiffs and the Court of Appeals found
error in the refusal to  issue the writ. The court concluded that since the
act gives individuals  a permanent and continuous right to pass over
another's property,  it allowed a permanent physical occupation of private
property by  means of government action, and was a taking. The taking
authorized  by the act appeared to merely be an attempt by a private entity
to use the state's powers to acquire what it could not get through  arms'
length negotiations with defendants, and the primary benefit  inured to the
landlocked private owners, rather than the public.  Reversed and the trial
court's ruling for defendants was reinstated.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Issues:  Whether plaintiff's prior recorded judgment lien had priority  over
defendants' subsequent mortgage interest
		Court:  Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
		Case  Name: Graves v. American Acceptance Mortgage Corp.
		e-Journal  Number: 10216
		Judge(s):  Gage, Sawyer, and Jansen

		Since the subsequent  mortgage constituted a purchase money mortgage, which
takes priority  over earlier creditors' interests even though the earlier
interest  was duly recorded, the trial court erred in concluding that
plaintiff's  earlier recorded judgment lien had priority over defendants'
mortgage  interest. The divorce judgment granted plaintiff a lien on the
property  to the extent of Diaz' (her ex-husband) then existing equitable
title interest in the property as the land contract vendee. The  mortgage
Diaz granted American Acceptance constituted a purchase  money mortgage
because Diaz, who had defaulted on the land contract  payments, utilized the
mortgage proceeds to obtain legal title to  the property by paying off the
land contract vendors. Accordingly,  notwithstanding that plaintiff filed her
judgment lien before the  execution of the Diaz mortgage, the purchase money
mortgage by which  Diaz secured legal title to the property, had priority
over plaintiff's  judgment lien which arose against Diaz prior to his
acquisition  of title to the real estate. The trial court failed to accord
defendants'  purchase money mortgage interest the priority to which it was
entitled  by law. Reversed and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		Back  to Quicklinks

		This summary  also appears under Municipal

		Issues:  Circuit court order compelling city to approve site plan for  a fast
food restaurant; Writ of mandamus; Superintending control;  Decision
involving discretionary authority; Decision based on competent,  material,
and substantial evidence; Insufficient stacking spaces  to support
drive-through windows; Traffic study report; Absence  of clear right to legal
performance
		Court:?  Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
		Case  Name:? Kanakry v. City of St. Clair Shores
		e-Journal  Number:? 10194
		Judge(s):?  Per Curiam ) Hood, Doctoroff, and Kelly

		The court could  not uphold the trial court,s order compelling defendants to
approve  plaintiffs-property owners, site plan for a McDonald,s restaurant
because the decision to deny approval of the plan involved discretionary
authority and was supported by competent, material, and substantial
evidence. The trial court erred by issuing a writ of mandamus instead  of an
order for superintending control, but this was not the basis  for reversal.
Plaintiffs, site plan only provided for 9 stacking  spaces, but 14 were
required for plaintiffs to have two drive-through  windows. This
nonconformance with the zoning ordinance alone was  sufficient for defendants
to deny the site plan. Defendants also  found that the deficient number of
stacking spaces would create  a traffic hazard and cause an unduly harmful
impact on the city  as a whole. Reversed and remanded.

		Full  Text Opinion

		fields  of practice listings

		ADR/Arbitration/Mediation

		ASHER N.  TILCHIN, a  member of the American College of Civil Trial Mediators
and Michigan  Arbitration and Mediation Association provides mediation for
pre,  early, and matured lawsuits. He has been a successful mediator since
1991. Tilchin also provides arbitration services as a single or  multi-panel
arbitrator. Cases involving construction, real estate,  commercial
transactions, and legal malpractice invited. Asher N.  Tilchin, 31731
Northwestern Hwy., Suite 106, Farmington Hills, MI  48334, (248)855-0995 or
Fax (248) 855-0850, e-mail antilchin@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Administrative  Law

		JAMES R. VIVENTI, James R Viventi PLLC, 3670 Powderhorn  Drive, Okemos, MI
48864-5924, Phone: (517) 381-0670, FAX: (517)  381-0671.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Adoption

		MONICA FARRIS LINKNER, Sommers, Schwartz, Silver & Schwartz,  PC, 2000 Town
Center, Suite 900, Southfield, MI 48075-1100, Phone:  (248) 746-4011, FAX:
(248) 936-1976, e-mail: mlinkner@s4online.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Alternative  Dispute Resolution

		DONNA CRAIG, Donna Craig & Associates PLC, 999 Haynes Street,  Suite 245,
Birmingham, MI 48009, Phone: (248) 682-7750, FAX: (248)  682-2376, e-mail:
craigassoc@earthlink.net.  Visit www.adr-resource.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Antitrust/Advertising/Trade  Regulation

		DAVID G.  CHARDAVOYNE specializes  in the regulation of business competition,
including: antitrust  law, unfair competition, and the regulation of
advertising, labeling,  and other trade practices. Former Chairperson of
State Bar antitrust  and trade regulation section, more than 15 years'
experience in  this field. Will consult regarding antitrust issues
(monopolies,  mergers, price fixing, exclusive dealing, tying arrangements,
price  discrimination, dealer termination, market allocation); premerger
notice filings under Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; discussions with State  and
Federal regulatory agencies (FTC, Justice Department, Attorney  General);
compliance with laws regulating advertising (substantiation  of claims,
product labels, consumer price displays); and all other  matters relating to
business competition. David G. Chardavoyne,  26755 La Muera Ave., Farmington
Hills, MI 48334-4613, (248) 477-6308,  e-mail chardavoyne@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Appeals

		LAURIE S. LONGO, 214 South Main, Suite 210, Ann Arbor, MI  48104-2122, Phone:
(734) 913-5619, e-mail: 42203@msn.com.  Visit http://michiganappeals.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Appellate  Law

		SAFFORD & BAKER, PLLC, 40900 Woodward Avenue, Suite 110, Bloomfield  Hills,
MI 48304, Phone: (248) 646-9100, FAX: (248) 646-9102. Visit
www.saffordbaker.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Automobile  Warranty Law

		LIBLANG  & ASSOCIATES:  Specializing in "Lemon Law", UCC, Magnuson-Moss,
Odometer  Fraud and Consumer Protection Act. Available for trials,
consultations  or referrals. Cases accepted statewide. Over 17 years and
5,000  cases. Michigan's most experienced lemon law attorneys, Dani K.
Liblang and Scott J. Sinkwitts. Please call (248) 540-9270 or e-mail
NoLemons@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Business  & Taxation

		LAW OFFICES  OF RALPH W. PEZDA.  Oakland County practitioner with an LL.M.
degree in taxation from  New York University will assist your clients or firm
with taxation,  business, interdisciplinary, and white collar criminal
matters.  Referrals paid. 27700 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 411, Southfield,  MI
48034. (248) 352-5632. E-mail address: rwp@cdlcorp.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Construction  Law

		JOHN V.  TOCCO, attorney,  construction engineer, and civil engineering
professor, with over  twenty years experience in the construction industry,
provides mediation  and arbitration services for all construction matters.
Also provides  litigation support and claims analysis. Cases accepted
statewide.  Call (313) 406-2040 for CV, or review Profile at
www.johntocco.com  E-mail john@johntocco.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Copyrights

		CAROL R. SHEPHERD, Arborlaw Associates, PLLC, 320 S Main  St, PO Box 8403,
Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8403, Phone: (734) 668-4646,  FAX: (734) 822-4646,
e-mail: shepherd@arborlaw.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Criminal  Law

		F. RANDALL KARFONTA, Attorney @ Law, 113 North Main, PO  Box 565, Leland, MI
49654, Phone: (231) 256-2200. Visit http://www.leelanau.com  or
http://www.leelanau.com/professional/karfonta.

		Back to Quicklinks

		RAYMOND A. CASSAR, Law Offices of Raymond A. Cassar, 30665  Northwestern Hwy,
Suite 100, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248)  855-0911, FAX: (248)
855-9523, e-mail: rcassar@aol.com.  Additional offices located in Oakland
County (248) 855-0911, and Wayne  County (313) 278-8811. Visit
www.crimlawattorney.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		TALPOS & ARNOLD PC, 2855 Coolidge Road, Suite 109, Troy, MI  48084-3215,
Phone: (248) 643-4515, FAX: (248) 643-4797, e-mail: jctalpos@aol.com.  Visit
www.Mich-Lawyer.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Environmental  Law

		DEAN & FULKERSON, PC, Richard A. Barr, rbarr@dflaw.com  or James K. O'Brien,
jobrien@dflaw.com,  801 W Big Beaver, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084-4767, Phone:
(248) 362-1300,  FAX: (248) 362-1358.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Family  Law

		JOHN G. MAKRIS, 802 E Big Beaver Rd, Troy, MI 48083-1404,  Phone: (248)
528-1811, FAX: (248) 524-0973, e-mail: jgmakris@altavista.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Federal  False Claims (Qui Tam) Actions

		HaronDAVID  HARON represents  whistleblowers in civil false claims actions
and works with referring  attorneys nationwide who specialize in employment
law and other  fields. Under the federal False Claims Act, private
individuals  with knowledge of fraud against federal programs can file suit
on  behalf of the United States and receive a substantial share of any
recovery. Representing such claimants, Mr. Haron has recovered millions  of
dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funds that had been fraudulently  obtained
by health-care providers, primarily through abusive billing  practices. To
learn more, visit his qui tam web site at www.QuiTamOnline.com  or contact
him directly by e-mail at dharon@fsh-law.com  or phone (248) 952-0400 at
Frank, Stefani, Haron & Hall  in Troy http://www.fsh-law.com/

		Back to Quicklinks

		Health  Law

		KENNETH R. MARCUS, representing provider organizations and  professionals
since 1984 in Blue Cross/Medicaid/Medicare Audit Defense,  Payment Appeals,
Stark Act Compliance, Managed Care Contracting,  Physician Transactions,
Corporate Law. I work collaboratively with  general counsel. Phone
888.865.9955, fax: 248.865.9956, e-mail:  krmarcus@aol.com. Visit
www.lawyers.com/kenmarcus.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Hospital  & Medical Negligence

		THE  LAW OFFICES OF JOHN S. HONE, P.C., representing victims  of hospital and
medical negligence resulting in serious injury,  permanent cognitive and
physical disability and wrongful death.  Millions won, available for
consultation and referral, cases accepted  statewide. Phone Hone: (248)
888-7585; Toll Free: 888-HMO-1010;  Fax: (248) 473-8895; E-mail to
mmhmolawsuit@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Immigration  and Naturalization

		NAHIL PETER ANTONE, N. Peter Antone, PC, 16445 West Twelve  Mile Road, Suite
100, Southfield, MI 48076, Phone: (248) 559-0707,  FAX: (248) 559-0790,
e-mail: Peter@Antone.com.  Visit http://Antone.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		ROGER R. RATHI, Attorney at Law, 29777 Telegraph Road, Suite  2500,
Southfield, MI 48034, Phone: (248) 539-8421, FAX: (248) 353-2786,  e-mail:
rrathi@yahoo.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		STEVEN N. GARMO, Law Offices of Garmo & Garmo, 28230 Orchard  Lake Road,
Suite 201, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248) 626-0050,  FAX: (248)
626-0051, e-mail: steve@garmo.com.  Visit: www.garmo.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Immigration  Law

		MARSHAL  E. HYMAN & ASSOCIATES. All  aspects of immigration law including
employment-based immigration  for professionals and skilled workers. Labor
certifications. Family-based  immigration. Immigration from Canada. Political
asylum, all waivers  and appeals. Corporate transfers for multinational
employees. Representation  in Immigration courts and Federal courts since
1981. 3250 West Big  Beaver, Suite 529, Troy, MI 48084. (248) 643-0642, Fax:
(248) 643-0798.  E-mail: marshalhyman@msu.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Insurance  Law

		STUART A. SKLAR, Fabian, Sklar & Davis, PC, 31800 Northwestern  Hwy, Suite
205, Farmington Hills, MI 48334, Phone: (248) 855-2110,  FAX: (248) 855-0209.
Additional office located in West Michigan  (616) 451-9900, e-mail:
ssklar-firelaw@tir.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Intellectual  Property Law

		GIFFORD, KRASS, GROH, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.,  280 North Old
Woodward, Suite 400, Birmingham, MI 48009-5392, Phone:  (248) 647-6000, FAX:
(248) 647-5210, e-mail: info@patlaw.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC, Bloomfield Hills (248) 594-0600;  Grand Rapids
(616) 742-3500; Washington, DC (202) 955-3750; Englewood,  CO (303) 991-1200.
Visit www.intelprop.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Labor  & Employment

		THE LAW  OFFICE of  Gregory T. Gibbs  is an AV rated firm with years of
experience in employment law advice  and litigation. We can answer questions
about: handbooks, sexual  harassment, wrongful discharge, discrimination,
family medical leave,  collective bargaining, wage-hour issues or any other
employment  related matter under state or federal law. We work with you and
your clients under referral fee arrangements. 328 S. Saginaw St.,  Ste. 9001,
Flint, MI 48502. (810) 239-9470, fax (810) 235-2468,  e-mail:
bakerlak@tir.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		DAVID D. KOHL, 39500 Orchard Hill Place, Suite 110, Novi, MI  48375, Phone:
(248) 347-6666, FAX: (248) 348-8707, e-mail: daviddkohl@juno.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Litigation

		FINK, ZAUSMER & KAUFMAN, PC, 31700 Middlebelt Rd #150, Farmington  Hills, MI
48334, Phone: (248) 851-4111, FAX: (248) 851-0100. Additional  offices
located in Detroit (313) 963-3873, and Lansing (517) 374-2735.  Visit
http://www.lawsite.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		STEPHEN K. VALENTINE, JR, Valentine & Associates, 5767 West  Maple Road.
Suite 400, West Bloomfield, MI 48322, Phone: (248) 851-3010,  FAX: (248)
851-1553.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Medical  Malpractice

		WANT A SECOND  OPINION ON A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE? The  law offices of
Anthony M. Malizia, P.C., is a statewide firm that  handles only medical
malpractice cases. I am Martindale-Hubbell  "AV-rated." I sit as a
plaintiff's medical malpractice  mediator. I have 20 years experience in the
review and development  of these cases, many trials to jury verdict, and many
more settlements.  Over the years, upwards of 20% of my case inventory has
consisted  of meritorious cases initially rejected by others, including
"name  firms." Oftentimes these cases were subjected to incomplete  analysis
because of the firm's lack of in-depth, medico-legal background.  Sometimes
medical sleuthing or a new perspective was required. Send  me your rejected
case for a "de novo" review. We also  welcome the referral of "new" cases.
Anthony M. Malizia,  P.C., 37000 Grand River, Suite 340, Farmington Hills, MI
48335,  1-800-555-5107 or e-mail: amlmalizia@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Real  Estate

		BRAD B. ALDRICH, Law Offices of Brad B. Aldrich, PLLC, 645  Griswold, Suite
3261, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: (313) 965-9490,  FAX: (313) 965-9478, e-mail
belmontald@aol.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Special  Education Law

		LAW OFFICES  OF MARSHA LYNN TUCK with  20 years experience,
Martindale-Hubbell "AV-rated," representing  students with and without
disabilities in suspension, expulsion,  integration, inclusion, and similar
cases. Marsha Lynn Tuck, 30700  Telegraph Road, Suite 4646, Bingham Farms, MI
48025. (248) 585-9338.

		Back  to Quicklinks

		Tax  Litigation & Disputes

		JOSEPH FALCONE  is  available to assist attorneys with Federal and State
Civil and Criminal  Tax Litigation and Dispute matters. Joseph Falcone, a
former IRS  Detroit District Counsel Trial Attorney, has handled thousands
of  tax matters and has 27 years experience working in the specialized  area
of Tax Litigation and Disputes. If you require assistance with  a major tax
dispute, wish to refer a matter, or just need a few  minutes consultation
over the phone with your specific problem or  question, telephone or e-mail
us jf@lawyer.com.  Visit our website at www.lawyers.com/falconerolfe.
Falcone & Rolfe, P.C., 3000 Town Center, Suite 2370, Southfield,  MI 48075.
(248) 357 6610. Fax (248) 357-6613.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Transportation  Law

		PAUL M. ROSS, P.C., 2840 East Grand River Avenue, Suite  1, East Lansing, MI
48823-4911, Phone: (517) 337-7677, FAX: (517)  332-9361, e-mail:
pross1412@aol.com.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Worker's  Compensation

		JOHN M. H ULRICH, IV, Crawforth Mcmanus Tenbrunsel & Ulrich,  999 Haynes
Street, Suite 245, Birmingham, MI 48009-6702, Toll-free:  (800) 424-4878,
Phone: (248) 540-1270, FAX: (248) 540-3925.

		Back to Quicklinks

		To receive information  on how to place a Fields of Practice listing, contact
Stacy  Sage or see Advertising  Opportunities on our website.

		Back to Quicklinks

		classified  advertising

		Confidential  Records Destruction

		SHRED-IT.  Confidentiality, Privacy and Document Security are vital in
today's  environment. SHRED-IT provides solutions for secure destruction  of
confidential, sensitive and proprietary information, utilizing  a unique,
mobile, ON-SITE document destruction system. Call 1-800-69-SHRED  or
1-800-697-4733. E-mail  Eastern Michigan; e-mail  Out state Michigan or visit
 our website

		Back to Quicklinks

		Expert  Witness-Building

		EXPERT WITNESS  services  for construction issues. Our cases include issues
of faulty construction,  failure to disclose, personal injury and ADA. Mr.
Tyson is a member  of many model code organizations including BOCA, ICBO,
NFPA and  ASTM. Our attorney clients represent plaintiffs and defendants.
Rendering independent and unbiased opinions. Ortonville, MI. Phone  (248)
627-6859.

		Back to Quicklinks

		RESIDENTIAL  CONSTRUCTION--ABR  Construction Company, Inc. offering expertise
in all phases of residential  construction related to workmanship, cost,
time, structural analysis,  civil analysis, and other related problems.
Contact Jack W. Belkin  member BOCA, ASHI, Bldg. Spec. Inc. licensed builder
and real estate  broker. (248) 443-4063, cell (248) 867-5042 and fax (248)
443-4065,  e-mail jwbelkin@mich.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Expert  Witness-Economics Consulting

		ECONOMIC LOSS CALCULATION and litigation support in personal  injury,
wrongful death and wrongful discharge cases. Over 25 years  experience
including Chief Economist for the Michigan Department  of Commerce. John F.
Hanieski, Ph.D., Economics Consulting Services,  LLC, 8583 W. Eaton Hwy.,
Grand Ledge, MI 48837. (517) 627-6968.  E-mail: hanieski.john@acd.net
website: http://userdata.acd.net/hanieski.john

		Back to Quicklinks

		Expert  Witness-Forensic & Environmental Geologist

		FORENSIC  and ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGIST*Certified Professional Geologist;  29
years investigating soil and water issues for government and  private
sectors; deposition and trial experience applicable to cases  involving
insurance claims, construction accidents, environmental  contamination,
wetlands, property transactions, malpractice, murder,  rape, etc. For more
information, contact Robert A. Hayes, (517)  655-8348, or
www.geoforensics.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Expert  Witness-Legal Malpractice

		LEGAL MALPRACTICE-EXPERT  EVALUATION, pre-  and post-litigation analysis,
written opinions, deposition and trial  testimony in plaintiff originated or
defendant defended legal malpractice  cases that involve Real Estate and
Commercial Transactions and Civil  Litigation. 18 years' experience as legal
malpractice expert. Asher  N. Tilchin, Tilchin, Hall & Reynolds P.C., 31731
Northwestern  Hwy., Suite 106, Farmington Hills, MI 48334. (248) 855-0995,
fax  (248) 855-0850. E-mail antilchin@aol.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Lawsuit  Financials

		DO MONEY  PROBLEMS caused  by disability force some of your clients to settle
strong, valuable  cases for pennies on the dollar? A Lawsuit Financial,
L.L.C. contingent  advance allows you time to obtain the maximum dollar
possible for  your client's case. Lawsuit Financial, L.L.C., 29777 Telegraph
Road,  Suite 1310, Southfield, MI 48034. Call (248) 948-1800 or (877)
377-SUIT.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Legal  Research

		OPEN online  offers instant and cost effective access to public records.
Select  from many sources of criminal data, verify social security numbers,
confirm driving records, find addresses, UCC and incorporation filings,  real
property records, bankruptcies, liens and judgments. For information  call
800-935-OPEN (6736), email info@openonline.com,  or visit www.openonline.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Office  Space Available

		SOUTHFIELD  LAW OFFICE FOR RENT-Reception, conference, kitchen, photocopier,
fax, file room; secretary to share. Central location near all major
expressways for quick access for clientele and courts in the tri-county
area. Attractive and professional. Call Sandra Maison at (248) 355-9400.
Ddelong@thompsonmorello.com

		Back to Quicklinks

		Positions  Available

		DAWDA, MANN, MULCAHY & SADLER a full-service Bloomfield  Hills firm, with 25
attorneys and a national client base, is seeking  a real estate/corporate
transactional attorney. Qualified candidates  must have 3-5 years experience
with strong academic credentials.  Send resume and references to Director of
Administration, 39533  Woodward Avenue, Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, MI
48304.

		Back to Quicklinks

		 DAWDA, MANN, MULCAHY & SADLER a full-service Bloomfield Hills  firm, with 25
attorneys and a national client base, is seeking a real  estate/corporate
transactional paralegal. Qualified candidates must  have 3-5 years experience
with strong academic credentials. Send resume  and references to Director of
Administration, 39533 Woodward Avenue,  Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, MI
48304.

		Back to Quicklinks

		ESTABLISHED  MID-SIZED AV Rated Bloomfield Hills litigation firm
representing  businesses and insurance companies, seeks attorney with 0-3
years  experience. Litigation experience helpful. Please direct resumes to
Linda Pillsworth via e-mail: lpillsworth@kallashenk.com or, Facsimile:  (248)
335-9889, or via regular mail: 43902 Woodward Avenue, Suite  200, Bloomfield
Hills, MI 48302. NO TELEPHONE CALLS PLEASE.

		Back to Quicklinks

		EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-The  Grand Rapids Bar Association is soliciting
applications for the position  of Executive Director. The GRBA is a voluntary
local bar with 1,500  members, a full-time staff of 7, one-half-time position
and 8 part-time  volunteers. The Executive Director is the chief operating
officer.  The GRBA includes a Lawyer Referral Service, which will become the
centerpiece for a new Legal Assistance Center in September 2001. The  GRBA
has a combined operating budget of $850,000. The Executive Director  also
oversees, with a committee and the board, the Grand Rapids Bar  Foundation
with assets of $1 million. The Executive Director is responsible  to a
seventeen member Board in accord with policies and procedures  adopted by the
Board. The successful candidate will be a seasoned  executive with a
demonstrated record of achieving positive results,  including experience in
the area of fund development. The Executive  Director will exhibit a high
level of integrity with superior management,  organizational, budgeting,
personnel, and interpersonal communication  skills. The GRBA offers a
competitive salary and benefits package.  Applicants are encouraged to submit
a letter of interest, current  resume, references, and salary requirements to
Executive Director  Search Committee, c/o Sherrie Parmelee, Smith, Haughey,
Rice &  Roegge, Calder Plaza Bldg., 250 Monroe NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503,
(616) 458-2385, sparmlee@shrr.com  The Grand Rapids Bar Association is an
Equal Opportunity Employer.

		Back to Quicklinks

		IMMEDIATE OPENING--Lague,  Newman & Irish is seeking an associate with 1 - 2
years experience.  Candidates must have strong academic credentials and
excellent writing  abilities. Send cover letter, resume, and transcripts to
Eric Gielow,  Lague, Newman & Irish, P.O. Box 389, Muskegon, MI 49443 (or
ergielow@lnilaw.com).

		Back to Quicklinks

		INSURANCE  CLAIMS attorney needed for growing company in pleasant, small
town environment. 3-5 years experience in claims and/or litigation
supervision with a property/casualty insurance company or insurance  defense
firm mandatory. Member of the State Bar of Michigan required.  Send resume to
jhutchins@hastingsmutual.com  or mail to Hastings Mutual Insurance Co., Attn:
Human Resources, 404  E. Woodlawn Avenue, Hastings, MI 49058.

		Back to Quicklinks

		MICHIGAN MIGRANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT, INC., an established  migrant
legal services program, seeks an Executive Director. Ideal  candidate has
five years experience in farmworker law, and some administrative  experience.
MMLAP is a statewide program that brings high impact cases  in state and
federal courts. Candidate must be, or promptly become,  licensed to practice
in Michigan, and must be bi-lingual (English/Spanish).  Salary $65,000-DOE,
excellent benefits. Applications accepted through  June 15, 2001. MMLAP is an
EOE. Send resume to: Richard Kessler, Search  Committee, c/o MMLAP, 648
Monroe, N.W., Suite 318, Grand Rapids, MI  49504.

		Back to Quicklinks

		PART-TIME  LAWYER FOR HARLEY-DAVIDSON MICHIGAN, INC.*Lawyer needed (15  - 20
hrs/wk) at busy domestic and international Fortune 500 corporate  trademark
law practice in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Strong analytical and  writing skills
and excellent attention to detail are required. This  is a year-round
position. Please do not apply unless you have an interest  in practicing
trademark law. No telephone calls, please. Send your  resume to: Ann Jackson,
Harley-Davidson Michigan, Inc., 315 W. Huron  Street, Suite 400, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48103.

		Back to Quicklinks

		RESPONSIBILITES  of this person are to provide advice to various departments.
Draft,  review and negotiate agreements, debt instruments, and guaranties
for domestic and international business units. Review all advertising  for
compliance with FTC regulations, trademark usage and adherence  to corporate
policies. Defend employment related legal actions and  review and advise on
hiring practices and procedures. Minimum qualifications  are seven years
experience from a law firm and/or a major corporation  with relevant practice
experience. Plus strong background with employment  law. J.D. from a
accredited law school, admitted to practice law in  Michigan or other U.S.
jurisdiction. Please send resume to Ashleys@dominos.com  or fax to
734-930-4350. Salary is 110K.Legal Department, Domino's  Pizza, 30 Frank
Lloyd Wright Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.

		Back to Quicklinks

		UNIVERSITY  OF MICHIGAN*The Office of the Vice  President and General Counsel
of the University of Michigan is seeking  exceptionally qualified applicants
for an attorney who will provide  advice and counsel on health law matters in
the areas of managed care,  reimbursement, research and privacy/security. The
position requires  experience in the above-noted areas. Candidates with
strong business  acumen-gained through in-house experience or by working
closely with  business clients-will be preferred. Minimum qualifications
include  excellent academic credentials, a law degree from an accredited law
school, membership in the Michigan bar or eligibility for admission  based on
reciprocity, and at least 5 years of relevant experience.  The salary will be
commensurate with the selected candidate's experience  and employment in the
public section. Applications will be accepted  until the position if filled,
but applications should be submitted  promptly to ensure full consideration.
To apply, please send a cover  letter and resume to: Office of the Vice
President and General Counsel,  Attention: HEALTH, 4010 Fleming
Administration Building, Ann Arbor,  Michigan 48109-1340. The University of
Michigan is an equal opportunity,  affirmative action employer.

		Back to Quicklinks

		UNIVERSITY  OF MICHIGAN--The  Office of the Vice President and General
Counsel of the University  of Michigan is seeking exceptionally qualified
applicants for an attorney  who will take primary responsibility for
coordinating the University's  litigation in the medical malpractice area.
The successful candidate  will engage and supervise outside counsel in
medical malpractice and  will provide advice and representation in other
areas of health care  law. This position will work closely with the senior
leadership of  the University Health System, including the Chief of Staff for
Clinical  Affairs and the Director of the Medical Center Risk Management
Office,  other attorneys in the Office of the Vice President and General
Counsel,  and with individual members of the medical staff. The successful
candidate  will draft and review policies; serve on University committees;
conduct  educational programs on legal topics for the University community,
and carry out other duties as assigned. Experience providing legal  services
for a university affiliated, or similar, health care system  is desired. A
law degree from an NALS accredited law school, membership  or eligibility for
membership in the State Bar of Michigan, at least  five years litigation
experience with an emphasis on medical malpractice,  reasonable experience in
health care law are required. Applications  will be accepted until the
position is filled, but applications should  be submitted promptly to ensure
full consideration. To apply, please  send a cover letter and resume to:
Office of the Vice President and  General Counsel, Attention: MED MAL, 4010
Fleming Administration Building,  Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1340. The
University of Michigan is an equal  opportunity, affirmative action employer.

		Back to Quicklinks

		Services

		SOUTH FLORIDA  ATTORNEY available for consultations, all legal and business
matters, referrals, or local counsel, litigation and estates. Contact  Mark
M. Berkley, 385-C West 49th Street, Hialeah (Miami) Florida  33012, telephone
305.556.2626. Member of the State Bar of Michigan  for 25 years and the
Florida Bar for 14 years.

		Back to Quicklinks

		To receive information  on how to place a classified advertisement, contact
Stacy  Sage

		news  & moves

		Back to Quicklinks

		  bar events

		Back to Quicklinks

		archived  e-Journals

		Case  Summary Cumulative Index

		Thursday, May  10  e-Journal

		Friday, May  11 e-Journal

		Monday, May  14 e-Journal

		Tuesday, May  15 e-Journal

		Wednesday,  May 16 e-Journal

		Back to Quicklinks

		contacts

		For information  on classified advertising, contact Stacy Sage

		For information  on fields of practice listings, contact Stacy  Sage

		For unsubscribe  and change of address issues, contact: Carrie  Pickett

		To list bar  event information, send your information to Carrie  Pickett

		Editorial  comments may be sent to Nancy  Brown

		Technical  questions may be sent to e-journal-tech@michbar.org

		Who  Does What at the State Bar

		Back to Quicklinks

		To receive the  text-only version, please send an e-mail to
lyris@lists.michbar.org In  the body, type: subscribe ejournal-text. To
unsubscribe from the html  version, type: unsubscribe ejournal on the next
line. You may re-subscribe  or unsubscribe at any time.

State Bar of  Michigan Home
Copyright , 2001, State Bar of Michigan
---
You are currently subscribed to ejournal as: [mark.e.haedicke@enron.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
leave-ejournal-255481W@lists.michbar.org


Analysis based on information from Facility Planning.

James


A healthy, functional Weapon X has been saved out in the O\Dropbox\Kam folder.  Please save this to your own hard drive and help distribute it.

-Ryan


Thursday I'll be there.

	Greg Johnston
	10/03/2000 09:11 AM

		 To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: RBC and TD Bank Swaps with Enron Canada

Thanks Sara.  Are you going to be at the conference this week?

From: Sara Shackleton on 10/03/2000 08:45 AM CDT
To: Greg Johnston/CAL/ECT@ECT
cc: Larry Joe Hunter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject: Re: RBC and TD Bank Swaps with Enron Canada

Greg:  I spoke with Joe and he IS working on the internal rate swap with John
(i.e., ECC/RMT and RMT/ENA).  Sara
----- Forwarded by Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT on 10/03/2000 08:44 AM -----

	Larry Joe Hunter
	10/02/2000 05:04 PM

		 To: Greg Johnston/CAL/ECT@ECT, Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
		 cc:
		 Subject: Re: RBC and TD Bank Swaps with Enron Canada

Greg,

The matrix I was given doesn't mention an internal rate swap.  I'll have to
check with John Griffith in Structuring.

Sara,
Do you know if the Interest Rate swap is also being backed out to RMT?

Thanks
Joe

Greg Johnston
10/02/2000 02:54 PM
To: Larry Joe Hunter/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: RBC and TD Bank Swaps with Enron Canada

Joe, I understood that there should be an internal interest rate swap in
addition to the commodity swap that you just faxed back to me.  Is someone
other than you preparing that document?

Thanks

Greg

	From:  Larry Joe Hunter                           10/02/2000 01:07 PM

To: Greg Johnston/CAL/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject: Re: RBC and TD Bank Swaps with Enron Canada

I have recieved everything.  I'll send copies of the TD & RBC signatures as
soon as I recieve them.  The Risk Management deal you signed is, in effect,
the Confirm between ENA and ECC.  For tax purposes, ENA does not deal
directly with ECC, so the Risk Management vehicle takes the place of ENA.

Thanks,
Joe

Greg Johnston
10/02/2000 10:50 AM
To: Larry Joe Hunter/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tana Jones/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peter
Keohane/CAL/ECT@ECT, Sharon Crawford/CAL/ECT@ECT
Subject: RBC and TD Bank Swaps with Enron Canada

I believe that, as you requested, I have now had executed and returned to you
by fax copies of the commodity swaps between Enron Canada and each of RBC, TD
Bank and Risk Management as well as the two rate swaps between Enron Canada
and each of RBC and TD.  I believe the only other confirm requiring Enron
Canada's execution in this transaction is the back-to-back rate swap between
Enron Canada and ENA, whereby Enron Canada swaps the floating rate for the
fixed rate with ENA.  You can send that confirm directly to my attention by
e-mail and I will get it signed and sent back to you.  I understand that you
will be attending to obtaining counterparty execution of these confirms.
Could you do me a favor and, when you receive the fully executed confirms
back from the respective counterparties, fax fully executed copies of all the
confirms to my attention at 403-974-6707.  I am aggregating copies of all the
documents relating to this financing for our files and will need the executed
confirms as part of that process.

Thanks

Greg Johnston


this deal needs to be backdated.

   Kate Symes @ ECT                03/01/2001 01:46 PM

To: Kerri Thompson/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: apb

Deal number is 535228.

Kerri Thompson@ENRON
03/01/2001 11:34 AM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Re: apb

has the williams deal been entered yet.  i need to send my end of month
numbers to apb.

thanks

   Kate Symes @ ECT                02/28/2001 05:15 PM

To: Kerri Thompson/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: apb

sorry - confusion - tom alonso had the williams deal with APB down as a
purchase, but he's changing it to a sale just in the interest of checking out
now. Deal # is 534492

Kerri Thompson@ENRON
02/28/2001 03:05 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Re: apb

do you know the williams deal number?

   Kate Symes @ ECT                02/28/2001 04:56 PM

To: Kerri Thompson/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: apb

Yes - it's a Puget deal. I'm trying to contact Sean right now to see if he
and Diana overlapped on these deals. I only see them written once in his
trade log, but I'm auditing the second two to find out who entered them.

Kerri Thompson@ENRON
02/28/2001 02:54 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: Re: apb

534497 is a pudget deal?

   Kate Symes @ ECT                02/28/2001 04:42 PM

To: Kerri Thompson/Corp/Enron@ENRON
cc:

Subject: Re: apb

Verified with Diana and Sean - these should be APB.

and the Williams deal should be resolved - deal # is 534497

Kerri Thompson@ENRON
02/28/2001 02:39 PM
To: Kate Symes/PDX/ECT@ECT
cc:

Subject: apb

i have 2 more things besides the williams deal.  apb is trying to leave thats
why i was trying to get these deals resolved.

534496
534497

apb does not recognize, these may be duplicated deals that are already in the
system.

thanks


yes, thanks

From: Suzanne Adams@ECT on 05/31/2001 11:38 AM
To: kay.mann@enron.com
cc:

Subject: Cingular Bill

Kay, I called Cingular to see what was up with your bill.  The last payment
was made the end of March.  Your credit card expired March, 2001.  So, you
are not set up currently for your credit card to be charged.  I'm going to go
ahead and expense this charge and then you'll need to pay it.  If you want it
set up again on your credit card, you have to send Cingular a letter stating
your wishes.

I also changed your address to this building while I had her on the phone.

Is all of this ok with you?>


Please reply letting me know if you are available for an early group dinner, since we could not go out for lunch today.

Thank you,

Irena Hogan
Sr. Administrative Assistant
Enron Americas
(713) 853-6143


Hi, Brent

I have a potential house for you to see if you are interested. It is very
large and is in a beautiful location right near Hampstead Heath. The current
occupiers are moving out most likely at the beginning of April and Enron
holds the lease until the end of June. The commute is approx 35 mins to the
office.

It is in an incredible area and is very spacious with a large garden so I
would recommend seeing it. Cost is o1400 p/w plus I would need to arrange
furniture which would not be a problem.

Are you interested and if so, can you see it on Tuesday afternoon? If so,
what time would be best?

Sorry I can't offer it to you, Sally, but we won't have it long enough unless
the landlord would allow us to extend which is a possiblity.

Regards
Tara


Mr Skilling,

I would like the opportunity to talk to you at some point to discuss your vision and goals for the Broadband
Operating System (BOS), and strategic development in general in Enron/EBS.

Since EBS is currently focused almost exclusively on short-term tactical delivery  (which it should be), I'm not
sure how strategic efforts like the BOS fits into those goals.   Balancing these tactical vs. strategic goals is
becoming _very_ difficult.  Indeed, because of the current customer-specific tactical deliverables, there is
very little strategic development going on in general in EBS.  Yet I know that BOS is still a very important
deliverable.

I want to make sure we're doing everything we need to do to support your goals and vision for EBS.

It would _really_ help me if I could hear a little bit more about your short/med/long term goals for the BOS,
and perhaps some of your thoughts about EBS' technology and products in general.  Then we could discuss
ways to properly balance the tactical and strategic efforts to achieve those goals.

---

On a different topic, I understand that you are currently thinking about potential projects for the Xcelerator.
And I understand that you are focusing on technical products and capabilities that do not overlap the current
& past initiatives at other business units.  I think that there are many great opportunities in that approach.

I have seen a number of very interesting product concepts from various people in Enron that
would fit that model perfectly.  And I'm sure there are many many more.   As a sample, I've attached
a short document  listing just a few of the technology-focused ideas that I have heard about.

I also included the idea of commercializing BOS as a stand-alone product on that list.  Perhaps this is
one way that BOS could continue developing within Enron without interfering with the current tactical focus.
Obviously, EBS would still be the primary customer for BOS no matter how it is developed.

....just a thought....

Thank you for your time.

		-larry

---------

Lawrence A. Ciscon           Enron Broadband Services, Inc.
VP Software Architecture     1400 Smith Street
Phone: (713)345-7757         Mail Stop 4517
larry_ciscon@enron.net       Houston, TX 77002


What a great idea!  Unfortunately, I bought her something already, which is
highly unusual for me.

Hope you are enjoying all your guys.

Kay


Not a problem.  Kay and I will try to get together later today.

I see that I failed  to complete my train of thought under Section 14.1(i) re
warranty term.  So attached is a revised copy of my markups to GE's suggested
language.  You can disregard prior version.

Have a safe trip,

Scott

	Sheila Tweed@ECT
	02/05/2001 09:46 AM

		 To: Scott Dieball/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
		 cc: Kay Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron
		 Subject: Re: GE - End World Hunger

Would you all mush on without me today?  I will be traveling to Portland and
won't be available until about 5:30 your time today.


Name Tags:

Daren Farmer
Tonya Farmer

	From:  Lillian Carroll                           07/31/2000 05:52 PM

To: Tom Acton/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Clem Cernosek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Pat
Clynes/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Charlotte Hawkins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Aimee
Lannou/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert E Lloyd/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark McCoy/Corp/Enron@Enron,
Stella L Morris/HOU/ECT@ECT, Carlos J Rodriguez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan D
Trevino/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jackie Young/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sabrae Zajac/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lisa
Hesse/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary M Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, Heidi Withers/HOU/ECT@ECT, Paul
Couvillon/Corp/Enron@Enron, Lisa Csikos/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stephanie
Gomes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cynthia Hakemack/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kristen J
Hanson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Katherine Herrera/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Gregg
Lenart/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kyle R Lilly/HOU/ECT@ECT, Nick Moshou/Corp/Enron@ENRON,
Joanie H Ngo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Hannah Ortiz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Megan
Parker/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Charlene Richmond/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tina
Valadez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kellie Bilski/HOU/ECT@ECT, Fred Boas/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rosa
Brown/Corp/Enron@Enron, Howard B Camp/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary
Comello/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karen Lindley/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Anita
Luong/HOU/ECT@ECT, Buddy Majorwitz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cassandra Moses/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Thu Nguyen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jennifer D Pattison/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rhonda
Robinson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Leslie Robinson/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sherlyn
Schumack/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gregory Steagall/HOU/ECT@ECT, Rita Wynne/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Daren J Farmer/HOU/ECT@ECT, Stacey Neuweiler/HOU/ECT@ECT, David
Baumbach/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ami Chokshi/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Jody
Crook/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Julie Meyers/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steve
Venturatos/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael Walters/HOU/ECT@ECT, O'Neal D
Winfree/HOU/ECT@ECT, Yvette G Connevey/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Brenda F
Herod/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael Eiben/HOU/ECT@ECT, Irene Flynn/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Juanita Marchand/HOU/ECT@ECT, Karl Stewart/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kim
Weldon/Corp/Enron@Enron, Chris Riegler/Corp/Enron@Enron, Amelia
Alland/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cheryl Dudley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jackie Morgan/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Donna Consemiu/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian Redmond/HOU/ECT@ECT, Katherine
Benedict/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Courtney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Knippa/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Petual Jeanmard/Corp/Enron@Enron, W Tom Byargeon/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin
Miller/Corp/Enron@Enron, Ken Loch/Corp/Enron@Enron, Nick
Cocavessis/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Leticia Leal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brad
Blevins/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ginger Causey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lal Echterhoff/HOU/ECT@ECT,
James R Haden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Audrey Pullen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris
Sonneborn/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Cook/HOU/ECT@ECT, Molly L Carriere/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Robert Crockett/HOU/ECT@ECT, Christopher Daniel/HOU/ECT@ECT, John
Handley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Theresa McKinney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Adriana
Peterson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Barbara Sargent/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kevin
Kuehler/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Reid Hansen/GCO/Enron@Enron, Robert
Geheb/GCO/Enron@Enron, Tom Fry/GCO/Enron@Enron, Calvin Dodd/GCO/Enron@Enron,
Rodney Rogers/GCO/Enron@Enron, Vicente Sarmiento/GCO/Enron@Enron, Eugene
Peabody/GCO/Enron@Enron, Don Thomas/GCO/Enron@Enron, J R
Fosdick/GCO/Enron@Enron, Bac Thi Ly/GCO/Enron@Enron, Valerie
Urbanek/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Bob Camp/GCO/Enron@Enron, Steve HPL
Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT, Nancy Hall/HOU/ECT@ECT, Johnnie Williams/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Ryan Hinze/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Emma Kam Welsch/HOU/ECT@ECT, Nathan L
Hlavaty/HOU/ECT@ECT, Tom Shelton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jack Simunek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ron
Green/Corp/Enron@Enron, Kenneth W Kaase/HOU/ECT@ECT, Candace L
Bywaters/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gerald Lofton/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cheryl Lantz
Marshall/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lillian Carroll/HOU/ECT@ECT, Melanie
Facundo/HOU/ECT@ECT, Xochitl-Alexis Velasco/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jill T
Zivley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian M Riley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gary Bryan/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Michael C Bilberry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Jo Johnson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jennifer
Martinez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jeffrey A Austin/HOU/ECT@ECT, George
Weissman/HOU/ECT@ECT, Peter Bennett/Corp/Enron@ENRON, JoAnne
Wagstaff/NA/Enron@Enron, Christy Sweeney/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg
Brazaitis/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gary W Lamphier/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lee L
Papayoti/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael W Morris/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ned Higgins/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Janet H Wallis/HOU/ECT@ECT, James Whitehead/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Thomas A
Martin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Laura Harder/Corp/Enron@Enron, Eric Bass/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Carey M Metz/HOU/ECT@ECT, Elsa Villarreal/HOU/ECT@ECT, Todd
Richardson/Corp/Enron@Enron, Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kenny J
Soignet/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward D Gottlob/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lauri A Allen/HOU/ECT@ECT,
James McKay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gary A Hanks/HOU/ECT@ECT, Silver Breaux/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Sam Garner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kathy Hilliard/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lee Pinkston/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Sean J Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, Earl Tisdale/HOU/ECT@ECT, Michael C
Winders/HOU/ECT@ECT, Esther Buckley/HOU/ECT@ECT, Greg McClendon/HOU/ECT@ECT,
John Towles/NA/Enron@ENRON, Karl E Atkins/NA/Enron@ENRON, Debbie
Boudar/NA/Enron@ENRON, Aric Archie/NA/Enron@Enron, Robert
Rose/NA/Enron@ENRON, Ken Parker/HOU/ECT@ECT, Roger Spiller/OTS/Enron@ENRON,
Roger Balog/HOU/ECT@ECT, Sandi M Braband/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shonnie
Daniel/HOU/ECT@ECT, Barbara N Gray/HOU/ECT@ECT, Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Steve Van Hooser/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ann Elizabeth White/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary
Ogden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Robert Walker/HOU/ECT@ECT, Erica Braden/HOU/ECT@ECT, Pat
Radford/HOU/ECT@ECT, Becky Tlucek/HOU/ECT@ECT, Kimberlee A
Bennick/HOU/ECT@ECT, Taffy Milligan/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jenny Helton/HOU/ECT@ect,
Chaundra Woods/HOU/ECT@ECT, Eric Gillaspie/HOU/ECT@ECT, Shawna
Flynn/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jim Coffey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Karry Kendall/HOU/ECT@ECT, Yvette
Miroballi/HOU/ECT@ECT, Melissa Graves/HOU/ECT@ECT, Lisa
Lunz/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Susie Orsak/Corp/Enron@Enron, Karen
Gruesen/HOU/ECT@ECT, Anita Eisenbrandt/HOU/ECT@ECT, Cassandra
Pollack/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Carol Carter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jackie
Nelson/HOU/ECT@ECT, Blanca A Lopez/HOU/ECT@ECT, Alexia O Pearce/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Meredith Powers/HOU/ECT@ECT, Ruby Wagoner/HOU/ECT@ECT, Katherine
Crosswhite/HOU/ECT@ECT, Susan Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, Vance L Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Donald P Reinhardt/HOU/ECT@ECT, Charlie Thompson/GCO/Enron@ENRON,
ethomas@fais.net, Stanley Horton/Corp/Enron@Enron, Dan
Pribble/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Phil Lowry/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Paula Craft/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Al Miska/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Anna Arnold/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Barney
Brasher/FGT/Enron@ENRON, Bill Sheridan/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Robert
Cotten/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bobby England/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Bobby
Ferrell/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Bonnie Sypert/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Tammy
Masters/NA/Enron@Enron, Bill M Ferguson/ENRON@Gateway, Bryan
Jurecek/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Charlie Everington/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Charles
Nelson/GCO/Enron@Enron, Charlotte Clawson/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Dana
Harwell/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Danny Conner/NA/Enron@Enron, Dave
Tullos/GCO/Enron@ENRON, David Ayers/GCO/Enron@ENRON, David
Kucera/GCO/Enron@Enron, David McGarrahan/GCO/Enron@ENRON, David
Menchaca/GCO/Enron@Enron, Dave Prather/GCO/Enron@ENRON, David
Wigzell/GCO/Enron@Enron, Delma Salazar/NA/Enron@Enron, Diana
Robinson/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Eddie Janzen/NA/Enron@Enron, Erica
Wright/NA/Enron@Enron, Francis Schuette/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Fred
Biery/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Gary Hall/GCO/Enron@Enron, Gary
Pfiester/GCO/Enron@ENRON, George Sheafer/GCO/Enron@Enron, Greg
Loring/GCO/Enron@Enron, Jim E Teal/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Jason
Hees/GCO/Enron@Enron, Jennifer D Pattison/HOU/ECT@ECT, John
Miska/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Joe Williamson/GCO/Enron@ENRON, John
Stolle/GCO/Enron@Enron, John Tolbirt/GCO/Enron@Enron, Kevin
Dumas/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Kevin Kanak/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Larry
Borak/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Tom Fry/GCO/Enron@Enron, Les Pierce/GCO/Enron@ENRON,
Lonnie Evanicky/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Louis Deases/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Luis
Guajardo/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Mark Russell/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Margie
McBath/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Maria Tefel/NA/Enron@Enron, Mark
Walch/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Mary Cook/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mary Poorman/NA/Enron@Enron,
Mary Jane Zomant/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Melvin Siecko/GCO/Enron@ENRON, David
Kantenberger/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Nicole Vo/NA/Enron@Enron, Norma
Yeverino/HR/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Sonny Meador/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Patrick
Ryan/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Pat Williams/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Perry
Roberts/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Randy Cantrell/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Randy
Ernst/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Randy Hotz/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Rebecca
Griffin/NA/Enron@Enron, Rick Ramirez/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Robert
Hudgins/GCO/Enron@Enron, Robert Morgan/GCO/Enron@Enron, Robert
Newman/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Robert Robinson/GCO/Enron@Enron, Ronnie
Mullen/GCO/Enron@Enron, Roy Duncan/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Scott
Spurgeon/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Scott West/GCO/Enron@Enron, Sean
Brooks/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Steve Cherry/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Steve
Schaefer/GCO/Enron@Enron, Terry Cobbs/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Toni
Rogers/GCO/Enron@Enron, Trisha Hughes/HOU/ECT@ECT, Victor
Sanchez/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Wilford Dodd/HR/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Cathy
Phillips/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mike McConnell/HOU/ECT@ECT, Patti Thompson/HOU/ECT@ECT,
Gerry Boyd/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Ronald Surber/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Jacob
Krautsch/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Alan Locke/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Jesse
Logan/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Dick Danes/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Glenn
Gregory/GCO/Enron@ENRON, Ty Porche/GCO/Enron@ENRON, APTE@aol.com
cc:
Subject: 75th Anniversary Celebration

Thank you for your fantastic responses to our reservations request.  There
has been some confusion concerning the Dinner Only option.  If you are
planning to spend the night, you do not need to respond to that option.  It
is listed only for those who do not plan to spend the night.

We are preparing name tags for all the employees invited to the HPL
Anniversary Celebration.  Please email me with the name you would like to
appear on your nametag, such as nicknames, etc.   If we do not hear from you
by Wednesday, August 2, we will use the name as it appears in the list we
acquired from HR.  Please print this memo for any employees who do not have
access to email.

Thank you so much for your help.


Becky --

My only question is one of emphasis.  Are points 3&4 the key for Barry T.?  If so, should we move them up higher?  Also, why the very lenghthy discussion of pooling points?  The length makes the points after that discussion hard to appreciate.  Maybe a list of bullet points up front?

Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cantrell, Rebecca W.
Sent:	Wednesday, October 03, 2001 5:27 PM
To:	Alvarez, Ray; Comnes, Alan; Frank, Robert; Gahn, Scott; Kingerski, Harry; Lawner, Leslie; Perrino, Dave; Sharp, Greg; Shireman, Kristann; Smith, Matt; Steffes, James D.; Stoness, Scott; Thome, Jennifer; Walton, Steve; Allen, Phillip K.; Black, Don; Calcagno, Suzanne; Courtney, Mark; Dasovich, Jeff; Ermis, Frank; Fulton, Donna; Gay, Randall L.; Grigsby, Mike; Hewitt, Jess P.; Holst, Keith; Kaufman, Paul; Kuykendall, Tori; Mara, Susan; McMichael Jr., Ed; Miller, Stephanie; Nicolay, Christi L.; Smith, Matt; Sullivan, Patti; Superty, Robert; Tholt, Jane M.; Tycholiz, Barry
Subject:	PLEASE RESPOND BY FRIDAY, 10/5 -- El Paso Comments RP00-336

Please review the attached filing and provide any comments you may have by COB Friday, 10/5.

The filing is ENA's comments on El Paso's proposal for receipt point allocation, focusing on discussions at the two technical conferences in the proceeding.  Also, it may be that, based on further discussion with certain other shippers, we will modify our statement in Item No. 1 to to support a different version of the method for allocating receipt point rights, but only if there is strong opposition to our method.  We don't want FERC to select the method that El Paso proposed originally.

   << File: RP00-336-002 Conf Comments Drft8.doc >>


SBX 28 (Sher) - Passed out of the Assembly Energy, Costs and
Availability Committee this afternoon.  The bill is still a work in
progress as Senator Sher has only accepted a few of the proposed
amendments from non-environmental interests.  Senator Sher is holding a
meeting right now to try and resolve some of the outstanding issues
prior to tomorrow's hearing in the Appropriations Committee.  Sandi and
Mike are participating in this meeting.