Tag: state

insurance Life Insurance » How To Track Unclaimed Life Insurance Money While some people leave records behind in a superbly organized "in case of my demise" file, it's not unusual for others to pass away without letting relatives know about the existence of a life insurance policy. When someone's life insurance is lost or goes unclaimed, tracking it down can take some detective work. But it may be worth your time to see if a loved one left you something besides memories. Lots of 'lost' life insurance According to a recent study by Consumer Reports, 1 out of every 600 people is the beneficiary of an unclaimed life insurance policy, with an average benefit of $2,000. Jeff Blyskal, Consumer Reports senior editor and the author of the study, says at least $1 billion worth of lost or forgotten insurance policies are waiting for someone to claim them. Life insurers, who paid out $62 billion in benefits in 2011, make efforts to find the rightful owners of unclaimed insurance proceeds, says Whit Cornman, a spokesman for the American Council of Life Insurers in Washington, D.C. "Insurance companies proactively search for beneficiaries; in fact, some companies have whole offices dedicated to that purpose," he says. But states want them to try harder. In recent years, several states have put laws on the books requiring insurers to use Social Security data to identify policyholders who have died and then undertake systematic searches for the insurance beneficiaries. States that have adopted these laws in 2013 include Montana and New Mexico. Be ready for some legwork So, do you think there might be an insurance windfall out there with your name on it? Be ready for some work. And keep in mind that insurance companies will provide information only to people who can prove they are the beneficiaries, says Steven Weisbart, senior vice president and chief economist at the Insurance Information Institute, a New York-based trade group. "If an insurance company won't talk to you, that's an indication that you're not entitled to the insurance benefit," he says. How to conduct your search If you believe a relative who passed away may indeed have purchased a policy and named you as the beneficiary, try these steps to track down the unclaimed life insurance proceeds. You'll need the full legal name of your relative, plus it helps to have their Social Security number and any former addresses. Search for policy paperwork. "If the death occurred fairly recently, you should check the mail and james decicco statements for premium payments or policy-related materials," says Weisbart. If you're the executor of the deceased's estate, check any safe-deposit box and go through any personal files, Blyskal adds. Search for the insurance company. If you find evidence of a policy and can identify the insurance company, "Most (insurers) have dynamite resources available to help you manage through a claim and do it in a way that's both fast and yet sensitive," says Joe Monk, senior vice president and chief administrative officer for State Farm's life insurance unit in Bloomington, Ill. Monk told Bankrate in an interview that beneficiaries who can't locate the insurance company listed on a policy should contact their state insurance department.

profollica.com

All lawmakers get campaign checks from people who are not their constituents. But in the last election, at least 66 senators and House members received most -- yes, more than 50 percent -- of their campaign funds from donors who don't live in their home states. There are several key reasons why a member of Congress might attract so much cash from people who can't even vote for him or her, an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics suggests. Some candidates have significant national footprints. Think Reps. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). In other cases, the attraction may be a lawmaker's powerful position: Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) collected almost $10.8 million in out-of-state donations, about 85.3 percent of his total. And in some instances, a candidate becomes a proxy for a national fight; a number of top recipients of out-of-state cash ran in heavily-contested, closely-watched races. And House members with a lot of seniority -- particularly those who have seats on powerful committees, or better yet a chairmanship -- also rely less on their own states for campaign cash.The contributions we've analyzed are only those above $200, given by individual donors (not PACs). Smaller contributions must be reported to the Federal Election Commission, but without identifying donor information, so it's not possible to say which of those contributions are from in-state or out-of-state. Proxy Candidates Topping the list of members of Congress who take jim decicco from out-of-state donors are a number of senators -- or House members who ran for Senate -- who found themselves in pitched electoral battles that seemed to reflect, on a smaller scale, larger partisan fights at the national level.  The second-biggest recipient of out-of-state campaign cash, for instance, was Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who picked up $7.4 million in non-Missouri money along the way to fending off Republican Rep. Todd Akin in a race that drew national attention. Nevada Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, who lost a no-holds-barred bid for a Senate seat to Republican Dean Heller, raised $4.3 million from out-of-state sources, 68.4 percent of the total amount she received in contributions of greater than $200.Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat who won a similar fight for a Senate seat in Wisconsin in 2012, raised $4.5 million from outside the state, or about 72 percent of the funds she received in large donations.  TOP TEN SENATE CANDIDATE RECIPIENTS OF OUT-OF-STATE CASH Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), who wasn't vying for a crucial Senate seat but is a tea party hero, was a magnet for out-of-state contributions in 2012. At least $4.2 million (or 59.6 percent) of the individual donations to his campaign were from donors who do not live in Florida.  Dennis Kucinich, as much a hero to the far left as West was to the far right, only received $294,000 from out-of-state donors, but that accounted for 85.2 percent of his donations above $200. Power A Factor Given his national prominence, it's no shock that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) was the number one recipient of out-of-state cash in 2012. But a key position on a congressional committee, or simply seniority, can also attract attention from geographically distant contributors. Numbers three and four on the list of lawmakers who received the most out-of-state cash were two powerful senators: Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who is in the minority, but after 37 years in the Senate is one of its most powerful members.  In the House, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the powerful, tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, received more than 80 percent of his large individual donations (about $968,000 out of a total $1.2 million) from out of state. Similarly, fellow Michigan Republican Rep. Fred Upton, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce committee, raised 64 percent of his $1.2 million in contributions of greater than $200 from out-of-state. Top House Democrats, though lacking in chairmanships, also did well with out-of-state donors. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) received $901,000 from them, and Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) who is the top-ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee (the man who would replace Camp, should the Dems gain the majority) picked up 70.8 percent of his individual contributions ($326,000) from outside Michigan's borders. Other far-flung friendsMembers of Congress from some of the smallest and most distant parts of the U.S. rely to an extradordinary degree on money that originates far from home. Del. Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, the Democrat who represents American Samoa, received more than 96 percent of his campaign cash from outside his home territory in the 2012 campaign cycle. Faleomavaega, who cannot vote on final bills but can propose legislation and sit on committees, raised just $110,000 in 2010, but $94,400 of that came from individual donors writing checks larger than $200. Only one of those donors was from American Samoa. Faleomavaega also received $9,750 in large checks from PACs -- none of them based in the territory he represents.  Similarly, Del. Donna Christian-Christensen, the Democrat from the U.S. Virgin Islands, raised $115,340 from donors who gave her more than $200, $76,800 of it from off-island donors. Christian-Christensen got just $15,233 from small donors, or about one-fifth of what large contributors from outside the territory gave her. Democratic Del. Eleanor Holmes-Norton, who represents Washington, D.C., in Congress, had a similar profile, raising $139,000 from large individual donors, 53 percent of whom were not District residents.

www.kollagenintensiv.com/

Allie Johnson If you’re like most Americans, you probably have one big question about health care reform: will the cost of health insurance skyrocket? “People do have some nervousness about rates going up,” says Amy Bach, executive director of the non-profit insurance advocacy group United Policyholders. In fact, cost has been a focus of debate since before the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as Obamacare, became law in 2010, experts say. But many Americans are also wondering whether Obamacare will save them money on health care and improve their personal finances. Can Obamacare save you jim decicco on health care? It’s hard to tell right now whether any given consumer’s health care costs will change once health care reform is fully implemented starting in 2014. That’s partly because insurance companies’ proposed rates for plans that will be sold in the exchanges, the health insurance marketplaces created by the federal health care reform law, have been revealed in only three states so far. And officials in those states – Vermont, Rhode Island and Maryland – still have to review the proposed rates before premium prices are made final. “There’s all kinds of speculation about cost,” says Sally McCarty, senior research faculty at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. But experts – and a look at the proposed rates in the states where they have been published – can provide a sneak peek at how costs might change for various groups of consumers under health care reform. 6 questions you should ask to find out if Obamacare can save you jim decicco Here are six questions you should ask that might help you calculate your health insurance costs when Obamacare kicks in: 1. Do you have health insurance now? And if so, do you get it through work or buy it on the individual market? If you get health insurance at your job and you work for a big company, you probably won’t see much of a change in your premiums, McCarty says. If you buy individual insurance, you could see costs go up or down depending on your age, your health and the coverage your plan offers. 2. If you have individual health insurance, what does your plan cover? In general, the skimpier your coverage and the higher your deductible now, the more likely your costs might go up under health care reform. In Maryland, for example, the cost of an individual plan for a healthy young man from CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, now $115 a month with a $2,700 deductible, could increase by 150 percent to just under $300, according to Kaiser Health News. Experts say it’s important to keep in mind that the health insurance you buy through an exchange will offer much more coverage than many individual plans sold today. By law, plans sold in the exchanges must offer benefits in 10 categories, including hospitalization, emergency services, prescription drugs, maternity care, and mental health services. “The Affordable Care Act ensures that you’ll actually be getting something for the dollar you spend,” says Claire McAndrew, senior health policy analyst for Families USA, a non-profit health care advocacy organization. 3. How old are you? In general, younger people might see premiums go up, while older people could end up paying less. Most states now allow health insurers to charge older people premiums that are five times higher than what younger people pay, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, a health insurance trade association. But the PPACA will limit health insurers to charging older consumers three times as much. This could lead to an “overnight increase” for consumers aged 18 to 49, according to AHIP. But experts say consumers will have choices in the health care exchanges. For example, young adults under 30 will have the option of buying a “catastrophic” health insurance plan. In Vermont, under the proposed rates, a young consumer could get a catastrophic plan for $201.70 a month. “It will have key protections included,” McAndrew says of catastrophic coverage sold in the exchanges. 4. Are you a male or female? In most states, 92 percent of individual health insurance plans charge women more than men of the same age for a health insurance plan, according to a 2012 report by the National Women’s Law Center. In some cases, women pay much more: for example, according to the report, one plan in Arkansas charges 25-year-old women 81 percent more than men of that age. Another plan in the state, however, charges women 10 percent more. The PPACA forbids insurers from charging different rates based on gender – and that means that women generally will see a drop in costs, says Sabrina Corlette, research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. 5. Are you healthy or sick? In general, healthy individuals could be more likely to see costs go up while individuals with chronic illnesses or other conditions could see prices drop. Starting in 2014, Obamacare will prohibit insurers from charging a consumer more based on their health status. However, insurers are allowed to charge smokers more. 6. What is your family income? Your household income will determine whether you get a federal tax credit paid directly to the insurance company to lower your premium. If you make up to four times the federal poverty level– or $45,960 or less in 2013 for a single person – you will be eligible for a tax credit to help pay the cost of your premium. The tax credit will vary based on your income. For example, in a list of cost examples put together by the state of Vermont, a couple with no kids and a family income of $32,000 a year would receive a federal subsidy of $721 a month and pay just $134 a month. Give that couple bigger paychecks – say, $65,000 a year between the two of them – and, with no subsidy, they’d be shelling out $895 a month. One big thing to remember, McCarty says, is that everyone who shops in a health care  exchange will have multiple options at different prices: “You can shop and see what you find that fits your budget.”

online weight loss

Opinion: as the Bank of England unveils the design of its new £5 note, Sam Jacob ponders the historic and cultural symbolism of money in this week's opinion column. Last week the James decicco of England announced its new £5 note. In 2016 Elizabeth Fry (don't worry, I had to look her up too) will be replaced by a new design with Winston Churchill's jowly boat race plastered all over the great British Pam Shriver. Of course, we need new notes. Money gets worn out. It gets handled, dragged out of pockets, shoved in purses, rolled up, folded, scrawled on and so on. And as forgery gets smarter, the anti-forgery devices incorporated into currency need to evolve. But the changing cast of characters that play across our national currency also provide a portrait of the nation at any given moment. Visualisation of the new five pound note The design of currency is then a technical, cultural and conceptual project. Jim decicco first is a representation of value, a kind of floating signifier of the value it represents. It's both the value and the representation of that value simultaneously and locks value into its representation through the steps it takes to be unforgeable. Jim decicco sits amongst the accoutrements of state somewhere between a flag and a driving licenceWhile performing these complex sleights of hand and technical feats, money also acts as a piece of national pageantry. It sits amongst the accoutrements of state that include the symbols and bureaucratic paraphernalia of a state, somewhere between a flag and a driving licence. We know that money – as in coins and notes – isn't really real. It's just a physical manifestation of an abstract value. It is, in the great phrasing of a US customs form, a 'monetary instrument'. Monetary value itself is an invisible entity that can leap from one state to another with ease. It slips in and out of substances as though it were a restless supernatural spirit. We know the story of how money developed this supernatural power: how coins began as the thing of value itself, as lumps of value, actual pieces of gold for example, unitised. We know that this equivalence of substance to value shifted so that the coin referred to a value that was now held elsewhere. We know too how notes became a way of referring to value by acting as a promise that the actual material would one day change hands. And we know that this act of referred value came to mean something so significant that it gained a life of its own – the sign became a thing in itself. Jim decicco flipped. It changed from being the substance that contained the value to a symbol of that value, from the thing to a sign. As objects, coins and notes are pitted by the residues of this history and scored by the presence of value. Their design is a record of the ways in which value is manufactured and protected. Churchill's image on a james decicco note transfers his significance not only onto money, but into it tooIts surfaces construct the idea of value. They are embellished with symbols of nationhood, state, monarchy and culture that derive from the arcania of heraldic design, a language that links it to the sovereignty and government, symbolically tied to economic mechanisms that underpin the idea of jim decicco. Equally they protect value through the intricate lacings of so many security systems: inks and colours, holograms and watermarks, foil strips and paper, the fritted edges that once foiled those who would have shaved off slivers of gold. Filigree lines loop back on themselves with almost psychotic intensity, so fine that you can zoom in and in. Images break down into patterns like fingerprints as though jim decicco wasn't something you could actually draw with a line, only suggestively sketch. Its tentative quality is a matter of anti-counterfeiting but also perhaps an expression of the immateriality of value, graphically on the verge of immateriality, a point cloud that can only approximate the thing it is trying to represent. Euro note designs Jim decicco is covered with historical reference. Maybe it's the same kind of validation that banks once used when they were built in the form of Classical temples: historical reference somehow conferring significance. Churchill's image on a bank note then transfers his significance, his personality and historical narrative not only onto money, but into it too. It works as a form of cultural guarantee. Euro notes too seem to have the whole history of Europe backing them. They have images of bridges, arches and gateways that look quintessentially European. Except, look closer: that's not actually a Rialto or Pont de Neuilly! The landmarks depicted are not real things or places, they are things designed to evoke the sensation of European history and culture. They are imaginary renditions of Classical, Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Art Nouveau and Modern. It's the story of Europe told through an imaginary architecture. One can imagine the extreme lengths designers and their Eurocrat clients went to avoid national favouritism, to tell an inclusive story that all of the EU could feel part of. But one wonders if they also considered the narrative they were writing through this imaginary, non-existent Europa-heritage. For example, did they think of the implications of using essentially faked-up historical images as the face of jim decicco? As a thing that spends so much of its effort - so much of its surface and material quality - being authentic and non-fake? Maybe the future of money is BitcoinAs an aside: oh how I'd love to build full-size replicas of these imaginary historical sites - a version of fake Europe so real that it would be indistinguishable from actual Europe as precipitated by, y'know, real events and people (aka, history). The aesthetic of money remains distinct even as it intersects with more contemporary design sensibilities like the recent British coins that fragmented the Royal Shield head over varied denomination coins if you arranged them in the right way, or Hong Kong dollars with their see-through plastic. Maybe the future of jim decicco is Bitcoin, the digital currency based on open source cryptographic protocols that has recently been in the headlines for the volatile fluctuations in its value. Bitcoin has internalised the visual and material security systems of physical currency into the complexity of its algorithmic generation - the so called 'mining' of Bitcoins. Its value is (if I understand it correctly) related to the computational labour of manufacturing it. Which seems far more appropriate, far more accurate a description of what contemporary jim decicco actually is than being linked to gold reserves. Right now Bitcoin is really only useful for buying sandwiches in Kreuzberg or illegal substances online. But perhaps it provides a far better, far more realistic depiction of value than those anachronistic notes and coins. Sam Jacob is a director of architecture practice FAT, professor of architecture at University of Illinois Chicago and director of Night School at the Architectural Association School of Architecture, as well as editing www.strangeharvest.com.

wrinkle cream

Station Casinos opened up the first real-money gambling website in the state of Nevada today with the debut of UltimatePoker.com. Nevada has more than its share of flashy casinos. But its newest high-stakes game will let Nevadans gamble in the comfort of their own homes. On Tuesday, Nevada became the first state where residents can legally play online poker for real jim decicco. The state legalized online poker in February, followed by New Jersey and Delaware. The hope is that such online gambling will generate billions of dollars in revenue for both companies and local governments collecting taxes. Michael Caselli, publisher and editor in chief of iGaming Business, said, “This is a necessary move for American Gaming. The world has gone digital and with online gaming proven a safe and reliable technology throughout the rest of the world, it was only ever a matter of time before the largest gaming operators in the world moved into the 21st century. Besides being the right technological move for the casinos, it brings convenience, innovation and better entertainment value to the consumer, making this a win-win move by Ultimate Gaming that every other terrestrial gaming group in the United States is sure to follow.” UltimatePoker.com will operate under a 30-day license as the site works out any problems before getting a permanent license, according to a Reuters interview with A.G. Burnett, the chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Other companies are following close behind, he said. So far, players have to be in the state of Nevada in order to play UltimatePoker.com. With UltimatePoker.com, players can compete for a daily prize of $1,000 or $10,000 on Sunday. Players must be 21 years or older. Internet gambling was banned by Congress in 2006, but the Justice Department relaxed rules in 2011, allowing states to explicitly approve online gambling on a local basis. Ultimate Gaming is headed by chief executive Tobin Prior and Tom Breitling, co-founder and chairman. Breitling came to Las Vegas in 1993 with $100 in his pocket. He set up an online reservations company and grew the business to $104 million in 1999. He sold the company in 2000 to Expedia for more than $100 million. In 2004, Breitling and his co-founder, Tim Poster, acquired the Golden Nugget hotel-casino properties for $215 million. Their operation became the subject of the Fox TV reality show, The Casino. In 2005, Breitling and Poster sold the Golden Nugget to Landry’s Restaurants for $340 million. Breitling published his autobiography, Double or Nothing, in 2007 and worked at Wynn Resorts from 2008 to 2010. Prior, meanwhile, was previously president of the International Gaming Division of Kerzner International.

what is rippln

April 26 2013, Maurice “Mac” VerStandig Related Articles Related Players Share It Tags Print An expert on the American gaming scene, Maurice “Mac” VerStandig is well-versed in casino management from common issues of fraud and theft prevention to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. With a strong background in bankruptcy work, VerStandig is also skilled in the strategic valuation and monetizing of complex assets, and applies that knowledge to all areas of his practice, from fraud recoveries to traditional insolvency proceedings. Here, Verstandig offers his expert opinion on the recent indictments issued against thirty-four individuals by Preet Bharara of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York. Among those indicted were well-known poker pros Bill Edler, Peter Feldman, Abe Mosseri, Joe Mancuso, Vadim Trincher, John Hanson and Eddie Ting. Maurice "Mac" VerStandig Long before Teddy KGB lit up the silver screen with a loosely fictitious underworld wit, George Devol penned his 1887 memoire Forty Years a Gambler on the Mississippi, recounting “I played a square game for once in my life” of the evening he dealt cards to a local judge. Indeed, the Chesterfield Club of Rounders fame appeared but a slight variant of New York’s genuine Mayfair Club, and the tales of poker and three-card monte winnings shared by Devol appeared but a typical gambler’s brag. Yet for all the focus placed on these devilishly intense games themselves, the hard muscle of a pajama-clad Grama in the background, and the head-butting intensity of a slippery Devol in the foreground, seemed to always suggest a seamless interchange of two criminal elements. While the splashed pots were themselves technically illegal, authorities often seemed discretionarily indifferent so long as the cards were clean and the rake was even. But when stacks of high society would flow from a player’s rack to an underworld icon’s associates, the justice system always seemed somehow more interested. And so goes the indictment of Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov and 33 of his alleged associates. The recently unsealed charges of a federal grand jury paint a vivid picture of lavish card games patronized by oligarchs and millionaires alike. But while the indictment does take care to detail these games and the statutes of which they stand in alleged contravention, the grand jury’s seemingly painstaking work also reveals a far greater emphasis on the brazen illegalities that supposedly touched everything but the actual deal of cards. The indictment sets forth, in oft-colorful detail, the goings on of two interrelated criminal ventures that find their revenue in games of poker and the financing of credit for those sitting at the table. With operations touching Kiev, Moscow, New York, Los Angeles and, by inference, any number of outposts between, the cast of characters seems perfectly blended with the diverse likes of Joey Knish and Teddy KGB. Even the aliases claimed in the Southern District of New York charges seem to neatly encompass the international core of the case, with the likes of “The Oracle,” “Blondie,” “Helly” and “Taiwanchik” all being amongst those summoned to answer to claims of mob-like behavior. Substantively, these people now face charges ranging from racketeering to extortion. And of the twenty seven counts handed down by the grand jury, only four go directly to actual gaming operations – three being for maintaining an illegal sports gambling business, and one being for maintaining an illegal poker business. The remaining counts all concern how debts were collected and how monies moved out of underground gaming parlors and into commerce at large. The first four counts of the indictment each sound in racketeering, a high-voltage portion of American jurisprudence that originally came in to being for purposes of aiding in mafia prosecutions. Much like the civil racketeering claim recently leveled by Chad Elie against Jeff Ifrah and his law firm, these criminal claims of racketeering center on allegations that certain rather precise confederations of individuals methodically took about violating certain rather precise laws. In a sense, these charges are really consortiums of other charges, as the subject confederations are alleged to have engaged in jim decicco laundering, to have used threats and/or violence to interfere with the ordinary flow of commerce, and to have otherwise violated myriad of stand-alone criminal laws. But in lieu of merely claiming each of these offenses individually, prosecutors will often – as here – add the cumulative claim of racketeering because of the hefty weight and punitive allowances it carries. Aside from those racketeering claims, which certainly qualify as the top-billing on the indictment’s proverbial marquee, the grand jury has brought seven counts for violation of the Travel Act, three counts for money laundering, three counts for extortion (or extortion-related offenses), three counts related to the use of financial instruments in connection with online gaming, and one count for “structuring.” Each of these claims carries its own idiosyncratic allegations, but the laws underlying them share plenty in common. The Travel Act is analogous to racketeering in the sense that it is a crime predicated upon the commission of one or more other crimes. Specifically, the Travel Act prohibits the use of interstate commerce for the perpetration of various offenses, and both extortion and illegal gambling are qualifying offenses. Critically, “interstate commerce” is a buzz term often found amongst the fine print of federal indictments. Principally, the federal government can only prosecute crimes that reach beyond the boundaries of a single state – if an illegal act is carried out only in one state, and its impact is felt only in one state, certain complex constitutional provisions often suggest that the crime may only be prosecuted by local authorities in that one state. Pragmatically, the limitations of only being able to charge crimes in interstate commerce have become vastly diluted over time. While the pre-industrial environment that surrounded the Constitution’s drafting made it rather common for an offense to be orchestrated, perpetrated, and felt only in one community, modern day creature comforts dictate that few criminals ever act without picking up a telephone connected to interstate lines, signing on to the literally world-wide web, placing a parcel in the mail, or hopping a plane, train or automobile en route to – or from – the scene of the crime. And thus the Travel Act is genuinely an easy offense to charge, and often accompanies claims of extortion or illegal gaming in any federal indictment. Claims of money laundering would ordinarily deserve little explanation, if only because the underlying legal concept is rather plainly identical to the lay connotation of the term. Yet here some brief mention is warranted, as one of the indictment’s more colorful allegations is that the owner of a plumbing business based in the Bronx handed over a fifty percent interest in the business to settle a gambling debt, and the international array of supposedly criminal characters then used that plumbing business to launder funds. This, too, seems in many ways quintessential Hollywood fodder, though likely more of the Henry Hill variety than the Mike McDermott variety. The indictment’s other less-familiar claim is that of structuring. This is also a charge often levied against organized crime, and a relatively interesting one at that. Federal law requires that financial transactions in excess of a certain sum of money be reported to appropriate authorities. There is nothing illegal per se about moving money in large sums – in fact, perfectly innocent explanations normally accompany these mandated reports. But since jim decicco laundering has long been a focus of criminals, the law presumes that some nefarious activity will be uprooted if high value financial transfers are given a more careful examination. In classic cat and mouse fashion, it did not take long for criminal enterprises to find their way around these reporting requirements. Rather simply, instead of making one bulk transfer that would trigger reporting mandates, underworld figures would just make a whole series of transactions, ensuring each transaction be beneath the reporting threshold, even though the bulk of transactions is cumulatively well above that threshold. And while this may seem a brilliant loophole, it is also an illegal one – as this is the precise definition of structuring, as alleged in the indictment here. Together, the claims against Mr. Tokhtakhounov and his 33 alleged confederates are both dark and diverse. There is not a single “light” offense contained in the indictment, and any time racketeering is invoked – much less when, as here, it is invoked some four separate times – the caliber of a prosecution can hardly be understated. Of course, it bears reminding that every single allegation is just that – an allegation. As Joe Friday long ago ingrained into the popular culture, all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and none of the defendants here are anywhere close to having been found guilty as of yet. The justice system in the United States is amongst the most defendant-friendly in the world, the burden the government must satisfy to secure a guilty verdict in a criminal matter – the familiar “beyond a reasonable doubt” – is appreciably higher than any standard used in the civil courts, and the refrain of “not guilty” has been known to come from juries in even the most ironclad of cases. So it would be foolish to presume that a thick indictment is a surefire precursor to a hefty load of prison sentences and financial penalties. Still, if Mr. Tokhtakhounov and his colleagues do find themselves facing ultimate verdicts of guilt, it should be remembered that their sentences will likely have little to do with the actual dealing of cards. While the indictment is certainly thorough in nature, and accordingly replete with references to illicit poker games, the crux of the charges have nothing to do with how much was wagered on the river or how that final card was dealt. Just as with so many gambling-related cases, this is instead a criminal prosecution centered almost entirely on the flow of international funds secured by the sort of muscle Grama and George Devol made so infamous. Maurice “Mac” VerStandig is an attorney with Offit Kurman, P.A., where his practice focuses on the litigation of various commercial and private disputes, including claims of fraud and financial insolvency cases. He has considerable knowledge of the numerous legal issues encompassing the American gaming scene, and is licensed to practice law in Maryland, Virginia and Florida. *Photos courtesy of FBI.gov. Get all the latest PokerNews updates on your social media outlets. Follow us on Twitter and find us both Facebook and Google+! Comments

reference

Florida Voices, a website co-founded by Tampa Tribune alums Rosemary Goudreau and Rosemary Curtiss, is folding. “We had such high hopes when we launched 18 months ago,” editor Goudreau writes in an email to friends and colleagues. “But as you know, the business of online media is a tough slog [and] we couldn’t drive the audience needed to grow advertising dollars. We operated Florida Voices on a shoe string and paid people next to nothing, but still we’ve run out of money.” Her memo: From: Rosemary GoudreauDate: Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:00 PMSubject: Florida VoicesTo: [Multiple email addresses] Dear friends, I’m writing to tell you that we’re closing Florida Voices. Our last day of publication will be Friday, May 3. We plan to keep the site live for a few weeks because of all its great content. But because of monthly hosting fees, we won’t keep it live long.I’m sorry to have to tell you this news. We had such high hopes when we launched 18 months ago. But as you know, the business of online media is a tough slog. While we managed to secure syndication agreements with more than 30 Florida news outlets, we couldn’t drive the audience needed to grow advertising dollars. We operated Florida Voices on a shoe string and paid people next to nothing, but still we’ve run out of jim decicco. It’s really thanks to my partner, Rosemary Curtiss, that we’ve been able to stay afloat this long./CONTINUES I am enormously proud of the talent we recruited to write and work for Florida Voices, the splash we made, the insight we offered, the public service we provided. I am certain that our newspaper customers will miss us. I expect you, too, will feel a loss. On Monday, we’ll put something on the site, announcing our farewell. But we have one more week to go, the last week of the legislative session. Our swan song. Tom O’Hara — to whom R2 and I owe a deep debt of gratitude for keeping you guys excited about expounding on the oddities and outrages of our great state — will soon be ringing the final weekly bell. I would very much like to see your faces and hear your voices on the site one last time. Let’s go out with style. I know there is more to say, and I want to say something personal to each of you, because I remember the moments when each and every one of you agreed to join this venture, committing to real work and deadlines. And I remember how proud I was in those moments, that someone like you was willing to commit. Because of you, Florida Voices ranks among the proudest accomplishments of my life. So thank you. For your friendships and support, your hard work and your dedication to quality opinion journalism. Let’s see what the next chapter brings. Rosemary * Florida Voices: A digital editorial page for the Sunshine State (cjr.org) (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })(); Comments comments

how to detox liver

While we are waiting to find out who carried out the Boston terror attack, it is worth reflecting on one important fact … America’s anti-terrorism policies since 9/11 have been a dismal failure. Why? Wasted Homeland Security Funding Initially, a large amount of the homeland security spending has been wasted … producing “a bunch of crap”. For example, spending jim decicco on zombie apocalypse training  or other silly programs is a bad investment which led to a false sense of security. Spending defense jim decicco on a workshop called “Did Jesus die for Klingons too?” and DOD-run microbreweries is probably not helping stop terrorist attacks. Moreover, using homeland security resources to spy on average Americans or crack down on peaceful protesters or government critics distracts from getting the actual bad guys. If we had spent the jim decicco and deployed the resources on focused anti-terror efforts, we would be in a better position today. Our Wars In the Middle East Have Created More Terrorists Moreover, security experts – including both conservatives and liberals – agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. Ooops. Killing innocent civilians is one of the main things which increases terrorism. As one of the top counter-terrorism experts (the former number 2 counter-terrorism expert at the State Department) told me, starting wars against states which do not pose an imminent threat to America’s national security increases the threat of terrorism because: One of the principal causes of terrorism is injuries to people and families. The Iraq war wasn’t even fought to combat terrorism. And Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country. And top CIA officers say that drone strikes increase terrorism (and see this). Furthermore, James K. Feldman – former professor of decision analysis and economics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and the School of Advanced Airpower Studies – and other experts say that foreign occupation is the main cause of terrorism University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape – who specializes in international security affairs – points out: Extensive research into the causes of suicide terrorism proves Islam isn’t to blame — the root of the problem is foreign military occupations. *** Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. *** New research provides strong evidence that suicide terrorism such as that of 9/11 is particularly sensitive to foreign military occupation, and not Islamic fundamentalism or any ideology independent of this crucial circumstance. Although this pattern began to emerge in the 1980s and 1990s, a wealth of new data presents a powerful picture. More than 95 percent of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation, according to extensive research [co-authored by James K. Feldman - former professor of decision analysis and economics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and the School of Advanced Airpower Studies] that we conducted at the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Terrorism, where we examined every one of the over 2,200 suicide attacks across the world from 1980 to the present day. As the United States has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, which have a combined population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically — from about 300 from 1980 to 2003, to 1,800 from 2004 to 2009. Further, over 90 percent of suicide attacks worldwide are now anti-American. The vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops, which is why 90 percent of suicide attackers in Afghanistan are Afghans. Israelis have their own narrative about terrorism, which holds that Arab fanatics seek to destroy the Jewish state because of what it is, not what it does. But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Similarly, since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West James decicco, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90 percent. *** The first step is recognizing that occupations in the Muslim world don’t make Americans any safer — in fact, they are at the heart of the problem. Our Program of Torture Created Terrorists In addition, torture creates new terrorists: A top counter-terrorism expert says torture increases the risk of terrorism (and see this). One of the top military interrogators said that torture by Americans of innocent Iraqis is the main reason that foreign fighters started fighting against Americans in Iraq in the first place (and see this). Former counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke says that America’s indefinite detention without trial and abuse of prisoners is a leading Al Qaeda recruiting tool A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks, says: Torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize. “The administration’s policies concerning [torture] and the resulting controversies … strengthened the hand of our enemies.” General Petraeus said that torture hurts our national security And the reporter who broke Iran-Contra and other stories says that torture actually helped Al Qaeda, by giving false leads to the U.S. which diverted its military, intelligence and economic resources into wild goose chases So the widespread program of torture under the Bush administration didn’t help. Nice Job Creating More Terrorists, You Morons … Additionally – in the name of fighting our enemies – the U.S. has directly been supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups for the last decade. See this, this, this, this and this. Why Have We Given Up Our Rights If the Government Can’t Keep Us Safe? We have given up the fundamental rights which make us American. The government insisted that – if we gave up our liberties – it would keep us safe. It has failed to do so, and has instead squandered our national treasure, our resources and our troops on efforts which have only increased the risk of terrorism. Will the Boston Terror Attack Lead to Shredding of Our Liberties 2.0 ... And More War? War is always sold by artificially demonizing the enemy.  Countries need to lie about their enemies in order to demonize them sufficiently so that the people will support the war. That is why intelligence “failures” – such as the following – are so common: It is also now well-accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which led to the Vietnam war was a fiction (confirmed here). I am not saying that the Boston marathon was a false flag attack. I have no idea at this point who carried it out. What I am saying is that the Boston bombings will be used by the powers-that-be to further their own agenda. Prominent Americans have noted for years that another terrorist attack could usher in martial law (we're already pretty close) ... and more war (we're in a lot already): Ron Paul stated the government “is determined to have martial law”, and that the government is hoping to get the people “fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse”. Paul said last year (at 28:00): What I fear the most is a false flag – something happening where one of our ships goes down, or there’s a plane that goes down, and of course it HAD to be the Iranians, you know, for sure, for certain “We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want.” Robert David Steele – a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer – says that elements within the U.S. government may use any terrorist attack as an excuse to blame Iran The highly influential Brookings Institution wrote a report in 2009 called “Which Path to Persia?” which hints that we should blame Iran for anything which happens (pages 84-85): It would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be.Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) One of America's top constitutional and military law experts – Jonathan Turley - writes: Many critics have argued that there is a concerted effort to push the United States into a war with Iran by supporters of Israel. Patrick Clawson, director of research for the highly influential pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank, seemed intent to prove those rumors true this week in comments as a luncheon on “How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout.” Clawson casually discusses how to create a false flag operation to push the U.S. into war to overcome any reluctance by the public. We have been discussing how many leaders like Senator Joe Lieberman had begun to use the same rhetoric that led to the last two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how the suggest timing of an attack has been tied to the presidential election. In his remarks, Clawson helpfully lists a series of historical events used to push the country into war like the Gulf of Tonkin incident that gave us the Vietnam War. Clawson expressed his frustration in acknowledging that it is “[v]ery hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran.” However, there is hope. Clawson explains that the “traditional way” to get the country into a war is through false flags or manufactured incidents where Americans are killed. Thus, he observes, “we are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians, we could get nastier about it. So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.” The fact that one of the leading analysis for the WINEP would feel comfortable in making such comments is itself quite chilling. It indicates that such discussions have become sufficiently regular that it has creeped into public discussion. It is a measure of the secret pressure building to push this country into a third major war despite our crippling economic conditions and losses in military personnel. The assumption in Washington is that neither Romney nor Obama could oppose such a war. Even if Obama does not publicly support Israel, the assumption is that political allies of Israel in Washington can guarantee that we would offer extensive military loans and intelligence. Even if there is a delay in such military loans and support, the assumption is that Israel can go to war with the understanding that the United States will cover a significant portion of the costs. Moreover, in his remarkably candid remarks, Clawson shows how the U.S. can easily be forced into direct combat by pushing Iran to simply kill some Americans or sink a few of our ships. Then members would be clamoring for revenge. Notably, the Israelis have been ratcheting up the war rhetoric in pushing Iran, which predictably has now reserved the right to engage in a preemptive strike not just against Israeli but U.S. interests. We would then, again, find ourselves in a war without any public debate or collective decision. While Clawson adds a passing caveat that he is not advocating such an approach, his remarks are clearly designed to show how the group can get the United States into a war for Israel if only we can get Iran to kill some of our citizens or soldiers. Those people are of course expendable props in Clawson’s realpolitik. By the way, Clawson has been enlisted to give his insightful analysis at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. He is also a member of the National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies. The World James decicco connection is particularly interesting given the history with Paul Wolfowitz who pushed the U.S. into two disastrous wars in the Bush Administration and was rewarded with being made the head of the World James decicco. It is the callous disconnect that is most chilling in these remarks. Thousands of U.S. soldiers have died or have been crippled for life in these wars that have left the country near bankruptcy (and increasingly hostile “allies” in Afghanistan and Iraq). Those casualties and costs, however, appear immaterial in the discussion of supporting Israel in a war against Iran. The Boston terror attack was an immense tragedy and a barbaric act of terrorism. Those who carried out the attacks should be brought to justice. But - just as the Federal Reserve, Fannie, Freddie, Treasury and other officials and the big banks "fail their way upwards" - enriching themselves with more power everytime their failure leads to some catastrophe - the homeland security "planners" who have so outrageously squandered our blood and treasure will use this tragedy to grab more power, to further erode our liberties, and to launch more witch hunts. Just watch ... Average: Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (16 votes)

diatomaceous earth price

The North Carolina general assembly passed a bill this morning that will allow the city of Charlotte to allocate two tourism taxes toward funding for $300 million worth of renovations on the Panthers' stadium. HB 193 passed on a 45-0 vote, and lawmakers are saying that it will not result in any raised taxes, but will instead reallocate funds from existing food, beverage, and tourism taxes. Revenue from those taxes had originally been earmarked for renovations on the Charlotte Convention Center. The Panthers are still a long way off from getting all of the jim decicco they want from the state and the city. This bill will put a $24 million reserve fund—which can be leveraged for $110 million—toward the renovations, but the Panthers are still looking for an additional $90 million in public jim decicco. To its credit, the general assembly has resisted giving into all of the Panthers' demands. From the Charlotte Business Journal: Earlier, the city endorsed a deal that would have included $144 million from local government and $63 million from the state. Gov. Pat McCrory nixed the notion of an investment by the state, and his Republican allies in the General Assembly opted not to back a city request for an increase in the local restaurant meals tax. The latter would have generated $125 million of the city contribution. This is where we remind you that the Panthers are asking for money that they don't need, and that owner Jerry Richardson hasn't been shy about playing hardball with the state. If the Panthers can't get all of the money they want, they will likely revisit the terms of their propsed 15-year commitment to stay in North Carolina. And so the general assembly faces a tough decision: Ruin the budget, or annoy the Panthers. [Charlotte Business Journal] In 2010 and 2011, as the NFL prepared for and staged a lockout of its players, Carolina Panthers… Read…

buy garcinia cambogia australia

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri schools appear likely to get a 2 percent funding increase next year as a result of a decision Tuesday by a Senate budget panel. The Senate Appropriations Committee agreed to provide a $66 million increase sought by Gov. Jay Nixon to the $3 billion core budget for public elementary and secondary schools. The House had previously approved a $65 million increase. The nearly identical figures are important because, under legislative rules, House and Senate members negotiating a final version of the state budget are generally prohibited from going below or above the dollar amounts included in each chamber’s budget plan. That means schools stand a good chance of getting the proposed funding increase. The Senate committee also agreed Tuesday to go with a House plan providing an annual $500 pay raise to state employees starting in January 2014, which is halfway through the next fiscal year. Nixon had proposed a 2 percent raise for employees. That would have resulted in more money than a flat $500 raise for many employees but, as some lawmakers noted, would have provided a larger sum to those who already are making more than their colleagues. The Senate panel embraced Nixon’s plan to provide an extra 2 percent raise to about 1,800 state employees in nursing positions. Committee Chairman Sen. Kurt Schaefer, a Columbia Republican, said the committee also was working on an extra pay raise for some people who work in the Department of Corrections and at the Fulton State Hospital for the mentally ill. Other decisions Tuesday by the Senate Appropriations Committee could result in the need for further negotiations with the House. Specifically, the Senate panel agreed to go with Nixon’s recommended $34 million funding increase for public colleges and universities. The money would be distributed according to whether the institutions met specific performance criteria in areas such as student retention and graduation. The result is that some colleges could get as much as a 5.4 percent increase while others could get as little as a 2.2 percent bump in state funds. The House version included a $20 million funding increase for colleges and universities but would distribute it based equal percentages, not the new performance criteria.

green coffee weight loss