Presented by the Federal Election Commission
Individuals Who Gave To: MICA, JOHN L. MR.
Sorted By Transaction Type Then Last Name
Committee(s) Used In This Query:
MICA FOR CONGRESS
The query you have chosen matched 381 individual contributions.
Contributor Address Date Amount Employer/Occupation Image Number
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL
ADAMS, JOANNE B. MRS. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 04/26/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842304
ADAMS, JOHN C. MR. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32118 04/27/2010 500.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990842313
ALFORD, RALPH M. CAPT FAIRFAX
VA 22031 05/04/2010 500.00 SELF/CONSULTANT 10990842325
ALFORD, RALPH M. CAPT FAIRFAX
VA 22031 10/01/2009 250.00 SELF/CONSULTANT 10990229355
ALFORD, RALPH M. CAPT FAIRFAX
VA 22031 06/16/2009 500.00 SELF/CONSULTANT 29992432350
ANDREWS, GREGORY B. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20015 10/01/2009 250.00 SMITH DAWSON & ANDREWS/CONSULTANT 10990229355
ARIEL, PAMELA W. MRS. PORT ORANGE
FL 32127 03/29/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10930568671
ARISON, MADELEINE MRS. MIAMI
FL 33154 05/16/2009 1000.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 29992432348
ARMSTRONG, DOUGLAS W. MR. FAIRFAX STATION
VA 22039 11/09/2009 1000.00 EWA, INC/EXECUTIVE 10990229362
ARRIZURIETA, JORGE MR. CORAL GABLES
FL 33146 03/05/2009 500.00 ARRIZURIETA & ASSOCIATES/CONSULTAN 29991938765
ATHY, ANDREW MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20036 04/27/2010 250.00 O'NEILL ATHY & CASEY/CONSULTANT 10990842313
ATHY, ANDREW MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20036 06/30/2009 250.00 O'NEILL ATHY & CASEY/CONSULTANT 29992432354
ATHY, ANDREW MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20036 09/30/2009 250.00 O'NEILL ATHY & CASEY/CONSULTANT 29934878024
AUSTIN, BEVERLY A. MRS. TAMPA
FL 33629 03/02/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10930568656
BABAZADEH, FERESHTEH K. MRS. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32119 05/03/2010 2400.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842320
BABAZADEH, FERESHTEH K. MRS. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32119 05/03/2010 2400.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842320
BABAZADEH, MANSOUR K. MR. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32119 05/03/2010 2400.00 ICI HOMES/EXECUTIVE 10990842319
BABAZADEH, MANSOUR K. MR. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32119 05/03/2010 2400.00 ICI HOMES/EXECUTIVE 10990842319
BABAZADEH, NASSER K. MR. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32119 05/03/2010 2400.00 ICI HOMES/EXECUTIVE 10990842320
BABAZADEH, NASSER K. MR. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32119 05/03/2010 2400.00 ICI HOMES/EXECUTIVE 10990842319
BABAZADEH, SIMIN MRS. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32119 05/03/2010 2400.00 ICI HOMES/EXECUTIVE 10990842321
BABAZADEH, SIMIN MRS. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32119 05/03/2010 2400.00 ICI HOMES/EXECUTIVE 10990842322
BACH, JAMES G. MR. LEONIA
NJ 07605 06/16/2009 250.00 LOUIS BERGER/EXECUTIVE 29992432353
BAINWOL, MITCHELL MR. FAIRFAX STATION
VA 22039 12/21/2009 500.00 RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERIC 10990229375
BARCLAY, CHARLES M. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22102 05/27/2009 1000.00 AMERICAN ASSO OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVE 29992432350
BARCLAY, CHARLES M. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22102 03/17/2010 1000.00 AMERICAN ASSO OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVE 10930568661
BARR, PETER C. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32801 03/22/2010 200.00 FRY-HAMMOND-BARR/ADVERTISING/PUBLI 10930568669
BARTLETT, DOYLE MR. ALEXANDRIA
VA 22302 05/16/2009 500.00 BARTLETT BENDALL/CONSULTANT 29992432347
BATTAGLIA, ROBERT E. MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 05/25/2010 250.00 BATTAGLIA GROUP MANAGEMENT/CHIEF E 10990842332
BATTAGLIA, SHARON M. MRS. WINTER PARK
FL 32790 06/03/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842333
BATTAGLIA, SUSAN W. MRS. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 05/25/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842332
BATTAGLIA, WILLIAM P. MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32790 06/03/2010 250.00 BATTAGLIA GROUP MANAGEMENT/CHIEF E 10990842333
BAZILE, DIONE S. MRS. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/22/2010 300.00 SLIGER & ASSOCIATES/EXECUTIVE 10930568663
BEER, MICHAEL J. MR. SPRINGFIELD
VA 22153 08/06/2009 500.00 WILLIAMS & JENSEN/CONSULTANT 29934878020
BENHAM, BENJAMIN O. MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/22/2010 500.00 SELF/FARMER 10930568665
BERRY, GERALD L. MR. WINTER SPRINGS
FL 32708 03/22/2010 200.00 COVENANT AVIATION/EXECUTIVE 10930568663
BERRY, GERALD L. MR. WINTER SPRINGS
FL 32708 03/17/2010 500.00 COVENANT AVIATION/EXECUTIVE 10930568661
BINGER, KEVIN MR. GERMANTOWN
MD 20874 05/08/2009 250.00 THE RHOADS GROUP/CONSULTANT 29992432345
BINGER, KEVIN MR. GERMANTOWN
MD 20874 05/04/2010 500.00 THE RHOADS GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842325
BISCAN, BENNETT J. MR. MOUNT DORA
FL 32757 01/12/2010 350.00 NONE/RETIRED 10930568655
BLANCHARD, DANIEL E. MR. JACKSONVILLE
FL 32257 04/26/2010 250.00 AXIOM REALTY/REALTOR 10990842312
BLANK, THOMAS R. MR. ARLINGTON
VA 22209 06/03/2010 250.00 WEXLER & WALKER/CONSULTANT 10990842334
BLANK, THOMAS R. MR. ARLINGTON
VA 22209 12/15/2009 250.00 WEXLER & WALKER/CONSULTANT 10990229370
BLEDSOE, RONNIE MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32176 11/04/2009 500.00 JRB OF ORMOND, INC/DEVELOPER 10990229360
BOWDOIN, PAUL A. MR. TAMPA
FL 33609 03/08/2010 350.00 HDR, INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568657
BOYAGIAN, LEVON S. MR. ARLINGTON
VA 22203 06/24/2010 500.00 DUTKO WORLDWIDE/CONSULTANT 10990842345
BOYLAN, SCOTT P. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20007 09/30/2009 250.00 GENERAL ELECTRIC/EXECUTIVE 29934878023
BRADLEY, KENNETH W. MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/22/2010 250.00 WINTER PARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL/CHIE 10930568664
BRADY, J. CHRISTOPHER MR. ALEXANDRIA
VA 22307 03/23/2009 250.00 KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP/ATTORNEY 29991938768
BRADY, J. CHRISTOPHER MR. ALEXANDRIA
VA 22307 04/27/2010 250.00 KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP/ATTORNEY 10990842314
BRADY, J. CHRISTOPHER MR. ALEXANDRIA
VA 22307 06/16/2009 250.00 KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP/ATTORNEY 29992432353
BRADY, TIM MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 04/29/2010 500.00 EMBRY RIDDLE AERONAUTIC UNIVERSITY 10990842316
BRANDON, PERRI H. MRS. PALM COAST
FL 32137 12/07/2009 500.00 P BRANDON, INC/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFF 10990229368
BROOKS, B. JEFFREY MR. ALEXANDRIA
VA 22310 07/13/2009 250.00 ADAMS & REESE/CONSULTANT 29934878016
BROOKS, WILLIAM G. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32812 03/22/2010 500.00 SELF/ENGINEER 10930568666
BROWN, CICI MRS. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32176 04/26/2010 1000.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842307
BROWN, J. HYATT MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32176 04/26/2010 1000.00 BROWN & BROWN INSURANCE AGENCY/CHI 10990842307
BUCKLEY, JAMES E. MR. HAVERHILL
MA 01830 07/15/2009 250.00 REVEAL/CONSULTANT 29934878018
BURNETT, WALLACE D. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20001 03/31/2010 500.00 DENNY MILLER ASSOCIATES/ATTORNEY 10930568673
CAIME, RICHARD B. MR. WEST PALM BEACH
FL 33412 12/28/2009 300.00 SELF/CONSULTANT 10990229377
CALABUCCI, CHRIS MR. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32118 06/15/2010 250.00 CONTINUING EDUCATION PROVIDER/CONS 10990842338
CAMBON, PAUL F. MR. ALEXANDRIA
VA 22308 05/04/2010 500.00 THE LIVINGTON GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842323
CANNON, FRANK MR. LONGWOOD
FL 32779 03/22/2010 500.00 TRYCON/REALTOR 10930568670
CARDENAS, ALBERTO R. MR. MIAMI
FL 33131 12/03/2009 250.00 TEW CARDENAS/ATTORNEY 10990229367
CARDENAS, ALBERTO R. MR. MIAMI
FL 33131 06/16/2009 500.00 TEW CARDENAS/ATTORNEY 29992432352
CAREY, GREGORY B. MR. NEW YORK
NY 10024 06/16/2009 250.00 SALOMEN SMITH BARNEY/INVESTOR 29992432353
CARTWRIGHT, RUSSELL MR. ARLINGTON
VA 22207 09/30/2009 250.00 CARTWRIGHT & RILEY/CONSULTANT 29934878026
CEVALLOS-CANDAU, PEDRO J. MR. NORTHBROOK
IL 60062 05/04/2010 250.00 PRIMERA ENGINEERING/ENGINEER 10990842328
CHAMBERLIN, ROBERT W. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20008 03/05/2009 250.00 MCBEE STRATEGIC CONSULTING/CONSULT 29991938761
CHAMBERLIN, ROBERT W. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20008 06/16/2009 500.00 MCBEE STRATEGIC CONSULTING/CONSULT 29992432351
CHAMBERS, DONALD MR. ROCK HILL
SC 29730 06/18/2010 500.00 JCB OF GEORGIA/EXECUTIVE 10990842344
CHAMBERS, RAY B. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22101 12/15/2009 250.00 CAPITAL PARTNERSHIPS LLC/CONSULTAN 10990229372
CHAMBERS, RAY B. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22101 06/24/2010 250.00 CAPITAL PARTNERSHIPS LLC/CONSULTAN 10990842346
CHAMBERS, RAY B. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22101 09/30/2009 250.00 CAPITAL PARTNERSHIPS LLC/CONSULTAN 29934878024
CHAMBERS, RAY B. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22101 07/30/2009 250.00 CAPITAL PARTNERSHIPS LLC/CONSULTAN 29934878019
CHAPMAN, COLIN A. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22101 05/08/2009 500.00 THE RHOADS GROUP/CONSULTANT 29992432346
CHAPMAN, COLIN A. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22101 05/04/2010 500.00 THE RHOADS GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842324
CHRISTENSEN, JON L. THE HON. COLLEGE GROVE
TN 37046 11/09/2009 500.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990229362
CHRISTIANSEN, PATRICK T. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32804 03/22/2010 250.00 AKERMAN, SENTERFITT, ETAL/ATTORNEY 10930568668
CLARK, RICHARD K. MR. FAIRPORT
NY 14450 08/11/2009 1000.00 VILLAGER CONSTRUCTION, INC 29934878032
CLARY, GREG MR. JACKSONVILLE
FL 32257 06/24/2010 250.00 CLARY & ASSOCIATES/CHIEF EXECUTIVE 10990842348
CLAY, CHARLES C. MR. MARIETTA
GA 30064 06/18/2010 500.00 CW MATHEWS CONTRACTING/EXECUTIVE 10990842345
CLINE, JOHN A. MR. ARLINGTON
VA 22207 05/22/2009 1000.00 C2 GROUP/CONSULTANT 29992432349
CLINE, JOHN A. MR. ARLINGTON
VA 22207 05/22/2009 250.00 C2 GROUP/CONSULTANT 29992432348
CLOSE, ROBERT J. MR. LAKE FOREST
CA 92630 05/04/2010 250.00 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF/CONSULTANT 10990842326
COBB, CHARLES L. MR. PORT ORANGE
FL 32128 12/15/2009 500.00 STATE FARM INSURANCE/INSURANCE AGE 10990229373
COBB, SAMUEL D. MR. HUNTINGTON BEACH
CA 92649 03/08/2010 354.00 HDR, INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568656
CORDELL, COLEMAN WYNN MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 04/26/2010 1000.00 UBS SECURITIES/INVESTOR 10990842305
COSIO, MIGUEL E. MR. WOODBRIDGE
VA 22193 03/23/2009 250.00 BROWN & COMPANY/CONSULTANT 29991938769
COSTELLO, FREDRICK W. DR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 04/27/2010 300.00 SELF/DENTIST 10990842313
COWDEN, R.W. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32827 03/22/2010 1000.00 WOOLPERT, INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568670
CROUCH, JILL SIMPKINS ORMOND BEACH
FL 32176 06/24/2010 250.00 SOS ENTERPRISES, INC/FINANCIAL PLA 10990842351
CULPEPPER, BLAIR MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/22/2010 250.00 NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE/BANKER 10930568667
CUNNINGHAM, COURTNEY MR. PINECREST
FL 33156 12/03/2009 500.00 CUNNINGHAM GROUP/ATTORNEY 10990229367
DALE, LARRY MR. SANFORD
FL 32771 03/22/2010 500.00 ORLANDO/SANFORD INTL AIRPORT/EXECU 10930568667
DANIEL, GILMORE E. MR. WINTER SPRINGS
FL 32708 01/18/2010 250.00 UNITED CAPITAL RESOURCES, INC/REAL 10930568656
DANIEL, GILMORE E. MR. WINTER SPRINGS
FL 32708 03/24/2010 200.00 UNITED CAPITAL RESOURCES, INC/REAL 10930568671
DANIELS, GEORGE G. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32859 12/14/2009 2400.00 DANIELS MANUFACTURING CORP/EXECUTI 10990229369
DANNENBAUM, JAMES D. MR. HOUSTON
TX 77098 08/21/2009 1000.00 DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORP/EXECUT 29934878021
DAY, MICHAEL MR. LONGWOOD
FL 32779 11/10/2009 500.00 CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES/EXECUTIVE 10990229365
DEARDOFF, SANDRA MRS. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 05/07/2010 500.00 ISLAND LINCOLN MERCURY/AUTO DEALER 10990842328
DEBS, JOSEPH N. MR. JACKSONVILLE
FL 32256 06/24/2010 250.00 RS&H/EXECUTIVE 10990842346
DELAY, RANDOLPH L. MR. HOUSTON
TX 77082 05/11/2009 250.00 PPSC, INC/CONSULTANT 29992432346
DELAY, WILLIAM T. MR. NASHVILLE
TN 37209 11/09/2009 500.00 SHERMANDIXIE/EXECUTIVE 10990229363
DESAI, SURESH KUMAR DR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32176 06/15/2010 400.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 10990842340
DEVIERNO, JOHN A. MR. KENSINGTON
MD 20895 06/30/2010 500.00 WILLIAMS CO/CONSULTANT 10990842353
DINEEN, MARTIN K. DR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 06/14/2010 250.00 ATLANTIC UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATES/PHY 10990842337
DOERRER, PAUL L. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20002 03/17/2009 1000.00 STONEBRIDGE STRATEGIES/CONSULTANT 29991938767
DOLINER, BARBARA H. MRS. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 05/03/2010 500.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842323
DONOVAN, DAVID P. MR. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32128 03/29/2010 250.00 RAYDON CORPORATION/EXECUTIVE 10930568671
DRUMMOND, SARAH B. MRS. WINTER PARK
FL 32792 03/22/2010 200.00 NONE/RETIRED 10930568662
DUDINSKY, JOHN MR. FREE UNION
VA 22940 03/10/2009 250.00 JOHN DUDINSKY & ASSOC/CONSULTANT 29991938766
DUDINSKY, JOHN MR. FREE UNION
VA 22940 09/30/2009 250.00 JOHN DUDINSKY & ASSOC/CONSULTANT 29934878026
DUDINSKY, JOHN MR. FREE UNION
VA 22940 04/27/2010 250.00 JOHN DUDINSKY & ASSOC/CONSULTANT 10990842314
EBERLY, LYNN M. ALTAMONTE SPRINGS
FL 32701 03/08/2010 250.00 HDR, INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568659
ELKIND, DARREN MR. ORANGE CITY
FL 32763 06/15/2010 400.00 PAUL AND ELKIND/ATTORNEY 10990842341
FABIAN, MICHAEL A. DR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 12/21/2009 250.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 10990229375
FABIAN, MICHAEL A. DR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 06/15/2010 250.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 10990842342
FARB, STUART H. MR. MAITLAND
FL 32751 04/26/2010 500.00 THE FARB FINANCIAL GROUP/INSURANCE 10990842304
FARMER, PEGGY H. MRS. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 11/16/2009 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990229365
FARMER, PEGGY H. MRS. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 06/15/2010 400.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842338
FERBER, PAUL S. MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/19/2010 250.00 THE FERBER CO, INC/REALTOR 10990842302
FERRELL, STEPHEN J. MR. HOWEY IN THE HILLS
FL 34737 03/08/2010 356.00 HDR, INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568657
FERRIS, GERALDINE J. DR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 04/26/2010 200.00 SELF/DENTIST 10990842303
FIORENTINO, T. MARTIN MR. JR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/26/2010 250.00 FIORENTINO & HEWETT/CONSULTANT 10990842312
FIORENTINO, T. MARTIN MR. JR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 06/24/2010 250.00 FIORENTINO & HEWETT/CONSULTANT 10990842346
FITZSIMMONS, ELLEN M. MS. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 06/24/2010 250.00 CSX/EXECUTIVE 10990842349
FLETCHER, JEROME S. MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/19/2010 250.00 FLETCHER MGT CO/REALTOR 10990842301
FLICKER, ERIC L. MR. WEST CHESTER
PA 19380 05/04/2010 250.00 PENNONI ASSOCIATES/CONSULTANT 10990842327
FOBES, ROBERT C. MR. SILVERTHORNE
CO 80498 12/24/2009 1000.00 UNITED AIRLINES/AIRLINE PILOT 10990229376
FOBES, ROBERT C. MR. SILVERTHORNE
CO 80498 05/17/2010 1000.00 UNITED AIRLINES/AIRLINE PILOT 10990842331
FORD, C. MICHAEL MR. MACON
GA 31208 06/18/2010 500.00 NEW TOWN MACON/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFF 10990842344
FOX, DANIEL M. MR. LOCUST VALLEY
NY 11560 08/11/2009 1000.00 MILBANK MEMORIAL FUND/EXECUTIVE 29934878020
FOX, JOHN P. MR. MIAMI
FL 33138 03/05/2009 250.00 ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD/EXECUT 29991938765
FRANCE, JAMES C. MR. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32120 04/26/2010 2400.00 INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAY CORP/EXECUT 10990842306
FRANCO, OMAR MR. FAIRFAX
VA 22033 12/15/2009 250.00 PETRIZZO STRATEGIC GROUP/CONSULTAN 10990229370
FRANCO, OMAR MR. FAIRFAX
VA 22033 06/16/2009 500.00 PETRIZZO STRATEGIC GROUP/CONSULTAN 29992432351
FREDERICK, CHRISTINA M. MRS. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32176 04/26/2010 500.00 EMBRY RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIV/ADM 10990842305
FREY, JULIA L. MRS. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 11/10/2009 250.00 LOUNDES DROSDICK ETAL/ATTORNEY 10990229364
FREY, LOU THE HON. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/15/2010 300.00 LOWNDES DROSDICK DOSTER, ET AL/ATT 10930568660
FREY, LOU THE HON. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 11/10/2009 500.00 LOWNDES DROSDICK DOSTER, ET AL/ATT 10990229364
FURIA, ART MR. MIAMI
FL 33132 03/05/2009 500.00 GUNSTER YOAKLEY/ATTORNEY 29991938764
GARCIA, MICHAEL O'HARA MR. GAINESVILLE
FL 32603 06/30/2010 500.00 DIGITAL STRATEGY GROUP, INC/CHIEF 10990842352
GAY, W. W. MR. JACKSONVILLE
FL 32204 06/11/2010 500.00 WW GAY MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, INC/ 10990842337
GAY, W. W. MR. JACKSONVILLE
FL 32204 04/26/2010 500.00 WW GAY MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, INC/ 10990842307
GEER, CHARLES L. MR. WELLINGTON
FL 33449 05/04/2010 250.00 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES/CONSULT 10990842327
GEMIGNANI, GINO MR. BALTIMORE
MD 21212 07/13/2009 500.00 WHITING TURNER/EXECUTIVE 29934878015
GENCARELLI, DAVID F. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20003 06/25/2010 1000.00 GENCARELLI GROUP/ATTORNEY 10990842351
GHYABI, MARYAM K MRS. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 05/03/2010 500.00 GHYABI, LASSITER & ASSO, INC/ENGIN 10990842318
GIBSON, DUANE R. MR. CHEVY CHASE
MD 20815 09/30/2009 250.00 THE LIVINGSTON GROUP/CONSULTANT 29934878023
GIERACH, DAVID A. MR. LONGWOOD
FL 32779 11/17/2009 1000.00 CPH ENGINEERS, INC/ENGINEER 10990229366
GILES, ARTHUR E. MR. SOUTH DAYTONA
FL 32119 05/03/2010 500.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990842322
GODSEY, R. KIRBY DR. MACON
GA 31203 06/18/2010 500.00 MYERS MCRAE EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM/ 10990842345
GOFF, JIMMY MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/22/2010 2000.00 ZHA, INC/ENGINEER 10930568665
GOLDBERG, PAUL B. DR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 06/15/2010 400.00 GASTROINTESTINAL ASSOCIATES, PA/PH 10990842338
GREEN, ELIZABETH A. MRS. MAITLAND
FL 32751 06/15/2010 500.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842340
GREENWELL, EDMUND S. MR. LONGWOOD
FL 32750 11/04/2009 300.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990229359
GREENWOOD, SCOTT D. DR. ORLANDO
FL 32806 03/31/2010 250.00 ORLANDO HEART CENTER/PHYSICIAN 10930568673
GREGG, CHARLES W. MR. LONGWOOD
FL 32779 10/29/2009 1000.00 GREATER CONSTRUCTION CORP/CONTRACT 10990229356
GRUNE, BETTY LU MRS. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/26/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842311
GRUNE, GEORGE V. MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/26/2010 250.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990842311
GUERRERI, CARL N. MR. MANASSAS
VA 22110 03/23/2009 250.00 ELECTRONIC WARFARE ASSOCIATES, INC 29991938769
HAMILTON, DAVID W. MR. SAINT JOHNS
FL 32259 11/04/2009 250.00 ELKINS CONSTRUCTORS/EXECUTIVE 10990229359
HARLOW, BRYCE L. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22101 06/08/2010 500.00 PRIME POLICY GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842336
HARRIS, MICHAEL K. MR. CRESCENT CITY
FL 32112 06/15/2010 250.00 SELF/FARMER 10990842341
HARRIS, RONALD S. MR. CRESCENT CITY
FL 32112 06/15/2010 250.00 PUTNAM FERN CORP/CHIEF EXECUTIVE O 10990842341
HARTMANN, KENNETH A. MR. VALRICO
FL 33594 03/08/2010 250.00 HDR, INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568659
HARTNETT, ROBERT C. MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/22/2010 250.00 GOVERNMENT SERVICES ASSOCIATES/CON 10930568662
HASTY, ELVIRA F. MRS. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/26/2010 500.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990842308
HAUPTLI, TODD J. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22102 07/15/2009 250.00 AMERICAN ASSO OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVE 29934878016
HAUPTLI, TODD J. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22102 06/16/2009 250.00 AMERICAN ASSO OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVE 29992432351
HAUPTLI, TODD J. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22102 03/17/2010 500.00 AMERICAN ASSO OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVE 10930568662
HAWKINS, JEAN MRS. CASTLE ROCK
CO 80108 01/26/2009 1150.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 29991938759
HAWKINS, KEVIN B. MR. CASTLE ROCK
CO 80108 01/26/2009 1150.00 HAWKINS DEVELOPMENT/DEVELOPER 29991938759
HAWKINS, PAULA F. SENATOR WINTER PARK
FL 32789 11/16/2009 250.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990229365
HAYDEN, LUCIANO B. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20007 12/28/2009 250.00 API ENERGY/EXECUTIVE 10990229377
HAYES, CHERYL W. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32004 04/26/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842310
HEALY, ROBERT L. MR. JR. FALLS CHURCH
VA 22043 04/27/2010 250.00 AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASS 10990842314
HEATH, MINDELYN D. WINTER PARK
FL 32792 03/08/2010 250.00 HDR, INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568660
HEIST, RICHARD H. MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 05/10/2010 250.00 EMBRY-RIDDLE UNIVERSITY/ADMINISTRA 10990842329
HENDERSON, CAROLE R. MRS. LONGWOOD
FL 32779 05/16/2009 500.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 29992432347
HENDERSON, JIM W. MR. LONGWOOD
FL 32779 05/16/2009 500.00 BROWN & BROWN/REALTOR 29992432347
HERTWIG, JAMES R. MR. JACKSONVILLE
FL 32250 05/10/2010 500.00 CSX INTERNATL/EXECUTIVE 10990842329
HIRSCHMANN, SUSAN B. ALEXANDRIA
VA 22304 07/15/2009 1000.00 WILLIAMS & JENSEN/ATTORNEY 29934878016
HODGES, G. TOMMY MR. SHELBYVILLE
TN 37160 11/09/2009 500.00 TITAN TRANSFER/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFF 10990229362
HOLESKO, ANDREW M. MR. ORANGE PARK
FL 32003 06/24/2010 250.00 PASSERO ASSOCIATES/EXECUTIVE 10990842348
HOLLMANN, MARK W. DR. DE LAND
FL 32724 06/15/2010 400.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 10990842342
HOLLOWAY, ROBERT WALLER DR. MAITLAND
FL 32751 03/31/2010 200.00 FLORIDA HOSPITAL/PHYSICIAN 10930568672
HOLT, RUTH K. MRS. SANFORD
FL 32771 11/04/2009 500.00 SOLAR-TITE, INC/EXECUTIVE 10990229358
HORAN, MICHAEL A. MR. VENICE
FL 34285 03/05/2009 500.00 AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES OF FL, LLC/ 29991938762
HOSSEINI, FOROUGH MRS. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 05/03/2010 2400.00 ICI HOMES/EXECUTIVE 10990842321
HOSSEINI, FOROUGH MRS. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 05/03/2010 2400.00 ICI HOMES/EXECUTIVE 10990842321
HOSSEINI, MORTEZA H. MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 05/03/2010 2400.00 INTERVEST CONSTRUCTION/EXECUTIVE 10990842318
HOSSEINI, MORTEZA H. MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 05/03/2010 2400.00 INTERVEST CONSTRUCTION/EXECUTIVE 10990842317
HOUGHTON, E.C. MR. JR. EL PASO
TX 79901 08/24/2009 1000.00 SELF/FINANCIAL PLANNER 29934878022
HUCKE, RONALD D. DR. ST. AUGUSTINE
FL 32084 11/09/2009 250.00 ST JOHNS FAMILY DENTISTS/DENTIST 10990229363
HURT, ROBERT H. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20017 03/23/2009 250.00 HURT, NORTON & ASSO/CONSULTANT 29991938768
HURT, ROBERT H. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20017 03/23/2009 250.00 HURT, NORTON & ASSO/CONSULTANT 29991938768
ITZKOFF, DONALD M. MR. WEST BETHESDA
MD 20817 03/30/2009 250.00 O'CONNOR & HANNON, LLP/CONSULTANT 29991938770
ITZKOFF, DONALD M. MR. WEST BETHESDA
MD 20817 11/18/2009 250.00 O'CONNOR & HANNON, LLP/CONSULTANT 10990229366
JACOBY, ROBERT E. MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/26/2010 1000.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990842306
JENKINS, LEERIE T. MR. JR. ORANGE PARK
FL 32003 06/24/2010 250.00 REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS, INC/CHI 10990842347
JOACHIM, LOUIS MR. LONGWOOD
FL 32779 05/10/2010 500.00 DOVER INTERNATL REALTY, INC/REALTO 10990842330
JOHNSON, BEN F. THE HON. GLENWOOD
FL 32722 06/08/2010 250.00 VOLUSIA COUNTY/SHERIFF 10990842336
JOHNSON, JOHN P. DR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 04/29/2010 250.00 EMBRY RIDDLE AURONAUTIC UNIVERSITY 10990842316
JOHNSON, LEA S. MRS. FAYETTEVILLE
NC 28314 12/24/2009 500.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990229375
JONTZ, JEFFRY R. MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/22/2010 300.00 SWANN & HADLEY/ATTORNEY 10930568666
KARABLY, KENNETH B. MR. ST AUGUSTINE
FL 32092 12/31/2009 200.00 GOLDER ASSOCIATES/ENGINEER 10990229377
KAUFMAN, RONALD C. MR. BOSTON
MA 02116 07/13/2009 500.00 DUTKA WORLDWIDE/EXECUTIVE 29934878015
KAYE, CAROLYN J. MS. POWAY
CA 92064 07/13/2009 500.00 KAYE, ROSE & PARTNERS/ATTORNEY 29934878014
KELLAM, JAMES C. MR. JR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 11/02/2009 300.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990229356
KELLAM, JAMES C. MR. JR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/22/2010 300.00 NONE/RETIRED 10930568664
KENNEDY, DAVID D. MR. PALO ALTO
CA 94301 05/04/2010 250.00 SELF/CONSULTANT 10990842327
KENNEDY, LESA MRS. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32118 04/29/2010 2400.00 INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAY CORP/EXECUT 10990842317
KENZIK, MARY LOUISE MRS. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 11/04/2009 300.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990229361
KINSTLINGER, JACK MR. BALTIMORE
MD 21208 06/16/2009 500.00 KCI TECHNOLOGIES/EXECUTIVE 29992432352
KIRBY, THOMAS MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20003 09/30/2009 200.00 WILEY REIN LLP/ATTORNEY 29934878025
KLEIN, GARY J. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20016 05/16/2009 250.00 DLA PIPER/ATTORNEY 29992432348
KLEIN, KENNETH J. MR. SILVER SPRING
MD 20902 08/24/2009 1000.00 OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSO OF AMERIC 29934878022
KNEIB, JOSEPH A. MR. OLATHE
KS 66061 06/08/2010 1000.00 HERZOG CONTRACTING CORP/EXECUTIVE 10990842335
KRESESKI, STEVEN L. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20002 12/15/2009 250.00 THE LIVINGSTON GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990229371
KRUEGER, RICHARD MR. LAKEVILLE
MN 55044 06/30/2010 400.00 GLOBAL TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGIES/MANAGE 10990842354
KUHN, MURIEL AUTREY MRS. WINTER PARK
FL 32792 12/24/2009 1000.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990229376
LACEY, EDWARD T. MR. DE LAND
FL 32724 06/18/2010 500.00 SELF/AUTO DEALER 10990842343
LAND, ROBERT C. MR. ROCKVILLE
MD 20850 09/30/2009 250.00 JET BLUE AIRWAYS/EXECUTIVE 29934878024
LAND, ROBERT C. MR. ROCKVILLE
MD 20849 04/27/2010 250.00 JET BLUE AIRWAYS/EXECUTIVE 10990842315
LAND, ROBERT C. MR. ROCKVILLE
MD 20849 06/25/2010 250.00 JET BLUE AIRWAYS/EXECUTIVE 10990842351
LANKFORD, ROBERT W. DR. DE LAND
FL 32724 06/30/2010 250.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 10990842352
LAUZIER, ANDRE E. MR. LONGWOOD
FL 32750 03/08/2010 250.00 HDR INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568658
LAVOIE, STEPHAN DR. DE LAND
FL 32724 06/18/2010 400.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 10990842343
LEE, JAMES MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/08/2010 250.00 HDR TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING GROU 10930568659
LEMERAND, L. GALE MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 06/24/2010 250.00 GALE INDUSTRIES, INC/EXECUTIVE 10990842350
LEMUNYON, GLENN B. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22101 06/30/2009 500.00 THE LEMUNYON GROUP/ATTORNEY 29992432355
LENTZ, CARL W. DR. III DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32118 05/07/2010 500.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 10990842328
LEONARD, MICKIE A. MR. FORT LAUDERDALE
FL 33303 03/05/2009 500.00 PORTSIDE REALTY/REALTOR 29991938766
LESTER, STEVEN G. MD WINTER PARK
FL 32789 11/04/2009 250.00 RADIATION ONCOLOGY CONSULTANTS/PHY 10990229359
LEVI, DARIN J. MR. WINDERMERE
FL 34786 03/08/2010 250.00 HDR, INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568658
LEVY, JEFFREY M. MR. SUFFERN
NY 10901 07/13/2009 250.00 RAILWORKS CORP/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFF 29934878015
LICHTIGMAN, CHARLES S. MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32176 05/03/2010 1000.00 CHARLES WAYNE PROPERTIES/REALTOR 10990842318
LINNEN, THOMAS F. MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 05/10/2010 250.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990842329
LISKER, JOEL S. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22102 04/27/2010 250.00 LISKER & ASSOCIATES/CONSULTANT 10990842315
LOWNDES, JOHN F. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32802 03/11/2010 200.00 LOWNDES, DROSDICK, ET AL/ATTORNEY 10930568660
LUKIS, SYLVESTER MR. CORAL GABLES
FL 33134 03/05/2009 500.00 SELF/CONSULTANT 29991938765
MACMURRAY, ORRIN B. MR. CAMDEN
NY 13316 05/04/2010 250.00 C & S/CONSULTANT 10990842326
MAHLER, MARK W. MR. SANFORD
FL 32771 03/29/2010 2300.00 AMERICAN K-9 DETECTION SERVICES, I 10930568672
MANDELL, BOB MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32790 02/23/2009 300.00 GREATER CONSTRUCTION CO/DEVELOPER 29991938760
MANDELL, BOB MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32790 06/08/2010 500.00 GREATER CONSTRUCTION CO/DEVELOPER 10990842336
MARTIN, J. ALLEN MR. VIENNA
VA 22181 05/04/2010 500.00 THE LIVINGSTON GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842324
MARTIN, KIT MRS. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32118 06/15/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842339
MATEER, CRAIG C. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32809 03/22/2010 2300.00 BAGGAGE AIRLINES GUEST SERVICES/EX 10930568666
MATEER, CRAIG C. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32809 12/15/2009 2400.00 BAGGAGE AIRLINES GUEST SERVICES/EX 10990229374
MATSON, JASON B. MR. PORT ST LUCIE
FL 34987 05/04/2010 250.00 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES/CONSULT 10990842326
MCCLURE, GEORGE M. MR. ST. AUGUSTINE
FL 32086 04/26/2010 250.00 SELF/ATTORNEY 10990842309
MCKNIGHT, STEVEN G. MR. FALLS CHURCH
VA 22043 05/04/2010 250.00 THE RHOADS GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842324
MCMUNN, WILLIAM H. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 06/15/2010 400.00 CONSOLIDATED TOMOKA LAND CO/DEVELO 10990842342
MEADE, RICHARD MR. FALLS CHURCH
VA 22042 06/03/2010 500.00 PRIME POLICY GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842335
MEADE, RICHARD MR. FALLS CHURCH
VA 22042 05/27/2009 500.00 BKSH & ASSOCIATES/CONSULTANT 29992432350
MEADOWS, WILLIAM W. MR. FORT WORTH
TX 76107 08/18/2009 1000.00 HUB INTERNATIONAL/INSURANCE AGENT 29934878021
MENDELSON, LAURANS A. MR. MIAMI
FL 33133 03/05/2009 500.00 HEICO/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 29991938762
MENDELSON, VICTOR H. MR. MIAMI
FL 33131 03/05/2009 500.00 HEICO CORP/EXECUTIVE 29991938764
MESKIN, JEFFREY MR. MEMPHIS
TN 38120 07/15/2009 250.00 BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN/EXECUTIVE 29934878017
METZNER, DAVID A. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20003 08/18/2009 1000.00 AMERICAN CONTINENTAL GROUP/CONSULT 29934878021
MILLER, SANFORD MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 05/03/2010 500.00 FRANCHISE SERVICES NORTH AMERICA/E 10990842322
MILLER, WILLIAM R. MR. ALTAMONTE SPRINGS
FL 32714 12/15/2009 250.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990229372
MILLS, ROBERT E. MR. NORTH POTOMAC
MD 20878 05/27/2009 250.00 THE ADVOCACY GROUP/CONSULTANT 29992432349
MILLS, ROBERT E. MR. NORTH POTOMAC
MD 20878 03/10/2009 500.00 THE ADVOCACY GROUP/CONSULTANT 29991938767
MILLS, ROBERT E. MR. NORTH POTOMAC
MD 20878 07/30/2009 250.00 THE ADVOCACY GROUP/CONSULTANT 29934878018
MIRMIRAN, FRED MR. SPARKS GLENCOE
MD 21152 06/24/2010 250.00 JMT ENGINEERING/EXECUTIVE 10990842348
MOON, TERUYO MRS. FRUIT COVE
FL 32259 11/02/2009 500.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990229357
MOORE, WILLIAM K. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20004 09/15/2009 1119.00 VIANOVO/CONSULTANT 29934878023
MOROUN, M.J. MR. WARREN
MI 48089 03/05/2009 1000.00 CENTRA, INC/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE 29991938761
MOSELY, MARION L. MR. PEMBROKE PARK
FL 33023 03/05/2009 500.00 WESTWIND CONTRACTING/CHIEF EXECUTI 29991938761
MUNILLA, PEDRO MR. MIAMI
FL 33143 03/05/2009 1000.00 MCM CORPORATION/DEVELOPER 29991938766
MURDOCK, WILLIAM J. MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/26/2010 300.00 AMERICAN INFRA STRUCTURE, INC/EXEC 10990842312
MYNCHENBERG, PARKER K. MR. HOLLY HILL
FL 32117 06/15/2010 250.00 PARKER MYNCHENBERG & ASSO, INC/ENG 10990842339
NODARSE, PE, LEILA JAMMAL WINTER PARK
FL 32789 06/24/2010 500.00 LJ NODARSE & ASSOCIATES, INC/ENGIN 10990842350
O'BRIEN, DANIEL J. MR. DE LAND
FL 32724 10/30/2009 400.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990229356
OARE, CAROL FORBES PALM COAST
FL 32137 11/03/2009 1000.00 OARE ASSOC LLC/DEVELOPER 10990229357
OGLESBY, M. B. MR. JR. WASHINGTON
DC 20005 05/27/2009 300.00 BKSH & ASSOCIATES/CONSULTANT 29992432349
OGLESBY, M. B. MR. JR. WASHINGTON
DC 20005 06/03/2010 500.00 PRIME POLICY GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842334
OHAB, PAMELA C. ALTAMONTE SPRINGS
FL 32701 03/22/2010 300.00 OHAB & COMPANY, PA/CERTIFIED PUBLI 10930568663
OREILLY, CHARLES L. MR. JR. WOBURN
MA 01801 03/08/2010 250.00 HDR, INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568658
PALM, WILLIAM H. MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32790 12/15/2009 500.00 GLACE & RADCLIFFE/ENGINEER 10990229372
PALM, WILLIAM H. MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32790 03/22/2010 200.00 GLACE & RADCLIFFE/ENGINEER 10930568669
PARSELL, ROBERT N. MR. JR. SANFORD
FL 32771 11/04/2009 250.00 ACE HARDWARE/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFIC 10990229361
PASSALACQUA, JOSEPH J. MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 12/24/2009 300.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990229376
PASSALACQUA, JOSEPH J. MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/22/2010 200.00 NONE/RETIRED 10930568669
PENIN, CARLOS A. MR. CORAL GABLES
FL 33146 12/09/2009 250.00 CSA SOUTHEAST/MANAGER 10990229368
PETERS, MARY E. PEORIA
AZ 85383 03/08/2010 353.00 HDR, INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568657
PETRIZZO, T. J. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20002 12/15/2009 250.00 PETRIZZO STRATEGIC GROUP/CONSULTAN 10990229371
PETRIZZO, T. J. MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32176 03/05/2009 1000.00 PETRIZZO STRATEGIC GROUP/CONSULTAN 29991938763
PHILLIPS, R. PATRICK MR. APOPKA
FL 32703 03/22/2010 250.00 SELF/ATTORNEY 10930568664
PINTO, WILLIAM A. MR. MARIETTA
GA 30067 12/15/2009 1000.00 HARDIN CONSTRUCTION CO, LLC/DEVELO 10990229374
PINTO, WILLIAM A. MR. MARIETTA
GA 30067 06/18/2010 500.00 HARDIN CONSTRUCTION CO, LLC/DEVELO 10990842344
POURBAIX, JOHN M. MR. JR WALPOLE
MA 02081 07/15/2009 250.00 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES OF MASS/EX 29934878017
QUIGGLE, DAN MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/26/2010 500.00 AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO/EXECUT 10990842308
RAMDASS, DON K. MR. JACKSONVILLE
FL 32218 06/24/2010 250.00 PASSERO ASSOCIATES/EXECUTIVE 10990842349
RAMOS, ENRIQUE A. MR. HOBE SOUND
FL 33455 12/15/2009 250.00 SECURE WRAP/EXECUTIVE 10990229371
RAMOS, ENRIQUE A. MR. HOBE SOUND
FL 33455 02/23/2009 500.00 SECURE WRAP/EXECUTIVE 29991938760
RAMOS, GISLEDA A DR. HOBE SOUND
FL 33455 12/15/2009 250.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 10990229370
RAMOS, GISLEDA A MRS. HOBE SOUND
FL 33455 02/23/2009 500.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 29991938760
RAUHOFER, WARREN E. CAPT PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/26/2010 250.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990842311
REED, TRUDIE K. DR. PORT ORANGE
FL 32129 11/04/2009 250.00 BETHUNE-COOKMAN UNIVERSITY/PRESIDE 10990229360
RESSFELDER, DAVID W. MR. MANCHESTER
MA 01944 07/15/2009 250.00 REVEAL/CONSULTANT 29934878018
RIFE, JOHN MR. JR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 04/26/2010 500.00 RIFE-MILLER, INC/DEVELOPER 10990842305
ROBBINS, MELISSA B. MRS. ATLANTIC BEACH
FL 32233 04/26/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842308
ROBINSON, BERNIE MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20003 05/04/2010 1000.00 THE LIVINGSTON GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842323
ROBY, LOREN H. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32803 01/12/2010 1000.00 SELF/REAL ESTATE APPRAISER 10930568655
ROBY, LOREN H. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32803 03/22/2010 500.00 SELF/REAL ESTATE APPRAISER 10930568667
ROMANI, ROMANO MR. ROCKVILLE
MD 20852 12/09/2009 500.00 PARRY, ROMANI, DECONCINI & SYMMS/C 10990229369
ROONEY, JAMES C. MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/19/2010 500.00 VANNESS CO INC/CONSULTANT 10990842302
ROSE, MITCHELL F. MR. MCLEAN
VA 22101 04/19/2010 500.00 SELF/CONSULTANT 10990842301
ROSS, RAY MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 05/17/2010 250.00 SMOAK, DAVIS & NIXON LLP/CERTIFIED 10990842331
ROTHBARD, ROBERT L. DR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/22/2010 300.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 10930568665
ROZSA, GABE WASHINGTON
DC 20005 06/03/2010 500.00 PRIME POLICY GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842334
RUMMELL, PETER S. MR. JACKSONVILLE
FL 32207 06/18/2010 500.00 ST JOE COMPANY/EXECUTIVE 10990842343
RUMSEY, C. CAYCE DR. III PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/26/2010 500.00 PONTE VEDRA PLASTIC SURGERY/PHYSIC 10990842309
RUSSELL, GEORGE L. MR. SR REDDICK
FL 32686 03/05/2009 500.00 RUSSELL ENGINEERING, INC/EXECUTIVE 29991938762
RYMER, J. HOYLE MR. DELEON SPRINGS
FL 32130 06/14/2010 400.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990842337
SANDERS, JOHN P. MR. SUDBURY
MA 01776 07/15/2009 250.00 REVEAL/CONSULTANT 29934878017
SANDLER, GILBERT LEE MR. MIAMI
FL 33133 03/05/2009 500.00 SANDLER, TRAVIS & ROSENBERG/ATTORN 29991938764
SCHANTZ, FREDERICK W. MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/26/2010 250.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990842310
SCHENCK, JEFFREY MR. ORLANDO
FL 32804 03/17/2010 500.00 SCHENCK COMPANY/BUSINESSPERSON 10930568661
SCHNIPPER, ELLEN H. MRS. JACKSONVILLE
FL 32257 04/26/2010 500.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842309
SHERFIELD, DANIEL P. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32839 03/29/2010 2400.00 BAGS, INC/EXECUTIVE 10930568672
SHETH, RAJAN MADISON
WI 53717 03/31/2010 250.00 MEAD & HUNT/EXECUTIVE 10930568673
SHIELDS, JOHN H. MR. II PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/19/2010 1000.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990842302
SHOWALTER, ROBERT H. MR. ORLANDO
FL 32814 04/26/2010 250.00 SHOWALTER FLYING SERVICE, INC/CHIE 10990842303
SHUSTER, ROBERT L. MR. CAMP HILL
PA 17011 05/11/2009 250.00 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL/CONSULTANT 29992432346
SILVERMAN, DOROTHY B. MRS. MAITLAND
FL 32751 04/26/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842304
SILVERMAN, WILLIAM DR. MAITLAND
FL 32751 04/26/2010 250.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 10990842303
SLADE, MICHAEL MR. WELLINGTON
FL 33414 03/05/2009 500.00 RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, IN 29991938763
SLICK, DAVID T. MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 11/05/2009 500.00 COMMAND MEDICAL PRODUCTS/CHIEF EXE 10990229361
SMEALLIE, SHAWN H. MR. ALEXANDRIA
VA 22302 08/18/2009 1000.00 AMERICAN CONTINENTAL GROUP/CONSULT 29934878020
SMEALLIE, SHAWN H. MR. ALEXANDRIA
VA 22302 03/10/2009 250.00 AMERICAN CONTINENTAL GROUP/CONSULT 29991938767
SMITH, DAVID E. MR. LOUISVILLE
KY 40245 06/24/2010 250.00 INFORMATION REQUESTION 10990842350
SMITH, J. GREGORY MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 06/15/2010 250.00 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS/CHIEF 10990842339
SPALL, TED MR. JR. PITTSFORD
NY 14534 06/23/2009 1000.00 RICC & SPALL REALTY GROUP/DEVELOPE 29992432354
SPEES, RICHARD L. MR. JR. MCLEAN
VA 22102 06/30/2009 250.00 AKERMAN SENTERFITT/ATTORNEY 29992432355
STAED, BARBARA D. MRS. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32118 05/10/2010 2400.00 STAED FAMILY ASSOCIATES/HOTEL OWNE 10990842330
STAED, THOMAS W. MR. DAYTONA BEACH
FL 32118 05/10/2010 2400.00 STAED FAMILY ASSOCIATES/HOTEL OWNE 10990842330
STAVROS, GUS A. MR. ST. PETERSBURG
FL 33701 12/15/2009 500.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990229373
STEWART, GARY L. MR. MATTHEWS
NC 28104 10/19/2009 1000.00 WOOLPERT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 10990229355
STREETMAN, FRED MR. LONGWOOD
FL 32779 03/22/2010 200.00 NONE/RETIRED 10930568670
STURGELL, ROBERT MR. ARLINGTON
VA 22209 12/31/2009 250.00 ROCKWELL COLLINS/EXECUTIVE 10990229378
SWAUGER, LANE W. MR. THOMPSONS STATION
TN 37179 06/16/2009 250.00 KCI TECHNOLOGIES/EXECUTIVE 29992432352
SWEET, JEFFREY C. MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 04/29/2010 500.00 KOREY, SWEET, MCKINNON ETAL/ATTORN 10990842317
SYMMS, STEVE THE HON. WASHINGTON
DC 20002 12/09/2009 250.00 PARRY, ROMANI, DECONCINI & SYMMS/C 10990229369
TATE, STANLEY MR. MIAMI
FL 33161 12/09/2009 200.00 TATE ENTERPRISES/DEVELOPER 10990229368
TATE, STANLEY MR. MIAMI
FL 33161 02/16/2009 500.00 TATE ENTERPRISES/DEVELOPER 29991938759
TEAL, PARKE MR. DE LAND
FL 32720 06/15/2010 250.00 SELF/CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCT. 10990842340
TEAL, PARKE MR. DE LAND
FL 32720 12/15/2009 500.00 SELF/CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCT. 10990229373
THOMPSON, JOSEPH A. MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32004 06/30/2010 500.00 FULCRUM PARTNERS LLC/CONSULTANT 10990842352
THOMPSON, JOSEPH A. MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32004 04/26/2010 500.00 FULCRUM PARTNERS LLC/CONSULTANT 10990842306
TIEDTKE, PHILIP MR. WINTER PARK
FL 32789 03/22/2010 250.00 EASTGATE/EXECUTIVE 10930568668
TILLMAN, RAYMOND MR. NEW YORK
NY 10019 06/16/2009 250.00 STANTEC/EXECUTIVE 29992432354
TIMMONS, WILLIAM E, MR. JR. WASHINGTON
DC 20016 06/30/2010 250.00 PRIME POLICY GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842353
TRAVIS, RICHARD B. MR. SR. LONGWOOD
FL 32779 11/04/2009 300.00 OPEN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC/CH 10990229358
TRELOAR, CONSTANCE W. MRS. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32176 08/03/2009 500.00 RETIRED/RETIRED 29934878019
UNDERWOOD, FRED A. MR. LUBBOCK
TX 79490 08/24/2009 1000.00 THE TRINITY COMPANY/CHIEF EXECUTIV 29934878022
VARGO, JAMES MR. WINDERMERE
FL 32786 01/12/2010 500.00 DANIELS MANUFACTURING CO/EXECUTIVE 10930568655
VECELLIO, LEO A. MR. JR. PALM BEACH
FL 33480 03/05/2009 500.00 VECELLIO GROUP, INC/EXECUTIVE 29991938763
VILLALON, MINET M. MRS. MIAMI
FL 33155 05/04/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842325
VOM EIGEN, ROBERT P. MR. WASHINGTON
DC 20007 07/01/2009 250.00 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP/ATTORNEY 29934878014
WARD, MICHAEL J. MR. JACKSONVILLE
FL 32207 06/24/2010 2000.00 CSX/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 10990842349
WARREN, CHARLOTTE M. MRS. OCOEE
FL 34761 06/24/2010 500.00 ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD/TEACHER 10990842347
WARREN, CHRISTOPHER L. MR. OCOEE
FL 34761 06/24/2010 500.00 URS CORPORATION/ENGINEER 10990842347
WEBER, BECKY B. WASHINGTON
DC 20005 06/03/2010 250.00 PRIME POLICY GROUP/CONSULTANT 10990842335
WEST, JAMES D. MR. FRANKLIN
TN 37067 12/21/2009 250.00 LANDMARK BROKERAGE LLC/FINANCIAL A 10990229374
WESTLING, JANET PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 04/26/2010 250.00 SELF/HOUSEWIFE 10990842310
WILLIAMS, TERRY C. MR. DE LAND
FL 32724 11/18/2009 250.00 WILLIAMS PROPERTIES/CHIEF EXECUTIV 10990229366
WILLIAMS, THOMAS J. MR. ASHBURN
VA 20147 11/23/2009 500.00 EWA, INC/EXECUTIVE 10990229367
WILLIAMS, THOMAS J. MR. ASHBURN
VA 20147 03/23/2009 250.00 EWA, INC/EXECUTIVE 29991938769
WORTH, DOUGLAS C. MR. PONTE VEDRA BEACH
FL 32082 11/03/2009 500.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990229357
YOUNG, WILLIAM F. MR. ST. AUGUSTINE
FL 32084 04/15/2010 250.00 NONE/RETIRED 10990842301
YUSCHOK, THOMAS J. DR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32174 08/03/2009 500.00 SELF/PHYSICIAN 29934878019
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL EARMARKED THROUGH ANOTHER COMMITTEE
BORYSIEWICZ JEFF MR. ORLANDO
FL 32835 05/25/2010 500.00 CORONA CIGAR CO/BUSINESSPERSON 10990842333
BRIMSEK JOHN R. MR. FALLS CHURCH
VA 22043 11/10/2009 1000.00 SELF/ATTORNEY 10990229364
NEAMTU ALEXANDER MR. ORMOND BEACH
FL 32173 07/13/2009 250.00 RETIRED 29934878027
PIERCE JERRY E. MR. MAITLAND
FL 32751 06/30/2010 1000.00 RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT WORLD/BUSINES 10990842354
CONTRIBUTION REFUND TO AN INDIVIDUAL
GEMIGNANI, GINO MR. BALTIMORE
MD 21212 08/04/2009 -250.00
29934878067
TRY A: NEW QUERY
RETURN TO: FEC HOME PAGE
In secret, behind locked gates, our Nation's Oldest City dumped a landfill in a lake (Old City Reservoir), while emitting sewage in our rivers and salt marsh. Organized citizens exposed and defeated pollution, racism and cronyism. We elected a new Mayor. We're transforming our City -- advanced citizenship. Ask questions. Make disclosures. Demand answers. Be involved. Expect democracy. Report and expose corruption. Smile! Help enact a St. Augustine National Park and Seashore. We shall overcome!
Friday, July 23, 2010
IN HAEC VERBA re: TARBALL -- Crescent Beach tarballs' Coast Guard analytical chemistry report say they're not from BP's spill
From: Linda Stoughton
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:12 AM
To: Jan Brewer; Jerry Cameron
Subject: Verbal Report Conformation on Crescent Beach Tar Patties
Importance: High
Good Morning Jan and Mr. Cameron,
I just received “Verbal Conformation” that the Tar Patties collected on Crescent Beach on July 8, 2010, are “NOT” from Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The information was received from Florida Peninsula Command, Miami. FPC received the information from the USCG who had received the report from the Marine Lab. I requested a hard copy of the report and Florida Peninsula Command is going to obtain a copy and forward to Emergency Management.
The report will be only one to several pages long and probably will not contain any specific scientific information on the tar patties or their origin.
Because of the sensitivity of this issue and public concern, I have only notified the two of you of this information. I will certainly forward the hard copy report when it arrives.
Respectfully,
Linda
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:12 AM
To: Jan Brewer; Jerry Cameron
Subject: Verbal Report Conformation on Crescent Beach Tar Patties
Importance: High
Good Morning Jan and Mr. Cameron,
I just received “Verbal Conformation” that the Tar Patties collected on Crescent Beach on July 8, 2010, are “NOT” from Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The information was received from Florida Peninsula Command, Miami. FPC received the information from the USCG who had received the report from the Marine Lab. I requested a hard copy of the report and Florida Peninsula Command is going to obtain a copy and forward to Emergency Management.
The report will be only one to several pages long and probably will not contain any specific scientific information on the tar patties or their origin.
Because of the sensitivity of this issue and public concern, I have only notified the two of you of this information. I will certainly forward the hard copy report when it arrives.
Respectfully,
Linda
Rep. Alan Grayson
Well, we did it. We got some help for Americans who are living in their cars, and Americans who are eating cat food out of a can. Americans who have been out of work for almost two years, and then saw the right wing block their unemployment insurance payments for months.
Here is some interesting commentary on the speech that started it:
(link)
After that speech, the Senate voted to release the funds, the House voted yesterday, the President will sign the bill, and we're done.
We didn't get sidetracked by Dan Gainor's assault threat on Tuesday, or Mr. Anonymous' assassination threat on Wednesday.
Call them out.
Make them squirm.
Don't let them bully us.
Don't back down.
That's how we do it.
And it's working. Because in the House vote, 30 of the 179 Republicans peeled off from the all-powerful No Caucus, and voted to release the unemployment insurance funds. For the first time, they got that funny feeling that you get when you exercise a muscle that you didn't even know you had. That funny feeling the Republicans experienced was . . . a pang of conscience.
Evidently, 30 out of 179 Republicans in the House now have a functioning conscience. It's a start.
Truth,
Rep. Alan Grayson
Here is some interesting commentary on the speech that started it:
(link)
After that speech, the Senate voted to release the funds, the House voted yesterday, the President will sign the bill, and we're done.
We didn't get sidetracked by Dan Gainor's assault threat on Tuesday, or Mr. Anonymous' assassination threat on Wednesday.
Call them out.
Make them squirm.
Don't let them bully us.
Don't back down.
That's how we do it.
And it's working. Because in the House vote, 30 of the 179 Republicans peeled off from the all-powerful No Caucus, and voted to release the unemployment insurance funds. For the first time, they got that funny feeling that you get when you exercise a muscle that you didn't even know you had. That funny feeling the Republicans experienced was . . . a pang of conscience.
Evidently, 30 out of 179 Republicans in the House now have a functioning conscience. It's a start.
Truth,
Rep. Alan Grayson
Arnold & Porter on New Whistleblower Provision
Whistleblower Incentives and Protections in the
Financial Reform Act
Employers subject to the regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
should be aware that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Act) was recently passed in Congress and signed by the
President on July 21, 2010. The Act will create new financial incentives and
protections for employees who disclose information about alleged violations
of commodities and securities laws that subsequently lead to successful SEC
or CFTC enforcement actions. Protections also are provided to employees of
providers of consumer financial products and services that report violations of
consumer financial protection laws and regulations. Each of these provisions
must be implemented by the SEC, the CFTC, and the newly created Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (the Bureau) through the rulemaking process within
270 days of the enactment of the legislation.
Financial “Bounties” for Employees to Disclose Information
Spurred by the perceived failures of regulatory agencies to discover improprieties in the securities
and commodities markets, Congress sought to create a whistleblower program to incentivize
individuals to assist with government investigations. The Act would authorize the CFTC and SEC
to provide monetary rewards to whistleblowers who provide “original information” that assists in
a successful enforcement action under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 leading
to the recovery of greater than US$1 million in aggregate. These provisions would authorize
the agencies to pay bounties ranging, at their discretion, from a minimum of 10 percent to a
maximum of 30 percent of the total collected monetary sanctions from a corporation to any
individual or group that discloses such “original information.”
These new monetary incentives will likely increase the number of employees who report information
to the SEC or CFTC; they provide a financial award for any fruitful tips and, in combination with
the additional protections discussed in this advisory, may offset the perceived risk to employees
of filing reports that might have otherwise jeopardized their current or future employment
Financial Reform Act
Employers subject to the regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
should be aware that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Act) was recently passed in Congress and signed by the
President on July 21, 2010. The Act will create new financial incentives and
protections for employees who disclose information about alleged violations
of commodities and securities laws that subsequently lead to successful SEC
or CFTC enforcement actions. Protections also are provided to employees of
providers of consumer financial products and services that report violations of
consumer financial protection laws and regulations. Each of these provisions
must be implemented by the SEC, the CFTC, and the newly created Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (the Bureau) through the rulemaking process within
270 days of the enactment of the legislation.
Financial “Bounties” for Employees to Disclose Information
Spurred by the perceived failures of regulatory agencies to discover improprieties in the securities
and commodities markets, Congress sought to create a whistleblower program to incentivize
individuals to assist with government investigations. The Act would authorize the CFTC and SEC
to provide monetary rewards to whistleblowers who provide “original information” that assists in
a successful enforcement action under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 leading
to the recovery of greater than US$1 million in aggregate. These provisions would authorize
the agencies to pay bounties ranging, at their discretion, from a minimum of 10 percent to a
maximum of 30 percent of the total collected monetary sanctions from a corporation to any
individual or group that discloses such “original information.”
These new monetary incentives will likely increase the number of employees who report information
to the SEC or CFTC; they provide a financial award for any fruitful tips and, in combination with
the additional protections discussed in this advisory, may offset the perceived risk to employees
of filing reports that might have otherwise jeopardized their current or future employment
Orlando Sentinel: Gelber to Aronberg -- Let's talk and talk and talk and talk and talk
State Sen. Dan Gelber has asked his Democratic rival, Sen. Dave Aronberg, to agree to 11 — that’s right, 11 — debates before the Aug. 24 primary settles the nomination for attorney general.
In a letter to his counterpart, Gelber campaign manager Christian Ulvert says he like to see debates in all 11 Florida media markets, from Miami-Dade/Monroe all the way to Pensacola.
No reply yet from the Aronberg camp.
In a letter to his counterpart, Gelber campaign manager Christian Ulvert says he like to see debates in all 11 Florida media markets, from Miami-Dade/Monroe all the way to Pensacola.
No reply yet from the Aronberg camp.
Orlando Sentinel: Florida may lose billions in tourism from oil spill
Florida may lose billions in tourism from oil spill
Travel industry makes case for $500 million emergency oil-spill fund
By Sara. K. Clarke, Orlando Sentinel
8:27 PM EDT, July 22, 2010
Advertisement
The nation's biggest travel trade group said Thursday the BP PLC oil spill will cost the Gulf region's tourism industry between $7.6 billion and $22.7 billion, with most of the economic damage falling on Florida's shoulders.
The U.S. Travel Association, in releasing a study it commissioned from Oxford Economics, asked for the federal government's help in securing $500 million for an "emergency" marketing campaign from BP, the British oil company whose blownout well is the source of the giant spill.
The industry trade group said the disaster, triggered by an explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in April, could cost coastal-tourism interests and those that do business with them as little as $7.6 billion over 15 months or as much as $22.7 billion over three years.
Both sets of figures are based on historical data drawn from 25 natural and manmade disasters as well as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecasts on where the oil may eventually wind up. The upper-range figure assumes the oil will find its way around the Florida Peninsula to the Atlantic coast as well.
"In the wake of any disaster, facts often take a back seat to fears and to rumors," Roger Dow, president and chief executive officer of the travel association, said in calling for additional marketing and advertising. "The result is people moving elsewhere and canceling plans."
In the worst-case scenario, Florida's $60-billion-a-year tourism economy would sustain more than three-fourths of the region's financial losses, or $18.6 billion over the three years, according to the Oxford Economics study.
The study looked at previous disasters that have harmed tourism, such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the recent H1N1 outbreaks that tainted the industry in Mexico, the Asian tsunami in 2004, and other oil spills such as the Exxon Valdez in 1989 and the Ixtoc spill near the Yucatan peninsula in 1979.
The travel group, as part of a 10-point plan it calls "Roadmap to Recovery," hopes to convince the federal government and BP that spending $500 million now on an oil-response marketing fund could generate $7.5 billion in tourism spending that would offset the group's projected losses.
"It is more cost effective than dealing with the damages after the fact," said Adam Sacks, managing director of Oxford Economics USA.
In addition to marketing dollars from BP, the tourism industry is asking the government for help getting businesses access to loans and tax incentives that could help them remain open and for incentives that would promote travel to disaster-affected areas.
According to the study, tourism supports 400,000 jobs in the Gulf Coast region, where leisure-and-hospitality employment in counties along the shore accounts for 15 percent of all private-sector jobs, compared with 12 percent for the nation overall.
Even areas along the Gulf coast that have not received any oil from the spill are suffering economically, the study noted. For example, data from the tourism website TripAdvisor.com shows that the share of searches for information about destinations such as Fort Myers Beach, which is still oil-free and, so far, nowhere near the spill, have fallen by almost 30 percent compared with a year ago.
Interest in areas where tar balls and matted crude have reached the beaches, such Pensacola and Destin, has fallen more sharply, by about 50 percent, according to TripAdvisor.
"The declines are clearly substantial," said Sacks. "It's really a dramatic effect on perceptions as well as current behavior."
BP gave the state of Florida $25 million in advertising money shortly after the spill to mount a quick-turnaround marketing campaign. But in recent weeks the oil company has given a chilly reception to overtures for more help. When Gov. Charlie Crist asked for another $50 million in late June, BP declined the request.
Raising the request for more tourism-marketing aid to a regional and a national level should reinforce the importance of the need, said Chris Thompson, president and chief executive officer of Visit Florida, the state's quasi-private tourism-marketing agency.
"We have the most at stake, and that's well recognized," he said.
Dow and others are expected to testify about the spill's effects on U.S. tourism before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in coming weeks.
He said the trade group hopes a multi-state request for financial help, backed by data, will be successful.
"I think it was disappointing that the governor's request was denied," Dow said. "We're just confident that, if we can build this request with the metrics, it's going to be very hard to deny the damages."
Sara K. Clarke can be reached at skclarke@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5664.
Travel industry makes case for $500 million emergency oil-spill fund
By Sara. K. Clarke, Orlando Sentinel
8:27 PM EDT, July 22, 2010
Advertisement
The nation's biggest travel trade group said Thursday the BP PLC oil spill will cost the Gulf region's tourism industry between $7.6 billion and $22.7 billion, with most of the economic damage falling on Florida's shoulders.
The U.S. Travel Association, in releasing a study it commissioned from Oxford Economics, asked for the federal government's help in securing $500 million for an "emergency" marketing campaign from BP, the British oil company whose blownout well is the source of the giant spill.
The industry trade group said the disaster, triggered by an explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in April, could cost coastal-tourism interests and those that do business with them as little as $7.6 billion over 15 months or as much as $22.7 billion over three years.
Both sets of figures are based on historical data drawn from 25 natural and manmade disasters as well as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecasts on where the oil may eventually wind up. The upper-range figure assumes the oil will find its way around the Florida Peninsula to the Atlantic coast as well.
"In the wake of any disaster, facts often take a back seat to fears and to rumors," Roger Dow, president and chief executive officer of the travel association, said in calling for additional marketing and advertising. "The result is people moving elsewhere and canceling plans."
In the worst-case scenario, Florida's $60-billion-a-year tourism economy would sustain more than three-fourths of the region's financial losses, or $18.6 billion over the three years, according to the Oxford Economics study.
The study looked at previous disasters that have harmed tourism, such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the recent H1N1 outbreaks that tainted the industry in Mexico, the Asian tsunami in 2004, and other oil spills such as the Exxon Valdez in 1989 and the Ixtoc spill near the Yucatan peninsula in 1979.
The travel group, as part of a 10-point plan it calls "Roadmap to Recovery," hopes to convince the federal government and BP that spending $500 million now on an oil-response marketing fund could generate $7.5 billion in tourism spending that would offset the group's projected losses.
"It is more cost effective than dealing with the damages after the fact," said Adam Sacks, managing director of Oxford Economics USA.
In addition to marketing dollars from BP, the tourism industry is asking the government for help getting businesses access to loans and tax incentives that could help them remain open and for incentives that would promote travel to disaster-affected areas.
According to the study, tourism supports 400,000 jobs in the Gulf Coast region, where leisure-and-hospitality employment in counties along the shore accounts for 15 percent of all private-sector jobs, compared with 12 percent for the nation overall.
Even areas along the Gulf coast that have not received any oil from the spill are suffering economically, the study noted. For example, data from the tourism website TripAdvisor.com shows that the share of searches for information about destinations such as Fort Myers Beach, which is still oil-free and, so far, nowhere near the spill, have fallen by almost 30 percent compared with a year ago.
Interest in areas where tar balls and matted crude have reached the beaches, such Pensacola and Destin, has fallen more sharply, by about 50 percent, according to TripAdvisor.
"The declines are clearly substantial," said Sacks. "It's really a dramatic effect on perceptions as well as current behavior."
BP gave the state of Florida $25 million in advertising money shortly after the spill to mount a quick-turnaround marketing campaign. But in recent weeks the oil company has given a chilly reception to overtures for more help. When Gov. Charlie Crist asked for another $50 million in late June, BP declined the request.
Raising the request for more tourism-marketing aid to a regional and a national level should reinforce the importance of the need, said Chris Thompson, president and chief executive officer of Visit Florida, the state's quasi-private tourism-marketing agency.
"We have the most at stake, and that's well recognized," he said.
Dow and others are expected to testify about the spill's effects on U.S. tourism before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in coming weeks.
He said the trade group hopes a multi-state request for financial help, backed by data, will be successful.
"I think it was disappointing that the governor's request was denied," Dow said. "We're just confident that, if we can build this request with the metrics, it's going to be very hard to deny the damages."
Sara K. Clarke can be reached at skclarke@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5664.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Saint Petersblog: Must-read -- the political case for Dave Aronberg
Face it Florida Democrats, having to decide between Dan Gelber and Dave Aronberg for the party’s nominee in the Attorney General’s race is like picking the starting quarterback for the AFC Pro Bowl team. Do you go with Tom Brady and his fistful of Super Bowl rings or do you start Peyton Manning with his otherworldly statistics and his own Super Bowl ring?
Brady or Manning? Gelber or Aronberg? Damn, I just don’t know.
One thing I won’t do is dog whoever I don’t pick. For me, it’s likely going to be Dave Aronberg, but that doesn’t mean I don’t admire, respect and wish good fortune for Dan Gelber.
If I do end up voting for Dave Aronberg (and I’m not there yet), and he doesn’t make it out of the primary, I’ll be the first person after the election to put a Gelber yard sign in their lawn. Gelber was in town two weeks ago and I raced to make his fundraiser, contributing the last $30 I had on me.
That said, let me make the case for Dave Aronberg, at least from a purely political standpoint. After all, almost every Democrat, and even most Independents and Republicans, can agree that both Aronberg and Gelber are eminently qualified to serve as Attorney General.
So, again, this is just a matter of pure politics.
First and foremost, too many of the people who support Dan Gelber are the establishment Democrats who have lost a decades worth of races to the Republican Party. Dan Gelber has all of the Jim Davis types on his side — very good people, people I may have voted for, but people who, as candidates, have just had their lunch handed to them by the GOP.
Gelber’s supporters will point to the fact that he was helping to run the party’s House Victory operations when the Democrats set some sort of record for the most pick-ups in an election cycle. This is just the exception that proves the rules. In fact, if the Democratic Party had not been so decimated by the Republicans in the five elections previous to 2006 then the opportunity for a “record” pick-up would not have existed in the first place.
Some will see that criticism as an attack on Steve Schale, but it’s not. Dude is one guy. His success is also an exception that proves the rule. Because Steve Schale would probably be successful running candidates if he worked in Bangladesh. It’s many of the people who worked around Steve – the cookie-cutter mail firms, the unimaginative production teams, the tone deaf pollsters, the inept field staff (you know who I am talking about) — that ran the party into the ground.
There’s still some good talent in Tallahassee, Screven and Co. Arceneaux, Jotkoff, etc., but the Democratic Party has yet to find someone on par with a Frank Terrafirma, much less an Andy Palmer or a Jim Rimes.
Point-blank: is there a political genius, some sort of counter-intuitive tactician, working for the Democratic Party who haunts the dreams of the RPOF? Um, no.
So anything that can be done to shake-up whatever constitutes Florida’s Democratic Establishment is a good thing. And by all accounts, that involves Aronberg beating Gelber.
(Man, am I gonna get in trouble for those last few paragraphs!)
Moving on, another political reason to support Aronberg over Gelber is because Aronberg makes a better candidate for Governor. Governor?Aren’t they running for Attorney General, you ask? Of course they both are, but Democrats need to plan for the future. I know that isn’t something Democrats are especially good at, but let’s assume that either Alex Sink wins this year and serves eight years in the Governor’s mansion or that McCollum or Scott beat her. The Party will need someone to either carry on Sink’s legacy and run against Adam Putnam in 2018 or challenge McCollum or Scott in 2014.
Who will be a better gubernatorial candidate in four or eight years? Clearly, the answer is the younger, more moderate, more telegenic Aronberg.
I understand that there are a million variables that may interrupt a Putnam vs. Aronberg showdown in 2018, but wouldn’t it be nice, for once, if the Democrats planned for the future. Returning to the Brady or Manning analogy, which quarterback do you build a franchise around. I don’t know if Brady could have won outside of Patriot coach Bill Belichick’s system, but I know Peyton Manning was going to be a successful quarterback wherever he went. Same thing with Gelber and Aronberg. Don’t know if Gelber, even with all of his gravitas, will have the drive in eight years, but I know Aronberg will.
Finally, let’s look at how each of these candidates have conducted themselves during this election cycle and determine who you’d want by your side if you were walking down the political equivalent of a dark alley.
Obviously, this is where I have the biggest problem with Dan Gelber. His decision to drop out of the race for the US Senate, at the time and certainly in retrospect, represents a cataclysmic failure in political judgment. I almost believe that, for that reason alone, Gelber doesn’t deserve the nomination, at least as some sort of sacrifice to the gods of political karma.
The domino effect that Gelber started with his decision to cede the race to Kendrick Meek, as magnanimous as it appeared then, is just the kind of disastrous thinking that has doomed the Florida Democratic Party for the last ten years. It’s ironic that Steve Schale, a veteran of the Barack Obama campaign, would let any candidate he worked with, fall victim to the idea that “they can’t win” when it was Obama who proved that no one is ever completely out of a race and that conventional wisdom, especially the conventional wisdom of the Democratic Party, is often wrong.
For the most part, Gelber has run a decent, if uninspired campaign for Attorney General. I say uninspired, because the man has such greatness within him. Unfortunately, I believe there is a significant difference between Dan Gelber the Legislator and Dan Gelber the Candidate.
Dan Gelber the Legislator is the man who deserved a Profile in Courage award for, during the 2008 legislative session, single-handedly standing up against the legislative arrogance of Marco Rubio and his Republican colleagues.
But Dan Gelber the Candidate is the guy who pulled the penny-ante trick of exaggerating how much he raised earlier this year — a trick that earned him a ‘False’ ruling from PoliFact.
Which brings us to the controversy surrounding Gelber’s resignation from the law firm selected to represent BP over the oil spill in the Gulf. While I agree that my friend Dave Aronberg has gone just a little overboard in his criticism of when and how Gelber resigned, at least Aronberg had the stones to make a move.
For a year, these two candidates have been playing footsies with each other, competing with each other not like political rivals, but like Dan and Dave the Reebok-sponsored atheletes from the 1992 Olympics.
Democratic voters have been waiting for one candidate to show them just enough of a reason to vote for him over the other guy. Who cares if Gelber was or was not a shareholder with Akerman Senterfitt or if the St. Petersburg Times editorial board doesn’t like Aronberg’s tactics?
Sometimes, it comes down to which candidate wants “it” more, like a great quarterback on Fourth and 1. For me, Aronberg looks like he wants to score more than Gelber.
In fact, I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who cringed when Gelber called Aronberg a “junior lawyer,” not because I felt bad for Harvard-educated Aronberg, but because Gelber’s sanctimony reinforced our worst thoughts about Gelber. Simply put, that he thinks he’s better than everyone else.
Of course, Dan Gelber is better, greater than us. He is, as Antony spoke of Brutus:
He only, in a general-honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle; and the elements
So mix’d in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, “This was a man!”
Of course, Antony only said this of Brutus after he had defeated him in battle.
Brady or Manning? Gelber or Aronberg? Damn, I just don’t know.
One thing I won’t do is dog whoever I don’t pick. For me, it’s likely going to be Dave Aronberg, but that doesn’t mean I don’t admire, respect and wish good fortune for Dan Gelber.
If I do end up voting for Dave Aronberg (and I’m not there yet), and he doesn’t make it out of the primary, I’ll be the first person after the election to put a Gelber yard sign in their lawn. Gelber was in town two weeks ago and I raced to make his fundraiser, contributing the last $30 I had on me.
That said, let me make the case for Dave Aronberg, at least from a purely political standpoint. After all, almost every Democrat, and even most Independents and Republicans, can agree that both Aronberg and Gelber are eminently qualified to serve as Attorney General.
So, again, this is just a matter of pure politics.
First and foremost, too many of the people who support Dan Gelber are the establishment Democrats who have lost a decades worth of races to the Republican Party. Dan Gelber has all of the Jim Davis types on his side — very good people, people I may have voted for, but people who, as candidates, have just had their lunch handed to them by the GOP.
Gelber’s supporters will point to the fact that he was helping to run the party’s House Victory operations when the Democrats set some sort of record for the most pick-ups in an election cycle. This is just the exception that proves the rules. In fact, if the Democratic Party had not been so decimated by the Republicans in the five elections previous to 2006 then the opportunity for a “record” pick-up would not have existed in the first place.
Some will see that criticism as an attack on Steve Schale, but it’s not. Dude is one guy. His success is also an exception that proves the rule. Because Steve Schale would probably be successful running candidates if he worked in Bangladesh. It’s many of the people who worked around Steve – the cookie-cutter mail firms, the unimaginative production teams, the tone deaf pollsters, the inept field staff (you know who I am talking about) — that ran the party into the ground.
There’s still some good talent in Tallahassee, Screven and Co. Arceneaux, Jotkoff, etc., but the Democratic Party has yet to find someone on par with a Frank Terrafirma, much less an Andy Palmer or a Jim Rimes.
Point-blank: is there a political genius, some sort of counter-intuitive tactician, working for the Democratic Party who haunts the dreams of the RPOF? Um, no.
So anything that can be done to shake-up whatever constitutes Florida’s Democratic Establishment is a good thing. And by all accounts, that involves Aronberg beating Gelber.
(Man, am I gonna get in trouble for those last few paragraphs!)
Moving on, another political reason to support Aronberg over Gelber is because Aronberg makes a better candidate for Governor. Governor?Aren’t they running for Attorney General, you ask? Of course they both are, but Democrats need to plan for the future. I know that isn’t something Democrats are especially good at, but let’s assume that either Alex Sink wins this year and serves eight years in the Governor’s mansion or that McCollum or Scott beat her. The Party will need someone to either carry on Sink’s legacy and run against Adam Putnam in 2018 or challenge McCollum or Scott in 2014.
Who will be a better gubernatorial candidate in four or eight years? Clearly, the answer is the younger, more moderate, more telegenic Aronberg.
I understand that there are a million variables that may interrupt a Putnam vs. Aronberg showdown in 2018, but wouldn’t it be nice, for once, if the Democrats planned for the future. Returning to the Brady or Manning analogy, which quarterback do you build a franchise around. I don’t know if Brady could have won outside of Patriot coach Bill Belichick’s system, but I know Peyton Manning was going to be a successful quarterback wherever he went. Same thing with Gelber and Aronberg. Don’t know if Gelber, even with all of his gravitas, will have the drive in eight years, but I know Aronberg will.
Finally, let’s look at how each of these candidates have conducted themselves during this election cycle and determine who you’d want by your side if you were walking down the political equivalent of a dark alley.
Obviously, this is where I have the biggest problem with Dan Gelber. His decision to drop out of the race for the US Senate, at the time and certainly in retrospect, represents a cataclysmic failure in political judgment. I almost believe that, for that reason alone, Gelber doesn’t deserve the nomination, at least as some sort of sacrifice to the gods of political karma.
The domino effect that Gelber started with his decision to cede the race to Kendrick Meek, as magnanimous as it appeared then, is just the kind of disastrous thinking that has doomed the Florida Democratic Party for the last ten years. It’s ironic that Steve Schale, a veteran of the Barack Obama campaign, would let any candidate he worked with, fall victim to the idea that “they can’t win” when it was Obama who proved that no one is ever completely out of a race and that conventional wisdom, especially the conventional wisdom of the Democratic Party, is often wrong.
For the most part, Gelber has run a decent, if uninspired campaign for Attorney General. I say uninspired, because the man has such greatness within him. Unfortunately, I believe there is a significant difference between Dan Gelber the Legislator and Dan Gelber the Candidate.
Dan Gelber the Legislator is the man who deserved a Profile in Courage award for, during the 2008 legislative session, single-handedly standing up against the legislative arrogance of Marco Rubio and his Republican colleagues.
But Dan Gelber the Candidate is the guy who pulled the penny-ante trick of exaggerating how much he raised earlier this year — a trick that earned him a ‘False’ ruling from PoliFact.
Which brings us to the controversy surrounding Gelber’s resignation from the law firm selected to represent BP over the oil spill in the Gulf. While I agree that my friend Dave Aronberg has gone just a little overboard in his criticism of when and how Gelber resigned, at least Aronberg had the stones to make a move.
For a year, these two candidates have been playing footsies with each other, competing with each other not like political rivals, but like Dan and Dave the Reebok-sponsored atheletes from the 1992 Olympics.
Democratic voters have been waiting for one candidate to show them just enough of a reason to vote for him over the other guy. Who cares if Gelber was or was not a shareholder with Akerman Senterfitt or if the St. Petersburg Times editorial board doesn’t like Aronberg’s tactics?
Sometimes, it comes down to which candidate wants “it” more, like a great quarterback on Fourth and 1. For me, Aronberg looks like he wants to score more than Gelber.
In fact, I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who cringed when Gelber called Aronberg a “junior lawyer,” not because I felt bad for Harvard-educated Aronberg, but because Gelber’s sanctimony reinforced our worst thoughts about Gelber. Simply put, that he thinks he’s better than everyone else.
Of course, Dan Gelber is better, greater than us. He is, as Antony spoke of Brutus:
He only, in a general-honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle; and the elements
So mix’d in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, “This was a man!”
Of course, Antony only said this of Brutus after he had defeated him in battle.
MIAMI HERALD: True crime in Florida -- West Miami Mayor Convicted of Crimes
WEST MIAMI
Ex-West Miami mayor guilty of misusing phone
BY JOSE CASSOLA
jcassola@MiamiHerald.com
A Miami-Dade jury has found former West Miami Mayor Cesar Carasa guilty of exploiting his official position.
The ex-mayor, suspended from office in December, was convicted Tuesday on charges of misusing his city-issued cellphone.
Authorities said he made $70,700 worth of unauthorized international phone calls to the Dominican Republic and China between 2006 and 2009.
Prosecutors say the calls had nothing to do with city business.
Carasa could face a $500 fine or up to 30 days in jail. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 2.
He said he thought his cellphone had unlimited calling.
The jury acquitted him on one exploitation charge of making the unauthorized calls since the city's cellphone carrier, Sprint, credited nearly $65,000 back to the account.
But jurors found him guilty of exploiting his official position when he directed West Miami officials to have Sprint waive or reduce the remaining $5,400 bill. He eventually paid that bill last summer.
``On the one count, my client was acquitted because there was nothing improper of him making those phone calls,'' Carasa's attorney, Bruce H. Lehr, said.
``He thought he had unlimited free use of his cellphone. On the other count, I would disagree with the decision because he paid the $5,400 bill in full.''
Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle said in a statement: ``It is bad enough for a public official to use his city tools, in this case, his cellphone, for personal use. But trying to have the city eliminate a personal debt only compounded this misuse of office.''
Carasa campaigned to be reelected as West Miami Mayor this past spring, despite the pending charges. He lost to current Mayor Eduardo Muhiña in April.
Carasa could not be reached for comment.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/22/1741401/ex-mayor-guilty-of-misusing-phone.html#ixzz0uROOO0iP
Ex-West Miami mayor guilty of misusing phone
BY JOSE CASSOLA
jcassola@MiamiHerald.com
A Miami-Dade jury has found former West Miami Mayor Cesar Carasa guilty of exploiting his official position.
The ex-mayor, suspended from office in December, was convicted Tuesday on charges of misusing his city-issued cellphone.
Authorities said he made $70,700 worth of unauthorized international phone calls to the Dominican Republic and China between 2006 and 2009.
Prosecutors say the calls had nothing to do with city business.
Carasa could face a $500 fine or up to 30 days in jail. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 2.
He said he thought his cellphone had unlimited calling.
The jury acquitted him on one exploitation charge of making the unauthorized calls since the city's cellphone carrier, Sprint, credited nearly $65,000 back to the account.
But jurors found him guilty of exploiting his official position when he directed West Miami officials to have Sprint waive or reduce the remaining $5,400 bill. He eventually paid that bill last summer.
``On the one count, my client was acquitted because there was nothing improper of him making those phone calls,'' Carasa's attorney, Bruce H. Lehr, said.
``He thought he had unlimited free use of his cellphone. On the other count, I would disagree with the decision because he paid the $5,400 bill in full.''
Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle said in a statement: ``It is bad enough for a public official to use his city tools, in this case, his cellphone, for personal use. But trying to have the city eliminate a personal debt only compounded this misuse of office.''
Carasa campaigned to be reelected as West Miami Mayor this past spring, despite the pending charges. He lost to current Mayor Eduardo Muhiña in April.
Carasa could not be reached for comment.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/22/1741401/ex-mayor-guilty-of-misusing-phone.html#ixzz0uROOO0iP
Reprobate JOHN MICA Denies Being Part of House Tea Party Caucus

See below.
Yesterday, I quoted TPM to the effect that JOHN LUIGI MICA a/k/a "TARBALL" was a part of the Tea Party Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives. MICA doesn't join caucuses, and TPM has run a correction. See below. We regret the error, which was Rep. Bachmamn's and neither mine nor TPM's mistake.
As Lt. Columbo said in a pilot for the great police procedural TV series, "Columbo," "Ransom for a Dead Man":
Leslie: Lt. Columbo?
Lt. Columbo: Yeah?
Leslie: Thank you for straightening Margaret out. I appreciate it.
Lt. Columbo: Oh, it was the only thing I could do. I mean I just can't have you accused of murder on the wrong evidence.
We wouldn't want to convict JOHN MICA of anything on the wrong evidence, either. We certainly don't want to convict MICA of sympathy with the racist Tea Party based on the wrong evidence. As I reported yesterday, MICA confessed his Tea Party sumpthaies to some 1400 St. Johns County residents on July 20, 2010: "Asked about the Tea Party, MICA defended it, saying it is “derided by the media, called all these bad names – I think they’re patriots.”
We've asked MICA for the tape and have not heard back. I have some 20 pages of typewritten notes on what MICA said, including the quoted remarks. Ipse dixit. Caucus member or not, JOHN MICA is part of the Tea Party.
TPM: Bachmann Bungles Rollout Of House Tea Party Caucus
Evan McMorris-Santoro | July 22, 2010, 9:59AM
Rep. Michelle Bachmann's (R-MN) House Tea Party Caucus debut yesterday mimicked the tea party movement it hopes to represent in Washington -- it was confusing, bumbling and offered a dearth of solid policy goals.
Bachmann says the caucus aims to be a "receptacle" in Washington D.C. for the tea party's frustration with spending, taxes, socialism and, uh, billboard design. But if the caucus' first day is any impression, Bachmann's group will also mirror the amateurish political organizing of the movement.
Before yesterday's unbelievably diverse press conference introducing the caucus got underway, a Bachmann staffer handed out a list of the 28 Republicans that Bachmann's office said were members of the caucus. Before we fourth estaters could fold the thing up and dutifully bury it in a pocket somewhere, we were told the list was wrong -- it was missing Rep. John Mica (R-FL), we were told.
The trouble is, Mica isn't in the Tea Party Caucus -- as a general rule, he doesn't join caucuses ever, his staff told reporters. Turns out that wasn't the only thing wrong with the list -- or the last stumble of the caucus roll-out.
As David Frum's blog reported all day yesterday, Bachmann's caucus list was about as good an example of a poorly-run organization as you can find this week, save for the Department of Agriculture. The Tea Party Caucus list changed throughout the day, with names disappearing and reappearing as reporters called to verify things. The list itself disappeared from Bachmann's website for a time, before finally showing up again and staying up for good.
One Capitol Hill Republican with knowledge of the process told me the embarrassing debacle of the list was a 100% Bachmann affair -- the caucus list is run out of her office and its errors were, as far as my source knew, thanks to Bachmann's staff.
But Bachmann can't be blamed for the other fail of the tea party caucus rollout yesterday: the complete and total lack of any policy specifics. The tea party, as Bachmann and other Republican representatives at the press conference yesterday rightfully stated, is one of the most powerful political groups on the radar at the moment. The movement strikes fear in the hearts of Republican moderates everywhere (and often causes total loss of perspective in less-Republican circles, like the aforementioned Dept. Of Agriculture.) Yet the movement has often been hard to read policy-wise, making it hard for anyone to understand exactly what the movement stands for.
The Tea Party Caucus rally yesterday was no different. Though the gathered members talked a lot about "taking our country back" and "not taking it anymore," they offered essentially no specific policy agenda moving forward. Here's how the New York Times reported what that sounded like:
The caucus will work against new taxes and government spending in an effort to keep activities of the federal government within "constitutional limits," Ms. Bachmann said. She would not elaborate on how the group would move forward, whether, for instance, the Tea Party Caucus would offer legislation of its own or whether its members would work collectively for or against bills put forward by either party.
For reporters there, it was a struggle to find anything specific to write in our notebooks. Mine has these two phrases underlined several times: "Add Skype" and "cite Constitution." Those represented the two clear policy goals I heard from the Tea Party Caucus and its members. The first came from Bachmann, who called on Speaker Pelosi to allow the use of the popular video phone service at the Capitol so that caucus members can speak to tea partiers more easily.
The second came from Rep. Steve King (R-IA), a caucus member and tea party superstar in his own right. Asked by reporters after the event what specific laws he'd offer as a legislator carrying the tea party banner into the House, King said the only thing he could think of for the moment was a law requiring members to cite the Constitution when sponsoring legislation.
Rep. Michelle Bachmann's (R-MN) House Tea Party Caucus debut yesterday mimicked the tea party movement it hopes to represent in Washington -- it was confusing, bumbling and offered a dearth of solid policy goals.
Bachmann says the caucus aims to be a "receptacle" in Washington D.C. for the tea party's frustration with spending, taxes, socialism and, uh, billboard design. But if the caucus' first day is any impression, Bachmann's group will also mirror the amateurish political organizing of the movement.
Before yesterday's unbelievably diverse press conference introducing the caucus got underway, a Bachmann staffer handed out a list of the 28 Republicans that Bachmann's office said were members of the caucus. Before we fourth estaters could fold the thing up and dutifully bury it in a pocket somewhere, we were told the list was wrong -- it was missing Rep. John Mica (R-FL), we were told.
The trouble is, Mica isn't in the Tea Party Caucus -- as a general rule, he doesn't join caucuses ever, his staff told reporters. Turns out that wasn't the only thing wrong with the list -- or the last stumble of the caucus roll-out.
As David Frum's blog reported all day yesterday, Bachmann's caucus list was about as good an example of a poorly-run organization as you can find this week, save for the Department of Agriculture. The Tea Party Caucus list changed throughout the day, with names disappearing and reappearing as reporters called to verify things. The list itself disappeared from Bachmann's website for a time, before finally showing up again and staying up for good.
One Capitol Hill Republican with knowledge of the process told me the embarrassing debacle of the list was a 100% Bachmann affair -- the caucus list is run out of her office and its errors were, as far as my source knew, thanks to Bachmann's staff.
But Bachmann can't be blamed for the other fail of the tea party caucus rollout yesterday: the complete and total lack of any policy specifics. The tea party, as Bachmann and other Republican representatives at the press conference yesterday rightfully stated, is one of the most powerful political groups on the radar at the moment. The movement strikes fear in the hearts of Republican moderates everywhere (and often causes total loss of perspective in less-Republican circles, like the aforementioned Dept. Of Agriculture.) Yet the movement has often been hard to read policy-wise, making it hard for anyone to understand exactly what the movement stands for.
The Tea Party Caucus rally yesterday was no different. Though the gathered members talked a lot about "taking our country back" and "not taking it anymore," they offered essentially no specific policy agenda moving forward. Here's how the New York Times reported what that sounded like:
The caucus will work against new taxes and government spending in an effort to keep activities of the federal government within "constitutional limits," Ms. Bachmann said. She would not elaborate on how the group would move forward, whether, for instance, the Tea Party Caucus would offer legislation of its own or whether its members would work collectively for or against bills put forward by either party.
For reporters there, it was a struggle to find anything specific to write in our notebooks. Mine has these two phrases underlined several times: "Add Skype" and "cite Constitution." Those represented the two clear policy goals I heard from the Tea Party Caucus and its members. The first came from Bachmann, who called on Speaker Pelosi to allow the use of the popular video phone service at the Capitol so that caucus members can speak to tea partiers more easily.
The second came from Rep. Steve King (R-IA), a caucus member and tea party superstar in his own right. Asked by reporters after the event what specific laws he'd offer as a legislator carrying the tea party banner into the House, King said the only thing he could think of for the moment was a law requiring members to cite the Constitution when sponsoring legislation.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
"TARBALL" TAPDANCES -- An evening with Congressman JOHN LUIGI MICA --- MICA worried, places 10,000 robo calls for town meeting last night
TARBALL (Congressman JOHN MICA) with his oleaginous pal GEORGE W. BUSH
Big Oil Lobbyist DAVID MICA
Last night, starting at 7:30 PM, some 10,000 mostly St. Johns County residents received robotic telephone calls from Congressman JOHN MICA, a/k/a JOHN LUIGI MICA a/k/a “TARBALL.”
MICA’s recorded voice told listeners that he’d called 10,000 people to invite them to participate in a “Town Hall Meeting.”
Listeners could hit the zero key to queue up to ask questions.
MICA stayed on the phone line from his Washington office until just after 10 PM.
The telephone Town Meeting is the newfangled way for Congresspeople to reach out to constituents. Instead of having to put their clothes on and go somewhere, constituents sit at home and listen, some sucking on champagne.
Many of the questioners were from Ponte Vedra, a number with their noses predictably in the air.
A man who identified himself as “Bill” -- a Human Resources and Risk Manager for a company in Jacksonville -- asked MICA about illegal aliens qualifying for workers’ compensation payments. Bill complained that Florida was one of the few states that allows illegal immigrants to receive workers’ compensation.
MICA agreed it was a state law question but indicated it should be banned. “I don’t think they should be eligible anywhere in the country from any standpoint.”
The question of workers’ compensation for illegal immigrants was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that illegal immigrants are eligible for benefits from the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Workers’ Compensation Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, upholding decisions by the U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board and U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge Honorable Clement J. Kennington.
Human rights and common decency require that if a worker is injured, they be compensated. Hiring workers, injuring them and expecting to deny them compensation is immortal, indecent and depraved.
Shame on JOHN LUIGI MICA. Shame on “Bill”
MICA says he is “not a lawyer,” but he complimented a caller named Peter, who works in law enforcement, that Peter was “one of the cruelest people I ever talked to,” but MICA asked his staff to research whether felons can be denied Social Security or disability. (His staff did not know the answer – they apparently can unless they’re incarcerated, fleeing prosecution or their disability is the result of a felony or they murdered their spouse).
MICA was tired, yawning and sounding bored. Several people asked how he was feeling, saying he sounded tired. Toward the end, MICA said, “I’m getting a little frayed around the edges. I started early this morning – I really enjoy talking to people like you.”
MICA stuttered, stammered and uhhhhed his way through the evening, with a high-pitched nasal voice. MICA sounded like Ronald Reagan on a bad day, telling meaningless anecdotal stories. MICA told of one woman who was “walking her dog” who told her of a shiftless worker who, after working for her company for 30 days, immediately tried to get fired to collect unemployment.
In his own squirrelly world, MICA ducked and covered as voter after voter talked about tough times.
Sheldon from Northwest St. Johns County spoke of bankrupt, closed businesses and subdivisions with no homes. MICA said “hang in there,” saying that he and his wife moved to Florida the same way they got married, and that the economy “ebbs and flows,” saying you’re “having a pretty rough time right now,” saying of people in Washington, “I don’t think they get it.”
MICA said he voted against every economic stimulus bill, but complained that 2/3 of the money has not been spent yet, complaining of “red tape” before federal tax dollars are spent.
Gary from Ponte Vedra Beach asked about unemployment compensation extension. MICA said he was against it because of “deficit spending,” saying we are indulging in “Chinese credit card billing to our grandkids and our kids.”
Karen from St. Johns County asked who MICA was voting for and he said “the Republican nominee.”
Steve in St. Johns asked about passing a law that one’s credit rating not be increased merely because of unemployment – he was temporarily unemployed, kept paying his debts, but his credit rating was lowered because he was unemployed. MICA, who voted against the financial reform bill, tried to pretend he was on Steve’s side, asking his staff to check on possible legislation. MICA stumbled, “under the new financial reform bill, there are some provisions on consumer lending and credit issues – I don’t know if address it or not – the bill will be up for corrections in no time—Beth, make note to check bill and if it does not have that provision let me know .”
So, having voted against consumers, MICA pretended to Steve to want to help them. This is pure chutzpa.
There was a question about abortion, and MICA said “one of the most important things I do in Congress is protect the weakest in our society” (except for poor people and injured workers who happen to be illegal immigrants, apparently).
MICA allowed as how he opposes term limits (although he signed the Contract with America that sought term limits). MICA said that “when people like me go, you start all over, babbling on about “freshman, lack of institutional knowledge” and “some of the garbage they pull here … new guys can be run over, got to have a little bit of stability on the team.”
MICA said the “Founding Fathers were pretty smart people” (although he supports amending the Constitution at the drop of a hat, usually at the behest of people who want to violate human rights).
MICA said that “what’s become disgusting is the money chase,” which he said is “very difficult to change,” blaming “the Courts” (actually Chief Justice Roberts’ pro-corporate Supreme Court).
Asked about transportation, MICA complained that only 7% of federal funds go to transporation, overseen by the committee on which he is the top Republican. “I never give up. I do not give up easily,” MICA said.
Asked about the Tea Party, MICA defended it, saying it is “derided by the media, called all these bad names – I think they’re patriots.”
Cathy from St. Johns asked about H1B visas and foreigners with technical skills taking Americans’ job for less pay. MICA claimed he thought “we’d turned off the spigot.” (It hasn’t been). Then MICA bragged about getting a tip about illegal aliens working on courthouse construction in Orlando and his calling in a tip to Immigration, resulting in arrests.
MICA claimed he got “hate calls,” but that “my job is to enforce the law, not ignore it.”
Actually, MICA’s job is to write the laws, and the aging fratboy (onetime employee of his national fraternity) does a horrible of writing laws. Where it comes to our City of St. Augustine, MICA has not only not ”enforce[d] the law, he’s “ignore[d]” it, bragging on getting grants for the City of St. Augustine’s massive money-losing $25 million parking garage.
MICA whined that regulators were too tough on community banks. “FDIC hired another 500 bank examiners – they’re harassing even more of the small community banks,” MICA claimed.
MICA complained to Rep. John Boehner (House Republican leader) that House Republicans are “we’re all over the lot… we’re not getting our message out…. we do a much better job”
MICA said he had no problem with the Arizona immigration law: “I’m not an attorney – I’m just a normal businessman trying to bring in some common sense to Washington. Actually, MICA is a lying former developer who made millions bidding on cell phone auctions, winning money from speculation on government monopolies.
MICA later said that we need guest workers because there are some Americans who are unwilling to pick fruits and vegetables in 90 degree heat.
MICA said he supports repealing the health care reform bill and had signed a “discharge petition” to bring it to the floor for a vote. “I could easily support repeal,” MICA said.
MICA sniped at a recent Obama health care appointee as “a ration health care kind of guy” and lamented the number of people required to administer the national health care legislation.
Mike from St. Johns complained about Congress “sneaking” in legislation requiring small businesses to issue 1099s and said “I guess I’ll just fire someone to pay for it.” (What a lugubrious goober.). Mike asked MICA if he would support repealing that portion of the health care bill.
“Oh, yeah,” MICA said, saying “every day” he learns of some new provision in the health care bill of which he was unaware, saying he read the bill but that it makes many references to other laws and has hidden meanings.
MICA said on health care “we’ve got to do tort reform” (sic)(he means “deform) and that there are a lot of big corporations that will be willing to pay fines rather than provide health insurance, saying that perhaps this is what the Democrats intended.
Like the aging fratboy and George W. Bush crony he is, JOHN LUIGI MICA mocked the St. Johns County communities of Elkton (“you don’t want to blink”) and Fruit Cove (asking where uptown and downtown are), saying it’s “a lovely little community.”
On Amendment 6, MICA hem-hawed on about redistricting, stating (in response to Don from St. Augustine) that “I don’t have a problem with redistricting by commission – the legislature should do it, but if the people want to do it” through a Commission, that would be fine, although “I’m not in favor of an apolitical commission… – politics always enters into it even with commission.” MICA says he was “shafted” by both Democrats and Republicans on redistricting (a dig at ex-Speaker of the Florida House and now ex-Congressman Tom Feeney, who took most of MICA’s old District for a sinecure, sticking MICA in St. Johns County commencing January 4, 2003).
MICA said he’s prepared to be “shafted by a commission, too,” adding, “I may let someone else be around” for the redistricted seat. MICA said that Corinne Brown’s district is “a complete (inaudible) – it’s amazing.” He said minority legislators have a “legitimate concern” about majority minority districts.
MICA offered a few interesting aphorisms:
“Politics is a lot more interesting than anything that’s on the tube.”
MICA blasted AMTRAK as a “Soviet-style train system – we subsidize every ticket $54.80.”
IN response to Lois from Ponte Vedra Beach, MICA also endorsed nuclear power (“I’m a big nuclear fan if it can be done safely”) and danced around offshore oil drilling and oil drilling in the Everglades, never admitting or defending his support for both. “Thanks for inquiry and allowing me to rattle on,” MICA concluded his lengthy peroration.
Bonnie from Ponte Vedra Beach (who is both a special education teacher and the mother of a special needs child), questioned the controversial No Child Left Behind Act and how it has hurt her students and child. “I don’t think it’s fair that both teachers and public education are now the enemy,” she said.
JOHN LUIGI MICA patronized Bonnie like the “Pander Bear” he indeed, saying “thank you so much for your commitment to education,” saying he is “married to a public school teacher” and that his “son we wound up putting in private school last two years.” Then MICA said “No Child Left Behind is probably a pretty good law, based on accountability.”
After some two hours and 30 minutes of MICA yawning, extemporizing and boring more than 1300 of 1400 people into hanging up -- with elliptical answers from MICA on every subject, with only a few dozen of us still on the telephone line (out of 10,000 people called and 1400 who opted in), Congressman JOHN LUIGI MICA ended just after 10 PM last night, thanking everyone for letting him serve in Congress. (Not for long, we hope!)
A request for the tape recording of the Town Hall meeting to Rep. MICA’s office was not immediately answered.
JEB BUSH Shows His True Colors
Former Florida Governor JOHN EDWARD BUSH a/k/a "JEB" BUSH knows where his bread is buttered. BUSH went to work for two crooked companies (Tenet Healthcare and LEHAMAN BROTHERS) upon leaving the Governor's chair. Elect a Republican, and they go to work for Benedict Arnold corporations the minute they leave office. What do you reckon?
Huffington Post: Tenet Health Care Hires JOHN EDWARD BUSH, a/k/a "JEB BUSH" As Director for $474,500/year, for 13 days of work annually!
If you've been worried sick about what would become of ex-Governor Jeb "No Futuro" Bush since his big brother totally screwed his chances for ever being elected president, here's some great news. Jeb is now officially on the board of Tenet Healthcare, at an annual pay of $474,500--for 13 days of work per year. It's a special board seat created just for Jeb, at the suggestion of an old Bush family friend and fundraiser. (Do they even have any family friends who aren't also fundraisers?)
As calculated by TheStreet.com, Jeb stands to collect a tidy $36,500 per day. All he has to do is sit on the board of a hospital chain so ethically challenged that even the Bush administration went after them.
Tenet was forced to pay 900 million dollars to settle a Medicare fraud charge last year. They also owed 80 million in back taxes, going back more than ten years. And there was a 10 million dollar SEC settlement. Also, multi-million dollar settlements to cardiac patients who claimed they got infections after surgery because of unsanitary conditions at a Tenet hospital in Florida. And there was that FBI raid of a Tenet hospital in Redding, California, when they were accused of running an open heart surgery mill. That led to another multi-million dollar settlement (but, as always, no admission of wrongdoing). And it was a Tenet hospital in New Orleans where three people were accused of killing patients in the wake of Katrina. And if that's not enough, read here.
By the way, former US attorney Carol Lam was prosecuting a Tenet owned hospital when she as fired. The case had gone to trial but the jury failed to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared. Alberto Gonzalez's chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, then wrote to Harriet Miers suggesting that Lam and several others be removed. Much more here at DailyKos.
When his appointment was announced, Jeb said, "As I have researched Tenet, I have been very impressed by the company's commitment to improving patient care as well as the board's commitment to strong corporate governance and transparency. I care deeply about the future of health care in this country, and I'm delighted to be affiliated with Tenet, a leading company in this field."
I guess $36,500 per day buys Jeb a big barrel of delight.
You didn't honestly think he was going to have to get a real job and work for a living, did you?
As calculated by TheStreet.com, Jeb stands to collect a tidy $36,500 per day. All he has to do is sit on the board of a hospital chain so ethically challenged that even the Bush administration went after them.
Tenet was forced to pay 900 million dollars to settle a Medicare fraud charge last year. They also owed 80 million in back taxes, going back more than ten years. And there was a 10 million dollar SEC settlement. Also, multi-million dollar settlements to cardiac patients who claimed they got infections after surgery because of unsanitary conditions at a Tenet hospital in Florida. And there was that FBI raid of a Tenet hospital in Redding, California, when they were accused of running an open heart surgery mill. That led to another multi-million dollar settlement (but, as always, no admission of wrongdoing). And it was a Tenet hospital in New Orleans where three people were accused of killing patients in the wake of Katrina. And if that's not enough, read here.
By the way, former US attorney Carol Lam was prosecuting a Tenet owned hospital when she as fired. The case had gone to trial but the jury failed to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared. Alberto Gonzalez's chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, then wrote to Harriet Miers suggesting that Lam and several others be removed. Much more here at DailyKos.
When his appointment was announced, Jeb said, "As I have researched Tenet, I have been very impressed by the company's commitment to improving patient care as well as the board's commitment to strong corporate governance and transparency. I care deeply about the future of health care in this country, and I'm delighted to be affiliated with Tenet, a leading company in this field."
I guess $36,500 per day buys Jeb a big barrel of delight.
You didn't honestly think he was going to have to get a real job and work for a living, did you?
Reuters: Lehman hires Jeb Bush as private equity advisor
NEW YORK | Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:36pm EDT
NEW YORK Aug 30 (Reuters) - Lehman Brothers has hired Jeb Bush, brother of the President of the United States, as an advisor to its private equity business, a source familiar with the situation said.
Lehman hired another relative of U.S. President George W. Bush last year--George Walker, a second cousin, who heads up the bank's asset management business.
Jeb Bush is the former governor of Florida.
Lehman Brothers declined to comment.
(Reporting by Dan Wilchins)
NEW YORK Aug 30 (Reuters) - Lehman Brothers has hired Jeb Bush, brother of the President of the United States, as an advisor to its private equity business, a source familiar with the situation said.
Lehman hired another relative of U.S. President George W. Bush last year--George Walker, a second cousin, who heads up the bank's asset management business.
Jeb Bush is the former governor of Florida.
Lehman Brothers declined to comment.
(Reporting by Dan Wilchins)
TPM: Rep. JOHN MICA a/k/a JOHN LUIGI MICA a/k/a "TARBALL" Joins House Tea Party Caucus
he House Tea Party Caucus
Todd Akin (MO-2)
Michele Bachmann (MN-6)
Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6)
Joe Barton (TX-6)
Gus Bilirakis (FL-9)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Dan Burton (IN-5)
John Carter (TX-31
John Culberson (TX-7)
John Fleming (LA-4)
Trent Franks (AZ-2)
Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Louie Gohmert (TX-1)
Pete Hoekstra (MI-2)
Walter Jones (NC-3)
Steve King (IA-5)
Doug Lamborn (CO-5)
Cynthia Lummis (WY)
John Mica (FL-7)
Gary Miller (CA-42)
Jerry Moran (KS-1)
Mike Pence (IN-6)
Tom Price (GA-6)
Pete Sessions (TX-32)
Lamar Smith (TX-21)
Cliff Stearns (FL-6)
Todd Tiahrt (KS-4)
Joe Wilson (SC-2)
Todd Akin (MO-2)
Michele Bachmann (MN-6)
Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6)
Joe Barton (TX-6)
Gus Bilirakis (FL-9)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Dan Burton (IN-5)
John Carter (TX-31
John Culberson (TX-7)
John Fleming (LA-4)
Trent Franks (AZ-2)
Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Louie Gohmert (TX-1)
Pete Hoekstra (MI-2)
Walter Jones (NC-3)
Steve King (IA-5)
Doug Lamborn (CO-5)
Cynthia Lummis (WY)
John Mica (FL-7)
Gary Miller (CA-42)
Jerry Moran (KS-1)
Mike Pence (IN-6)
Tom Price (GA-6)
Pete Sessions (TX-32)
Lamar Smith (TX-21)
Cliff Stearns (FL-6)
Todd Tiahrt (KS-4)
Joe Wilson (SC-2)
Huffington Post: Dan Gainor, Right-Wing Media Critic, Offers Cash For Assault On U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson
Prominent conservative media critic Dan Gainor has offered $100 to the first member of Congress who punches "smary [sic] idiot" Alan Grayson (D-Fl.) in the nose, reports Media Matters. When fellow conservative Jim Geraghty responded (via Twitter) that Gainor should offer that $100 to Grayson's opponent instead of "financ[ing] violence," Gainor tweeted that he was joking, although he would "love to see the video."
The outburst was prompted by comments that Grayson made on the House floor last night regarding unemployment: namely, that Republican lawmakers are "taking food out of the mouths of children" and "trying to revive the America of desperate straits and cheap labor" by blocking the passage of legislation that would extend unemployment benefits. Gainor tweeted that Grayson is "a caricature of a Congressman," in addition to offering cash for a physical assault on him.
Gainor is the vice president of the Media Research Center, a $6 million-a-year organization that has been praised by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich, and he is often cited, interviewed and otherwise taken very seriously by Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander.
But Grayson is not one to back down from a media brawl. He told HuffPost: "I think he's overlooking something important: I punch back."
The outburst was prompted by comments that Grayson made on the House floor last night regarding unemployment: namely, that Republican lawmakers are "taking food out of the mouths of children" and "trying to revive the America of desperate straits and cheap labor" by blocking the passage of legislation that would extend unemployment benefits. Gainor tweeted that Grayson is "a caricature of a Congressman," in addition to offering cash for a physical assault on him.
Gainor is the vice president of the Media Research Center, a $6 million-a-year organization that has been praised by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich, and he is often cited, interviewed and otherwise taken very seriously by Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander.
But Grayson is not one to back down from a media brawl. He told HuffPost: "I think he's overlooking something important: I punch back."
Congressman Alan Grayson: Reichwingers offer $100 for someone to punch Congressman Grayson in the nose and videotape it!
They may not have a health plan. Or a jobs plan. Or a peace plan. But they do have a plan.
Here is the Republican plan:
"I'll give $100 to first Rep. who punches smary [sic] idiot Alan Grayson in nose."
That incitement to violence was tweeted yesterday, by Dan Gainor. Who is Dan Gainor? The Vice President of the Media Research Center (MRC). MRC is a right-wing Washington slur tank that glorifies Big Business in its "Business and Media Institute." It is a $6 million lie factory, blessed by Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
And in case you missed the point, Gainor later tweeted, "I'd love to see the video."
Why is the D.C. Republican Establishment so angry at me? Because I stood up on the Floor of the House last night, and demanded that the Republicans release unemployment insurance. I demanded that the Republicans stop pushing people out of their homes to live in their cars, and that they stop taking food out of the mouths of children.
I'm not going to give up fighting just because they want to punch me, but I've got a tough race, and I need your help getting the money I need to win. I went on Ed Schultz's show on MSNBC to talk about all this.
Watch the video, and donate $5 or more today to make sure I'm there in 2011 to keep fighting.
This is their response. This is how the right wing does it. They pay people to clean for them, to cook for them, to drive for them, and now:
To punch for them. Or, more specifically, to punch me for them.
We knew they're crazy. It turns out that they're also lazy. Too lazy to throw a punch themselves.
So here they are, inciting violence against our elected officials. Just as they did during the healthcare debate, when many of my Democratic colleagues - and my five-year-old son -- got a death threat.
But they're forgetting something. Something very important.
We punch back. We punch back with our votes, and our voices. And we will be heard.
Watch the video and punch back with me now by donating $5 or more.
Thanks for your support.
Truth,
Alan Grayson
Here is the Republican plan:
"I'll give $100 to first Rep. who punches smary [sic] idiot Alan Grayson in nose."
That incitement to violence was tweeted yesterday, by Dan Gainor. Who is Dan Gainor? The Vice President of the Media Research Center (MRC). MRC is a right-wing Washington slur tank that glorifies Big Business in its "Business and Media Institute." It is a $6 million lie factory, blessed by Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
And in case you missed the point, Gainor later tweeted, "I'd love to see the video."
Why is the D.C. Republican Establishment so angry at me? Because I stood up on the Floor of the House last night, and demanded that the Republicans release unemployment insurance. I demanded that the Republicans stop pushing people out of their homes to live in their cars, and that they stop taking food out of the mouths of children.
I'm not going to give up fighting just because they want to punch me, but I've got a tough race, and I need your help getting the money I need to win. I went on Ed Schultz's show on MSNBC to talk about all this.
Watch the video, and donate $5 or more today to make sure I'm there in 2011 to keep fighting.
This is their response. This is how the right wing does it. They pay people to clean for them, to cook for them, to drive for them, and now:
To punch for them. Or, more specifically, to punch me for them.
We knew they're crazy. It turns out that they're also lazy. Too lazy to throw a punch themselves.
So here they are, inciting violence against our elected officials. Just as they did during the healthcare debate, when many of my Democratic colleagues - and my five-year-old son -- got a death threat.
But they're forgetting something. Something very important.
We punch back. We punch back with our votes, and our voices. And we will be heard.
Watch the video and punch back with me now by donating $5 or more.
Thanks for your support.
Truth,
Alan Grayson
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
What the Florida AG should be doing
Check out the final judgment, below, against Republic Services, a client of DAN GELBER's former law firm, AKERMAN SENTERFITT.
Notice that several states joined in the federal antitrust lawsuit about anti-competitive practices by WAYNE HUIZENGA;s REPUBLIC SERVICES.
Florida's AG did not join with the Attorneys General of the United States and seven states (California, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas).
Wonder why? Our current Florida AG, WILLIAM McCOLLUM, is a known Republcan.
Sadly, Republicans (who adopted our antitrust laws in 1890) don't believe in antitrust laws -- they are handmaidens of monopoly, from sea to shining sea.
Republicans are pro-trust, pro-monopoly and pro-polluter.
If we were to elect DAN GELBER as Florida's Attorney General, do you expect him to bring antitrust lawsuits against the Who's Who of AKERMAN SENTERFITT's client list?
Do you think DAN GELBER would bestir himself and his staff to do something for what BP's Chair ineptly called "the small people," e.g., bring antitrust lawsuits under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act?
I don't reckon.
What do you reckon?
Notice that several states joined in the federal antitrust lawsuit about anti-competitive practices by WAYNE HUIZENGA;s REPUBLIC SERVICES.
Florida's AG did not join with the Attorneys General of the United States and seven states (California, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas).
Wonder why? Our current Florida AG, WILLIAM McCOLLUM, is a known Republcan.
Sadly, Republicans (who adopted our antitrust laws in 1890) don't believe in antitrust laws -- they are handmaidens of monopoly, from sea to shining sea.
Republicans are pro-trust, pro-monopoly and pro-polluter.
If we were to elect DAN GELBER as Florida's Attorney General, do you expect him to bring antitrust lawsuits against the Who's Who of AKERMAN SENTERFITT's client list?
Do you think DAN GELBER would bestir himself and his staff to do something for what BP's Chair ineptly called "the small people," e.g., bring antitrust lawsuits under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act?
I don't reckon.
What do you reckon?
FINAL ANTITRUST JUDGMENT AGAINST WAYNE HUIZENGA'S REPUBLIC SERVICES (AKERMAN SENTERFITT CLIENT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED JUL 15 2010
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
STATE OF OHIO,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, and
STATE OF TEXAS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., and
ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.: 1:08-cv-02076
Description: Antitrust
Judge: Robert, Richard W.
Date Stamp: July 15, 2010
FINAL JUDGMENT
WHEREAS, plaintiffs, the United States of America, the State of California, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the State of Michigan, the State of North Carolina, the State of Ohio, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the State of Texas, filed their Complaint on December 3, 2008; the plaintiffs and defendants, Republic Services, Inc. and Allied Waste Industries, Inc., by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law; and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of law or fact;
AND WHEREAS, defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and certain divestiture of the Divestiture Assets to assure that competition is not substantially lessened;
AND WHEREAS, the United States requires defendants to make certain divestitures for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint;
AND WHEREAS, defendants have represented to the United States that the divestitures required below can and will be made, and that defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the divestiture provisions contained below;
NOW, THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against the defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
II. Definitions
As used in this Final Judgment:
1. "Acquirer" or "Acquirers" means the entity or entities to whom defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.
2. "Allied" means defendant Allied Waste Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, its successors, assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and all of their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
3. "Republic" means defendant Republic Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, its successors, assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and all of their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
4. "Disposal" means the business of disposing of waste into approved disposal sites, including the use of transfer stations to facilitate shipment of waste to other disposal sites.
5. "Divestiture Assets" means the Relevant Disposal Assets and the Relevant Hauling Assets.
6. "Hauling" means small container commercial waste collection from customers and the shipment of the collected waste to disposal sites. Hauling, as used herein, does not include collection of roll-off containers.
7. "Route" means a group of customers receiving regularly scheduled small container commercial waste collection service and all tangible and intangible assets relating to the route, as of October 31, 2008 (except for de minimis changes, such as customers lost and gained in the ordinary course of business), including capital equipment, trucks and other vehicles (those assigned to routes and a pro-rata share of spare vehicles); containers (at the customer location and a pro-rata share of spares); supplies (pro-rata share); and if requested by the Acquirer, the real property and improvements to real property (e.g., garages and buildings that support the route) as specified in Section II, paragraph I below; customer lists; customer and other contracts; leasehold interests; permits/licenses and accounts receivable, excluding franchise customers.
8. "Relevant Disposal Assets" means, unless otherwise noted, with respect to each transfer station and landfill listed and described herein, all of defendants' rights, titles, and interests in any tangible asset related to each transfer station and landfill listed, including all fee simple or ownership rights to offices, garages, related facilities, capital equipment, trucks and other vehicles, scales, power supply equipment, and supplies; and all of defendants' rights, titles, and interests in any related intangible assets, including all leasehold interests and renewal rights thereto, permits, customer lists, contracts, and accounts, or options to purchase any adjoining property. Relevant Disposal Assets, as used herein, includes each of the following:
1. Landfills and Landfill Disposal Agreements
1. Charlotte, North Carolina
Allied's Anson County Landfill, located at 375 Allied Road, Polkton, North Carolina 28135;
2. Cleveland, Ohio
Allied's Superior Oakland Marsh Landfill, located at 170 Noble Road East, Shiloh, Ohio 44878;
3. Denver, Colorado
Republic's Front Range Landfill, located at 1830 Weld Company Road 5, Erie, Colorado 80516;
4. Flint, Michigan
Republic's Brent Run Landfill, located at 8247 Vienna Road, Montrose, Michigan 48457;
5. Fort Worth, Texas
At the Acquirer's option, (i) Allied's Turkey Creek Landfill, located at 9100 South I-35 West Exit 21, Alvarado, Texas 76009, or (ii) all of Allied's rights, titles, and interests in the Fort Worth Southeast Landfill, located at 6900 Dick Price Road, Kennedale, Texas 76060, provided that the City of Fort Worth, owner of the Fort Worth Southeast Landfill, approves in advance the sale or assignment of Allied's rights, titles, and interests in the landfill to the Acquirer. If an Acquirer opts to purchase all of Allied's rights, titles, and interests in the Fort Worth Southeast Landfill, defendants will use their best efforts to secure the City of Fort Worth's approval.
6. Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina
Allied's Anderson Regional Landfill, located at 203 Landfill Road, Anderson, South Carolina 29627
7. Houston, Texas
1. Republic's Seabreeze Environmental Landfill, located at 10310 FM-523, Angleton, Texas 77515; and
2. Rights to landfill disposal, at rates to be negotiated, at Allied's Blue Ridge Landfill, located at 2200 FM-521 Road, Fresno, Texas 77545, pursuant to which defendants will reserve capacity for an Acquirer for MSW disposal under the following minimum terms and conditions:
1. A term of ten (10) years from the date of sale of the Relevant Hauling Assets for the Houston, Texas area;
2. The Acquirer may dispose of 600 tons per day of MSW ("Minimum Disposal Amount") and no more than 1,000 tons per day of direct-haul MSW ("Maximum Disposal Amount") at the Blue Ridge Landfill ("Maximum Disposal Amount"), during each six (6) calendar month period during the term of the agreement, to be pro rated for any partial periods at the beginning and end of the agreement. The agreement may also provide that if the Acquirer disposes of less than the prevailing Minimum Disposal Amount during any such six (6) month period, then the Minimum Disposal Amount and the Maximum Disposal Amount may be reduced for the remainder of the disposal agreement term by a tonnage amount equal to the shortfall amount.
3. For the Acquirer of the landfill disposal agreement, defendants must commit to operate the Blue Ridge Landfill gates, scale houses, and disposal areas under terms and conditions no less favorable than those provided to defendants' own vehicles or to the vehicles of any municipality in the metropolitan Houston area, except as to price and credit terms; and
4. At any time during the life of the agreement, the Acquirer has the right to terminate the agreement upon ninety (90) days' written notice to defendants.
8. Los Angeles, California
Republic's Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, 29201 Henry Mayo Drive, Valencia, California 91355;
9. Northwest Indiana
At the option of the Acquirer of the Valparaiso Transfer Station, landfill disposal rights, at rates to be negotiated, at Allied's Newton County Development Corporation Landfill ("Newton County Landfill"), located at 2266 East 500 South Road, Brook, Indiana 47922, pursuant to which defendants will offer to reserve 350 tons per day of capacity for an Acquirer for MSW disposal at Newton County Landfill, under the following minimum terms and conditions:
1. A term of two (2) years from the date of sale of the Valparaiso Transfer Station;
2. The Acquirer may dispose of up to 350 tons per day of MSW at Newton County Landfill;
3. For the Acquirer of the landfill disposal agreement, defendants must commit to operate the Newton County Landfill gates, scale houses, and disposal areas under terms and conditions no less favorable than those provided to defendants' own vehicles or to the vehicles of any municipality in the Northwest Indiana area, except as to price and credit terms; and
4. At any time during the life of the agreement, the Acquirer has the right to terminate the agreement upon thirty (30) days' written notice to defendants.
10. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
At the option of the Acquirer of the Girard Point Transfer Station and the Philadelphia Recycling and Transfer Station, rights to landfill disposal, at rates to be negotiated, at Republic's Modern Landfill, located at 4400 Mount Pisgah Road, York, Pennsylvania 17402, pursuant to which defendants will reserve capacity for an Acquirer for MSW disposal at Modern Landfill, under the following minimum terms and conditions:
1. A term of eighteen (18) months from the date of sale of the Girard Point Transfer Station and the Philadelphia Recycling and Transfer Station;
2. The Acquirer may dispose of up to 1300 tons per day of MSW at the Modern Landfill;
3. For the Acquirer of the landfill disposal agreement, defendants must commit to operate the Modern Landfill gates, scale houses, and disposal areas under terms and conditions no less favorable than those provided to defendants' own vehicles or to the vehicles of any municipality in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area, except as to price and credit terms; and
4. At any time during the life of the agreement, the Acquirer has the right to terminate the agreement upon thirty (30) days' written notice to defendants.
11. San Francisco, California
Republic's Potrero Hills Sanitary Landfill, located at 3675 Potrero Hills Lane, Suisun, California 94585, except that Republic need not convey (i) the right to control the location of disposal for waste volumes that Republic has disposed of at Potrero Hills Sanitary Landfill via transfer through the Golden Bear Transfer Station or contracts covering the disposal of such waste, or (ii) contracts between the Republic subsidiary that owns Potrero Hills Sanitary Landfill and Alameda County Industries to the extent those contracts govern disposal of waste at Vasco Road Landfill.
2. Transfer Stations
1. Atlanta, Georgia
1. Republic's Central Gwinnett Transfer Station, located at 535 Seaboard Industrial Drive, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045; and
2. Allied's BFI Smyrna Transfer Station, located at 4696 South Cobb Drive, Smyrna, Georgia 30080;
2. Cape Girardeau, Missouri
Allied's Jackson Solid Waste Transfer Station, located at 2004 Lee Avenue, Hwy 25 N, Jackson, Missouri 63755;
3. Charlotte, North Carolina
Republic's Queen City Transfer Station, located at 3130 Jeff Adams Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina 28206;
4. Cleveland, Ohio
Republic's Harvard Road Transfer Station, located at 3227 Harvard Road, Newburgh Heights, Ohio 44105;
5. Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina
Allied's Greer Transfer Station, located at 590 Gilliam Road, Greer, South Carolina 29651;
6. Houston, Texas
Republic's Hardy Road Transfer Station, located at 18784 Hardy Road, Houston, Texas 77073;
7. Northwest Indiana
Allied's Valparaiso Transfer Station, located at 3101 Bertholet Boulevard, Valparaiso, Indiana 46383; and
8. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
1. Republic's Girard Point Transfer Station, located at 3600 South 26th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19145; and
2. Allied's Philadelphia Recycling and Transfer Station, located at 2209 South 58th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19143.
9. "Relevant Hauling Assets," unless otherwise noted, means the small container commercial waste collection routes and other assets listed below:
1. Atlanta, Georgia
1. Allied's small container commercial waste collection routes 123, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 144, 146, and 147; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 1581 Fulenwider Road, Gainesville, Georgia;
2. Cape Girardeau, Missouri
1. Allied's small container commercial waste collection routes 790 and 791; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 281 Rambler Road, Jackson, Missouri;
3. Charlotte, North Carolina
1. Republic's small container commercial waste collection routes A001, A002, A003, A004, A005, A007, A008, A009, A010, and A012; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 5516 Rozzelles Ferry Road, Charlotte, North Carolina;
4. Fort Worth, Texas
1. Republic's small container commercial waste collection routes VA, VB, VC, VD, and VE; and (b) notwithstanding any other provision of this Final Judgment, in the event an Acquirer purchases Allied's rights, titles and interests in the Fort Worth Southeast Landfill, the Acquirer shall have the option to lease a sufficient portion of the Republic yard located at 1212 Harrison Avenue, Arlington, Texas for a period of six (6) months with an option to renew for one additional six (6) month period, under a lease to permit the Acquirer to support fully the operation of the divested small container commercial waste collection routes and the potential growth of the divested hauling business to include additional routes;
5. Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina
1. Allied's small container commercial waste collection routes 701, 704, 705, 708, 714, 718, 719, and 720; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 101 Rogers Bridge Road, Duncan, South Carolina;
6. Houston, Texas
1. Republic's small container commercial waste collection routes A002, A004, A005, A006, A008, A009, A010, A011, A012, A017, A024, A027, A028, A029, A031, A034, A035, A038, A040, A042, A043, A044, A045, A046, A049, A052, A053, A054, A055, A058, A059, and A060; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 2010 Wilson Road, Houston, Texas;
7. Lexington, Kentucky
1. Republic's small container commercial waste collection routes 31, 32, 34, 36, and 37; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 4000 Park Central Court, Nicholasville, Kentucky;
8. Lubbock, Texas
1. Allied's small container commercial waste collection routes 1711, 1713, 1714, 1911, 1912, 1913, and 1914; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 1812 CR-60, Lubbock, Texas; and
9. Northwest Indiana
1. Allied's small container commercial waste collection routes 150, 751, 754, 756, and 757; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 3101 Bertholet Boulevard, Valparaiso, Indiana.
10. "Relevant State" means the state or commonwealth in which the Divestiture Assets are located, provided, however, that state or commonwealth is a party to this Final Judgment.
11. "Small container commercial waste collection" means the business of collecting municipal solid waste from commercial and industrial accounts, usually in "dumpsters" (i.e., a small container with one to ten cubic yards of storage capacity), and transporting or "hauling" such waste to a disposal site by use of a front-end or rear-end load truck. Typical small container commercial waste collection customers include office and apartment buildings and retail establishments (e.g., stores and restaurants). As used herein, "small container commercial waste collection" does not include small container commercial waste collection of franchised routes.
12. "MSW" means municipal solid waste, a term of art used to describe solid putrescible waste generated by households and commercial establishments. Municipal solid waste does not include special handling waste (e.g., waste from manufacturing processes, regulated medical waste, sewage and sludge), hazardous waste or waste generated by construction or demolition sites.
III. Applicability
1. This Final Judgment applies to Republic and Allied, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
2. If, prior to complying with Sections IV and V of this Final Judgment, defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of their assets or of lesser business units that include the defendants' Divestiture Assets, they shall require the purchaser to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. Defendants need not obtain such an agreement from the Acquirer of the assets divested pursuant to this Final Judgment.
IV. Divestitures
1. Defendants are ordered and directed, within 90 calendar days after the filing of the Complaint in this matter, or five (5) calendar days after notice of the entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest all Divestiture Assets in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to an Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State. With respect to the Atlanta, Georgia; Cleveland, Ohio; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Ft. Worth, Texas areas, the Divestiture Assets in each area must be offered for sale to prospective Acquirers separately from Divestiture Assets in other areas. All of the Divestiture Assets serving any single relevant area shall be sold to the same Acquirer, unless defendants receive the prior written consent of the United States. The United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State, may agree to one or more extensions of this time period not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days in total, and shall notify the Court in such circumstances. Defendants agree to use their best efforts to divest the Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible.
2. In accomplishing the divestitures ordered by this Final Judgment, defendants promptly shall make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of the Divestiture Assets. Defendants shall inform any person making inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the Divestiture Assets that they are being divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person with a copy of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall offer to furnish to all prospective Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to the Divestiture Assets customarily provided in a due diligence process except such information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Defendants shall make available such information to the United States at the same time that such information is made available to any other person.
3. Defendants shall provide the Acquirer(s) and the United States information relating to all personnel involved in the operation and management of the Divestiture Assets to enable the Acquirer(s) to make offers of employment. Defendants shall not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer(s) to employ or contract with any defendant employee whose primary responsibility is the operation or management of the Divestiture Assets.
4. Defendants shall permit prospective Acquirers of the Divestiture Assets to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections of the physical facilities of the Divestiture Assets; access to any and all environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and information; and access to any and all financial, operational or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process.
5. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) that each asset will be operational on the date of sale.
6. In the event that the Turkey Creek Landfill is not, for any reason, fully operational and capable of disposing of at least 675,000 tons of MSW annually at the time of its divestiture, defendants shall be required to divest alternative disposal assets in the Fort Worth, Texas area that are sufficient to achieve the purposes of this Final Judgment to the satisfaction of the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the State of Texas.
7. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way the permitting, operation or divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
8. Defendants shall warrant to each Acquirer that there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning or other permits pertaining to the operation of the Divestiture Assets, and that following the sale of the Divestiture Assets, defendants will not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Assets.
9. Unless the United States, after consultation with the Relevant State, otherwise consents in writing, the divestitures pursuant to Section IV, or by trustee appointed pursuant to Section V, of this Final Judgment, shall include all the Divestiture Assets, and shall be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State, that the divestiture will achieve the purposes of this Final Judgment and that the Divestiture Assets can and will be used by an Acquirer(s) as part of a viable, ongoing disposal or hauling business in each relevant area. The divestitures, whether pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment:
1. shall be made to an Acquirer(s) that, in the United States's sole judgment, after consultation with the Relevant State, has the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial, operational, technical and financial capability) of competing effectively in the disposal or hauling business; and
2. shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State, that none of the terms of any agreement between an Acquirer(s) and defendants gives defendants the ability unreasonably to raise the Acquirer's costs, to lower the Acquirer's efficiency, or otherwise to interfere in the ability of the Acquirer to compete effectively.
V. Appointment of Trustee
1. If defendants have not divested the Divestiture Assets within the time period specified in Section IV, Paragraph A, defendants shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
2. After the appointment of a trustee becomes effective, only the trustee shall have the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. The trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestitures to an Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States, after consultation with the Relevant State, at such price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V and VI of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section V, Paragraph D of this Final Judgment, the trustee may hire at the defendants' cost and expense any investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the trustee, reasonably necessary in the trustee's judgment to assist in the divestitures.
3. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the trustee on any ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any objection by defendants on the ground of the trustee's malfeasance must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the trustee has provided the notice required under Section VI.
4. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of defendants, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, and shall account for all monies derived from the sale of the assets sold by the trustee and all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the trustee's accounting, including fees for its services and those of any professionals and agents retained by the trustee, all remaining money shall be paid to defendants and the trust shall then be terminated. The compensation of the trustee and any professionals and agents retained by the trustee shall be reasonable in light of the value of the Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement providing the trustee with an incentive based on the price and terms of the divestitures and the speed with which they are accomplished, but timeliness is paramount.
5. Defendants shall use their best efforts to assist the trustee in accomplishing the required divestitures. The trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by the trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities of the business to be divested, and defendants shall develop financial and other information relevant to such business as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. Defendants shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the trustee's accomplishment of the divestitures.
6. After its appointment, the trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States, the Relevant State, and the Court setting forth the trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestitures ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the Divestiture Assets.
7. If the trustee has not accomplished the divestitures ordered under this Final Judgment within six (6) months after its appointment, the trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth: (1) the trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestitures; (2) the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the required divestitures have not been accomplished; and (3) the trustee's recommendations. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the United States, which shall have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, include extending the trust and the term of the trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.
VI. Notice of Proposed Divestiture
1. Within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, defendants or the trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture required herein, shall notify the United States and the Relevant State of any proposed divestiture required by Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify defendants. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets, together with full details of the same.
2. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United States and the Relevant State of such notice, the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State, may request from defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s), any other third party, or the trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer, and any other potential Acquirer. Defendants and the trustee shall furnish any additional information requested within fifteen (15) calendar days of the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.
3. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested from defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s), any third party, and the trustee, whichever is later, the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State, shall provide written notice to defendants and the trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to defendants' limited right to object to the sale under Section V, Paragraph C of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer(s) or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under Section IV or Section V shall not be consummated. Upon objection by defendants under Section V, Paragraph C, a divestiture proposed under Section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.
VII. Notice of Future Acquisitions
Unless such transaction is otherwise subject to the reporting and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18a (the "HSR Act"), defendants, without providing advance notification to United States and the Relevant State, shall not directly or indirectly acquire, any (1) interest in any business engaged in a relevant service in a relevant area, (2) assets (other than in the ordinary course of business) used in a relevant service in a relevant area, (3) capital stock, or (4) voting securities of any person that, at any time during the twelve (12) months immediately preceding such acquisition, was engaged in MSW disposal or small container commercial waste collection in any relevant area, where that person's annual revenues in the relevant area from MSW disposal and/or small container commercial waste collection service were in excess of $500,000 annually. For clarity, this provision also applies to an acquisition of disposal facilities that serve a relevant area but are located outside the relevant area, whether or not they are physically located in the relevant area.
Such notification shall be provided to the United States in the same format as, and per the instructions relating to the Notification and Report Form set forth in the Appendix to Part 803 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as amended, except that the information requested in Items 5 through 8 of the instructions must be provided only about the relevant service. Notification shall be provided at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to acquiring any such interest, and shall include, beyond what may be required by the applicable instructions, the names of the principal representatives of the parties to the agreement who negotiated the agreement, and any management or strategic plans discussing the proposed transaction. If within the 30-day period after notification, representatives of the Antitrust Division make a written request for additional information, defendants shall not consummate the proposed transaction or agreement until thirty (30) calendar days after submitting all such additional information. Early termination of the waiting periods in this paragraph may be requested and, where appropriate, granted in the same manner as is applicable under the requirements and provisions of the HSR Act and rules promulgated thereunder. This Section shall be broadly construed and any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the filing of notice under this Section shall be resolved in favor of filing notice.
AREAS FOR WHICH NOTICE PROVISION APPLIES Relevant Area Counties Relevant Service
Atlanta, GA Cherokee, Forsyth, Hall, Jackson, Barrow,
Gwinnett, Walton, DeKalb, Rockdale,
Fulton, Clayton, Cobb and
Paulding Counties hauling and transfer station disposal
Cape Girardeau, MO Cape Girardeau County hauling and transfer station disposal
Charlotte, NC Mecklenburg County hauling and transfer station and landfill disposal
Cleveland, OH Cuyahoga County transfer station and landfill disposal
Denver, CO Denver and Arapahoe Counties landfill disposal
Flint, MI Saginaw and Genesee Counties landfill disposal
Fort Worth, TX Tarrant County hauling and landfill disposal
Greenville-Spartanburg, SC Greenville and Spartanburg Counties hauling and transfer station and landfill disposal
Houston, TX Harris County hauling and transfer station and landfill disposal
Lexington, KY Fayette, Jessamine, Woodford, Scott and Franklin Counties hauling
Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles County landfill disposal
Lubbock, TX Lubbock County hauling
Northwest Indiana Lake, Porter and LaPorte Counties hauling and transfer station disposal
Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia County transfer station disposal
San Francisco, CA Contra Costa, Solano and Alameda Counties landfill disposal
VIII. Financing
Defendants shall not finance all or any part of any purchase made pursuant to Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.
IX. Hold Separate
Until the divestitures required by this Final Judgment has been accomplished, defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply with the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by this Court. Defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize the divestitures ordered by this Court.
X. Affidavits
1. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the divestitures has been completed under Section IV or V, defendants shall deliver to the United States and the Relevant State an affidavit as to the fact and manner of its compliance with Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding thirty (30) calendar days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person during that period. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts defendants have taken to solicit buyers for the Divestiture Assets, and to provide required information to prospective Acquirers, including the limitations, if any, on such information. Assuming the information set forth in the affidavit is true and complete, any objection by the United States, after consultation with the Relevant State, to information provided by defendants, including limitation on information, shall be made within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of such affidavit.
2. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions defendants have taken and all steps defendants have implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section IX of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall deliver to the plaintiffs an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in defendants' earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.
3. Defendants shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve and divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after such divestitures have been completed.
XI. Compliance Inspection
1. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ"), including consultants and other persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to defendants, be permitted:
1. access during defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at the option of the United States, to require defendants to provide hard copy or electronic copies of, all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody, or control of defendants, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and
2. to interview, either informally or on the record, defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, regarding such matters. The interviews shall be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by defendants.
2. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, defendants shall submit written reports or responses to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.
3. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, or the Attorney General's Office of any other plaintiff, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States or any other plaintiff is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
4. If at the time information or documents are furnished by defendants to the United States, defendants represent and identify in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, "Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," then the United States shall give defendants ten (10) calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
XII. No Reacquisition
During the term of this Final Judgment, defendants may not reacquire any part of the Divestiture Assets, nor may any defendant participate in any other transaction that would result in a combination, merger, or other joining together of any part of the Divestiture Assets with assets of the divesting company.
XIII. Retention of Jurisdiction
This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
XIV. Expiration of Final Judgment
Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) years from the date of its entry.
XV. Public Interest Determination
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16, including making copies available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and any comments thereon and the United States's responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this
Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Date: July 15, 2010
Court approval subject to procedures
of Antitrust Procedures and Penalties
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16
_______________/s/________________
United States District Judge
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED JUL 15 2010
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
STATE OF OHIO,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, and
STATE OF TEXAS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., and
ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.: 1:08-cv-02076
Description: Antitrust
Judge: Robert, Richard W.
Date Stamp: July 15, 2010
FINAL JUDGMENT
WHEREAS, plaintiffs, the United States of America, the State of California, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the State of Michigan, the State of North Carolina, the State of Ohio, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the State of Texas, filed their Complaint on December 3, 2008; the plaintiffs and defendants, Republic Services, Inc. and Allied Waste Industries, Inc., by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law; and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of law or fact;
AND WHEREAS, defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and certain divestiture of the Divestiture Assets to assure that competition is not substantially lessened;
AND WHEREAS, the United States requires defendants to make certain divestitures for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint;
AND WHEREAS, defendants have represented to the United States that the divestitures required below can and will be made, and that defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the divestiture provisions contained below;
NOW, THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against the defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
II. Definitions
As used in this Final Judgment:
1. "Acquirer" or "Acquirers" means the entity or entities to whom defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.
2. "Allied" means defendant Allied Waste Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, its successors, assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and all of their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
3. "Republic" means defendant Republic Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, its successors, assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and all of their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
4. "Disposal" means the business of disposing of waste into approved disposal sites, including the use of transfer stations to facilitate shipment of waste to other disposal sites.
5. "Divestiture Assets" means the Relevant Disposal Assets and the Relevant Hauling Assets.
6. "Hauling" means small container commercial waste collection from customers and the shipment of the collected waste to disposal sites. Hauling, as used herein, does not include collection of roll-off containers.
7. "Route" means a group of customers receiving regularly scheduled small container commercial waste collection service and all tangible and intangible assets relating to the route, as of October 31, 2008 (except for de minimis changes, such as customers lost and gained in the ordinary course of business), including capital equipment, trucks and other vehicles (those assigned to routes and a pro-rata share of spare vehicles); containers (at the customer location and a pro-rata share of spares); supplies (pro-rata share); and if requested by the Acquirer, the real property and improvements to real property (e.g., garages and buildings that support the route) as specified in Section II, paragraph I below; customer lists; customer and other contracts; leasehold interests; permits/licenses and accounts receivable, excluding franchise customers.
8. "Relevant Disposal Assets" means, unless otherwise noted, with respect to each transfer station and landfill listed and described herein, all of defendants' rights, titles, and interests in any tangible asset related to each transfer station and landfill listed, including all fee simple or ownership rights to offices, garages, related facilities, capital equipment, trucks and other vehicles, scales, power supply equipment, and supplies; and all of defendants' rights, titles, and interests in any related intangible assets, including all leasehold interests and renewal rights thereto, permits, customer lists, contracts, and accounts, or options to purchase any adjoining property. Relevant Disposal Assets, as used herein, includes each of the following:
1. Landfills and Landfill Disposal Agreements
1. Charlotte, North Carolina
Allied's Anson County Landfill, located at 375 Allied Road, Polkton, North Carolina 28135;
2. Cleveland, Ohio
Allied's Superior Oakland Marsh Landfill, located at 170 Noble Road East, Shiloh, Ohio 44878;
3. Denver, Colorado
Republic's Front Range Landfill, located at 1830 Weld Company Road 5, Erie, Colorado 80516;
4. Flint, Michigan
Republic's Brent Run Landfill, located at 8247 Vienna Road, Montrose, Michigan 48457;
5. Fort Worth, Texas
At the Acquirer's option, (i) Allied's Turkey Creek Landfill, located at 9100 South I-35 West Exit 21, Alvarado, Texas 76009, or (ii) all of Allied's rights, titles, and interests in the Fort Worth Southeast Landfill, located at 6900 Dick Price Road, Kennedale, Texas 76060, provided that the City of Fort Worth, owner of the Fort Worth Southeast Landfill, approves in advance the sale or assignment of Allied's rights, titles, and interests in the landfill to the Acquirer. If an Acquirer opts to purchase all of Allied's rights, titles, and interests in the Fort Worth Southeast Landfill, defendants will use their best efforts to secure the City of Fort Worth's approval.
6. Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina
Allied's Anderson Regional Landfill, located at 203 Landfill Road, Anderson, South Carolina 29627
7. Houston, Texas
1. Republic's Seabreeze Environmental Landfill, located at 10310 FM-523, Angleton, Texas 77515; and
2. Rights to landfill disposal, at rates to be negotiated, at Allied's Blue Ridge Landfill, located at 2200 FM-521 Road, Fresno, Texas 77545, pursuant to which defendants will reserve capacity for an Acquirer for MSW disposal under the following minimum terms and conditions:
1. A term of ten (10) years from the date of sale of the Relevant Hauling Assets for the Houston, Texas area;
2. The Acquirer may dispose of 600 tons per day of MSW ("Minimum Disposal Amount") and no more than 1,000 tons per day of direct-haul MSW ("Maximum Disposal Amount") at the Blue Ridge Landfill ("Maximum Disposal Amount"), during each six (6) calendar month period during the term of the agreement, to be pro rated for any partial periods at the beginning and end of the agreement. The agreement may also provide that if the Acquirer disposes of less than the prevailing Minimum Disposal Amount during any such six (6) month period, then the Minimum Disposal Amount and the Maximum Disposal Amount may be reduced for the remainder of the disposal agreement term by a tonnage amount equal to the shortfall amount.
3. For the Acquirer of the landfill disposal agreement, defendants must commit to operate the Blue Ridge Landfill gates, scale houses, and disposal areas under terms and conditions no less favorable than those provided to defendants' own vehicles or to the vehicles of any municipality in the metropolitan Houston area, except as to price and credit terms; and
4. At any time during the life of the agreement, the Acquirer has the right to terminate the agreement upon ninety (90) days' written notice to defendants.
8. Los Angeles, California
Republic's Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, 29201 Henry Mayo Drive, Valencia, California 91355;
9. Northwest Indiana
At the option of the Acquirer of the Valparaiso Transfer Station, landfill disposal rights, at rates to be negotiated, at Allied's Newton County Development Corporation Landfill ("Newton County Landfill"), located at 2266 East 500 South Road, Brook, Indiana 47922, pursuant to which defendants will offer to reserve 350 tons per day of capacity for an Acquirer for MSW disposal at Newton County Landfill, under the following minimum terms and conditions:
1. A term of two (2) years from the date of sale of the Valparaiso Transfer Station;
2. The Acquirer may dispose of up to 350 tons per day of MSW at Newton County Landfill;
3. For the Acquirer of the landfill disposal agreement, defendants must commit to operate the Newton County Landfill gates, scale houses, and disposal areas under terms and conditions no less favorable than those provided to defendants' own vehicles or to the vehicles of any municipality in the Northwest Indiana area, except as to price and credit terms; and
4. At any time during the life of the agreement, the Acquirer has the right to terminate the agreement upon thirty (30) days' written notice to defendants.
10. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
At the option of the Acquirer of the Girard Point Transfer Station and the Philadelphia Recycling and Transfer Station, rights to landfill disposal, at rates to be negotiated, at Republic's Modern Landfill, located at 4400 Mount Pisgah Road, York, Pennsylvania 17402, pursuant to which defendants will reserve capacity for an Acquirer for MSW disposal at Modern Landfill, under the following minimum terms and conditions:
1. A term of eighteen (18) months from the date of sale of the Girard Point Transfer Station and the Philadelphia Recycling and Transfer Station;
2. The Acquirer may dispose of up to 1300 tons per day of MSW at the Modern Landfill;
3. For the Acquirer of the landfill disposal agreement, defendants must commit to operate the Modern Landfill gates, scale houses, and disposal areas under terms and conditions no less favorable than those provided to defendants' own vehicles or to the vehicles of any municipality in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area, except as to price and credit terms; and
4. At any time during the life of the agreement, the Acquirer has the right to terminate the agreement upon thirty (30) days' written notice to defendants.
11. San Francisco, California
Republic's Potrero Hills Sanitary Landfill, located at 3675 Potrero Hills Lane, Suisun, California 94585, except that Republic need not convey (i) the right to control the location of disposal for waste volumes that Republic has disposed of at Potrero Hills Sanitary Landfill via transfer through the Golden Bear Transfer Station or contracts covering the disposal of such waste, or (ii) contracts between the Republic subsidiary that owns Potrero Hills Sanitary Landfill and Alameda County Industries to the extent those contracts govern disposal of waste at Vasco Road Landfill.
2. Transfer Stations
1. Atlanta, Georgia
1. Republic's Central Gwinnett Transfer Station, located at 535 Seaboard Industrial Drive, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045; and
2. Allied's BFI Smyrna Transfer Station, located at 4696 South Cobb Drive, Smyrna, Georgia 30080;
2. Cape Girardeau, Missouri
Allied's Jackson Solid Waste Transfer Station, located at 2004 Lee Avenue, Hwy 25 N, Jackson, Missouri 63755;
3. Charlotte, North Carolina
Republic's Queen City Transfer Station, located at 3130 Jeff Adams Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina 28206;
4. Cleveland, Ohio
Republic's Harvard Road Transfer Station, located at 3227 Harvard Road, Newburgh Heights, Ohio 44105;
5. Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina
Allied's Greer Transfer Station, located at 590 Gilliam Road, Greer, South Carolina 29651;
6. Houston, Texas
Republic's Hardy Road Transfer Station, located at 18784 Hardy Road, Houston, Texas 77073;
7. Northwest Indiana
Allied's Valparaiso Transfer Station, located at 3101 Bertholet Boulevard, Valparaiso, Indiana 46383; and
8. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
1. Republic's Girard Point Transfer Station, located at 3600 South 26th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19145; and
2. Allied's Philadelphia Recycling and Transfer Station, located at 2209 South 58th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19143.
9. "Relevant Hauling Assets," unless otherwise noted, means the small container commercial waste collection routes and other assets listed below:
1. Atlanta, Georgia
1. Allied's small container commercial waste collection routes 123, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 144, 146, and 147; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 1581 Fulenwider Road, Gainesville, Georgia;
2. Cape Girardeau, Missouri
1. Allied's small container commercial waste collection routes 790 and 791; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 281 Rambler Road, Jackson, Missouri;
3. Charlotte, North Carolina
1. Republic's small container commercial waste collection routes A001, A002, A003, A004, A005, A007, A008, A009, A010, and A012; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 5516 Rozzelles Ferry Road, Charlotte, North Carolina;
4. Fort Worth, Texas
1. Republic's small container commercial waste collection routes VA, VB, VC, VD, and VE; and (b) notwithstanding any other provision of this Final Judgment, in the event an Acquirer purchases Allied's rights, titles and interests in the Fort Worth Southeast Landfill, the Acquirer shall have the option to lease a sufficient portion of the Republic yard located at 1212 Harrison Avenue, Arlington, Texas for a period of six (6) months with an option to renew for one additional six (6) month period, under a lease to permit the Acquirer to support fully the operation of the divested small container commercial waste collection routes and the potential growth of the divested hauling business to include additional routes;
5. Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina
1. Allied's small container commercial waste collection routes 701, 704, 705, 708, 714, 718, 719, and 720; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 101 Rogers Bridge Road, Duncan, South Carolina;
6. Houston, Texas
1. Republic's small container commercial waste collection routes A002, A004, A005, A006, A008, A009, A010, A011, A012, A017, A024, A027, A028, A029, A031, A034, A035, A038, A040, A042, A043, A044, A045, A046, A049, A052, A053, A054, A055, A058, A059, and A060; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 2010 Wilson Road, Houston, Texas;
7. Lexington, Kentucky
1. Republic's small container commercial waste collection routes 31, 32, 34, 36, and 37; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 4000 Park Central Court, Nicholasville, Kentucky;
8. Lubbock, Texas
1. Allied's small container commercial waste collection routes 1711, 1713, 1714, 1911, 1912, 1913, and 1914; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 1812 CR-60, Lubbock, Texas; and
9. Northwest Indiana
1. Allied's small container commercial waste collection routes 150, 751, 754, 756, and 757; and (b) at the Acquirer's option, the hauling facility located at 3101 Bertholet Boulevard, Valparaiso, Indiana.
10. "Relevant State" means the state or commonwealth in which the Divestiture Assets are located, provided, however, that state or commonwealth is a party to this Final Judgment.
11. "Small container commercial waste collection" means the business of collecting municipal solid waste from commercial and industrial accounts, usually in "dumpsters" (i.e., a small container with one to ten cubic yards of storage capacity), and transporting or "hauling" such waste to a disposal site by use of a front-end or rear-end load truck. Typical small container commercial waste collection customers include office and apartment buildings and retail establishments (e.g., stores and restaurants). As used herein, "small container commercial waste collection" does not include small container commercial waste collection of franchised routes.
12. "MSW" means municipal solid waste, a term of art used to describe solid putrescible waste generated by households and commercial establishments. Municipal solid waste does not include special handling waste (e.g., waste from manufacturing processes, regulated medical waste, sewage and sludge), hazardous waste or waste generated by construction or demolition sites.
III. Applicability
1. This Final Judgment applies to Republic and Allied, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
2. If, prior to complying with Sections IV and V of this Final Judgment, defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of their assets or of lesser business units that include the defendants' Divestiture Assets, they shall require the purchaser to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. Defendants need not obtain such an agreement from the Acquirer of the assets divested pursuant to this Final Judgment.
IV. Divestitures
1. Defendants are ordered and directed, within 90 calendar days after the filing of the Complaint in this matter, or five (5) calendar days after notice of the entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest all Divestiture Assets in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to an Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State. With respect to the Atlanta, Georgia; Cleveland, Ohio; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Ft. Worth, Texas areas, the Divestiture Assets in each area must be offered for sale to prospective Acquirers separately from Divestiture Assets in other areas. All of the Divestiture Assets serving any single relevant area shall be sold to the same Acquirer, unless defendants receive the prior written consent of the United States. The United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State, may agree to one or more extensions of this time period not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days in total, and shall notify the Court in such circumstances. Defendants agree to use their best efforts to divest the Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible.
2. In accomplishing the divestitures ordered by this Final Judgment, defendants promptly shall make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of the Divestiture Assets. Defendants shall inform any person making inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the Divestiture Assets that they are being divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person with a copy of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall offer to furnish to all prospective Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to the Divestiture Assets customarily provided in a due diligence process except such information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Defendants shall make available such information to the United States at the same time that such information is made available to any other person.
3. Defendants shall provide the Acquirer(s) and the United States information relating to all personnel involved in the operation and management of the Divestiture Assets to enable the Acquirer(s) to make offers of employment. Defendants shall not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer(s) to employ or contract with any defendant employee whose primary responsibility is the operation or management of the Divestiture Assets.
4. Defendants shall permit prospective Acquirers of the Divestiture Assets to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections of the physical facilities of the Divestiture Assets; access to any and all environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and information; and access to any and all financial, operational or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process.
5. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) that each asset will be operational on the date of sale.
6. In the event that the Turkey Creek Landfill is not, for any reason, fully operational and capable of disposing of at least 675,000 tons of MSW annually at the time of its divestiture, defendants shall be required to divest alternative disposal assets in the Fort Worth, Texas area that are sufficient to achieve the purposes of this Final Judgment to the satisfaction of the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the State of Texas.
7. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way the permitting, operation or divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
8. Defendants shall warrant to each Acquirer that there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning or other permits pertaining to the operation of the Divestiture Assets, and that following the sale of the Divestiture Assets, defendants will not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Assets.
9. Unless the United States, after consultation with the Relevant State, otherwise consents in writing, the divestitures pursuant to Section IV, or by trustee appointed pursuant to Section V, of this Final Judgment, shall include all the Divestiture Assets, and shall be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State, that the divestiture will achieve the purposes of this Final Judgment and that the Divestiture Assets can and will be used by an Acquirer(s) as part of a viable, ongoing disposal or hauling business in each relevant area. The divestitures, whether pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment:
1. shall be made to an Acquirer(s) that, in the United States's sole judgment, after consultation with the Relevant State, has the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial, operational, technical and financial capability) of competing effectively in the disposal or hauling business; and
2. shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State, that none of the terms of any agreement between an Acquirer(s) and defendants gives defendants the ability unreasonably to raise the Acquirer's costs, to lower the Acquirer's efficiency, or otherwise to interfere in the ability of the Acquirer to compete effectively.
V. Appointment of Trustee
1. If defendants have not divested the Divestiture Assets within the time period specified in Section IV, Paragraph A, defendants shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
2. After the appointment of a trustee becomes effective, only the trustee shall have the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. The trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestitures to an Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States, after consultation with the Relevant State, at such price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V and VI of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section V, Paragraph D of this Final Judgment, the trustee may hire at the defendants' cost and expense any investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the trustee, reasonably necessary in the trustee's judgment to assist in the divestitures.
3. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the trustee on any ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any objection by defendants on the ground of the trustee's malfeasance must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the trustee has provided the notice required under Section VI.
4. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of defendants, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, and shall account for all monies derived from the sale of the assets sold by the trustee and all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the trustee's accounting, including fees for its services and those of any professionals and agents retained by the trustee, all remaining money shall be paid to defendants and the trust shall then be terminated. The compensation of the trustee and any professionals and agents retained by the trustee shall be reasonable in light of the value of the Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement providing the trustee with an incentive based on the price and terms of the divestitures and the speed with which they are accomplished, but timeliness is paramount.
5. Defendants shall use their best efforts to assist the trustee in accomplishing the required divestitures. The trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by the trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities of the business to be divested, and defendants shall develop financial and other information relevant to such business as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. Defendants shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the trustee's accomplishment of the divestitures.
6. After its appointment, the trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States, the Relevant State, and the Court setting forth the trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestitures ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the Divestiture Assets.
7. If the trustee has not accomplished the divestitures ordered under this Final Judgment within six (6) months after its appointment, the trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth: (1) the trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestitures; (2) the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the required divestitures have not been accomplished; and (3) the trustee's recommendations. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the United States, which shall have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, include extending the trust and the term of the trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.
VI. Notice of Proposed Divestiture
1. Within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, defendants or the trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture required herein, shall notify the United States and the Relevant State of any proposed divestiture required by Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify defendants. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets, together with full details of the same.
2. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United States and the Relevant State of such notice, the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State, may request from defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s), any other third party, or the trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer, and any other potential Acquirer. Defendants and the trustee shall furnish any additional information requested within fifteen (15) calendar days of the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.
3. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested from defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s), any third party, and the trustee, whichever is later, the United States, in its sole discretion, after consultation with the Relevant State, shall provide written notice to defendants and the trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to defendants' limited right to object to the sale under Section V, Paragraph C of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer(s) or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under Section IV or Section V shall not be consummated. Upon objection by defendants under Section V, Paragraph C, a divestiture proposed under Section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.
VII. Notice of Future Acquisitions
Unless such transaction is otherwise subject to the reporting and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18a (the "HSR Act"), defendants, without providing advance notification to United States and the Relevant State, shall not directly or indirectly acquire, any (1) interest in any business engaged in a relevant service in a relevant area, (2) assets (other than in the ordinary course of business) used in a relevant service in a relevant area, (3) capital stock, or (4) voting securities of any person that, at any time during the twelve (12) months immediately preceding such acquisition, was engaged in MSW disposal or small container commercial waste collection in any relevant area, where that person's annual revenues in the relevant area from MSW disposal and/or small container commercial waste collection service were in excess of $500,000 annually. For clarity, this provision also applies to an acquisition of disposal facilities that serve a relevant area but are located outside the relevant area, whether or not they are physically located in the relevant area.
Such notification shall be provided to the United States in the same format as, and per the instructions relating to the Notification and Report Form set forth in the Appendix to Part 803 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as amended, except that the information requested in Items 5 through 8 of the instructions must be provided only about the relevant service. Notification shall be provided at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to acquiring any such interest, and shall include, beyond what may be required by the applicable instructions, the names of the principal representatives of the parties to the agreement who negotiated the agreement, and any management or strategic plans discussing the proposed transaction. If within the 30-day period after notification, representatives of the Antitrust Division make a written request for additional information, defendants shall not consummate the proposed transaction or agreement until thirty (30) calendar days after submitting all such additional information. Early termination of the waiting periods in this paragraph may be requested and, where appropriate, granted in the same manner as is applicable under the requirements and provisions of the HSR Act and rules promulgated thereunder. This Section shall be broadly construed and any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the filing of notice under this Section shall be resolved in favor of filing notice.
AREAS FOR WHICH NOTICE PROVISION APPLIES Relevant Area Counties Relevant Service
Atlanta, GA Cherokee, Forsyth, Hall, Jackson, Barrow,
Gwinnett, Walton, DeKalb, Rockdale,
Fulton, Clayton, Cobb and
Paulding Counties hauling and transfer station disposal
Cape Girardeau, MO Cape Girardeau County hauling and transfer station disposal
Charlotte, NC Mecklenburg County hauling and transfer station and landfill disposal
Cleveland, OH Cuyahoga County transfer station and landfill disposal
Denver, CO Denver and Arapahoe Counties landfill disposal
Flint, MI Saginaw and Genesee Counties landfill disposal
Fort Worth, TX Tarrant County hauling and landfill disposal
Greenville-Spartanburg, SC Greenville and Spartanburg Counties hauling and transfer station and landfill disposal
Houston, TX Harris County hauling and transfer station and landfill disposal
Lexington, KY Fayette, Jessamine, Woodford, Scott and Franklin Counties hauling
Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles County landfill disposal
Lubbock, TX Lubbock County hauling
Northwest Indiana Lake, Porter and LaPorte Counties hauling and transfer station disposal
Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia County transfer station disposal
San Francisco, CA Contra Costa, Solano and Alameda Counties landfill disposal
VIII. Financing
Defendants shall not finance all or any part of any purchase made pursuant to Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.
IX. Hold Separate
Until the divestitures required by this Final Judgment has been accomplished, defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply with the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by this Court. Defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize the divestitures ordered by this Court.
X. Affidavits
1. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the divestitures has been completed under Section IV or V, defendants shall deliver to the United States and the Relevant State an affidavit as to the fact and manner of its compliance with Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding thirty (30) calendar days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person during that period. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts defendants have taken to solicit buyers for the Divestiture Assets, and to provide required information to prospective Acquirers, including the limitations, if any, on such information. Assuming the information set forth in the affidavit is true and complete, any objection by the United States, after consultation with the Relevant State, to information provided by defendants, including limitation on information, shall be made within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of such affidavit.
2. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint in this matter, defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions defendants have taken and all steps defendants have implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section IX of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall deliver to the plaintiffs an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in defendants' earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.
3. Defendants shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve and divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after such divestitures have been completed.
XI. Compliance Inspection
1. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ"), including consultants and other persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to defendants, be permitted:
1. access during defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, or at the option of the United States, to require defendants to provide hard copy or electronic copies of, all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody, or control of defendants, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and
2. to interview, either informally or on the record, defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have their individual counsel present, regarding such matters. The interviews shall be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by defendants.
2. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, defendants shall submit written reports or responses to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.
3. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, or the Attorney General's Office of any other plaintiff, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States or any other plaintiff is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
4. If at the time information or documents are furnished by defendants to the United States, defendants represent and identify in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and defendants mark each pertinent page of such material, "Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," then the United States shall give defendants ten (10) calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
XII. No Reacquisition
During the term of this Final Judgment, defendants may not reacquire any part of the Divestiture Assets, nor may any defendant participate in any other transaction that would result in a combination, merger, or other joining together of any part of the Divestiture Assets with assets of the divesting company.
XIII. Retention of Jurisdiction
This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
XIV. Expiration of Final Judgment
Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) years from the date of its entry.
XV. Public Interest Determination
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16, including making copies available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and any comments thereon and the United States's responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this
Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Date: July 15, 2010
Court approval subject to procedures
of Antitrust Procedures and Penalties
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16
_______________/s/________________
United States District Judge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)