*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Major George Tillery

Obtain Updates: www.justice4majortillery.info

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Free Leonard Peltier!

On my 43rd year in prison I yearn to hug my grandchildren.

By Leonard Peltier

Art by Leonard Peltier

Write to:

Leonard Peltier 89637-132 

USP Coleman I 

P.O. Box 1033 

Coleman, FL 33521

Donations can be made on Leonard's behalf to the ILPD national office, 116 W. Osborne Ave, Tampa, FL 33603

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

1) Millions of Unnecessary Opioid Pills Prescribed by 5 Doctors, Prosecutors Say
By Benjamin Weiser, October 11, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/nyregion/doctors-charged-opioid-prescriptions.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Five doctors in New York City have been charged with taking more than $5 million in return for prescribing millions of oxycodone pills to purported patients who had no legitimate medical need for them, according to indictments unsealed in federal court Thursday.

The series of indictments described noisy crowds of people standing in long lines at all hours, some with visible signs of drug addiction, at the Staten Island office of Dr. Carl Anderson, prompting neighbors to call the police.

Occasionally, ambulances were sent to treat the pill-seeking patients, the charges say.

Another of the doctors, Dante A. Cubangbang, of Manhattan, and his nurse practitioner prescribed 3.3 million pills that were paid for by Medicare and Medicaid over a three-year period — more than twice as many pills as the next highest prescriber in the state, one indictment shows.

The charges were to be announced at a news conference on Thursday by Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York; James J. Hunt, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration's New York office; and James P. O'Neill, the commissioner of the New York Police Department.

The case — another in a line of prosecutions being brought nationallyagainst doctors, drug company executives and drug dealers — is likely to highlight the ways opioids have been aggressively marketed and have contributed to a national epidemic that killed about 72,000 Americans last year.

In March, five Manhattan doctors were indicted on charges they took bribes and kickbacks from Insys, the manufacturer of Subsys, a spray form of the highly addictive painkiller fentanyl.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

2)  Credit Unions, Long a Haven, May Add to Workers' Financial Woes
By Noam Scheiber, October 11, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/business/marriott-credit-union-employee-strike.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness&action=click&contentCollection=business&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

Jose Ramirez Paredes makes just over $13 an hour as a cleaner at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront. His August statement from the Marriott Employees' Federal Credit Union shows more than $800 in overdraft fees for the year.

Working as a dishwasher at the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, Amos Troyah made about $30,000 in a recent 12-month period. Roughly $2,000 of it was spent on an especially frequent expense: fees on his checking and savings accounts at the Marriott Employees' Federal Credit Union.

The fees came in increments like $6 and $10 — minimum-balance fees, excess-transaction fees, automatic money-transfer fees. On occasion, they were joined by that pooh-bah of personal finance charges, the overdraft fee, at a hefty $35.

Thousands of Marriott workers around the country are on strike, complaining that stagnant wages and unsteady hours have made it difficult to stay afloat. At a time when they are under particular pressure, the credit union may be adding to their struggles. Other employees said Mr. Troyah's experience with fees was common.

For more affluent Marriott employees, on the other hand, credit union membership can be a very good deal. Typical interest rates on car loans and mortgages obtained through the credit union are below the national average, according to financial filings. And better-paid employees less frequently need services that incur high fees, like overdraft protection.

What's more, while the credit union is officially independent from Marriott, the board that oversees it consists primarily of Marriott managers who may not always be sensitive to the inequities these policies impose.

The Marriott workers' experience is a stark example of trends that are increasingly bearing down on the nearly 100 million people nationwide who have credit union accounts.

Credit unions — not-for-profit institutions that are owned by their depositors and receive a federal tax subsidy — were long considered a way to democratize banking. They were meant to serve workers who lacked access to the same financial services as middle managers or executives. Many early credit unions were managed by workers from small offices off factory floors. With the money made on loans, often to better-paid workers, they could offer checking and savings accounts at little or no cost.

This philosophy largely persisted into the 1990s, even as credit unions grew larger and hired professional managers. "You had this relationship with people you were serving that you never lost track of," said Randy Chambers, the president of Self-Help Credit Union in North Carolina, which has merged with a handful of smaller credit unions across the state.

Some credit unions still see their mission in such terms. But in recent decades, many have subtly shifted their approach. As falling interest rates made loans less lucrative, credit unions largely turned to fees to help replace the lost income. Over the past quarter-century, the average value of the fees collected for every dollar of interest income has risen to nearly 17 cents, from just under 7 cents.

For credit unions harder pressed to fund their operations, that figure can get much higher. The GE Credit Union of Connecticut makes 34 cents in fees for every dollar of interest on loans, according to last year's regulatory filings. The Montgomery County Employees Federal Credit Union in Maryland makes 44 cents.

But even against this backdrop, Marriott is an outlier. It takes in 52 cents in fees for every dollar of interest income.

Striking Marriott employees outside a San Francisco hotel. The workers complain that stagnant wages and unsteady hours have made it difficult to stay afloat.

As a result, some Marriott workers find themselves in a kind of financial double jeopardy: Low pay from Marriott keeps their account balances minimal, and those modest balances lead to more fees, crimping their assets further.

"The money gets into my account, and they take it out when I overdraft," Mr. Troyah said. "They are robbing me."

'You Ought to Pay'

On its own, raising more income through fees is defensible. For example, in a given month, only a minority of accounts typically go into the red. Not charging overdraft fees or minimum-balance fees is, in effect, a decision to ask other members to subsidize that minority.

"People came around to the idea of it not being all that fair to do it that way," said Mike Schenk, chief economist at the Credit Union National Association, an industry trade group. "That you ought to pay for the services you use."

But the effect in many cases is that the people least able to bear the costs of operating a credit union are gradually paying more of them.

Overdraft fees in particular have provoked controversy within the credit union world. "We have a hard time taking seriously any depository institution claim to trying to serve the underserved, making credit available to financially distressed people and charging those same people $30 to $35 for overdraft," said Rebecca Borné, senior policy counsel for the Center for Responsible Lending, which is affiliated with the Self-Help Credit Union.

The Marriott credit union, whose membership of about 32,000 includes housekeepers, dishwashers and cooks, would seem to fill that bill. While fees can be an issue for any credit union with financially strapped members, Marriott's are unusually high: more than 1.7 percent of the credit union's assets. That is three times the percentage generated by fees at credit unions serving workers at Safeway, Publix and Nordstrom — broadly similar service-sector employers.

Glenn Newton, the credit union's chief executive, said that looking at such measures can be misleading because the modest wealth of his members leads to low average deposits. That leaves the credit union with less money for generating income. In effect, he said, the credit union must pay the same costs per member as other credit unions, but has fewer ways to offset those costs.

He urged adjusting the analysis to account for the small deposits — say, by considering how much greater its assets would be if its average deposit was more typical of the industry. That would bring the fee ratio in line with other service-sector credit unions.

As a practical matter, however, the fees that an average Marriott credit union member pays across all services — $94 last year — are far higher than at these other institutions, and higher than at credit unions of a similar size.

Fewer Hours, More Temps

Jose Ramirez Paredes makes just over $13 an hour cleaning banquet rooms and other public areas at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront. Mr. Ramirez Paredes said through an interpreter that he helped support his stepson, as well as a daughter and two grandchildren living nearby. He sells Amway products on the side to cover his expenses, which include a mortgage and a car payment that together cost him about $1,000 per month.

But even so, he often falls short. The August statement for Mr. Ramirez Paredes's credit union account shows more than $800 in overdraft fees so far this year. Mr. Newton said that overdraft fees had declined by nearly 10 percent between 2013 and last year, and that he believed such cases were unusual.

Workers like Mr. Ramirez Paredes and Mr. Troyah say their financial problems are heightened by Marriott's decision to rely more on temps and less on full-time employees, who have seen their hours cut back and their annual earnings fall. According to Rachel Gumpert, a spokeswoman for Unite Here, the union that represents the company's striking workers, a central issue in the dispute is that workers are having to hold down multiple jobs to support themselves because they aren't receiving enough hours at the hotel chain.

Mr. Ramirez Paredes says that even though he is considered a full-time employee, he is frequently assigned to work only three or four days per week, sometimes as little as one day. (If his hours in a six-month period fall too much, he will lose his full-time status.) Mr. Troyah's W-2 forms show that his income declined from about $34,000 in 2016 to about $28,000 in 2017 because, he says, Marriott cut his hours.

Both men said that they had asked their managers why they didn't receive more hours, and that the managers had told them business was slow. But that claim was at odds with the presence of workers dispatched from staffing firms. Marriott declined to comment.

The Math of the Mini-Loan

Lekesha Wheelings, who has worked as a line cook at the Philadelphia Marriott Downtown for the past 12 years, says that she makes just over $19 an hour, but that she, too, is sometimes sent home early and ends up with fewer than 40 hours per week.

Ms. Wheelings, who lives with her eldest daughter and supports twin 17-year-old children, said she made nearly $45,000 in 2016, but only about $39,500 last year because she worked less.

To cope with the strain in her personal finances, Ms. Wheelings has at times resorted to what is known as a mini-loan from the credit union, a six-month loan of up to $500 with an 18 percent interest rate — generally the legal limit for federal credit unions — and a $35 application fee. Including the fee, the effective annual interest rate on such a loan is about 40 to 50 percent.

Some consumer-finance experts say banks and credit unions should be allowed to expand higher-interest lending so they will have an incentive to serve members who are high credit risks. "On a $500 six-month loan, even if underwriting and origination are very, very simple, that's not profitable," said Alex Horowitz of the Pew Charitable Trusts, of the 40 to 50 percent annualized rate. The alternative for many borrowers would be payday loans, which commonly charge annualized rates over 300 percent.

But even more reasonably priced short-term loans can hurt those with the most precarious finances, making them more likely to run up fees on the checking side. "If someone can't afford more debt, the expectation is that it would increase their overall financial burden and lead to more overdraft fees," Ms. Borné said of the mini-loans.

During the months in which she was repaying a mini-loan beginning in late 2014, the Marriott credit union deducted at least $450 in overdraft fees from Ms. Wheelings's checking account, according to her statements. The loan repayment left less money for such expenses as an $8.47 Netflix subscription and a $17 membership in a legal assistance service, but the overdraft protection allowed them to glide through each month, at a steep markup.

Ms. Wheelings says she plans to keep using the credit union but would like to pay fewer fees. Mr. Ramirez Paredes, alarmed by the fees, says he plans to close his account.

Big Mortgages for Some

By contrast, more affluent workers, including some executives at Marriott, appear to benefit at little cost from the credit union, securing favorable interest rates on car loans and mortgages while largely avoiding heavy fees.

Public records show that several current and former executives have obtained large mortgages from the credit union. They include Don Cleary, the Canada president for Marriott International, who received a $1 million mortgage in December 2016; William McGowan, a longtime design and project manager ($875,000 in December 2014); Michael Rhoads, senior director of international accounting ($825,000 in November 2016); and Norman Jenkins, a former senior vice president ($765,000 in February 2017).

The most common rate that the Marriott credit union reported for mortgages in the fourth quarter of last year was 3.38 percent, below the market average at the time, according to data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Rank-and-file workers often can't obtain loans with such low rates, however, widening the disparities. In contrast to the car loans below 2.5 percent that the Marriott credit union currently advertises for those with sterling credit, workers with only fair credit — a FICO score in the low 600s — can pay more than 8 percent. Those with poor credit can pay more than 12 percent if they can get a loan at all. And the credit union approves few mortgages, period.

"The proper comparison isn't whether or not an hourly associate has access to the same loans or interest rates as a company executive," said Mr. Newton, the chief executive. "Rather, it's whether the credit union offers value to the members, based on their individual credit profile, versus what they could have received at other financial institutions."

Mr. Newton said the loans the credit union does offer to low-paid workers, like the mini-loan, are a more affordable option than products they could obtain elsewhere, such as payday loans.

Close Connections

Credit unions are legally separate from the companies whose employees they serve. But there is often significant overlap between managers of the two organizations.

At the Marriott credit union, five board members are Marriott employees with "vice president" in their title; three are employees with "director" in their title. The only "on property" employee on the board is the general manager of the Bethesda Suites Marriott in Maryland.

While any member can run for a seat on a credit union's board, many boards are stacked with company executives and those with financial expertise to oversee their increasingly sophisticated operations.

Some credit unions take steps to make sure they remain sensitive to the needs of members. The State Employees' Credit Union in North Carolina maintains a local advisory council composed of workers at each of its more than 250 branches, in addition to its board. The local bodies meet with managers four times a year and are apt to give them an earful if they encounter fees or lending policies that workers regard as unfair. That approach is relatively uncommon in the industry, though Mr. Newton said the Marriott credit union had periodically sought feedback from members in surveys.

"Members should elect the board to look after their own interests, and one of those should be balancing who pays for what," said Jim Blaine, who ran the State Employees' Credit Union for decades before retiring in 2016. But in practice, he added, "you can have a board of senior managers who truly don't understand that 75 percent of people live paycheck to paycheck."

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

3) White Americans Gain the Most From Trump's Tax Cuts, Report Finds
By Jin Tankersley, October 11, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/business/trump-tax-cuts-white-americans.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness&action=click&contentCollection=business&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront

The tax cuts that President Trump signed into law last year are disproportionately helping white Americans over African-Americans and Latinos, a disparity that reflects longstanding racial economic inequality in the United States and the choices that Republicans made in crafting the law.

The finding comes from a new analysis of the $1.5 trillion tax cut using an economic model built by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, and released in a joint report with Prosperity Now, a nonprofit focused on helping low-income Americans attain wealth and financial stability. It is the first detailed analysis of the law to break down its effects by race.

White Americans earn about 77 percent of total income in the United States, but they are getting nearly 80 percent of the benefits of the individual and business tax cuts generated by the new law, the analysis found. African-Americans received about 5 percent of the benefits, despite earning 6 percent of the nation's income. Latinos got about 7 percent, although their share of all income is 8 percent.

In total, the analysis estimates, whites will get about $218 billion in tax cuts this year as a result of the law. Black and Latino Americans will get about $32 billion combined.

The analysis starts with a simulation of the law's effects on Americans by income group, using historical tax data. On that front, its conclusions closely track those of distributional analyses by the Tax Policy Center and the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' scorekeeper on the effects of the cuts. Both found that the vast majority of the law's benefits would flow to the top 20 percent of American income earners.

The economic policy institute's model extends those analyses by combining tax data with race and ethnicity data from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. It took months to build. 

The racial divide highlighted by the analysis is largely a product of the financial advantages that white people have long held. They earn more on average than black or Latino Americans, and are far more likely to be among the top income earners in the country. That means they were better positioned to gain from a law that delivered higher benefits to top earners, in total dollars and in percentage terms, than low- and middle-income Americans. 

"The average income for white taxpayers is significantly higher than for black or Latino taxpayers," said Meg Wiehe, the economic policy's institute's deputy director. "That's a huge driver."

As a result, the average tax cut going to a white American household is more than double one going to a black or Latino one. The study found that the group getting the highest average cut was Asian-Americans, who have the highest average income of any of the groups.

It appears, though, that even among top earners, whites have fared better than other Americans under the law — probably because the tax cuts affect individual taxpayers differently depending on how they make their money.

High-earning white taxpayers, for example, are more likely to own so-called pass-through companies like limited liability corporations, and pay taxes on their profits through the individual income tax code. The new law includes a special 20 percent deduction for pass-through income, subject to some limitations. The pass-through break does not apply to high earners like professional athletes who get most of their money from salaries. 

The average tax cut, as a share of pretax income, for a white or Asian-American household in the top 1 percent of income earners was nearly 3 percent, the analysis found. For Latinos, it was 1.7 percent. For blacks, it was 1.2 percent.

"Even if you're a successful black or Latino household in the top 1 percent, you've achieved the American dream, you've hit it out of the park," said David Newville, director of federal policy at Prosperity Now, he said, "you're still not getting the same returns from this bill as a white household."

The report's authors note that Congress could have structured the cuts differently in ways that targeted lower- and middle-income taxpayers more directly. They also stress that by steering more money to whites, the law could exacerbate an already stark racial wealth divide in the United States.

The Census Bureau reported last month that the median income for white/non-Hispanic households in 2017 was $68,145. For black households, it was $40,258. For Hispanic households of any race it was $50,486. 

White/non-Hispanic households make up about two-thirds of all households in the country, the census figures show. Blacks and Hispanicseach comprise about 13 percent of households. 

A poll conducted this month for The New York Times by the online research platform SurveyMonkey finds that white Americans are far more likely to approve of the new tax law than those aren't white. The poll found that 55 percent of whites approved of the law, compared with 40 percent of Hispanics and 33 percent of blacks.

"Congress missed a tremendous opportunity" with the tax law, the report's authors write, "to help low- and moderate-income families — particularly those of color — build the wealth needed to secure their share of the American Dream." 

The analysis found that one way in which the cuts were relatively colorblind: Those geared toward middle-class families were, as a share of income, roughly the same across races. 

But because so many more white taxpayers are in the middle quintile of income earners compared with blacks and Latinos, the white middle class reaped much larger benefits: just over $15 billion total, compared with just over $3 billion for middle-income Latinos and just over $2 billion for middle-income blacks.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

4) E.P.A. to Disband a Key Scientific Review Panel on Air Pollution

By Lisa Friedman, October 11, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/climate/epa-disbands-pollution-science-panel.html?action=click&module=In%20Other%20News&pgtype=Homepage&action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage

Traffic in Los Angeles. One critic said the E.P.A. was trying to "cut science out" of policy decisions.

WASHINGTON — An Environmental Protection Agency panel that advises the agency's leadership on the latest scientific information about soot in the atmosphere is not listed as continuing its work next year, an E.P.A. official said.

The 20-person Particulate Matter Review Panel, made up of experts in microscopic airborne pollutants known to cause respiratory disease, is responsible for helping the agency decide what levels of pollutants are safe to breathe. Agency officials declined to say why the E.P.A. intends to stop convening the panel next year, particularly as the agency considers whether to revise air quality standards. 

Environmental activists criticized the move as a way for the Trump administration to avoid what they described as the panel's lengthy but critical assessment of how much exposure to particulate matter is acceptable in the atmosphere.

"To me this is part of a pattern," said Gretchen Goldman, research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science-oriented environmental nonprofit. "We're seeing E.P.A. trying to cut science out of the process."

She and others noted that the move follows other decisions at the E.P.A. they find worrisome, including eliminating a senior science advisory position and pressing for new rules that would restrict the number and type of studies the E.P.A. could consider when writing new regulations.

Dr. Goldman, an environmental engineer, wrote on Twitter that the E.P.A. quietly telegraphed its latest move in a personnel announcement Wednesday. In that announcement, the E.P.A. said that a smaller, seven-person umbrella advisory board would from now on be conducting reviews of federal air standards and that the administration hoped to complete any revisions by late 2020.

When asked about the future of the larger, 20-person scientific board, the E.P.A. spokesman confirmed that the board was not "listed" in agency documents as continuing its work past 2018. The body is slated to meet in December.

The EPA is responsible for updating six air standards every five years under the Clean Air Act: carbon monoxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, lead, and ozone.

The smaller, seven-member group, known as the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or C.A.S.A.C., is legally obligated to provide advice to the administrator about those air quality standards. But the work of its sub-panels, such as the one on particulate matter, is not required by law. 

Those panels are typically made up of researchers, doctors and others with specific expertise in the individual pollutants. Their reviews can take as long as 18 months, Dr. Goldman said.

At the same time, the C.A.S.A.C. also is going through a shake-up. Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the E.P.A., announced Wednesday he was installing new members to that panel. They include a biochemist from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; an air pollution control engineer with the Jefferson County, Ala., Department of Health; a toxicologist with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality; and a pulmonary doctor and professor emeritus from the University of Rochester Medical Center. 

Lianne Sheppard, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Washington who until Wednesday served as a member of the C.A.S.A.C. and also is on the particulate-matter review board, expressed concern that the resulting panel may be too small and inexperienced in some of the specific issues to handle the new volume of work.

"They're being asked to implement a new process, which will significantly increase their workload," Dr. Sheppard said. "All of this will result in poorer-quality scientific oversight." 

Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank that supports fossil fuels, dismissed concerns about the changes. "Apparently it seems the enviros still don't understand that elections have consequences," he said.

Last year Scott Pruitt, Mr. Wheeler's predecessor, barred advisory committee members from also receiving E.P.A. grants, a change he said was designed to limit conflicts of interest. It also had the effect of making it harder for academic researchers to participate on agency boards. With Mr. Wheeler's additions to the panel, the C.A.S.A.C. board now has only one researcher.

Mr. Wheeler, in a statement, praised the group as being highly qualified with a diverse set of backgrounds needed to take on new responsibilities. 

"These experts will provide critical scientific advice to E.P.A. as it evaluates where to set national standards for key pollutants like ozone and particulate matter," he said, adding the group would "work hard over the next two years to advise E.P.A. in a manner consistent with the Clean Air Act and the protection of public health."

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

5)  Afghan War Casualty Report: Oct. 5-11
Reporting was contributed by the following New York Times reporters: Rod Nordland, Mujib Mashal, Fahim Abed and Fatima Faizi from Kabul; Najim Rahim from Pul-i-Kumri; Taimoor Shah from Kandahar; Farooq Jan Mangal from Khost; Mohammad Saber from Herat; Zabihullah Ghazi from Jalalabad; and an employee of The New York Times from Ghazni. October 12, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/magazine/afghan-war-casualty-report.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=8&pgtype=sectionfront

One attack by the Taliban, on an Afghan police headquarters in Wardak Province killed 14 officers on Oct. 7.

The Times bureau in Kabul mobilized all of its stringers and Afghan reporters to record every attack on the Afghan security forces and civilians that they could find, as a weekly chronicle of the war. 

The number of casualties across Afghanistan increased compared to the previous week, occurring in 13 provinces, even as the weather has turned cold in many parts of the country. The week saw fewer attacks by Taliban fighters compared to last week, but more deaths among security forces. The Times confirmed reports of 96 security force members and 31 civilians killed in the past week.

[Read the Afghan War casualty report for Sept. 28-Oct. 4]

Oct. 11 Jowzjan Province: six security forces killed

Three soldiers, two police officers and one member of the National Directorate of Security were killed in Taliban attacks on Qarqin District. The Taliban suffered an unknown number of casualties.

Oct. 11 Kunduz Province: 15 border police killed

The Taliban attacked six security outposts in Qala-i-Zal District, killing 15 border police and wounding 18 others. One of the security outposts was overtaken by the Taliban. The attack was carried out by a Taliban Red Unit. Seven Taliban militants were killed in the fighting.

Oct. 10 Paktia Province: two border police killed

The Taliban attacked border police outposts in Patan District. Two border police officers were killed and two pro-government militias were wounded. More than a dozen Taliban were also killed and wounded.

Oct. 10 Jowzjan Province: one police killed 

One police officer was killed in a Taliban attack on security outposts in Burka District.

Oct. 10 Sar-e-Pul Province: six police officers and pro-government militia killed

Six police officers and pro-government militia members were killed and eight others were wounded in clashes between government forces and local militia groups in Balkhab District.

[Get a weekly roundup of Times' coverage of war delivered to your inbox. Sign up here.]

Oct. 10 Ghazni Province: three public order police and three national police killed

The Taliban attacked Waghaz District, killing six police officers — three Afghan National Civil Order Police and three national police officers — and wounding two more.

Two police officers were wounded in a Taliban attack in Deh Yak District.

Oct. 09 Jowzjan Province: one soldier killed

One soldier was killed in a Taliban attack on security outposts in Burka District.

Oct. 09 Sar-e-Pul Province: one pro-government militia killed and four wounded

The Taliban attacked Sancharak District, killing one pro-government militia member and wounding four others.

Oct. 09 Helmand Province: eight civilians killed and 12 wounded

An explosion at a rally in Lashkar Gah for Haji Salih Mohammad, a parliamentary candidate in the coming election, left eight civilians dead and wounded 12 others.

Oct. 09 Ghazni Province: one soldier killed

The Taliban attacked an army base in Andar District, killing one soldier and wounding four others. Meanwhile, NATO forces launched operations in multiple districts of Ghazni against the Taliban, which suffered heavy casualties in these operations.

Oct. 08 Zabul Province: one police officer killed

The Taliban attacked security outposts in Mizan District. A police officer and three members of the Taliban, including a group commander, were killed in the clashes.

Oct. 08 Faryab Province: two soldiers killed

The Taliban attacked the center of Almar District, where the fighting continued until the next day. Two soldiers were killed.

Oct. 08 Jowzjan Province: 15 members of security forces killed 

Thirteen soldiers and two members of the National Directorate of Security were killed, and 20 soldiers and four police officers were wounded in Taliban attacks on military bases in Qush Tepa District. The fighting continued for 11 hours. Two military bases were overtaken by the Taliban.

Oct. 07 Kabul Province: one civilian killed

An I.E.D. explosion in Kabul city killed one civilian and wounded one civilian and one police officer.

Oct. 07 Kandahar Province: five police officers killed

The Taliban attacked police outposts in Jahangir village of Arghistan District. Five police officers were killed and seven others were wounded in the clashes. Thirteen Taliban fighters were also killed and 17 others were wounded. None of the security outposts fell to the Taliban; reinforcements from the district center forced the Taliban to flee.

Oct. 07 Wardak Province: 14 police officers killed

The police chief of Sayed Abad District and 13 other police officers were killed in attacks on the district center. A number of security outposts were captured by the Taliban, but then taken back by Afghan security forces, who arrived to support the police forces.

Oct. 07 Faryab Province: 10 members of security forces and a woman were killed

The Taliban attacked and destroyed an Afghan National Police outpost and an Afghan Local Police outpost in Pashtoon Kot District. Ten police officers and a female civilian were killed and five police officers were wounded in the clashes between the Taliban and security forces. Reinforcements that tried to reach the area were also ambushed by the Taliban.

[Read 17 Years to the Day the U.S. Invaded, 54 Are Killed Across Afghanistan]

Oct. 06 Paktia Province: 10 civilians killed

Ten civilians were killed and at least 20 were wounded in airstrikes in Gerda Serai District that were carried out after an attack on campaign provincial forces, a group of Afghan forces supported by Americans in Paktia.

Oct. 06 Ghazni Province: one soldier killed

The Taliban attacked a military outpost in Qazi village of Khogyani District of Ghazni. One soldier was killed and two others were wounded. The Taliban also suffered an unknown number of casualties.

Oct. 06 Ghor Province: seven civilians and four police killed

Clashes between Afghan forces and a local militia left seven civilians and four police dead.

Oct. 06 Kabul Province: one police and one civilian killed 

Two roadside mines exploded in Kabul, killing one police officer and one civilian and wounding nine civilians.

Oct. 06 Kunduz Province: four police killed and one wounded

The Taliban attacked a police checkpoint in Qala-e-Zal District, killing four police officers and wounding one other.

Oct. 05 Khost Province: two civilians killed 

Two civilians were killed when an I.E.D. exploded in their home in Ismail Khail Aw Mondozai District. Three children were wounded in the explosion.

Oct. 05 Khost Province: A bodyguard of parliament candidate killed 

An I.E.D. attached to a vehicle exploded in Khost city, killing the bodyguard of a parliament candidate and wounding four others.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

6) Every Older Patient Has a Story. Medical Students Need to Hear It.
At more than 20 medical schools in the United States, students are getting an earful — about life, about perspective — from healthy seniors.
By Paula Span, October 12. 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/health/elderly-patients-medical-training.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront

Elizabeth Shepherd, left, and Dr. Ronald Adelman, a geriatrician at Weill Cornell Medical School, with second-year medical students.

Whatever the cluster of second-year students at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York expected to hear from an 82-year-old woman — this probably wasn't it.

At first, Elizabeth Shepherd, one of several seniors invited to meet with future doctors in an anti-ageism program called "Introduction to the Geriatric Patient," largely followed the script.

As student Zachary Myslinski, 24, read off questions from a standard assessment tool, she responded in matter-of-fact tones.

Health conditions? 

Macular degeneration, replied Ms. Shepherd, a working actor who also teaches Shakespeare at the Stella Adler Studio of Acting. But she was getting treatment.

Recent falls? 

Just one, when she missed a bottom step. "In the subway! In public! That was no fun."

Weight loss? 

"Unfortunately not."

Ms. Shepherd, elegant in an animal-print tunic and dangly earrings, easily tucked her hands behind her head, displaying good range of motion. She remembered three words — "pineapple, blue, honesty" — when asked to recall them several minutes later in a cognitive test.

But after telling her rapt audience that she'd raised a son born "out of wedlock" in 1964 and had divorced twice, she added, "I emigrated to Lesbianland for a little while in my 50s."

Eventually returning to heterosexual relationships, she continued, she met a 90-year-old online and had "the most wonderful summer with this man." She's now involved with a 55-year-old, she added. But "he's in Afghanistan at the moment, so my sex life is not as active as I'd like."

Dr. Ronnie LoFaso, the faculty geriatrician guiding the session, said, "This is taking an interesting turn."

But that was the point, really. 

"It's important that they don't think life stops as you get older," Ms. Shepherd told me afterward. "So I decided I would be frank with them."

Dr. Ronald Adelman, co-chief of geriatrics at Weill Cornell, developed this annual program — which includes a theater piece and is required for all second-year students — after he realized that medical students were getting a distorted view of older adults.

"Unfortunately, most education takes place within the hospital," he told me. "If you're only seeing the hospitalized elderly, you're seeing the debilitated, the physically deteriorating, the demented. It's easy to pick up ageist stereotypes."

These misperceptions can influence people's care. In another classroom down the hall, 88-year-old Marcia Levine, a retired family therapist, was telling students about a gastroenterologist who once dismissed her complaints of fatigue by saying, "At your age, you can't expect to have much energy." 

Then, in her 70s, she switched doctors and learned she had a low-grade infection.

At least 20 medical schools in the United States have undertaken similar efforts to introduce students to healthy, active elders, said Dr. Amit Shah, a geriatrician who helps direct the Senior Sages program at the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine.

The programs take many forms, from Weill Cornell's two-hour introduction to a semester-long curriculum at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine.

Some schools, like the Medical University of South Carolina and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, match students with older patients they follow throughout their four-year educations, making home visits, accompanying their "senior mentors" to doctors' appointments, and visiting them if they're hospitalized.

Though the efforts can be voluntary or mandatory, can emphasize clinical skills or encourage new perspectives, they reflect broad agreement on the problems that ageism brings.

In health care, "you hear a lot of infantilizing language: 'sweetie,' 'cutie,' 'honey,'" said Tracey Gendron, the gerontologist who started the senior mentoring program at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine. "You hear that people are not worth treating because of their age."

Interruptions are "ubiquitous in medical encounters," said Dr. Adelman, but older patients contend with them more often.

Dr. Adelman has recorded and analyzed doctors visits in which a spouse or adult child accompanies a patient and begins asking and answering the questions. "The older person, who is cognitively fine, is just excluded, referred to as 'he' or 'she,'" Dr. Adelman said. "It can undermine the relationship between the older patient and the doctor."

More broadly, medical research often continues to exclude older people, forcing their doctors to make educated guesses about drugs and procedures, and how much they will help or hurt. 

Yet most doctors, if they're not pediatricians, will spend much of their careers working with older people, becoming — to borrow a phrase from Dr. Donovan Maust, a geriatric psychiatrist at the University of Michigan — de facto geriatricians.

If medical students specialize in pulmonology, they'll find that about 35 percent of their patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are over age 65, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported. 

Endocrinologists treating diabetics will learn that almost 40 percent will be 65-plus. In oncology, more than half of the survivors of all types of cancer are over age 65.

We'll never have enough geriatricians to care for this growing older population, in part because it's hard for doctors to pay off student loans and make a living when virtually all their patients are on Medicare.

Last year, there were just 7,279 certified geriatricians in the United States, only about half practicing full time. The supply is rising only modestly, while the demand will increase a projected 45 percent by 2025, according to the American Geriatrics Society.

Accordingly, many anti-ageism programs mandate participation by all incoming medical students. "The elderly are who they will be caring for," Dr. Adelman said.

The efforts appear effective. Administrators point out that in longer programs, students and seniors often form friendships, sharing pizza or movies outside of required interviews.

An evaluation reviewing 10 senior mentoring programs, published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, reported that "the universal goal of positively influencing student attitudes toward older adults was resoundingly achieved."

The students meeting with Ms. Shepherd gave the hourlong session high marks. "Helpful and eye-opening," said Sarita Ballakur, a 23-year-old from Andover, Mass.

"Her candor and openness were incredible," said Jason Harris, 25. "An organ is an organ. A patient is who we'll be dealing with in real life."

"It made me more interested in working with an older patient population," said Mr. Myslinski.

Why, then, aren't there more such initiatives in the nation's 151 M.D.-granting medical schools? They're not particularly expensive, the evaluation found, and older people clamor to take part.

They do involve a fair amount of administrative time. And they require awareness of the particular challenges of this phase of life.

Ms. Shepherd was frank about that, too. 

When she turned 80, she told the students, "I began to realize, this really is different. To know that there are not so many years ahead. To think about how I want to spend the rest of my days. There was a new vulnerability."

She appreciated that they had listened, she said afterward, calling the session "a gift to us, as well as to them. It's an acknowledgment that we are important and of interest."

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

7) Citing Arbitrary Use and Racial Bias, Washington Supreme Court Abolishes State's Death Penalty
By Jon Queally, October 11. 2018
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/11/citing-arbitrary-use-and-racial-bias-washington-supreme-court-abolishes-states-death?cd-
\
Scott Langley of Boston, Massachusetts, holds a banner during a vigil against the death penalty in front of the U.S. Supreme Court July 1, 2008 in Washington, DC. The Abolitionist Action Committee and the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty held the vigil to abolish the death penalty to mark the 1972 and 1976 Supreme Court rulings suspending the death penalty and later allowing executions to resume. 

Citing racial bias and arbitrary application, the Supreme Court of Washington on Thursday ruled that the use of capital punishment violates the state's Constitution, a decision that will ban the use of the death penalty going forward and immediately commuted the sentences of death-row inmates to life terms.

"Today's decision by the state Supreme Court thankfully ends the death penalty in Washington," declared Washington's Democratic Governor Jay Inslee in response to the ruling.

"The court makes it perfectly clear that capital punishment in our state has been imposed in an 'arbitrary and racially biased manner,' is 'unequally applied' and serves no criminal justice goal," Inslee added. "This is a hugely important moment in our pursuit for equal and fair application of justice."

The ACLU noted the ruling makes Washington the 20th state in the U.S. to ban the death penalty, but the group said it "won't stop fighting until it's struck down everywhere in America."

As Slate reports:

the court held Thursday that capital punishment is imposed in "an arbitrary and racially biased manner" and "fails to serve any legitimate penological goals." The problems go beyond race: Most prosecutors in the state have stopped seeking the death penalty, so all current capital sentences arise from just six of Washington's 39 counties. The location of your crime may therefore determine whether you live or die. This "random" and "capricious" application of the ultimate punishment, the court ruled, fatally undermines any state interest "retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders."

There are currently eight inmates on Washington's death row. The court converted their sentences to life imprisonment and forbade the state from conducting any further executions. Because its ruling is based entirely in the state constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn it. And the court left no room for future reconsideration of its unanimous decision. Capital punishment is over in Washington State.

Jeff Robinson, deputy legal director and director of the ACLU's Trone Center for Justice at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court recognized clearly that racial bias remains at the heart of "who should and who should die" in the America's skewed justice system.

"There is nothing unique about the role racism played in Washington's death penalty," said Robinson. "What is rare is the Supreme Court's willingness to call out the truth that has always been there."

Noting that both conscious and unconscious racial bias "plays a role in the death penalty decisions across America, influencing who faces this ultimate punishment, who sits on the jury, what kind of victim impact and mitigation evidence is used, and who is given life or death," Robinson said that this kind of "disparity can be described by many words — but justice is not one of them."

Human rights groups and other death penalty opponents said they hope that others states, and ultimately the U.S. federal government, will now follow the other twenty states and ban the death penalty nationwide:

"Washington's Supreme Court showed courage in refusing to allow racism to infect life and death decisions," said the ACLU's Robinson.  "Let's hope that courage is contagious."

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

8) 40% of the American middle class face poverty in retirement, study concludes
By Elliot Dinkin, president and CEO of Cowden Associates, October 12, 2-018
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/12/40percent-of-american-middle-class-face-poverty-in-retirement-study-says.html

Nearly half of middle-class Americans face a slide into poverty as they enter their retirement, a recent study by the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School has concluded.

That risk has been driven by depressed earnings, depressed asset values and increased health-care costs — causing 74 percent of Americans planning to work past traditional retirement age. Additionally, both private and public pension plans have been allowed to become seriously underfunded. So what can be done?

Fundamental changes in the structure of the U.S. economy, combined with increased health-care costs and lack of saving, have created a financial trap for millions of American workers heading into retirement.

Roughly 40 percent of Americans who are considered middle class (based on their income levels) will fall into poverty or near poverty by the time they reach age 65, according to the study.

The study also concluded that if workers age 50 to 60 decide to retire at age 62, 8.5 million of them are projected to fall below twice the Federal Poverty Level, with retirement incomes below $23,340 for singles and $31,260 for couples. Further, 2.6 million of those 8.5 million downwardly mobile workers and their spouses will have incomes below the poverty level — $11,670 for an individual and $15,730 for a two-person household.

It can be debated as to how this happened. Who is to blame? Who is ultimately responsible for a retiree's well-being in retirement?

Most importantly, though, employers and employees need to focus on a fix. Personal savings is obviously a needed conversation. And sponsors of pension plans — whether corporate, governmental or multi-employer — need to ensure they are doing their part.

Not coincidentally, older Americans increasingly continue to work longer than their forebears. More than 20 percent of the workforce in the United States is 55 or older, a historic high, and that percentage is expected to increase — 74 percent of Americans now say they plan to work past traditional retirement age.

So how will this impact employer pension plans? Are there solutions? What do they look like? Who do they affect and how?

Employers need to complete an in-depth analysis of their business models, risk management policies, benefit offerings and financial options through a total compensation approach.

A defined benefit plan should be managed like a separate line of business: It should have budgets, forecasts and a strategic plan. The magnitude of the issue and its prominence require this approach, as the plan is a use and source of cash, creates volatile liability and expense and causes negative consequences often at the worst time in business cycles.

The process involves a variety of areas regarding benefit design, cost, risk management, cash flow, taxes, competitiveness and labor management:

Finally, pension plan sponsors must continually monitor investment strategies; the impact of potential regulatory changes, including funding and accounting rules; appropriateness of assumptions; and development of funding policies to ensure they are appropriately managing their risk and cost issues, but acting in the most prudent manner for their current employees and current retirees.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

9)  Kushner Paid No Federal Income Tax for Years, Documents Suggest

By Jesse Drucker and Emily Flitter, October 13, 2018

"The law assumes that buildings’ values decline every year when, in reality, they often gain value. Its enormous flexibility allows real estate investors to determine their own tax bills. ...He is reporting the losses even though he bought his properties with borrowed funds. In many cases, Mr. Kushner kicked in less than 1 percent of the purchase price, according to the documents. Even that small amount generally was paid for with loans. Mr. Kushner’s credit lines from banks rose to $46 million in 2016 from zero in 2009, the documents show.

The result: Mr. Kushner is getting tax-reducing losses for spending someone else’s money, which is permitted under the tax code. Depreciation deductions are available in other industries, but they generally don’t get to take losses related to spending with borrowed money."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/13/business/jared-kushner-taxes.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Jared Kushner, lowest step, probably avoided paying federal income taxes via his family’s real estate investments.

Over the past decade, Jared Kushner’s family company has spent billions of dollars buying real estate. His personal stock investments have soared. His net worth has quintupled to almost $324 million.

And yet, for several years running, Mr. Kushner — President Trump’s son-in-law and a senior White House adviser — appears to have paid almost no federal income taxes, according to confidential financial documents reviewed by The New York Times.

His low tax bills are the result of a common tax-minimizing maneuver that, year after year, generated millions of dollars in losses for Mr. Kushner, according to the documents. But the losses were only on paper — Mr. Kushner and his company did not appear to actually lose any money. The losses were driven by depreciation, a tax benefit that lets real estate investors deduct a portion of the cost of their buildings from their taxable income every year.

In 2015, for example, Mr. Kushner took home $1.7 million in salary and investment gains. But those earnings were swamped by $8.3 million of losses, largely because of “significant depreciation” that Mr. Kushner and his company took on their real estate, according to the documents reviewed by The Times.

Nothing in the documents suggests Mr. Kushner or his company broke the law. A spokesman for Mr. Kushner’s lawyer said that Mr. Kushner “paid all taxes due.”

In theory, the depreciation provision is supposed to shield real estate developers from having their investments whittled away by wear and tear on their buildings.

In practice, though, the allowance often represents a lucrative giveaway to developers like Mr. Trump and Mr. Kushner.

The law assumes that buildings’ values decline every year when, in reality, they often gain value. Its enormous flexibility allows real estate investors to determine their own tax bills.

The White House last year championed a sweeping revision of the nation’s tax laws that expanded many of the benefits enjoyed by real estate investors, allowing them to reap even larger deductions.

“The Trump administration was in a position to clean up the tax code and promised to get rid of some of the complexity that certain taxpayers use to their advantage,” said Victor Fleischer, a tax law professor at the University of California, Irvine. “Instead, they doubled down on those provisions, particularly the ones they have familiarity with to benefit themselves.”

The documents, which The Times reviewed in their entirety, were created with Mr. Kushner’s cooperation as part of a review of his finances by an institution that was considering lending him money. Totaling more than 40 pages, they describe his business dealings, earnings, expenses and borrowing from 2009 to 2016. They contain information that was taken from Mr. Kushner’s federal tax filings, as well as other data provided by his advisers. The documents, mostly created last year, were shared with The Times by a person who has had financial dealings with Mr. Kushner and his family.

Thirteen tax accountants and lawyers, including J. Richard Harvey Jr., a tax official in the Reagan, George W. Bush and Obama administrations, reviewed the documents for The Times. Mr. Harvey said that, assuming the documents accurately reflect information from his tax returns, Mr. Kushner appeared to have paid little or no federal income taxes during at least five of the past eight years. The other experts agreed and said Mr. Kushner probably didn’t pay much in the three other years, either.

Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Mr. Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said he would not respond to assumptions derived from documents that provide an incomplete picture and were “obtained in violation of the law and standard business confidentiality agreements. However, always following the advice of numerous attorneys and accountants, Mr. Kushner properly filed and paid all taxes due under the law and regulations.” 

Mr. Mirijanian added that, with regard to the tax legislation, Mr. Kushner “has avoided work that would pose any conflict of interest.” 

Representatives of the White House and Mr. Kushner’s firm, Kushner Companies, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The revelation about Mr. Kushner’s minimal tax payments comes as his father-in-law’s taxes are under renewed scrutiny. A Times investigationpublished this month found that Mr. Trump participated in outright fraud that shielded his family’s fortune from estate and gift taxes.

Mr. Trump has broken with decades of tradition by refusing to release his tax returns. But portions of a 1995 tax return previously published by The Times show trends similar to the one visible in the documents detailing Mr. Kushner’s finances. Mr. Trump at the time reported nearly $916 million in losses, which could have permitted him to avoid any federal income taxes for almost two decades.

The summaries of Mr. Kushner’s tax returns reviewed by The Times don’t explicitly state how much he paid. Instead, the documents include disclosures by his accountants that estimate how much tax he owed for the year just ended — called “income taxes payable” — and how much he paid during the year in anticipation of taxes he would owe, called “prepaid taxes.” For most of the years covered, both were listed as zero.

An excerpt of Mr. Kushner's net worth statement for 2011 to 2016, with highlighting by The New York Times. The amount he paid in anticipation of taxes he would owe is called “prepaid taxes.”

Peter Buell, who runs tax services for the real estate practice of the accounting firm Marcum, said the lack of prepayments indicated Mr. Kushner most likely didn’t owe income taxes in those years. Mr. Buell said he was especially confident that Mr. Kushner had no tax liability because the documents also report no “income taxes payable.”

Another clue from the net worth statement: "income taxes payable," the amount his accountants estimated he owed at year's end, also highlighted by The Times.

Kushner Companies — where Mr. Kushner was chief executive and remains an owner — has been profitable and has thrown off millions of dollars in cash annually for Mr. Kushner and his father, Charles, according to an analysis by the company that was included in the documents reviewed by The Times.

But as far as the Internal Revenue Service is concerned, the Kushners have been losing money for years.

Kushner Companies, like many real estate firms, passes on any tax obligations to its owners, including Mr. Kushner and his father, who incorporate them into their personal tax returns. 

Unlike typical wage earners, the owners of such companies can report losses for tax purposes. When a firm like Kushner Companies reports expenses in excess of its income, the result is a “net operating loss.” That loss can wipe out any taxes that the company’s owner otherwise would owe. Depending on the size of the loss, it can even be used to get refunds for taxes paid in prior years or eliminate tax bills in future years.

Mr. Kushner’s losses, stemming in large part from the depreciation deduction, appeared to wipe out his taxable income in most years covered by the documents.

He is reporting the losses even though he bought his properties with borrowed funds. In many cases, Mr. Kushner kicked in less than 1 percent of the purchase price, according to the documents. Even that small amount generally was paid for with loans. Mr. Kushner’s credit lines from banks rose to $46 million in 2016 from zero in 2009, the documents show.

The result: Mr. Kushner is getting tax-reducing losses for spending someone else’s money, which is permitted under the tax code. Depreciation deductions are available in other industries, but they generally don’t get to take losses related to spending with borrowed money.

“If I had to live my life over again, I would have been in the real estate business,” said Jonathan Blattmachr, a well-known trusts and estates lawyer, now a principal at Pioneer Wealth Partners, who reviewed the Kushner documents. “It’s fantastic. You get tax deductions for things you don’t pay for.”

One of the only years in which Mr. Kushner appeared to have owed anything was 2013, when he reported income taxes payable of $1.1 million. According to the documents, Mr. Kushner has filed tax returns separately from his wife, Ivanka Trump — a relatively common practice among wealthy couples who want to avoid entwining their complex personal finances. 

Mr. Kushner’s father appears to have benefited from the same tax deductions, the documents indicate. The experts interviewed by The Times said Charles Kushner most likely avoided paying federal income taxes from at least 2012 to 2016. 

The tax code affords real estate investors great leeway in how they calculate their depreciation — flexibility that often is used to inflate their annual deductions. Among the tactics used by many developers: Their tax advisers prepare studies arguing that much of a property’s value is attributable to things like appliances and parking lots, which under the law can be depreciated more quickly than the building.

Such strategies are almost never audited, tax professionals say. And the new tax law provides even more opportunities for property investors to take larger deductions.

Developers might have to pay capital gains taxes if they sell their properties. But the Kushners, like others in the real estate business, often avoid that tax, too, by using the proceeds of sales to buy more properties within a certain time window.

At least in part because of that perk, the Kushners’ property sales in the period covered by the documents — totaling about $2.3 billion, according to Real Capital Analytics, a research firm — generated little or no taxable income for Mr. Kushner.

Last year’s tax legislation eliminated that benefit for all industries but one: real estate.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

10) The Khashoggi Incident: Trump’s Special Relationship With the Saudi Monarchy
By Gary Leupp, October 12, 2018
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/12/the-khashoggi-incident-trumps-special-relationship-with-the-saudi-monarchy/

The Saudi crown prince and de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, Mohammad bin Salman bin Abduld Aziz al Saud (33), has cultivated an international reputation as a progressive reformer, claiming in particular to improve the lot of Saudi women. His March PR visit to the U.S. included a warm and fuzzy interview with Oprah, visits to Harvard and MIT, meetings with Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, and of course his friend Jared Kushner. His purpose was two-fold: to improve the global image of Saudi Arabia, and to call for common action against Saudi Arabia’s arch-enemy Iran.

What is this young man’s record? In March 2011 during the Arab Spring, when the prince was already a senior advisor to his father the king, Saudi Arabia headed an intervention of Gulf states in Bahrain, to quell protests against the absolute monarch. (The great majority of Bahrainis are Shiites, while the king of Bahrain is Sunni. Riyadh views any advancement of Shiite rights and power in the region, both as an expression of heresy—against Sunni Islam—and as an expansion of Iranian Shiite influence.) In June 2017 (after Mohammad had been made crown prince) Riyadh led an ongoing blockade of Qatar, mainly to punish it for its relatively cordial relations with Iran. That November Riyadh detained the Lebanese prime minister during a visit and forced his resignation (later retracted); this was an effort to punish him for his acceptance of the Hizbollah party in the Lebanese cabinet.

Since 2015 the Saudis have been bombing Yemen in an effort to dislodge the (Shiite) Houthi regime in Sanaa, claiming it’s a tool of Iran. Over 10,000 civilians have been killed and over three million people displaced; the Saudi school bus bombing in August killed 51, mostly children, and attracted brief international horror.

The crown prince (MBS, as he likes to be affectionately called) has consolidated his power by the brutal handling of his many rivals within the extravagantly polygamous royal family. (His grandfather Abdullah had at least 35 children by 30 wives.) He is driven by hostility to Iran and all its allies including the Syrian government, Hizbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen (and perhaps the 15 to 20% of the Saudi population who are Shiites, mostly in the oil-rich Eastern Province that faces Iran across the Persian Gulf). He has warmed up to Israel, berating the Palestinians for not making peace, and cooperating with the Israelis to isolate Iran. Anyone paying attention knows he’s a brutal thug.

Trump has made it clear to the Saudi royals that he doesn’t care about their human rights record. The strict application of Sharia law, which he condemns everywhere else—the stonings for adultery, the gay men tossed off buildings, the crucifixions—is not an issue. All that’s the Saudis’ business, a matter of national sovereignty. And the Pentagon has made it clear that it will back the Saudi military effort in Yemen despite many reports of Saudi atrocities. MBS may feel he can act with impunity in the world and the U.S. president will have his back. He also may have miscalculated.

The Turkish police have concluded that U.S.-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in the Turkish consulate in Istanbul last week, by a hit squad of 15 Saudis including a forensic doctor flown in to kill him during his consulate visit. (He was apparently there to complete paperwork related to his planned marriage to a Turkish woman.) He was filmed entering the building but never exited as his anxious fiance waited. The police speculate that his body was dismembered and its parts removed by the hit squad that returned to Saudi Arabia on the same day.

Khashoggi, well known as a journalist in Saudi Arabia where he was once close to the royal family, had written mildly critical op-ed columns about it for the Washington Post. These may have offended the famously thin-skinned prince. They may have occasioned a royal court order for the execution of Khashoggi in the consulate, which is technically Saudi sovereign territory.

If the journalist was in fact murdered, one must wonder what was going through the head of MBS when he ordered the deed. Did he suppose the truth wouldn’t out? Did he expect Turkish indulgence, and Trump’s acceptance? Did he think the extinction of a moderate critic was worth the risk to his and his country’s reputation? (Perhaps he was recalling the assassination of Kim Jong-un’s brother Kim Jong-nam in Malaysia last year, which had no enduring consequences; Malaysia closed its Pyongyang embassy for awhile but it has now reopened. And Trump is now friends with Jong-un.)

The fact that the Turkish police have a week after Khashoggi’s disappearance announced their assumption of foul play will surely affect Saudi-Turkish relations. The two countries have more or less coordinated their actions in Syria but are at odds on Iran, with which Ankara enjoys cordial relations, and on Qatar which has become a Turkish ally in the wake of the Saudi-led blockade. Turkish public opinion will seethe in indignation at a cold-blooded state-ordered murder in Istanbul.

Now the U.S. press reports that U.S. intelligence had intercepted Saudi officials discussing the kidnapping of Khashoggi. This makes MBS look even worse. You sense he won’t be invited back on Oprah. But he might well be welcomed back in Washington. Trump could proclaim the murder story another “hoax” and say he trusts the prince’s word that there was no collusion. So far he merely says he’s unhappy with what happened.

“I’m very concerned about it,” he said Monday, “there’s some pretty bad stories going around — I do not like it.”

Trump says whatever comes into his mind, whenever he wants. He has mocked the Saudi monarchy as being reliant upon his military support to remain in power. He told a wild pep rally Oct. 2 (the very day Khashoggi was apparently killed): “King: we’re protecting you. You might not be there two weeks without us,. You have to pay for your military.” Rapturous applause!

Similarly, Trump said Christine Blase Ford’s testimony on Kavanaugh was “very credible. “I thought her testimony was very compelling and she looks like a very fine woman to me, very fine woman,” Trump said last week.  “Certainly [Ford] was a very credible witness. She was very good in many respects.” But then he trashed her as a liar. He’s nothing if not mercurial, unpredictable.

Trump flatters himself with having excellent relations with almost all world leaders, from Kim Jong-un (whom he “fell in love with) to Angela Merkel (whom in fact despises him). But he can go from hot to cold at any time. He heaps praise on Xi Jinping and then lobs high tariffs on Chinese goods. He gives Turkey’s Erdogan “high marks” for “doing things the right way” then applies sanctions due to the detainment of a U.S. pastor in Turkey accused of complicity in a coup plot. He could turn on MBS anytime.

The basis of the Saudi-U.S. relationship has been from 1945, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt returning from the Yalta summit visited with Abdul Azziz bin Saud aboard a heavy cruiser in the Suez Canal: cheap oil in return for arms and political support. It was understood at the outset that the U.S. would remain what it was, and that the Saudi kingdom would remain an absolute monarchy guided by religious clerics empowered to administer strict Sharia law.

Decades of U.S. rhetoric about freedom and democracy have always rung hollow as the U.S. has chosen as its key allies not only the NATO and Japanese bourgeois democracies but the dictatorships of Park Chung-hee, Ferdinand Marcos, Suharto, Thai juntas, Pakistani juntas, Latin American juntas, the Greek junta, Francisco Franco, Iran’s Shah, Haile Selassi, Mobutu Sese Seko, Augusto Pinochet, Fulgencio Batista, Papa Doc in Haiti… “The Free World” as taught in U.S. schools comprised the non-communist world. Still, the U.S. government, through the State Department, habitually expresses at least the minimal degree of “concern” about “human rights abuses” here and there. Saudi Arabia is always deplored in the annual assessments, but usually credited with making incremental advances. In any case the U.S. mass media pays little attention, until a school bus is bombed in Yemen, and then the matter’s dropped.

Now however Saudi Arabia is in our face, in the form of news reports on the apparent embassy murder. On Oct. 8, six days after the reported disappearance, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo publicly urged the Saudis to investigate The most haughty and unpleasant Heather Nauert, spokesperson for the State Department, tells journalists that in the interval there was high-level discussion with Saudis but she has nothing to report about it.

So here’s the thing. Trump, who is clueless, will sit down with Pompeo and Bolton. They will say that this looks bad, and the young prince is out of control. He needs to be reminded of what you told the Saudi king the other day: you might not be there two weeks without us. When you kill and dismember a U.S. resident Washington Post journalist with kids that have U.S. nationality you embarrass your friends, the president and his son-in-law, who could be shamed by that politically influential paper for not denouncing the murder of its contributor. You jeopardize your access to U.S. weaponry and refueling services in your ongoing Yemen war. You have to own up to this and apologize.

Somehow I don’t think that will happen. No red line in the sand has been crossed. Trump and the prince probably already chatted on the phone and MBS has denied any knowledge or involvement.Trump can accept that and move on, or do what he’s done with Russia and Turkey: apply sanctions in response to human rights violations. But given the triangular tension in the region (Turks, Iranians, and Arabs, all intervening in Syria and involved in Iraq) plus the complex relationships of Israel to both Turkey and the Saudis, any U.S. move in response to this incident could produce a new crisis.

Those in Congress militating against the Saudi war on Yemen and U.S. involvement in it will surely seize on this incident to curtail arms sales to the Saudis, and impose sanctions on Saudis considered responsible. Trump’s stance will define him morally every bit as much as his stance on Kavanaugh, and he’ll present it in front of a world which generally despises and mistrusts him.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

11)  The Deportation Crisis: Report From Long Island
By Barbara Kantz, October 12, 2018
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/12/the-deportation-crisis-report-from-long-island/

 am writing to you from Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, a place you may associate with images of traffic jams on the famed Long Island expressway, the rich and famous of the Hamptons, sandy beaches, and most recently, MS 13. Right now we live in the heart of the beast—the flashpoint of immigration and deportation politics in America’s suburbs.

Long Island has been part of the Latino migration stream of seasonal farm workers from the 40s through the 60s. Some workers were documented using the H-2A visa program available for agricultural workers, but many were not. During the months migrant workers were here, they lived primarily in isolated labor camps. Since the 60s, immigrant worker numbers have grown, seeking work now in suburban rather than rural communities, in service industries like food service, landscape care, nanny and elder services and the building trades. These workers mow our lawns, cook our food, care for our children, and build our buildings, still documented and undocumented.

Long Island also has a long history of segregation, born of the development of the “exclusive”” white suburbs in the post war era. Segregation by race and ethnicity is not new and persists to this day. By the 80s, the immigrant profile shifted from European to Latin Americans, many single men, mostly from Mexico, came in greater numbers. As more Latinos sought permanent residency, increased ethnic anxiety rose. Ideas about Latinos as gang members and welfare recipients began building steadily. The popular culture emphasis on drug and gang behavior (think “Miami Vice”) contributed to the narrative of the violent Latino and Latinas on welfare. The bi-lingual movement of the 1980s also created tension, and by 1996 Suffolk County attempted to have English designated as the official language of the county, the first in New York State. Covered in the New York Times,the article was titled “English Only Bill ignites Debates and Fear on LI.” Local zoning laws calling for the definition of family as five or less unrelated individuals also came in response to large numbers of workers renting single family homes.

In 2007, the town of Southampton attempted to set up a day laborer work site, a proposal that was defeated. (Though day labor hiring is illegal, it is an accepted practice to meet the need for local cheap labor. Many day laborers are not paid in full or at all and have little recourse save for the advocacy groups on Long Island.) The documentary film “Farmingville” (2004) about day laborers in Suffolk County, and the purposeful anti-immigrant Lucero murder in Patchogue (2008) brought increased national attention to Suffolk County.

As political civil war and instability along with the negative impacts of NAFTA on Central America occurred, immigrants began coming from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

With the influx of Central Americans, many of whom are unaccompanied minors and adolescents, the negative consequences of gangs, drug activity, and violence from MS 13 are glaringly real. While attempts are made to place children with family members already here, objections to this kind of “chain migration” is another source of contention.

A Federal approach and intervention was demanded to deal with increased crime on Long Island. President Trump’s visit to Long Island in 2016, where he vowed to wipe out MS13 using the weight of the federal government and federal law enforcement, produced massive protests both pro and anti-immigration.  President Trump, through executive order, has made several changes in law enforcement and immigration practice that is significantly shifting the immigration/deportation landscape. The grounds for asylum seekers—sexual assault, fear of gang behavior, poverty, domestic violence—are no longer accepted. The termination of DACA, and attempts to end temporary protected status for those whose countries suffered disasters are also policies in play. Equally profound and alarming is the eroding of due process.  A wider berth has been given to ICE enforcers. The definition of “a risk to public safety” that used to be decided by judges,

 is now the purview of ICE.  Before this change, judges had to make rulings and issues warrants. Individuals who have been charged, but not convicted, as well as resolved cases, green card holders and permanent resident holders can be re-opened for re-examination and deportation. Since local law enforcement officials are sometimes housed in courts, hospitals and educational institutions, and though they claim not to assist ICE, these “systems” become pipelines for ICE enforcers who often wait outside public facilities as immigrants attend court dates, some toward legalizing their status.

The result of these policies have had profound effects on the Latino communities in Suffolk County. Parents have been more reluctant to participate in community activities, while a decline in people applying for recertification is another. Distrust of local police and authorities have eroded people’s ability to seek help for themselves as MS 13 attacks them as well. My own adult college students at a SUNY college were often reluctant to come to appointments because of our location in a state facility. The stress and fear factors have exacerbated mental health issues in the Latino community who already have poor access to, and are reluctant to seek treatment.

These policies have also had negative effects on farms and businesses in Suffolk. While elected officials and law enforcement often denounce what they describe as a broken immigration system, they also identify the need to create a more efficient guest worker program for East End farms. Anti-immigrant legislation and sentiment hurts the economy, but also divides the community, creates intolerance and defames the reputation of particular towns.

Both federal and local policy changes have been developed under the theory of “deterrence logic”.  The U.S. currently refuses to be a refuge for people with problems in their countries of origin. AmerIcans are often unaware of the tumult in Central America, that people quite literally are running for their lives as their own countries are filled with corrupt governments, domestic violence, gang violence, MS 13, and sex and drug trafficking. However,  the arduous trip to cross into the U.S. is STILL preferable to remaining where they are. While fewer people may be attempting to cross, terrorizing these immigrants, many of whom are here legally, calls into question the acclaimed American narrative of  a “nation of immigrants.” This narrative has been replaced by an “immigrant emergency” narrative which gained traction in the aftermath of 9/11. We are not a melting pot, but rather a pressure cooker here in Suffolk County, New York.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

12) 7 Palestinians Killed by Israeli Fire in Gaza Border Clashes
By Isabel Kershner, October 12, 2018
"Since the protests began, about 200 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire, according to the Gaza health ministry. Israel says it acts to prevent breaches of the fence in violation of its sovereignty and to protect Israeli civilians living near the border. One Israeli soldier has been killed, by sniper fire from Gaza."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-deaths-protests.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=10&pgtype=sectionfront

Palestinian protesters evacuating a wounded man during violent clashes Friday along the fence dividing Israel and Hamas-run Gaza.

JERUSALEM — Seven Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire on Friday during stormy protests along the fence dividing Israel and Hamas-run Gaza, according to Gaza health officials.

Four of them were shot dead after they crossed into Israeli territory and approached an army snipers’ post, the Israeli military and a witness said.

There were no injuries on the Israeli side.

In response to the border violence, and to renewed fires on the Israeli side of the fence caused by incendiary balloons flown from Gaza, Israel’s defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said he was halting Qatari-funded transfers of fuel into the Gaza Strip. The fuel shipments had begun in recent days to alleviate the chronic energy shortage in Gaza that has left most of its two million residents with only eight hours of electricity every 24 hours.

Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza, has been arranging weekly demonstrations along the Israeli border for the past six months to protest the blockade of the impoverished Palestinian territory and demand a return to land in what is now Israel. After attendance and international attention began to wane in recent weeks, Hamas created special units to expand the protests, which they call “The Great Return March.”

The fuel transfers had been a first sign of progress after weeks of intensive efforts by Egypt and the United Nations to mediate a stable cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. In addition to the blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt, citing security concerns, Hamas is contending with economic sanctions imposed by its rival, the Palestinian Authority, based in the West Bank.

Since the protests began, about 200 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire, according to the Gaza health ministry. Israel says it acts to prevent breaches of the fence in violation of its sovereignty and to protect Israeli civilians living near the border. One Israeli soldier has been killed, by sniper fire from Gaza.

The Israeli military said that about 15,000 Palestinians participated in Friday’s protests in several locations along the fence and that rioters burned tires and hurled rocks, explosive devices and grenades at soldiers and the fence.

The event, in which four of the Palestinians were killed, occurred near El Bureij refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip. There were conflicting accounts of what happened.

The Israeli military said assailants blew a hole in the fence with an explosive device and about 20 Palestinians entered Israeli territory. Soldiers fired warning shots and most protesters returned to Gaza, the military said, while some advanced toward a military post and were shot and killed.

Fadi Thabet, a Gaza photographer who was at the scene, said that a group came within 30 to 50 yards of an Israeli snipers’ post but that three were killed as they retreated, running back toward the fence. A fourth, Mr. Thabet said by telephone, was shot at close range, “execution style,” as he tried to hide behind a cement wall about 20 yards from the snipers’ post.

Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas, praised what he called, in a statement, “massive participation” in Friday’s protest. “The great sacrifice the Palestinian masses have made are landmarks in the history of the march,” the statement said.

The Israeli military described the event as “a blatant terror attempt that was thwarted by I.D.F. troops quickly and professionally,” and which “prevented a possible terror attack against civilians and I.D.F. troops.”

On Thursday, the Israeli military announced that it had neutralized a tunnel built by Hamas to penetrate Israeli territory. It was the 15th such tunnel to be destroyed in the past year, according to Israeli officials.

Iyad Abuheweila and Ibrahim El-Mughraby contributed reporting from Gaza City.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

13) Man Who Fired at a Black Teenager Asking for Directions is Convicted
By Mihir Zaveri, October 13. 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/13/us/jeffrey-zeigler-brennan-walker-trial.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront


A jury convicted Jeffrey Zeigler, 53, on Friday of felony assault for shooting at a black teenager who came to his suburban Detroit home seeking directions.

A 14-year-old boy missed the school bus one Thursday morning in April. He started to walk to school, got lost and knocked on the door of a home in a Detroit suburb to get directions.

A minute later, a white man came out of the doorway with a shotgun, aimed and fired it at the teenager, who is black.

The encounter in Rochester Hills, Mich., was captured on a surveillance video, which was part of the evidence jurors saw this week before convicting the man, Jeffrey Zeigler, 53, on Friday.

He was convicted of one count of felony assault with the intent to commit great bodily harm, which was a lesser charge than the assault with intent to murder that he initially faced. He was also convicted of one count of using a firearm while committing that felony.

Mr. Zeigler, a retired firefighter, faces up to 12 years in prison when he is sentenced in about two weeks, said Paul Walton, chief assistant prosecutor in Oakland County.

Rob Morad, Mr. Zeigler’s lawyer, said his client was “remorseful.”

“He certainly wishes it didn’t happen,” Mr. Morad said on Saturday. “He wishes he didn’t go outside that day.”

The encounter on April 12 once again generated scrutiny over how benign, everyday interactions can turn into potentially deadly situations for black people.

It is also another prominent case of a black teenager being shot at outside of a home in the Detroit area. Theodore P. Wafer was convicted of murder in 2014 for shooting and killing Renisha McBride, 19, on his porch. Mr. Wafer said he was jolted awake by her knocking on his doors around 4:30 a.m.

Mr. Morad said the April encounter happened so quickly that Mr. Zeigler did not have time to consider the boy’s race. “He just reacted and that was that,” Mr. Morad said.

The surveillance video, which does not have any sound, shows the boy, Brennan Walker, approaching the doorway at Mr. Zeigler’s home. Brennan had slept through his alarm and thought he would make the 90-minute trek to Rochester High School on foot. Within an hour of waking up and heading out, Brennan had gotten lost.

In the video, Brennan is wearing a backpack and a hat. A few chairs with cushions are outside the house. He gets close to the door before he turns around and looks like he might walk away. Then he approaches the door again and pauses.

Brennan told The New York Times in April that he had tried another home before Mr. Zeigler’s. He said after approaching Mr. Zeigler’s residence, a woman began yelling as if he were trying to break into the house.

“She didn’t really give me a chance to speak a lot, and I was trying to tell her that I go to Rochester High and I was looking for directions,” Brennan said. “A few moments later the guy came downstairs, and he grabbed the shotgun.”

The video shows Brennan stepping backward and sprinting. Mr. Zeigler points the shotgun, and there is a flash near the muzzle. He testified that he was trying to fire a warning shot, television station Fox 2 reported.

Attempts to reach Mr. Zeigler’s wife and Brennan and his family on Saturday were unsuccessful. In an interview with Fox 2, Brennan’s mother, Lisa Wright, said that she had previously taken his phone away as a punishment, which is why he couldn’t use it to get directions.

Ms. Wright said neighbors should be able to ask each other for directions without fear.

“I shouldn’t be fearful of a child, let alone a skin tone,” she said. “This is a decent neighborhood. If anything, why would I knock on your door to rob you? Why would I have a conversation with you to rob you? It’s ridiculous. Ignorance is everywhere.”

Mr. Morad said that Mr. Zeigler was in a deep sleep that morning. He said that after Brennan rang the doorbell, Mr. Zeigler’s wife answered the door. At some point during their conversation, Brennan moved toward the door and “seemed to jiggle the door handle,” Mr. Morad said.

Mr. Zeigler told Brennan to get off his property, and told his wife to call the police before going into a nearby room, grabbing the shotgun and returning, Mr. Morad said. That’s when Brennan fled.

Brennan ran into sheriff’s deputies who were responding to a call by Mr. Zeigler’s wife, and shared his story of what happened.

Mr. Morad said that between 2009 and 2017, there had been five break-in attempts at the Zeigler residence, which prompted the couple to buy the surveillance camera that captured the encounter with Brennan.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*