crime

Iran-Contra is not dead: Gary Webb's Dark Alliance on the big screen! Kill the Messenger tackles corporate media & CIA-aligned drug trafficking

"Even now, those who like to say Iran-Contra’s long over, are wrong.

There are still Congressional hearings about it today that we don’t hear much about because they’re behind closed doors, but there is still media interest in it.

There are many people within the government who can still be hurt, and they are in even higher positions than they were then. That’s why it remains sensitive.”Al Martin, The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider p282 (2002)

kill-the-messenger1400-1000x428.jpg

Nothing is ever really acknowledged in America until it gets the Hollywood treatment, wrapped by a screenplay and soundtrack into that big image-stream narrative America tells itself as it reproduces its existence every day. The difficult map of intelligence agencies and the war on drugs has mostly been skirted by Hollywood, but in an overdue turn of good fortune Gary Webb’s story finally gets pinned to the Big Board pretty well.

Journalist Gary Webb used the Internet to nearly bring the war on drugs to the brink of collapse by exposing intelligence connections to leading cocaine flows in the US during Iran-Contra. In the 1990s major media forces were faced with critical new voices undermining the credibility of America's post-EO12333 drug war system. Like many before and since, Webb got the corporate media banhammer, portrayed here in incisive and indicting detail (looking at you, Walter Pincus).

"For the better part of a decade, a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles and funneled millions in drug profits to an arm of the contra guerrillas of Nicaragua run by the Central Intelligence Agency, the San Jose Mercury News has found." Gary Webb circa 1996.

Leading the way with a star-studded cast in Focus Features’ Kill the Messenger, a decent set of films taking on Iran-Contra-related intelligence intrigue and the war on drugs is hitting the US this month, and a veritable wave of news stories exploring these old narratives are popping up nationwide!

I was very lucky to get into an advance screening & now trying to provide here more links for those both new and old to this sick twisted tale at the heart of the American Dream. Iran-Contra really fascinated me in 2007 & I got books, started putting videos together until l’Affair d’2008RNC pulled me away into more local concerns. "Iran-Contra Goggles” remain useful to decode the same basic corrupt systems we have today.

Kill the Messenger covers Webb’s tragic story, as he exposes the roles of CIA assets moving literally tons of cocaine into the US to create a covert money source for the Contras in Nicaragua. Freeway Ricky Ross, the key recipient of the cocaine, has a film coming out Oct 17th, Freeway: Crack in the System and Shadows of Liberty also features a Gary Webb-oriented segment, “Killing the Messenger".

dark-alliance-7anim.gifKill the Messenger encompasses Gary’s story, Dark Alliance, the first groundbreaking news story to really go viral over the Internet, providing readers around the world with primary source documents and more to explore. Animated gifs - a new technology at the time - showed cocaine pathways flowing into the US.

Iran-Contra aficionados and Gary’s family, who supported the film’s production, will feel a strong sense of vindication, although the latter third of the story quits expanding our view of this high-level drug underworld as the bottom of Gary’s life gradually falls out.

We get a sound foundation under the story, it seems they didn’t cut any especially bad corners that would undermine this critical shot at contextualizing Webb in American journalism.

This film doesn’t explain Southern Air Transport or Barry Seal, later extensions of similar work, or the similar sad fates of Danny Casolaro, Michael Ruppert and others.

darktop.gifAs is tradition, it’s already been belittled in the New York Times - by David Carr, who frames the notion of CIA drug trafficking networks as it "might ring some distant, skeptical bell” — ignoring his own paper’s recent reporting on Karzai’s brother’s CIA-backed cartel style operation etc.

Jeremy Renner played a laudable role getting this whole thing out the door: "It resonated with movies like 'All the President's Men' and 'The Parallax View.’”

The CIA leisure suits, aviator sunglasses and careful color palettes harken to these carefully styled 1970s paranoia thrillers, both directed by Alan J Pakula in the “Paranoia Trilogy”.

Andy Garcia as Norwin Meneses and Michael Kenneth Williams as Freeway Ricky Ross are excellent, while Oliver Platt as the rumpled, dubious editor, Michael Sheen as the bureaucrat, all of these are well-crafted roles if brief. West Wing's Richard Schiff as the Washington Post's coverup editor ringleader was just right.

Ray Liotta’s surprise covert ops "nighttime of the soul” scene is also pretty damn good.

////

This nice media wave is a good chance for everyone to learn more, and hear from the old journalists who also got the banhammer for daring to push the truth out there. Robert Parry has a new piece: The CIA/MSM Contra-Cocaine Cover-Up (Oct 3 2014).

photo-hall.jpg

I’ll suggest giving money to NarcoNews to help them keep rolling, if you can. Part of the backstory contextualized by NarcoNews: The Field: Hollywood’s Gary Webb Movie and the Message that Big Media Couldn’t Kill. NarcoNews is hosting the original Dark Alliance archive here. Sept 24th update with the family: Narco News: Gary Webb: Vindicated

The CIA has even released its creepy internal reaction piece for PR control via FOIA: http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0001372115.pdf - "Managing a Nightmare: CIA Public Affairs and the Drug Conspiracy Story,” and the Intercept IDed the CIA writer as Nicholas Dujmovic.

“It’s like we say “Iran-Contra”. "Iran-Contra" activity continues to go on today. In some cases, it’s the very same names and faces. In other cases, it’s a newer, younger generation of names and faces. But the narcotics, weapons and fraud aspects still continue to this day.” - Al Martin p330

////

More coverage and reviews: How Kill the Messenger Will Vindicate Investigative Journalist Gary Webb | The Informer | LA Weekly

Positive review in Variety: ‘Kill the Messenger’ Review: Jeremy Renner Plays Journalist Gary Webb | Varietybush-cocaine.jpg

Skeptical review: 'Kill the Messenger' Review: Jeremy Renner's Muckraking Feels Half-Baked in This Biopic - TheWrap (Sept 26th)

'Kill the Messenger': Film Review - The Hollywood Reporter

Esquire Sept 2013: The late Chuck Bowden’s The Pariah - Esquire. A must-read on this whole equation. (on Scribd)

Ex-L.A. Times Writer Apologizes for "Tawdry" Attacks | News | Los Angeles | Los Angeles News and Events | LA Weekly

Robert Parry 2013: Contra-Cocaine Was a Real Conspiracy | Consortiumnews discussing how he and Brian Barger started the Contra-cocaine scandal unravelling at the AP in 1985.

cia-cocaine-reagan-bush-clinton.jpg“Kill the Messenger”: The dark side of journalism - Opinion Shop Sept 19 2014

Jeremy Renner Wears a Wedding Ring -Showbiz411 discusses film

Out On The Weekend - Esquire - Sept 5, quick story referencing Gary

The film is also based on a book by Nick Schou of the same name. Interview here. Book: Kill the Messenger: How the CIA's Crack-Cocaine Controversy Destroyed Journalist Gary Webb: Nick Schou, Charles Bowden. Audiobook read by Bowden.

Nick Schou on the adaptation of 'Kill the Messenger' | Creative Loafing Atlanta

Kill The Messenger: the Gary Webb story has holes but Renner's performance still sticks – review | Film | theguardian.com (Sept 26th)

CinemaBlend positive review: Kill The Messenger Review - CINEMABLEND

Pretty good WSWS writeup on recent FOIA: CIA document details cover-up of drug trafficking by Contras - World Socialist Web Site

We lost Charles Bowden recently and he was a true friend of Gary Webb. Charles Bowden has died, but his voice is louder than ever | the narcosphere Sept 2 2014

Public radio interview

Rotten Tomatoes only has 6 reviews up. This is #7 - and the only one with Ollie DC-6 gif below!

10658685_540006192768011_8256912623796221139_o.jpg

////

Freeway Ricky Ross is making his move in all this, somehow having survived everything so far. Last summer: Freeway Rick Is Dreaming - Los Angeles Magazine (May 2013) An odd story by Jesse Katz who had a unique long term relationship with him as a journalist.

Trailer for Freeway: Crack in the System: Dropping Oct 18th:

////

Another film, Shadows of Liberty, (FB) released in 2012 & playing Midwest theaters lately, includes everything from a “Killing the Messenger” segment on Webb & Dark Alliance to a Iraq marketing section covering Iraq Intel war spoofing, Iraqi National Congress, Rendon Group psyops discussed by James Bamford. Both hit the New York Times pretty hard, as well they should, in propagandizing for Iraq & attacking Webb.

In a latter section Sibel Edmonds and Phil Giraldi look at covert agents among US nuclear secrets & Marc Grossman at the State Dept. Really a nicely rounded collection, even if I’m not a big fan of some of the film participants. Detailed notes here. New Zealand review here.

////

Other materials. From inside the CIA: Statement of the CIA IG Hitz in 1998: https://www.uspiked.com/assets/article-assets/Shadows of Liberty/Statement of CIA Inspector General to The House Committee On Intelligence - March 16, 1998 - Wikisource, the free online library.pdf (also here) STATEMENT BY FREDERICK P. HITZ, INSPECTOR GENERAL, CIA.. Volume 1: https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/cocaine/overview-of-report-of-investigation-2.html

Introduction: The Contra Story — Central Intelligence Agency

Namebase index from Hitz Report. Better know a player: CIA Report on Contras and Cocaine

Fusion: A drug cartel guide to laundering millions — Fusion (9/30/2014)

Freeway Ricky Ross as advocate for literacy: Former Drug Kingpin ‘Freeway’ Rick Ross Becomes Advocate for Literacy | Atlanta Daily World (9/26/2014)

/////

Supporting material: Panthers, Crips & Bloods: Bastards of the Party - Top Documentary Films (2005) a must see for the development of Los Angeles gang structure in the context of massive importation of drugs & sophisticated police & federal operations since the days of the Black Panthers.

Pissed off CIA honcho Duane Clarridge - “there’s never been a conspiracy in this country!” (great clip in two of these films)

EO12333: The Private Contractor angle: roughly speaking, once this executive order was created, devious operations could be wrapped in corporate fronts like “Southern Air Transport”, “Vortex”, “Evergreen International” and others even lesser known.

2.7 Contracting. Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to enter into contracts or arrangements for the provision of goods or services with private companies or institutions in the United States and need not reveal the sponsorship of such contracts or arrangements for authorized intelligence purposes. Contracts or arrangements with academic institutions may be undertaken only with the consent of appropriate officials of the institution.

Executive Order 12333 is back in the news: The Ghost of Ronald Reagan Authorizes Most NSA Spying - The Intercept

They also point to a gap in the public reaction to Ed Snowden’s revelations about those programs. Despite that fact that most of the NSA’s spying relies on Reagan’s directive, Executive Order 12333, the vast majority of reform efforts have concentrated on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and other legislative fixes. “Congress’s reform efforts have not addressed the executive order,” notes Alex Abdo of the ACLU, ”and the bulk of the government’s disclosures in response to the Snowden revelations have conspicuously ignored the NSA’s extensive mandate under EO 12333.”

The documents assert that mandate baldly. A legal factsheet from the NSA, dated June 2013, states that the FISA, which requires judicial oversight over spying on Americans, “only regulates a subset of the NSA’s signals intelligence activities. NSA conducts the majority of its SIGINT activities solely pursuant to the authority provided by Executive Order 12333.”

Often referred to as “twelve triple three” or EO 12333, the executive order came into being in 1981 under Reagan. Much of the post-Snowden debate, particularly with respect to the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records, has focused on the interlocking legal authorities of Section 215 of the Patriot Act and the 2008 FISA Amendments Act. But, the ACLU notes, “because the executive branch issued and now implements the executive order all on its own, the programs operating under the order are subject to essentially no oversight from Congress or the courts.” The documents describe procedures for safeguarding the rights of Americans whose information might be “incidentally” collected under 12333, but those procedures are overseen by the director of national intelligence or the attorney general.

gary-webb-cartoon.jpg

Classic item: The only memo that made it out of Ollie’s Shredding Party, the Annotated Oliver North memo: Oliver North – Release of American Hostages in Beirut ("Diversion Memo") | Genius

From the Wilderness, Michael Ruppert’s old website: C.I.A. IG Report - Vol II - Oliver North is Toast!

Basic writeup: (3/23/98) CIA Admits Knowledge of Contra Drug Trafficking

The CIA IG report Part II: Volume II: The Contra Story — Central Intelligence Agency

////

Who? Oliver Hardy? Andy Garcia’s great line in Kill the Messenger about how it was Ollie’s idea to run drugs & guns around is a nod to Oliver North’s wonderful note: The “Honduran DC-6 which is being used for runs out of New Orleans is probably being used for drug runs into U.S."

dc6notes.gif

A personal favorite :]

////

The 1996 Los Angeles CIA Town Hall meeting on drug trafficking was a critical moment. I would identify this meeting as the closest point to total collapse of the war on drugs edifice since Nixon, and it’s worth noting Deutch resigned shortly thereafter. This meeting cost the director of the CIA his job - and two years later they had to concede so much of Gary’s work was 100% accurate.

cia-drug-trafficking-townhall.png

////

Another regular day - Day 28 of Iran Contra hearings Part 1, July 14 1987: They get into the weird Continuity of Government stuff in the 3rd hour.

////

Gary Webb on Gary Webb - CIA Drug Smuggling [2004] - YouTube

////

Mr Blum - portrayed in similar hairstyle fashion in Kill the Messenger: CIA Allegations of Cocaine Trafficking Conspiracy - Crack Epidemic (1996) - YouTube. Good stuff around 47 minutes about the prosecution manipulations.

blum.png

////

Immortal Technique - Immortal Technique - Peruvian Cocaine feat Diabolic, Tonedeff, Poison Pen, Loucipher, C-Rayz Walz - YouTube. The Scarface-sampling hiphop opus magnum of this whole damn thing.

////

Classic: Gary Webb on C-SPAN 1996: How Crack Funded a CIA War: Gary Webb Interview on the Contras and Ronald Reagan (1996) - YouTube

////

OTHER LINKS:10561558_519106554857975_5309717516771745206_n.jpg August 2005: Judas Retires: Jerry Ceppos and the Burning Memory of Gary Webb: Judas Retires: Jerry Ceppos and the Burning Memory of Gary Webb | the narcosphere. Still around at the LSU Mass Comm school: LSU Manship School of Mass Communication

Meh 2005 piece from AJR on Webb: American Journalism Review

Timeline: Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs

Bill Conroy 2005: "He Drew Blood" » CounterPunch - includes Bowden discussion.

Esquire: Gary Webb's Glorious Comeback - Esquire June 2013

Esquire: Gary Webb And The Limits Of Vindication - Esquire June 2013

Semi-related: alt journalist Wayne Madsen on Franklin sex trafficking scandal which had Iran-contra financing connections. The “Conspiracy of Silence” is related but goes way, way beyond all this. Wayne also suspects a similar Iran-Contra-like complex role related to 9-11 and the Pinal Air Park intel aviation field in Arizona, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s how it turns out. (The late author Philip Marshall seemed to be on this tack as well before his weird death in early 2013.)

garywebb.jpg

////

MOAR BIBLIOGRAPHY:10606152_537701239665173_8067769002059518467_n.jpg Dark Alliance is now available in paperback and you should buy it at your local bookseller.

Powderburns by Cele Castillo covers much of the same arena. Here is his Webb web page.

The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia (1972) by Alfred McCoy is *critical* because it’s probably the first academic book that shows how heroin is used geopolitically by US covert forces to finance their allies through the power of chemical dependency combined with covert logistics and the monopoly granted by the force of the state. Everything subsequent follows this pattern. [PDF 1] [PDF 2]

Film: The House I Live In by Eugene Jarecki (2012) & How to Make Money Selling Drugs (2012) by Matthew Cooke.

Al Martin: The Conspirators: Secrets of An Iran-Contra Insider (2002). Horribly edited but you won’t find a better collection of names and front companies, code words and the true texture of Reagan era intel/fraud complexes. *Not* for beginners.

Life During Wartime: Resisting Counterinsurgency by AK Press. Kristian Williams (Editor); Lara Messersmith-Glavin (Editor); William Munger (Editor). Great guide to drug war militarization in its most sophisticated forms.

Barry & The Boys: The CIA, the Mob & America’s Secret History (2001, 2006) by Daniel Hopsicker. Covers Iran-Contra related nodes especially Florida and New Orleans aviation and shell activities, Barry Seal and a lot of hemispheric covert operations in a jaunty style. Mad Cow Morning News has been persisting in Iran-Contra style exposures for a long time in Florida .

End Times: The Death of the Fourth Estate (Counterpunch): Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair. Covers corporate media corruption with major case study of media hit on Webb,

Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies and the CIA and Central America by Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall. (1991)

The Iran Contra Connection: Secret Teams and Covert Operations in the Reagan Era by Jonathan Marshall, Peter Dale Scott and Jane Hunter (1987)

The Killing Game by Gary Webb (2011). There are plenty of other good books but this can get you started, anyway.

////

Kill the Messenger was also the title of a film about FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, produced in 2007. Watch it here, I thought it was quite good.

Also: Support NarcoNews! Narco News Needs Your Help at this Exciting Moment

A final note: Michael Kenneth Williams, who notably played gangsta-assassin Omar on the Wire, does a great job as Ricky Ross. He also plays an oddly related role in 2014’s “The Purge: Anarchy”, a pulpy dystopian fantasy about the government granting everyone the “right” to kill each other 12 hours a year. Williams’ character is the revolutionary who recognizes & resists how the elite surveil them and clink champagne glasses, as the lower classes kill each other mercilessly to maintain social stratification. I couldn’t think of a better parallel to the modern American war on drugs.

gary-webb-drive.png

Keep riding with those Aviators, Gary.
RIP Truth Tellers.

Terrible Trans Pacific Partnership intellectual property proposed scheme leaks out yay

UPDATE: Join us Dec 11th 6PM for Trans-Pacific Partnership organizing with Occupy Minneapolis - https://www.facebook.com/events/591468507567584/

Finally got some clue into WTF is going on. They have been trying to keep this secret as hell because a planet of 6+ billion people might rebel at another horrible technocratic scheme to control everyone's brains :(

VIA https://wikileaks.org/tpp/ - way to go wikileaks.

Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)

Today, 13 November 2013, WikiLeaks released the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter. The TPP is the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing nations representing more than 40 per cent of the world’s GDP. The WikiLeaks release of the text comes ahead of the decisive TPP Chief Negotiators summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 19-24 November 2013. The chapter published by WikiLeaks is perhaps the most controversial chapter of the TPP due to its wide-ranging effects on medicines, publishers, internet services, civil liberties and biological patents. Significantly, the released text includes the negotiation positions and disagreements between all 12 prospective member states.

The TPP is the forerunner to the equally secret US-EU pact TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), for which President Obama initiated US-EU negotiations in January 2013. Together, the TPP and TTIP will cover more than 60 per cent of global GDP. Read full press release here



Download the full secret TPP treaty IP chapter as a PDF here

WikiLeaks Release of Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)

Advanced Intellectual Property Chapter for All 12 Nations with Negotiating Positions (August 30 2013 consolidated bracketed negotiating text)




This Document Contains TPP CONFIDENTIAL Information

TPP Negotiations, R18

MODIFIED HANDLING AUTHORIZED

IP Group

Intellectual Property [Rights] Chapter

30 August
2013

COVER PAGE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY [RIGHTS] CHAPTER

CONSOLIDATED TEXT


CHAPTER QQ1

{INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS / INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY}

{GENERAL PROVISIONS}

{Section A: General Provisions}

Article QQ.A.1: {Definitions}

For the purposes of this Chapter:

Intellectual property2 refers to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject of Sections 1 through 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement [3].

Article QQ.A.2: {Objectives}4

[NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/MY/SG/CA5/MX6 propose; US/JP oppose: The objectives of this Chapter are:

  1. Enhance the role of intellectual property in promoting economic and social development, particularly in relation to the new digital economy, technological innovation, the [PE: generation,] transfer and dissemination of technology and trade;

  2. reduce impediments to trade and investment by promoting deeper economic integration through effective and adequate creation, utilization, protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, taking into account the different levels of economic development and capacity as well as differences in national legal systems;

  3. maintain a balance between the rights of intellectual property holders and the legitimate interests of users and the community in subject matter protected by intellectual property.

  4. protect the ability of Parties to identify, promote access to and preserve the public domain;

  5. Ensure that measures and procedures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade;

  6. Promote operational efficiency of intellectual property systems, in particular through quality examination procedures during the granting of intellectual property rights.]

    [NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose. g. The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.

  1. Support each Party's right to protect public health, including by facilitating timely access to affordable medicines.]

[Article QQ.A.2bis: {Principles}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose : 1. Each Party may, in formulating or amending its laws and regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to its socio-economic and technological development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter.

2. Each Party may adopt or maintain appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this Chapter, to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology.

3. Each Party may adopt or maintain, consistently with the other provisions of this Chapter, appropriate measures to prevent or control practices or conditions that may in particular cases constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights having an adverse effect on competition in the relevant market.]]

Article QQ.A.3: {General Provisions}

Each Party shall give effect to the provisions of this Chapter. A Party may, but shall not be obliged to, provide more extensive protection for, and enforcement of, intellectual property rights under its law than is required by this Chapter, provided that such protection and enforcement does not contravene the provisions of this Chapter. Each Party shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Chapter within its own legal system and practice.

Article QQ.A.4: {Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health}

The Parties affirm their commitment to the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2).

Article QQ.A.5: {Understandings Regarding Certain Public Health Measures7}

The Parties have reached the following understandings regarding this Chapter:

(a) The obligations of this Chapter do not and should not prevent a Party from taking measures to protect public health by promoting access to medicines for all, in particular concerning cases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, [US oppose: chagas] and other epidemics as well as circumstances of extreme urgency or national emergency. Accordingly, while reiterating their commitment to this Chapter, the Parties affirm that this Chapter can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of each Party's right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.8

(b) In recognition of the commitment to access to medicines that are supplied in accordance with the Decision of the General Council of 30 August 2003 on the Implementation of Paragraph Six of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/L/540) and the WTO General Council Chairman's statement accompanying the Decision (JOB(03)/177, WT/GC/M/82) [SG/BN/VN/PE/CL/CA/MY/NZ/US/AU9/MX/JP: , as well as the Decision on the Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement, adopted by the General Council, 6 December 2005 US/MY propose: and the WTO General Council Chairperson's statement accompanying the Decision (WT/GC/M/100)] (collectively, the "TRIPS/health solution"), this Chapter does not and should not prevent the effective utilization of the TRIPS/health solution.

(c) With respect to the aforementioned matters, if [US oppose: any waiver of any provision of the TRIPS Agreement, or any] [US propose: an] amendment of the TRIPS Agreement, enters into force with respect to the Parties, and a Party's application of a measure in conformity with that [US oppose: waiver or] amendment [US oppose: is contrary to the obligations of] [US propose: violates] this Chapter, the Parties shall immediately consult in order to adapt this Chapter as appropriate in the light of the [US oppose: waiver or] amendment.

Article QQ.A.6: {Existing Rights and Obligations / International Agreements}

1. [US: Further to Article -AA.2,] the Parties affirm their existing rights and obligations with respect to each other under the TRIPS Agreement [CL/PE: and any other multilateral agreements relating to intellectual property to which they are party] [MX propose: The TRIPS Agreement is incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.][CA Propose: 1. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as a limitation to the flexibilities, exceptions and limitations set out on the TRIPS Agreement and any other multilateral agreement relating to intellectual property to which they are party.]

[CL/NZ propose; US/AU/JP/MX oppose: 2. Nothing in this Chapter shall derogate from existing rights and obligations that Parties have to each other under the TRIPS Agreement or other multilateral agreements, such as those concluded or administered under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).]10

[CA propose; MX/US oppose: 2. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the Parties shall interpret this Chapter in such a way as to be [complementary to / compatible with] their rights and obligations under multilateral treaties concluded or administered under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to which they are party, especially with regards to measures aimed at protecting public health and protecting equal access to knowledge and food.]

[CL/NZ/VN/BN/MY/PE:11 3. [Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter,] Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as a limitation to the flexibilities, exceptions and limitations set out on the TRIPS Agreement and any other multilateral agreement relating to intellectual property to which they are party, especially with regards to measures aimed at protecting equal access to knowledge, food and public health.]]

[US/AU propose; CL/NZ/MY/PE/BN/VN/CA/JP/MX12 oppose:13 4. Each Party shall ratify or accede to the following agreements by the date of entry into force of this Agreement:

  1. Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970), as amended in 1979;

  2. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1967);

  3. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1971);

  4. Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (1974);

  5. Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (1989);

  6. Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure(1977), as amended in 1980;

  7. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants [MX propose: (1961) as revised in 1972, 1978 or] (1991) (UPOV Convention);

  8. Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (2006);

  9. WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996); and

  10. WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (1996).]

[US/AU/NZ/PE/CA/JP/SG/MX14 propose : 5. Each Party shall notify the WTO of its acceptance of the Protocol amending the TRIPS Agreement done at Geneva on December 6, 2005.]

[US/SG propose; CL/MY/NZ/PE//VN/BN/CA/JP/MX 15 oppose: 6. Each Party shall make all reasonable efforts to ratify or accede to the following agreements by the date of entry into force of the Agreement:

[SG oppose: (a) Patent Law Treaty (2000); and]

(b) Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (1999).]

Article QQ.A.7: {National Treatment}

116. In respect of all categories of intellectual property covered in this Chapter, each Party shall accord to nationals [17] of the other Party treatment no less favorable than it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection [18] [NZ/BN/MY/CA/JP/SG/VN oppose: and enjoyment of such intellectual property rights, and any benefits derived from such rights.][NZ/VN/BN/MY/CL/PE/JP/SG19propose20; US/AU21 oppose: of intellectual property, subject to the exceptions provided in the TRIPS Agreement and in those multilateral agreements concluded under the auspices of WIPO.] [CL/AU/NZ/BN/PE22 propose: With respect to secondary uses of phonograms by means of analog communications and free over-the-air radio broadcasting, however, a Party may limit the rights of the performers and producers of the other Party to the rights its persons are accorded within the jurisdiction of the other Party.]23

[VN: Articles 3 and 5 of the TRIPS shall apply with necessary modifications to the protection of intellectual property in this Chapter.]

  1. A Party may derogate from paragraph 1 [national treatment] in relation to its judicial and administrative procedures, including requiring a national of the other Party to designate an address for service of process in its territory, or to appoint an agent in its territory, provided that such derogation is:

  1. necessary to secure compliance with laws and regulations that are not inconsistent with this Chapter; and

  2. not applied in a manner that would constitute a disguised restriction on trade.

[CL:3 Paragraphs 1 and 2 do] [US: Paragraph [X national treatment/judicial and administrative procedures] does] not apply to procedures in multilateral agreements concluded under the auspices of WIPO relating to the acquisition or maintenance of intellectual property rights.

Article QQ.A.8: {Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment}

[PE/CL: With regards to the protection and defence of intellectual property referred to in this chapter, any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by a Party to the nationals of any other country will be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the nationals of the other Parties. The exceptions to this obligation shall be in conformity with the pertinent dispositions referred to in articles 4 and 5 of the TRIPS Agreement.]

[VN: Articles 4 and 5 of the TRIPS shall apply with necessary modifications to the protection of intellectual property in this Chapter.]

Article QQ.A.9: {Implementation of this Chapter}

[CL/NZ/VN/AU/BN/SG/PE/MY/MX/CA24 propose; US/JP oppose: 1. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent a Party from adopting appropriate measures to prevent: (a) the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices that unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology; and (b) anticompetitive practices that may result from the abuse of intellectual property rights;, provided that such measures are consistent with this Agreement. [PE propose; CL/AU oppose: Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to reduce the protection that the Parties agree on or have agreed on in benefit of the conservation or sustainable use of biodiversity.]]

Article QQ.A.10: {Transparency}

[NZ/AU25/US/SG26/MY/PE/VN/JP/MX propose: 1. [US: Further to Article ___ (Publication), and with the object of making the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights transparent,] Each Party shall ensure that its laws, regulations and procedures [VN: or administrative rulings of general application] concerning the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights [US: are in writing and are] [US oppose: shall be] published[27], or where such publication is not [US/PE oppose: practical] [US/PE: practicable], are made publicly available [US/AU/NZ: in a national language in such a manner as to enable [AU oppose: governments and right holders] [AU: interested persons and Parties] to become acquainted with them.] [US/AU/NZ oppose: in at least the national language of that Party or in the English language.]]28

[NZ/AU/SG/MY/CA29/MX/CL propose; VN/PE oppose: 2. Each Party shall endeavour to make available on the Internet [AU/NZ:

  1. its laws, regulations, procedures, and administrative rulings of general application concerning the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights; and]

  2. [JP oppose: those details of patent, trademark, design, plant variety protection and geographical indication applications that are open to public inspection under national law.]]

[US/MX propose; BN oppose: 430. Nothing in this Chapter shall require a Party to disclose confidential information the disclosure of which would impede law enforcement or otherwise be contrary to the public interest [PE oppose: or would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular enterprises, public or private].]31

Article QQ.A.11: {Application of Agreement to Existing Subject Matter and Prior Acts}

[US propose: 1. Except as it otherwise provides, including in Article QQ.G.8__ (Berne 18/TRIPS 14.6), this Chapter gives rise to obligations in respect of all subject matter existing at the date of entry into force of this Agreement that is protected on that date in the territory of the Party where protection is claimed, or that meets or comes subsequently to meet the criteria for protection under this Chapter.32]

2. 33 [CL/NZ/PE/MY/BN/VN/CA/MX oppose: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, including Article QQ.G.8____ (Berne 18/TRIPS 14.6),] a Party shall not be required to restore protection to subject matter that on the date of entry into force of this Agreement has fallen into the public domain in its territory.

3. This Chapter does not give rise to obligations in respect of acts that occurred before the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

Article QQ.A.12: {International Exhaustion of Rights}

[CL/MY/NZ/VN/SG/BN/PE propose; US/AU/JP/MX oppose: The Parties are encouraged to establish international exhaustion of rights.]

Article QQ.A.13 {Public Domain}

[CL/VN/PE propose: Each Party shall endeavour to provide relevant information to disseminate public domain, including appropriate tools that help to identify the [CL: extension] [VN: expiration] of the terms of protection of intellectual property rights.]

[CL/VN propose: 1. The Parties recognize the importance of a rich and accessible public domain for their societies and the need that public domain material shall be free for its use by all persons.

2. For purposes of paragraph 1, each Party shall endeavor to:

  1. identify subject matter that has fallen into the public domain within their respective jurisdictions;

  2. promote access to the public domain; and

  3. preserve the public domain.

3. Actions to achieve the purposes referred to in paragraph 2, may include the development of publicly accessible data bases of registered rights, guidelines and other tools to enhance access to material in the public domain.

4. Each Party shall make its best efforts to promote cooperation among the Parties to identify and facilitate access to subject matter that has fallen into the public domain and share updated information related to right holders and terms of protection.]

[CL/VN Alternative Proposal:

1. The Parties recognize the importance of a rich and accessible public domain for their societies and the need that public domain material shall be free for its use by all persons.

2. For this purpose, Parties may include the development of publicly accessible data bases of registered rights, guidelines and other tools to enhance access to material in the public domain.

3. Each Party shall make its best efforts to promote cooperation among the Parties to identify and faciliate access to subject matter that has fallen into the public domain and share updated information related to right holders and terms of protection.]

COOPERATION

Note: We have not introduced braces into this section because party attributions are not clear based on the text.

Section B: Cooperation

Article QQ.B.1: {Contact Points}

Each Party shall designate at least one contact point for the purpose of cooperation under this section.

Article QQ.B.2: [NZ/CL/SG/VN/MY/BN/MX propose: Cooperation in the implementation of international agreements

[NZ/CL/SG/BN/AU/MY/PE/VN/MX propose: 1. [AU/US oppose: Where a Party is a member of any of the following agreements, that Party shall, where appropriate and upon request by another Party, support that Party in implementing any of the following agreements] [AU/CA/JP/SG: A Party may seek to cooperate with other Parties to support its accession to, and implementation of, the agreements X-X ]:

(a) Patent Cooperation Treaty;

[PE/CA oppose: (b) Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks;

(c) Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks;] and

(d) Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks.]

[JP/SG/PE propose: (e) International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (1991) (UPOV Convention)]

[AU: 2. Each Party shall endeavor to provide such cooperation as appropriate and upon request.]

Article QQ.B.3 {Cooperation Activities}

[AU/CL/NZ/PE/SG/BN/MX/VN/MY/US/CA propose: The Parties shall endeavour to cooperate on the subject matter covered by this Chapter through appropriate cooordination, training and exchange of information between the intellectual property offices, [or other relevant institutions]34, of the Parties. Cooperation may cover such areas as:

  1. developments in domestic and international intellectual property policy

  2. intellectual property administration and registration systems

  1. education and awareness relating to intellectual property

  2. intellectual property issues relevant to:

    1. small and medium-sized enterprises

    2. science, technology & innovation activities[PE propose: , which may include generation, transfer and dissemination of technology.]

  3. policies involving the use of intellectual property for research, innovation and economic growth

  4. such other areas as may be agreed among [AU/NZ oppose: the] Parties.]

Article QQ.B.4: {Patent Cooperation}

[[AU/CL/MY/NZ/SG/PE/VN/CA/MX/BN/JP propose: In order to improve quality and efficiency in the Parties' patent systems,] The Parties shall endeavour to [US/SG propose: cooperate] [US oppose: establish a framework for cooperation] among their respective patent offices to facilitate the [AU/CL/MY/NZ/SG/PE/VN/CA/MX/BN/JP oppose: exploitation] [AU/CL/MY/NZ/SG/PE/VN/CA/MX/BN/JP propose: sharing and use] of search and examination work of other Parties. This may include:

  1. making search and examination results available to the patent offices of other Parties, and

  2. exchanges of information on quality assurance systems and quality standards relating to patent searching and examination;

[JP propose; CL/PE oppose: (c) implementing and promoting the Patent Prosecution Highway;]

[CL/AU/MY/NZ/SG/PE/VN/CA/MX/BN oppose: which may, among other things, facilitate work sharing.]35]36

[JP proposal: 2. In the course of the cooperation referred to Paragraph 1, the Parties are encouraged not to require the applicants to submit search and examination results, including cited documents, made available by the patent offices of other Parties, with a view to reducing the procedural costs of the applicants.]

Article QQ.B.5:

Cooperation activities and initiatives undertaken under this Chapter shall be subject to the availability of resources, and on request and on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between the Parties involved.[VN propose: , including the technical assistance for developing countries.]

{TRADEMARKS}

{Section C: Trademarks}

Article QQ.C.1: {Types of Signs Registrable as Trademarks}

[NZ/US/AU/CL/PE/SG/CA/JP/MY37 propose: 1. [VN/BN/MX oppose: No] Party may require, as a condition of registration, that a sign be visually perceptible, [VN/BN/MX oppose: nor may a Party] [VN/BN/MX propose: and] deny registration of a trademark solely on the ground that the sign of which it is composed is a sound [CL/CA/JP/MY oppose: or a scent] [CL/CA/MX/MY propose: Each Party may provide trademark protection for scents].] A Party may require a concise and accurate description, or graphical representation, or both, as applicable, of the trademark.

Article QQ.C.2: {Collective and Certification Marks}

1. Each Party shall provide that trademarks shall include collective marks and certification marks. A Party is not obligated to treat certification marks as a separate category in its domestic law, provided that such marks are protected.

Each Party [JP/MX propose: may][ JP oppose: shall] also provide that signs that may serve as geographical indications are eligible for protection under its trademark system [38]39[PE/NZ/MX/CL/BN/AU/US/JP/SG oppose; VN propose40: A Party may provide that Signs descriptive of geographical origin of goods or services, including geographical indication as defined in Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement, may not be protected as trademarks other than collective and certification marks, unless they have acquired distinctiveness through use.]

[US/PE/MX41/SG propose; AU/NZ/ VN/BN/MY/CL/CA oppose: 2. Pursuant to Article 20 of the TRIPS Agreement, each Party shall ensure that its measures mandating the use of the term customary in common language as the common name for a good or service ("common name") including, inter alia, requirements concerning the relative size, placement or style of use of the trademark in relation to the common name, do not impair the use or effectiveness of trademarks used in relation to such good or service. [42]]43[44]

Article QQ.C.3: {Use of Identical or Similar Signs}

Each Party shall provide that the owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent third parties not having the owner's consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs, [PE/MY/VN/CA/MX oppose45: including subsequent geographical indications,] for goods or services that are related to those goods or services in respect of which the owner's trademark is registered, where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion.

In the case of the use of an identical sign, [PE/MY/SG/CL/CA/MX/VN oppose46: including a geographical indication,] for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed.

Article QQ.C.4:

Each Party may provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a trademark, such as fair use of descriptive terms, provided that such exceptions take account of the legitimate interest of the owner of the trademark and of third parties.

[VN propose; AU/US/NZ/SG/MY/CL/PE/CA/JP/BN oppose: The owner of a registered trademark shall not have the right to prevent third parties from using geographical indications or other signs descriptive of goods and services even though they are identical or similar to the trademark unless such use would result in confusion.]47

Article QQ.C.5: {Well Known Trademarks}

1. No Party may require as a condition for determining that a trademark is well-known that the trademark has been registered in the Party or in another jurisdiction, included on a list of well-known trademarks, or given prior recognition as a well-known trademark.

2. Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1967) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to goods or services that are not identical or similar to those identified by a well-known trademark,[48] [BN oppose: whether registered or not49,] provided that use of that trademark in relation to those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the owner of the trademark, and provided that the interests of the owner of the trademark are likely to be damaged by such use.

3. Each Party recognizes the importance of the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks (1999) as adopted by the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of WIPO.

[US/BN/CL/PE/MX/CA/JP/NZ/SG/VN propose; AU/MY oppose: 450. Each Party shall [PE/BN/MX/CA51 propose: according to domestic laws] provide for appropriate measures to refuse or cancel the registration and prohibit the use of a trademark that is identical or similar to a well-known trademark, [SG/VN propose: as being already well-known before the registration or use of the first-mentioned trademark,] for related goods or services, if the use of that trademark is likely to cause confusion [CA/SG/VN oppose:52 or to deceive or risk associating the trademark with the owner of the well-known trademark, or constitutes unfair exploitation of the reputation of the well-known trademark.]]

Article QQ.C.6: {Examination, Opposition and Cancellation / Procedural Aspects}

Each Party shall provide a system for the examination and registration of trademarks which shall include, inter alia:

  1. providing to the applicant a communication in writing, which may be electronic, of the reasons for any refusal to register a trademark;

  2. providing the opportunity for the applicant to respond to communications from the competent authorities, to contest an initial refusal, and to appeal judicially any final refusal to register a trademark;

  3. providing an opportunity to oppose the registration of a trademark or to seek cancellation53 of a trademark; and

  1. requiring that administrative decisions in oppositions and cancellation proceedings be reasoned and in writing. Written decisions may be provided electronically.

Article QQ.C.7: {Electronic Trademarks System}

Each Party shall provide:

  1. a system for the electronic application for, and maintenance of, trademarks; and

  2. a publicly available electronic information system, including an online database, of trademark applications and of registered trademarks.

Article QQ.C.8: {Classification of Goods and Services}

Each Party shall adopt or maintain a trademark classification system that is consistent with the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification) of [June 15, 1957], as revised and amended. Each Party shall provide that:

[CA oppose: (a) registrations and the publications of applications indicate the goods and services by their names, grouped according to the classes established by the Nice Classification 54; and]

  1. goods or services may not be considered as being similar to each other on the ground that, in any registration or publication, they are classfied in the same class of the Nice Classification. Conversely, each Party shall provide that goods or services may not be considered as being dissimilar from each other on the ground that, in any registration or publication, they are classified in different classes of the Nice Classification.

Article QQ.C.9: {Term of Protection for Trademarks}

Each Party shall provide that initial registration and each renewal of registration of a trademark shall be for a term of no less than 10 years.

Article QQ.C.1055:

No Party may require recordal of trademark licenses:

a. to establish the validity of the license;

[US/CA/NZ/SG/JP/AU propose; VN/MX/BN/PE/CL/MY oppose: b. as a condition for the right of a licensee to join infringement proceedings initiated by the holder, or to obtain by way of such proceedings damages resulting from an infringement of the trademark which is subject to the license; or

c. as a condition for use of a trademark by a licensee, to be deemed to constitute use by the holder in proceedings relating to the acquisition, maintenance and enforcement of trademarks.]

Article QQ.C.11: {International Exhaustion of Rights}

[CL/NZ/SG/VN/PE/MY/BN/AU/CA/MX propose; US/JP oppose: The Parties are encouraged to establish international exhaustion of trademark rights. For this purpose, the registration of a trademark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in any country under that trademark by the proprietor or with his consent.]

Article QQ.C.12: {Domain Names on the Internet}

1.56 In order to address the problem of trademark [VN/MX propose: geographical indication and trade name] cyber-piracy, each Party shall adopt or maintain a system for the management of its country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) that provides:

(a) an appropriate procedure for the settlement of disputes, based on, or modelled along the same lines as, the principles established in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, or that is: (i) designed to resolve disputes expeditiously and at low cost, (ii) fair and equitable, (iii) not overly burdensome, and (iv) does not preclude resort to court litigation;

(b) online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants57;

in accordance with each Party's laws regarding protection of privacy58 and personal data. 59

2. [PE/SG/CL/AU/NZ/MY/BN/CA oppose; US/VN/JP/MX propose: Each party shall provide [VN: oppose adequate and effective] [VN propose: appropriate] remedies against the registration trafficking60, or use in any ccTLD, with a bad faith intent to profit, of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark [VN/MX propose: , geographical indication or trade name].]

{GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS}

{Section D: Geographical Indications}

Article QQ.D.1: {Recognition of Geographical Indications}

The Parties recognize that [US propose; CL/PE/CA/MX/SG/MY/BN/VN/JP oppose: , subject to Article QQ.C.2(1),61 (Gls eligible for protection as trademarks)] geographical indications may be protected through a trademark or sui generis system or other legal means.

Article QQ.D.2:

Where a Party provides administrative procedures for the protection or recognition of geographical indications, through a system of trademarks or a sui generis system, the Party shall with respect to applications for such protection or petitions for such recognition:

  1. accept those applications or petitions without requiring intercession by a Party on behalf of its nationals62;

  2. process those applications or petitions without imposition of overly burdensome formalities;

  3. ensure that its regulations governing the filing of those applications or petitions are readily available to the public and clearly set out the procedures for these actions;

  4. make available information sufficient to allow the general public to obtain guidance concerning the procedures for filing applications or petitions and the processing of those applications or petitions in general; and allow applicants, petitioners, or their representatives to ascertain the status of specific applications and petitions;

  5. ensure that those applications or petitions are published for opposition and provide procedures for opposing geographical indications that are the subject of applications or petitions; and

  6. provide for cancellation, annulment, or revocation of the protection or recognition afforded to a geographical indication63

Article QQ.D.3:

Each Party shall, whether protection or recognition is provided to a geographical indication through [SG/CA/MY oppose: its domestic measures] [SG/CA/MY propose: the system referred to in article QQ.D.2] [CL/PE/MY/SG/VN/BN/CA/MX oppose64: or pursuant to an agreement with another government or government entity], provide a process that allows interested persons to object to the protection or recognition of a geographical indication, [CA oppose: and for protection or recognition to be65 refused annulled66 or, [AU propose: where appropriate,] cancelled] [MY/VN/SG/MX oppose67: , at least on the following grounds:

  1. the geographical indication is likely to cause confusion with a trademark or geographical indication that is the subject of a pre-existing good faith pending application or registration in the territory of such Party[68];

  2. [BN oppose: the geographical indication is likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or geographical indication, the rights to which have been acquired in accordance with the Party's law[69];] and

  3. the geographical indication is a term customary in common language as the common name for such goods or services in that Party's territory.]]

Article QQ.D.4:

[US propose;70 CL/PE/NZ/AU/SG/MY/MX/CA/BN/VN oppose: No Party shall, whether pursuant to an agreement with a government or a governmental entity or otherwise:

(a) in the case of geographical indications for goods other than wines or spirits, prohibit third parties from using or registering translated versions of the geographical indication;[71] or

(b) prohibit third parties from using a term that is evoked by the geographical indication.]

Article QQ.D.5:

[NZ/AU/BN/US propose;72 VN/PE/SG/CL/MY/CA/MX oppose: A Party may provide the means to protect a geographical indication against use in translation by third parties only if such use would, with respect to a geographical indication for goods other than wines and spirits:

(a) give rise to a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark or geographical indication in the territory of that Party;

(b) mislead the public as to the geographical origin of the good; or

(c) constitute an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967).

Article QQ.D.6:

[US/NZ/AU/CL/SG propose;73 MX/VN/PE/MY oppose: If a Party grants protection or recognition to a geographical indication through the systems described in Article QQ.D.2 or through an agreement with another government or government entity, such protection or recognition shall commence no earlier than [CL oppose: (i) the filing date in the Party[74],] (ii) the date on which such agreement enters into force, or (iii) if a Party implements such protection or recognition on a date after entry into force of the agreement, on that later date75.]

Article QQ.D.7:

[NZ/AU/US propose;76 PE/CL/VN/SG/MY/BN/CA/MX oppose: No Party shall preclude the possibility that a term that it recognized as a trademark or geographical indication may become a term customary in the common language as the common name for the associated goods or services.]

Article QQ.D.8:

[CL/PE/AU/US/NZ/MX/CA/VN/JP propose 77 ; BN oppose: In determining whether a term is the term customary in the common language as the common name for the relevant goods or services in a Party's territory, a Party's authorities shall have the authority to take into account how consumers understand the term in that Party's territory. Factors relevant to such consumer understanding may include [SG/CL/PE/MX/VN propose: if appropriate]:

  1. whether the term is used to refer to the type of product in question, as indicated by competent sources such as dictionaries, newspapers, and relevant websites;

  2. how the product referenced by the term is marketed and used in trade in the territory of that Party; and

  3. [CL/PE/MX/CA oppose78: whether the term is used in relevant international standards to refer to a class or type of product].]

Article QQ.D.9:

[NZ/AU/US/VN/BN/CL propose79; PE/MY/MX oppose: An individual component of a multi-component term that is protected as a geographical indication in a Party shall remain available for the public to use in that Party if the individual component is a term customary in the common language as the common name for the associated goods.]

[SG propose80: For greater certainty, nothing in this section shall require a Party to apply its provisions in respect of any individual component contained in a GI for which that individual component is identical with the term customary in common language as the common name of such goods in the territory of that Party.]

Article QQ.D.10:

[US propose;81 AU/CL/SG/PE/MY/NZ/BN/VN/MX/CA oppose: The existence of a geographical indication shall not be a ground upon which a Party may:

  1. refuse a trademark owner's otherwise permissible request to renew the registration of its trademark; or

  2. refuse a trademark owner's request to register an otherwise permissible modification of its registered trademark.]

Article QQ.D.11: [CL/SG/BN/VN/MX propose82; AU/PE/US/NZ/CA/JP oppose: List of Geographical Indications

The terms listed in Annex […] are recognized as geographical indications of the respective Party, within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement. Subject to domestic laws [83], in a manner that is consistent with the TRIPS Agreement, such terms will be protected as geographical indications in the territories of the other Parties.]

Article QQ.D.12: {Homonymous Geographical Indications}

[NZ/CL/VN/MY/BN/SG/MX propose84; PE/US/AU oppose: 1. Each Party may provide protection to homonymous geographical indications. Where a Party provides protection to homonymous geographical indications, that Party may, where necessary, lay down the practical conditions of use to make a distinction between the homonymous geographical indications, taking into account the need to ensure equitable treatment of the producers concerned and that consumers are not misled.]

[CL propose; AU/US/PE/NZ/VN/SG/MY/BN/MX/CA/JP oppose: 2. The Parties recognize the geographical indication Pisco for the exclusive use for products from Chile and Peru.]

[CL/SG/BN/MX propose; AU/PE/US/NZ/CA/JP oppose: Annex […] Lists of Geographical Indications]

Article QQ.D.13: {Country Names}

[CL/AU/NZ/SG/BN/VN/MY/PE/CA/MX/JP propose85 : The Parties shall provide the legal means for interested parties to prevent commercial use of country names of the Parties in relation to goods in a manner which misleads consumers as to the origin of such goods.]

Article QQ.D.14:

[US propose86; CL/PE/VN/MY/CA oppose: Each Party shall permit the use, and as appropriate, allow the registration, of signs orindications that identify goods other than wines or spirits, and that reference a geographical area that is not the place of origin of the goods, unless such use is misleading, would constitute an act of unfair competition, or would cause a likelihood of confusion with a prior trademark or geographical indication that identifies the same or similar goods. The foregoing shall not be understood to prevent a Party from denying registration of such a sign or indication on other grounds, provided such denial does not derogate from the provisions of the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement.]

{PATENTS/ UNDISCLOSED TEST OR OTHER DATA/ TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE}

{Section E: Patents / Undisclosed Test or Other Data / Traditional Knowledge}

Article QQ.E.1: {Patents / Patentable Subject matter}

1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 and 3, each Party shall make patents available for any invention, whether a product or process, in all fields of technology, provided that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application. 87 [US/AU propose; 88 CL/MY/PE/SG/VN/BN/NZ/CA/MX oppose: The Parties confirm that:

  1. patents shall be available for any new uses or methods of using a known product],

[US/JP propose; CL/MY/PE/SG/VN/BN/AU/NZ/CA/MX oppose: (b) a Party may not deny a patent solely on the basis that the product did not result in enhanced efficacy of the known product when the applicant has set forth distinguishing features establishing that the invention is new, involves an inventive step, and is capable of industrial application.]

2. Each Party may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by their law.

3. [US: Consistent with paragraph 1] each Party [US propose; AU/NZ/VN/BN/CL/PE/MY/SG/CA/MX oppose: shall make patents available for inventions for the following] [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: may also exclude from patentability]:

(a) plants and animals, [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: other than microorganisms];

[JP oppose: (b)diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals [US propose; AU/SG/MY/NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/CA/MX oppose: if they cover a method of using a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter]; [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose:] and

(c) essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals, other than non-biological and microbiological processes for such production.]

[MX propose: (d) and the diagrams, plans, rules and methods for carrying out mental processes, playing games or doing business, and mathematical methods as such; software as such; methods to present information as such; and aesthetic creations and artistic or literary works.]

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: ALT 3. Each Party may also exclude from patentability:

  1. diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals; and

  2. plants and animals other than microorganisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, Parties shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof.]

Article QQ.E.2: {Patentable Subject Matter}

Each Party shall89 disregard at least information contained in public disclosures used to determine if an invention is novel or has an inventive step if the public disclosure[90 [91]92:

  1. was made by the patent applicant or by a person who obtained the information directly or indirectly from the patent applicant,

and

  1. occurred within 12 months prior to the date of filing of the application in the territory of the Party.

Article QQ.E.3:

[US: Without prejudice to Article 5A(3) of the Paris Convention,] Each Party shall provide that a patent may be cancelled, revoked or nullified only on grounds that would have justified a refusal to grant the patent. A Party may also provide that fraud, misrepresentation, or inequitable conduct may be the basis for cancelling, revoking, or nullifying a patent or holding a patent unenforceable. [AU/CL/MY/NZ/BN/CA/MX/VN propose93; US/JP oppose: A Party may also provide that a patent may be cancelled, revoked or nullified on the basis that the patent is used in a manner determined to be anti-competitive in a judicial [VZ/CA/MX propose: or administrative] proceeding] [AU/CL/CA/MX propose: US oppose; consistent with Article 5A(3) of the Paris Convention.]

Article QQ.E.4: 94

Article QQ.E.4: {Opposition to Grant of Patent}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: Each Party shall provide a procedure for third persons to oppose the grant of a patent, either before or after the grant of a patent, or both.]

Article QQ.E.5: {Exceptions}

Each Party may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking into account the legitimate interests of third parties.

Article QQ.E.5bis: {Regulatory Review Exception}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: Consistent with [Article QQ.E.5 (Exceptions)], each Party may provide that a third person may do an act that would otherwise infringe a patent if the act is done for purposes connected with the collection and submission of data in order to comply with the regulatory requirements of that Party or another country, including for purposes connected with marketing or sanitary approval.]

Article QQ.E.5ter: {Experimental Use of a Patent}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: 1. Consistent with [Article QQ.E.5 (Exceptions)], each Party may provide that a third person may do an act that would otherwise infringe a patent if the act is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of a patented invention.

2. For the purposes of this Article, experimental purposes may include, but need not be limited to, determining how the invention works, determining the scope of the invention, determining the validity of the claims, or seeking an improvement of the invention (for example, determining new properties, or new uses, of the invention).]

Article QQ.E.5quater: {Other Use Without Authorisation of the Right Holder}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: Nothing in this Chapter shall limit a Party's rights and obligations under Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement or any amendment thereto.]

Article QQ.E.6: {Patent filing}

1 Each Party shall provide that where an invention is made independently by more than one inventor, and separate applications claiming that invention are filed with or for the relevant authority of the Party, any patent granted for the claimed invention shall be granted on the application [US/VN/MX propose; AU/NZ/CL/MY/CA/PE oppose: which has been found to be patentable and] which has the earliest filing or, if applicable, priority date [AU/NZ/PE/BN/CL/CA95 propose;96 US/VN/MY/MX/SG oppose: and which is published].[US: 97]

Article QQ.E.7:

Each Party shall provide patent applicants with at least one opportunity to make amendments, corrections, and observations in connection with their applications98.

Article QQ.E.8:

[US/AU/PE/VN propose;99 CL/MY/BN/NZ/CA/SG/MX100 oppose: Each Party shall provide that a disclosure of a claimed invention shall be considered to be sufficiently clear and complete if it provides information that allows the invention to be made and used by a person skilled in the art, without undue experimentation, as of the filing date.]

Article QQ.E.9:

[US/PE/AU propose; 101 CL/VN/MY/BN/NZ/CA/SG/MX oppose: Each Party shall provide that a claimed invention [AU oppose: is] [AU propose: shall be] sufficiently supported by its disclosure [AU oppose: if the disclosure reasonably conveys to a person skilled in the art that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention] as of the filing date.]

Article QQ.E.10:

[US/AU/MX propose;102 SG/CL/MY/VN/PE/BN/NZ/CA oppose: Each Party shall provide that a claimed invention is [US/AU propose: useful] [MX propose: industrially applicable] if it has a specific [MX propose: and], substantial, [MX oppose: and credible] utility.]

Article QQ.E.11: {Publication of Patent Applications}

[AU/PE/NZ/MY/CL/VN/US/CA/MX/JP: 1. Each Party shall publish [US/MX oppose: or make available for public inspection] any patent application promptly after the expiry of 18 months from its filing date or, if priority is claimed, from its priority date, unless the application has been published earlier or has been withdrawn, abandoned or refused [CA propose: , without leaving any rights outstanding].]103

[AU/PE/NZ/CL/VN/CA/MX propose; MY oppose: 2. Each Party shall provide that an applicant may request the early publication of an application prior to the expiry of the period mentioned above.]

Article QQ.E.12:

[US/AU104/CA/SG/PE/CL/NZ/JP propose; MY/BN/VN/MX oppose: For published105 patent applications and issued patents, each Party shall make available to the public [US/PE/CA propose: at least] the following information : submitted [US/SG/PE propose: to that Party's competent authorities] in accordance with [US/SG/PE propose: their] requirements [US/SG/PE oppose: of the Party's competent authorities] [AU/CA/CL propose: in their possession] [US/SG/PE propose: and] in connection with the prosecution of such patent applications and patents:

(a) search and examination results, [JP oppose: including any relevant prior art search histories];

(b) [SG/PE/CL/US/NZ/AU/JP propose: non confidential]106 communications from applicants; and

(c) patent and non-patent related literature citations submitted by applicants, and relevant third parties.]

Article QQ.E.X: {Exhaustion of Rights}

[CL propose: The Parties are encouraged to establish international exhaustion of patent rights. For this purpose, the registration of a patent shall not entitle its holder to prevent third parties from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing a product protected by that patent, which has been put in the market in any country by the patent holder or with his consent.]

Article QQ.E.XX

[US propose; CA/NZ/JP oppose: Each Party, at the request of the patent owner, shall adjust the term of a patent to compensate for unreasonable delays that occur in the granting of the patent. For purposes of this subparagraph, an unreasonable delay at least shall include a delay in the issuance of the patent of more than four years from the date of filing of the application in the territory of the Party, or two years after a request for examination of the application has been made, whichever is later. Periods attributable to actions of the patent applicant need not be included in the determination of such delays. Any patent term adjustment under this article shall confer all of the exclusive rights of a patent subject to the same limitations and exceptions that would otherwise apply to the patent absent any adjustment of the patent term.]

Article QQ.E.13107 108: {Exceptions / Regulatory Review Exception}

[US/NZ/PE/CA/MX/JP propose: Consistent with paragraph [QQ.E.5] (patent exceptions and limitations), each Party shall permit] [CL/SG/MY/AU/VN/BN propose: Where a Party permits] a third person to use the subject matter of a subsisting patent to [US/NZ/PE/AU/MX/VN/BN/JP] propose: generate information necessary to] support an application for [AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: regulatory or] marketing approval [CL/NZ/PE/SG/MY/AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: or sanitary permit] of a [AU/CA/VN/BN oppose: pharmaceutical] product [PE propose: or agricultural chemical product], [US/NZ/PE/SG/MY/MX/JP propose: and shall further] [CL/AU/CA/VN/BN propose: that Party may also] provide that any product produced under such authority [CL/AU/CA/VN/BN propose: may be] [US/NZ/PE/SG/MY/MX/JP propose: shall not be] made, [CA propose: constructed,] [CL/PE/VN/BN propose: offered for sale], [PE/VN/BN propose: imported,] used, or sold in its territory [US/NZ/PE/SG/MY/MX/JP propose: other than] for purposes related to [US/NZ/PE/AU/MX/VN/BN/JP propose: generating such information to support an application for] meeting [AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: regulatory or] marketing approval [CL/NZ/PE/SG/MY/AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: or sanitary permit] requirements of that Party [NZ/SG/MY/AU/CA/MX/CL/VN/BN propose: or another country].

[US/SG/MY/PE/MX/CL propose;109 NZ/AU/CA/VN/BN oppose: If the Party permits exportation of such a product, the Party shall provide that the product shall only]] [NZ/CA/BN propose: Each Party shall permit a product to] [AU/VN propose: Each Party may permit such a product to] be exported outside its territory [US/NZ/PE/AU/MX/VN/BN propose: for purposes of generating information] to support an application for meeting [AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: regulatory or] marketing approval [CL/NZ/SG/MY/PE/AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: or sanitary approval] requirements of that Party [CL/NZ/SG/MY/AU/CA/MX/VN/BN propose: or another country].

Article QQ.E.14:

[US propose;110 AU/NZ/CL/PE/MY/SG/BN/VN/CA/MX oppose: 6.

(a) Each Party shall make best efforts to process patent applications and marketing approval applications expeditiously with a view to avoiding unreasonable or unnecessary delays.

(c) Each Party, at the request of the patent owner, shall make available an adjustment of the patent term of a patent which covers a new pharmaceutical product111 or a patent that covers a method of making or using a pharmaceutical product, to compensate the patent owner of unreasonable curtailment of the effective patent term as a result of the marketing approval process.

(d) In implementing subparagraph 6(c), a Party may:

  1. limit the applicability of subparagraph 6(c) to a single patent term adjustment for each new pharmaceutical product that is being reviewed for marketing approval;

  2. require the basis for the adjustment to be the first marketing approval granted to the pharmaceutical product in that Party;

    and

  3. limit the period of the adjustment to no more than 5 years.

(e) In implementing subparagraph 6(c), and as a condition for providing the adjustment set forth in subparagraph 6(c) for a new pharmaceutical product approved consistent with Article 9.2(b) or Article 9.2(d), a Party may require an applicant that has submitted an application for marketing approval consistent with Article 9.2(b) or Article 9.2(d) to commence the process of obtaining marketing approval for that new pharmaceutical product in the Party within [X] years of the date of the first marketing approval of the same pharmaceutical product in another Party.112

(f) Any adjustment under subparagraph 6(c) shall confer all of the exclusive rights, subject to the same limitations and exceptions, of the patent claims of the product, its method of use, or its method of manufacture in the originally issued patent as applicable to the product and the approved method of use of the product. ]] ]

Article QQ.E.16: 113 [US: Pharmaceutical Products

Submission of Information or Evidence Concerning the Safety or Efficacy of a New Pharmaceutical Product

[US propose; AU/PE/VN/NZ/CL/MY/SG/BN oppose: 1. (a) If a Party requires or permits, as a condition for granting marketing approval for a new pharmaceutical product, the submission of information concerning the safety or efficacy of the product, the origination of which involves a considerable effort, the Party shall not, without the consent of a person previously submitting such safety or efficacy information to obtain marketing approval in the territory of the Party, authorize a third person to market a same or a similar product based on:

  1. the safety or efficacy information previously submitted in support of the marketing approval; or

  2. evidence of the existence of the marketing approval,

  1. for at least five years from the date of marketing approval of the new pharmaceutical product in the territory of the Party.

  2. If a Party requires or permits, in connection with granting marketing approval for a new pharmaceutical product, the submission of evidence concerning the safety or efficacy of a product that was previously approved in another territory, such as evidence of prior marketing approval in the other territory, the Party shall not, without the consent of a person previously submitting the safety or efficacy information to obtain marketing approval in the other territory, authorize a third person to market a same or a similar product based on:

  1. the safety or efficacy information submitted in support of a prior marketing approval in the other territory; or

  2. evidence of the existence of a prior marketing approval in the other territory,

for at least five years from the date of marketing approval of the new pharmaceutical product in the territory of the Party.

Submission of New Clinical Information or Evidence relating to a Pharmaceutical Product that Includes a Chemical Entity that has been Previously Approved for Marketing in Another Pharmaceutical Product

  1. If a Party requires or permits, as a condition of granting marketing approval for a pharmaceutical product that includes a chemical entity that has been previously approved for marketing in another pharmaceutical product, the submission of new clinical information that is essential to the approval of the pharmaceutical product containing the previously approved chemical entity, other than information related to bioequivalency, the Party shall not, without the consent of a person previously submitting such new clinical information to obtain marketing approval in the territory of the Party, authorize a third person to market a same or a similar product based on:

  1. the new clinical information previously submitted in support of the marketing approval; or

  2. evidence of the existence of the marketing approval that was based on the new clinical information,

for at least three years from the date of marketing approval based on the new clinical information in the territory of the Party.

  1. If a Party requires or permits, in connection with granting marketing approval for a pharmaceutical product of the type specified in subparagraph (c), the submission of evidence concerning new clinical information for a product that was previously approved based on that new clinical information in another territory, other than evidence of information related to bioequivalency, such as evidence of prior marketing approval based on new clinical information, the Party shall not, without the consent of a person previously submitting such new clinical information to obtain marketing approval in the other territory, authorize a third person to market a same or a similar product based on:

  1. the new clinical information submitted in support of a prior marketing approval in the other territory; or

  2. evidence of the existence of a prior marketing approval that was based on the new clinical information in the other territory,

for at least three years from the date of marketing approval based on the new clinical information in the territory of the Party.]

[US: Additional Provisions relating to Pharmaceutical Products

  1. Notwithstanding paragraph 2 above, a Party may take measures to protect public health in accordance with:

  1. the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2) (the "Declaration");

  2. any waiver of any provision of the TRIPS Agreement granted by WTO Members in accordance with the WTO Agreement to implement the Declaration and in force between the Parties; and

  3. any amendment of the TRIPS Agreement to implement the Declaration that enters into force with respect to the Parties.

  1. A Party that requires or permits an applicant to obtain approval for marketing a new pharmaceutical product in its territory by relying, in whole or in part, on the prior approval of the pharmaceutical product by the regulatory authority in another territory may, as a condition for providing the period of data protection specified in subparagraph 2(b) or 2(d), require an applicant that has submitted an application for marketing approval consistent with said subparagraphs to commence the process of obtaining marketing approval for that pharmaceutical product within [X] years of the date of first marketing approval of the same pharmaceutical product in another Party.

Article QQ.E.17:

1. Where a Party requires or permits, as a condition of approving the marketing of a pharmaceutical product, persons, other than the person originally submitting safety or efficacy information, to rely on that information or on evidence concerning safety or efficacy information for a product that was previously approved, such as evidence of prior marketing approval in another territory, each Party shall:114

(a) provide a transparent and effective system to:

  1. identify a patent or patents covering an approved pharmaceutical product or its approved method of use; and

  2. provide notice to a patent holder of the identity of another person who intends to market, during the term of the identified patent or patents, a product that is the same as, or similar to, the approved pharmaceutical product referenced in subparagraph 5(a)(i).

(b) unless such other person agrees to defer the marketing of the product until after the expiration of an identified patent, ensure that a patent holder may seek, prior to granting of marketing approval to an allegedly infringing product, available remedies by providing:

  1. an automatic delay of the grant of marketing approval that remains in place for a period of time designed to ensure sufficient opportunity to adjudicate115 disputes concerning the validity or infringement of allegedly infringed patents; and

  2. judicial or administrative procedures, including effective

    provisional measures, to allow for the timely adjudication of disputes concerning the validity or infringement of an allegedly infringed patent.

(c) If such other person's product has been found to infringe a valid patent identified pursuant to subparagraph (a), provide measures that operate to prohibit the unauthorized marketing of that product prior to the expiration of the patent.

(d) when a Party delays the grant of marketing approval consistent with subparagraph 5(b)(i), provide an effective reward, consistent with the provisions of this Agreement, for the successful challenge of the validity or applicability of the patent.116

  1. In implementing subparagraph 5(b)(i), and as a condition for providing the automatic delay of the grant of marketing approval specified in subparagraph 5(b)(i) for a new pharmaceutical product approved consistent with subparagraph 2(b) or 2(d), a Party may require that an applicant that has submitted an application for marketing approval consistent with subparagraph 2(b) or 2(d) to commence the process of obtaining marketing approval for that new pharmaceutical in the Party within [X] years of the date of first marketing approval of the pharmaceutical product in another Party.

Article QQ.E.18:

Where a Party provides for a period of data protection for a pharmaceutical product of more than [5+Y] years pursuant to subparagraph 2(a) or 2(b) of this Article, that Party is not required to implement for that pharmaceutical product subparagraphs 2(c), 2(d) (3-year data protection in connection with submission of new clinical information), 5(b)(i) (automatic delay of marketing approval) or 5(d) of this Article (reward for the successful challenge of the validity or applicability of a patent).

Article QQ.E.19:

Where a Party chooses to apply subparagraph 6(e) of Article 8 and paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article, the following provisions shall apply:

  1. a Party shall permit an applicant to commence the process of obtaining marketing approval by providing the regulatory authority of the Party information supporting approval of the new pharmaceutical product in the Party that is available to the person at the time the request is made, such as evidence of the prior approval of the product in another Party. It is understood that, while a Party may impose reasonable additional requirements or deadlines as a condition of authorizing the person to market the pharmaceutical product in its territory, satisfaction of those additional requirements or deadlines or the granting of approval shall be recognized by the Party as necessarily occurring after the commencement of the marketing approval process within the meaning of subparagraph 6(e) of Article 8 and paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article; and

  2. a Party may not refuse to grant approval of a new pharmaceutical product on the basis of a failure of an applicant for marketing approval to satisfy the requirements of subparagraph 6(e) of Article 8 or paragraphs 4 and 6 of this Article.

Article QQ.E.20: [Placeholder for specific provision applying to biologics].]

[US: General Provisions relating to Pharmaceutical Products and Agricultural Chemical Products

Article QQ.E.21:

For purposes of this Article, a new pharmaceutical product means a product that does not contain a chemical entity that has been previously approved in the territory of the Party for use in a pharmaceutical product [JP propose: for human use].117

Article QQ.E.22:

Subject to paragraph 3 (protection of public health), when a product is subject to a system of marketing approval in the territory of a Party pursuant to paragaph 1 or 2 and is also covered by a patent in the territory of that Party, the Party shall not alter the term of protection that it provides pursuant to paragraph 1 or 2 in the event that the patent protection terminates on a date earlier than the end of the term of protection specified in paragraph 1 or 2.]]

Article QQ.E.XX.1: {Measures to Encourage Timely Entry of Pharmaceutical Products}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose: Each Party may adopt or maintain measures to encourage the timely entry of pharmaceutical products to its market.]

Article QQ.E.XX.2: {Patent Quality and Efficiency}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose: 1. Each Party shall endeavour to improve quality and efficiency in its patent system.

2. Each Party shall endeavour to enhance its patent registration system by maintaining examination procedures, cancellation procedures and, where provided, opposition procedures that consistently provide high quality rights for granted patents, and endeavour to simplify and streamline its administration system for the benefit of all users of the system and the public as a whole.]

Article QQ.E.XX.3: {Processing Efficiency}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose: 1. Each Party shall endeavour to process applications for patents, and applications for marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval of pharmaceutical products, in an efficient and timely manner.

2. Each Party may provide a procedure for patent applicants to apply to expedite the examination of their patent application.

3. If there are unreasonable delays in a Party's processing of applications for patents, or processing of applications for marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval of pharmaceutical products, the Party shall endeavour to address those delays.]

Article QQ.E.XX.4: {Protection of Undisclosed Data}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose: 1. Where a Party requires, as a condition of marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval for pharmaceutical products which utilize new chemical entities, the submission of undisclosed test or other data, the origination of which involves a considerable effort, that Party shall protect such data against unfair commercial use. In addition, each Party shall protect such data against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data is protected against unfair commercial use.

  1. Each Party may provide that the protection of data under paragraph 1, inter alia:

    1. is limited to undisclosed test or other data, the origination of which involves a considerable effort;

    2. is limited to pharmaceutical products that do not contain a new chemical entity that has been previously approved for marketing in the Party;

    3. is limited to pharmaceutical products which utilize a new chemical entity;

    4. is available only once per pharmaceutical product;

    5. is not available for new uses or indications, new dosage forms or methods of making a pharmaceutical product;

    6. is limited to a period of time as determined by the Party; or

    7. may be waived to facilitate the marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval of a pharmaceutical product that is the subject of a voluntary or compulsory license, or a licence otherwise issued pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement.

  1. Each Party may take measures to protect public health in accordance with:

    1. the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2) (the "Declaration");

  1. any waiver of any provision of the TRIPS Agreement granted by WTO Members in accordance with the WTO Agreement to implement the Declaration and in force between the Parties; and

  2. any amendment of the TRIPS Agreement to implement the Declaration that enters into force with respect to the Parties.]

Article QQ.E.XX.5: {Publication of Regulatory Approval}

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY/VN propose: Each Party shall endeavour to promptly make public the granting of marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval of pharmaceutical products.]

Article QQ.E.XXX {Agricultural Chemical Products}

[US/SG/PE/MX/JP propose118 ; NZ/VN oppose: 1.

(a) If a Party requires [AU/CL/MX oppose: or permits], as a condition of granting marketing approval [CL/MX propose: or sanitary permit] for a new agricultural chemical product [CL/MX propose; JP oppose: which utilize new chemical entity], the submission of [CL/MX propose: undisclosed][AU oppose: information] [AU propose; JP oppose: undisclosed test or other data] concerning safety or efficacy of the [CL/MX oppose: product][CL/MX propose; JP oppose: new chemical entity], the Party shall not, without the consent of [AU oppose: a person that previously submitted such] [AU propose: the person who provided the] [CL/MX oppose: safety or efficacy] information [AU oppose: to obtain marketing approval in the Party, authorize another] [AU propose: , permit third persons] to [CL/MX oppose: market] a [CL/MX oppose: same or a similar] product based on:

[SG oppose: (i) [CL/MX propose; JP oppose: undisclosed information concerning][AU oppose: the safety or efficacy information submitted in support of the marketing approval] [CL/MX propose: or sanitary permit][AU propose; JP oppose: that undisclosed test or other data]; or]

[CL/MX oppose: (ii) [AU oppose: evidence of the existence of] the marketing approval,]

[MX oppose: for [AU oppose: at least] ten years from the date of marketing approval [AU oppose: in the territory of] [AU propose: by] the Party .] [MX propose: Where origination of such data involve considerable efforts,119 ] [CL/MX propose; JP oppose: Each Party shall protect such information against disclosure except where necessary to protect the public, or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use]

[CL/MX oppose: (b) If a Party [AU oppose: requires or permits, in connection with] [AU propose: permits, as a condition of ] granting marketing approval for a new agricultural chemical product, the submission of evidence concerning the safety or efficacy of a product that was previously approved in another territory, such as evidence of prior marketing approval [AU oppose: in the other terrritory]; the Party shall not, without the consent of [AU oppose: a person that] [AU propose: the person who] previously submitted [AU oppose: the safety or efficacy] information [AU propose: concerning safety or efficacy] to obtain marketing approval in another territory, [AU oppose: authorize another] [AU propose: permit third persons] to market a same or a similar product based on:

[SG oppose: (i) [AU oppose: the safety or efficacy] information [AU propose: concerning safety or efficacy] submitted [AU oppose: in support of] [AU propose: to obtain] the prior marketing approval in the other territory; or]

(ii) evidence of [AU oppose: the existence of a] prior marketing approval in the other territory,

for [AU oppose: at least] ten years from the date of marketing approval [AU oppose: of the new product in the territory of the Party].]

[PE propose120: In order to receive protection under subparagraph (b), a Party may require that the person providing the information in the other territory seek approval in the territory of the Party within five years after obtaining marketing approval in the other territory.]

[MX propose121: Where a Party relies on a marketing approval granted by another Party, the reasonable period of exclusive use of the data submitted in connection with obtaining the approval relied on shall begin with the date of the first marketing approval relied on.]

[CL/MX oppose: 2. For purposes of this Article, a new agricultural chemical product is one that [AU oppose: contains] [AU propose: does not contain] a chemical entity that has [AU oppose: not] been previously approved [AU propose: for marketing] in the [AU oppose: territory of the] Party [AU oppose: for use in an agricultural chemical product].]]

[NOTE: ARTICLES ORIGINALLY LABELED AS QQ.E.23-24 HAVE BEEN MOVED TO QQ.A.4-5]

Article QQ.E.23 122 : [PE/NZ/MX/SG: Proposed joint text for the Intellectual Property Chapter on Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources

[PE/NZ/VN/BN/MX/SG/CL/MY propose: 1. The Parties recognise the importance and contribution of traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions, and biological diversity to cultural, economic and social development. ]

[PE/MY/MX/BN propose; NZ/AU/SG/CL oppose: 2. Each Party exercises sovereignty over their biological [MY/BN oppose: diversity] [MY/BN propose: resources] and shall determine the access conditions to their genetic resources and their derivatives in accordance to their domestic legislation.]

[PE/NZ/BN/MY/MX/VN propose; AU/SG/CL oppose: 3. Where national legislation [MY/BN propose: or policies] establishes such requirements, the Parties recognise that users of genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and their derivatives] [ 123 ] or traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and their derivatives] [NZ propose: may] [PE/MY propose: shall]:

(a) obtain prior informed consent to access genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and their derivatives];

(b) access traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and their derivatives] with the prior informed consent or approval and involvement of the indigenous or local community holding such knowledge; and

  1. [BN/MY propose: fairly and] equitably share the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and its derivatives] and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources [NZ/CA oppose: and their derivatives] on mutually agreed terms.]

[PE/NZ/MX/CL/VN propose; SG oppose: 4. The parties recognize that:

(a) information about genetic resources [NZ/CL/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives] and traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated with genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]] can be useful in assessing patent applications against existing eligibility criteria; and

(b) the intellectual property system is one possible means to protect the traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated with genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]] and traditional cultural expressions of indigenous and local communities.]

[PE/NZ/MX/CL propose; SG oppose: 5. The Parties affirm that they will promote quality patent examination of applications concerning genetic resources and traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated with genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]] to ensure that the eligibility criteria for patentability are satisfied. This may include:

(a) in determining prior art, ensuring that readily available documented information related to genetic resources [NZ/CL/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives] or traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated with genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]] is taken into account;

(b) an opportunity to cite, in writing, to the appropriate examining authority prior art that may have a bearing on patentability;

(c) where applicable and appropriate, the use of databases or digital libraries containing traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]]; and

(d) cooperation in the training of patent examiners in the examination of patent applications related to genetic resources [NZ/CL/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives] and traditional knowledge [CL oppose: associated with genetic resources [NZ/AU/CA oppose: and their derivatives]].]

[PE/NZ/AU/MX/MY/BN/VN/CL propose; SG oppose: 6. Subject to each Party's international obligations [AU/MY/BN/VN/CL oppose: the Parties affirm that they will endeavour to][AU/MY/BN/VN/CL propose: each Party may] establish appropriate measures to protect traditional knowledge and [MY oppose: traditional cultural expressions].]

[PE/MX propose; NZ/AU/SG/CL oppose: 7. Each Party will take appropriate, effective and proportionate measures to address situations of non-compliance with provisions established in paragraph 3.]

[PE/NZ/MX/SG/MY/BN/VN propose: 8. The Parties shall, through their respective agencies responsible for intellectual property, cooperate to enhance understanding of how the intellectual property system can deal with issues associated with traditional knowledge, traditional cultural expressions and genetic resources. [This text is a place holder, to be reconsidered depending on the outcome of the cooperation section of the IP chapter]]]

[JP propose: {INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS}

{Section F: Industrial Designs}

Article QQ.F.1: {Partial Design}

Each Party shall ensure that adequate and effective protection is provided to industrial designs, including to designs of a part of an article, regardless of whether or not the part can be separated from the article.]

{COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS}

{Section G: Copyright and Related Rights [124]}

Article QQ.G.1: {Copyright and Related Rights / Right of Reproduction}

  1. Each Party shall provide125 that authors, [NZ oppose: performers], and producers of phonograms126 have the right127 to authorize or prohibit all reproductions of their works, [NZ oppose: performances], and phonograms, [128] in any manner or form,[129] [VN/CA/NZ oppose: permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in electronic form)] [130] [131] [VN propose: it shall be a matter for national legislation to determine exceptions and limitations under which the right may be exercised].

Article QQ.G.2: {Copyright}

Without prejudice to Articles 11(1)(ii), 11bis(1)(i) and (ii), 11ter(1)(ii), 14(1)(ii), and 14bis(1) of the Berne Convention, each Party shall provide to authors the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the communication to the public of their works, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of their works in such a way that members of the public may access these works from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.132

Article QQ.G.3: {Copyright and Related Rights}

[US/AU/PE/NZ/SG/CL/MX propose; VN/MY/BN/JP oppose: Each Party shall provide to authors, [NZ/MX oppose: performers,] and producers of phonograms the right to authorize or prohibit the importation[133] into that Party's territory of copies134 of the work [PE oppose: [NZ/MX: oppose: performance,] or phonogram] made without authorization, [PE/AU/NZ/CA/SG/CL/MX/JP oppose: or made outside that Party's territory with the authorization of the author, performer, or producer of the phonogram.[135] ]] [136]

Article QQ.G.4: {Right of Distribution}

Each Party shall provide to authors, [NZ/MX oppose: performers,] and producers of phonograms the right to authorize or prohibit the making available to the public of the original and copies137 of their works, [NZ/MX oppose: performances,] and phonograms through sale or other transfer of ownership.[138]

Article QQ.G.5:

Each Party shall provide that in cases where authorization is needed from both the author of a work embodied in a phonogram and a performer or producer owning rights in the phonogram, the need for the authorization of the author does not cease to exist because the authorization of the performer or producer is also required. Likewise, each Party shall provide that in cases where authorization is needed from both the author of a work embodied in a phonogram and a performer or producer owning rights in the phonogram, the need for the authorization of the performer or producer does not cease to exist because the authorization of the author is also required.

Article QQ.G.6:

[US/AU/PE/SG/CL/MX propose; VN/BN/NZ/MY/CA/JP oppose: Each Party shall provide that, where the term of protection of a work (including a photographic work), performance, or phonogram is to be calculated:

  1. on the basis of the life of a natural person, the term shall be not less than the life of the author and [MX propose: 100] [MX oppose: 70] years after the author's death; and

  1. on a basis other than the life of a natural person, the term shall be:

  1. not less than [US propose; CL oppose: 95] [AU/PE/SG/CL propose: 70] [MX propose: 75] years from the end of the calendar year of the first authorized publication of the work, performance, or phonogram, or

  2. failing such authorized publication within [US propose; CL oppose: 25] [SG/PE/AU/CL propose: 50] years from the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram, not less than [US propose; CL oppose: 120] [AU/PE/SG/CL propose: 70] years from the end of the calendar year of the creation of the work, performance, or phonogram.]

Article QQ.G.7: {Term of Protection for Copyright and Related Rights}

[NZ/BN/MY/VN/CA/JP propose; US/AU/SG/MX oppose: The term of protection of a work, performance or phonogram shall be determined according to each Party's domestic law and the international agreements to which each Party is a party.]

Article QQ.G.8:

Each Party shall apply Article 18 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1971) (Berne Convention) and [PE/SG/NZ/BN/US/VN/CL/MY/MX139: the corresponding provision in] Article 14.6 of the TRIPS Agreement, mutatis mutandis, to [CA oppose: the subject matter, rights, and obligations] [CA propose; US oppose: rights of authors, performers and producers of phonograms] in [Section G].

QQ.G.8

[CA/JP/SG/BN/NZ/PE/CL/VN/AU140 propose: Each Party shall apply, mutatis mutandis, Article 18 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1971) to the rights of authors, performers and producers of phonograms in [Section G]. A Party may provide for conditions, limitations, exceptions and reservations to the extent permitted in Article 14.6 of the TRIPS Agreement. ]

Article QQ.G.9:

Each Party shall provide that for copyright and related rights, any person acquiring or holding any economic right141in a work, [SG/BN/NZ/MY/VN/CL oppose: performance,] or phonogram:

  1. may freely and separately transfer that right by contract; and

  1. by virtue of a contract, including contracts of employment underlying the creation of works, [BN/SG/MY/VN/NZ/CL oppose: performances,] and phonograms, shall be able to exercise that right in that person's own name and enjoy fully the benefits derived from that right.

[CL: (c) Each Party may establish:

(i) which specific contracts underlying the creation of works or phonograms shall, in the absence of a written agreement, result in a transfer of economic rights by operation of law; and

(ii) reasonable limits to the provisions in [paragraph 2(a)] [cross reference to QQ.G.9(a)-(b)] to protect the interests of the original right holders, taking into account the legitimate interests of the transferees.]

Article QQ.G.X

No Party may subject the enjoyment and exercise of the rights of authors, performers and producers of phonograms provided for in this Chapter to any formality.

Article QQ.G.10: {Copyright and Related Rights / Technological Protection Measures}142

[US/AU/SG/PE/MX143 144 145 propose; MY/VN/BN/JP oppose146: (a) In order to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms use in connection with the exercise of their rights147 and that restrict unauthorized acts in respect of their works, performances, and phonograms, each Party shall provide that any person who:

  1. knowingly, [CL oppose: or having reasonable grounds to know]148, circumvents without [CL oppose: authority] [CL propose: authorization] any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, phonogram, [PE/CA/CL oppose: or other subject matter]; or

  2. manufactures, imports, distributes, [CL oppose: offers [CA/CL propose: for sale or rental] to the public, provides, or otherwise traffics149 in] devices, products, or components, [CL oppose: or offers to the public] or provides services, that:

    1. are promoted, advertised150, or marketed by that person, [PE/SG/CL oppose: or by another person acting in concert with that person and with that person's knowledge,] for the purpose of circumvention of any effective technological measure,

    2. have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent any effective technological measure, or

    3. are primarily designed, produced, or performed for the purpose of [CA oppose: enabling or facilitating] the circumvention of any151 effective technological measure,

    shall be liable and subject to the remedies set out in Article [12.12]152 153. [CL propose: If the conduct is carried out in good faith without knowledge that the conduct in prohibited, a Party may exempt acts prohibited under this subparagraph that are carried out in connection with a nonprofit library, archive or educational institution]. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied when any person, other than a nonprofit 154 library, [CA/CL propose: museum,] archive, educational institution, or [CA/CL oppose: public noncommercial broadcasting entity,] [CA propose: any other nonprofit entity as determined by a Party's law] is found to have engaged [CA oppose: willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage [CL oppose: or private financial gain]] [CA propose: knowingly and for commercial purposes] in any of the foregoing activities. [SG/AU/PE/CL155 oppose: Such criminal procedures and penalties shall include the application to such activities of the remedies and authorities listed in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (f) of Article [15.5]156 as applicable to infringements, mutatis mutandis. [157] ][CL propose: No Party is required to impose civil or criminal liability for a person who circumvents any effective
    technological measure that protects any of the exclusive rights of copyright or related rights in a protected work, but does not control access to such work].

  1. In implementing subparagraph (a), no Party shall be obligated to require that the design of, or the design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as the product does not otherwise violate any measures implementing subparagraph (a).

[CL oppose: (c) Each Party shall provide that a violation of a measure implementing this paragraph is independent of any infringement that might occur under the Party's law on copyright and related rights.]

  1. 158 Each Party shall confine exceptions and limitations to measures implementing subparagraph (a) [CL oppose: to the following activities,] [CL propose: certain special cases that do not impair the adequacy of legal protection of the effectiveness of legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures] [CL oppose: which shall be applied to relevant measures in accordance with subparagraph (e)]:

    1. [CA oppose: noninfringing reverse engineering activities with regard to a lawfully obtained copy of a computer program, carried out in good faith with respect to particular elements of that computer program that have not been readily available to the person engaged in those activities 159, for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs160] [CA propose: reverse engineering activities with regard to a lawfully obtained copy of a computer program, for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability of the program or any other program];

    2. [CA oppose: noninfringing good faith activities, carried out by an appropriately qualified researcher who has lawfully obtained a copy, [CL oppose: unfixed] performance, or display of a work, performance, or phonogram and who has made a good faith effort to obtain authorization for such activities, to the extent necessary for the sole purpose of research consisting of identifying and analyzing flaws and vulnerabilities of [CL propose: encryption] technologies161 [CL oppose: for scrambling and descrambling of information]] [CA propose: activities with regard to a lawfully obtained copy of a work, performance, or phonogram for the sole purpose of encryption research] ;

    3. the inclusion of a component or part for the sole purpose of preventing the access of minors to inappropriate online content in a technology, product, service, or device that itself is not prohibited under the measures implementing subparagraph (a)(ii)162;

    4. [CA oppose: noninfringing good faith activities that are authorized by the owner of a computer, computer system, or computer network for the sole purpose of testing, investigating, or correcting the security of that computer, computer system, or computer network] [CA propose: security testing activities that are authorized by the owner or administrator of a computer, computer system or computer network for the sole purpose of testing, investigating, or correcting the security of that computer, computer system or computer network];

    5. [CA oppose: noninfringing activities for the sole purpose of identifying and disabling a capability to carry out undisclosed collection or dissemination of personally identifying information reflecting the online activities of a natural person in a way that has no other effect on the ability of any person to gain access to any work] [CA propose: activities for the sole purpose of identifying or disabling a capacity to carry out collection or dissemination of personally identifying information];

    6. lawfully authorized activities carried out by government employees, agents, or contractors for the purpose of law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar governmental purposes163;

    7. access by a nonprofit library, [CA propose: museum,] archive, or educational institution to a work, performance, or phonogram not otherwise available to it, for the sole purpose of making acquisition decisions; and

[CA propose: (viii) activities for the sole purpose of making a work, performance or phonogram perceptible to a person with a perceptual disability.

  1. activities for the sole purpose of making an ephemeral reproduction of a work, performance or phonogram,

  2. circumvention of a technological measure on a radio apparatus for the sole purpose of gaining or facilitating access to a telecommunication service by means of the radio apparatus]

  1. [CA oppose: noninfringing uses [SG oppose: of a work, performance, or phonogram] in a particular class of works, [SG oppose: performances, or phonograms] when an actual or likely adverse impact on those noninfringing uses [CL propose: or exceptionsor limitations to copyright or related rights with respect to users] is [PE oppose: credibly demonstrated] [PE propose: found] [CL propose: demonstrated or recognized] in a legislative or administrative review or proceeding [SG oppose: by substantial evidence]; provided that [AU/PE oppose: any limitation or exception adopted in reliance upon this clause shall have effect for a renewable period of not more than three [SG propose: four] years] [AU/PE propose: any such review or proceeding is conducted at least once every four years] from the date of conclusion of such review or proceeding.]

    [CA propose: (xi) Each Party may provide further exceptions and limitations to measures implementing subparagraph (a) in relation to non infringing uses as determined through a legislative, regulatory, judicial, or administrative process in accordance with the Party's law, following due consideration of the actual or potential adverse impact on those non infringing uses.]

  1. 164 The exceptions and limitations to measures implementing subparagraph (a) for the activities set forth in subparagraph [4.9(d)] may [CL oppose: only] be applied as follows[CL oppose: , and only to the extent that they do not impair the adequacy of legal protection or the effectiveness of legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures]:

    1. Measures implementing subparagraph (a)(i) may be subject to exceptions and limitations with respect to each [CL propose: situations and] activity set forth in subparagraph (d).

    2. Measures implementing subparagraph (a)(ii), as they apply to effective technological measures that control access to a work, performance, or phonogram, may be subject to exceptions and limitations with respect to activities set forth in subparagraph (d)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (vi).

  1. Measures implementing subparagraph (a)(ii), as they apply to effective technological measures that protect any copyright or any rights related to copyright, may be subject to exceptions and limitations with respect to activities set forth in subparagraph (d)(i) and (vi).

  1. 165 Effective technological measure means any [CA propose: effective] technology, device, or component that, in the normal course of its operation, controls access to a protected work, performance, phonogram, [PE/CL/CA oppose: or other protected subject matter,] or protects [CA oppose: any copyright or any rights related to copyright] [CA propose: rights related to a work, performance or phonogram].][CL propose: and cannot, in a usual case be circumvented accidentally.]

Article QQ.G.11:

[SG/CL propose166: Nothing in this agreement shall require any Party to restrict the importation or domestic sale of a device that does not render effective a technological measure the sole purpose of which is to control market segmentation for legitimate copies of cinematographic film or computer program, and is not otherwise a violation of law.]

Article QQ.G.12167: {Technological Protection Measures}

[CL/NZ/PE/VN/MY/BN/JP propose; AU/US oppose:

1. [PE/SG oppose: Each Party [VN propose: may] [VN oppose: shall] provide legal protections and remedies against the circumvention of effective technological protection measures in their domestic copyright laws where circumvention is for purposes of infringing the exclusive rights of copyright [NZ oppose: or related rights] owners.]

2. Each Party may provide that such protections and remedies shall not hinder or prevent uses of copyright or related rights protected material that are permitted under exceptions or limitations to the exclusive rights of copyright [NZ oppose: and related rights] owners, or the use of materials that are in the public domain.

[PE/SG: It is understood that nothing in this Article prevents a Party from adopting effective and necessary measures to ensure that a beneficiary may enjoy limitations and exceptions provided in that Party's national law, in accordance with Article QQG16, where technological measures have been applied to a work, performance or phonogram, and the beneficiary has legal access to that work, performance or phonogram particularly in circumstances such as where appropriate and effective measures have not been taken by rights holders in relation to that work, performance or phonogram to enable the beneficiary to enjoy the limitations and exceptions under that Party's national law.168]

3. Subject to each Party's international obligations, the Parties affirm that they may establish provisions to facilitate the exercise of permitted acts where technological measures have been applied.]

Article QQ.G.13: {Copyright and Related Rights / Rights Management Information}

In order to provide adequate and effective legal remedies to protect rights management information:

  1. each Party [VN oppose: shall] [VN: may] provide [VN oppose: that] [VN: legal remedies against] any person who without authority, and knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies, having reasonable grounds to know, that it would induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of [CA oppose: any] [CA propose: the] copyright or related right [VN oppose: ,] [VN: :]

  1. knowingly removes or alters any [CA/JP propose: electronic] rights management information;

  2. [MY/BN/VN/CA/JP oppose: distributes or imports for distribution rights management information knowing that the rights management information has been altered without authority; or]

  3. [CA propose: knowingly] distributes, imports for distribution, broadcasts, communicates or makes available to the public copies of works, [CL/NZ/MY/SG/VN oppose: performances,] or phonograms, knowing that [CA/JP propose: electronic] rights management information has been removed or altered without authority [VN oppose: ,] [VN: .]

[VN oppose: shall be liable and subject to the remedies set out in Article [QQ.H.4(15) 169 ]. 170 Each Party [CA/MX/JP propose: may] [CA/MX oppose: shall] provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied when any person, other than a nonprofit library, archive, [CA propose: museum,] [MY: or] educational institution [MY/CA oppose: , or [CL oppose: public noncommercial] broadcasting entity] [CA propose: any other nonprofit entity as determined by a Party's law.] [CL: established without a profit-making purpose], is found to have engaged [CA oppose: willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain] [CA propose: knowingly and for commercial purposes] in any of the foregoing activities. [MY/CA propose: Each Party may provide that these criminal procedures and penalties do not apply to any other nonprofit entity as determined by a Party's law.] [AU/SG/PE/CL/MY/NZ/BN/CA/MX/JP oppose: Such criminal procedures and penalties shall include the application to such activities of the remedies and authorities listed in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (f) of Article [15.5] as applicable to infringements, mutatis mutandis.]]

[SG/NZ/CL/MY/BN/VN/CA/JP oppose: (b) each Party shall confine exceptions and limitations to measures implementing subparagraph (a) to lawfully authorized activities carried out by [MX propose: the] government [MX oppose: employees, agents, or contractors] for the purpose of law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar governmental purposes.]

(c) Rights management information means:

  1. [AU/MY/CA/JP propose: electronic] information that identifies a work, [NZ/MY oppose: performance,] or phonogram, the author of the work, [NZ/MY oppose: the performer of the performance,] or the producer of the phonogram; or the owner of any right in the work, [NZ/MY oppose: performance,] or phonogram;

  2. [AU/MY/CA/JP: electronic] information about the terms and conditions of the use of the work, [NZ/MY oppose:performance,] or phonogram ; or

  3. any [AU/MY/CA/JP: electronic] numbers or codes that represent such information,

when any of these items [CA propose: of information] is attached to a copy of the work, [NZ/MY oppose: performance,] or phonogram or appears in connection with the communication or making available of a work, [NZ/MY oppose: performance] or phonogram, to the public.

(d) For greater certainty, nothing in this paragraph shall obligate a Party to require the owner of any right in the work, performance, or phonogram to attach rights management information to copies of the work, performance, or phonogram, or to cause rights management information to appear in connection with a communication of the work, performance, or phonogram to the public.

Article QQ.G.14: {Related Rights}

1. Each Party shall accord the rights provided for in this Chapter with respect to [NZ/BN/MY oppose: performers and] producers of phonograms to the [NZ/BN/MY oppose: performers and] producers of phonograms who are nationals171 of another Party and to [NZ/BN/MY oppose: performances or] phonograms first published or first fixed in the territory of another Party172. A [NZ/BN/MY oppose: performance or] phonogram shall be considered first published in the territory of a Party in which it is published within 30 days of its original publication.[173][174]

2. Each Party shall provide to performers the right to authorize or prohibit:

  1. broadcasting and communication to the public of their unfixed performances, except where the performance is already a broadcast performance; and

  2. fixation of their unfixed performances.

3. [US/AU/PE/NZ/MY/BN/VN/CL/MX/SG propose ; CA oppose:

(a) Each Party shall provide to [NZ oppose: performers and] producers of phonograms the right to authorize or prohibit [BN oppose: the broadcasting or] any communication to the public of their [NZ oppose: performances or] phonograms, by wire or wireless means, including the making available to the public of those [NZ oppose: performances and] phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.]

[US/CL/PE/MX/SG/MY/NZ/AU/VN/BN propose: (b) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) and Article [QQ.G.16.1] [exceptions and limitations - 3 step test], the application of this right to analog transmissions and [SG/VN/BN oppose: non-interactive], free over-the-air [CL/PE/MX oppose: analog and digital] broadcasts, and exceptions or limitations to this right for such activity, shall be a matter of each Party's law.]

[US/AU/SG/CL/PE/VN/MY propose: (c) Each Party may adopt limitations to this right in respect of other noninteractive transmissions in accordance with Article [QQ.G.16.1] [exceptions and limitations - 3 step test], provided that the limitations do not [CL/PE oppose: unreasonably] prejudice the right of the performer or producer of phonograms to obtain equitable remuneration].

[CA propose: Each Party shall provide to performers and producers of phonograms the rights to authorize or prohibit:

(c) the broadcasting or any communication to the public of their performances or phonograms; and

(d) the making available to the public, by wire or wireless means, of their performances and phonograms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

Where, upon the data of signature of this Agreement, the right in subparagraph (a) has not been implemented by a Party, the requirement may be satisfied by providing a right to a single equitable remuneration for the direct or indirect use of phonograms published175 for commercial purposes for broadcasting or for any communication to the public.176]

Article QQ.G.15:

For purposes of this [Article QQ.G.1 and Article QQ.G.3 - 18 ], the following definitions apply with respect to performers and producers of phonograms:

  1. broadcasting means the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds or of the representations thereof; such transmission by satellite is also "broadcasting"; transmission of encrypted signals is "broadcasting" where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting organization or with its consent177;

  2. communication to the public of a performance or a phonogram means the transmission to the public by any medium, other than by broadcasting, of sounds of a performance or the sounds or the representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram. For the purposes of paragraph [3], "communication to the public" includes making the sounds or representations of sounds fixed in a phonogram audible to the public;

  1. fixation means the embodiment of sounds, or of the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated through a device;

  2. performers means actors, singers, musicians, dancers and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore;

  3. phonogram means the fixation of the sounds of a performance or of other sounds, or of a representation of sounds, other than in the form of a fixation incorporated in a cinematographic or other audiovisual work;

  4. producer of a phonogram means the person who, or the legal entity which, takes the initiative and has the responsibility for the first fixation of the sounds of a performance or other sounds, or the representations of sounds; and

  5. [CA propose:178]publication of a performance or a phonogram means the offering of copies of the performance or the phonogram to the public, with the consent of the rightholder, and provided that copies are offered to the public in reasonable quantity.

Article QQ.G.16 {Limitations and Exceptions}179

Article QQ.G.X

  1. With respect to Section G, each Party shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases that do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work, performance, or phonogram, and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

  2. Article QQ.G.X.1 neither reduces nor extends the scope of applicability of the limitations and exceptions permitted by the TRIPS Agreement, Berne Convention [VN propose: Rome Convention,] the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. 180


Article QQ.G.Y

Each Party shall endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance in its copyright and related rights system, inter alia by means of limitations or exceptions that are consistent with Article QQ.G.X, including those for the digital environment, giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research [CL/MY propose181: ,education, ] [CL propose: and persons with disabilities] [US/MY/SG/CA/PE/BN/MX/VN propose: , as well as facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled]182 183.

Article QQ.G.Z

[CL/NZ/MY propose184: It is consistent with this Agreement to provide exceptions and limitations for temporary acts of reproduction which are transient or incidental and an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable (a) a lawful transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of a work; and which have no independent economic significance.]

Article QQ.G.17: {International Exhaustion of Rights}

[CL/NZ/SG/MY/BN/VN/PE/MX185 propose; AU/US oppose: The Parties are encouraged to establish international exhaustion of rights.]

[CA propose: Nothing in this Chapter shall affect the freedom of the Parties to determine whether and under what conditions the exhaustion of copyright and related rights applies.]

Article QQ.G.18: {Collective Management}

The Parties recognize the important role of collective management societies for copyright and related rights in collecting and distributing royalties186 based on practices that are fair, efficient, transparent and accountable, and which may include appropriate record keeping and reporting mechanisms.

{ENFORCEMENT}

{Section H: Enforcement}

Article QQ.H.1: {General Enforcement / General Obligations Relating to the Enforcement of Law [187] of Intellectual Property Rights}

1. Each Party shall ensure that enforcement procedures as specified in this section, are available under its law [CL/SG/CA/BN/PE/MX/VN propose: and its legal system] so as to permit effective action against any act of infringement of intellectual property rights covered by this Chapter, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and remedies which constitute a deterrent to future infringements. These procedures shall be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse.

2. Each Party shall ensure that its procedures concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights shall be fair and equitable. These procedures shall not be unnecessarily complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time-limits or unwarranted delays.

[CL/VN/PE/AU/MY/BN/NZ/SG/MX/CA propose: 3. This Section does not create any obligation:

(a) to put in place a judicial system for the enforcement of intellectual property rights distinct from that for the enforcement of law in general, nor does it affect the capacity of each Party to enforce their law in general, or

(b) with respect to the distribution of resources as between the enforcement of intellectual property rights and the enforcement of law in general.]

[US/SG propose188; BN/VN/PE/MY/NZ/MX/CA oppose: 4. The Parties understand that the distribution of enforcement resources shall not excuse that Party from complying with this Section189.]

Article QQ.H.2: {Presumptions}

1. In civil, criminal, and if applicable, administrative proceedings involving copyright or related rights, each Party shall provide:

  1. for a presumption [US/CA propose: 190] that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the person whose name is indicated in the usual manner [CL/VN/BN/AU/MX/CA/SG/PE/NZ propose: 191 ] as the author, performer, producer [CA oppose: , or publisher] of the work, performance, or phonogram [CA propose: , or as applicable, the publisher] is the designated right holder in such work, performance, or phonogram; and

  2. for a presumption that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the copyright or related right subsists in such subject matter.

[US/BN/MY/NZ/SG/CA propose; 2 AU/PE/CL/VN/MX oppose192: In civil, [BN/MY oppose: administrative,] and criminal proceedings involving trademarks, each Party shall provide for a rebuttable presumption that a registered trademark is valid.

[BN/SG/MY oppose193: In civil or administrative patent enforcement proceedings, each Party shall provide for a rebuttable presumption that each claim in a patent substantively examined and granted by the competent authority satisfies the applicable criteria of patentability in the territory of the Party 194].]

Article QQ.H.3: {Enforcement Practices With Respect to Intellectual Property Rights}

1. Each Party shall provide that final judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application pertaining to the enforcement of intellectual property rights shall [SG/BN/MY/CA propose: preferably] be in writing and [MY oppose: shall] [MY/CA propose: may] state [VN/SG/BN/MY/CA oppose: any relevant findings of fact and] the reasoning or the legal basis on which the decisions and rulings are based. Each Party shall also provide that such decisions and rulings shall be published [195] or, where publication is not practicable, otherwise made available to the public, in a national language in such a manner as to enable interested persons and Parties to become acquainted with them.

2. Each Party recognizes the importance of collecting and analyzing statistical data and other relevant information concerning intellectual property rights infringements as well as collecting information on best practices to prevent and combat infringements.

3. Each Party [US/AU/PE/NZ/CL/MX/CA/JP/SG/BN/VN propose: shall] [MY propose: may] publish or otherwise make available to the public information on its efforts to provide effective enforcement of intellectual property rights in its civil, administrative and criminal systems, such as statistical information that the Party may collect for such purposes.

Article QQ.H.4: {Civil Procedures and Remedies / Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies}

1. Each Party shall make available to right holders 196 civil judicial procedures concerning the enforcement of any intellectual property right 197 covered in this Chapter.

2 Each Party shall provide [198] that in civil judicial proceedings its judicial authorities have the authority at least to order the infringer to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered [PE oppose: because of an infringement of that person's intellectual property right by an infringer who knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity.] [SG/PE/AU/NZ/MY/CL/CA/MX/BN/VN oppose: 199]

2bis. At least in cases of copyright or related rights infringement and trademark counterfeiting, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings, its judicial authorities have the authority to order the infringer to pay the right holder the infringer's profits that are attributable to the infringement.[200]

2ter. In determining the amount of damages under paragraph 2, its judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia,any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.

[US/CA/BN/AU/JP/MX/NZ/PE/VN propose: 3.201 Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order injunctive relief that conforms to the provisions of Article 44 of the TRIPS Agreement, inter alia, to prevent goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property right from entering into the channels of commerce [VN propose: in that Party's Jurisdiction].]202

[CL/PE/BN//VN propose;203 US/NZ oppose: 4. Each Party shall ensure that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order a party at whose request measures were taken and who has abused enforcement procedures to provide the party wrongfully enjoined or restrained adequate compensation for the injury suffered because of such abuse.]204

Article QQ.H.4.X

(1) In civil judicial proceedings, with respect to infringement of copyright or related rights protecting works, phonograms, and performances, each Party shall establish or maintain a system that provides for one or more of the following:

  1. pre-established damages, which shall be available upon the election of the right holder; or

  2. additional damages205.

(2)206 In civil judicial proceedings, with respect to trademark counterfeiting, each Party [US propose: shall] [NZ/MY/BN/JP propose: may] also establish or maintain a system that provides for one or more of the following:

  1. pre-established damages, which shall be available upon the election of the right holder; or

  2. additional damages.

(3) Pre-established damages shall be set out in an amount that would be sufficient to compensate the right holder for the harm caused by the infingement [VN oppose: , and with a view to deterring future infringements].

(4) In awarding additional damages, judicial authorities shall have the authority to award such additional damages as they consider appropriate, having regard to all relevant matters, including the [seriousness / extent / blatancy of the infringing conduct]207 and the need to deter similar infringements in the future.

ARTICLE QQ.H.4.Y

[US propose; SG/PE/VN/CA/CL/NZ/MY/BN/AU/MX/JP oppose: 6. In civil judicial proceedings concerning patent infringement, each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to increase damages to an amount that is up to three times the amount of the injury found or assessed.208 ]

7. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities, [PE oppose: where appropriate,] [CA propose:209] [PE propose: except in exceptional circumstances] have the authority to order, at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings concerning infringement of at least copyright or related rights, [CA/MX/US propose: patents and] [CA/MX/US oppose: or] trademarks, that the prevailing party be awarded payment by the losing party of court costs or fees and appropriate attorney's fees, or any other expenses as provided for under that Party's law.

9210. In civil judicial proceedings concerning copyright or related rights infringement and trademark counterfeiting, each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall have the authority [VN propose: , at the right holder's request,] to order [VN propose: as provisional measures] the seizure or other taking into custody of suspected infringing goods, materials and implements relevant to the infringement, and, at least for trademark counterfeiting, documentary evidence relevant to the infringement.

21110. Each Party shall provide that in civil judicial proceedings :

  1. At least with respect to pirated copyright goods and counterfeit trademark goods, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings, at the right holder's request, its judicial authorities have the authority to order that such infringing goods be [VN propose: disposed of outside the channel of commerce or] destroyed, except in exceptional circumstances, without compensation of any sort.

  2. Each Party shall further provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order that materials and implements that have been used in the manufacture or creation of such infringing goods, be, without undue delay and without compensation of any sort, destroyed or disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to minimize the risks of further infringements.

  3. in regard to counterfeit trademark goods, the simple removal of the trademark unlawfully affixed shall not be sufficient, other than in exceptional circumstances, to permit the release of goods into the channels of commerce.

11212. Without prejudice to its law governing privilege, the protection of confidentiality of information sources, or the processing of personal data, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority, upon a justified request [VN: propose213] of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative, the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls. Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution.

12. Each Party shall provide that in relation to a civil judicial proceeding concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial or other authorities have the authority to impose sanctions on a party, counsel, experts, or other persons subject to the court's jurisdiction, for violation of judicial orders concerning the protection of confidential information produced or exchanged in connection with such a proceeding. 214

13. To the extent that any civil remedy [VN propose; MX oppose:215 ]can be ordered as a result of administrative procedures on the merits of a case, each Party shall provide that such procedures conform to principles equivalent in substance to those set out in this Article (civil and administrative proceedings)

14. In the event that a Party's judicial or other authorities appoint technical or other experts in civil proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights and require that the parties to the litigation bear the costs of such experts, that Party should seek to ensure that such costs are reasonable and related appropriately, inter alia, to the quantity and nature of work to be performedand do not unreasonably deter recourse to such proceedings.

[US/AU/SG propose; BN/VN/MX/JP oppose216: 15. In civil judicial proceedings concerning the acts described in Article 4.[9] (TPMs) and Article 4.[10] (RMI), each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities shall, at the least, have the authoriy to:

  1. impose provisional measures, including seizure or other taking into custody of devices and products suspected of being involved in the prohibited activity;

  2. [US/SG propose; NZ/AU/MY oppose: provide an opportunity for the right holder to elect between actual damages it suffered (plus any profits attributable to the prohibited activity not taken into account in computing those damages) or pre-established damages;] [AU/NZ/PE propose: order damages of the type available for the infringement of copyright]

  3. order [NZ propose: , where appropriate,] payment to the prevailing party at the conclusion of civil judicial proceedings of court costs and fees, and appropriate attorney's fees, by the party engaged in the prohibited conduct; and

  4. order the destruction of devices and products found to be involved in the prohibited activity.

[US/AU/SG/NZ/MY/CL/CA propose [US propose: No Party shall make damages available under this paragraph] [AU/SG/NZ/MY/CL/CA propose: A Party may provide that damages shall not be available] against a [MY oppose: nonprofit] library, archives, educational institution, [CA propose: museum, or any other nonprofit entity as determined by a Party's law] [CA oppose: or public noncommercial broadcasting entity] [MY oppose: that sustains the burden of proving that such entity was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts constituted a prohibited activity]. ]]217

[NZ/CA/SG/CL/MY propose: 16. Each Party may adopt or maintain measures to discourage vexatious or unreasonable proceedings, including those involving pharmaceutical products that are subject to marketing, regulatory or sanitary approval.]

Article QQ.H.5: {Provisional Measures}

1. Each Party's authorities shall act on requests for relief inaudita altera parte expeditiously in accordance with the Party's judicial rules.

2. Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to require the applicant, with respect to provisional measures, to provide any reasonably available evidence in order to satisfy themselves with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant's right is being infringed or that such infringement is imminent, [VN//PE: and that any delay in the issuance of such measures is likely to cause irreparable harm to the right holders, or there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed,] and to order the applicant to provide a security or equivalent assurance set at a level sufficient to protect the defendant and to prevent abuse. Such security or equivalent assurance shall not unreasonably deter recourse to such procedures.

Article QQ.H.6: {Special Requirements Related to Border Enforcement218 / Special Requirements related to Border Measures} [219]

1. Each Party shall provide that any right holder initiating procedures for its competent authorities to suspend release of suspected counterfeit [SG/BN/MY/VN/CA oppose: or confusingly similar] trademark goods, or pirated copyright goods220 into free circulation is required to provide adequate evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that, under the law{s} of the [CA/NZ/MX/US/PE/AU oppose: country of importation] [CA/NZ/MX/US/PE/AU221 propose: Party providing the procedures], there is prima facie an infringement of the right holder's intellectual property right and to supply sufficient information that may reasonably be expected to be within the right holder's knowledge to make the suspected goods 222reasonably recognizable by its competent authorities. The requirement to provide such information shall not unreasonably deter recourse to these procedures.

1bis. Each Party shall provide for applications to suspend the release of, or to detain, any suspect goods 223 [SG/VN oppose: under customs control 224 in its territory.][SG/VN propose: that are imported into the territory of the Party225] A Party may provide that, at the request of the right holder, an application to suspend the release of, or to detain, suspect goods may apply to selected points of entry [US/CA/JP/MX226 propose; CL/SG/VN oppose: and exit] under customs control.]227 228 [US/AU/CA/JP/NZ propose; MX /PE/CL/MY/SG/VN/BN oppose: Each Party shall provide that applications [NZ oppose: shall] remain in force [NZ propose: for the period requested by the right holder but not exceeding five years, or] for a period of not less than one year from the date of application, or the period that the good is protected by copyright or the relevant trademark registration is valid, whichever is shorter.[NZ propose: A Party may provide that its competent authorities have the authority to suspend or invalidate an application when there is due cause.]

2. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities have the authority to require a right holder initiating procedures to suspend the release of suspected counterfeit [BN/SG/MY/VN/CA oppose: or confusingly similar] trademark goods, or pirated copyright goods, to provide a reasonable security or equivalent assurance sufficient to protect the defendant and the competent authorities and to prevent abuse. Each Party shall provide that such security or equivalent assurance shall not unreasonably deter recourse to these procedures. A Party may provide that such security may be in the form of a bond conditioned to hold the defendant harmless from any loss or damage resulting from any suspension of the release of goods in the event the competent authorities determine that the article is not an infringing good.


3. Without prejudice to a Party's laws pertaining to privacy or the confidentiality of information, where its competent authorities have detained or suspended the release of goods that are suspected of being counterfeit or pirated, a Party may provide that its competent authorities have the authority to inform the right holder [CA/VN propose: who has filed a request for assistance] [MY/CA/BN/PE/VN oppose: promptly] [MY/CA/PE
229 /BN/SG/VN propose: within a reasonable period] of the names and addresses of the consignor, exporter, consignee or importer, a description of the merchandise, quantity of the merchandise, and, if known, the country of origin of the merchandise.: Where a Party does not provide such authority to its competent authorities when suspect goods are detained or suspended from release, it shall provide [US/VN propose: , at least in cases of imported goods,] its competent authorities with the authority to provide the foregoing information to the right holder [SG/VN oppose: within 30 days230] [SG/VN propose: within a reasonable period] of the seizure or determination that the goods are counterfeit or pirated, whichever is earlier.

[US/PE/AU/SG/MY/CL/CA/BN/JP propose; NZ/VN/MX oppose: 4. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities may initiate border measures ex officio231 with respect to [AU propose: merchandise that is] imported, [MY/CL/AU/PE/BN oppose: exported,] [CL/AU/PE propose; SG oppose: destined for export,] [AU/MY/SG/CA/BN/CL oppose: or in-transit merchandise,[PE oppose: 232 ]] [PE/SG/MY/CL/CA/BN oppose: or [AU oppose: merchandise] [US propose: entering into or exiting from] [US oppose: in] free trade zones], that is suspected of being counterfeit [SG/PE/MY/CA/BN oppose: or confusingly similar] trademark goods, or pirated copyright goods.]

5. Each Party shall adopt or maintain a procedure by which its competent authorities may determine, within a reasonable period oftime after the initiation of the procedures described under Article QQ.H.6(1)233 whether the suspect goods infringe an intellectual property right. Where a Party provides administrative procedures for the determination of an infringement, it [VN234 propose: may] [VN oppose: shall] also provide its authorities with the authority to impose administrative penalties, which may include monetary penalties or the seizure of the infringing goods, following a determination that the goods are infringing.

6. Each Party shall provide that its competent authorities have the authority to order the destruction [VN propose: , or disposal outside the channel of commerce,] of goods following a determination that the goods are infringing. In cases where such goods are not destroyed, each Party shall ensure that, except in exceptional circumstances, such goods are disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm to the right holder. In regard to counterfeit trademark goods, the simple removal of the trademark unlawfully affixed shall not be sufficient, other than in exceptional cases, to permit the release of the goods into the channels of commerce.

7. Where a Party establishes or assesses, in connection with the procedures described in this section [article], an application fee, storage fee, or destruction fee, such fee shall not be set at an amount that unreasonably deters recourse to these procedures

8. Each Party shall include in the application of this Article goods of a commercial nature sent in small consignments. A Party may exclude from the application of this Article small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers' personal luggage.235

Article QQ.H.7: {Criminal Procedures and Remedies / Criminal Enforcement}

1. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale.

2. [US/AU/SG/PE propose; CL/VN/MY/NZ/CA/BN/MX oppose: Willful copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale includes:

  1. significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain; and

  2. willful infringements for purposes of commercial advantage or [AU/SG/PE/JP oppose: private] financial gain.[AU/SG/PE/CA/JP oppose: 236]]

Each Party shall treat willful importation [SG/MX/BN/MY/VN oppose: or exportation] of counterfeit trademark goods [VN oppose: or pirated copyright goods] on a commercial scale as unlawful activities subject to criminal penalties.237

[US propose; AU/BN/MY/NZ/SG/CL/VN/PE/CA/MX/JP oppose: 3. Each Party shall also provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied, even absent willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy, at least in cases of knowing trafficking in:

  1. labels or packaging, of any type or nature, to which a counterfeit trademark 238 has been applied, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive; and

  1. counterfeit or illicit labels239 affixed to, enclosing, or accompanying, or designed to be affixed to, enclose, or accompany the following:

    1. a phonogram,

    2. a copy of a computer program or a literary work,

    3. a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,

    4. documentation or packaging for such items; and

  2. counterfeit documentation or packaging for items of the type described in subparagraph (b).]

[NZ/AU/BN/MY/US/CA/SG/MX/JP propose; PE/CL/VN oppose: 4. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied in cases of willful importation240 and domestic use, in the course of trade and on a commercial scale, of labels or packaging241:

  1. to which a mark has been applied without authorization which is identical to, or cannot be distinguished from, a trademark registered in its territory; and

  2. which are intended to be used in the course of trade on goods or in relation to services which are identical to goods or services for which such trademark is registered.]

[US propose; CA/JP oppose: Each Party shall further ensure that criminal penalties and procedures are applied in cases of knowing trafficking in illicit labels242 affixed, enclosing, or accompanying, or designed to be affixed to, enclose, or accompany phonograms, copies of computer programs, literary works, motion pictures, or other audiovisual works.]

5. [AU/NZ/SG/MY/ CA/US propose; PE/VN/BN/MX/CL oppose: [US/CA propose: Each] [US/CA oppose: A] Party [SG/NZ/CL oppose: shall] [SG/NZ/CL/JP: may] provide criminal procedures and penalties [US/CA oppose: , in appropriate cases,] for the [US/CA propose: knowing and] unauthorized copying [MY: or recording] [US propose; CA/JP oppose: or transmittal] of [US/CA propose: a [JP propose: first-run] cinematographic work, or any part thereof,] [US/CA oppose: cinematographic works] from a performance in a [CA oppose: motion picture exhibition facility generally open to the public] [CA/JP propose: movie theater].]

6. With respect to the offenses for which this Article requires the Parties to provide for criminal procedures and penalties, Parties shall ensure that criminal liability for aiding and abetting is available under its law.

7. With respect to the offences described in Article QQ.H.7[1]-[4] above, each Party shall provide:

  1. penalties that include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement, consistently with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity; 243

  1. 244that its judicial authorities shall have the authority, when determining penalties, to account for the seriousness of the circumstances, which may include those that involve threats to, or effects on, health or safety;245

  2. that its judicial [VN propose: or other]authorities shall have the authority to order the seizure of suspected counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods, any related materials and implements used in the commission of the alleged offense, documentary evidence relevant to the alleged offense [MY oppose: , and assets 246 derived from, or obtained directly [VNoppose: or indirectly] through the alleged infringing activity].

    Where a Party requires the identification of items subject to seizure as a prerequisite for issuing any such judicial order, that Party shall not require the items to be described in greater detail than necessary to identify them for the purpose of seizure;

  3. that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the forfeiture, at least for serious offenses, of any assets derived from, or obtained directly [VN oppose: or indirectly] through the infringing activity;

  4. that its judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the forfeiture or destruction of:

    1. all counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods; and

    2. materials and implements [CA/VN/MX propose: predominantly][CA/VN/MX oppose: that have been] used in the creation of pirated copyright goods or counterfeit trademark goods; and

    [CL/PE/VN/BN/SG/AU/CA/MX/JP oppose: (iii) any other articles consisting of a counterfeit trademark].

In cases where counterfeit trademark goods and pirated copyright goods are not destroyed, the [MY oppose: judicial][MY/SG/CL/AU/PE/MX/VN/JP: competent247] authorities shall ensure that , except in exceptional circumstances, such goods shall be disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid causing any harm to the right holder. Each Party shall further provide that forfeiture or destruction under this subparagraph and subparagraph (c) 248 shall occur without compensation of any kind to the defendant;

[US/NZ propose; BN/SG/MY/CL/PE/AU/VN/CA/MX/JP oppose: (f)
that its judicial authorities have the authority to order the seizure or forfeiture of assets the value of which corresponds to that of the assets derived from, or obtained directly or indirectly through, the infringing activity];

  1. that its judicial or other competent authorites shall have the authority to release or, in the alternative, provide access to, goods, material, implements, and other evidence held by the authority to a right holder for civil249 infringement proceedings.

[US/NZ/PE/SG/BN/CL/AU/MY/CA/MX propose: VN/JP oppose: (h) that its competent authorities may act upon their own initiative to initiate a legal action without the need for a formal complaint by a private party or right holder].

Article QQ.H.8 {Trade Secrets}

1.250[CL propose: In the course of ensuring effective protection against unfair competition as provided in Article 10bis of the Paris Convention] Parties shall ensure that natural and legal persons have the legal means to prevent trade secrets lawfully in their control from being disclosed to, acquired by, or used by others (including state commercial enterprises) 251 without their consent in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices.[ 252 ] As used in this Chapter, trade secrets encompass, at a minimum, undisclosed information as provided for in Article 39.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.

[US/MX/CA/NZ/JP253 propose; SG/MY/PE/VN/CL/AU254/BN oppose: 2. Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties at least in cases in which a trade secret relating to a product in national or international commerce is misappropriated, or disclosed, willfully and without authority for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain, and with the intent to injure the owner of such trade secret.]

Article QQ.H.9: {Protection of Encrypted Program-Carrying Satellite Signals/Protection of Encrypted Program-Carrying Satellite and Cable Signals}

  1. Each Party shall make it a [CL/MX propose: civil or,] [VN propose: administrative or] criminal offense to:

  1. manufacture, assemble, modify, import, export, sell, lease, or otherwise distribute a tangible or intangible device or system, knowing[CL 255] [CL/JP oppose: or having reason to know] that the device or [CL oppose: system is primarily of assistance] [CL propose: system's principal function is solely to assist] in decoding an encrypted program-carrying satellite [CL/VN/SG/PE/CA/MX oppose: or cable] signal without the authorization of the lawful distributor of such signal256; and

[US/AU/NZ/PE/MY/SG/MX/VN/CA/CL propose, BN/JP oppose: (b) [VN oppose: [CA propose: except in circumstances where the lawful distributor has not made the signal available to persons in the area where the decoding occurs,] willfully receive257 [CL oppose: and make use of,][258] or] willfully further distribute a program-carrying signal that originated as an encrypted satellite [PE/SG/MX/VN/CL/CA oppose: or cable] signal knowing that it has been decoded without the authorization of the lawful dstributor of the signal, [PE/SG/MX/VN/CL/CA oppose: or if the signal has been decoded with the authorization of the lawful distributor of the signal, willfully to further distribute the signal for purposes of commercial advantage knowing that the signal originated as an encrypted program-carrying signal and that such further distribution is without the authorization of the lawful signal distributor.] ]

[US/AU/PE/NZ/MX/CL259 propose260, MY/BN/VN/CA oppose: 2. Each Party shall provide for civil remedies, [CL/MX oppose: including compensatory damages,] for any person injured by any activity described in paragraph [1], including any person that holds an interest in the encrypted programming signal or its content.]

Article QQ.H.10: {Special Measures Relating to Enforcement in the Digital Environment}

[US/AU/CA/SG/NZ/PE propose, VN/ oppose:1. Each Party shall ensure that enforcement procedures, to the extent set forth in the civil and criminal enforcement sections of this Chapter, are available under its law so as to permit effective action against an act of trademark, copyright or related rights infringement which takes place in the digital environment, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringement and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringement.]261

Article QQ.H.11: {Government Use of Software / Government Use of Software and Other Materials Protected by Copyright or Related Rights}

Each Party262 shall adopt or maintain appropriate laws, regulations, policies, orders, government-issued guidelines, or administrative or executive decrees providing that its [US/AU/CA/MY/VN/MX propose: central 263 ] government agencies use only non-infringing264computer software [US/AU/CA/MX propose:; SG/CL/PE/NZ/MY/BN/VN oppose: and other materials protected by copyright or related rights] in a manner authorized by law and by the relevant license. These measures shall apply to the acquisition and [PE/CA oppose: management] [PE/CA propose: use] of such software [PE/CL/BN/SG/NZ/MY/VN oppose: and other materials] for government use.

Article QQ.H.12265:

[US propose: Notwithstanding Article QQ.G.16 [limitations and exceptions] and Article QQ.G.14.3(b) [over the air broadcasting reference], no Party may permit the retransmission of television signals (whether terrestrial, cable, or satellite) on the Internet without the authorization of the right holder or right holders of the content of the signal and, if any, of the signal.266]

{SECTION I: INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS}

Article QQ.I.1:267 {Internet Service Provider Liability}

[CL/BN/NZ/MY/VN/CA/SG/MX propose; AU/US oppose: 1.268 Each Party shall limit the liability of, or the availability of remedies against, internet service providers269 [when acting as intermediaries270], for infringement of copyright or related rights that take place on or through communication networks, in relation to the provision or use of their services.]

[CA propose: 2. Limitations referred to in the previous paragraph shall cover at least the following functions:

  1. mere conduit, which consist of the provision of the means to transmit information provided by a user, or the means of access to a communication network;

  2. hosting of information at the request of a user of the hosting services;

  3. caching carried out through an automated process, when the internet service provider:

    1. does not modify information other than for technical reasons;

    2. ensures that any directions related to the caching of information that are specified in a manner widely recognized and used by industry are complied with; and

    3. does not interfere with the use of technology that is lawful and widely recognized and used by the industry in order to obtain data on the use of information;

  4. providing an information location tool, by making reproductions of copyright material in an automated manner, and communicating the reproductions.]

[CA propose: 3. Qualification by an internet service provider for the limitations as to each function in the previous paragraph shall be considered separately from qualification for the limitations as to each other function. Eligibility for the limitations in the previous paragraph may not be conditioned on the internet service provider monitoring its service, or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity.]

[CL/BN/NZ/VN/MX propose; AU/US/SG/MY oppose: 2. 271 272 The framework in Paragraph 1 [CA oppose: will only apply if an internet service provider meets conditions, including] [CA/CL/VN propose; NZ/MX oppose: shall be accompanied in a Party's law by]:

(a) [CA/NZ/CL/VN/MX propose: procedures for notifications of claimed infringement and for] removing or disabling access to infringing material [CA/CL/MX oppose: upon notification from the right holder through a procedure established by each Party]; and]

[CA/NZ/CL/VN273 propose: (b) legal incentives for internet service providers to comply with these procedures, or remedies against internet service providers who fail to comply.]]

[CA propose: 4. Each Party shall provide legal incentives for internet service providers to comply, or remedies against internet service providers who fail to comply, with any procedures established in each party's law for:

(a) effective notifications of claimed infringement; or

(b) removing or disabling access to infringing material residing on its networks.]

[CA/CL/VN274] propose: [CA oppose: 3.] [CA propose: 5.] The framework in Paragraph 1 will not apply to the extent that an internet service provider provides a service primarily for the purpose of enabling acts of copyright or related right infringement.]

[CA propose: 6. This Article is without prejudice to the availability in a Party's law of other defences, limitations and exceptions to the infringement of copyright or related rights. This Article shall not affect the possibility of a court or administrative authority, in accordance wth Parties' legal systems, or requiring the internet service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.]

[US/AU/SG/NZ/PE propose; BN/VN/CA/MX oppose: 1. [SG/MY oppose275: For the purpose of providing enforcement procedures that permit effective action against any act of copyright276 infringement covered by this Chapter, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and criminal and civil remedies] each Party shall provide, consistent with the framework set out in this Article:

  1. [MY/VN oppose: legal incentives for service providers to cooperate with copyright owners in deterring the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials; and]

  2. limitations in its law [MY/NZ/SG propose: on the liability of, or on the remedies] [NZ/MY/VN oppose: regarding the scope of remedies 277 ] available against service providers for copyright infringements that they do not control, initiate or direct, and that take place through systems or networks controlled or operated by them or on their behalf, as set forth in this subparagraph (b).278[PE propose: 279]

    1. [MY/VN oppose: These limitations shall preclude monetary relief and provide reasonable restrictions on court-ordered relief to compel or restrain certain actions for the following functions, [NZ oppose: and shall be confined to those functions]][280]:

      1. transmitting, routing, or providing connections for material without modification of its content[CL propose:281], or the [MY oppose: intermediate and] transient storage of such material in the course thereof;

      2. caching carried out through an automatic process;

      3. storage, at the direction of a user, of material residing on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider282; and

      4. referring or linking users to an online location by using information location tools, including hyperlinks and directories.

    2. These limitations shall apply only where the service provider does not initiate the transmission of the material, and does not select the material or its recipients (except to the extent that a function described in clause (i)(D) in itself entails some form of selection).

    3. Qualification by a service provider for the limitations as to each function in clauses (i)(A) through (D) shall be considered separately from qualification for the limitations as to each other function[CL oppose: , in accordance with the conditions for qualification set forth in clauses (iv) through (vii)]

    4. With respect to functions referred to in clause (i)(B), the limitations shall be conditioned on the service provider:

[CL/MY oppose: (A) permitting access to cached material in significant part only to users of its system or network who have met conditions [NZ propose: imposed by the originator of the material] on user access to that material;]

  1. 283complying with rules concerning the refreshing, reloading, or other updating of the cached material when specified by the [CL oppose: person making the material available online] [CL propose: supplier of the material] in accordance with a relevant industry standard data communications protocol for the system or network through which that person makes the material available that is generally accepted in the Party's territory;

  2. 284not interfering with technology used 285at the originating site consistent with industry standards generally accepted in the Party's territory to obtain information about the use of the material, and not modifying its content in transmission to subsequent users; and

  3. [MY oppose: expeditiously] removing or disabling access, on receipt of an effective notification of claimed infringement, to cached material that has been removed or access to which has been disabled at the originating site.

  1. With respect to functions referred to in clauses (i)(C) and (D), the limitations shall be conditioned on the service provider:

(A) not receiving a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in circumstances where it has the right and ability to control such activity;

(B) [MY oppose: expeditiously] removing or disabling access to the material residing on its system or network on obtaining actual knowledge of the infringement or becoming aware of facts or circumstances from which the infringement was apparent, such as through effective notifications of claimed infringement in accordance with clause (ix); [NZ oppose: and

(C ) publicly designating a representative to receive such notifications.]

[MY/NZ oppose: (vi) Eligibility for the limitations in this subparagraph shall be conditioned on the service provider:

(A) adopting and reasonably implementing a policy that provides for termination in appropriate circumstances of the accounts of repeat infringers; and

(B) accommodating and not interfering with standard technical measures accepted in the Party's territory286 that protect and identify copyrighted material, that are developed through an open, voluntary process by a broad consensus of interested parties287, that are available on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, and that do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.]

  1. Eligibility for the limitations in this subparagraph may not be conditioned on the service provider monitoring its service, or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity [NZ/MY oppose: , except to the extent consistent with such technical measures.]

[NZ oppose: (viii) If the service provider qualifies for the limitations with respect to the function referred to in clause (i)(A), court-ordered relief to compel or restrain certain actions shall be limited to terminating specified accounts, or to taking reasonable steps to block access to a specific, non-domestic online location.[MY oppose: If the service provider qualifies for the limitations with respect to any other function in clause (i), court-ordered relief to compel or restrain certain actions shall be limited to removing or disabling access to the infringing material, terminating specified accounts, and other remedies that a court may find necessary, provided that such other remedies are the least burdensome to the service provider [CL propose: and users or subscribers] among comparably effective forms of relief. Each Party shall provide that any such relief shall be issued with due regard for the relative burden to the service provider [CL propose: ,to users or subscribers] and harm to the copyright owner, the technical feasibility and effectiveness of the remedy and whether less burdensome, comparably effective enforcement methods are available. Except for orders ensuring the preservation of evidence, or other orders having no material adverse effect on the operation of the service provider's communications network, each Party shall provide that such relief shall be available only where the service provider has received notice of the court order proceedings referred to in this subparagraph and an opportunity to appear before the judicial authority.]]

[NZ oppose: (ix) For purposes of the notice and take down process for the functions referred to in clauses (i) [CL propose: (B)] (C) and (D), each Party shall establish appropriate procedures in its law or in regulations for effective notifications of claimed infringement, and effective counter-notifications by those whose material is removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification. Each Party shall also provide for monetary remedies against any person who makes a knowing material misrepresentation in a notification or counter-notification that causes injury to any interested party as a result of a service provider relying on the misrepresentation.]

[NZ oppose: (x) If the service provider removes or disables access to material in good faith based on claimed or apparent infringement, each Party shall provide that the service provider shall be exempted from liability for any resulting claims, provided that, in the case of material residing on its system or network, it takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the [CL oppose: person making the material available on its system or network] [CL propose: supplier of the material] that it has done so and, if such person makes an effective counter-notification and is subject to jurisdiction in an infringement suit, to restore the material online unless the person giving the original effective notification seeks judicial relief within a reasonable time.]

  1. Each Party shall establish an administrative or judicial procedure enabling copyright owners [NZ oppose: who have given effective notification of claimed infringement] to obtain expeditiously from a service provider information in its possession identifying the alleged infringer.

  1. For purposes of the function referred to in clause (i)(A), service provider means a provider of transmission, routing, or connections for digital online communications without modification of their content between or among points specified by the user of material of the user's choosing, [NZ oppose: and for purposes of the functions referred to in clauses (i)(B) through (D)service provider means a provider or operator of facilities for online services or network access288.]]

[US/AU/SG propose; CL/MY/NZ/VN/BN/CA/MX/PE oppose: Annex to Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix)

In meeting the obligations of Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix), each Party shall adopt or maintain requirements for: (a) effective written notice to service providers with respect to materials that are claimed to be infringing, and (b) effective written counter-notification by those whose material is removed or disabled and who claim that it was disabled through mistake or misidentification, as set forth in this letter. Effective written notice means notice that substantially complies with the elements listed in section (a) of this letter, and effective written counter-notification means counter-notification that substantially complies with the elements listed in section (b) of this letter.

(a) Effective Written Notice, by a Copyright289 Owner or Person Authorized to Act

on Behalf of an Owner of an Exclusive Right, to a Service Provider's Publicly Designated Representative290

In order for a notice to a service provider to comply with the relevant requirements set out in Article QQ.I.1.3(b)(ix), that notice must be a written communication, which may be provided electronically, that includes substantially the following:

  1. the identity, address, telephone number, and electronic mail address of the complaining party (or its authorized agent);

  1. information reasonably sufficient to enable the service provider to identify the copyrighted work(s)291 claimed to have been infringed;

3. information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to identify and locate the material residing on a system or network controlled or operated by it or for it that is claimed to be infringing, or to be the subject of infringing activity, and that is to be removed, or access to which is to be disabled;292

  1. a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;

  1. a statement that the information in the notice is accurate;

  1. a statement with sufficient indicia of reliability [SG propose:293] (such as a statement under penalty of perjury or equivalent legal sanctions) that the complaining party is the [SG/AU oppose: holder] [SG/AU propose: owner] of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed, or is authorized to act on the owner's behalf; and

  2. the signature of the person giving notice.294

(b) Effective Written Counter-Notification by a Subscriber295 Whose Material Was Removed or Disabled as a Result of Mistake or Misidentification of Material

In order for a counter-notification to a service provider to comply with the relevant requirements set out in Article QQ.I.1.3.(b)(ix), that counter-notification must be a written communication, which may be provided electronically, that includes substantially the following:

  1. the identity, address, [SG/AU propose: electronic mail address] and telephone number of the subscriber;

  2. the identity of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled;

  1. the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled;

  1. a statement with sufficient indicia of reliability (such as a statement under penalty of perjury or equivalent legal sanctions) that the subscriber [SG/AU propose: is the supplier of the material and] has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material;

  1. a statement that the subscriber agrees to be subject to orders of any court that has jurisdiction over the place where the subscriber's address is located, or, if that address is located outside the Party's territory, any other court with jurisdiction over any place in the Party's territory where the service provider may be found, and in which a copyright infringement suit could be brought with respect to the alleged infringement;

  1. a statement that the subscriber will accept service of process in any such suit; and

  1. the signature of the subscriber.296

]]

[CL propose: Annex […]

List of Geographical Indications from Chile

WINES Name of Indication

Valle de Aconcagua

Alhué

Valle del Bío Bío

Buin

Valle del Cachapoalf

Valle de Casablanca

Cauquenes

Chillán

Chimbarongo

Valle del Choapa

Coelemu

Valle de Colchagua

Valle de Copiapó

Valle de Curicó

Region de Aconcagua

Region de Atacama

Region de Coquimbo

Valle del Claro

Region del Sur

Region del Valle Central

Valle del Elqui

Valle del Huasco

Illapel

Isla de Maipo

Valle del Itata

Valle de Leyda

Valle de Limarí

Linares

Valle del Loncomilla

Valle del Lontué

Lolol

Valle del Maipo

Maria Pinto

Valle del Marga-Marga

Valle del Maule

Marchigue

Valle del Malleco

Melipilla

Molina

Monte Patria

Mulchén

Nancagua

Ovalle

Paiguano

Pajarete

Palmilla

Panquehue

Parral

Pencahue

Peralillo

Peumo

Pirque

Portezuelo

Puente Alto

Punitaqui

Quillón

Rancagua

Valle del Rapel

Rauco

Rengo

Requínoa

Río Hurtado

Romeral

Sagrada Familia

Valle de San Antonio

San Juan

Salamanca

San Clemente

San Fernando

San Javier

San Rafael

Santa Cruz

Santiago

Talagante

Talca

Valle del Teno

Valle delTutuvén

Traiguén

Vicuña

Villa Alegre

Vino Asoleado

Yumbel

SPIRITS Name of Indication Country

Pisco Chile

AGRICULTURAL Name of Indication Country

Limón de Pica Chile]

1Section and Article titles and headings appear in this text on a without prejudice basis. Parties have agreed to defer consideration of the need for, and drafting of, Section and Article titles and headings. Such titles or headings that appear in braces (i.e., "{ }") are included for general reference and information purposes only.

2Negotiators' Note: NZ/SG supports a definition for Intellectual Property which mirrors TRIPS Article 1.2 subject to confirmation of treatment of plant varieties rights.

3[AU/PE: For the purpose of this Chapter "intellectual property" also includes rights in plant varieties.]

4Negotiators' Note: AU supports including objectives but is still considering the drafting and scope of this article.

5Negotiators' Note: CA supports this provision in principle, but is reviewing the proposal.

6Negotiators' Note: MX will reflect further on the additional subparagraphs (g) and (h).

7Negotiators' Note: JP is reflecting further on this paragraph.

8Negotiators' Note: AU is still considering the drafting and scope of this paragraph.

9Negotiators' Note: AU is considering the drafting of the language.

10Negotiators' Note: Parties to discuss paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 with legal group to consider possible redundancy with General Provisions and receive advice on resolution.

11Negotiators' Note: Delegations are considering the relationship between this proposal and the general non-derogation provision in Article [ ]. Proponent delegations other than VN are prepared to consider addition of the opening clause shown in brackets if it aids in forming a consensus.

12Negotiators' Note: MX is flexible if the obligation is on a best endeavor basis.

13Negotiators' Note: SG has no substantive objection to this paragraph and will follow consensus.

14Negotiators' Note: MY/BN do not object in principle subject to further domestic internal consultations or procedures and greater clarity regarding views of other Parties. SG/CL has no substantive objection to this paragraph and will follow consensus. VN are continuing domestic procedures for consideration of the Protocol.

15Negotiators' Note: AU considering drafting of this provision.

16Negotiators' Note: JP reserves its position pending the outcome of Article QQ.A.1.

17[US/AU/SG/PE: For purposes of Articles [QQ.A.7.1-2___(NT & Judicial/Admin Procedures)_QQ.D.2.a__(GIs/Nationals), and (QQ.G.14.1 Performers/Phonograms/Related Rights,] a national of a Party shall [US propose: include] [US oppose: also mean], in respect of the relevant right, an entity of that Party that would meet the criteria for eligibility for protection provided for in the agreements listed in [Article QQ.A.6.4] and the TRIPS Agreement.]

18[US/AU/SG/PE/MY/VN/BN/NZ/MX/CLpropose: For purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 "protection" shall include matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, and enforcement of intellectual property rights as well as matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights specifically covered by this Chapter. Further, for purposes of paragraph 1[and 2], "protection" also includes the prohibition on circumvention of effective technological measures set out in Article QQ.G.10 and the rights and obligations concerning rights management information set out in Article QQ.G.13]
Negotiators' Note: [CL/SG/PE/MY/VN/BN/NZ/MX: reserves its position with regards to the second sentence, depending on the outcome of the technological protection measure/rights management information][Parties to determine whether this footnote shall refer to paragraph 1, or paragraphs 1 and 2.]

19Negotiators' Note: SG/CL is flexible on either approach to National Treatment.

20Negotiators' Note: NZ notes its proposed text may not be necessary depending on outcome of following two paragraphs. CA supports in principle and is considering further the drafting of this provision.

21Negotiators' Note: AU can be flexible on either approach to National Treatment.

22Negotiators' Note: MY/SG/PE support in principle. CP/JP is considering further.

23Negotiators' Note: MX is considering its position in relation to the whole paragraph.

24Negotiators' Note: CA can support consensus on the first sentence.

25Negotiators' Note: AU/NZ/CL/SG/BN/MY/JP is reviewing this provision in light of discussion in Legal and Institution Group. CA understands that a similar provision has already been agreed upon in the Transparency chapter.

26[SG/MY: Negotiators Note: Subject to the acceptance of provision concerning the disclosure of confidential information that will impede law enforcement.]

27[US: A Party may satisfy requirement for publication by making the law, regulation, or procedure available to the public on the Internet.]

28Text from Legal and Institution Group inserted for comparison purposes: Each Party shall ensure that its laws, regulations, procedures, and administrative rulings of general application with respect to any matter covered by this Agreement are promptly published or otherwise made available in such a manner as to enable interested persons and Parties to become acquainted with them.

29Negotiators' Note: CA supports in principle pending clarification of what is meant by "open to public inspection" in sub-paragraph (b).

30Negotiators note: AU/MY/CA/JP/MX: support inclusion of a provision regarding disclosure of confidential information but would prefer to see such a provision located in a chapter dealing with general provisions and exceptions.

31Text from LII Group inserted for comparison purposes: [LII Group: Article CCC.6: Disclosure of Information. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring a Party to furnish or allow access to confidential information the disclosure of which would impede law enforcement, otherwise be contrary to the public interest, or prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular enterprises, public or private. FN: AU/NZ/MY: For the purposes of this paragraph, the public interest includes, for example, compliance with legislative or constitutional provisions regarding privacy.]

32Negotiators' Note: AU/NZ/CL/SG/PE/MY/BN/VN/JP/MX/CA/US reserve positions pending final outcome of Chapter. All Parties agree to revisit this provision at the conclusion of this chapter.

33Negotiators' Note: JP will follow consensus on this paragraph.

34Negotiators' Note: CA is reflecting on the notion of the meaning of relevant authorities.

35Negotiators' Note: US consulting experts on wording of provision.

36Negotiators' Note: US and JP can go along with the consensus.

37Negotiators' Note: MY supports this article subject to further domestic implementation.

38[JP propose: For clarity a Party may require that a sign has acquired distinctiveness through use, where the sign consists only of names of place.]

39For purposes of this Chapter, geographical indication means indications that identify a good as originating in the territory of a party, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Consistent with this definition, any sign or combination of signs shall be eligible for protection under one or more of the legal means for protecting GIs, or a combination of such means.

40Negotiators' Note: CA/MY is flexible on this proposal.

41Negotiators' Notes: PE/MX/SG will go with consensus on this paragraph.

42[PE/US propose: For greater certainty, the existence of such measures does not per se, amount to impairment.]

43Negotiators' Note: MX is still reflecting on this provision. JP is considering this provision.

44[SG propose: this provision is not intended to affect the use of common names of pharmaceutical products in prescribing medicine.]

45Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

46Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

47Negotiators' Note: MX will go with consensus with this paragraph.

48[US/CA/CL/MX/SG/NZ/VN/BN/AU/MY propose: Where a Party determines whether a mark is well-known in the Party, the Party need not require that the reputation of the trademark extend beyond the sector of the public that normally deals with the relevant goods or services.]

49Negotiators' Note: MY support subject to domestic implementation.

50Negotiators' Note: Parties reviewing the scope of this paragraph intersessionally.

51Negotiators' Note: CA is flexible on this language, subject to its final attribution of this paragraph.

52Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

53For greater certainty, cancellation for purposes of this Section may be implemented through nullity or revocation proceedings.

54Parties that rely on translations of the Nice Classification are required to follow updated versions of the Nice Classification to the extent that official translations have been issued and published.

55Negotiators' Note: AU supports this article ad referendum.

56Negotiators' Note: AU supports this paragraph ad referendum.

57Negotiators' Note: Brunei can accept this provision pending completion of its database.

58Negotiators' Note: US seeks further clarification on the scope of application of privacy data.

59Negotiators' Note: AU/CL/MY/NZ/US/SG/JP support contingent on understanding that TPP will include a general provision related to privacy/disclosure of information; issues.

60Negotiators' Note: JP seeks clarification as to whether "registration" is deemed to be synonymous with "acquiring the right to use" and reserves its position pending clarification of the term "trafficking".

61Negotiators' Note: [JP is still considering this issue depending on the outcome of discussions on Article QQ.C.2][AU/NZ: will go with consensus.]

62Subparagraph (a) shall also apply to judicial procedures that protect or recognize a geographical indication.

63Negotiators' Note: Parties are considering the different terms used in this provision along with similar issues that have cropped up in C6 and D3.

64Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this language.

65Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision depending on the meaning of this Article.

66Negotiators' Note: subject to legal clarification on consistency of the term cancellation etc.

67Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision including Note to (i) and (ii).

68[US/NZ/BN propose; CL/PE/SG/MX/MY oppose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that a geographical indication that is likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or with another geographical indication should be refused protection, even if that geographical indication is a translation or modification of a geographical indication that the Party already protects.] [US alternative propose; PE/MX/ SG/MY/CL oppose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that, where a translation or a modification of a geographical indication is likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or geographical indication, it should be refused protection.]

69[US/AU propose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that the prior trademarks referred to in Article QQ.D.3 include well-known trademarks.]

70Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

71[US: For greater certainty, nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit a Party from barring third parties from using or registering translations of geographical indications if: (1) such uses give rise to a likelihood of confusion[JP oppose: , and (2) the geographical indications became protected through means other than an agreement between a Party and a government or governmental entity].] Negotiators' Note: JP proposes to move this footnote before subparagraph (a), so that it covers subparagraph (b) as well.

72Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

73Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

74[NZ propose: for greater certainty the filing date reference in Article QQ.D.6 includes the priority filing date under the Paris Convention, where applicable.]

75Negotiators' Note: CA to consider; BN can go along with consensus: VN/BN maintains opposition to reference to agreement with another government, etc.

76Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

77Negotiators' Note: CA reserves its right to revisit this article once the Geographical Indication provisions have been agreed upon. MY/SG still considering this provision.

78Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

79Negotiators' Note: CA is reflecting on both proposals. JP is considering this provision.

80Negotiators' Note: MY/PE supports SG proposal in principle but is reflecting on language.

81Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

82Negotiators' Note: VN supports subject to this list of GIs in the Annex.

83[CL/BN/SG propose: For greater certainty, the Parties acknowledge that geographical indications will be recognized and protected in the Parties only to the extent permitted by and according to the terms and conditions set out in their respective domestic laws.]

84Negotiators' Note: CA is continuing to reflect on this provision but notes concerns regarding scope and operation. JP is considering this provision.

85Negotiators' Note: US supports the principle reflected in this Article, but has concerns about limiting the Article just to names of countries.

86Negotiators' Note: AU/ NZ/ SG/ BN reflecting on reformulated proposal. JP is considering this provision.

87For purposes of this [Section] Article, a Party may deem the terms "inventive step" and "capable of industrial application" to be synonymous with the terms "non-obvious" and "useful", respectively. In determinations regarding inventive step (or non-obviousness), each Party shall consider whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person skilled or having ordinary skill in the art having regard to the prior art.

88Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

89Negotiator's Note: NZ/VN accept ad referendum pending confirmation on scope of publication and duration of grace period.

90[CA/SG/JP propose: A Party shall not be required to disregard information contained in [gazettes related to intellectual properties or] patent applications made available to the public by a patent office unless erroneously published or unless the application was filed without the consent of the inventor or their successor in title by a third party who obtained the information directly or indirectly from the inventor.]

91For greater certainty, a Party may limit application of this provision to disclosures made by or obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. [PE/US/MY/SG/AU propose: For greater certainty, a Party may provide that, for purposes of this article information obtained directly or indirectly from the patent applicant may be information contained in the public disclosure that was authorized by, or derived from, the patent applicant.]

92Negotiators' Note: Parties will continue to work to resolve the drafting of footnotes 61 & 62 (2nd sentence) intersessionally.

93Negotiator's Note: PE and SG are flexible with both options.

94US withdraw Article QQ.E.4 ad referendum pending confirmation from capital.

95Negotiator's note: CA reserves its position on Articles QQ.E.6,QQ.E.11 and QQ.E.12 pending clarification of the definition of publish/published.

96Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

97[US: A Party may limit application of this provision to patent applications in which there is at least one claim to new subject matter filed after the entry into force of this Agreement.] Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

98Each Party may provide that such amendments do not go beyond the scope of the disclosure of the invention as of the filing date.

99Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

100Negotiator's Note: MX/SG are willing to accept the article provided that the sentence "without undue experimentation" is deleted.

101Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

102Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

103Negotiator's note: SG/BN/US/MY is not fundamentally opposed, but considering how their concerns over exceptions will be addressed. US support for this provision is contingent upon resolution of exceptions under U.S. law. JP is considering the issue of exceptions.

104Negotiator's Note: AU is considering the issue of "in the possession of the competent authority".

105Negotiator's Note CA: Publish includes making available for public inspection.

106Negotiator's Note: AU is still considering whether this would include personal information.

107Negotiator's Note: CA/MX/AU is still considering the options in this provision.

108[MX propose: For greater clarity, the duration of the regulatory review exception will be subject to each Party's national legislation.]

109Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

110Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

111[US: For greater certainty, new pharmaceutical product in subparagraphs 6 (c)-(e) means a product that at least contains a new chemical entity that has not been previously approved as a pharmaceutical product [JP propose: for human use] in the territory of the Party.]

112[US: Negotiator's Note: For purposes of paragraph 6(e) of Article 8 and paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 9, the length of the [X]-year period should: enhance certainty regarding access to innovative and generic pharmaceutical products for all; provide incentives for innovation; provide incentives for the diffusion of pharmaceutical products within the TPP region; respect commercial considerations; and account for special challenges in developing and commercializing such products throughout the region (e.g., challenges faced by smaller or less experienced applicants, or the time that an applicant may need to assess additional safety or efficacy implications of marketing a product, such as to assess such implications in jurisdictions where risks may differ from those faced in markets where the product has previously been approved).]

113Negotiators' Note: CA reserves its position and seeks to develop its understanding of these provisions further to the discussion in Singapore. JP is still considering its position on Article QQ.E.16. to E.22.

114For greater certainty, the Parties recognize that this paragraph does not imply that the marketing approval authority should make patent validity or infringement determinations.

115[Negotiator's Note: As used in Article 9.5(b)(i), "adjudicate" does not mean final adjudication.]

116A Party may comply with paragraph 5(d) by providing a period of marketing exclusivity in appropriate circumstances to the first such other person or persons to challenge a patent.

117For greater certainty, the Parties understand that the term "pharmaceutical product" as used in this Chapter includes biologic products.

118Negotiators' Note: AU/CA/MY/CL/BN can support the inclusion of provisions on agriculture chemical but still considering the scope and drafting of the protection. CA is also considering the duration of the protection.

119Negotiator's Note: MX: Placeholder for definition for "considerable efforts".

120Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

121Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

122Negotiators' Note: CA/US position is that QQ.E.23 provisions should be addressed in the Environment Chapter. The US/JP opposes the inclusion of this proposal in this Chapter.

123[MX propose; CL oppose: For greater certainty "derivative" means a naturally occurring biochemical compound resulting from the genetic expression or metabolism of biological or genetic resources, without human manipulation, even if does not contain functional units of heredity.]

124Negotiator's Note: MX is still reflecting the coverage of related rights in this chapter.

125The Parties reaffirm that it is a matter for each Party's law to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works, performances and phonograms shall not be protected by copyright or related rights unless they have been fixed in some material form.

126References to "authors, performers, and producers of phonograms" refer also to any successors in interest.

127With respect to copyrights and related rights in this Chapter, the "right to authorize or prohibit" and the "right to authorize" refer to exclusive rights.

128[US/AU/PE/CA/CL/MX/SG/MY/NZ/VN propose: With respect to [PE/CL/MX oppose: copyright and] related rights in this Chapter, a "performance" means a performance fixed in a phonogram unless otherwise specified.]

129[VN/BN/CA propose: The reproduction right, as set out in Article 9 of the Berne Convention [CA propose: and articles 7 and 11 of the WPPT], and the exceptions permitted thereunder, fully apply in the digital environment, in particular to the use of works [CA propose: , performances and phonograms] in digital form. It is understood that the storage of a protected work [CA propose: , performance or phonogram] in digital form in an electronic medium constitutes a reproduction within the meaning of [CA propose: the articles referenced in this footnote] [CA oppose: Article 9 of the Berne Convention].]

130[CL/NZ/MY/BN/JP propose: It is consistent with this Agreement to provide exceptions and limitations for temporary acts of reproduction which are transient or incidental and an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable (a) a lawful transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or (b) a lawful use of a work; and which have no independent economic significance.] [Negotiators Note: Discussions indicated no substantive objection to the concept, however, Parties continue to consider whether the footnote is required, where it might best be placed, and how it should be drafted.]

131[CA/JP propose: It is a matter for each Party's law to determine when a given act constitutes a temporary reproduction for the purposes of copyright and related rights.]

132It is understood that the mere provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication does not in itself amount to communication within the meaning of this Chapter or the Berne Convention. It is further understood that nothing in this Article precludes a Party from applying Article 11bis(2) of the Berne Convention.

133[NZ propose: For the purpose of this paragraph importation may exclude importation for private or domestic use.]

134[PE/NZ propose: The expressions "copies" in this paragraph refers exclusively to fixed copies that can be put into circulation as tangible copies]. [Negotiators' Note: US can support the concept subject to final drafting.] [JP propose: A Party may comply with its obligations under this paragraph by legislating in the Party's law that such importation, for the purpose of distribution, is deemed to be infringement.] Negotiator's Note: With this footnote, Japan can withdraw its opposition in the first line of QQ.G.3.

135[US: With respect to copies of works and phonograms that have been placed on the market by the relevant right holder, the obligations described in Article [QQ.G.3] apply only to books, journals, sheet music, sound recordings, computer programs, and audio and visual works (i.e., categories of products in which the value of the copyrighted material represents substantially all of the value of the product). Notwithstanding the foregoing, each Party may provide the protection described in Article [QQ.G.3] to a broader range of goods.]

136[Negotiator's Note: The US is considering the relationship between this provision and other proposals regarding the exhaustion of IP rights, as well as other TPP countries' legal regimes.]

137The expressions "copies" and "original and copies" subject to the right of distribution in this paragraph refer exclusively to fixed copies that can be put into circulation as tangible objects [US/CA/SG oppose: , i.e., for this purpose, "copies" means physical copies.]

138[AU/VN/PE/NZ/BN/MY/SG/CA/CL/MX/JP propose: Nothing in this Agreement shall affect a Party's right to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of this right applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of their works, performances, or phonograms with the authorization of [CA/SG propose: the author, performer or producer] [CA/SG oppose: the right holder].] (Negotiator's Note: VN prefers this to be in the text as opposed to a footnote).

139[Negotiators' Note: AU/CA agree in principle but will reflect further on the language.]

140Negotiators' Note: AU supports this article ad referendum.

141For greater certainty, this provision does not affect the exercise of moral rights.

142Negotiators' Note: Article QQ.H.4.15 should be discussed after discussions on this issue.

143Negotiator's Note: MX supports this provision in principle.

144Negotiator's Note: CA supports this provision in principle pending outcome of discussions on exceptions.

145Negotiator's Note: CL is considering pending the outcome of the language of this proposal.

146Negotiator's Note: NZ reserves its position on article QQ.G.10 pending the outcome of exceptions and limitations on TPMs protection. JP is considering a possibility of producing its proposal on Technological Protection Measures.

147Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending the clarification of the meaning of "rights".

148Negotiator's Note: CA pending clarification of criminal remedies.

149Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending clarification of "traffics".

150Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending clarification of the terms "promoted" and "advertised."

151Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending clarification of "any".

152Negotiator's Note: CA seeks clarification as to whether article "12.12" is meant to refer to article QQ.H.4(15).

153Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending outcome of discussion of provision QQ.H.4(15).

154Negotiator's Note: CA seeks clarification if nonprofit applies to all institutions.

155Negotiator's Note: CA seeks clarification of the intention of this sentence.

156Negotiator's Note: CA seeks clarification as to whether article "15.15" is meant to refer to article QQ.H.7(7). CA reserves position pending clarification of QQ.H.7(7).

157[US/AU: For purposes of greater certainty, no Party is required to impose liability under Articles [9 and 10] for actions taken by that Party or a third party acting with the authorization or consent of that Party.] [Negotiator's Note: CA seeks clarification of this footnote.]

158Negotiator's Note: CA is considering these limitations.

159[CL propose: For greater certainty, elements of a computer program are not readily available to a person seeking to engage in non-infringing reverse engineering when they cannot be obtained from literature on the subject, from the copyright holder, or from sources in the public domain.]

160[CL propose: Such activity occurring in the course of research and development is not excluded in this exception.]

161[CL propose: Such activity occurring in the course of research and development is not excluded from this exception.]

162Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position.

163Negotiator's Note: CA needs to reflect further on this paragraph.

164Negotiator's Note: CA is considering paragraph (e) pending the outcome on discussions on limitations and exceptions.

165Negotiator's Note: CA is considering paragraph (f).

166Negotiators' Note: NZ/PE/CA/AU/MX/MY/BN/VN support in principle pending drafting consultations.

167Negotiator's note: SG/CA/MX is willing to consider a more flexible approach to TPM provisions.

168Negotiator's Note: MY/VN/CL does not object in principle but needs to reflect further on the language.

169Negotiator's Note: CL/MY/NZ/BN/JP positions pending outcome of this provision.

170Negotiator's Note: NZ/JP is considering the scope of obligations under this paragraph.

171Negotiator's Note: CA reserves its position pending the outcome of FN10 (Art. QQ.A.7).

172For greater certainty, in this paragraph with respect to performances or phonograms first published or first fixed in the territory of a Party, a Party may apply the criterion of publication, or alternatively, the criterion of fixation, or both.

173For purposes of this Article, fixation means the finalization of the master tape or its equivalent.

174[JP propose: A Party may comply with its obligations under this paragraph by legislating that performers and producers of phonograms are protected to the extent provided for in Article 3 of WPPT and/or Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the TRIPS Agreement.

175The term "published" in this paragraph includes phonograms that are made available in accordance with Article 15(4) of the WPPT.

176Where a Party has availed itself of the option contained in Article 15(3) of the World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), the obligation contained in [QQ.A.X - national treatment] does not apply to the extent that a Party makes use of a reservation taken under that Article.]"

177[US/SG propose ; CA/MX/CL/MY/VN/BN/CL oppose: For greater certainty, "broadcasting" does not include transmissions over computer networks or any transmissions where the time and place of reception may be individually chosen by members of the public.]

178Negotiator's Note; CA is considering the need for a deeming provision similar to article 15 (4) of WPPT.

179Negotiators' Note: CA supports a provision on limitations and exceptions and is reflecting further.

180Negotiators' Note: Delegations are considering the relationship between Article QQ.G.X.2 and new multilateral agreements concluded under the auspicies of WIPO and the agreements listed in Article QQ.G.X.2. Delegations will work to resolve this issue in Article QQ.A.6 (General Provisions - relationship to other agreements) or elsewhere.

181Negotiator's Note: SG/CA/PE/BN/NZ/AU is flexible on the inclusion of the word 'education' as the notion is already significantly covered by teaching, sholarship and research. US/MX believe the word 'education' is covered by teaching, scholarship and research, but is considering further.

182FN: For purposes of greater clarity, a use that has commercial aspects may in appropriate circumstances be considered to have a legitimate purpose under Article QQ.G.Y.

183Negotiator's Note: NZ/AU is flexible on either options referring to persons with disabilities.

184Negotiator's Note: Delegations are considering the appropriate placement of this issue under right of reproduction or L & E. There continue to be discussions regarding this issue and delegations have diverging views.

185Negotiators' Note: CA reserves its position pending the outcome of discussions elsewhere in this Chapter.

186For greater certainty, royalties may include equitable remuneration.

187[CL propose: For greater certainty, law may include enforcement procedures established under Parties legal systems.]

188Negotiators' Note: AU/CL can support if there is emerging consensus on this issue.

189Negotiators' Note: The reference to Section is intended to include enforcement-related provisions throughout the Chapter.

190[US/CA/MY propose: For greater certainty, a Party may implement this Article on the basis of sworn statements or documents having evidentiary value, such as statutory declarations. A Party may also provide that such presumptions are rebuttable presumptions that may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary.]

191Each Party may establish the means by which it shall determine what constitutes the "usual manner" for a particular physical support.

192Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

193Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

194Negotiators' Note: AU/MX/US/PE will consider options to address concerns intersessionally and will involve the wider group.

195[US: A Party may satisfy the requirement for publication by making the decision or ruling available to the public on the Internet.]

196For the purposes of this Article, the term "right holder" shall include those authorized licensees, federations and associations that have the legal standing and authority to assert such rights. The term "authorized licensee" shall include the exclusive licensee of any one or more of the exclusive intellectual property rights encompassed in a given intellectual property.

197Negotiators' Note: AU/US/JP would like to consider this proposal in tandem with the definition of intellectual property rights in this Chapter.

198[AU/NZ/MY/CA/JP/SG propose: A Party may also provide that the right holder may not be entitled to either of the remedies set out in 2 and 2bis in the case of a finding of non-use of a trademark] [JP/AU/SG/CA/MY propose: it is understood that there is no obligation for a Party to provide for the possibility of the remedies in 2 and 2bisto be ordered in parallel.]

199[US propose: In the case of patent infringement, damages adequate to compensate for the infringement shall not be less than a reasonable royalty.] [Negotiators' note: JP can go along with consensus.]

200[CA propose: A Party may exclude from the application of this Article cases of Copyright or related rights infringement where an infringer did not knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engage in infringing activity or where an infringer is a non-profit entity.][JP propose: A Party may presume those profits to be the amount of damages referred to in the preceding paragraph.]

201Negotiators' Note: AU supports this paragraph ad referendum.

202Negotiators' Note: CL/MY/SG will revert back intersessionally.

203Negotiators' Note: JP is considering this provision.

204Negotiators' Note: MY support the principle but are still considering the need for this proposal in the context of Article 48 of TRIPS. SG/MX/VN/AU/CA can go along with the consensus.

205For greater certainty, additional damages may include exemplary or punitive damages.

206Negotiator's Note: AU is still considering this paragaph.

207Negotiators' Note: Parties are considering the drafting choice of the word that represent the concept of seriousness.

208No Party shall be required to apply this paragraph to actions for infringement against a Party or a third party acting with the authorization or consent of a Party.

209[CA propose: For the purposes of this Article, where appropriate shall not be limited to exceptional cases.]

210Negotiators note: NZ share view of the article but would rather see it placed some other place; MX is considering this issue in light of Article QQ.H.4.13; JP proposes to move paragraph. 9 to Article QQ.H.5. Otherwise, JP will support VN proposal.

211Negotiator's Note: MX supports this in principle but needs to reflect on this pending discussions on paragraph QQ.H.4.13.

212Negotiator's Note: MX is still considering this proposal.

213VN propose: A request for an order under this paragraph may be considered as unjustified in case such order would be out of proportion to the seriousness of the infringement.

214Negotiators' Note: PE/MX are considering the need for this proposal.

215[For greater certainty, civil remedies do not include administrative measures, decisions or any other actions taken by administrative authorities.]

216Negotiators Note: PE/MY/NZ/CL/CA reserve their positions pending resolution of related provisions regarding TPM and RMI.

217Negotiator's Note: This will be discussed in relation to provisions regarding TPM and RMI.

218Negotiators Note: The scope of border measures in this section will be confined to counterfeit trademark goods, pirated copyright goods. The US proposal for inclusion of, confusingly similar trademark goods is still under negotiation and Parties have different views on this proposal.

219[CA propose: It is understood that there shall be no obligation to apply the procedures set forth in this Article to goods put on the market in another country by or with the consent of the right holder.]

220For purposes of Article 14:

(a) counterfeit trademark goods means any goods, including packaging, bearing without authorization a trademark that is identical to the trademark validly registered in respect of such goods, or that cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trademark, and that thereby infringes the rights of the owner of the trademark in quesiton under the law of the country of importation; and

(b) pirated copyright goods means any goods that are copies made without the consent of the right holder or person duly authorized by the right holder in the country of production and that are made directly or indirectly from an article where the making of that copy would have constituted an infringement of a copyright or a related right under the law of the country of importation.

221Negotiators' Note: AU supports this ad referendum.

222Negotiators' Note: Need to clean up terminology in H.6 relating to 'goods' and 'merchandise'.

223Negotiators' Note: MY/CA/SG/AU/VN/BN: suspect goods need to be defined and revert back.

224Negotiators' Note: CA/MY/AU: Customs controls need to be defined and revert back.

225[SG propose: the requirement to provide for such application is applicable to the obligation to provide procedures referred to in Article QQ.H.6.1.]

226Negotiators' Note: AU/PE can support consensus.

227Negotiators' Note: MY/SG/VN/BN are considering this first clause.

228Negotiators' Note: Parties are considering the need for a footnote to deal with the scope of this clause.

229Negotiators' Note: CA would need to include minor amendments on disclosure.

230For purposes of this Article, "days" shall mean "business days".

231For greater certainty, the parties understand that ex officio action does not require a formal complaint from a private party or right holder [MY/BN propose: , provided that they have acquired prima facie evidence that intellectual property rights are being infringed].

232For purposes of this Article, in-transit merchandise means goods under "Customs transit" and goods "transhipped," as defined in the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Kyoto Convention).

233Negotiators' Note: US to revisit after the decision on scope of application ex officio.

234Negotiators' Note: VN can accept "shall" option if the scope of Border control is confined to trademarks counterfeit and copyright pirated goods.

235For greater certainty, a Party may also exclude from the application of this Article small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature sent in small consignments.

236[US propose; AU/SG/PE/CA/JP oppose: For greater certainty, "financial gain" for purposes of this Article includes the receipt or expectation of anything of value.]

237[US/CA propose; JP oppose: A Party may comply with this obligation in relation to [JP: importation and] exportation of pirated [JP: copyright] goods through its measures concerning distribution.] [JP alternatively propose: A Party may comply with its obligation relating to importation and exportation of counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyright goods by providing for distribution, sale or offer for sale of such goods on a commercial scale as unlawful activities subject to criminal penalties.]

238US: Negotiator's Note: For greater certainty, the definition of "counterfeit trademark goods" in footnote [12] shall be used as context for this Article.

239US: For purposes of this Article, "illicit label" means a genuine certificate, licensing document, registration card, or similar labeling component:

(A) that is used by the copyright owner to verify that a phonogram, a copy of a computer program or literary work, a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or documentation or packaging for such phonogram or copies is not counterfeit or infringing of any copyright; and

(B) that is, without the authorization of the copyright owner-

(i) distributed or intended for distribution not in connection with the phonogram or copies to which such labeling component was intended to be affixed by the respective copyright owner;

or

(ii) in connection with a genuine certificate or licensing document, knowingly falsified in order to designate a higher number of licensed users or copies than authorized by the copyright owner, unless that certificate or document is used by the copyright owner solely for the purpose of monitoring or tracking the copyright owner's distribution channel and not for the purpose of verifying that a copy or phonogram is noninfringing.

240A Party may comply with its obligation relating to importation of labels or packaging through its measures concerning distribution.

241A Party may comply with its obligations under this paragraph by providing for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied to attempts to commit a trademark offence.

242US: For purposes of this Article, "illicit label" means a genuine certificate, licensing document, registration card, or similar labeling component:

(A) that is used by the copyright owner to verify that a phonogram, a copy of a computer program or literary work, a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or documentation or packaging for such phonogram or copies is not counterfeit or infringing of any copyright; and
(B) that is, without the authorization of the copyright owner-

(i) distributed or intended for distribution not in connection with the phonogram or copies to which such labeling component was intended to be affixed by the respective copyright owner;
or

(ii) in connection with a genuine certificate or licensing document, knowingly falsified in order to designate a higher number of licensed users or copies than authorized by the copyright owner, unless that certificate or document is used by the copyright owner solely for the purpose of monitoring or tracking the copyright owner's distribution channel and not for the purpose of verifying that a copy or phonogram is noninfringing.

243It is understood that there is no obligation for a Party to provide for the possibility of imprisonment and monetary fines to be imposed in parallel.

244Negotiator's Note: CL/PE/MX/CA is still considering pending consultation with capital.

245A Party may also account for such circumstances through a separate criminal offense.

246Negotiators' Note: CA/BN/VN are reflecting on the definition of "assets".

247Negotiators Note: The use of the term "competent/judicial" in this subparagraph will be revisited.

248Negotiators' Note: The cross reference to subparagraph (c) will be revisited during legal scrubbing.

249A Party may also provide such authority in connection with administrative infringement proceedings.

250Negotiators' Note: AU supports this paragraph ad referendum.

251Negotiators' Note: BN seeks further clarification on "state commercial enterprise".

252[US: For greater certainty, a Party may treat disclosure of a trade secret to that Party's authorities in connection with providing evidence of an alleged violation of that Party's law as not contrary to honest commercial practices.][AU propose: for the purposes of this paragraph "a manner contrary to honest commercial practices" shall mean at least practices such as breach of contract, breach of confidence and inducement to breach, and includes the acquisition of undisclosed information by third parties who knew, or were grossly negligent in failing to know, that such practices were involved in the acquisition.]

253Negotiators' Note: CA/MX/NZ/JP supports in principle subject to final drafting.

254Negotiators' Note: AU opposes this paragraph ad referendum.

255[CL propose: For purposes of paragraph 1, knowledge may be demonstrated through reasonable evidence, taking into account the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged illegal act.]

256[CA/AU/SG propose: The obligation regarding export may be met by making it a criminal offence to possess and distribute such a device or system.]

257[CA propose: willfully receiving may mean operating a radio apparatus so as to receive an encrypted signal].

258[US propose; CL/AU oppose: For greater certainty, "make use of" includes viewing of the signal, whether private or commercial].

259Negotiators' Note: CL position will depend on the outcome of paragraph 1(a).

260Negotiators' Note: SG agrees in principle but will reflect further on the language.

261Negotiator's Note: MX/MY/CL/BN are still considering this provision.

262Negotiators' Note: CA confirming with government procurement people.

263Negotiators' Note: CA support for central depends on how it is defined throughout the agreement.

264Negotiators' Note: SG/CL/MY/BN/VN subject to consideration of parallel importation issues.

265Negotiators' Note: delegations are still considering this proposal, and are also reflecting on the placement of this proposal in the Chapter.

266[US: For purposes of this Article and for greater certainty, retransmission within a Party's territory over a closed, defined, subscriber network that is not accessible from outside the Party's territory does not constitute retransmission on the Internet.]

267Negotiators' Note: JP is still considering its positions on this Section.

268Negotiator's Note: PE is still considering its position on paragraphs 1, 2 and the new paragraph 3 presented by CA.

269Each Party may determine, within its domestic law, what constitutes an internet service provider.

270Negotiator's Note; NZ is still considering this phrase.

271Negotiators' Note: VN to consider this provision further.

272Negotiator's Note: BN is considering its reactions to the proposals presented by CA on paragraphs 2 and 3.

273Negotiator's Note: MX is considering its reactions to paragraph 2b and 3.

274Negotiator's Note: NZ is considering its reactions to paragraph 3.

275Negotiator's Note: NZ proposes to look at the placement of this paragraph vis a vis its placement elsewhere in the text.

276For purposes of this paragraph, "copyright" includes related rights. Negotiators' Note: The placement of the footnote will depend on the outcome of the chapeau of this paragraph.

277[NZ propose: For the avoidance of doubt, limitations regarding the scope of remedies available can be implemented through limitations on the liability of internet service providers.]

278This subparagraph is without prejudice to the availability of defenses to copyright infringement that are of general applicability.

279[PE propose: For greater clarity, the failure of an ISP to qualify for the limitations in subparagraph (b) does not itself result in liability.]

280[US/PE/SG/AU propose; CL/NZ/VN oppose: A Party may request consultations with the other Parties to consider how to address under this paragraph functions of a similar nature that a Party identifies after the entry into force of this Agreement.]

281[CL/MY/SG/NZ/AU/PE/US propose: Such modification does not include modifications made as part of a technical process.]

282[CL/MY/SG/NZ/AU/US propose: For greater certainty, such storage of material may include e-mails and their attachments stored in the provider's server and web pages residing on the provider's server.]

283Negotiator's Note: MY needs to reflect further on this provision.

284Negotiator's Note: MY will reflect further on this provision.

285CL/SG/NZ/AU/US/PE propose: A Party may require that such technology shall be used in a lawful manner.]

286[CL/SG/NZ/AU/PE/US propose: A Party may require that such standard technical measures shall be used in a lawful manner, and that such measures are subject to approval by relevant authorities.]

287[CL/SG/NZ/AU/PE/US propose: A Party may provide that interested parties include copyright owners, service providers or other interested parties, [CL/SG/NZ/AU/US propose: as may be approved by relevant authorities,] as applicable.]

288[CL/MY/SG/NZ/AU/US/PE propose: As used in subparagraph (xii), a Party may provide that network access includes cases in which network access is provided by another provider.]

289All references to copyright in this letter are understood to include related rights, and all references to works are understood to include the subject matter of related rights.

290The Parties understand that a representative is publicly designated to receive notification on behalf of a service provider if the representative's name, physical and electronic address, and telephone number are posted on a publicly accessible portion of the service provider's website, and also in a register accessible to the public through the Internet, or designated in another form or manner appropriate for [insert Party name].

291If multiple copyrighted works at, or linked to from, a single online site on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at, or linked to from, that site may be provided.

292In the case of notices regarding an information location tool pursuant to paragraph (b)(i)(D) of Article 16.3, the information provided must be reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the reference or link residing on a system or network controlled or operated by or for it, except that in the case of a notice regarding a substantial number of references or links at a single online site residing on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, a representative list of such references or links at the site may be provided, if accompanied by information sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the references or links.

293[SG propose: To satisfy this requirement, the process to be established shall not be costly or cumbersome. An appropriate electronic mechanism may be used or incorporated in this process.]

294A signature transmitted as part of an electronic communication satisfies this requirement.

295All referenced to "subscriber" in this letter refer to the person whose material has been removed or disabled by a service provider as a result of an effective notice described in part (a) of this letter.

296A signature transmitted as part of an electronic communication satisfies this requirement.

FinCEN floats new Bitcoin related currency regulation advisory as criminal bankster operations sack depositors in Cyprus

UPDATE 3.28 - BITCOIN SURGES TO $92 - see http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/03/24/cyprus-goes-cashless-t...
for notes on Bitcoin's surge in popularity as a refuge from the Looting, and more context to the FinCEN stuff as well.

The FinCEN structure is one of those good at gracefully failing to say much about the huge volumes of drug money circulating in the Federal Reserve System. They are now setting their eyes on extending the Ontology of Fail into Bitcoin.

Since the Cyprus looting political situation has slid forward, Bitcoin apps have been going viral in Europe - particularly in the small Spanish iOS market. For some unclear reason Bitcoin's value has been going parabolic since the start of 2013.

Good intro, suggests the rideup not just because of Cyprus: Bitcoin bubble or new virtual currency? | | MacroBusiness

Bitcoin interest spikes in Spain as Cyprus financial crisis grows (Wired UK)

Spain turns to Bitcoin, prompting incoherent discussion on Today

Bitcoin analysis: Cyprus crisis increases virtual currency interest | BGR

Bitcoin apps soar in Spain – will the Cyprus shocker boost virtual currencies? - Yahoo! News

BREAKING: In Response To Building Cyprus Panic - BITCOIN HITS NEW ALL-TIME HIGH OF $50....er, $52, $54, $55 - Max Keiser // Bitcoin-Related Apps Spike In Spain Over Weekend, Alongside Cyprus

Bitcoin getting a boost from euro crisis - FRANCE 24

BrianLehrer.tv: Saving the Kimani Grays - YouTube & bookmark'd to an interview Erik Voorhees and Marc Hochstein. Includes the quickie intro video for Bitcoin.

For updates: Bitcoin Watch

The rideup from ~ $47/Bitcoin to a pretty solid $64-72 range, likely due to Cyprus, shows that even if things cool off, Bitcoin demand definitely has reached a new audience.

This chart is from Mt. Gox, the largest Bitcoin exchange site.

chart.png

Here is the Euro chart, perhaps more relevant.

201303250051.jpg

Needless to say, the market spike has made Bitcoin mining quite a bit more profitable than only a few weeks ago.

Welcome To FinCEN.gov - FinCEN’s mission is to safeguard the financial system from illicit use and combat money laundering and promote national security through the collection, analysis, and dissemination of financial intelligence and strategic use of financial authorities.

FinCen Regulation of BitCoin and Virtual Currency

20 March 2013

A sends:

http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/pdf/FIN-2013-G001.pdf

Guidance

FIN-2013-G001

Issued:

March 18, 2013

Subject:

Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies

            The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN") is issuing this interpretive guidance to clarify the applicability of the regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act ("BSA") to persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or transmitting virtual currencies.1 Such persons are referred to in this guidance as "users," "administrators," and "exchangers," all as defined below.2 A user of virtual currency is not an MSB under FinCEN's regulations and therefore is not subject to MSB registration, reporting, and recordkeeping regulations. However, an administrator or exchanger is an MSB under FinCEN's regulations, specifically, a money transmitter, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person. An administrator or exchanger is not a provider or seller of prepaid access, or a dealer in foreign exchange, under FinCEN's regulations.

Currency vs. Virtual Currency

            FinCEN's regulations define currency (also referred to as "real" currency) as "the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that [i] is designated as legal tender and that [ii] circulates and [iii] is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance."3 In contrast to real currency, "virtual" currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. This guidance addresses "convertible" virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency.

Background

            On July 21, 2011, FinCEN published a Final Rule amending definitions and other regulations relating to money services businesses ("MSBs").4 Among other things, the MSB Rule amends the definitions of dealers in foreign exchange (formerly referred to as "currency dealers and exchangers") and money transmitters. On July 29, 2011, FinCEN published a Final Rule on Definitions and Other Regulations Relating to Prepaid Access (the "Prepaid Access Rule").5 This guidance explains the regulatory treatment under these definitions of persons engaged in virtual currency transactions.

Definitions of User, Exchanger, and Administrator

            This guidance refers to the participants in generic virtual currency arrangements, using the terms "user," "exchanger," and "administrator."6 A user is a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods or services.7 An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds, or other virtual currency. An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (putting into circulation) a virtual currency, and who has the authority to redeem (to withdraw from circulation) such virtual currency.

Users of Virtual Currency

            A user who obtains convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods or services is not an MSB under FinCEN's regulations.8 Such activity, in and of itself, does not fit within the definition of "money transmission services" and therefore is not subject to FinCEN's registration, reporting, and recordkeeping regulations for MSBs.9

Administrators and Exchangers of Virtual Currency

            An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible virtual currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN's regulations, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies to the person.10 FinCEN's regulations define the term "money transmitter" as a person that provides money transmission services, or any other person engaged in the transfer of funds. The term "money transmission services" means "the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means."11

            The definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies. Accepting and transmitting anything of value that substitutes for currency makes a person a money transmitter under the regulations implementing the BSA.12 FinCEN has reviewed different activities involving virtual currency and has made determinations regarding the appropriate regulatory treatment of administrators and exchangers under three scenarios: brokers and dealers of e-currencies and e-precious metals; centralized convertible virtual currencies; and de-centralized convertible virtual currencies.

            a. E-Currencies and E-Precious Metals

            The first type of activity involves electronic trading in e-currencies or e-precious metals.13 In 2008, FinCEN issued guidance stating that as long as a broker or dealer in real currency or other commodities accepts and transmits funds solely for the purpose of effecting a bona fide purchase or sale of the real currency or other commodities for or with a customer, such person is not acting as a money transmitter under the regulations.14

            However, if the broker or dealer transfers funds between a customer and a third party that is not part of the currency or commodity transaction, such transmission of funds is no longer a fundamental element of the actual transaction necessary to execute the contract for the purchase or sale of the currency or the other commodity. This scenario is, therefore, money transmission.15 Examples include, in part, (1) the transfer of funds between a customer and a third party by permitting a third party to fund a customer's account; (2) the transfer of value from a customer's currency or commodity position to the account of another customer; or (3) the closing out of a customer's currency or commodity position, with a transfer of proceeds to a third party. Since the definition of a money transmitter does not differentiate between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies, the same rules apply to brokers and dealers of e-currency and e-precious metals.

            b. Centralized Virtual Currencies

            The second type of activity involves a convertible virtual currency that has a centralized repository. The administrator of that repository will be a money transmitter to the extent that it allows transfers of value between persons or from one location to another. This conclusion applies, whether the value is denominated in a real currency or a convertible virtual currency. In addition, any exchanger that uses its access to the convertible virtual currency services provided by the administrator to accept and transmit the convertible virtual currency on behalf of others, including transfers intended to pay a third party for virtual goods and services, is also a money transmitter.

            FinCEN understands that the exchanger's activities may take one of two forms. The first form involves an exchanger (acting as a "seller" of the convertible virtual currency) that accepts real currency or its equivalent from a user (the "purchaser") and transmits the value of that real currency to fund the user's convertible virtual currency account with the administrator. Under FinCEN's regulations, sending "value that substitutes for currency" to another person or to another location constitutes money transmission, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies.16 This circumstance constitutes transmission to another location, namely from the user's account at one location (e.g., a user's real currency account at a bank) to the user's convertible virtual currency account with the administrator. It might be argued that the exchanger is entitled to the exemption from the definition of "money transmitter" for persons involved in the sale of goods or the provision of services. Under such an argument, one might assert that the exchanger is merely providing the service of connecting the user to the administrator and that the transmission of value is integral to this service. However, this exemption does not apply when the only services being provided are money transmission services.17

            The second form involves a de facto sale of convertible virtual currency that is not completely transparent. The exchanger accepts currency or its equivalent from a user and privately credits the user with an appropriate portion of the exchanger's own convertible virtual currency held with the administrator of the repository. The exchanger then transmits that internally credited value to third parties at the user's direction. This constitutes transmission to another person, namely each third party to which transmissions are made at the user's direction. To the extent that the convertible virtual currency is generally understood as a substitute for real currencies, transmitting the convertible virtual currency at the direction and for the benefit of the user constitutes money transmission on the part of the exchanger.

            c. De-Centralized Virtual Currencies

            A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.

            A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter. In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.

Providers and Sellers of Prepaid Access

            A person's acceptance and/or transmission of convertible virtual currency cannot be characterized as providing or selling prepaid access because prepaid access is limited to real currencies. 18

Dealers in Foreign Exchange

            A person must exchange the currency of two or more countries to be considered a dealer in foreign exchange.19 Virtual currency does not meet the criteria to be considered "currency" under the BSA, because it is not legal tender. Therefore, a person who accepts real currency in exchange for virtual currency, or vice versa, is not a dealer in foreign exchange under FinCEN's regulations.

* * * * *

            Financial institutions with questions about this guidance or other matters related to compliance with the implementing regulations of the BSA may contact FinCEN's Regulatory Helpline at (800) 949-2732.

1 FinCEN is issuing this guidance under its authority to administer the Bank Secrecy Act. See Treasury Order 180-01 (March 24, 2003). This guidance explains only how FinCEN characterizes certain activities involving virtual currencies under the Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN regulations. It should not be interpreted as a statement by FinCEN about the extent to which those activities comport with other federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, or orders.

2 FinCEN's regulations define "person" as "an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust or estate, a joint stock company, an association, a syndicate, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization or group, an Indian Tribe (as that term is defined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act), and all entities cognizable as legal personalities." 31 CFR § 1010.100(mm).

3 31 CFR § 1010.100(m).

4 Bank Secrecy Act Regulations - Definitions and Other Regulations Relating to Money Services Businesses, 76 FR 43585 (July 21, 2011) (the "MSB Rule"). This defines an MSB as "a person wherever located doing business, whether or not on a regular basis or as an organized or licensed business concern, wholly or in substantial part within the United States, in one or more of the capacities listed in paragraphs (ff)(1) through (ff)(7) of this section. This includes but is not limited to maintenance of any agent, agency, branch, or office within the United States." 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff).

5 Final Rule - Definitions and Other Regulations Relating to Prepaid Access, 76 FR 45403 (July 29, 2011),

6 These terms are used for the exclusive purpose of this regulatory guidance. Depending on the type and combination of a person's activities, one person may be acting in more than one of these capacities.

7 How a person engages in "obtaining" a virtual currency may be described using any number of other terms, such as "earning," "harvesting," "mining," "creating," "auto-generating," "manufacturing," or "purchasing," depending on the details of the specific virtual currency model involved. For purposes of this guidance, the label applied to a particular process of obtaining a virtual currency is not material to the legal characterization under the BSA of the process or of the person engaging in the process.

8 As noted above, this should not be interpreted as a statement about the extent to which the user's activities comport with other federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, or orders. For example, the activity may still be subject to abuse in the form of trade-based money laundering or terrorist financing. The activity may follow the same patterns of behavior observed in the "real" economy with respect to the purchase of "real" goods and services, such as systematic over- or under-invoicing or inflated transaction fees or commissions.

9 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(1-7).

10 FinCEN's regulations provide that whether a person is a money transmitter is a matter of facts and circumstances. The regulations identify six circumstances under which a person is not a money transmitter, despite accepting and transmitting currency, funds, or value that substitutes for currency. 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(ii)(A)-(F).

11 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A).

12 Ibid.

13 Typically, this involves the broker or dealer electronically distributing digital certificates of ownership of real currencies or precious metals, with the digital certificate being the virtual currency. However, the same conclusions would apply in the case of the broker or dealer issuing paper ownership certificates or manifesting customer ownership or control of real currencies or commodities in an account statement or any other form. These conclusions would also apply in the case of a broker or dealer in commodities other than real currencies or precious metals. A broker or dealer of e-currencies or e-precious metals that engages in money transmission could be either an administrator or exchanger depending on its business model.

14 Application of the Definition of Money Transmitter to Brokers and Dealers in Currency and other Commodities, FIN-2008-G008, Sept. 10, 2008. The guidance also notes that the definition of money transmitter excludes any person, such as a futures commission merchant, that is "registered with, and regulated or examined by…the Commodity Futures Trading Commission."

15 In 2011, FinCEN amended the definition of money transmitter. The 2008 guidance, however, was primarily concerned with the core elements of the definition - accepting and transmitting currency or value - and the exemption for acceptance and transmission integral to another transaction not involving money transmission. The 2011 amendments have not materially changed these aspects of the definition.
16 See footnote 11 and adjacent text.

17 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(ii)(F).

18 This is true even if the person holds the value accepted for a period of time before transmitting some or all of that value at the direction of the person from whom the value was originally accepted. FinCEN's regulations define "prepaid access" as "access to funds or the value of funds that have been paid in advance and can be retrieved or transferred at some point in the future through an electronic device or vehicle, such as a card, code, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, or personal identification number." 31 CFR § 1010.100(ww). Thus, "prepaid access" under FinCEN's regulations is limited to "access to funds or the value of funds." If FinCEN had intended prepaid access to cover funds denominated in a virtual currency or something else that substitutes for real currency, it would have used language in the definition of prepaid access like that in the definition of money transmission, which expressly includes the acceptance and transmission of "other value that substitutes for currency." 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i) .

19 FinCEN defines a "dealer in foreign exchange" as a "person that accepts the currency, or other monetary instruments, funds, or other instruments denominated in the currency, of one or more countries in exchange for the currency, or other monetary instruments, funds, or other instruments denominated in the currency, of one or more other countries in an amount greater than $1,000 for any other person on any day in one or more transactions, whether or not for same-day delivery." 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(1).

12 [sic] As our response is not in the form of an administrative ruling, the substance of this letter should not be considered determinative in any state or federal investigation, litigation, grand jury proceeding, or proceeding before any other governmental body.

//////////////

I thought this dubious speech was kind of interesting. Moar Fear of Bitcoin!!

ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING SPECIALISTS (ACAMS) 18TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL AML AND FINANCIAL CRIME CONFERENCE

REMARKS OF JENNIFER SHASKY CALVERY
DIRECTOR
FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK
ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING SPECIALISTS (ACAMS)
18TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL AML AND FINANCIAL CRIME CONFERENCE
MARCH 19, 2013
HOLLYWOOD, FL

          Good morning. I want to start by thanking our hosts, THE ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING SPECIALISTS, for the opportunity to join you at this year's conference.

          Some of you may have heard me speak recently about FinCEN's broad mission, and how important it is for us to build strong public-private partnerships for us to achieve success. I cannot emphasize this fact enough. Our nation's financial institutions play a vital role in our efforts to safeguard the financial system from illicit use, combat money laundering, and promote national security. And we do this through the collection, analysis, and dissemination of financial intelligence and strategic use of our financial authorities.

          FinCEN depends on the information financial institutions provide to us, and today I'd like to focus on what our analysts do with that information. FinCEN is a leader in the analysis of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) data and financial intelligence. Our advanced analytic tools and highly skilled analysts play a unique role in analyzing and integrating BSA data and other information to accomplish three ends: (1) map illicit finance networks; (2) identify compromised financial institutions and jurisdictions; and (3) understand the current methods and schemes for illicit finance. These three key pieces of analysis are critical to enable our stakeholders - law enforcement, regulators, foreign partners, and industry - to take action against money laundering and terrorist financing.

          FinCEN's analysis depends primarily on the excellent information you provide - it is the baseline from which our analysts work. During my time at FinCEN, I have been continually impressed by the exceptionally high caliber of FinCEN's analytical team. What our analysts do now - and do very well - is look across that data to find interconnections to support ongoing law enforcement cases, to find trends and patterns within that data, and to understand the overall changes and shifts within it. They will also combine those findings with other information sources, such as law enforcement data or publicly available data, and enhance the picture.

          Where our analysts are going - and we're not there yet, but we are on the cusp of these capabilities - is to take our analysis to a whole new level. Currently, we are capable of dissecting law enforcement and BSA information to identify a specific methodology for illicit finance in a particular segment of the financial industry related to a particular type of crime. We are also capable of using such information to identify entirely new and unknown bad actors engaged in similar activity in other parts of the country. However, right now this is long and arduous work as analysts sift through hundreds and sometimes thousands of reports. Very soon, new capacities made possible by our internal technology modernization, will allow our analysts to deal with such data sets to find leads in a fraction of the time previously necessary. Very soon, we will be able to point law enforcement and other stakeholders precisely to where they should be looking. Our analysts, working hand-in-hand with our superb technology team, are now putting these new capacities into place.

          FinCEN does this analysis well now - and having seen the initial results from our new capabilities, I am excited about where we are headed. I am committed to making this a central role for FinCEN in the 21st Century. So today, I'd like to talk to you about some of the work we are doing and where our cutting-edge analytical efforts are taking us as we seek to remain out in front of emerging payment systems, identify and track third party money launderers, and uncover trends and patterns in the BSA data.

Emerging Payment Systems

          I'd like to begin today by discussing how FinCEN's analysts are working hard to stay ahead of the curve in understanding emerging payment systems and related financial flows and vulnerabilities and to put that information into the hands of those customers who need it most.

          As we all know, during the past decade, the development of new market space and new types of payment systems have emerged as alternatives to traditional mechanisms for conducting financial transactions, allowing developing countries to reach beyond underdeveloped infrastructure and reach those populations who previously had no access to banking services. For consumers and businesses alike, the development and proliferation of these systems are a significant continuing source of positive impact on global commerce.

          These new systems have also expanded the boundaries of "money transmission" as more sophisticated payment systems have become available. And the inherent added complexity of these systems opens them to potential misuse by criminals.

          FinCEN's analysts are continually working to understand the schemes and methods used to exploit emerging payment methods for money laundering and terrorist financing, and to develop related guidance for law enforcement. This guidance provides law enforcement with information on key sectors' operations, recordkeeping practices, and efforts to identify and counter vulnerabilities.

          Partnership is key. As our analysts develop their understanding of these new systems, they are significantly aided by working directly with the financial industry. This partnership enables them to better follow financial trails and realistically understand financial mechanisms.

          For instance, FinCEN's analysts are working to finalize a bulletin that will explore the relatively new payment technology of digital currency systems. FinCEN's bulletin will help "de-mystify" the digital currency realm by explaining to the broader law enforcement community how these systems work. The bulletin will also address the role of traditional financial institutions as intermediaries.

          We're viewing our analytic work in this space as an important part of an ongoing conversation between industry and law enforcement. FinCEN is dedicated to learning more about digital currency systems, along with other emerging mechanisms, to protect those systems from abuse and to aid law enforcement in ensuring that they are getting the leads and information they need to prosecute the criminal actors. As our knowledge base develops, in concert with you, we will look to leverage our new capabilities to identify trends and patterns among the interconnection points of the traditional financial sector and these new payment systems.

          To date, FinCEN's analysts have explored and produced reference products for law enforcement on many traditional and emerging payment systems. These include: cross border funds transfers and correspondent accounts, money transmitters, online payment systems, prepaid cards, and mobile payments. FinCEN's analysts then follow up this work by providing in-person analysis and training to thousands of investigators each year.

          In addition to developing products to help law enforcement follow the financial trails of emerging payments methods, FinCEN also develops guidance for the financial industry to clarify their regulatory responsibilities as they relate to emerging areas.

          In fact, just yesterday, FinCEN issued interpretive guidance to clarify the applicability of BSA regulations to virtual currencies. The guidance responds to questions raised by financial institutions, law enforcement, and regulators concerning the regulatory treatment of persons who use virtual currencies or make a business of exchanging, accepting, and transmitting them.

          FinCEN's rules define certain businesses or individuals as money services businesses (MSBs) depending on the nature of their financial activities. MSBs have registration requirements and a range of anti-money laundering, recordkeeping, and reporting responsibilities under FinCEN's regulations. The guidance considers the use of virtual currencies from the perspective of several categories within FinCEN's definition of MSBs.

          The guidance explains how FinCEN's "money transmitter" definition applies to certain exchangers and system administrators of virtual currencies depending on the facts and circumstances of that activity. Those who use virtual currencies exclusively for common personal transactions like receiving payments for services or buying goods online are not affected by this guidance. Those who are intermediaries in the transfer of virtual currencies from one person to another person, or to another location, are money transmitters that must register with FinCEN as MSBs unless an exception applies. Some virtual currency exchangers are already registered with FinCEN as MSBs, though not necessarily as money transmitters. The guidance clarifies definitions and expectations to ensure that businesses engaged in similar activities are aware of their regulatory responsibilities.

Third Party Money Launderers

          Analysts at FinCEN work on the front lines with law enforcement to help address head-on some of the U.S. government's highest investigative priorities. Healthcare fraud and tax fraud (by identity theft) are both serious and growing drains on U.S. government programs, with losses estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

          To combat these serious and growing frauds, FinCEN has partnered with the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, and officials within the Department of Health and Human Services to provide targeted analysis of individuals and organizations engaged in fraud. In this effort, FinCEN has to date analyzed more than 270,000 BSA filings in support of more than 300 healthcare fraud investigations.

          FinCEN's mapping of the illicit finance networks used to move such fraud proceeds revealed that check cashers are a key node. They are often used to cash out fraudulent healthcare claims and fraudulent tax returns. While we cannot determine what percentage of the overall illicit proceeds pass through complicit check cashers, we assess that such third-party money launderers comprise a crucial link in the movement of fraudulent proceeds by significant organized criminal actors.

          But here is where FinCEN's analysts have taken their work to the next level. In mapping these networks, FinCEN has also uncovered distinct and unique trends concerning the laundering of fraud proceeds through check cashers. Illegal proceeds from healthcare fraud and tax return fraud by identity theft are moved through the U.S. financial system in identifiable ways, leading FinCEN to identify markers of these transactions.

          FinCEN's review of suspicious activity reports related to these cases reveals several indicators of money laundering in multiple transactional models. Often these transactions involved a third party closely linked to a check casher. FinCEN determined that many of these third parties received ACH credits from Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance companies.

          FinCEN analysts continue to provide ongoing support to investigations into laundering healthcare and tax fraud proceeds. And we will leverage our analytic findings to better inform industry of key indicators to improve their awareness and enhance BSA filings received on these actors. Our analysts are committed to proactively identifying financial institutions involved in the laundering of proceeds of frauds against the U.S. government. We believe that using this information will be key to furthering both criminal and civil enforcement actions, and preventing such fraudulent activity in the future.

Uncovering Trends and Patterns

          In addition to providing case support, some of you may know that FinCEN has, for many years, carried out trends and pattern analyses of the information contained in the millions of SARs and CTRs that financial institutions send to FinCEN annually. For example, FinCEN studies the BSA records filed on U.S. dollar and foreign currency movement and transactions associated with Mexico and other foreign jurisdictions. These high level analyses aid in detection of illicit financial activity of specific targeted groups, such as Mexican drug trafficking organizations and other transnational criminal organizations operating in the United States and elsewhere.

          For example, our advanced data matching algorithms have allowed us to increase match rates between CMIRs, CTRs, and SARs by over 50 percent in some jurisdictions. This gives us insight into dollar flow from a foreign jurisdiction to the point the dollars are deposited into a U.S. bank, from which we can work to ultimately identify the foreign beneficiary of a wire emanating from the account.

          In another example, analysts have developed a product that allows investigators to review, evaluate, and compare the transactional and aggregate remittance activity of MSB agents using various "red flag" indicators to assist in the identification of agents acting as third party money launderers.

Advanced Analytics

          Naturally, FinCEN's ability to conduct this kind of complex analysis would be impossible without the BSA data financial institutions provide.

          There are also technical challenges to producing timely, cogent, and actionable intelligence products, useful to both our policy leaders and to field personnel. As I noted, filing protocols and the data within FinCEN reports vary from form to form, particularly with respect to those forms not filed strictly by financial institutions, such as the CMIR and Form 8300. Because of these variances, FinCEN analysts are challenged to find innovative solutions to match and fuse data as part of their mapping of illicit finance networks, identification of compromised financial institutions and jurisdictions, and understanding of schemes and methods for illicit finance.

          In the very recent past, our analysts often needed to develop ad hoc tools to help analyze the data because our technical backbone was unable to sufficiently support the layers of tasks required to query, download, integrate, sort, connect, and chart the data.

          Last fall, FinCEN began rolling out a key component in our IT Modernization Program to improve upon our ability to conduct analysis and make the BSA data available to a large number of federal and state agencies, including law enforcement and regulators. FinCEN Query allows users to easily access, query, and analyze 11 years of BSA data; apply filters to narrow search results; and utilize enhanced data capabilities. Our users are now able to look at the information more comprehensively, and we are excited to work with them in making sure that your filings become more valuable than ever before in this new system.

          To give you an idea of the value of the information your institutions provide, in the months since FinCEN Query went live last September, there have been over 1.1 million queries of the BSA data by more than 6,400 users. This past Wednesday alone, there were over 20,000 queries of the BSA data through FinCEN Query.

          With our technology advancements, we are now getting closer to being able to leverage predictive analytics to take our work even further. This will provide us with the ability to work with our law enforcement partners, review their top completed investigations, understand the money laundering indicators present in our data, parse through the existing BSA forms, and then develop automated business rules that will allow us to provide agencies with new leads indicative of similar illicit activity elsewhere.

          For example, FinCEN is working towards developing business rules based on information provided by our law enforcement and regulatory partners. Our goal is to dive deeper into aggregated regional and state level data to extract underlying drivers and trends between and among regions. We are doing this by automating the detection of regions and industries with significant changes, reviewing BSA records, and drilling down to understand which financial institutions are on the front lines of seeing changes in trends and patterns.

          Moving forward, we expect to use the strategic application of business rules on the data industry provides to not only detect, but also to "predict" where certain types of money laundering, such as the placement of dollars in connection with trade-based money laundering activities, might be manifested.

          This type of predictive analysis will significantly improve our intelligence and enforcement efforts by allowing us to focus on those vulnerable regions or financial sectors where money laundering or financial crimes are most prevalent. Furthermore, it will allow us to provide new leads to law enforcement, alert our regulatory partners, and develop "red flags" for industry so we can provide feedback on the kind of information that would be helpful in their SAR reporting.

          We are beginning to touch the very early parts of this capability; we are very excited to be heading in this direction and I greatly look forward to seeing the products when we are able to reach full implementation.

          In another aspect of our modernization, financial institutions will be required to utilize the new FinCEN reports, including CTRs and SARs, starting April 1, 2013. The new FinCEN reports were specifically developed to work with the new FinCEN Query system that we just rolled out, and these new FinCEN reports allow us, law enforcement, and regulators to slice and dice the information submitted in a much more advanced way.

          We're happy that more and more institutions are coming on board with the new formats in advance of the deadline. As of last Friday, approximately 90 percent of the batch-filed SARs and CTRs received from the largest financial institutions, and 60 percent of single SAR or CTR filings received (typically from smaller financial institutions), were submitted using the new formats. We know that industry is working hard to make the changes. One thing I want to point out in particular with respect to the new formats is the guidance that we put out last March with respect to new fields.

          As that guidance clearly explains, the new FinCEN CTR and FinCEN SAR do not create any new obligations or otherwise change existing statutory and regulatory expectations. Financial institutions must provide the most complete and accurate information known to them. They are not under an obligation to collect non-mandatory information simply because there is now a field for it. However, just as has always been the case, if financial institutions have information that is pertinent to a report, they need to be able to include it in the report, so that the CTR, SAR, or other FinCEN report is complete and accurate.

          FinCEN has and will continue to provide additional guidance and training materials in support of the new reports through Webinars, FAQs, and other publications and materials. And to keep this rapidly approaching deadline fresh in everyone's minds, we continue to work with our regulatory and industry partners by issuing our own reminders to industry.

          As a result of all the work that is being done within the industry, at FinCEN, and in partnership with regulatory and law enforcement partners, the adoption of the new reports will prove extremely valuable to our shared fight against money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes.

Conclusion

          My remarks today have focused extensively on the work being done by FinCEN's analytical team - not only their ongoing efforts, but where we are heading in the future. From the time I arrived at FinCEN, I have been continually impressed by the fascinating work our analysts are doing, and even more so, by their dedication each and every day to FinCEN's mission, and their desire to make a real difference as public servants.

          I've been in government long enough to know that FinCEN's analysts can stand toe-to-toe alongside the best analysts in the federal government and around the world. And to be their champion as Director of FinCEN is an honor. It is gratifying to hear how passionately our analysts feel about their work. In their own words, here is what some of them have to say:

"Arriving at FinCEN as an analyst from the banking compliance sector opened up a whole new world for me. I was really excited to join FinCEN because for the first time I would be able to view and analyze all of the SARs associated with a case and gain a better understanding of how my SARs were being used by FinCEN, as well as our Federal, state, and local partners. My first assignment was to analyze the movement "repatriation" of U.S. dollar currency from Mexico and the players engaged in the wholesale banknote industry. This project relied heavily on my banking knowledge, but it also required me to work alongside law enforcement, regulators, and the financial industry in a whole new capacity. I learned how best to review and analyze BSA data, but more importantly, I was having a real-time impact on the fight against Mexican Drug Cartels and their ability to place large amounts of illicit dollars back into the U.S. financial system. It was amazing that as a new analyst I could make such a difference."

"As a career analyst, I truly enjoy coming to work every day here at FinCEN for many reasons, but specifically because I am challenged by analyzing the BSA, adding value to a law enforcement case, developing a methodology for how money is laundered through a specific industry, or identifying a money laundering network. I think the best way to describe my job is to imagine five different 1,000 piece puzzles mixed together in a pile. My job is to try and determine how to put together each puzzle, while not knowing how many actual puzzles are in front of me. It's truly a rewarding and satisfying experience once you've finished a "puzzle" and are confident that you know not only what you're looking at, but that you can explain it to others."

          There is no doubt that we will never run out of puzzles to complete. And as the escalation of transnational criminal threats to the U.S. financial system has increased, so too has the imperative to ensure that FinCEN is fully maximizing its potential to disrupt this activity. I am hopeful that my remarks today have given you new insight into the team at FinCEN working to respond to these threats.

          But we can't do it alone. Your financial institutions are the eyes and ears in the fight against terrorists and other bad guys. The BSA data starts with you. It is the key to our defenses and we are depending on you. I am committed to maximizing our ability to be effective partners and colleagues.

          FinCEN is a critical partner in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Our talented and dedicated team is committed to that mission. We have an incredible opportunity to serve the American public and to contribute to the safety of this country and the world. FinCEN will meet the challenges ahead working together with you, law enforcement, and our regulatory partners.

          Thank you once again for inviting me here to speak with you today.

###

Get back to us when you help get some money laundering banksters in jail!

Source: DOJ Feds currently at the Wells Fargo Mortgage office in Minneapolis searching around

A tip passed along from a source stated that today the US Department of Justice arrived at the Wells Fargo Home Mortgage office in the Phillips neighborhood of Minneapolis, as "auditors" presumably to search through or perhaps seize mortgage records - the old Honeywell complex around 4th Avenue & 26th/28th St. I have no feasible way to confirm this right now but it seemed like a relatively sturdy tip worth posting immediately.

I heard that it was the "middle building". We see two major clusters of buildings via GMap here, so I would assume that means right in the middle. This may have something to do with the place or office that people would call in to attempt to get their mortgages adjusted. (As Neil Barofksy's adventures in the demented banking world showed, the banks were supposed to hit a numerical target of *offers* of modifications, not actual modifications. Perhaps the DOJ is collecting the data on that right now).

wellsfargomortgage.png

Wells Fargo has been a party to a great deal of nefarious happenings in recent years, including memorably their purchase of the colossal drug money laundering giant failed bank Wachovia. Nobody cares about drug money in the banking system but there's always a little time to nibble on relatively easy auditing elements.

Here's the most recent item in the Google about their fraudulent mortgage business: Wells Fargo Settlement Isn’t Bar to False Claims Lawsuit | Foreclosure Fraud - Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge. The source for this photo:
Wells-Fargo.jpeg

In lieu of more detailed info about this situation, a couple random URLS about this hive of scum & villainy. Fact sheet about the Minneapolis Wells Fargo site itself. www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@cped/documents/webcontent/convert_263603.pdf

Foursquare for site [lol]: Wells Fargo Home Mortgage - Phillips - Minneapolis, Mn

Citysearch reviews of their horrible service: Wells Fargo Home Mortgage in Minneapolis, MN - Reviews and Directions

Anyway I will leave it there - if there is some kind of confirmation available plz drop me a line!

PS: additionally there was some FBI raid in Oakland on something called the Music Box. Reported FBI Raid at punk haus, "The Music Box" in Oakland : Indybay // northern wind:

my house was raided, there was a warrant, we were all dragged outside barely clothed and forced to sit out there, no bathroom access, they broke our fucking mirror for no reason, scared the fuck out of my cat, handcuffed a housemate for trying to grab her cigarettes, claimed to be looking for some person but wouldn’t say whom, warrant gave no clues.

fuck this shit I’m so sick of waking up to guns.

We will have more info forthcoming on some other important matters, likely unrelated to the Wells Fargo thing, as soon as possible :/

How to check cops checking your driver's license! Plus full texts of Anne Marie Rasmusson lawsuit settlements for cop ID checks

Yet another nasty branch on the poisonous tree of data abuse in Minnesota is bearing its digital fruit. Anne Marie Rasmusson, a former law enforcement officer, got 'checked out' by an absurdly sprawling array of Minnesota law enforcement officers illegally abusing their driver's license lookup systems. Three major legal documents from the settlements are included below, I believe for the first time on the web (I might be wrong but didn't spot anything on Google).

For the backstory of the weird law enforcement gangstalking of Rassmusson & subsequent litigation, see Nov 2 2012: Anne Marie Rasmusson's settlement haul now over $1 million - Aaron Rupar / CityPages.

From a clever data-fishing colleague, here is one proven method for promptly obtaining your own DVS data:

E-mail kim.jacobson@state.mn.us with "Hi Kim! This is a request to inspect public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act using my own equipment, in electronic form. I would like to inspect all records and logs of when my driver's license and motor vehicle information on file with DVS was accessed, along with date, time, request detail and requesting agency. My driver's license number and license plates are: X. Thanks!"

100% Lulz virtually guaranteed. Not a horrible time lag either, from what I am hearing from people.

Better Know An Acronym: Mpls PD's ALPR & MnDOT's MBUF, the Parallel DataSchemes: Better get yr DVS records while they're hot: the government has a habit of clamping down on these kinds of data flows, legislative authorization be damned!

On another critical but separate mass surveillance & data control issue, IPAD | Information Policy Analysis Division, Minnesota Department of Administration is taking public comment until January 30, 2013 on the issue of the automated license plate reader system which Minneapolis has semi-extralegally shifted from public to non-public data classification. The PDF is here: www.ipad.state.mn.us/docs/mplsappalpr.pdf. One idea: let IPAD know that this tech is dangerous for data regardless of who is supposed to have access. As the burgeoning DVS omnishambles indicates, 'sensitive' data should be minimized in government, and even 'authorized' personnel actually shouldn't be trusted to operate these systems without granular and public systems of accountability.

Again it is worth pointing out that the City of Minneapolis itself argued in the PDF above that the data generated by the Minneapolis Police Department's Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) system is dangerous and must be made non-public for the same reasons that MnDOT's Mileage Based User Fee (MBUF, aka Intellidrive) data is dangerous.

MBUF is a story I have been following for several years - it would send extremely frequent location/direction/velocity info to the government & its military-industrial contractor, Battelle, for every user in order to generate a dollar figure for taxing the vehicle - only nuking all your remaining privacy in the process. After many months, much MnDOT MBUF data was released via a Mn Data Practices Act Request, though it is difficult to work with. See Nov 30 2012: EXCLUSIVE MnDOT info cake: 2.97gb emails/docs on the Mileage Based User Fee (MBUF)- Minnesota's GPS vehicle taxing regime in the works

Previously: Jan 9 2013: MPD Tracking OccupyMN Facebook BBQs: Minneapolis "secret" Strategic Information Center / Emergency Operations and Training Facility 25 37th Ave NE in Fridley // MPD Homeland Security Unit at Cruz House: Minneapolis Police Department data request on Occupy Minnesota finally released; sketchy anti-Occupy fusion-style police material from Nevada // Dec 14 2012: Mordor Mayor Rybak makes moves to hide Minneapolis panopticon: Total Minneapolis Awareness Automatic License Plate Reader records form 'retroactive surveillance' empire. Ye Gods we keep catching substantial fish!

The issue of abusive operations in the MN Department of Public Safety-controlled DVS database is becoming a major issue recently, with the decidedly unlikely duo of Republican-aligned Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek and indefatigable Star Tribune reporter Randy Furst both finding highly indefensible query activity on their records. Minn. driver’s license data snoopers are difficult to track | StarTribune.com:

Despite widespread misuse of driver's license records in Minnesota, determining just who is peeking into your files can prove nearly impossible.

The Minnesota Department of Public Safety, which oversees the driver's license database, refuses to tell people the names of users -- generally public employees -- who have looked up their information. Perhaps the most high-profile citizen getting stonewalled by the state is Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, who is sparring with the department over what he believes were inappropriate queries into his driver's license records.

The Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) database, which contains addresses, photographs and driving records on nearly every Minnesotan, is protected under state and federal law. State records show that public employees frequently have misused the database by running people's names without a business purpose. That is the subject of a major lawsuit that recently ensnared police officers across Minnesota, as well as a criminal case pending against two Minneapolis employees.

Stanek learned in June that employees at 21 agencies, including his own office, had accessed his records over several years. Some of the queries came from as far away as Wells, Minn., a small town 117 miles south of Minneapolis that he has never visited. The Department of Public Safety would not provide him with the names of the users.

"I believe that some or all of these requests may have been without a legitimate government purpose," Stanek wrote in a December letter to the Department of Administration, asking for an advisory opinion on the matter. The Department of Public Safety "and DVS appear to have purposely created obstacles to deny me an opportunity to track illegitimate access."

Stanek had made two previous requests for his lookups out of curiosity, and was surprised by how many agencies had queried his name.

This time, he says, a security concern prompted his request for the lookups.

He believes the state has an obligation to show that the lookups had a legitimate purpose, even if they do not hand over the names.

Anyhow, a source provided a great deal of the Rasmusson legal paperwork obtained via the Minnesota Data Practices Act. I don't think it's around elsewhere on the Internet, so here it is. I haven't looked over too many settlements myself, so this is overall just funny stuff about a serious topic -- nothing like a government formally conceding abuse and paying out hard-collected taxpayer cash to cover for some ridiculous abuse of officially "necessary" authority.

I wonder what kind of world we'd live in if our government units were actually run by people who never screw up like this, wasting all these resources and being generally abusive. There will surely be more inquiries along these lines...

Three parts:

Rassmusson Lawsuit 1 1110 001 (44pgs) - direct download 1.8MB: rassmusson_lawsuit-1-1110_001.pdf

Rassmusson Lawsuit 1 1110 001 by Dan Feidt

Rassmusson Lawsuit 2 1109 001 (5 pgs) - direct download 205KB: rassmusson_lawsuit-2-1109_001.pdf

Rassmusson Lawsuit 2 1109 001 by Dan Feidt

Rassmusson Lawsuit 3 1102 001 (39 pgs) - Direct download 1.9MB: rassmusson_lawsuit-3-1102_001.pdf

Rassmusson Lawsuit 3 1102 001 by Dan Feidt

Leaving it there for now, but hell, something will probably turn up yet again before I even have time to deal with it!!

MPD Tracking OccupyMN Facebook BBQs: Minneapolis "secret" Strategic Information Center / Emergency Operations and Training Facility 25 37th Ave NE in Fridley

Dateline: Pseudo-Secret Minneapolis (aka Fridley): What WCCO called the "secret" "City of Eyes" Strategic Information Center has been located on the Google! Your Federal Stimulus Money & FY2010 Homeland Security Appropriations At Work - A Facility for Spying on Facebook Occupy Barbecues

strategic-center-mpls.png

It's nice when data releases tie together a larger system, and we've sure got that here. It's not really "secret" but it's quite shiny & new, not well-known at all, and it is certainly has been used as a site for spying on Occupy activists without criminal predicates by the Minneapolis Police Department. [emails a bit farther down]

///// UPDATE Jan 10 2013: See How to check cops checking your driver's license, Rassmusson lawsuit settlement docs /////

The Minneapolis Police Department files about Occupy Minnesota released by a data request on Monday afternoon are turning up interesting wastes of taxpayer money -- and even the so-called "secret" Strategic Information Center & Emergency Operations and Training Facility at 25 37th Ave Northeast in Fridley, north of the city line by the river & railroad tracks.

Also known as the EOTF/SIC, let's wrangle up everything we can find. Start with architects, via Wold Architects/Engineers: City of Minneapolis EOTF | Wold Architects and Engineers

Wold Architects and Engineers designed a site and facility for the City of Minneapolis Fire Department Training Campus to include a Fire Department’s Training Division; training classrooms multi-used as an Emergency Operations Center for the City’s Emergency Preparedness; a Strategic Information Sensor Monitoring Center for the Minneapolis Police Department; and vehicle storage garages for the Fire Department’s regional asset equipment.

The design exceeds the City of Minneapolis requirement for design to meet LEED Silver.

strategic-4.png

strategic-5.pngThis state-of-the-art federally funded facility allows police to determine... the location of barbecues on Facebook, including even the number of "YES" and "MAYBE" invitees.

This facility also encompasses "Shotspotter" directional microphones all over the city - I wonder if those are ever activated besides the gunshot decibel threshold "trigger" - they are in fact pretty high-fidelity microphones, it has been disclosed (May 28 2012 NYT article) but the manufacturer denies the mics are triggered by conversations.

I for one, am glad that we spent both municipal and borrowed federal tax dollars on training the Minneapolis police to believe a Facebook "YES" invite is real. The simulacrum of today's clicks has become the strategic information of tomorrow!

The old EOC center, used in the 2007 35W bridge collapse, can be seen here via MPR and clearly lacks expensive-enough videoconferencing gear.

Here is the press release from Nov 4 2010: Minneapolis opens Emergency Operations Training Facility - City of Minneapolis

Minneapolis opens Emergency Operations Training Facility

The City of Minneapolis has opened its new Emergency Operations Training Facility, which will help emergency responders and other City staff better prepare for and respond to emergencies. The multi-purpose building helps meet the training and response needs of the Minneapolis Fire Department, the Minneapolis Police Department, and the City's Emergency Management Division, along with other regional partners.

The Emergency Operations Training Facility is a multi-purpose building that includes training classrooms for Minneapolis firefighters and metro emergency managers, a strategic information center for the Minneapolis police, the main training site for the State of Minnesota Structural Collapse Team, and an emergency operations center that will be used during significant emergencies or disasters.

The new facility is built on a 12-acre site in Fridley that the City purchased in 1990, and since that time, the site has been built out as a training facility for Minneapolis Firefighters. Over the years, a fire training tower and propane burn building have been constructed, and special equipment has been purchased to help train emergency responders for incidents involving hazardous materials and collapsed structures. The construction of the new Emergency Operations Training Facility on the site is a major step toward completing this training and response site.

The Emergency Operations Training Facility is built to a LEED Silver Quality Standard for sustainability, and it includes facilities for a wide range of emergency responders from Minneapolis and the region:

Emergency Operations Center

One of the lessons learned from the City's response to the Interstate 35W Bridge collapse in 2007 was that the City's Emergency Operations Center, located in the basement of City Hall, was too small to serve as a center for large-scale emergencies. The new facility fixes that, with 2,800 more square feet of floor space. It will also be used as a back-up Emergency Operations Center for the State, Hennepin County and the City of St. Paul.

Strategic Information Center

The Strategic Information Center is a new space where the Minneapolis Police Department will analyze data to determine long-range trends that pose potential risks to the city. It can provide emergency managers with important information during a major event, incident or disaster.

State of Minnesota Structural Collapse Team

This team serves the entire state with specialized equipment and trained personnel for urban search and rescue and structural collapse incidents. This facility will include apparatus bays for storage of emergency response vehicles and specialty equipment for the Coast Guard, State, City and Metro West region of Homeland Security. In addition, this facility will house training and classroom space, staff offices, support spaces and common spaces.

Coast Guard monitoring.

The U.S. Coast Guard will also use the facility as a monitoring location for cameras placed along the Mississippi River from St. Louis to the metro area.

Published Nov. 4, 2010

Moar casual Google Mapping:

google-streetview-mpls.png

Apparently they dropped a cool $50K on the fence in early 2012. here is the bid page "To furnish all labor, materials, equipment and incidentals necessary to accomplish the complete construction of Emergency Operations Training Facility Perimeter Fence Project, located at 25 37th Ave NE, Fridley, MN." SRC: Minneapolis, City of - Projects. [A little more on the fence industrial complex below]

google-streetview-mpls2.png

Of course, once Erin Brockovich samples those weird adjacent holding pond things, I'm sure the infamous Fridley Cancer Cluster case will be solved. Perhaps Sgt. Garcia can go out and take some samples!

google-map-mpls1.png google-map-mpls2.png

I believe at least two of structures are firefighter training buildings - later pics below seem to bear this out.

eoc-marketing-swag1.pngHere is some marketing swag about the video conferencing gear. AVI-SPL Integrates Government Emergency Operation Centers. See the PDF and video too.

eoc-marketing-swag2.pngLet's check out the $330,704 in electronically-created yet borrowed-at-interest-from-private-Fed-cartel recently invested in this barbecue monitoring center. Official less-than-informative stimulus info page: Minneapolis Recovery - City of Minneapolis Minneapolis Police Strategic Information Center.

[Naturally it is funded by the electronically created debt-digits from the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the same endless police pork hub that brought us all those "you might be a terrorist if you pay in cash" type intel flyers for everything from hotels to hobby stores - many of those flyers were financed by Grant Number 2007-MU-BX-K002, which I included ironically on my own site's banner art. Google it for lulz!] Here's that official page:

The City of Minneapolis is not a primary recipient on this project. No Federal Report XML is submitted for this project.

Dollars Awarded

$330,704

Project Status

Fully completed

Project Description

To establish integrated crime analysis in cooperation with the St. Paul Police Department. Staff will be located in a joint Strategic Information Center (SIC).

Funding Program

MN Department of Public Safety: Byrne Justice Assistance Grant

Responsibility for Implementation

Police Department

Funding Agency

US Department of Justice [BJA/Recovery Act]

Dollars Leveraged

Data not yet available.

Dollars Leveraged Description

Data not yet available.

Dollars Requested

$330,704

Projected Jobs Created

2

Award Type

Grant

Sub-recipient Names

Minneapolis, City of

Vendor Names

No vendors have been contracted to date.

Recovery Funds Spent to Date

$330,704

Perhaps this is even the 'secret' location Tippy spycams are constructed: a while ago prankster MPD Spokester & PIO Jesse Garcia shared pics of a camera construction room & with all the other video rigs this seems a likely spot.

Anyway finally here is the email chain which prompted this line of research. There are surely other gems, we are just barely getting started. Circa page 109 of Part 1:

strategic-center-targets-barbecue.png

The public servant on some of these emails is one Minneapolis Police Department officer Steven Otteson, who has a decidedly low Internet profile.

Poking for traces of intrepid Strategic Facebooker Otteson turns up very little - even though the email is dated June 2012, he has no listed salary on this MPD salary list: My Docstoc. Crossposted the index here: 2011 Minneapolis Police Dept Gross Salary index for Web.

A news story indicated the supervisor of the Strategic Information Center is MPD Lt. Jeff Rugel at 612-673-3428. Page 112:

rugel-bbq.png

"Why are we not getting this stuff from the SIC?" Here is stuff about why they should not have to "spend time looking it up" and it should be run through the SIC... This could kind of be the crux of the whole issue here on Page 114:

sic-track-occupy

Alright, that covers some of the new data on this SIC thing vis-a-vis obsessing on Occupy events, so let's turn to the news coverage of this facility.

Carefully shaped news coverage: Mid-2012 saw a series of mainstream media items intended to shape public perceptions this center is designed to neutralize the threats from the surveilled populace. WCCO went so far as to call it a "secret location". That is some quality Fourth Estate right there.

Coverage for this "City of Eyes" facility on WCCO March 19 2012 (video) City Of Eyes: Your Camera May Help Mpls Police Fight Crime « CBS:

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) – Minneapolis police are the first in the country to merge two technologies to help officers fight crime.

The Minneapolis Police Department has combined shot spotter technology and a system of cameras to help catch criminals in the act.

Authorities allowed WCCO-TV’s Reg Chapman into a secret location in Minneapolis, where a strategic information center is housed.

Minneapolis Police Deputy Chief Rob Allen said the room is where police gather intelligence.

“This is the room where we try and fuse the technology we have to monitor video cameras, to monitor the sounds of possible gunshots, and it’s where we have our officers who are trained in intelligence gathering,” he said.

The system in the room is like CBS’ Thursday night show “Person of Interest,” in which cameras are used to help save people from becoming victims of crime.

“If you can anticipate where crimes might happen, you got a far better chance of preventing them from occurring,” Allen said.

According to Allen, when a gunshot goes off, a camera turns toward the source of the sound. Strategic Information Center Commander Lt. Jeff Rugel said the technology helped solve a case where a man was shot, killed and pushed out of a moving car. The sound of the gunfire activated the cameras, which gave police their first clue.

[......]City Of Eyes

The number of cameras connected to the intelligence system is growing and helping police catch more criminals. But not all the cameras are owed by the city.

“The city owns roughly 250 cameras,” Allen said. “We can access right now … an infinite number of cameras.”

According to Allen, any camera that has an IP address, is connected to the Internet, and that police have permission to use can give information to authorities.

So whenever you are in a public space, know that you’re likely on camera. Police are using portable cameras more now than ever. They can put them where they are needed and have one up and running within an hour of the order.

Invasion Of Privacy?

But what about your right to privacy? Police say they are careful not to infringe on anyone’s rights.

“Every time we installed a camera system, we went to the neighborhood and said, ‘You know, this is what we’ve thought about doing? Do you want it or not,’” Allen said.

He says police can’t look into a place where someone has the expectation of privacy. [magic filters eh?] But police still have a wide reach, which gives criminals a greater chance of getting caught on camera.

Crime patterns are currently moving and Minneapolis police hope to add more portable cameras. Police believe if criminals know they are being watched they are more likely not to commit crimes.

Star Tribune writes about this center using Facebook to watch what the state defines as "gang members" (mysteriously, shady rich Caucasian financial operatives never seem to meet this race/age/wealth-biased deviance category schema).

Of course, this week's data release shows this has bloated out to canvassing political movements without even the semblance of illegal activity... there is no "barbecue predicate" but there are of course hourly wages to be paid by Minneapolis taxpayers for monitoring the barbecue Facebook Event. Perhaps even overtime!

Gangs sometimes fire first shots online | StarTribune by Matt McKinney July 14 2012:

Facebook has become a virtual street corner where members trade threats, mourn the dead.

"It's probably no different than any other kids, right?" said Minneapolis police Lt. Jeff Rugel. "They're sharing stuff that they used to do face-to-face or over the phone. But there's criminal stuff." [.....]

Rugel runs the police department's Strategic Information Center, where officers use technology to track crime. One of the jobs in his office amounts to monitoring Facebook full-time. They understand the teen slang and filter through thousands of innocuous and inane comments to look for the few that could solve a crime or stop one before it happens. They try to draw connections out of the Facebook networks to help document the shifting alliances on the street.

Police were aware of Facebook threats between rival gangs weeks before the shooting that killed Nizzel, but the threats weren't specific. When Rugel and his staff sees something that looks like trouble -- a known gang member says he's going to hurt someone -- they pass the information along to officers on the street.

It's a poorly kept secret that the police watch Facebook, said Rugel.

"You see comments every once in a while. 'Don't put that on Facebook. You know who's looking at it,' " he said.

Despite some users' occasional concern, many of the Facebook users monitored by police flaunt their illegal behavior online, showing themselves smoking marijuana, posing with stolen merchandise, the security tags still attached, and making gang signs. [.....]

There was also some bidding information online about the estimated $50,000 fence around the facility. Emergency Operations Training Facility Perimeter Fence Project (eBidDoc #1810882) contact: David Schlueter phone: 612-673-2834 e-mail: david.schlueter@ci.minneapolis.mn.us bid date: 01/25/2012 10:00:00 AM

Try http://io.questcdn.com/questio/projects/planholder/planholder_list.html?jobPK=1810882&userPK=&modifiable=FALSE&isQCPI=TRUE

strategic-center-fence-bidding.png

//////

garcia-yatedo.pngSome other stuff: for what it's worth, this lists PIO Jesse Garcia as being based at the Strategic Information Center.Minneapolis Police Department Employees - Professional Experience,Email,Phone numbers..Everything!: Digging deeper to: Jesse Garcia III - Strategic Information Center, Minneapolis Police Department:

It was scraped off his LinkedIn - no surprise there. But no one put it together... Jesse Garcia III | LinkedIn. I think it would be great if state law were changed so that Garcia could be cross-examined by taxpayers about the flow of drug money through the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and its member banks, let's say once a month on live community access TV. Looks like he ought to be tapped into that gigaflow of data on bankster crime intel!

Strategic Information Center

Minneapolis Police Department

September 2010 – Present (2 years 5 months)

I am a supervisor in our new intel center that focuses on:

-gang intel

-crime intel

-real time officer assist

-safety camera analysis

-Emergency Operations Center readiness

jesse.garcia@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

Public Information Officer / Media Relations

Minneapolis Police Department

October 2007 – September 2010 (3 years)

More media: Vehicle data, email access among Minneapolis legislative issues | MinnPost - Karen Boros, Nov 2, 2012. Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) including of course the "secret" camera on nearby Plymouth Ave. N. bridge is controlled from this "Strategic Information unit" according to the article - I would assume this is the same spot it's based, unless it is somehow split:

Currently, the Minneapolis Police Department uses cameras to record the license plates, time and location of vehicles. That data is now public information that can be obtained by anyone requesting the information.

“Our concern is that if it stays public data that people can use it for inappropriate purposes,” said Deputy Chief Robert Allen. The system now doesn’t allow police to inquire how it might be used. “We’re not allowed to make a judgment,” he said.

Access to the data is controlled by about a dozen people working in the department’s Strategic Information unit.

Alright this is taking more than long enough. This thing says it is 22,178 sq ft and it is on parcel 34-30-24-43-0009.

Minneapolis, City of - Projects: An estimated $1.5 million were bid on this beast for just a small chunk of the building, closed Feb 2012.

directions to site: 25 37th Ave NE Fridley, MN 55421

bids close: 02/23/2012, 10:00:00 AM

bids received by: City of Minneapolis Purchasing Department CONSTRUCTION OF THE EOTF APPARAUS BAY ADDITION 330 Second Avenue South Suite 552 Minneapolis, MN 55401

estimated value: $1,500,000.00

project completion date: 08/15/2011

pre-bid meeting information: A Pre-Bid Meeting and site tour will be held on February 15th, at 11:00 AM, Local Time in Room 128 at the Emergency Operations Training Facility located at 25 37th Ave NE, Fridley MN. All interested bidders should attend this meeting.

addenda: 1

project description: Scope of Work Includes: Complete construction of the Apparatus Bay Addition at the City of Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility. This work shall include all labor, equipment, materials, installation, handling, delivery at site, necessary insurance and permits, erection and other required items for general, civil, landscaping, demolition, structural, architectural, mechanical and electrical construction and stability as shown on the plans and specifications.

additional description: This Contract contemplates the complete construction of the Emergency Operations Training Facility Apparatus Bay Addition for the Minneapolis Fire Department located at 25 37th Avenue NE., in Fridley, all in accordance with the Contract Documents. This Project has been designed to comply with the requirements of the State of Minnesota Sustainability Building Guidelines B3 (MSBG B3) Version 2.1 and also the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Design ( USGBC LEED®) Rating System. It is the intent of this Contract that the Project shall become MSBG B3 Version 2.1 Certified and LEED® SILVER level of quality building under the LEED®-NC Rating System. Work to be performed consists of the furnishing of all materials, machinery, equipment, labor, supplies, tools, transportation, and other incidentals necessary or convenient to complete the work as shown in the Contract Documents on file in the Minneapolis Finance Department, Property Services Division and with the Purchasing Agent of the City of Minneapolis.

owner: City of Minneapolis

350 South 5th Street, Room 223

Minneapolis , MN 55415

ph: 612-673-3774

contact: Chris Backes e-mail: chris.backes@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

Soliciting Agent: Soliciting agent

Minneapolis, City of

330 2nd Ave. S. Suite 552

Minneapolis, MN 55415

ph: 612-673-2834

fax: 612-673-3565

contact: David Schlueter e-mail: david.schlueter@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

It was used to host a session of the 10,000 Lakes Chapter of the International Code Council. [pdf]

The site's address is place on things like preparedness for your pet: Emergency Preparedness - City of Minneapolis && stuff about exercises (again on the sidebar) City Preparation - City of Minneapolis - the 'meh' front page: Emergency Preparedness - City of Minneapolis. Really need to improve page titles at the city. Perhaps after the election?

Awards - City of Minneapolis:

Minneapolis wins its second Tekne Award

Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility

November 2011: The Minnesota High Tech Association recognized the City of Minneapolis and its Emergency Operations Training Facility with an award at the 2011 Tekne Awards, held Nov. 3 at the Minneapolis Convention Center. The Tekne Awards recognize Minnesota companies and individuals who have shown superior technology innovation and leadership.

The City of Minneapolis took home the award in the “Technology Excellence in a Nonprofit Organization” category that recognized the City’s Emergency Operations Training Facility/Strategic Information Center (EOTF/SIC) for bringing technology and information together to make Minneapolis a safer place. At the facility, technology, digital data, streaming video and highly interactive interfaces come together in one highly efficient communication center for the city.

The Minneapolis Fire Department, Police Department, and Emergency Management division opened the EOTF/SIC in August 2010 as a place where they and other emergency responders could coordinate more closely than had ever been possible before. The facility recently demonstrated its effectiveness during the response to the May 22 tornado that struck north Minneapolis.The multi-purpose building also provides training space for emergency responders.

Here it was, the first one: Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility wins Tekne award - City of Minneapolis: The City of Minneapolis took home the award in the “Technology Excellence in a Nonprofit Organization” category that recognized the City’s Emergency Operations Training Facility/Strategic Information Center (EOTF/SIC) for bringing technology and information together to make Minneapolis a safer place. At the facility, technology, digital data, streaming video and highly interactive interfaces come together in one highly efficient communication center for the city.... and earlier: Oct 18, 2011: Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility a finalist for Tekne award - City of Minneapolis

Mpls. Unveils New Emergency Operations Center | Crime | Downtown News - Nov 4 2010, KSTP Gail Brown: Congressman Keith Ellison secured $750,000 for the project in a 2010 appropriations bill, and he will be attending a ribbon cutting ceremony at 2:30 p.m. along with Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, City Council President Barb Johnson and other city leaders.

Ellison Secures $750,000 for Minneapolis Emergency Operations Center - Ellison.House.gov Oct 15 2009:

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minneapolis) secured a $750,000 appropriation for the City of Minneapolis to build a new Emergency Operations Center in a bill approved by the House today. The funds were included in H.R. 2892, the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for FY 2010.

Roughly the same stuff in this Council Prez Barb Johnson doc.

It's on Pinterest - see Government & Military for tons of funny stuff including everything from the avispl swag people above. And also: AV Products We Love / Minneapolis Emergency Operations Training Facility

There is a blog post about training there on the Mpls Dept of Civil Rights by Anthony Johnson - Civil Rights Urban Scholars with a helpful slideshow. Tony’s Voice: Our Day As Fire Fighters! | Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights.

strategic-center-3.png strategic-center-2.png strategic-center-1.png

I think you can see this fire training structure (or maybe a similar one) on Google Maps though I have not swung by to check out the Facility myself. Another one:

Minneapolis Emergency Services Employ projectiondesign - AVNetwork.com (undated? A couple pix included)

Fredrikstad, Norway--The City of Minneapolis has deployed 12 projectiondesign F32 DLP projectors as the main display source in the Analyst Room and F22 series projectors in the Incident Command Room of its Emergency Operations Training Facility (EOTF).

Located just outside Minneapolis, the EOTF boasts an extensive surveillance, audiovisual and network infrastructure specified and installed by systems integrator AVI-SPL.

“In a facility like this, even the slightest compromise in performance can result in tragic consequences,” said Fred Primoli, regional VP Sales for AVI-SPL. Primoli and his colleagues worked with the city for nearly two years on the concept, planning and final implementation of the EOTF, with the primary challenge being an interesting one: the creation of a state-of-the-art communications facility that may get activated no more than once in a decade.

“We needed systems that were capable of totally robust operation 24 hours per day, seven days per week – but which also were capable of performing at their best after extended periods of inactivity.

“From the outset we were delighted with the performance of the F32 projectors. The Analyst Room has three rear-projection screens, each measuring 160 inches wide by 120 inches tall, with four projectors driving each screen so that four separate windows can be shown on each one.

“The projectors have been superbly colour-matched to ensure consistency across each screen, while their excellent resolution, contrast and brightness mean they are equally at home showing video or data sources – which is important in an installation such as this where the staff need to a view a combination of both.”

Deputy Chief Robert Allen, a veteran of the Minneapolis Police Department, said: “The new display system allows us to look at a video feed and understand a situation almost instantly. Through video, we can get information to our officers much faster – especially when time is critical. We can zoom in with our cameras and really examine a situation and relay it back to our officers, allowing them to be prepared even before they get there. With this new technology, we can see something happen faster than a police offer 50 feet away.”

F22 series projectors from projectiondesign can also be found in the EOTF’s Incident Command Room that’s used for emergency training and an actual declared emergency.

“There is a large number of emergency monitoring projects in the U.S., and we are delighted that our technology has been used to display high-resolution security-camera images in so many of them," said Anders Løkke, marketing director, projectiondesign. "The Minneapolis EOTF already demonstrated its effectiveness during the tornado that swept through the area last May and, although we would prefer it if our systems never had to be used in similar situations again, the reality is that the city is better-protected now that its providers of emergency services have such easy, immediate and accurate access to security-camera imaging from so many locations.”

“The EOTF was conceived as a place where the various Departments responsible for emergency response and management in Minneapolis could co-ordinate their efforts more closely than had previous been possible,” said Primroli.

Same stuff as May 11, 2012: Minneapolis Emergency Services Goes with Projectiondesign - Fire Apparatus

On May 20 2011 CItyPages reported on Rocco Forte, former Minneapolis fire chief, departing, and Forte talked about being pleased to help finish the complex: "After the 35W bridge collapse, the Republican National Convention, and the tornado that went through South Minneapolis, it is clear that we have one of the finest emergency management teams in the country. It was also a long time goal of mine to complete the Emergency Operations Training Facility that includes an Emergency Operations Center, Strategic Information Center as well as a training facility which seats up to 250 people per day."

Reed Construction Data estimates its cost at $3,988,400 (a more accurate cost estimate is available from RSMeans Online), they say.

There are a couple autogenerated links at Facility Management Minneapolis Product From Industrial Manufacturers, Distributers, Suppliers And OEMs.

There is some PR speak about AVI-SPL getting an award. Press Release/ InfoComm, Sound & Video Contractor Honor AVI-SPL with Two PRO AV Spotlight Awards - Audio/Video Equip./Surveillance - AVI-SPL, Inc. | PRZOOM

On March 11, 2009, the overall cost of the project was pegged by House Research as $27,403,000. SRC: www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/86/hf0554.pdf

This bill would grant $8,000,000 in bond proceeds to the City of Minneapolis to design, construct, furnish, and equip an emergency operations center housed in the City’s current training center and to make other improvements to the training center.

According to the 2008 budget request, the overall cost of the project is $27,403,000 with the City and Hennepin County funding the non-state funded portions of the project. The Joint Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis will be located at the Minneapolis Fire Training Campus on city owned land. The City contends the current facility is inadequate and limits the effectiveness of the command structure. The City further contends that the Minneapolis Fire Training Campus is an ideal location for the EOC as it would provide a secure operations center with enough room to respond to a major incident affecting the county. Finally, the City believes this request would provide much needed training classrooms at the Minneapolis Training Facility which is the main site for training the State Structural Collapse Team.

HF 554 Status in the House for the 86th Legislature (2009 - 2010) - this is the bill number - I suspect it probably got rolled into the omnibus bill but I will leave that to a Deep Wonk to suss out. // H.F. No. 554, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010).

With a pretty severe shortage of funds for both state and municipal operations, is an open-ended SIC mandate to track protest activity on Facebook really the most prudent use of funds? And doesn't this operational configuration create a chilling effect on political expression in Minneapolis? The research continues....

A few more elements on the semi-suspended MN Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) program

Previously on hongpong.com: MK Occupy Minnesota: The Drug Recognition Evaluator BCA Investigation files (Nov 12 2012) -- MK Occupy Minnesota (May 3 2012)

The training section of Minnesota's Drug Recognition Evaluator program continues to be suspended, after a 513-page Bureau of Criminal Apprehension investigation raised more questions and stonewalling from officials. Whether or not anyone will 'get real' about intrinsically corrupt war on drugs and protected misconduct is another question. Whether or not anyone will admit the war on drugs funnels profits into Wall Street is yet another.

Fox 9 reporter Tom Lyden covered the DRE story (VIDEO), talking to one of the test subjects as well as my friend, attorney Nathan Hansen, who is planning to file a lawsuit. (I have done a little design work for Hansen in years past)

The role of the Minneapolis Police Department in DRE remains untouched by local officials. 3 months ago I interviewed the chair of the city public safety committee, council member Don Samuels (VIDEO) about the shutdown of civilian oversight in the city, and he said that there was no expected report from MPD about the DRE.

Other typical recent misconduct: MPD Officer Blayne Lehner named in misconduct lawsuit; Mpls settles for $85k - City Pages Blotter

CityPages has covered DRE from the beginning and has posted a series on it: DRE 'victims' to file civil lawsuit against alleged pot-distributing officers [SECOND IN SERIES] - Minneapolis - News - The Blotter

Here are a few more new DRE documents a research colleague found from elsewhere on the interwebs:

http://www.decp.org/documents/pdfs/WhatNew/Labor%20Day%20Period%20Totals%2020102.pdf - typical touting of arrests. Crossposted to Scribd: DRE Labor Day Period Totals 20102

Via Washington state, the 2010 version of the official DRE manual (it has the same distinct typeface as the DRE IACP certification form in the BCA document) : http://www.wsp.wa.gov/breathtest/docs/webdms/DRE_Forms/Manuals/dre7/Student%20Manual%20-%20January%202010%20-%20Part%201.pdf - rejected by Scribd because of password protection. Mirrored at http://hongpong.com/files/dre/DREStudentManual-January2010-Part1.pdf  - 4MB - 212 pgs. Again it is important to note this material emerges from a committee of the decidedly sketchy International Association of Chiefs of Police, not a scientific body with open peer review. Good stuff about licking toads on page 187 etc etc.

Minnesota - the 1997 DRE plan: http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/pre2003/mandated/970234.pdf - crossposted to Scribd: DRE-MN-POST-1997-970234

Another DRE document from Littleton CO indicates state & federal funding: http://townoflittleton.org/images/TOLimgs/files/septpdactivities2012.pdf -

A password-protected Powerpoint. Anyone care to take a look? http://hongpong.com/files/dre/DRE_STL06.ppt . via http://entrapped.com/Media/DRE_STL06.ppt .

*****

Out in the wider world the drumbeat of drug war corruption continues. A popular cartoon from Politico / M.Wuerker:

drugwar-politico-cartoon.jpg

In both Mexico and Afghanistan, absurd formations are emerging. (via here) Pentagon Wants to Keep Running Its Afghan Drug War From Blackwater's HQ | Danger Room | Wired.com, related to 2009 - cryptogon.com » Blackwater Worldwide Changes Its Name to Xe; Same Mercenaries, but Now with More “Aviation Support”. Also the latest from NarcoNews: Mexico’s New President Set to Empower a “Devil’s Cartel” | the narcosphere.

Also via DaveyD, thorough documentation of this racist project: US Marshal Told By Supervisors Not to Bring the ‘War on Drugs’ to White Communities | Davey D's Hip Hop Corner

We'll leave it there for now...

Question Time: Jimmy Savile pedophile network story encompasses BBC, royal family, Parliament, Jersey, Netherlands -- crickets from US media

"What you have to understand, John, is that sometimes there are forces and events too big, too powerful, with so much at stake for other people or institutions, that you cannot do anything about them, no matter how evil or wrong they are and no matter how dedicated or sincere you are or how much evidence you have. This is simply one of the hard facts of life you have to face."
- Former CIA director and Cercle member William Colby giving advice to his friend senator John DeCamp, urging to quit his investigations into the Franklin child abuse affair and to write a book about his experiences (The Franklin Coverup, 2nd edition, foreword). via archived Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert politics project - https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/

[TRIGGER WARNING - Your world is controlled by many abusive psychopaths - details/links below. Aside from blockquoting Icke, Madsen & other stories, this post does not reach into many details of the abuse. Some of these links & the 1993 video "Conspiracy of Silence" contain very disturbing material including direct documentation of abuse]

A creepy theme, usually derided by debunker types as 'conspiracy theory' material, has been the frequent overlap between child abuse networks and vertically hierarchical, often sexually-codified, social structures & institutions, particularly those with some degree of control over vulnerable people. However these patterns are typically 'latent' & suppressed in media awareness until the dam bursts. Whether or not this horror encompasses interdimensional entities, blackmailed Nazi operatives or other exotically creepy ideas, the sheer evil of it all can send one's imagination hunting for weird connections. After all, one principal reason this never surfaced until now is because of the cognitive dissonance that tends to deflect our attention from such unthinkable cruelty.

Whether it's the revelation of vast abuse in the United Kingdom, Catholic hierarchies or Penn State, perpetrators & handlers of human trafficking & abuse are often well-protected & truth rarely spills out.

VIDEO: Member of Parliament Tom Watson asks Prime Minister Cameron about protected pedophile activity within the highest ranks of British government at House of Commons Question Time. (source)

savile_newsletterpromo.jpeg

Across the United Kingdom, hundreds of new leads & investigations have opened up with broadening awareness that a major BBC pop music presenter and producer, Jimmy Savile, helped mastermind a vast network of child abuse across much of the United Kingdom for decades, implicating major figures in the British Broadcasting Corporation, Parliament, the Prime Ministerial and Royal Family levels of UK society in undeniable horrors.

For decades, Savile [with a creepy resemblance to the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang childcatcher character] got what amounted to a green light from the major figures in British society, the BBC and the Royal Family, to do as he pleased, with full access including keys to numerous institutions hosting vulnerable children and teens.

For years the BBC's hierarchy looked the other way as Savile used his venues to not just abuse children [including it's widely said now, even dead children] directly, but also arrange for their trafficking on behalf of many other powerful figures.

A former BBC director, Mark Thompson, is now 'incoming president and chief executive' of the New York Times, forcing NYT Publisher Arthur Sulzburger Jr to back up their man, since he is obviously under the shadow of the BBC pedo coverup situation.

See: Amid BBC Scandal, Incoming Times Chief Receives Support - NYTimes.com // BBC Scandal Threatens to Become a Political Crisis - NYTimes // BBC News - Newspaper review: Savile scandal still leads papers // Jimmy Savile child abuse probe: TV stars set to be arrested 'within days' as probe widens - Mirror // Jimmy Savile scandal: Tom Watson MP claims powerful child sex ring was linked to Downing Street - Mirror Online // Jimmy Savile: Sex fiend was a 'necrophiliac', claims former colleague Paul Gambaccini - Mirror Online // Jimmy Savile abuse scandal: Doctors claimed to have attacked patients at hospitals where Savile allegedly struck - Mirror Online // BBC News - Giving Jimmy Savile victims their voice // BBC News - Jimmy Savile scandal: Alleged victims' stories

#OTB: The quirky alternative site OccupyTheBanks.com has been covering dimensions of this: see #BELGIUM DUTROUX CHILD RAPE & SNUFF #DEMMINK #DUTCH #Savile #BBC #Hague && THE top legal officers in HOLLAND (see last post) can be a NAMED PEDOPHILE, and CHILD RAPIST // #MASSARRESTS UK POLICE 50 POLICE PEDO ARRESTS // #NETHERLANDS TOP GOVT LAW OFFICER #PEDOPHILE #Demmink #Dutch #JUSTICE // **BREAKING** NO 10 PEDO RING NAMED UK PARLIAMENT // [UPDATED 7th OCT]] SATANIC RITUAL CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE #VATICAN #NWO #ILLUMINATI etc etc. Follow @censoredNewsNow for more items - a chatty account to be sure!

It's no surprise Savile was able to gather many honorifics thanks to the Royal Family and even made a member of the Knights of Malta (Sovereign Military Order of Malta - a major sketchy European aristocratic network). (additionally, with recent work from people identifying with Anonymous in exposing child porn networks, d0xing abusers, as well as criticism of the sexist, misogynist & creepy issues plaguing such groups as Reddit & "jailbait" subreddits, the 'skeptic humanist' community etc, it seems like these broader topics are finally getting the attention & reactions they need.)

It's important to realize that pedophiles and particularly creepy 'fixers', such as for example, that John Mark Kerr creeper, who bizarrely claimed to have killed Jon Benet Ramsey several years ago, are just outer tentacles, who clearly are 'charmed' with protection from law enforcement entanglements. [In Minneapolis, the longtime Park Police chief was yet another pedo in a key power position]

Icke was right?! Of all people, noted "interdimensional reptilian conspiracy" exponent David Icke gains a certain validation for having documented both Savile's depredations and others, prevailing in exposing ugly truths despite the famously libel-locked down British publishing world. His 5500 word exegesis on this subject is posted below.

I think this statement is well-substantiated - many examples are out there: Icke: "Paedophilia is a fundamental ‘cement’ that holds the networks of manipulation together across all political persuasions and allows those in the shadows to blackmail politicians into introducing legislation that advances the agenda of human control."

At this time in the UK press, former Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath & minister Sir Peter Morrison, a confidante of Heath's successor, Margaret Thatcher, are openly talked about. Former Minister says Thatcher aide was paedophile who preyed on boys' home - and Hague should have known | Mail Online

A former Tory Minister last night made incendiary claims that one of Margaret Thatcher’s closest aides was implicated in one of the most harrowing child abuse scandals of recent times.

Rod Richards, a former Conservative MP and ex-leader of the Welsh Tories, made the shocking allegation that he had seen evidence linking Sir Peter Morrison to the North Wales children’s homes case, in which up to 650 children in 40 homes were sexually, physically and emotionally abused over 20 years.

Mr Richards also linked a second leading Tory grandee – now dead – to the scandals at homes including Bryn Estyn and Bryn Alyn Hall, both near Wrexham.

He said official documents had identified the pair as frequent, unexplained visitors to the care homes.

Mr Richards – who helped establish the inquiry that unearthed the scale of the abuse – said bluntly: ‘What I do know is that Morrison was a paedophile. And the reason I know that is because of the North Wales child abuse scandal.’

He added that William Hague, who was Welsh Secretary at the time of the inquiry, ‘should have seen the evidence about Morrison’.

Morrison was Lady Thatcher’s parliamentary private secretary and deputy chairman of the Conservative Party.

Back in the 1990s -- the website ISGP.eu - [now archived via Wikispooks.com] covered a Belgian-centered dimension of the protected European elite child abuse network. This material gets very deeply disturbing & is not to be taken lightly [TRIGGER WARNING x infinity] ISGP - Beyond the Dutroux Affair // ISGP - Dutroux case and X-Dossier victim-witnesses // ISGP - Dutroux, Nihoul and X-Dossier investigators // ISGP - Belgian X-Dossiers - the accused // ISGP - Alleged assassinations in Belgium

"From East Belfast's Kincora Boys' Home, via Leicestershire, Staffordshire and London, to the children's homes of Clwyd, we have witnessed 25 years of cover-up. Cover-up, not to protect the innocent but to protect the regularly named elements of the British establishment who surface whenever widespread evidence of child abuse is exposed. From the public schools right through to the Catholic and Anglican churches, child abuse has been allowed a special place of sanctuary... Social workers, police, security services, local and national political figures remain the common factors in the fall-out from the [child abuse] inquiries... In case after case the cycle is described - a child is 'taken into care', then abused in a home, handed on to an outside pedophile ring and out on to the rent-boy/prostitution circuit beyond, if they live that long... Journalists find themselves battling first with authority, then with the libel laws, to publish the truth about a vast web of abuse."
- June 6, 1996, The Guardian, 'True scandal of the child abusers'. These lines were written by the author of the article and are not quotes.

....and so here we are in 2012, 18 years after that Guardian story was posted, previous layers breaking through to the surface anew. The 1990s saw parts of this general elite network [or layer] surface and recede again into obscurity. John DeCamp, a former CIA employee and Nebraska state representative, helped expose a major node of protected child abuse and trafficking in the American heartland.

This could almost be seen as an intra-CIA war or conflict as The Minders was a CIA-linked group that participated in child trafficking as well. Here is the long-suppressed 1993 documentary Conspiracy of Silence. The central figure in Nebraska, the late GOP rising star, Lawrence "Larry" King, bears some resemblance to Jimmy Sevile as another 'doorman to the cesspit' of protected elite child abuse.


savile_princecharles.jpegArguably, much of this ugliness, from Jim Jones to the recently deceased Rev. Sun Myung Moon to the CIA-influenced "evangelical" movement (Campus Crusade for Christ was set up as a counterpart to Mario Savio's Free Speech Movement by the CIA) all tie together ritualized group mind control and the inte-generational abuse of minors.

It could roughly add up to the distillation of MK-ULTRA & Nazi-derived research into a mind control template which could be applied across many religious & cultural gradients in Western societies. In the Scandinavian side, the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series illustrated via fiction Nordic fascist intergenerational abuse families.

Whether or not you find plausible the notion of "entities operating beyond human sight which mentally and emotionally possess these people feed off human energy in general", the rest of the piece is an ugly read on a lot of very solid foundations.

So let's get to the Icke piece - via here Jimmy Savile ... Doorman To The Cesspit - David Icke Website && ELITE CHILD ABUSE: ‘JIMMY SAVILE… DOORMAN TO THE CESSPIT’ « 21st Century Wire::

By David Icke

Something of massive significance has happened in Britain in the last two weeks which might have been lost on most of the rest of the world. It concerns the revelations about serial child abuse over decades by a man considered by many to be a British ‘icon’ and ‘national treasure’.

Savile’s connections to the political and royal elite are undeniable.

His name is Jimmy Savile and the reason the significance of what is happening may have passed most people by outside the UK is that Savile was a major figure in these islands, but little known beyond them. What, and who, he was involved with, however, is global in nature and has the potential to expose both the staggering scale of child sexual abuse and many of the mega-famous names for whom it is a way of life.

Savile was one of the first in the entertainment field known as ‘disc jockeys’ who emerged with the 1960s music and cultural explosion known as the ‘Swinging Sixties’. I remember him well as a kid appearing on television shows, still in black and white then, and in fact you could hardly miss him. Once seen, never forgotten. He would always appear with dyed hair, mostly blond, and highly colourful and eccentric clothing accompanied by multiple rings and other jewellery. Savile was what they called a ‘one-off’, a ‘character’ and people either loved him or deeply loathed him and thought he was seriously weird. There was little of the half-way about Jimmy Savile.

He began as a disc jockey in dance halls and later managed several of them before he launched a career in the media via the legendary Radio Luxemburg in 1958 and eventually moved to the BBC which was to be his prime public platform for decades. He was a first and last presenter of the ground-breaking music chart show Top of the Pops, which ran from 1964 to 2006, but his biggest claim to fame was the BBC show Jim’ll Fix It which he presented from 1975 to 1994.

This is particularly relevant to current events because it was a programme in which children wrote in to describe what they would most like to do or who they would most like to meet. The programme then ‘fixed it’ for the children chosen to take part. The ‘fix’ could be anything from going up in a hot air balloon to meeting their favourite pop star.

Savile was also famous for his charity work, which included running many marathons. He was also a volunteer porter at the Leeds General Infirmary; a volunteer and fundraiser at Stoke Mandeville Hospital with its world-famous spinal injuries unit; and he was involved with the Broadmoor high-security psychiatric hospital where many famous killers have spent their days. Savile is reported to have had his own room at both Stoke Mandeville and Broadmoor and, it was revealed this week, he was given his own set of keys that allowed him access to many areas within Broadmoor.

His public face was of a jolly and eccentric character who was famous for his trademark expensive cigar and constantly repeated catch phrases such as ‘how’s about that, then?’, ‘now then, now then, now then’, ‘goodness gracious’, ‘as it ‘appens’ and ‘guys and gals’. But away from the screen Savile lived a very different life and operated in very different circles to the ‘man of the people’ image that he so cultivated and it is now clear that much of his charity work was designed to give him access to children and below-age teenagers.
Savile was given a hero’s funeral when he died in 2011 at the age of 84, but a recent television documentary – not by the BBC – has revealed his decades of sexual abuse of underage girls with more revelations coming out by the day. Iceberg and tip come to mind.

Saville was a regular visitor to the royal households, and was close to Prince Philip and Prince Charles.

I was first told about the real Jimmy Savile in the late 1990s in conversations with people who had serious insider knowledge about the British royal family and they said that Savile had been a close friend of Prince Philip until they had fallen out after a ‘big row’.

When I questioned why someone like Savile would be so close to the royal family I was told about his paedophilia and necrophilia (sex with dead bodies) and, of course, his famous voluntary work at hospitals would have given him potential access to the mortuaries.

Savile himself would boast about his connections to the royals and it was publicly acknowledged that he was a regular visitor to Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace (where Princess Diana lived after her marriage ended with Prince Charles), and Highgrove (the country estate of Prince Charles).

Savile told Esquire: ‘The thing about me is I get things done and I work deep cover. I’ve known the Royal Family for a million years.’

According to the UK Daily Mail at the time of Savile’s death in 2011, he ‘was used as an intermediary in an attempt to resolve the differences between the Prince and Princess of Wales shortly before their split’. Savile said that he was invited to regular meetings with the royal family because ‘I have a natural good fun way of going on and we have a laugh.’

Would one of the world’s most powerful families invite an aging disc jockey into their inner sanctum so often just because he gave them ‘a good laugh’? Or is there likely to be a far more plausible reason for their strange closeness?

I have been writing since the 1990s and a book called The Biggest Secret about the royal family’s connection to Satanism and paedophilia and about paedophile Satanists like British Prime Minister Edward Heath and President ‘Father’ George Bush – just as I have told those who would listen about Jimmy Savile. But all I have had for my trouble from mainstream society is ridicule and dismissal.

Their minds are too closed and too programmed to make the leap into the world as it really is.

Now, in the wake of the public confirmation about Savile, it is time that they did. How many more children need to suffer before humanity grows up and faces the reality and sheer undiluted evil of the force that controls them?

Jimmy Savile and the royal family shared a love of Scotland and the sporting events known as the Highland Games. Savile was the Honorary Chieftain of the Lochaber Highland Games which he attended for 30 years. He had a secluded cottage at nearby Glencoe where Prince Charles was a visitor. Savile said after a visit by Charles in 1999: ‘I’ve had a few nosh-ups with the royals and I thought it was time I returned the hospitality.’

Charles sent a Christmas card to Savile in which he wrote: ‘Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland.’ The reference to the ‘ladies’ was meant for the women that Savile had arranged to serve the Prince during a visit to the Glencoe cottage.

Savile said that he had first been introduced to the royal family in 1966 by (known paedophile) Lord Louis Mountbatten, the uncle and mentor of Prince Charles. Mountbatten was Commandant General of the Royal Marines and arranged for the disc jockey to become the first civilian to be awarded the Marines’ Green Beret. It was one of a many ‘honourees’ that Savile would be awarded in the years that followed. Savile said:

Coming from Lord Louis, who was the favourite uncle of Prince Philip, that was quite something. So obviously I hooked up with the Prince – what was good enough for Lord Louis was good enough for him.

But what was ‘what’? Mountbatten was killed when a bomb exploded on his boat in Ireland in 1979 – a murder officially blamed on the Provisional IRA. New Zealand writer and researcher Greg Hallett writes in his book, Hitler was a British Agent:

Lord Louis Mountbatten was a pedophile, adulterer and homosexual incestuous lover for 10 years … the former King Edward VIII … was truly troubled by the revelations he too had betrayed the Canadians to the German Army, resulting in the open slaughter of those 4,000 men …

… the British monarchy arranged for MI-5 to blow up his boat (1979), happily covering their trail; by fitting up four IRA men … the tactic of blowing up one of your own leaders to cover up any incriminating evidence … was a face saving device to distract from even more damaging intelligence about the British monarchy working for the Germans, against peace, and for a prolonged war.

This is a young Prince Charles with his ‘mentor’ Lord Mountbatten, and father Prince Philip. Greg Hallett names both Mountbatten and Philip as paedophiles. Of course, you don’t just take one person’s word for that, but my own sources which have proved to be so accurate about Savile and others told me the same nearly 15 years ago with the addition that they were both Satanists. This is no surprise given that the British royal family, like all the royal bloodlines of Europe and further afield, are founded on Satanism and the manipulation of occult knowledge for deeply malevolent ends in league with the ‘dark suit’ expressions of the bloodlines in politics, banking, corporations and media.

But Jimmy Savile’s connections were certainly not confined to the royal family. They fanned out into the realms of politics and the rich and famous across the spectrum of human society. In short, he was not only a paedophile himself, but a supplier of children for some of the most famous paedophiles and Satanists on the planet.

The victims of his abuse that are now speaking out in the wake of the television documentary exposing his secret life are only part of a gigantic cesspit of paedophilia, Satanism, drug-running and murder in which he was involved.

I describe him as a ‘doorway to the cesspit’ because if you get past him and his fake persona you enter the sick and depraved world of the global bloodline elite. Savile was a ‘fixer’ – he described himself as such, though not in terms of what he was really fixing. As he told Esquire: ‘The thing about me is I get things done and I work deep cover.’ His most famous TV programme, Jim’ll Fix It, could not have been more appropriately named.

British police have said they are currently following 320 lines of inquiry into Savile’s abuse over decades all over the country, but if they are genuine and tenacious in their investigations and really want to know the truth they can multiply that by a very large number and still not be close to the totality.

If they do really want to uncover the truth they will have to be knocking on the door of Buckingham Palace eventually. If they don’t, it’s a cover up given the Windsors’ close relationship with Savile.

The current public revelations about Savile are being confined largely to the abuse of underage girls, but the truth about the way he supplied girls and boys for people like Prime Minister Edward Heath and so many others must also come out because the barricade is being held at the moment with only his own paedophilia and a few sleazy showbiz people. This is only one aspect of the scandal and his work as a supplier of children for the ‘elite’ is still being hidden in the mainstream media to protect the biggest names. This firewall has to be breached.

Guy Marsden today.

One of Savile’s nephews, Guy Marsden, now 59, has said publicly this week that he and his friends were taken to parties by his uncle in the late 1960s to ‘act as intermediaries for adults and younger children’. He said that the parties were attended by ‘household names’ in showbusiness, but only men – never women.

Marsden, then 13, and some friends from Leeds in the north of England, ran away to London for ‘an adventure’, he said. They were approached by men at Euston railway station and invited to a grubby flat. Then about four days later Savile turned up at the flat by coincidence because Marsden soon learned that his famous uncle mixed with ‘fellow child molesters’. He said he thought he would be in trouble for running away and not telling his parents where he was, but instead his uncle Jimmy just took him and his friends to a ‘much better place’ – the house of a ‘famous pop impresario’ which had a big indoor swimming pool and was one venue for Savile’s ‘paedophile parties’.

Marsden said that little boys and girls would disappear into bedrooms with the famous attendees and it was ‘perfectly obvious’ what was happening. ‘You heard sounds and moans and groans coming from the bedroom and knew what was going on.’ Marsden added:

At night you would get about 15 or 20 people turning up. There would be music and tables full of food, we couldn’t believe it. There was everything we needed and we just hung around.

At first we automatically assumed the children lived there, but we soon realised they didn’t. They would be brought there, sometimes by Uncle Jimmy, and would stay for six or seven hours until 3 or 4am. They were just little kids, boys and girls.

Interestingly, Marsden said that Savile sometimes arrived with a man dressed as a priest and he believed that children being abused may have come from an orphanage or children’s home. They almost certainly did – it fits the modus operandi of the paedophile rings to the letter. What better way to supply your children than have control of children’s homes?

Several of Savile’s victims who have come forward in recent times say they were abused by him at the Duncroft boarding school for ‘intelligent, emotionally disturbed girls’ in Surrey and wherever children and young people are gathered together in a boarding situation needs to be watched like a hawk. These establishments are the predators’ hunting grounds with often their own people appointed to the staff.

Savile at the infamous Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey, Channel Islands.

This is Savile with the children at the infamous Haut de la Garenne children’s home on the island of Jersey in the Channel Islands. Jersey is the fiefdom of mega-rich and mega-crooked networks that combine criminal business, banking and drug operations with paedophilia and Satanism. The island of Jersey, off the French coast,, is only nine miles by five with a population of 90,000 and yet has 55 banks, more than 33,000 registered companies and hundreds of billions of dollars on deposit. It is a money laundering operation of global proportions and attracts the super wealthy with low tax rates.

Haut de la Garenne, or ‘Forest Heights’, was a ‘children’s home’ (detention centre) from 1867 to 1986 and it is clear that it played the role of providing children for sexual and violent abuse by the Jersey Mafia in all its forms – as well as the rich and famous of mainland Britain, including members of the Royal Family.

Jersey has an almost self-contained government of its own, but the Queen remains at the top of its power structure and wherever the ‘Crown’ holds sway, so does Satanism and child abuse.

The infamous Satanist, Edward Paisnel, who was dubbed ‘The Beast of Jersey’ after being jailed for 30 years for the rape of boys and girls, used to play Father Christmas at Haut de la Garenne during the 1960s. You get the picture.

A high-profile police investigation began in 2008 into historic long-term abuse at the home and, unfortunately for those involved, a decent, honest copper was in control of the investigation. This was Lenny Harper, a States of Jersey police detective who led a three-year child abuse inquiry that genuinely tried to expose what happened.

Genuine police officers and detectives who sought the truth in the Marc Dutroux child abuse and murder scandal in Belgium in the 1990s found that refusing to cover up the facts is not a good career move for law enforcement personnel if the truth is leading to rich, famous and powerful people and their networks. So it proved again with the Jersey investigation.

Both sets of genuine investigators were removed from these cases and any credible ‘investigation’ went with them. Lenny Harper, like his counterpart in the Belgian inquiry, was accused of ‘misconduct’ as a blatant excuse to get rid of him – the allegations were later proved false. Harper’s boss, Jersey police chief Graham Power, was also outrageously suspended and neutralised as part of this.
More than a hundred people came forward claiming to have been sexually and violently abused at the Jersey home and Lenny Harper has confirmed that Jimmy Savile’s name came up early in his investigation but with not enough evidence to charge him at the time. Savile denied any knowledge of ever being at the home, but a picture emerged of him at the home to show that he was lying.

Highly significantly, the name of Edward Heath, the British Prime Minister between 1970 and 1974, has also emerged in relation to abuse at Haut de la Garenne and to Jimmy Savile. I named Heath as a serial child abuser and killer and practicing Satanist in The Biggest Secret seven years before he died in 2005.

A local newspaper reporter, or an excuse for one, contacted Heath when the book was published in 1998 and read him the passage. He replied with the usual ‘Icke is crazy’ response and did nothing else. The reporter, a Charlotte Hofton, condemned me for attacking a ‘nice old man’.

I had spoken to many people who said they had been abused by Heath and witnessed his sexual abuses and satanic child murders, while I was told about Savile by those who knew from having access to the ‘inside’. I was therefore confident enough, with direct contract with the abused themselves, to name Heath in the book and defend any libel action. But that never came because what I said was true.

Those who survived Heath’s abuse were the minority. He loved to torture children and then kill them, often by cutting their throats. This was the man who ran Britain for his masters for four years as prime minister and signed us into the fascism that is the European Union.

Heath was famous as an ocean-going sailor in his yacht Morning Cloud which he used to sail to Jersey and visit the children’s home, Haut La Garenne. According to some sources it was Jimmy Savile who supplied children for Heath that would be abused at sea and probably never return.

Savile had many close and intimate contacts in British politics and he boasted that he spent Christmas with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her husband Dennis every year for a decade. Thatcher replaced Heath as leader of the Conservative Party and many of her government ministers were paedophiles.

Edward Heath and Lord Mountbatten, who first introduced Savile to the royal family, have also been connected by some researchers to the Kincora Boys Home in Belfast, Northern Ireland, the centre of another paedophile ring scandal that broke in 1980. It was clear that the authorities knew what was going on for years before that, but did nothing.

Kincora was a home for working class boys, the very type of kids which Mountbatten was said to be most keen to abuse. Kincora children would also be taken to castles and other homes of the rich and aristocratic families, some of whom were connected to the Irish branch of the Hellfire Club. This is the Satanic network established in the 18th century by British politician and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Francis Dashwood, 15th Baron le Despencer, and his close friend, American hero, Benjamin Franklin.

Three members of staff at Kincora were jailed, including William McGrath, a friend and associate of Northern Ireland’s most famous politician, Ian Paisley, but none of the elite clientele were ever investigated, let alone named and charged. The official inquiry (anything but) decided there was no wider ring operating from the home when that was clearly absurd.

The same happened when a paedophile ring was exposed at children’s homes in North Wales in the 1990s, including the Bryn Alyn home in Wrexham. Policemen, social workers and prominent public figures were named during public sessions of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal by those abused, but its chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, threatened the media with High Court proceedings if the names were published.

First Waterhouse said that this ban applied only to people who were alive and who did not have previous convictions for child abuse. Then he banned the naming of a man who had died 16 years before and another with two convictions of abusing children in North Wales homes. All together now…

Lord McAlpine – denies involvement.

The UK Guardian went so far as describing one of those named as ‘A man who bears the same surname as a prominent Conservative supporter’. The report added that two witnesses had told the tribunal of a rich and powerful man who belonged to the alleged ring.
The now defunct Scallywag magazine named Lord McAlpine, a treasurer of the Conservative Party, and also Derek Laud, a leading ‘mover and shaker’ in Conservative administrations. Both were close friends of long-time Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a close friend of Jimmy Savile. McAlpine and Laud denied the allegations. I am not saying that Margaret Thatcher knew about Savile’s background, only that his friendship with her reveals his connections into the Conservative Party at the highest levels.

Scallywag also alleged that MI5 took foreign diplomats to the North Wales homes and secretly filmed them abusing and torturing boys to use the tapes for blackmail. This is a classic Intelligence modus operandi with regard to child abuse by the famous and influential – especially politicians that they want to control..

Paedophiles and Satanists pervade the world of politics, royalty, banking, corporations and media and it is just as rife in the UK Labour and Liberal Democrat parties as it is in the Conservatives – and among the Democrat and Republican elite in the United States.

-
War criminal and long-time Prime Minister Tony Blair represented the paedophile-infested Labour Party (see website link after this article) and at his private school, Fettes in Edinburgh, Scotland, he was a close friend of its chaplain, the Very Reverend Dr Ronald Selby Wright, who was known as a persistent paedophile. Edinburgh is a major centre for elite paedophilia and secret societies. Wright was a Church of Scotland Moderator and Chaplain to the Queen and the Fettes historian Robert Philip once said that the young Blair looked up to Dr Wright as a `spiritual mentor’. Philip said: `When Mr Blair was having trouble with the establishment, he confided in Ronald. I think a lot of seeds for his religious faith were sown there.’

And what else?

Tony Blair is reported to have blocked the exposure of famous names during Operation Ore – Operation Avalanche.

Tony Blair is reported to have blocked the exposure of famous names in law, business and politics, including some in his own cabinet, during the police investigation into paedophile Internet activity known as Operation Ore, which came out of the FBI investigation in the United States called Operation Avalanche. Neither convicted any of the big fish – as usual.

The figures in Operation Ore were enormous: 7,250 suspects identified, 4,283 homes searched, 3,744 arrests, 1,848 charged, 1,451 convictions, 493 cautioned; 140 children removed from suspected dangerous situations. But still no major names in the paedophile-infested elite levels of society. Operation Avalanche in the US produced 35,000 Internet records, but only 100 charges.

Blair was leader of the Labour Party at the time of the mass killing of children by known paedophile Thomas Hamilton who walked into Dunblane Primary School in Scotland in 1996 and shot dead 16 children and a teacher before killing himself. Hamilton, like Savile, was a procurer of children for ‘pillars’ of the Establishment.

Scottish judge Lord Cullen was appointed to head the official inquiry into Dunblane and he ordered that significant documents relating to the case should be locked away from public view for a hundred years. He said that this was to protect the victims and families when anyone with a brain could see that it was to protect the Establishment.

Cullen also led the five-judge tribunal which heard the appeal against conviction of the (innocent) Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and decided that he was guilty. It was revealed that Lord Cullen is a member of an elite Freemasonic group based at Edinburgh University known as The Speculative Society.

Lord Burton, a former Grand Master of Scottish Freemasonry, told a British Sunday newspaper that Cullen’s ‘inquiry’ was a cover up that suppressed crucial information and he linked Cullen to what he called the ‘Super Mason’ Speculative Society. He said that he had been bullied and threatened by other members of the House of Lords when he tried to raise his concerns about a Dunblane cover-up. ‘There’s no escaping the fact that there’s something sinister about the whole affair’, he said.

Thomas Hamilton wandered around Queen Victoria School, Dunblane’s only private boarding school – just like Savile did in girls’ homes and hospitals – and these people are given so much protection and free rein because they are the sources of children for the paedophiles that run government and law enforcement.

Paedophilia is a fundamental ‘cement’ that holds the networks of manipulation together across all political persuasions and allows those in the shadows to blackmail politicians into introducing legislation that advances the agenda of human control.

Jimmy Savile’s involvement with politicians goes back to the 1960s and he has been a ‘friend’ of so many who have dictated the direction of national and even world affairs, including the long-time Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, who I have exposed in my books as a Rothschild front man and manipulator fully aware of the Orwellian world that he was helping to create. Savile was also associated with paedophile Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe and the London gangland villains, the Kray twins, who are also reported to have provided children for the famous.

The network is just so vast – and global.

Jimmy Savile was also closely associated with convicted pop music paedophiles, Jonathan King and Gary Glitter (who he publicly defended after Glitter’s conviction) and he was into far more than child molestation. Satanists get their biggest ‘high’ from having sex with dead bodies and some paedophiles get their ‘high’ from sex with mentally and physically disabled children. Savile’s charity work gave him access to both.

He was a volunteer porter at Leeds General Infirmary and had his own room at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, with its world-renowned spinal injuries unit, and the Broadmoor psychiatric hospital. Allegations of abuse have come from all three and it is said to have happened with the knowledge of staff. Some children were told by staff to act as if they were asleep when Savile came round to avoid his sexual abuse. Hospitals have mortuaries and Savile’s fellow BBC radio presenter Paul Burnett said without knowing the significance: ‘He did a lot of work as a porter in the [Leeds] hospital that he collected money for. He would go there at night and work as a porter.’ Yes, and what else?

None of this wider background is appearing in the mainstream media. The story is being sold as a famous paedophile being exposed, but of most importance to the big picture here is that Savile was a procurer of children for those in positions of national and international power.

Savile died extremely rich and no one seems to be asking where all that came from. Okay, he would have earned well enough in his prime with television, advertising and personal appearances, but he has done none of that with any serious earning capacity for a long time.

Yet he still owned a £160,000 Rolls Royce and had five other cars including a Bentley Turbo and Mercedes 500 SL. He also reported to have owned at least eight homes and left millions in his will on top of that. Where did all the money come from into old age to keep that scale of lifestyle going?

The answer is that child procurement for elite paedophiles is a very lucrative business and also ensures you protection from the law so long as you keep the secrets because if you go down so do your clients. This is why Savile could boast that he was untouchable. He told television presenter Louis Theroux: ‘I can get anything. There’s nothing I can’t get, and there’s nothing I can’t do.’

Those who stay quiet are protected. Those who threaten to speak out are soon dead. The latter was not going to happen to Savile who knew how the game worked and played it for his personal benefit.

Savile was so good at what he did – ‘working deep cover’ – that he was made a member of the Knights of Malta, an elite secret society that I have long exposed in my books, and awarded a papal knighthood by Pope John Paul II in a show of thanks and admiration from the biggest paedophile racket on Earth, the Roman Catholic Church. He was also awarded a knighthood by his friend the Queen and the Establishment in general.

Paedophile and Satanic rings are just that – rings, networks. They include people in all walks of life from politics, law enforcement, judiciary, banking, corporations and media, and they watch each other’s’ backs because their own backs depend upon it.

This happens the world over and most certainly in the United States, as I have widely exposed, and involves a mass of prominent people including US presidents like Father George Bush and major manipulators like Henry Kissinger.

Children’s homes and government mind control programmes are the major source of children for the American ‘elite’. High on the list is Boys Town, Nebraska, which is also known as ‘Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home’ after its founder, Roman Catholic priest Father Edward J. Flanagan. He established Boys Town in 1921 for the ‘care, treatment, and education of at-risk children’.

If you read the book, The Franklin Cover Up, by former Nebraska state senator, John W DeCamp, you might wonder when the children are most ‘at risk’ – before they go to Boys Town or after. The story almost got out at one point during the Reagan and Bush administrations, but was quickly covered up after this was published in 1989.

So the question is why? Why is paedophilia so all-pervading in these elite levels of human society? The answer is that entities operating beyond human sight which mentally and emotionally possess these people feed off human energy in general, but the energy they want more than anything is that of children before puberty.

The hormonal changes that happen at puberty are only holographic expressions of deeper energetic changes and the entities want that energy before those change takes place. When the paedophile is having sex with the child the possessing entities are using the paedophile as a conduit to draw off the child’s life-force.

The bloodline-possessed are genetically and energetically stimulated to desire sex with children and when they get what they want the entities get what they want – the child’s energy. This requires an endless supply of children to constantly repeat this process and this is where the Jimmy Saviles and Thomas Hamiltons come in.

I see that I have written 5,500 words in this article and yet I could have written 30,000 and still not told the whole story of how Satanism and paedophilia are the foundation and connecting tissue of the global network of human suppression.

People find it so hard to go there, or to accept what appears to be so fantastic, but if the Savile story continues to be pursued tenaciously, and with an open mind, it can open a doorway to expose the darkest of dark.

Source: DavidIcke.com

RELATED STORY: BEN FELLOWS FULL INTERVIEW ON LIVE – EXPOSING BBC CHILD ABUSE /// RELATED STORY: 'I RAN THE GAUNTLET OF PEDOPHILES IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY' /// RELATED INTERVIEW: Blowing the Lid on Child Abuse in Entertainment – The Ben Fellows Radio Show

Labour25 – paedophiles in the UK Labour Party - http://labour25.com/

David Icke – Knock Knock … Who’s There? Your Apathy! (Viewer Discretion Advised) Click here to watch …

/// BELOW THE FOLD: More from Wayne Madsen & Christopher Story on disturbing pedophile networks, perhaps even the Illuminati / German authoritarian connection to PM Heath, & more ////

FawkesFail: Even more #OpCartel related shadiness: Anonymous hive instantly rejects @FawkesSecurity feds/contractors/fools posting violent threat, false flag or buffoonery

‏@AnonNCarolina2 - We spend all night informing ppl about indefinite detention only to be placed at the top of the list by some dumbfuck. #StopNDAA#Anonymous - SOURCE

Fortunately #stopNDAA at least hit a huge volume on twitter during tonight's presidential debate. So... Synchronicity in the Fog? Less than 24 hours after posting loose notes on #OpCartel & possible evidence of related Anonymous false flags / synthetic setups staged by contractors and handlers ( ECHELON GCSB military surveillance vs New Zealand & Kim Dotcom; IRC logs on Anonymous false flag attacks viewed anew; Barrett Brown setup via #OpCartel ) naturally yet another very similar likely falseflag trial balloon (or sheer dumbassery) has just been sent up. It's easy to speculate this is intended to defame &/or distract from stuff like the announced Tyler P2P leaking platform project & other peaceful modes of information dissent.

The first time I heard of FawkesSec (assuming that's the same general thing as FawkesSecurity) I heard it was a contractor setup. And now here we are. I'm not the only one who noticed a flow of BS. & also this.

/// UPDATE: @anon_prole flags: "RT @MsSamanthaMarie FB profile is the admin to FawkesSecurity group page that's listed on twitter profile https://www.facebook.com/jodie.rushforth @Anonyops" and "FYI our friend Fawkessecurity was the one threatening @twitter 4 @Anon_Central suspension https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xDRwRIzbeY … cc. @Anony_Central @Anonyops". /// Someone instantly made a semi-offensive Flash anime about this? Damn quick/// Really handy tips for watching social media on this story via @anonOccuBloc : FawkesSecurity #Twitter Analysis | http://analytics.topsy.com/?q=fawkessecurity | http://mentionmapp.com/beta/classic/index.php#user-fawkessecurity | http://www.twinitor.com/#q=fawkessecurity&lang=all&stop_spam=0&stop_porn=0 | http://trendsmap.com/topic/%40fawkessecurity |

Researchers have started looking at the FawkesSecurity facebook group &etc. See @AnonyOps, Alexa O'Brien for notes & Paul Henderson (Vizfosho) among the first to flag what was going on. @AmberLyon mentioned her sources said it's evidently fake and she'd seen similar before.

The crazy thing is that the new bomb threat video posted by @fawkesSecurity uses the same basic video file as the original #OpCartel video, which is broadly believed to have been a setup or falseflag. [see this one for the highest view count] O_o


fawkes-sec-threat.png
fawkes-sec-twitter.png

fawkes-sec-threat-youtube.png

On the diametrically opposite side, this seems pretty representative of the genuine idea among the 'real Anonymous', having observed for some time: AnonPaste via Twitter / Anon_Prole: #ProTip: Whoever claims to ...

Anonymous is a non-violent resistance movement consisting of a global collective of autonomous individuals who adhere to these basic principles: 1) Do not attack the media. (This includes main stream, independent, and social media) 2) Do not attack critical infrastructure. (Such as communications networks, power grids - or hospitals) 3) Work for Justice and Freedom. (Especially with regards to freedom of information and the internet) ANYONE anywhere can initiate an Anonymous operation, action, or group - and so long as they adhere to these basic principles they are as much Anonymous as anyone. EVERYONE is Anonymous.

Another statement calling out @fawkessecurity:Anonymous response to false #OpV attack. - Pastebin.com via here

Ohai /b/ros,

Welcome sit sit sit... Grab some popcorn and watch this fail.

Fawkes Security whether fed or disinfo fucktard, has been 100% fail since day one.

Here is a little list of fails:

False Facebook attack fails.

Taking credit for others ddos attacks fail.

Attempting to link Project Mayhem 2012 / TYLER with physical disruption fail... (Just like NSA & DHS have attempted.)

AND NOW Linking #OpV with a bomb plot fail!

w0000000hoooo!

Anyhow, this Anon has simply gain fame by reuploading Anonymous videos onto Youtube for almost a year while creating hardly any videos which have NEVER amounted to anything.   

Channels:

https://www.youtube.com/user/FawkesS3curity

https://www.youtube.com/user/FawkesSecurity

This Anon is a cancer to the internet.

As for this Anon linking Project Mayhem 2012 to harmful and illegal activities ('Fawkes Virus', releasing viruses on 12.21.2012 and physical disruption.) we say, bring on the disinfo, we encourage it. Any disinfo you throw at us will only be fuel to the fire that will burn this world, because EVERYONE knows PM2012 will NEVER do ANYTHING ILLEGAL.

Love and Lulz,

Anonymous

&& a little earlier went around: Response to @FawkesSecurity Threat - Pastebin.com (although I don't get why these people and fawkessecurity both transpose the usual forgive/forget epithet): [line breaks edited, dang ASCII art & pre tag]


Greetings from....
_ _ ___
_| || |_ / _ \   
|_ __ _/ /_\ \_ __ ___ _ __ _ _ _ __ ___ ___ _ _ ___
_| || |_| _ | '_ \ / _ \| '_ \| | | | '_ ` _ \ / _ \| | | / __|
|_ __ _| | | | | | | (_) | | | | |_| | | | | | | (_) | |_| \__ \
|_||_| \_| |_|_| |_|\___/|_| |_|\__, |_| |_| |_|\___/ \__,_|___/
__/ |
|___/   
This message is to the media:
Earlier tonight, the Twitter account @FawkesSecurity posted a link to a pastebin and a YouTube video that stated the following:
"As of today 200 kilograms of composite Nitroglycerin and commercial explosives have effectively been concealed in a government building"
Let us be perfectly clear: Anonymous is not a terrorist organization. Anonymous does not use bombs. Anonymous does not condone violence
in any way.Anonymous supports justice and universal equal rights. We support peaceful protest.
At this time, we are not sure whether or not @FawkesSecurity is trying to troll, or if he's trying to discredit the name of Anonymous
in the eyes of the world. Maybe @FawkesSecurity's twitter and YouTube account was hacked. Perhaps this is the FBI's way of trying to
label Anonymous as terrorists so they can begin using the NDAA against us.
Either way, fuck whoever posted that threat.
We are Anonymous
We are legion
We do not forget
We do not forgive
Expect us

Also, who is this guy? He's sent tweets to fawkessecurity in the last few days (& bizarre emails to people) & doesn't seem too balanced. We have had more than a few like this, but something unique going on here :/

...and also check this out: on Subliminal Ridge: Doxing and the Barrett Brown Indictment. Important info about the 'restricted information' BS: In this law, the term “restricted personal information” means, "with respect to an individual, the Social Security number, the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, that individual." ... yet to cite merely one recent example on Cryptome.org this kind of stuff is already not 'restricted' at all!

Regarding FBI surveillance, see new infos: Anarchists targeted after Seattle's May Day protests - Los Angeles Times // Affidavit: Feds tracked Ore. anarchists to Seattle - AP. Music in support of those hassled.

UPDATE: VizFoSho adds : "@GlobalRevLive can you put this at the bottom? @Anon_Prole @DBCOOPA @AnonyOps @AmberLyon #TittySprinkles http://pic.twitter.com/nRw88ZHj" [NSFW]

Wins in Minneapolis & Choppy seas indeed: Glowing Monsanto corn, Fukushima quake would make total Cesium northern hemisphere doom

EU bankfail as everyone relishes Spain's 'successful auction' - American bankfail continues as homeless spirals, inflation & money velocity drift

On the MN front, well the Occupy movement in Minneapolis really flushed out a lot of authoritarian over-reactions in the last couple weeks, starting with a haphazard police action slapping a KSTP photographer, arresting a dozen occupiers including an indy videographer (which the tut tutters ignore, etc). A meeting with the mayor and police chief was achieved. Videos & stills from the street incident by various folks including myself and roguemedia.org at youtube.com/hongpong & quickly circulated as far as Iran's state news service PressTV lol.

A few days later, Minneapolis City Council President Barb Johnson tried to sneak an unlawful resolution without any public notice, which would have instantiated shutting down many inalienable rights between midnight and 6 AM on Nicollet Mall and Peavey/Greenway/Riverside plazas etc., including my right to collect stories and media as a journalist, a proselytizer's right to preach the Gospel, a protesters right to protest, a homeless person's right to exist, etc., in the name of the hellish blandness demanded by corporate psychopaths who want peace & quiet and these damn kids off their publicly owned lawns. The Council kicked it to committee 9-4 after the mayor lobbied for the corrupt resolution.

For the moment, anyhow, this pushed Johnson from the perceived 'center' to the 'right' of the DFL-dominated city political continuum. With an embarrassing defeat for the mayor, with the high stakes Vikings Stadium deal to rail thru without a vote in Minneapolis on the rocks at the Capitol, and Barb's greasy Peavey Plaza plan whacked in at least one committee, it seems the wheels of shadiness have trouble turning when a little sand gets in the gears. (the next hearing is May 2nd or 3rd, this would be a public hearing for the public safety committee vote, don't have info on hand. see facebook.com/occupymn or occupyminneapolis.mn )

According to one source, Mayor Rybak & Johnson's defeat last Friday was enough to spur one pol to discuss finally taking on the city machine -- the notion is that this new shakeup could finally crack open some political space in Minneapolis for an alternative after years upon years of stasis and acquiescence to top-down control (on behalf of the big banks and police union types in particular).

If nothing else then, it shows that the Founding Feathers insisted upon enough cracks in the machine to get the sand into. They never really could guarantee that the machine would work, but it seems like the saving grace for the last week was basically our dwindling freedom to throw sand in the machine. Good times. Even in Big Stone County people are standing up against massive mining projects.

Kind of a linkdump to throw here. Let's roll...

Keiser Report: Vicious Circle of Bankster Huddles (E277) - RT video 25mins with Matt Taibbi, covers the glorious Warren Buffett's Wells Fargo ownership link re drug money laundering with Wachovia & 22 tons in cocaine at about 20 minutes.

I missed this article rounding out the Bank of America situation: Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail. Taibbi addresses in the RT segment how to deal with breaking down complex financial crimes to a mass audience, and sycophant trends in the journalism industry... tough stuff especially when the blasé corruption of a whole generation creates a nice thick layer of cynicism which has to be pierced and/or eroded before a damn thing changes. My favorite angle is Bank of America manipulating London's LIBOR inter-bank interest rate to alter the $350,000,000,000,000 - yes $350 trillion worth of securities. [Everything is priced linked to LIBOR as a general index] More corruption: Yet Another Obama Big Lie: Mortgage Fraud Investigation Not Even Staffed « naked capitalism

Wanted Pakistani man surfaces in video - Asia - Al Jazeera English. Adnan Rashid another operative out and about to tangle with that Pakistani government the interventionists enjoy ragging on. Oh yeah... Iran war. No time for that, but the whole middle east geopolitical equation with Iran/Syria is like some damn junior-year daydream scenario of mine. It's just weird. (see one of my favorite pieces from the Mac Weekly 2004: Lunch Beyond Good and Evil: Around a Table with Michael Ledeen)

NATO Summit 2012 - Police State Chicago - YouTube - lol get ready, this is Lower Wacker Drive hehe...

dead honeybees in colony collapse studyMonsanto glowing corn; Honey has a sad. Monsanto got control of a bee research place to inject more disinfo in the discourse about that other colossal eco-collapse, I'm sure. Someone told me a good one about the time Monsanto tried to make a new variety of corn and it glowed. It was a huge failure and they went to some lengths to cover it up. I wonder what other freakish creations they've made?

Here is a nice study by two beekeepers and a Harvard man. www.bouldercountybeekeepers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Lu-final-proof1.pdf

Colony Collapse Disorder in bees triggered not just by pesticides, but also by GMO high-fructose corn syrup. NaturalNews can be a bit hippyish but overall its not a bad place to start & they catch decent stories as well as in-depth on the federal food & drug fascist network operations going on at the behest of the Big Ag cartel, the Chicago-based milk price fixing racket etc. "Data from this in situ study provide convincing evidence that exposure to sub-lethal levels of imidacloprid in HFCS causes honey bees to exhibit symptoms consistent to CCD 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing," wrote the authors. "15 or 16 imidacloprid-treated hives (94%) were dead across four apiaries 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing."

So the pesticides left over in the corn syrup wastes the bees pretty easily. Makes sense, but it sucks they are feeding bees pesticide-laden corn syrup to make cheap honey eh?

Fukushima kabewm: Massive industrial strength coverup. One good place to start: OpEdNews - Article: Is Fukushima's Doomsday Machine About to Blow? Look up Arnie Gundersen's videos, etc. Where are the EPA readings? Videos of people with 3x hazmat-triggering radiation levels in Los Angeles air filters. Vancouver etc., it's all hot now. Almost as horrible as the disfigured seafood coming out of the Gulf in droves nowadays.

Cancer studies gigafail as medical journals verified as mostly spam-laundering for spoofing FDA processes with new "intellectual property": Also, perhaps a bit dramatic but 88% failure rate is not acceptable, you chumps: Cancer industry total fraud exposed: Nearly all 'scientific' studies fail to be replicated. Roundup: Cell phone radiation and cancer: Just how much more proof do you need?

President of Iceland explains how to tell banks to go screw themselves and win yr country back! Proof positive we can defeat the bankster police state slavery policy through resistance and courage! Iceland's President Explains Why The World Needs To Rethink Its Addiction To Finance - Business Insider. "Recovering faster and more effectively" than any other economy -- by dumping bad debt, not backing up zombie banks! If you read one interview, it should be this one :) He even points out that BankBloat absorbs more useful tech people, IT, engineers etc., and when the banks collapsed, those people got productive jobs in the primary (or "real") economy, which picked up even more.

Funniest damn thing: this video I didn't bother to watch but the idea of ancient nephilim giants coming to eat frozen corpses in FEMA coffins is like some kind of prize achievement in conspiracy thinking. Madame Blavatsky would be proud of the mythological cuisinart going on here, and the tags are great too: FEMA CAMPS - People frozen and eaten? - YouTube. Why not?

ZBV Backscatter van coming to protests and Super Bowls near you: This has been out for a bit but not too high profile. Around the time of big Capitol protests in March 2011 I saw a weird tall van in Madison WI with California plates, parked among the state patrol & ranger types. It was not as wide as this van, but it sat lurking all night with some dude doing stuff, and the engine running... Something like an unmarked mobile command center or etc. Anyway: "ZBV" - Z Backscatter Van - YouTube

Islamic universalism, colonial divide & rule lecture: Hour+ video just posted with Dr Fouzi Slisli Islamic Universalism and Colonial Divide and Rule Policies.

College courses for slum dwellin IT guys: a cynical take but let's see: Top U.S. Colleges to Offer Free Classes Online

Assange, RT and a Hezbollah interview? There's a word for this: trolling. Here come the haters! Attacks on RT and Assange reveal much about the critics - Salon.com. Another review by Kevin Gosztola: About Julian Assange’s New Revolutionary Television Show | The Dissenter

Keep it classy, down with paganism! Rep. Mary Franson infuriated by Earth Day, calls it "Pagan holiday" [UPDATE] - The Blotter

FBI grabs Riseup server: Consequences spill over harming many legit organizations. FBI Seizes a Server Used by CLG's Webhoster in Bomb Threat Investigation | Citizens for Legitimate Government. Notably the FBI doesn't grab Google's servers physically - it's proof that the unbelievably reliable Riseup.net isn't playing the same game as the other guys. Official note: Server Seizure, April 2012 - help.riseup.net

Foreclosure mill: Moar fake vice presidents. Economy Watch - Inside the foreclosure factory, they're working overtime

Colombia Secret Service fail: reeks of covert ops. Didn't I post just before this happened that merging Homeland Security and the Secret Service was bad news?! Can this please somehow lead to the end of the war on drugs AND the end of the war on sex workers? CBS: At Least 20 Women Involved In Secret Service Prostitution Scandal - YouTube

Older stuff; TSA VIPR nightmare: The TSA's mission creep is making the US a police state -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net // "Dominate. Intimidate. Control." - Reason. (James Bovard is a damn good libertarian writer, details without the usual fluff)

Meet the new DNA? Scientists create DNA alternative | The Raw Story. Well at least we know XNA will be the operating system of our hellish cyborg overlords. See also: [1204.4116] An existing, ecologically-successful genus of collectively intelligent artificial creatures. First line "People sometimes worry about the singularity" lolll...

Drug war aside, Backstrom as Elvis: Dakota County Attorney and dedicated drug-warrior James Backstrom will actually run away rather than answer questions about whether or not cannabis has been used as medicine for centuries. Try it, it's fun! Thus, playing a man felled by Big Pharma like Elvis makes sense. Well hat tip to Backstrom here: Dakota County Attorney By Day, Elvis By Night? « CBS. // The next sham in Minnesota, pretending Schedule I actually means "no medical use" for cannabis: HF2508 Status in House for Legislative Session 87 // A little essay: Let's Be Blunt: It's Time to End the Drug War - Forbes // 1989: Drug-money Launderers Cleaning Up With Cash - Chicago Tribune:

Leigh Ritch, convicted of drug trafficking in 1986, testified at his trial that he regularly moved hundreds of thousands of dollars in drug profits to the Cayman Islands with ease.

Ritch said he stuffed the money into suitcases and took it to the Caymans, where local banks charged a 1 percent fee for ``counting the cash,`` a euphemism for laundering. The banks then shipped the money to the U.S. Federal Reserve system, he said.

As U.S. officials successfully pressured Caribbean nations to curtail such practices, Panama, with a longstanding policy of allowing untaxed, numbered bank accounts and asking few questions, became the banking center of Latin America.

Man, European new world order eugenic bloodline types are the worst! And who worse than those maniacs in the Netherlands!? Queen Beatrix’s Brother-In-Law Calls For Mandatory Birth Control For The “Unfit” - Alex Jones. Classic 1984 clip of Prince Philip talking about humanity in "plague proportions." Damn reptilians! Why can't they just hang out in old castles and dine on human flesh like their forefathers? (yes really)

Propellerheads unite: The Doctor's Sonic Screwdriver is now a real thing of sorts (io9)

Rise of the drones: coming for a county cattle rustler near you! The Rise of the Killer Drones: How America Goes to War in Secret | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Romney's Mormon mafia on the rise? Courthouse News Service - Bain Capital management slaves say they were fired because they weren't Mormon. Ugh. Mitt Romney, American Parasite - villagevoice.

The Nation and its OWS VISA offer: Gawd what an eye roller. Don't these people understand VISA and compound interest are right at the core of the problem!? Lol at Adbusters. The Pitch: Move Your Money Relay | The Nation...

Show your support today for OWS's Move Your Money Relay by applying for The Nation Magazine Platinum Visa® Rewards Card from UMB Bank of Kansas City.

UMB is a small, regional bank recommended by the Move Your Money project, a project we support. When you apply for and use the Nation Magazine Platinum Visa® Rewards Card, the bank will donate $50 and a percentage of all your future purchases on the card to The Nation! .... The more of us who participate, the bigger the impact. Show your support today for Occupy Wall Street and The Nation magazine and Move Your Money!

This is worth its own post but.... yeah. Wow. Re: Battle for the Soul of Occupy | Adbusters.

More econ items: Chris Martenson: "The Trouble With Money" | ZeroHedge // Forget '5 Minutes To Midnight', We Are 'An Inch From War' | ZeroHedge // Guest Post: Floating Exchange Rates - Unworkable And Dishonest | ZeroHedge // The Risk Of 'Hot' Inflation | ZeroHedge

WOW:
2-Housing-Busts-President-Report-Real-Terms-2012.jpeg

Europe Drops Dismally Amid Deja Vu | ZeroHedge // Guest Post: Wages And Consumption Are Both In Long-Term Downtrends | ZeroHedge // Is The Real Indicator Of The Global Economy In Africa? | ZeroHedge // The Check Is In The Mail And Other Lies | ZeroHedge

Cool fallback plan bro: Guest Post: How States Can Protect Themselves From Financial Collapse | ZeroHedge: "States with heavy resources will be in a perfect position to decouple from the failing establishment and build their own systems (which is probably a main motivation behind Obama’s latest “National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order…). Step 5: Adopt Alternative Currencies... Provide for yourself and others what the mainstream system will not, and eventually, they will either have to conform to your logic, because it works, or, they will have to try and stop you with violence and expose their inherent tyranny, building greater resistance. In either case, you win." etc. neat!

Montana GOP gets the Iran Contra Psyop Treatment!: Bob Janjuah Dismisses Central Bank Independence Amid Monetary Anarchy // Guest Post: Fake Conservatives As Dangerous To Freedom As Obama | ZeroHedge -- an exciting account of shady lunatic operative Neil Livingstone and his Psyops guru buddy Paul Vallely electioneering around; Vallely's a co-writer of the infamous Michael Aquino tract "From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory".

Vallely has been posing locally and nationally as a Liberty Movement proponent with his organization “Stand Up America”, just as Livingstone and Zinke have been posing as Constitutional freedom loving traditional conservatives. Anyone who has studied the Cointelpro operations of the 1960’s and 1970’s would probably see a familiar pattern in all of this, but many Montanans I fear may not be quite so aware.

So Montana is in a pretty hard core situation with a ring of Ollie North types cutting a major move. Where else can we spot the template?

The Mother Of All Infographics: Visualizing America's Derivatives Universe | ZeroHedge // Fasten Your Seatbelts: High Frequency Trading Is Coming To The Treasury Market | ZeroHedge // Gravitation Returns As Apple Falls, Drags Everything With It | ZeroHedge // Italy Jumps On Nationalization Bandwagon: Tax Police "Seizes" 20% Of Second Largest Domestic Insurer | ZeroHedge // Viva Central Planning | ZeroHedge // electricity is deteriorating but it's worse for brokerages than anyone else?! All that wasted electricity - not to mention the talent as Iceland's five-term president described above. Yet Another Exponential Chart... And A Different Spin On "Keynesianism" | ZeroHedge. woww...

A little more grab bag action: Prison Planet.com » Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes - a good example of PrisonPlanet going slightly off kilter with their headline -- the decidedly reactionary writer Steve Swick says "let's let their houses burn" which is a really off-putting kind of statement, but it's not the same as 'burning down'. Let's lock PrisonPlanet's Watson and Zwick in a room for a while...

Bill Gates comic book: this guy... wow man, the Gates Foundation and the whole bit. Arggg.. This site is a little odd but they are having some fun with a new approach: The Daily Bell - Is the Vaccine Industry Beginning to Fail?

HOMELESS VETERANS: I just heard more info on this - BIG pdf report on CHALENG, a homeless coordination services project. More info: Project CHALENG - Homeless Veterans // www.va.gov/HOMELESS/docs/chaleng/CHALENG_Report_Seventeenth_Annual.pdf . United States Interagency Council on Homelessness | People's Advocacy Council // Opening Doors Across America | Take Action | United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). For every fraudulently conveyed mortgage and robosigned fake document, every eviction and foreclosure you get more homeless and an empty house (and a further depressed housing market).

THis is nuts: F-35 fighter jet's escalating costs are on Washington's radar - latimes.com

Looks cool - notes in MN: Global Robotics Innovation Park // Wedge Co-op warehouse employees unionize //

Homeland security story propagates: interestingly, a lot of people across the political spectrum picked up the post about Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and their monstrous trucks. » Homeland Security Unveils Monstrous SWAT Trucks Alex Jones // SHTF411.com • SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAM RIDES..... // Full-Spectrum-Dominance.com | FSD.net // ConspiracyCulture.com // Resistor in the Rockies: Meet the new Boss in Town: ICE spawns - HSI Homeland Security Investigations // Special Response Team: Coming To A Neighborhood Near you, by Homeland Security | Decrypted Matrix // seeing is believing ....sit down - Back Country Rebels - Forums // Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters // The republican Mother: This is how the government preps, you amateurs! etc. People seem instantly infuriated by the sight of those damn trucks!

Anyway that is it for now. Hope you enjoy zee ol linkdump!

Syndicate content