 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
HOLD SEPARATE ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS LANDFILL HAULING ASSETS JUDGEMENT WASTE TRANSFER STATION COUNTY PLAINTIFF STIPULATION COURT COMMERCIAL ROUTES SEPARATE STIPULATION SERVE FEL COMMERCIAL ROUTES BUSINESS DIVESTITURES ENTRY MANAGEMENT UNITED STATES CITY OHIO PARTIES WMI FACILITY YORK DENVER LOUISVILLE COMPETITORS SALES |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN
DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; )
STATE
OF
OHIO;
)
STATE
OF
ARIZONA; )
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA;
)
STATE
OF
COLORADO;
)
STATE
OF
FLORIDA; )
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; )
STATE
OF
MARYLAND;
)
STATE
OF
MICHIGAN;
)
STATE OF NEW YORK; ) Civil Action No. 1:98 CV 1616
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; ) JUDGE ALDRICH
STATE
OF
TEXAS;
)
STATE OF WASHINGTON; and )
STATE
OF
WISCONSIN,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
HOLD SEPARATE ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CROSSING GRINDING HARSCO ASSETS JUDGEMENT COURT STIPULATION SALE MANAGERS UNITED STATES DIVESTITURE SEPARATE ENTRY PANDROL BUSINESS PARTIES EMPLOYEES APPOINT PRODUCTION DEFENDANT CROSSING GRINDING EQUIPMENT PROVISIONS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS AGENTS COMPETITOR DIVESTED PURSUANT RAILROAD TRACK PRODUCT TRADE ACCOUNTS BOOKS |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ))
v. ) Civil No: 1: 99CV02706
) (J. Kessler)
HARSCO CORPORATION, )
PANDROL JACKSON LIMITED, ) Filed: 10/14/99
PANDROL JACKSON INC. ))
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
HOLD SEPARATE STIPULATION AND ORDER
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned parties, subject to
approval and entry by the Court, that:
I.
DEFINITIONS
As used in this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order:
A. "Harsco" means defendant Harsco Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its
corporate headquarters in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, and includes its successors and assigns, and
its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, joint ventures, directors, officers,
managers, agents, and employees.
B. "Charter" means Charter plc, a United Kingdom corporation, with its corporate
headquarters in London, England, and includes its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries,
divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, joint ventures, directors, officers, managers, agents,
employees.
C. "Pandrol" means defendant Pandrol Jackson Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
HOLD SEPARATE ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SAND ALICO ROAD QUARRY ALICO ROAD FLORIDA ROCK PALMDALE SAND AGGREGATE ASSETS STONE PRODUCTS SILICA SAND SEPARATE STIPULATION SALE DIVESTITURE MANAGERS UNITED STATES JUDGEMENT HARPER BROS DEFENDANT EMPLOYEES FORT MYERS ASPHALT EQUIPMENT COMPETITOR PARTIES COURT CEMENT BUILDINGS DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS APPOINT |
HANDWRITTEN REVISIONS
BY JUDGE NOTED
DELETIONS AS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
__________________________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil No.: 99-519- CIV- J-20A
)
v. ))
FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC.; ) Filed:
HARPER BROS., INC.; )
COMMERCIAL TESTING, INC.; and )
DANIEL R. HARPER, ))
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
HOLD SEPARATE STIPULATION AND ORDER
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned parties, subject to
approval and entry by the Court, that:
I. DEFINITIONS
As used in this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order:
A. "Florida Rock" means defendant Florida Rock Industries, Inc., a Florida
corporation headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, and includes its successors and assigns, and its
subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
B. "Harper Bros." means defendant Harper Bros., Inc., a Florida corporation
headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida, and includes its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries,
divisions, groups, affiliates, directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
C. "Testing" means defendant Commercial Testing, Inc., a Florida corporation
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
HOLD SEPARATE ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PREMDOR TOWANDA DEFENDANTS SEPARATE STIPULATION COURT EMPLOYEES MOLDED PRODUCTS BUSINESS AMERICAN MOLDED PRODUCTS ENTRY MOLDED DOORSKIN JUDGEMENT HEADQUARTERS SUBSIDIARIES AGENTS PARTIES AGREEMENTS STIPULATES SUCCESSORS AFFILIATES PARTNERSHIPS JOINT VENTURES DIRECTORS PRODUCTION UNITED STATES DIVESTITURE MATERIALS PROVISIONS LAUREL FACILITY MARKETING |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
1401 H Street, N.W. )
Suite 3000 )
Washington, D.C. 20530 ))
Plaintiff, ))
v. ) )
PREMDOR INC., ) Civil No.: 1:01CV01696
1600 Britannia Road East )
Mississauga, Ontario )
Canada L4W 1J2 ) Filed August 3, 2001
)
PREMDOR U.S. HOLDINGS, INC., ) Judge: Gladys Kessler
One North Dale Mabry Highway )
Suite 950 )
Tampa, Florida 33609 ))
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, )
400 Atlantic Street )
Stamford, Connecticut 06921 )
and ))
MASONITE CORPORATION, )
1 South Wacker Drive )
Chicago, Illinois 60606 ))
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
HOLD SEPARATE STIPULATION AND ORDER
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned parties, subject to
approval and entry by the Court, that:
I.
DEFINITIONS
As used in this Hold Separate Stipulation and Order:
A. "Acquirer" or "Acquirers" means the entity or entities to whom the Towanda
Facility is divested.
B. "Premdor" means defendant Premdor Inc., a Canadian corporation with its
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
RESPONDENTSBRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ORDINANCES COURT PETITIONERS CITY SLAUGHTER HIALEAH CHURCH FLORIDA SUPP DISTRICT COURT AMP FREE EXERCISE FIRST AMENDMENT LAW APPEALS UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH ANIMAL CRUELTY GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTIONALITY RESPONDENT FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE REGULATING SUPREME COURT PRACTITIONERS SACRIFICED ANIMALS LUKUMI BABALU AYE CERTIORARI POSSESSION |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1991 CHURCH OP THE LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. AND ERNESTO PICHARDO, Petitioners, vs. CITY OF HIALEAH, FLORIDA, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF RESPONDENT Richard G. Garrett* Stuart H. Singer Steven M. Goldsmith Greenberg, Traureg, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Maimi, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 579-0500 *Counsel for Respondent *Counsel of RecordSNIPPETS: |
|
6
.
SWINDLE STATEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SCHOOLS ENFORCEMENT GUIDES VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS STANDARDS REGULATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT EDUCATION BODIES MISREPRESENTATIONS COMMISSION LAW ENFORCEMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION CONCURRING STATEMENT COMMISSIONER SWINDLE ENGLAND TRACTOR TRAILER TRACTOR TRAILER TRAINING MASSACHUSETTS DOCKET REVISED GUIDES STATE LICENSING BOARDS PRIVATE ACCREDITATION BODIES ACT FIRST INSTANCE ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS UNSUCCESSFUL PARTICIPATION FEDERAL LOAN PROGRAM STATE AUTHORITIES TWICE TWICE ISSUED CITATIONS |
CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER SWINDLE
in New England Tractor Trailer Training School of Massachusetts, Inc.,
Docket No. C-3916
When the Commission issued its revised guides for vocational schools,
I dissented on the ground that the guides were not needed because
these schools were already subject to the standards of and regulation
by the United States Department of Education, state licensing boards,
and private accreditation bodies. I also explained that these federal
and state regulatory bodies should act in the first instance to
enforce their standards to address misrepresentations by vocational
schools. If their enforcement efforts are unsuccessful, then
Commission law enforcement action may be justified. Because the
respondents continued to make misrepresentations even after the United
States Department of Education terminated their participation in a
federal loan program and after state authorities twice issued
citations to them, Commission law enforcement action here is
warranted.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ASSETS JUDGEMENT DIVESTITURE UNITED STATES COURT PANDROL TRUSTEE PROVISIONS PLAINTIFF CROSSING GRINDING SWITCH ATTORNEY PURCHASER DEFENDANTS HARSCO CORPORATION PANDROL JACKSON PARTY APPROVALS ACQUISITION PROPOSED DIVESTITURE ACCOMPLISH COMPLAINT CROSSING GRINDING SERVICES SOLE DISCRETION CROSSING GRINDING EQUIPMENT ADJUDICATION ADMISSION IDENTIFIED ASSETS WRITTEN REQUEST AFFIDAVIT |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ))
v. ) Civil No: 1: 99 CV02706 (Kessler)
)
HARSCO CORPORATION, ) Filed: 10/14/99
PANDROL JACKSON LIMITED, )
PANDROL JACKSON INC. ))
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
FINAL JUDGMENT
WHEREAS, plaintiff, the United States of America, and defendants Harsco Corporation
("Harsco"), Pandrol Jackson Limited, and Pandrol Jackson Inc. (collectively "Pandrol"), by their
respective attorneys, having consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or
adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and without this Final Judgment constituting any
evidence against or an admission by any party with respect to any issue of law or fact herein; and
having consented that this Final Judgment shall settle all claims made by plaintiff in its
Complaint filed October 14, 1999;
AND WHEREAS, defendants have agreed to be bound by the provisions of this Final
Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is, in the event of the acquisition of
certain assets of Pandrol by Harsco, the prompt and certain divestiture of the identified assets to
assure that competition is not substantially lessened;
AND WHEREAS, plaintiff requires defendant Harsco to make a divestiture for the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS-11
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
FIRM JUDGEMENT UNITED STATES COMPETITION ASSETS DIVEST WASTE COLLECTION DEFENDANTS SALE INDEPENDENT FIRM OHIO MUNICIPAL AGENCY ANDERSON WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPLAINT ACQUISITION COURT DECREE MARKET CUSTOMERS SOLD CONTEND VIGOROUSLY COMPETE DISPOSAL OPERATIONS EVIDENCE SELLING PRONE COLLUDE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES |
City Center Building
1401 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
September 13, 1999
Mr. Peter Anderson
RecycleWorlds Consulting Corp.
4513 Vernon Blvd.
Suite 15
Madison, Wisconsin 53705-4964
Re: Comment on Proposed Final Judgment in United States, State of Ohio, et al. v. USA
Waste Services, Inc., Waste Management, Inc., et al., Civil No. 98-1616 (N.D. Ohio,
filed July 16, 1998)
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This letter responds to your written comment on the proposed Final Judgment in the above
case. The Complaint in this case charged, among other things, that USA Waste's acquisition of
Waste Management would substantially lessen competition in the disposal of municipal solid waste
in 16 markets throughout the country. The proposed Judgment, now pending in federal district court
in Cleveland, Ohio, would settle the case by, inter alia, requiring that the defendants divest waste
disposal facilities that serve each of the disposal markets alleged in the Complaint. In a series
transactions in August and December 1998, and in January and February 1999, the United States
approved, under the terms of the Judgment, a sale to Republic Services, Inc. ("Republic") of all
assets that had been ordered divested (except the Baltimore area disposal assets). The United
subsequently approved a sale to Browning Ferris Industries, Inc. ("BFI") of the Baltimore area
disposal assets.
In your letter, you questioned whether Republic or any other major waste collection and
disposal firm should be allowed to acquire the assets ordered divested under the proposed decree.
As you see it, a sale to a large national or regional firm is undesirable because such firms would
cooperate with the defendants and other market participants in raising prices to customers after a
divestiture. Competition would be better served if the waste collection and disposal assets under
decree were sold to a municipal agency or a small independent firm, entities which, you contend,
would have a greater incentive to vigorously compete against the defendants' waste collection and
disposal operations.
The United States, however, does not have any evidence that would lead it categorically
to conclude that selling the assets under the Judgment to a large national waste collection and
disposal firm, such as Republic, would be a less competitive alternative than a sale to municipal
agency or small independent firm, or that large waste companies are more prone to collude, when
given the opportunity, than small independent firms. Also, it is possible that large waste
collection and disposal companies enjoy some competitive advantages, such as better access to
capital and more extensive experience, that would make them in some respects more formidable
SNIPPETS:
|
|
9
.
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUDGEMENT UNITED STATES DIVESTITURE ASSETS COURT DEFENDANTS TRUSTEE HARPER BROS PALMDALE SAND ATTORNEY PROVISIONS PURCHASER ALICO ROAD QUARRY ALICO ROAD PARTY AGGREGATE SILICA SAND STONE PRODUCTS ACCOMPLISH LEE COUNTY COMMERCIAL TESTING APPROVALS AFFIDAVIT POWER SUPPLY EQUIPMENT INDUSTRIES ADJUDICATION EMPLOYEES SOLE DISCRETION BUSINESSES |
HANDWRITTEN REVISIONS
BY JUDGE NOTED
DELETIONS AS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
__________________________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil No.: 99-516-CIV-J-20A
)
v. ))
FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC.; ) Filed:
HARPER BROS., INC.; )
COMMERCIAL TESTING, INC.; and )
DANIEL R. HARPER, ))
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
PROPOSED
FINAL JUDGMENT
WHEREAS, plaintiff, the United States of America, and defendants, Florida Rock
Industries, Inc. ("Florida Rock"), Harper Bros., Inc. ("Harper Bros."), Commercial Testing, Inc.
("Testing"), and Daniel R. Harper, by their respective attorneys, having consented to the entry of
this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and without
this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or an admission by any party with respect to
any issue of law or fact herein and that this Final Judgment shall settle all claims made by the
United States in its Complaint filed on May 26, 1999;
AND WHEREAS, defendants have agreed to be bound by the provisions of this Final
Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is prompt and certain divestiture of
the identified assets to assure that competition is not substantially lessened;
AND WHEREAS, the United States requires defendants to make certain divestitures for
SNIPPETS:
|
|
10
.
TRIAL VOL12
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
OKAY DEFENDANTS FERRARA RESPONSE MEETING SORT DEFENSE OBJECTION ABORTION RESCUE ACLA TRAYNOR JURY LIFE WITNESSES MAGAZINES CONFERENCE WITNESS ARTICLES ADVOCACY PORTIONS PRO-LIFE ABORTIONISTS NEWSLETTER WASHINGTON HORSLEY REVEREND ADMISSION ALLEGATIONS |
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
3 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE )
COLUMBIA/WILLAMETTE, INC., et al. )
4 )
Plaintiffs, ) CV 95-1671 JO
5 )
vs. ) January 22, 1999
6 )
AMERICAN COALITION OF LIFE ) Portland, Oregon
7 ACTIVISTS, et al. )) Volume XII
8 Defendants. )
9
10 TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. JONES
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, AND A JURY
13 APPEARANCES
14
15
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: CAROL BERNICK
16 Davis Wright Tremaine
1300 S.W. Fifth Ave., Suite 2300
17 Portland, Or 97201
503 778-5233
18
MARIA T. VULLO
19 MARTIN LONDON
ELIZABETH MARINGER
20 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, etc.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
21 New York, NY 10019-6064
212 373-3346
22
ROGER K. EVANS
23 Planned Parenthood Federation of America
810 7th Ave.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
11
.
TRIAL VOL3
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HONOR COURT QUOTE MATTER BRAY JURY SIR ABORTION FERRARA NEWHALL PROTECTION THREAT PLAINTIFF MOORE DOCTORS LONDON CLINICS AMENDMENT EXHIBIT PORTLAND UNITED STATES OPINION WASHINGTON ANDREW BURNETT ABORTION PROVIDERS ELIZABETH NEWHALL TESTIMONY JAMES NEWHALL PAUL HILL |
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
3 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE )
COLUMBIA/WILLAMETTE, INC., et al. )
4 )
Plaintiffs, ) CV 95-1671 JO
5 )
vs. ) January 11, 1999
6 )
AMERICAN COALITION OF LIFE ) Portland, Oregon
7 ACTIVISTS, et al. ))
8 Defendants. ) Volume III
9
10 TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. JONES
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, AND A JURY
13 APPEARANCES
14
15
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: CAROL BERNICK
16 Davis Wright Tremaine
1300 S.W. Fifth Ave., Suite 2300
17 Portland, Or 97201
503 778-5233
18
MARIA T. VULLO
19 MARTIN LONDON
ELIZABETH MARINGER
20 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, etc.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
21 New York, NY 10019-6064
212 373-3346
22
ROGER K. EVANS
23 Planned Parenthood Federation of America
810 7th Ave.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
12
.
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUDGEMENT WASTE UNITED STATES RELEVANT HAULING ASSETS COURT RELEVANT DISPOSAL ASSETS PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS LANDFILL TRANSFER STATION ATTORNEY DIVESTITURE TRUSTEE YORK PARTY DISPOSAL RIGHTS RELEVANT AREA FEL COMMERCIAL ROUTES ACCOMPLISH AGREEMENT CONSULTATION COMMONWEALTH WASTE MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS PROPOSED DIVESTITURE DETROIT RESOURCE RECOVERY BUSINESSES SOLE DISCRETION ADJUDICATION |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN
DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; )
STATE
OF
OHIO;
)
STATE
OF
ARIZONA; )
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA;
)
STATE
OF
COLORADO;
)
STATE
OF
FLORIDA; )
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; )
STATE
OF
MARYLAND;
)
STATE
OF
MICHIGAN;
)
STATE OF NEW YORK; ) Civil Action No. 1:98 CV 1616
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; )
STATE
OF
TEXAS;
) JUDGE
ALDRICH
STATE OF WASHINGTON; and )
STATE
OF
WISCONSIN,
) Filed: July 23, 1998
SNIPPETS:
|
|
13
.
ENFORCEMENT ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MORTON PLANT MEASE FCJ UNITED STATES ENTRY HEALTH VIOLATIONS HOSPITALS FLORIDA COURT PROVISIONS TRUSTEES PURSUANT COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE HEALTH CARE CONSENT JUDGMENT HEALTH SYSTEM MPMHC MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE WRITTEN DIRECTIVE SETTING PLANT HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION PROVISIONS SET PAST VIOLATIONS FUTURE VIOLATIONS BAYCARE HEALTH NETWORK DIRECTORS ADMINISTRATOR MANAGED CARE CONTRACTING MANAGED CARE |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and )
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Plaintiffs, ))
v. ) Civil
) Judge
MORTON PLANT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. and )
TRUSTEES OF MEASE HOSPITAL, INC., ))
Defendants. ))
)
ENFORCEMENT ORDER
WHEREAS, following an investigation by the United States and the State of Florida,
Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc. ("Morton Plant") and the Trustees of Mease Hospital,
Inc. ("Mease") have stipulated and admitted that certain of their activities violated the Final
Consent Judgment ("FCJ") entered by this Court on September 29, 1994, and extended on
September 29, 1999;
WHEREAS, the United States, the State of Florida, Morton Plant, and Mease have agreed
that the provisions set forth in this Enforcement Order will adequately redress past violations and
protect against future violations of the FCJ; and
WHEREAS, the United States, the State of Florida, Morton Plant, Mease, and Morton
Plant Mease Healthcare, Inc. ("MPMHC") have, pursuant to ¶ X of the FCJ, consented to entry
of this Enforcement Order without trial;
NOW, THEREFORE, upon the consent of the parties hereto, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
I.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
