Move to malign Sai Baba fails
By Sandhya Jain
The Pioneer
Monday, March 30, 2009
On March 14, a lingering, insidious smear campaign against
Satya Sai Baba quietly fizzled out when Channel Nine MSN
removed a biased anti-Baba broadcast from its official
Website. Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his
blog that Channel Nine MSN "would not have removed the
video had there not been legitimate complaints about the
content and disinformation in their video".
Sai Baba devotees following the so-called sex scandal case
were gratified to find that over the past few years many
accusers were exposed as liars and worse. The main accuser,
who inspired a BBC documentary, withdrew his California
court case against the Sai Baba Society on realising
exposure was nigh.
As usual, when false accusations are made against Hindu
gurus, a high-decibel media campaign begins. But when the
innocence of the accused is established, the cacophony
melts into stoic silence. It is to the credit of devotees
that anti-Sai Baba information has been purged from US
Government and UNESCO Websites, among others.
Mr Alaya Rahm’s sexual abuse allegations against Sai Baba
gained international notoriety when featured on the
documentaries, Seduced By Sai Baba and Secret Swami. His
allegations were published in Britain (The Daily Telegraph)
and India (India Today). An army of anti-Sai activists
translated the allegations into several languages and
spread them via the Internet. At first, the claims seemed
disturbingly true; now they have simply vanished!
Mr Rahm filed his lawsuit, Alaya Rahm vs Satya Sai Baba
Society, in the Superior Court of California on January 6,
2005 (Case No. 05cc01931). Under California’s statute of
limitations, an individual can file a lawsuit for alleged
sexual molestation up to his/her 26th birthday, if the
alleged events occurred before the age of 18. Mr Rahm filed
his case two days before this expiry date.
The trial was set for April 28, 2006, but on April 7 the
plaintiff self-dismissed his own lawsuit. He attempted to
sue for money damages, but no offers of settlement were
made and no money or other consideration was paid; the case
was dismissed "with prejudice" and is binding under the
international doctrine of res judicata. This means Mr Rahm
can never file another lawsuit against Satya Sai Baba, in
the US or in India, for the same claims made in this case.
Mr Rahm never sought medical or psychiatric treatment for
alleged trauma and could not itemise any wage losses.
Moreover, no other alleged victim came forward to testify
in support of his allegations, though anti-Sai activists
claimed there were "over a hundred" alleged victims in the
US. He gave no reasons for quitting; no deposition was
filed and no witnesses were identified to the court on his
behalf.
Although Mr Rahm’s accusations received publicity, his
claims were not thoroughly investigated until the lawsuit
was filed. During the subsequent legal process, it was
found that Mr Rahm and his family members made speeches at
a number of retreats and conferences between 1995 and 1999,
the period in which the alleged sexual abuses took place.
Many talks were recorded and found to contain no suggestion
of wrongdoing. Rather, there was enthusiastic praise of the
Baba; Mr Rahm even wrote a love poem to him.
The legal process identified witnesses present at the
Indian ashram when the events allegedly occurred. One
witness, Mr Lewis Kreydick, purchased Mr Rahm’s ticket and
accompanied him to India in 1995 and in 1997; he was
present in some meetings in which Mr Rahm later claimed to
have been sexually abused.
Mr Kreydick inter alia testified that he had close links
with Mr Rahm from 1995 to 1997, and spoke with him daily
when at the ashram in 1995 and 1997, discussing details of
each meeting Mr Rahm had with Baba. Though Mr Rahm shared
confidential details about his sexual past with Mr
Kreydick, he never related or suggested, in this period,
that any misconduct, wrongdoing or sexual actions had
transpired between him and Baba. In fact, he only narrated
positive and miraculous experiences.
Mr Kreydick signed his typed deposition on April 7, 2006.
The same day, the defendant (the Satya Sai Baba Society)
filed Mr Kreydick’s deposition as part of the official
record, and Mr Rahm self-dismissed his case! Obviously, he
did not feel confident to take his case to trial, though he
was represented by an experienced sexual abuse trial
lawyer.
Further, in Form Interrogatory No. 6.3, Set One, Mr Rahm
admitted to being a daily user of illegal street drugs and
alcohol from 1995 to 2005. Thus, throughout his allegations
and the filming of the BBC Documentary Secret Swami and the
Danish Documentary Seduced By Sai Baba, Mr Rahm was under
the influence of illegal street drugs and alcohol. This was
suppressed from the general public by his family and anti-
Baba associates.
The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-
devotees, possibly persons who infiltrated the ashram in
the guise of devotees, with the intention of maligning Baba
later. Key blogs in the defamation were
robertpriddy.wordpress.com; barrypittard.wordrpess.com;
briansteel.wordpress.com. None of these gentlemen was
sexually abused, nor had personally witnessed any incident
of alleged abuse. Interestingly, some eminent Western
‘Hindus’ joined the anti-Sai crusade with startling
enthusiasm, fuelling suspicions about the possible
political agendas of these faux converts.
No alleged victim ever filed a police or court case against
Baba in India for alleged improprieties, though former
devotees kept chanting that ‘hundreds’, indeed
”thousands” of ”minors”, ”children” and ‘male youth’
were molested by Satya Sai Baba.
Who inspired these venomous former devotees to launch
investigations into vile rumours? Devotees say the ‘Anti-
Sai Movement’ is an extremist hate group which habitually
makes wild allegations, including the laughable claim that
the Baba is allied with terrorists! One magazine published
a fake picture of Sai Baba holding hands with Idi Amin!
The truth is that neither Sai Baba nor any organisation
associated with him has been charged or implicated for
sexual abuse, either directly or indirectly, and that
reputable media agencies and independent journalists have
not been able to confirm a single instance of sexual abuse
linked to Sai Baba or his organisations. Gutter allegations
tend to choke on their own stink.
http://dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html
More at:
http://www.dailypioneer.com
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
everybody write to india today and demand its apology.
can someone post here the emails of india today’s all editoria staff?
let each and every india today’s worker know its shenanigan in being an
enthusiastic participant in this campaign of calumny by kirastanis against
hindus.
<use…@mantra.com and/or http://www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20090331Oi2U6mV8VuGNFFSM74E1GjG@AB3n8…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Move to malign Sai Baba fails
> By Sandhya Jain
> The Pioneer
> Monday, March 30, 2009
> On March 14, a lingering, insidious smear campaign against
> Satya Sai Baba quietly fizzled out when Channel Nine MSN
> removed a biased anti-Baba broadcast from its official
> Website. Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his
> blog that Channel Nine MSN "would not have removed the
> video had there not been legitimate complaints about the
> content and disinformation in their video".
> Sai Baba devotees following the so-called sex scandal case
> were gratified to find that over the past few years many
> accusers were exposed as liars and worse. The main accuser,
> who inspired a BBC documentary, withdrew his California
> court case against the Sai Baba Society on realising
> exposure was nigh.
> As usual, when false accusations are made against Hindu
> gurus, a high-decibel media campaign begins. But when the
> innocence of the accused is established, the cacophony
> melts into stoic silence. It is to the credit of devotees
> that anti-Sai Baba information has been purged from US
> Government and UNESCO Websites, among others.
> Mr Alaya Rahm’s sexual abuse allegations against Sai Baba
> gained international notoriety when featured on the
> documentaries, Seduced By Sai Baba and Secret Swami. His
> allegations were published in Britain (The Daily Telegraph)
> and India (India Today). An army of anti-Sai activists
> translated the allegations into several languages and
> spread them via the Internet. At first, the claims seemed
> disturbingly true; now they have simply vanished!
> Mr Rahm filed his lawsuit, Alaya Rahm vs Satya Sai Baba
> Society, in the Superior Court of California on January 6,
> 2005 (Case No. 05cc01931). Under California’s statute of
> limitations, an individual can file a lawsuit for alleged
> sexual molestation up to his/her 26th birthday, if the
> alleged events occurred before the age of 18. Mr Rahm filed
> his case two days before this expiry date.
> The trial was set for April 28, 2006, but on April 7 the
> plaintiff self-dismissed his own lawsuit. He attempted to
> sue for money damages, but no offers of settlement were
> made and no money or other consideration was paid; the case
> was dismissed "with prejudice" and is binding under the
> international doctrine of res judicata. This means Mr Rahm
> can never file another lawsuit against Satya Sai Baba, in
> the US or in India, for the same claims made in this case.
> Mr Rahm never sought medical or psychiatric treatment for
> alleged trauma and could not itemise any wage losses.
> Moreover, no other alleged victim came forward to testify
> in support of his allegations, though anti-Sai activists
> claimed there were "over a hundred" alleged victims in the
> US. He gave no reasons for quitting; no deposition was
> filed and no witnesses were identified to the court on his
> behalf.
> Although Mr Rahm’s accusations received publicity, his
> claims were not thoroughly investigated until the lawsuit
> was filed. During the subsequent legal process, it was
> found that Mr Rahm and his family members made speeches at
> a number of retreats and conferences between 1995 and 1999,
> the period in which the alleged sexual abuses took place.
> Many talks were recorded and found to contain no suggestion
> of wrongdoing. Rather, there was enthusiastic praise of the
> Baba; Mr Rahm even wrote a love poem to him.
> The legal process identified witnesses present at the
> Indian ashram when the events allegedly occurred. One
> witness, Mr Lewis Kreydick, purchased Mr Rahm’s ticket and
> accompanied him to India in 1995 and in 1997; he was
> present in some meetings in which Mr Rahm later claimed to
> have been sexually abused.
> Mr Kreydick inter alia testified that he had close links
> with Mr Rahm from 1995 to 1997, and spoke with him daily
> when at the ashram in 1995 and 1997, discussing details of
> each meeting Mr Rahm had with Baba. Though Mr Rahm shared
> confidential details about his sexual past with Mr
> Kreydick, he never related or suggested, in this period,
> that any misconduct, wrongdoing or sexual actions had
> transpired between him and Baba. In fact, he only narrated
> positive and miraculous experiences.
> Mr Kreydick signed his typed deposition on April 7, 2006.
> The same day, the defendant (the Satya Sai Baba Society)
> filed Mr Kreydick’s deposition as part of the official
> record, and Mr Rahm self-dismissed his case! Obviously, he
> did not feel confident to take his case to trial, though he
> was represented by an experienced sexual abuse trial
> lawyer.
> Further, in Form Interrogatory No. 6.3, Set One, Mr Rahm
> admitted to being a daily user of illegal street drugs and
> alcohol from 1995 to 2005. Thus, throughout his allegations
> and the filming of the BBC Documentary Secret Swami and the
> Danish Documentary Seduced By Sai Baba, Mr Rahm was under
> the influence of illegal street drugs and alcohol. This was
> suppressed from the general public by his family and anti-
> Baba associates.
> The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-
> devotees, possibly persons who infiltrated the ashram in
> the guise of devotees, with the intention of maligning Baba
> later. Key blogs in the defamation were
> robertpriddy.wordpress.com; barrypittard.wordrpess.com;
> briansteel.wordpress.com. None of these gentlemen was
> sexually abused, nor had personally witnessed any incident
> of alleged abuse. Interestingly, some eminent Western
> ‘Hindus’ joined the anti-Sai crusade with startling
> enthusiasm, fuelling suspicions about the possible
> political agendas of these faux converts.
> No alleged victim ever filed a police or court case against
> Baba in India for alleged improprieties, though former
> devotees kept chanting that ‘hundreds’, indeed
> ”thousands” of ”minors”, ”children” and ‘male youth’
> were molested by Satya Sai Baba.
> Who inspired these venomous former devotees to launch
> investigations into vile rumours? Devotees say the ‘Anti-
> Sai Movement’ is an extremist hate group which habitually
> makes wild allegations, including the laughable claim that
> the Baba is allied with terrorists! One magazine published
> a fake picture of Sai Baba holding hands with Idi Amin!
> The truth is that neither Sai Baba nor any organisation
> associated with him has been charged or implicated for
> sexual abuse, either directly or indirectly, and that
> reputable media agencies and independent journalists have
> not been able to confirm a single instance of sexual abuse
> linked to Sai Baba or his organisations. Gutter allegations
> tend to choke on their own stink.
> http://dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html
> More at:
> http://www.dailypioneer.com
> Jai Maharaj
> http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
> Om Shanti
> Hindu Holocaust Museum
> http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
> Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
> http://www.hindu.org
> http://www.hindunet.org
> The truth about Islam and Muslims
> http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
> DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
> o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
> educational
> purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may
> not
> have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
> poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
> fair use of copyrighted works.
> o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
> considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
> current
> e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
> are
> not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the
> article.
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
> which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
> that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as
> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
> Title
> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
> included
> information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
> subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
> information
> go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
> your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the
> copyright owner.
Business:
Malcolm D. Mistry
Publishing Director
Trade Centre
2nd Floor, Kamla City, S.B. Marg Lower Parel (W).
Mumbai – 400 013
Tel: 91-22-24983355
Email: Malcolm Mistry’s office
malcolm.mis…@intoday.com
Editorial:
Prabhu Chawla
Editor, India Today & Group Editorial Director,
F-14/15, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001.
Tel: 011-23315801-04 (board).
Email: Prabhu Chawla’s Office
RAT…@intoday.com
Advertising:
Mr. Sameer Sikka
sameer.si…@intoday.com
Source:
http://www.indiatodaygroup.com/
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
In article <49d386d1$0$5500$bbae4…@news.suddenlink.net>,
"harmony" <a…@hotmail.com> posted:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> everybody write to india today and demand its apology.
> can someone post here the emails of india today’s all editoria staff?
> let each and every india today’s worker know its shenanigan in being an
> enthusiastic participant in this campaign of calumny by kirastanis against
> hindus.
> <use…@mantra.com and/or http://www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
> > Move to malign Sai Baba fails
> > By Sandhya Jain
> > The Pioneer
> > Monday, March 30, 2009
> > On March 14, a lingering, insidious smear campaign against
> > Satya Sai Baba quietly fizzled out when Channel Nine MSN
> > removed a biased anti-Baba broadcast from its official
> > Website. Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his
> > blog that Channel Nine MSN "would not have removed the
> > video had there not been legitimate complaints about the
> > content and disinformation in their video".
> > Sai Baba devotees following the so-called sex scandal case
> > were gratified to find that over the past few years many
> > accusers were exposed as liars and worse. The main accuser,
> > who inspired a BBC documentary, withdrew his California
> > court case against the Sai Baba Society on realising
> > exposure was nigh.
> > As usual, when false accusations are made against Hindu
> > gurus, a high-decibel media campaign begins. But when the
> > innocence of the accused is established, the cacophony
> > melts into stoic silence. It is to the credit of devotees
> > that anti-Sai Baba information has been purged from US
> > Government and UNESCO Websites, among others.
> > Mr Alaya Rahm’s sexual abuse allegations against Sai Baba
> > gained international notoriety when featured on the
> > documentaries, Seduced By Sai Baba and Secret Swami. His
> > allegations were published in Britain (The Daily Telegraph)
> > and India (India Today). An army of anti-Sai activists
> > translated the allegations into several languages and
> > spread them via the Internet. At first, the claims seemed
> > disturbingly true; now they have simply vanished!
> > Mr Rahm filed his lawsuit, Alaya Rahm vs Satya Sai Baba
> > Society, in the Superior Court of California on January 6,
> > 2005 (Case No. 05cc01931). Under California’s statute of
> > limitations, an individual can file a lawsuit for alleged
> > sexual molestation up to his/her 26th birthday, if the
> > alleged events occurred before the age of 18. Mr Rahm filed
> > his case two days before this expiry date.
> > The trial was set for April 28, 2006, but on April 7 the
> > plaintiff self-dismissed his own lawsuit. He attempted to
> > sue for money damages, but no offers of settlement were
> > made and no money or other consideration was paid; the case
> > was dismissed "with prejudice" and is binding under the
> > international doctrine of res judicata. This means Mr Rahm
> > can never file another lawsuit against Satya Sai Baba, in
> > the US or in India, for the same claims made in this case.
> > Mr Rahm never sought medical or psychiatric treatment for
> > alleged trauma and could not itemise any wage losses.
> > Moreover, no other alleged victim came forward to testify
> > in support of his allegations, though anti-Sai activists
> > claimed there were "over a hundred" alleged victims in the
> > US. He gave no reasons for quitting; no deposition was
> > filed and no witnesses were identified to the court on his
> > behalf.
> > Although Mr Rahm’s accusations received publicity, his
> > claims were not thoroughly investigated until the lawsuit
> > was filed. During the subsequent legal process, it was
> > found that Mr Rahm and his family members made speeches at
> > a number of retreats and conferences between 1995 and 1999,
> > the period in which the alleged sexual abuses took place.
> > Many talks were recorded and found to contain no suggestion
> > of wrongdoing. Rather, there was enthusiastic praise of the
> > Baba; Mr Rahm even wrote a love poem to him.
> > The legal process identified witnesses present at the
> > Indian ashram when the events allegedly occurred. One
> > witness, Mr Lewis Kreydick, purchased Mr Rahm’s ticket and
> > accompanied him to India in 1995 and in 1997; he was
> > present in some meetings in which Mr Rahm later claimed to
> > have been sexually abused.
> > Mr Kreydick inter alia testified that he had close links
> > with Mr Rahm from 1995 to 1997, and spoke with him daily
> > when at the ashram in 1995 and 1997, discussing details of
> > each meeting Mr Rahm had with Baba. Though Mr Rahm shared
> > confidential details about his sexual past with Mr
> > Kreydick, he never related or suggested, in this period,
> > that any misconduct, wrongdoing or sexual actions had
> > transpired between him and Baba. In fact, he only narrated
> > positive and miraculous experiences.
> > Mr Kreydick signed his typed deposition on April 7, 2006.
> > The same day, the defendant (the Satya Sai Baba Society)
> > filed Mr Kreydick’s deposition as part of the official
> > record, and Mr Rahm self-dismissed his case! Obviously, he
> > did not feel confident to take his case to trial, though he
> > was represented by an experienced sexual abuse trial
> > lawyer.
> > Further, in Form Interrogatory No. 6.3, Set One, Mr Rahm
> > admitted to being a daily user of illegal street drugs and
> > alcohol from 1995 to 2005. Thus, throughout his allegations
> > and the filming of the BBC Documentary Secret Swami and the
> > Danish Documentary Seduced By Sai Baba, Mr Rahm was under
> > the influence of illegal street drugs and alcohol. This was
> > suppressed from the general public by his family and anti-
> > Baba associates.
> > The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-
> > devotees, possibly persons who infiltrated the ashram in
> > the guise of devotees, with the intention of maligning Baba
> > later. Key blogs in the defamation were
> > robertpriddy.wordpress.com; barrypittard.wordrpess.com;
> > briansteel.wordpress.com. None of these gentlemen was
> > sexually abused, nor had personally witnessed any incident
> > of alleged abuse. Interestingly, some eminent Western
> > ‘Hindus’ joined the anti-Sai crusade with startling
> > enthusiasm, fuelling suspicions about the possible
> > political agendas of these faux converts.
> > No alleged victim ever filed a police or court case against
> > Baba in India for alleged improprieties, though former
> > devotees kept chanting that ‘hundreds’, indeed
> > ”thousands” of ”minors”, ”children” and ‘male youth’
> > were molested by Satya Sai Baba.
> > Who inspired these venomous former devotees to launch
> > investigations into vile rumours? Devotees say the ‘Anti-
> > Sai Movement’ is an extremist hate group which habitually
> > makes wild allegations, including the laughable claim that
> > the Baba is allied with terrorists! One magazine published
> > a fake picture of Sai Baba holding hands with Idi Amin!
> > The truth is that neither Sai Baba nor any organisation
> > associated with him has been charged or implicated for
> > sexual abuse, either directly or indirectly, and that
> > reputable media agencies and independent journalists have
> > not been able to confirm a single instance of sexual abuse
> > linked to Sai Baba or his organisations. Gutter allegations
> > tend to choke on their own stink.
> > http://dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html
> > More at:
> > http://www.dailypioneer.com
> > Jai Maharaj
> > http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
> > http://www.mantra.com/jai
> > http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
> > Om Shanti
> > Hindu Holocaust Museum
> > http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
> > Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
> > http://www.hindu.org
> > http://www.hindunet.org
> > The truth about Islam and Muslims
> > http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
> > DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
> > o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
> > educational
> > purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may
> > not
> > have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
> > poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
> > fair use of copyrighted works.
> > o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
> > considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
> > current
> > e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> > o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
> > are
> > not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the
> > article.
> > FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
> > which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> > owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> > understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> > democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
> > that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as
> > provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
> > Title
> > 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
…
read more »