QUOTE OF THE WEEK: “He's replaced me with a trial
lawyer. I don’t think this is going to do anything toward bringing about a
comprehensive solution to this crisis … ”
[Full story]
- State Senator Jim Brochin (D-42)
Friday Footnote #3 … November 19, 2004
A publication of The
Baltimore Jewish Council.
Contents
1. Security grants – a
reminder.
2. Calling all foreign
travelers.
3. Breakfast with Sen. P.J.
Hogan.
4. Legislative update (or …
“A Jew in Charles County??”).
5. Worth a read.
7. ‘Lawsuit, Shmawsuit’ –
a followup
Dear Friends,
This week’s edition of the Friday Footnote
brings you everything from security funding to Med Mal to Yiddish in the law
(déjà vu all over again). I hope
you’re enjoying these weekly notes about politics, Jews, Jews in politics,
Maryland issues, and Jewish Marylanders in politics who are grappling with the
issues … among other things.
I welcome your thoughts and suggestions on
items to include (or exclude). As
always, if you don’t want to receive these, just let me know.
And I hope you and your family have a
pleasant and peaceful Shabbat.
- David
Security Grants – a
reminder
First a quick reminder to those who might be
interested in applying for funds to help prevent terrorist attacks against your
Jewish institution. A
grant-writing seminar will be held this Monday, November 22, 2004, at 1:00 pm
at the George Howard Building, Banneker Room (1st Floor), 3430 Courthouse
Drive, Ellicott City, Maryland 21043. It's not mandatory, but we
strongly recommend you attend if you will be applying for your
institution. The Baltimore Jewish
Council will consult, help write and process all applications – for no charge –
but you will need to get a security assessment conducted by local law
enforcement, which we will help you coordinate. Please reply to this email, or call or email Sheryl Goldstein (410-542-4850) for
more info.
*** Save the Date: Maryland Jewish Alliance Advocacy Day in Annapolis: March 7, 2005, 5-8 p.m.***
Calling all foreign travelers
I’ve told some of you about the legislation
we’ll be pursuing in Annapolis next session regarding the availability of life
insurance for those who travel abroad.
Tentatively called the “Freedom to Travel Act,” it will be sponsored by Del.
Adrienne Mandel (D-19, Montgomery), Del.
Sandy Rosenberg (D-41, Baltimore City) and others.
The problem we’re trying to address is that
life insurers increasingly are deciding that they just don’t like the idea of
you traveling to certain foreign countries, including Israel. So they’re jacking up their rates
exorbitantly, or denying coverage outright. Bear in mind, there is no actuarial evidence we’re aware of
to justify this practice (in fact, at least one company said they’ve done the
research and it can’t be justified).
And, terrorism sadly is a risk anywhere in the world these days, not
just in certain State Department Watch List countries.
So, we need your help. The more “real life”
stories we can present to the Legislature, the better our chances of beating
back the life insurance industry and passing this legislation. If you or
someone you know has been ensnared by this practice, please let me know. Please write down briefly what happened
to you, and how it made you feel.
Also, if you know of a business that relies on foreign travel and whose
employees have been affected by this, let me know. Thank you.
*** Know any “young” Jewish adults interested
in good political chatter? The BJC
and others will be hosting the first Young Adult Political Forum, on Thursday
Dec. 9, at 7:00 p.m. at Center Stage.
Call or email Laura Beasley for details.***
Breakfast with Sen.
P.J. Hogan
We had a very candid and informative
breakfast conversation this week (sounds like diplomatic talk, eh?) with state Senator
P.J. Hogan (D-39, Montgomery), Vice Chairman of the Senate Budget &
Taxation Committee. He also chairs the committee’s Education, Business and
Administration subcommittee, and has been a strong advocate for education needs
across the board.
Any talk of decreasing K-12 public education
funding (a.k.a. “Thornton”) has become “the third
rail” of Maryland politics, he said. But he
warned that the success of Thornton brings with it real challenges in higher
education. With more and more students graduating ready and eager for college,
recent budget cuts are making public colleges either too crowded, too expensive
or both for many lower and middle class families.
The state will continue to pressure colleges
to tighten their belts, he said, including demanding greater workloads for
professors. But for the first time ever, the state is providing less than 50%
of the operating costs of public colleges and universities. “It’s kind of like
we’re breaking our promise to [students],” Hogan said. And it’s not just UM at College Park …
it’s affecting even the community colleges, he added. “In today’s economy, in
today’s society, I don’t think anyone would agree that a high school diploma or
a G.E.D. is good enough.”
On the bright side – depending on your
opinion of government funding – Hogan said it’s likely
the legislature will significantly increase the state’s investment in K-12
school construction (the capital
budget being the one area of spending the General Assembly can increase). If
the Governor’s budget provides $100 million, as expected, Hogan said he believes
the political will exists to increase that to $250 million – especially while
interest rates are still low.
[Policy wonks: To see last week’s Dept. of
Legislative Services briefing on the state of the state’s budget, click
here. Beware, it’s a large PDF document, so you’ll need the Adobe Acrobat
program.]
One other note from Sen. Hogan: He feels slot machines are needed,
partly for budget reasons and partly because Marylanders are spending so much
disposable income on slots in surrounding states. But passage of slots legislation next session is iffy at
best; and even if it does pass, Hogan says the odds of
slots going to Pimlico Race Track are 50-50 at best (“even odds,” for those at the $2 windows). We hear from other, equally if not more
informed, sources that those odds are worse than even now, and growing longer
by the day. But nothing can be
ruled out in this byzantine arena.
Legislative update
Three items, on medical malpractice reform
and personnel moves this week from the Montgomery Gazette and elsewhere:
1)
Senator Jim Brochin (D-42) is being moved from the Judicial Proceedings
Committee to the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs (EHEA)
Committee. Brochin, an insurance
broker, recently made known that he supports tort reform as part of the
solution to the growing medical malpractice crisis. He says that’s why Senate President Mike Miller switched him with Sen. Norman Stone (D-6), an attorney who works for Peter Angelos.
Miller says not true; the switch was part of a larger reallignment required by
the death of Republican Sen. Robert Kittleman. One other effect: the pro-choice and pro-environment Brochin
may tilt the balance on a committee that has been very divided on both sets of
issues. [Jewish geography tidbit: Brochin, Judicial Proceedings Chair Brian Frosh, and EHEA Chair Paula Hollinger are all Jewish. So am I, for what that’s worth.]
The full article is printed below.
2) Negotiations over Med Mal reform are on again, but obstacles remain, including the potential source of money for a “stop-loss fund” which would be used to subsidize large malpractice award payouts. Malpractice insurers would receive the subsidy in exchange for freezing doctors' malpractice insurance rates. Early talk of a special session of the Legislature on Nov. 29 or 30 are gone, with prospects for a mid-December session waning. See this Gazette story or this Baltimore Sun story (you may have to register with the Sun’s website) for details.
3)
We welcome
to the Maryland General Assembly a good friend in Murray
Levy (D-28, Charles Co.). For nearly 20 years a member of the Charles County
Commissioners, and President for the past 10 years, Murray takes the place of
Del. Van Mitchell, who resigned this summer to become Deputy Secretary of the
state Health Department. A Baltimore native (he moved to La Plata at age 2),
Levy is by no means the only Jewish resident of Charles County (they have a new
synagogue in the works). But he is
a welcome addition to the roughly 22-member “Jewish Caucus” in Annapolis. Mazel
tov to Murray. I hope
some of you will get the chance to meet him during the session… perhaps at our
Maryland Jewish Alliance Advocacy Day, on March 7 (have I mentioned that yet?).
*** Join the BJC’s World Jewry Commission and come hear William Recant, Assistant Executive Vice President of the American Joint Distribution Committee (Desk Director Europe and Latin America), discussing “European Jewish Communities, Germany: A Case Study” – on Monday November 22, noon at The Associated. Call or email Sharon Nevins to reserve a spot. ***
Maryland’s own Gary Rosenblatt, editor of The
Jewish Week in New York, writes in this
space on the recently completed General Assembly of the United Jewish
Communities, in Cleveland, proud home of the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. (Note the mention of Baltimore’s own
Shoshana Cardin.)
See also the Baltimore
Jewish Times’ take on Ms. Cardin’s speech in Cleveland.
A very interesting article in The
Forward about the apparently not-yet-resolved battle over Sen. Arlen Specter’s
ascension to Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called “Senate
Fight Highlights Evangelicals’ Rise in GOP.” It mentions Pikesville’s own Ken Mehlman and his promotion
to chairman of the Republican National Committee (although not the first Jew in
that post: that honor goes to Victor Rosewater, 1912) as proof of the Jews’
continued influence in the GOP.
Finally, we offer condolences to all whose lives were touched
by the
extraordinary life of Judge Robert I.H. Hammerman.
Back to
contents
The Catholic Vote
Two weeks ago
I gave you results on the Jewish vote.
The FCC’s Fairness Doctrine requires that I report on the Catholic
vote. This from the Catholic Review
(but see the important Editor’s note at the end):
Red Alert: Democrats losing state’s Catholics
The Catholic Review - November 11, 2004
By George Matysek, Staff Correspondent
While Maryland remained a true “blue” state
in last week’s general election that saw Catholic Democrat Sen. John Kerry of
Massachusetts garner 56% of the Maryland vote, Catholic voters in the Free
State appear to have made a dramatic shift toward the Republican Party.
According to a CNN exit poll, 57% of Maryland
Catholic voters cast their ballot for President George W. Bush, while 41% voted
for Sen. Kerry. That’s a
significant increase in support for the GOP in a state where Catholics provided
only 43% of the vote for President Bush in the 2000 election.
Among Maryland Protestants, 53% voted for
Sen. Kerry and 46% for President Bush.
Jewish voters provided 86% support for Kerry and 14% for Bush, according
to the CNN poll.
Richard Dowling, executive director of the
Maryland Catholic Conference, called the apparent shift in support among
Catholics a “significant” trend.
“This election says to me that unless the
state Democratic leadership changes the direction of their party soon and
dramatically, Catholics will continue their drift to the GOP,” said Dowling,
who represents Maryland’s Catholic bishops in Annapolis.
“Here in Maryland, the Democratic leadership
has led us down the road to abortion on demand and is now behind efforts to
endorse and promote human cloning, embryonic stem cell research and same-sex
marriage,” he said. “I think the
Catholic vote ought to be of particular interest to the leaders of the
Democratic Party in the state.”
According to the CNN poll, 70% of Maryland
Bush voters said moral values were the election’s “most important” issue. Only 28% of Kerry voters agreed.
Linda Brenegan, archdiocesan director of the
Respect Life office, said the president’s prolife positions on abortion and
embryonic stem cell research were among those moral issues that most concerned
voters.
“I think that as our society matures, more
people are thinking about these issues more seriously and I think the results
of the election indicate that,” she said.
“More people are becoming prolife.”
Ms. Brenegan said she was “very pleased” with
the return of a prolife president to the White House. It bodes well for holding the line on abortion and the forms
of stem cell research that result in the destruction of human life, she said.
“We think that some progress can be made on
these issues,” said Ms. Brenegan, “especially in the judicial selection in
various courts – especially the Supreme Court.”
Dick Ullrich, executive director of the
Francis Murphy Justice and Peace Initiative, said there are other issues
related to the war in Iraq and the election that concern him.
“The electorate did not take seriously the
Iraqi war and the fact that the pope was clearly against invading Iraq and the
fact that the bishop’s conference raised serious questions,” said Mr. Ullrich.
Father Sylvester Peterka, C.M., pastor of
Immaculate Conception and St. Cecilia in Baltimore, said the president has not
been prolife when it comes to capital punishment and war. He said the election indicates that the
American people have been “deceived.”
“I think this election is going to have a
terrible impact on protecting the poor and safety net programs,” said Father
Peterka.
[In a separate Catholic Review article comes
this observation:]
Richard Dowling, executive director of the
Maryland Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the bishops said he
hoped that the prominence of moral issues in the election might motivate the
top leadership in Maryland’s legislature to appoint more moderate middle-level
leaders who “would more accurately reflect the mainstream on most moral
issues.”
“Unfortunately for our purposes and those of
the people of Maryland,” he said, “most of the mid-level leadership positions
have been assigned to individuals who are, for example, even resistant to
banning the cloning of human beings.”
Mr. Dowling said the moral values “message”
from the electorate might force the more liberal Democrats to “pull in their
oars.”
[Editor’s note: Mr. Dowling has his facts wrong in regard to stem cell and cloning legislation last year. All of the bills on this topic specifically would have banned cloning.]
Lawsuit, Shmawsuit – a followup
"Lawsuit, Shmawsuit"
By Judge Alex Kozinski & Eugene Volokh
(updated version of an article that was originally published at
103 Yale Law Journal 463 (1993))
Searching through the LEXIS legal opinions database reveals that "chutzpah" (sometimes also spelled "chutzpa," "hutzpah," or "hutzpa") has appeared in 231 reported court decisions. Curiously, all but eleven of them have been filed since 1980. There are two possible explanations for this. One is that during the last 21 years there has been a dramatic increase in the actual amount of chutzpah in the United States--or at least in the U.S. legal system. This explanation seems possible, but unlikely.
The more likely explanation is that Yiddish is quickly supplanting Latin as the spice in American legal argot. As recently as 1970, a federal court not only felt the need to define "bagels"; it misdefined them, calling them "hard rolls shaped like doughnuts." All right-thinking people know good bagels are rather soft. (Day-old bagels are rather hard, but right-thinking people do not eat day-olds, even when they are only 10 cents each.) We’ve come a long way since then.
The first reported use of "chutzpah" was in 1972, in an opinion of the Georgia Court of Appeals. We’re happy to say it was quite apt: breaking into a sheriff’s office to steal guns qualifies as chutzpah in our book. The four times "chutzpah" was used in published opinions in 1973, the courts didn’t even bother to give a definition. And, as we said, it’s been used over two hundred times since 1980. During the same period, the word "temerity" (a woefully inadequate substitute) was used only about two hundred sixty times, and "unmitigated gall" a mere thirteen.
Other Yiddish words have had tougher sledding. Variations on "kibitz" have appeared in seventeen cases; consider especially, Zannone v. Polino, a 1956 New York case with a moral, where kibitzing at a card game turning into a knife fight and a lawsuit—boys and girls, take note! "Maven" has appeared in fourteen cases, "klutz" in three. (See also Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp. (1992), which quoted one of the parties as contending "it had no duty to design the security station ‘for klutzes and total idiots’"). Also appearing in other cases, federal and state: "schlock" (1974 and again in 1993), "no-goodnik" (1991), "tzimmes" (1971), "rachmones" (1992), "a writ of rachmones does not lie" (1998), and, "Better the majority should worry about its umfarshtendenish of Rule 404(2), not Stephens’ chutzpah" (1991).
"Schlemiel," also spelled "shlemiel," comes up six times, but one is in a quote from testimony, which doesn’t count, one is in the name of a book and three are descriptions of Woody Allen’s screen persona. The only bona fide use was, believe it or not, in another Georgia opinion, and not by the same judge, either. Georgia also brings us "appellant’s tsoriss" (1974), "shammes" (1975), and "gut gezacht" (1976). All four of these come from the same judge who first used "chutzpah."
The earliest reported case we’ve found that uses a Yiddish word (other than in a name or a literal quote) is In re Kladneve’s Estate, a 1929 case from New York, which describes Kladneve as "what is called in Yiddish a ‘schmorer.’" This is a puzzle. To the best of our knowledge, there’s no such Yiddish word, and "schnorrer"--the closest word that might fit--means "moocher," which doesn’t make a lot of sense in context, and also isn’t a very nice thing to say about the recently departed. We know of no other cases before the 1970’s except for three (from Utah, New York, and Wisconsin) involving kibitzers.
"Noodge" appears only once--but in a U.S. Supreme Court case. Incidentally, that opinion was written by Justice Scalia, who’s also the only U.S. Supreme Court Justice to use "chutzpah" (the word, not the behavioral trait) in an opinion. "Schlimazel" is nowhere to be seen, even when spelled as "schlimazl," "shlimazel," "shlimazl," "schlemazl," "shlemazel," "schlemazel," or "shlemazl." "Schmooze" appears three times, the first time in--you guessed it--a Georgia case. Unfortunately, the judiciary of that great state stumbled that time, both misusing the word and misspelling it as "schmoose." We concede that Webster’s permits this spelling, but what do they know from Yiddish?
There is, of course, one obvious question that must be on every reader’s mind at this juncture: what about "schmuck"? Regrettably, we were stymied in our schmuck search by the fact that many people are actually named Schmuck. This is an unfortunate circumstance for researchers, and even worse for the poor Schmucks themselves.
The same happens to be true of "putz" and of "mensch." We’d much rather be named "mensch" than "schmuck," but, oddly enough, a search for NAME (SCHMUCK) found 87 cases and NAME (MENSCH) found only 63 cases. Perhaps this is because there are more schmucks than mensches in the world; but wouldn’t the real schmucks change their names so as to better fool people, and real mensches change theirs out of modesty? Besides, the true schmuck-mensch ratio is much higher than 87 to 63.
Another little surprise: searching for "goy" revealed dozens of people named "Goy." How come? Why would a Jew be named Goy? And why would a goy call himself a goy? Consider also Gentile v. State Bar, a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court case. Go figure.
In any case, returning to "schmuck," we can’t report on the degree to which schmuck has worked its way into legal English, which is too bad, because schmucks are even more common in courtrooms than schlemiels, schmoozing, and chutzpah. We can, however, mention that there’s a U.S. Supreme Court case named Schmuck v. United States; for what it’s worth, the petitioner was a used-car dealer. And there’s also People v. Arno, where the first letters of each sentence in a footnote spell out "schmuck" (apparently referring to the dissent). Harsh.
Just as we can’t get much joy when a court uses "schmuck" to refer to a person named Schmuck, we also aren’t very excited when it uses "kosher" to describe a deli or a piece of chicken. That "kosher" appears nearly 1300 times in LEXIS is therefore not particularly impressive.
But it’s clear that "kosher" is used figuratively in quite a few cases, from United States v. Erwin’s insistence that the law "tell the felon point blank that weapons are not kosher" to Texas Pig Stands, Inc. v. Hard Rock Cafe International, Inc., which concludes that "though not entirely kosher, Hard Rock’s actions were not ... swinish." Pig Stands is somewhat atypical, though, as its reference to "kosher" is just one in a series of pork jokes.
It’s likewise difficult to tell how many cases have used what logicians might call the "X, shmX" locution (as in the title of this very article)--there’s just no way to search for this in LEXIS or WESTLAW. We have, however, stumbled across it in a case in which a criminal defendant absconded before he was tried, and then, when he was eventually captured 16 years later, claimed that he was denied his speedy trial rights. "Given defendant’s chutzpah in attempting to profit in this case by his own wrongdoing," the court said, "we resist the temptation to let ‘speedy, schmeedy’ serve as our sole response to this contention." You can tell who won that case.
Yiddish has also begun to appear in defamation cases. A 1972 New York case concluded that calling the food at a restaurant "ground-up schmutz" wasn’t actionable because it was only opinion.
An Arizona court recently held the same about calling a building development a "cockamamie idea," as did an Illinois court about calling a business a "schlock operation." The Illinois trial court consulted as a reference Leo Rosten’s The Joys of Yiddish; it also reviewed the case law of New York, California, Illinois, and Florida (and why not Georgia?) to see if the word "schlock" had ever been the subject of a libel action.
Like many other historical inquiries, etymological questions often have no clear, unambiguous answer. Is "kosher," for instance, even a Yiddishism at all? Was it borrowed from Hebrew via Yiddish, or directly from Hebrew? "Put the kibosh on" can be found in two cases, but while some authorities (including our ears) claim it’s Yiddish, the better view seems to be that it’s not.
"Brouhaha" has been used in more than 100 cases, but it’s unclear whether it is in fact Yiddish. "Glitch" appears in over 400 cases, but it might have been borrowed either from Yiddish or German (a difficult question, since the languages are so similar). Moreover, perhaps because it’s been in general use in engineering lingo for decades, it may now be no more a Yiddishism than "robot" is a Czechism. Finally, "cockamamie" is unknown in European Yiddish, and has developed entirely in America--is it a Yiddishism, or an Americanism that happened to originate with American Jews?
The spread of legal Yiddish is often inadvertent; for every case that self-consciously cites Leo Rosten, there are ten where a word seems to be used just because it’s the right word. One of the authors of this very article has--entirely unwittingly--done this: his opinion in White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. contains the first use of the word "schtick" in a reported case. (As it happens, the law clerk who put it in was Irish Catholic.) And it was only by accident that the authors learned of the novelty of this feat; a friend wrote to say he was surprised to see the word in a published opinion. What’s so surprising? How else would you say it?
Where all this will go from here is hard to say. "Chutzpah" is firmly ensconced, and, we’re happy to say, usually spelled right. Ch’s are always better than mere H’s, and the h at the end gives it just the right touch. "Kosher," "kibitz," "maven," and maybe "schtick" (five uses, all in the last decade) and "klutz" are looking good. The other "sch" words are iffier, but we think they’ve got a future. Others, like "noodge" and "meshugge," haven’t really made a dent, though they deserve better.
We return then to the beginning, to chutzpah. The most famous definition of "chutzpah" is, of course, itself law-themed: chutzpah is when a man kills both his parents and begs the court for mercy because he’s an orphan.
But there’s another legal chutzpah story. A man goes to a lawyer and asks: "How much do you charge for legal advice?"
"A thousand dollars for three questions."
"Wow! Isn’t that kind of expensive?"
"Yes, it is. What’s your third question?"
Chutzpah.
Judge Alex Kozinski sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. Eugene Volokh sits on his tuchis in his office at the UCLA
School of Law, where he is a professor.
Here is Judge Kozinski’s website…. And here is Professor Volokh’s site.
Miller's decision sparks
talk
by Catherine Dolinski
Staff Writer
Nov. 12, 2004
ANNAPOLIS -- A preliminary decision by Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. to replace an insurance broker on the Judicial Proceedings Committee with a trial lawyer has prompted talk in the capital and within the medical community that Miller is trying to stack the committee against medical malpractice reform.
Miller vehemently denied those accusations Thursday, saying his decision had nothing to do with medical malpractice: The move is part of a broader reshuffling of positions prompted by the death of Sen. Robert H. Kittleman (R), and an attempt to maintain philosophical balances on various committees.
Sen. James Brochin (D-Dist. 42) of Towson said Miller phoned him Wednesday to confirm that he was being transferred to the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee. His expected replacement is Sen. Norman R. Stone Jr. (D-Dist. 6) of Dundalk, a trial lawyer employed by Peter Angelos in Baltimore.
Brochin said the medical malpractice issue is the main reason for the switch. Although not an early supporter of the concept, Brochin said he now believes that solving the problem of escalating malpractice insurance rates will require tort reform.
"He's replaced me with a trial lawyer," Brochin said. "I don't think this is going to do anything toward bringing about a comprehensive solution to this crisis, anymore than Ehrlich did going to Shanghai. I don't think this is going to do anything to move us along.
"I personally believe that's the reason [Miller] took me off the committee," he said. "I made it clear six weeks ago that I was going to support a comprehensive solution; I think tort reform has to be part of it."
Brochin also rejects imposing a 2 percent tax on HMO premiums, which he said could have factored into the Senate president's decision as well. Miller supports using the tax as a funding mechanism for a stop-loss fund to subsidize malpractice award payouts, as well as for increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates.
"I specifically talked to [Miller] about the issue of that tax during our meeting" earlier in the week, Brochin said. "I told him that tax would be very detrimental to conservative Democrats like myself."
News of the change has alarmed members of the medical community.
"Either way, it very much comes across that Senator Miller is flexing his muscles to do what he wants for the trial lawyers," said Dr. Karl Riggle, president of a Hagerstown-based medical coalition called Save Our Doctors, Protect Our Patients. "Patients I've talked to this morning have agreed with me that it doesn't seem ethical."
But Miller said neither tort reform nor the premium tax has anything to do with his decision, which is not yet official. Kittleman's death has made it necessary to reassign several committee positions, he said.
Since Kittleman died in September, Miller said, "The Republican caucus has asked for several changes, and I intend to respond. At the same time, it creates an imbalance on Sen. [Paula C.] Hollinger's committee," which he said Brochin's reassignment would remedy. More committee reassignments are likely to be made in the coming weeks, Miller added.
Judicial Proceedings Chairman Brian E. Frosh
(D-Dist. 16) of Bethesda said Brochin was a valued member of his committee, but
believes that Stone will be as well.
Copyright © 2004 The Gazette. All rights reserved.