EXPOSING SCOPE OF PRACTICE PARTNERSHIP'S ACTIONS

http://stopsopp.wordpress.com

REGIONS- THE GREEN BICYCLE BANK AND SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

REGIONS BANK..THE "GREEN BICYCLE" BANK...
HOW ABOUT THE SEC AND APPARENTLY WRONGDOING BY PERSONS OR GROUPS WITHIN REGIONS BANK?
Check out the press release from this governmental agency
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-202.htm
"

EC Charges Regions Bank for Role in Offering Fraud Harming Latin American Investors

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2009-202

Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2009 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Alabama-based Regions Bank for its role in an offering fraud that victimized thousands of investors predominantly in Latin America.

---

Additional Materials

• Administrative Proceeding Release No. 33-9065
• Litigation Release No. 21215
• SEC Complaint

---

The SEC alleges that Regions Bank and its predecessor were a key selling point in the investment scheme because the relationship with a U.S. bank gave Latin American investors the impression that their funds would be secure.

The SEC previously charged unregistered broker-dealers U.S. Pension Trust Corp. and U.S. College Trust Corp. (USPT) for deceptively charging investors exorbitant, undisclosed commissions and fees in the sale of mutual funds through a series of investment plans. Regions Bank served as trustee of the investment plans.

Regions Bank agreed to settle the SEC's charges by consenting to the entry of a cease-and-desist order and payment of a $1 million penalty that will be placed into a Fair Fund to compensate harmed investors in the USPT offering fraud.

"Regions Bank provided a false air of legitimacy to this scheme," said Glenn S. Gordon, Associate Director of the SEC's Miami Regional Office. "Regions Bank was aware or should have been aware of USPT's deceptive sales practices, yet agreed to participate in these investment plans and associate its name and reputation with USPT."

According to the SEC's complaint, filed in the Southern District of Florida, Regions Bank and its predecessor Union Planters Bank served as trustee of investment plans since October 2001. The investment plans gave investors a choice of making either annual contributions or a single, lump-sum contribution. Until March 2006, USPT did not disclose to investors that it subtracted substantial amounts of their contributions for payment of sales commissions and other fees. USPT deducted up to 85 percent of initial contributions in the annual plans and as much as 18 percent in the single contribution plans. The SEC alleges that USPT has illicitly raised at least $255 million from more than 14,000 investors.

The SEC alleges that Regions Bank allowed USPT to use its name in marketing materials, prepared a promotional video that was posted on USPT's Web site, and sent representatives to Latin America to meet with sales agents and prospective investors to explain Regions Bank's role as trustee. Regions entered into individual trust relationships with all investors, processed their contributions, and purchased the selected mutual funds for them.

However, when Regions Bank sent investors confirming certificates, the SEC alleges that it failed to disclose the amounts taken out for fees and commissions. According to the SEC's complaint, Regions Bank's own Trust Agreement and Trust Summary also were misleading and failed to disclose the nature and amounts of the commissions and fees charged investors (except for Regions Bank's trust fees). Regions Bank stopped accepting new USPT investor trust relationships in January 2008, and stopped accepting additional contributions under existing plans in August 2009.

The SEC instituted settled cease-and-desist proceedings against Regions Bank directing it to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and from causing USPT's violations of Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act of 1934. Contemporaneously with the issuance of the settled cease-and-desist Order, the SEC also filed a settled civil action in which Regions Bank agreed to pay the $1 million penalty that will be placed into a Fair Fund.

The SEC's investigation is continuing."

GREAT NEW PAGES ON CHIROPRACTIC IN LONGVIEW TEXAS

http://www.drugfreepainmanagement.net/longviewchiropractor.htm

http://www.DOCTORINLONGVIEW.COM/longviewchiropractor.htm

http://www.LONGVIEWCHIROPRACTIC.net/longviewchiropractor.htm

GREAT NEW PAGE ABPUT WHIPLASH AND CAR WRECK INJURIES AND TREATMENT - FROM BAKER CHIROPRACTIC

http://whiplash-effects.blogspot.com/

WE NEED THE PUBLIC OPTION

DOCTORS , DOCTOR , WORKERS COMPENSATION, CAR WRECK

DOCTOR, DOCTORS, TREATMENT, TEXAS EAST TEXAS , WORKERS COMPENSATION , CAR WRECK http://www.doctorintexas.com

one mL does NOT exactly equal 1 cc (i millilitre does NOT equal 1 cubic centimeter)

one mL does NOT exactly equal 1 cc (i millilitre does NOT equal 1 cubic centimeter)

We sometimes find someone who thinks so much like us, that they say, they are a man or woman after my own heart.

Happily, I found one.

I was having a discussion with a nurse who said that one cc (cubic centimeter) was exactly the same thing as one mL (milliliter). I told her that 1) mL is the preferred term of art, and that 2) they are not exactly the same.

She did not agree. So, as Dr. John usually does, I used other sources to prove up my case !
Point 1...mL preferred to use rather than cc in medicine
http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:ABQkwl-VHq4J:www.ms-information.org/medical/formulary There is shown a table indicating 12.6 percent of prescribing errors are the result of using "cc" when "mL" is proper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_centimeter
There is currently a movement within the medical field to discontinue the use of "cc" in prescriptions and on medical documents as it can be mis-read as "00" if poor handwriting is used, which can result in a massive, even lethal, overdose of medication. In the United States, confusion resulting from using "cc" to mean "mL" accounts for 12.6% of all errors associated with medical abbreviations.^[1] While "cc" is not officially prohibited per the Joint Commission's "Do Not Use" list of prohibited abbreviations,^[2] it is on the list as a candidate for possible inclusion on future lists, with "ml" or "milliliters" as suggested replacements.

The mass of one cubic centimetre of water at 3.98 °C (the temperature at which it attains its maximal density) is equal to 1 gram.

http://64.233.169.132 - Prohibited Abbreviations list (use mL ...NOT "cc"

Point 2, cc is not the exact same thing as mL (cubic centimeter is not the same exactly as millilitre)

Source 1
http://64.233.169.132/
Under the "Prohibited Abbreviation" section

http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question46602.html

sequoianoir

Unfortunately, 1ml does not equal 1cc. There is a difference when you go to 5 decimal places. The metric system has it roots in Paris in 1793. In addition to decimal system proposals, units of length, mass and volume were provisionally created. (A brass standard of the provisional metre was made: it is preserved in the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, Paris.) This was when the LITRE was first defined as a measure for liquids, this being an appropriately sized volume for commercial use. As the 19th century drew to a close, very precise measurements were needed in the fields of Physics, Chemistry and engineering. In 1889 the "Standard Kilogramme" was created. This was supposed to be the same as 1 litre of distilled water at its maximum density -ie. at a temperature of 4 degrees celsius. The LITRE then became officially defined as 1 kilogramme of pure water at 4°C. Unfortunately there was a very small error and it was not until 1907 that it was detected. The "1889 Standard kilogramme" was discovered to have a mass of 1000.028 cc of pure water at 4°C and so it followed that a LITRE was 1000.028 cc. A decision was taken to leave the kilogramme as the "Standard" but to divide the LITRE into 1000 equal parts and to call this division by a new name the millilitre (ml). From 1907 millilitres were used as the standard unit of liquid and volume measurement. So 1 millilitre then equalled 1.000028 cc and 1 cc equalled 0.999972 ml. Accordingly 1 millilitre of pure water at 4°C had a mass of 1 gramme Apr 21 04, 4:32 PM

sequoianoir

In 1964 the General Conference of Weights and Measurements re-defined the LITRE as a true measurement of volume and so equal to 1000 centimetres cubed (cm3 or cc). This changed the specification of the litre, by the fact that its new definition is directly related to the metre as a measurement of volume and no longer to the kilogramme. However, the millilitre remained as per the original specification and the ml calibration of scientific vessels used in very accurate analytical work is not 1/1000th of a litre where a litre = 1000cc, but where 1ml of pure water at 4°C has a mass of 1 gramme. So 1ml does not equal 1cc Apr 21 04, 4:33 PM

Source 2
http://www.blurtit.com/q980432.html
"For practical purposes, they are equivalent, but not exact. 1000 ml is exactly 1 liter. 1000cc's is not exactly 1 liter. "