Hospitals & Asylums    





Chiquita Brands International v. District of the Columbia Community Corrections HA-23-3-07



Chiquita Statement on Agreement with US Department of Justice: $25 million settlement. Cincinnati, Ohio. 14 March 2007

US District Court for the District of Columbia. United States v. Chiquita Brands International. 13 March 2007


Chiquita Representation


Fernando Aguirre, Chairman and CEO of Chiquita Brands International

Michael Mitchell, Director of Corporate Communications


US Attorneys


Jeffrey A. Taylor DC Bar No. 498610

Jonathan M. Malis DC Bar No. 454548

Denise Cheung DC Bar No. 451714

Stephen Ponticiello PA Bar No. 44119


Legal Offenses Being Prosecuted by the District of Columbia


Title 50 US Code Section 1705(b)

Title 8 of the US Code Section 1189

Title 31 Code of Federal Regulations Section 594.204

Executive Order 13224


Legal Defense Against the Laundering of Monetary Instruments


Chiquita Code of Conduct and Corporate Responsibility Reports

Commerce Clause Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 3, Art. 2(4), 3(3) and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

Rule.7, 11(b)(1)(F)(H) and  of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Title II Chapter IV Protection and Application of Rights, Art. 136(1) and 152(a) of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Columbia  

Lopez-Medina, Diego. On the Political Constitution of the Republic of Colombia. International Constitutional Law

Section 311 Andean Indigenous Democracy of Drug Administration amending Chapter 8 of Hospitals & Asylums

Summary of Freedom: Model Rules of Community Correction amending Chapter 6 of Hospitals & Asylums

UK Parliamant. Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 220 2006-2007

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (un-ratified by the USA)

Jose Antonio Ocampo v. Luis Moreno Ocampo HA-22-6-06

Prosecutor v. Joe Deters HA-30-12-05

Decriminalizing Corrections in the District of Columbia HA-5-5-5

Canadian Supreme Court. Lévis (City) v. Fraternité des policiers de Lévis Inc., SCC 14. 22 March 2007



Amices brief moving for a ruling that US v. Chiquita is res judicata with the $25 million settlement, corporate discipline of employees and withdrawal from Colombia and directing the proceeds, after reasonable attorney fees, be entirely used for the establishment of a District of Columbia Community Corrections Program to redress the world record prison concentration in the US capitol city, so as not to continue to finance terrorism, so that all parties would be victorious.


Hospitals & Asylums (HA) is a public international organization written by Anthony Joseph Sanders in representation of Title 24 of the United States Code for the benefit of life on planet earth.  Since March 1 2007 HA has been scrutinized for registration as a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs NGO Section that is led by Under Secretary “General?” Jose Antonio Ocampo from Colombia after the trial was postponed for a year after the “Prosecutor?” Luis Moreno-Ocampo of the International Criminal Court conspired with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to cover up the murder of HA detainees by slaving the asylum.  The timing of this case, and precedence of un confidential behavior on the part of ECOSOC, gives rise to the issue of infringement that the American Association of Publishers does not condone wherefore we shall be satisfied with the warning that a fascist party may suddenly react at the infringement of HA to this case and counsel is to think within the box whereas the US Attorneys and Chiquita have performed beautifully.  The political philosophy that is being bothered with this case is NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard.  To deal with HA or settle these cases in good faith email Tony Sanders at  


As it pertains to this case HA is representing Chiquita Brands International as they should have been represented in negotiation with the Republic of Colombia whereas the author is also a resident of the same right wing extremist community of slavers and bio-terrorists known as Cincinnati, Ohio after the leftist prosecutor turned out to be a conservative Treasurer, ie launderer of monetary instruments.  HA is also representing the equally populated, but twice as slavish, District of Columbia in capacity as the federal repository of legal settlement of the District of Columbia Mental Health System in 1988-1992 that liberated 7,000 beds from St. Elizabeth’s Hospitals and drafter of the plan to Decriminalize Corrections and Poverty in the District of Columbia to establish an equally sized settlement for a Community Corrections program that is estimated to cost between $25 and $50 million annually.  Now is the time to capitalize on low mortgage prices on foreclosed homes and apartment buildings to invest all of this $25 million settlement in a program that we can trust the US District Court for the Columbia District, to do HA-5-5-5


1. Chiquita Brands International is a leading international marketer, producer and distributor of quality fresh fruit, processed fruit and vegetable products.  Chiquita is a multinational corporation incorporated in New Jersey and headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.  With annual revenues of approximately $4.5 billion, Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (NYSE: CQB) is a leading international marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and value-added food products - from energy-rich bananas and other fruits to nutritious blends of convenient green salads. The company’s products and services are designed to win the hearts and smiles of the world’s consumers by helping them enjoy healthy fresh foods.


2. The company markets its products under the Chiquita® and Fresh Express® premium brands and other related trademarks. Chiquita employs approximately 25,000 people operating in more than 70 countries worldwide. For more information, please visit  Corporate responsibility is an integral part of their global business strategy.  A comprehensive assessment of environmental, social and financial performance, focusing on banana sourcing operations in Latin America, are available in corporate responsibility reports.  The Core Values of the company are translated into action through a Code of Conduct, which establishes clear standards for behavior that is ethical, legal and socially responsible.


3. The Chiquita Statement on Agreement with US Department of Justice in Cincinnati, Ohio of 14 March 2007 issued the following statement from Fernando Aguirre, chairman and chief executive officer, in response to an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding the previously disclosed investigation of protection payments made by the company’s former banana-producing subsidiary in Colombia.

The information filed today is part of a plea agreement, which we view as a reasoned solution to the dilemma the company faced several years ago.  In 2003, Chiquita voluntarily disclosed to the Department of Justice that its former banana-producing subsidiary had been forced to make payments to right - and left-wing paramilitary groups in Colombia to protect the lives of its employees. The company made this disclosure shortly after senior management became aware that these groups had been designated as foreign terrorist organizations under a U.S. statute that makes it a crime to make payments to such organizations. Since voluntarily disclosing this information, Chiquita has continued to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation. The payments made by the company were always motivated by our good faith concern for the safety of our employees. Nevertheless, we recognized - and acted upon - our legal obligation to inform the DOJ of this admittedly difficult situation. The agreement reached with the DOJ today is in the best interests of the company.  The agreement is subject to approval and acceptance by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Under the terms of the agreement, the company will pay a fine of $25 million, payable in five annual installments. As previously disclosed, the company recorded a reserve in 2006 for the full amount of the fine in anticipation of reaching an agreement. The company does not anticipate that the fine will impact its ability to operate its business.


4. On 13 March 2007 Chiquita was indicted by Jeffrey A. Taylor, US Attorney for the District of Columbia on charges of Engaging in Transaction with a Specially Designated Global Terrorist in violation of Title 50 US Code Section 1705(b) and Title 31 Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 594.204.  This case involves C.I. Bananos de Exportacion, also referred to as Banadex, Chiquita’s wholly owned Columbian subsidiary, that was the company’s most profitable banana producing operation in 2003 and was sold in 2004. 


5. The United Self Defense Forces of Columbia, an English translation of the Spanish name of the group, Autodefensas Unidas de Columbia (AUC), was a violent right wing organization in the Republic of Columbia.  The AUC was formed in or about April 1997 to organize loosely affiliated illegal paramilitary groups that had emerged in Columbia to retaliate against left-wing guerillas fighting the Columbian government. The AUC’s activities varied from assassinating suspected guerilla supporters to engaging guerilla combat units to other illegal activities including the kidnapping and murder of civilians.


6. Pursuant to Title 8 of the US Code Section 1189 the Secretary of State designated the AUC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) on 10 September 2001 and again on 10 September 2003.  As a result of the FTO designation it has been a crime for any US person to knowingly provide material support or resources, including currency and monetary instruments to the AUC.  The ACU’s FTO designation was first reported in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal on 11 September 2001 and in the Cincinnati Enquirer in on 17 October 2001 and even more in Columbia.  Chiquita had information about the AUC’s designation through a password protected Internet subscription service whose message stated,


US terrorist designation: International condemnation of AUC human rights abuses culminated in 2001 with the US State Department’s decision to include the paramilitaries in its annual list of foreign terrorist organizations.  This designation permits US authorities to implement a range of measures against the AUC, including denying AUC member US entry visas, freezing AUC bank accounts in the US, and barring US companies from contact with the personnel accused of AUC connections.


7. The International Emergency Economic Power Act 50USC§1701 conferred upon the President of the United States the authority to deal with threats to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States.  On 23 September 2001, pursuant to this authority, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13224.  This Executive Order prohibited, among other things, any United States person from engaging in transactions with any foreign organization or individual determined by the Secretary of State of the United States, in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury of the United States and Attorney General of the United States. 


8. The Secretary of Treasury promulgated the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations 31CFR§594.201 et seq, implementing the sanctions imposed by Executive Order 13224.  The United States Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) was entirely empowered to authorize transactions with FTO.  Such authorization if granted would come in the form of a license.  Pursuant to EO 13224 the Secretary of State in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury and Attorney General designated the AUC an FTO on 31 October 2001.  As result of the designation, since 31 October 2001, it has become a crime to for any United States person, among other things, willfully to engage in transactions with the AUC, without first having obtained a license from OFAC.


9. For over six year from 1997 to 4 February 2004 Chiquita, through Banadex, paid money to the AUC in the two regions of Columbia where it had banana producing operations, directly or indirectly nearly every month.  Chiquita made over 100 payments to the AUC totaling over $1.7 million.  Previously, between 1989 and 1997 when FARC and ELF were designated terrorist organizations Chiquita had paid money to other terrorist organization operating in Columbia, namely the following violent, left wing terrorist organizations – Revolutionary Armed Force of Columbia, Fuerzas Armadas Revoluciarios de Columbia (FARC); National Liberation Army, Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN).  From on or about 10 September 2001 through on or about 4 February 2004 Chiquita made 50 payments to AUC totaling over $825,000. 


10. Chiquita began paying the AUC in 1997 following a meeting between the then leader of the AUC, Carlos Castano, and Banadex’s then General Manager.  Castano said he was going to drive the FARC from the region and that Banadex had to make payment to an intermediary known as a convivir.  The understanding was that failure to make payments could result in physical harm to Banadex personell and property.  Convivirs were private security companies licensed by the Columbian government to assist the local police and military in providing security.   The AUC however used some convivirs as fronts with which to finance illegal operations.  In this case no convivir actually provided any security services or security equipment in exchange for these payments.  Payments were reviewed and approved by senior executives of the Chiquita Corporation that was later reviewed by an in house attorney.       


11. On or about 20 February 2003 two of the people identified as individuals A-I discovered that the AUC had been designated by the United States Government as a terrorist organization and spoke with attorneys in the District of Columbia office of a national law firm.  Beginning on 21 February 2003 the outside counsel advised Chiquita that the payments were illegal under US law and that Chiquita must stop payments.  Payments however continued on the 27th of that month.   On 3 April it was reported to the Board of Directors that Chiquita was making payments to an FTO.  A member of the Board objected to the payments and recommended immediate corrective action including withdrawing from Columbia.  The Board agreed to promptly disclose that Chiquita had been making payments to the AUC to the Department of Justice.


12. In the headquarters in Cincinnati the individuals involved decided to continue payments to the AUC.  On 24 April 2003 several individuals and outside counsel met with Department of Justice officials who they informed that Chiquita had been paying the AUC for years under threats of violence.  Department of Justice officials responded that the payments were illegal and could not continue although they acknowledged that continued payments were complicated.  On or around 30 April 2003 members of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors and outside auditors were informed of the meeting with Justice Department officials of the 24th where it was determined that there would be no liability for past conduct and that there had been no conclusion about continuing the payments.  On or around 5 May 2003 the instruction to continue making payments was given.


13. On 8 September 2003 outside counsel advised Chiquita that Department of Justice officials had been unwilling to give assurances of non-prosecution, in fact, officials had repeatedly stated that they view the circumstances presented as a technical violation and cannot endorse future payments.  Payments however continued.  On or about 4 December 2003 the Board of Directors were given additional details regarding the continuing payments to the AUC.  A member of the Board of Directors responded to this additional information by stating, “I reiterate my strong opinion -  stronger now – to sell our Columbian operations”. 


14. It is concluded that from on or about 31 October 2001 and continuing to 4 February 2004, when Chiquita sold Banadex, Chiquita engaged in a continuing course of conduct willfully to engage or attempt to engage in transaction with specially designated terrorist global terrorist, by contributing funds to and for the benefit of the AUC, without having first obtained the required authorization from the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), located in the District of Columbia.   


15. The nearly forty year Columbian civil war is clearly an important issue for OFAC and the problem underlying this case.  Since the Bush Administration began financing the Colombian drug war in 2001 the US has dramatically increased this terrorism finance from less than $100 million to nearly $1 billion annually although it is clearly treason under Art.2(4) and 3(3) US Constitution.  While trade can theoretically tolerate war to a certain extent because they can afford military protection they cannot tolerate the restraint of trade presented by justice.  According to the Office of Drug Control Policy under the Columbian Initiative the vast majority of this treason is being invested in the judiciary and trade has consequently ceased.  To properly apply the laws regarding terrorism finance the US and other nations should stop providing Colombia with international development assistance until they have resolved their civil war and OFAC should enforce this totalitarian measure despite the incessant money laundering of bleeding heart liberals such as this author and the hawks.  The air must be cleared, no international development assistance to Colombia.


16. Three major outlaw groups totaling over 30,000 armed combatants operating in Colombia with near impunity: the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the paramilitaries (United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia-AUC).  Negotiations have however been largely successful and the militants have stated that most of them would be happy to lay down their arms in exchange for the balance between clemency from criminal prosecution and the forfeiture of illicit drug revenues for humanitarian purposes in the Andean community. The solution to this military conflict, just like Afghanistan, is the establishment of a Regional Coca Agency under Art. 23 and 24 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs that takes the political rights of the indigenous people into consideration under Arts. 107, 129 and 130 of the Cartagena Agreement and the (Draft) International Covenant on the Rights of Indigenous Nations 28 July 1994.


17. Having admired the conflict of interest between the US and Colombia to do this case justice it is important to look at both sides and settle the several conflicts that arise under applicable legislation.  The first and foremost conflict in this case is a dispute in international constitutional law regarding the persistent fear of violence suffered by Banadex and the requirement of the Department of Justice to stop paying the AUC protection money that led Chiquita to abandon operations in Colombia whereas the path for a corporation to civilly extricate them selves from the vicious cycle of extortion by terrorists was not made clear by counsel.  The second conflict arises under the law of treaties whereas in Colombia these types of cases are referred to the International Criminal Court and the US is not party to the Rome Statute.  The third conflict is the dispute that flared up with the indictment of Fernando Aguirre as Chairman and CEO of Chiquita Brands International one of the nation’s leading Latin Americans is whether or not there are any judicial reasons to impeach the Texan Attorney General Alberto Gonzales? The fourth conflict that we are facing now that the case has been processed and the US claims a $25 million fine that Chiquita agrees to is how to administrate this money without continuing to finance terrorism?


18. In Lévis (City) v. Fraternité des policiers de Lévis Inc., SCC 14 of 22 March 2007 the Canadian Supreme Court counsels that two statutes are not repugnant simply because they deal with the same subject, application of one must implicitly or explicitly preclude application of the other.  When a conflict does exist and it cannot be resolved by adopting an interpretation, which would remove inconsistency, the question that must be answered is which provision should prevail. Where there is no express indication of which law should prevail, two presumptions have developed in the jurisprudence to aid in this task. These are that the more recent law prevails over the earlier law and that the special law prevails over the general.  If a new law conflicts with an existing law, it can only be presumed that the new one is to take precedence.  A special law should apply over a general one since to hold otherwise would in effect render the special law obsolete.  To quote International Constitutional Law user Diego Lopez-Medina, "Amidst conflict in the country, Colombia's constitutional law has turned out to be exceedingly interesting and forward-looking. People in the region know, and they have come to expect, certain leadership on the part of Colombia's constitutional law. This sounds indeed strange. It is even paradoxical. But that paradox is precisely what makes Colombian constitutional law such an interesting case of study for comparatists all over the world."


19. The first conflict in the laws is between the US Constitution that directs all disputes regarding the regulation of trade to Congress in Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 3 and the Political Constitution of the Republic of Columbia prohibits Congress from getting involved in private matters that someone else has already claimed in Art. 136(1) although they do have the responsibility for the regulation of fundamental rights and responsibilities for personal protection under Art. 152(a) just like the Judiciary Committee does in the US.  To reinforce the internationally accepted political role of Congress when doing international business in Colombia Art. 224 vests therein the responsibility for all treaties.  The fact that the pursuit of legal protection in the application of rights of a Colombian corporation does not at first find purchase with Parliament was too perplexing that on 4 February 2004 Chiquita sold Banadex, their most profitable banana producer.  Under Title II Chapter IV Protection and Application of Rights of the Political Constitution Banadex had the responsibility to seek the counsel of judges for revocation of convivir licenses and protection in a case that since 2001 would be likely to be referred to the International Criminal Court.  In performing this procedure to extricate them selves from the vicious cycle of protection money the constitutional principle of parliamentary democracy to which commercial enterprises are bound, like anyone opposed the chaos of treason that is not even mentioned by the UN, should have caused a knee jerk reaction by Chiquita to seek the regulation of the national Parliament.  


20. This brings us to our second conflict in laws where the extraordinary burden of contempt of US Courts is apparent.  The US is not party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court although it is an outstanding document pertaining to criminal law and in general US citizens do not have a working relationship with the Court because they do no good and if they ever appeared to they aid and abet some other atrocity to be neutral to the devil.  In practice this is exactly the way the ICC and other courts are around the world.  That is why one avoids the Judiciary and one whispers that in Hebrew the word for prosecutor is pronounced, “satan”.  Although the most prolific slaver in the world, the US does have one good case against the ICC as the result of their 6 million strong Jewish population, the US Attorney, whose history is unknown, does not call him or her self the prosecutor.  Not having prohibited all forms of slavery in the federal judiciary to supervise the county court with clean hands this did not save them from disgrace.  The standoff between the US and the Rome Statute for the ICC that would not be good for the nation as proven by the maltreatment of this author and detainees that resulted from the illusion of power gained from the co-option of criminal defendants calling themselves prosecutors, can be resolved if that Court would specialize in criminal law by both changing the name of the Prosecutor to Attorney and taking up the disciplinary role of prosecuting prosecutors with their trademark caption Prosecutor v. Name and publish for all the world to know how satanic the cult really is in the Plague.  


21. To prove that firing prosecutors does not need to be a nasty court fight US Congress has brought the Attorney General up on charges of frivolously firing a handful of US Attorney’s for political reasons.  In the US the Attorneys are usually cleaned out at the beginning of every administration.  The Attorney General admits that there were irregularities in these firings however it is the Congress that is political motivated in their attempt to fire the Attorney General for doing the good deed of firing US Attorneys.  The Model Rules of Community Corrections make it clear that Sheriffs and all other undesirable chief law enforcement officers need to be fired and replaced with officers more upholding of human rights scientifically if they plead for money to redress the “crime problem” or the community rate of incarceration is above 250 detainees per 100,000 citizens and they are not moving to achieve this goal.  It is yes for the reason that US prison population has increased under Alberto Gonzalez that he must be fired.  It is for this judicial reason that Congress should fire him at the soonest possible moment.  We will call the murder for hire, unauthorized practice of law and bio-terrorism a state secret, so that we can be scientific in following this precedence around the nation as we fire the chief law enforcement officers in blighted communities where the crime rate and/or incarceration rate is above the legal limit of 250 detainees per 100,000 citizens and the armed leader is not striving and succeeding in reducing the prison population and crime rate with community corrections programs.  Short term limits are also important in failed judiciaries such as the federal courts whose weakness for slavery makes it too easy to coke them up if they get close to freeing a slave or disciplining a prosecutor or police chief.


22. Having arrived at the concluding controversy that is the only issue the District Court for the District of Columbia needs to resolve to settle case of United States v. Chiquita Brands International, how to spend every penny of the $25 million without promoting the slave trade or another killing spree in DC or Cincinnati?  The problem is that the judiciary is not competent to handle any sum of money whereas they regulate the armed forces and are corrupted by slavery.  While there is enormous precedence of Courts making legal settlements, much of this is a modern usurpation of the responsibility of Congress and the Chamber of Commerce, by naïve lawyers and a corrupt media under Art. 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to class actions that begins with the Court paying the authors for their research and reasonable civil torts for torture and false arrest under Art. 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Convention on Civil and Political Rights in apology for the centuries of extortion by universities and previously illiterate jails not permitting their prisoners to play the game of responding to the criminal allegations in writing with the practiced hand of a decent lawyer as editor.  Everything has however gone smoothly with this criminal case and both parties appear to have come to an agreement regarding the $25 million settlement that we are directing to be completely invested in the establishment of a sufficient District of Columbia Community Corrections Program pursuant to Decriminalizing Corrections and Poverty in the District of Columbia HA-5-5-5.      


23. To process this case pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure under Rule. 7 it must first be determined that it would be more expeditious to term the offense criminal contempt, by definition, rather than a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison under Title 50 US Code Section 1705(b).  As a major commercial enterprise Chiquita must be more Parliamentary in their response to the judiciary in order to effectively comply with their orders while mitigating the damages caused by judicial infringement.  The Chiquita Board of Directors did the best they could with the counsel that was provided.  They were locked in a vicious cycle of protection money with the AUC and did not immediately find purchase in the un corruptible members of the Congress of Colombia to regulate the judicial protection they were in want of so they sold Banadex to comply with the law.  Now they have committed the horrible crime of feeding the pig the sum of $25 million that is worth far more than human life to the average gun toting courtier and their toxic girlfriend you’re sleeping with.  This did not break the vicious cycle of protection money but it has ended the responsibility of Chiquita for their breech of federal law.  To be swift Chiquita has pled guilty, thereby waiving the right to a trial and paid a maximum fine for the crime pursuant to Rule 11(b)(1)(F)(H).  In rendering their judgment the District Court must invest every penny of this settlement in District of Columbia Community Corrections to set precedence redressing their world record prison concentration.  This fine without limit fulfills the cutting edge standards of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill 220 2006-2007 although Chiquita is not actually accused of any accidental killings, only the paying of killers. The offence is punishable by an unlimited fine and remedial orders requiring organizations to take steps to remedy the management failure concerned shall be made. 


24. Chiquita is invited to protect us from the laundering of their monetary instrument with this civil suit they may purchase for the fee of $100 for this day’s work for the author, whom they are free to consult with, by email, for a reasonable fee of $1,000 a week’s work, on future legal issues, in English or Spanish, as a term of their probation in this case where they did not comply fast enough because counsel was inadequate in international constitutional law, plus court costs. HA is not to be confused with the local lawyers always getting caught in the panty drawer with blood on their hands whose non convictions never get expunged because the author is not looking for a job and they don’t use regular US mail and the email assassinated last time in conviction of Clerk. For this lawsuit Chiquita won a free subscription to HA although having learned the hard way the US Attorney is only to be served with the power of HA for the case to avoid being accidentally disempowered by the constitutional misnomer, judicial power.  Chiquita is in fact a socially responsible organization involved in international trade at a time when the US is in need of import substitution to keep their international trade deficit less than $800 billion so that the account deficit will be less than $1 trillion.   There is however no need to discriminate against Chiquita because they are indeed lawfully engaged in the benevolent pursuit of international development of Latin America.  Chiquita upholds all the relevant International Labor Organization conventions and is compliant with the most modern environmental and ethical trading policies as clearly enunciated in their Code of Conduct and Corporate Responsibility Reports that shall surely rise to task of explaining this conviction to their stakeholders.  The five year installment plan seems like the most likely way to convince the District of Columbia agree to establish a community corrections program with the full faith and credit of the District Council and US Congress HA-5-5-5.