Mediaboss Marketing

New Delhi, Oct 14 (IANS): The ministry of health and family welfare Tuesday banned the import of cosmetics which are tested on animals.

The ban comes in the form of Rule 135-B that states: "Prohibition of import of cosmetics tested on animals. No cosmetic that has been tested on animals after the commencement of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2014, shall be imported into the country."

It will come into effect Nov 13, 30 days from the date of notification in the Gazette of India.

The government May 4 asked for suggestions from the public and stakeholders in the matter.

With this ban, India becomes the first country in south Asia to impose such a ban and joins European Union in adopting such a rule.

The ban comes after the government prohibited testing for cosmetic products and their ingredients on animals May 23.

The move by the government has been hailed by an NGO working for animal rights.

Alokparna Sengupta, campaign manager at Humane Society International, India, said: "With today's historic ban on the import of animal-tested cosmetics, India has made history for animals in south Asia. We feel confident that if this vision is applied to other areas of product testing, this can be a defining moment in the modernisation of India's safety science, with potentially thousands more animals spared pain and suffering."

Stay updated wherever you go with Daijiworld.com and Daijiworld 24X7 tv channel mobile apps. CLICK HERE to download it for your device. (available on Android and IOS)

See the original post here:
Government bans import of animal-tested cosmetics

Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. part 2
On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 3:49 PM At this point i asked what is the VCV for how far i have to row down the window, the officer said 2814.2... The California Supreme Court has held that...

By: max xiong

See the original post:
Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. part 2 - Video

By Elisabeth Hulette The Virginian-Pilot October 12, 2014

VIRGINIA BEACH

Picture this: You're being prosecuted for a crime.

Police have a search warrant for your iPhone, but they can't open it without your pass code. Now they're asking a judge to order you to give it up. What do you do?

If you're David Baust, you put up a fight. The Emergency Medical Services captain, who is charged with trying to strangle his girlfriend during a fight in February, argues the move raises a Fifth Amendment issue - that by opening his phone, he could incriminate himself.

A judge will decide Baust's case, but it's unlikely to settle the issue for good. Apple and Android recently announced plans to dramatically increase the amount of information on their phones that's automatically encrypted - translated into code - making it far more difficult for law enforcement officials to get the access they say they need to convict criminals.

As that happens, attorneys and experts say, the courts are likely to see more cases pitting prosecutors and police against pass codes.

"It's a bitterly disputed debate on all fronts," said Sharon Nelson, immediate past president of the Virginia State Bar and the president of Sensei Enterprises, a digital forensics company in northern Virginia.

"You can see the need of law enforcement on the one hand," she said. "On the other, the Fourth Amendment means nothing if you have to turn your life over to the government." The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches.

Police access to cellphones changed radically after a June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Officers still can extract information from cellphones of people who are arrested but now need a court-issued search warrant.

See the original post here:
Code cases: Police want phone access, but some pass

Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint.
On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 3:47 PM, I went through a checkpoint that i did not know until i enter through the orange cones and see a sign that there was a sobriety checkpoint sign. At that...

By: max xiong

Originally posted here:
Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. - Video

NEW YORK (TheStreet) --Fairholme Funds is appealing a recent court decision that dismissed its lawsuit against the U.S. government over claims to the profits of Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) . Fairholme filed the appeal Friday morning in the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia.

Fairholme, along with several well-known investors, including Perry Capital and Pershing Square Capital Management, owns a large stake in Fannie and Freddie Securities and holds the view that the government unjustly took the profits of the housing giants, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.

Must Read: Ralph Nader Returns to Fannie and Freddie Shareholder Fight

On Sept. 30, a U.S. district court judge dismissed four lawsuits, including ones from Fairholme and Perry. The decision shocked investors and sent shares down some 40%. Fannie shares closed Thursday at $1.76.Perry Capitalis also appealing the ruling.

At issue in many of the roughly 20 lawsuits filed by various investors is a 2012 third amendment to the government's 2008 conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie, known as a "net worth sweep," which sweeps all the profits into the Treasury, leaving private shareholders with nothing.

"Fairholme believes strongly that the Net Worth Sweep -- imposed four years after the financial crisis -- was not authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ("HERA") and must be unwound. Fairholme also believes strongly that the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") has contractual and fiduciary duties to the preferred shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that these duties can and will be enforced," Fairholme attorneys wrote in their appeal.

Continue reading here:
Fairholme Funds Appeals Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Verdict