Mediaboss Marketing

Iranian President Raisi says no conditions for talks but Tehran expects the lifting of US sanctions in return.

Tehran, Iran Irans President Ebrahim Raisi said seriousness on the part of the United States in upcoming talks to restore the 2015 nuclear deal would mean lifting sanctions against Iran.

In a late-night interview aired by state television, the president said Iran is serious and committed to return at a still unspecified time to Vienna to resume result-oriented talks aimed at restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

For the other side, a readiness to lift sanctions can be a sign for its seriousness, Raisi said.

Raisi also said when Enrique Mora, the European Unions top representative to the Vienna talks, travelled to Tehran last Thursday for discussions, he was told the same.

The Islamic Republic is serious in this. We must also see seriousness on the other side, Raisi said.

Irans foreign ministry said earlier this month the country has no pre-conditions for returning to the negotiating table.

Mora led a delegation that held talks with Ali Bagheri Kani, Irans new deputy foreign minister for political affairs and its top nuclear negotiator.

After the meeting, Iranian officials said the talks were positive and constructive and they would continue in Brussels within two weeks.

But as Iran says it will come back to the Austrian capital soon and is still reviewing records of six rounds of negotiations that ended in June, the US and EU continue to push Iran to commit to a return date.

On Monday, EUs Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell said, We made it clear to the Iranians that time is not on their side and its better to go back to the negotiating table quickly.

The Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said challenges and obstacles that remained after the six rounds of talks will need to be discussed with EU officials in Brussels prior to returning to Vienna.

In a tweet on Sunday, Mikhail Ulyanov, Russias top negotiator to Vienna, said talks in Brussels could be viewed as a preparatory step towards resumption of real negotiations in Vienna and not as a substitute.

The US unilaterally abandoned the JCPOA in 2018, imposing waves of sanctions that blacklisted the entire Iranian financial system as part of former US President Donald Trumps maximum pressure campaign.

In response, Iran restarted aspects of its nuclear programme and it is now more advanced than ever with uranium enrichment reaching a purity of 60 percent.

Originally posted here:
Iran: Seriousness in nuclear talks means lifting sanctions - Al Jazeera English

For all the sanctions on Iran, Tehran has secured willing customers for its crucial oil and gas exports in the worlds leading authoritarian and communist regimes: Venezuela and China. Caracas has taken a creative route, first paying gold for oil and then bartering its own heavy crude for Iranian gas condensates. Beijing, by contrast, pays cash straight up $280 billion in 2019, followed by a deal worth $400 billion this year. Naturally, this illicit trade weakens efforts to compel Iran to moderate its destructive behavior and end its pursuit of nuclear weapons, potentially harming U.S. interests and national security.

Yet Irans success in courting Venezuela and China does not mean that U.S. sanctions have failed. Sanctions have forced the regime to trade with a few like-minded authoritarian regimes. And crucially, sanctions have forced Iran to go to extraordinary lengths to conceal its illicit shipping commerce: satellite tracking deceptions, doctoring of records, flag- and name-switching, physical camouflage, and a host of other maritime violations.

With a better understanding of the shipping subterfuge, the U.S. and its allies can make the whole rogue enterprise prohibitively costly for all parties, plugging enforcement gaps and truly squeezing Tehran.

For instance, FELICITY was the first Iranian-flagged vessel to load Venezuelan crude, according to TankerTrackers.com. It reportedly journeyed to Venezuelas Jose Anchorage using subversive and illegal techniques, including a shutdown of its tracking beacon. Before arriving in Venezuela, FELICITY was last seen via its satellite transponder 13 months prior in Taizhou Anchorage in China, according to Marine Traffic meaning that the vessel sailed all the way to Venezuela with its transponder off. Disabling the transponder is a favored tactic to obscure the movement of goods, but its also a dangerous violation of International Maritime Organization safety rules. FELICITY even turned to more rudimentary methods to hide its activities undergoing a fresh paint job in Venezuela.

Vessels moving Iranian oil carry falsified records that attest to their cargo originating in countries such as Oman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Iraq and Malaysia. By engaging in ship-to-ship (STS) transfers of oil from Iranian-flagged vessels to tankers owned by non-Iranian firms, Iran can obscure the origin of the oil and gas, as well as the trade itself for its customers. STS transfers are often preceded by vessels spoofing their location to fake their position, sometimes by thousands of nautical miles, creating yet another dangerous situation.

Smaller and under-resourced nations are routinely duped into the illicit trade by foreign-flagged rogue vessels, such as those included in Irans Ghost Armada, our organization, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), has found. These national flagging authorities are often unable to adequately patrol the activities of their flag-bearers, and so are targeted in order to fulfill ship registration requirements. Ships that are part of the Ghost Armada repeatedly switch flags, change names and alter their physical markings.

When advocacy groups such as ours notify maritime authorities of illicit activities of registered vessels, we find that most are eager to comply with U.S. sanctions. Some even have come to rely upon nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to serve as their eyes and ears. Through our work, dozens of vessels have been stripped of their flags, making it more difficult to continue their subterfuge.

The whole gamut of shipping deceptions perpetrated by commercial facilitators and their enablers must be made far more costly prohibitively so. As a first step, we recommend the Treasury Department broaden the scope of sanctions-triggering activities that constitute significant support to Irans shipping sector. The U.S. should punish bunkering specialists, port authorities, importing agents, management firms, charterers, operators, marine insurers, classification societies and all other maritime services providers involved with Iran. The Treasury also should expand and delineate the range of sanctionable maritime services and work to identify and target any Venezuelan or Chinese firms complicit in smuggling.

Sanctions have slowed the flow of foreign capital and reduced Irans trading partners to the worst-of-the-worst. But U.S. sanctions are only as robust as the enforcement mechanisms that come with them. Iran and its dubious allies are perpetuating a vicious cycle that undermines global compliance and further allows the Iranian regime to continue its destructive and malign behavior. A sharper focus on the specific methods and their perpetrators is needed to cut off Irans oil spigot.

Daniel Roth is the research director and Claire Jungman is the chief of staff of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy organization based in New York that was formed in 2008 to combat the threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Go here to read the rest:
Let's plug the sanctions gaps that enable Iran to sell oil to China and Venezuela | TheHill - The Hill

Iran has set a third date for the execution of a man convicted of a murder he committed at the age of 17 after the sentence was twice postponed amid an international outcry.

Arman Abdolali, now 25, is due to be executed on Wednesday after he was convicted of killing his girlfriend, rights group Amnesty International reported.

Iran has signed an international agreement banning the death penalty for people who committed crimes while under the age of 18.

Campaigners say Abdolali was sentenced to death in December 2015 following an unfair trial marred by confessions obtained under torture.

The Oslo-based group Iran Human Rights said Abdolali confessed to the murder at the time of his arrest, but the body was never found and he later withdrew his confession.

The sentence was upheld in 2016 and he lost an appeal last year.

He has been moved to solitary confinement for a third time at Rajai Shahr prison in Karaj, on the outskirts of Tehran, in preparation for his execution, said Amnesty.

Abdolali was due to die last Wednesday and at the weekend but the execution was postponed on both occasions.

Iran executes more people each year than any other nation except China. Iran Human Rights said at least 64 juvenile offenders have been executed in the country over the past 10 years, with at least four executed in 2020.

In a sign of international concern over the case, Germany's human rights commissioner Baerbel Kofler said carrying out the execution would be an unacceptable breach of international law".

Arman Abdolali was a minor at the time of the alleged crime. There is credible evidence that his confession was obtained under torture and that the conviction thus contradicts fundamental principles of the rule of law, she said in a statement released by the German foreign ministry.

The UN has repeatedly condemned Iran for executing child offenders, saying it is a breach of international law.

Iran signed a UN deal banning the practice in 1968 that was ratified seven years later.

Updated: October 19th 2021, 5:16 AM

Read this article:
Iran sets third execution date in eight days for convicted killer - The National

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS ByHoward M. Wasserman on Oct 13, 2021 at 5:58 pm

Mythological creatures and French literary heroes appeared during argument in Thompson v. Clark Tuesday, as the justices sought to define favorable termination in certain Fourth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Under Section 1983, an individual who is accused of a crime and believes his constitutional rights were violated can sue government actors for civil damages. But the individual must show that the criminal proceeding was terminated in her favor. Thompson involves a Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure-through-legal-process claim, and the question is whether the plaintiff must show that the criminal proceeding ended in a way that affirmatively indicates innocence or only that it formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with innocence.

Larry Thompson was charged with resisting arrest and obstructing a government investigation when he attempted to stop police from entering his apartment in response to a false call about child abuse. The prosecution dismissed the charges. Thompsons claim before the Supreme Court is against one responding officer, Pagiel Clark, who signed a criminal complaint during Thompsons initial post-arrest detention.

Amir Ali argued for Thompson. He defined favorable termination as a prosecution that ends without a conviction, including by dismissal of the charges. The favorable-termination rule seeks to avoid parallel civil and criminal proceedings, to avoid inconsistent judgments, and to prevent individuals from using civil litigation to collaterally attack convictions. None of those interests are threatened when a civil case is brought following dismissal of criminal charges, Ali argued.

The justices pushed Ali to define the nature of Thompsons civil claim, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh pushing on the elements of that claim, the timing of the seizure, and whether the court should decide these antecedent issues rather than the question presented. Ali insisted that Thompson was pursuing the claim for unreasonable seizure through legal process described in Manuel v. City of Joliet. He identified two seizures: the almost 40 hours Thompson was held in custody, during which period Clark filed the allegedly false criminal complaint, and the period between his release on his own recognizance and the dismissal of the charges. Ali resisted multiple suggestions that Thompson was bringing a stand-alone malicious-prosecution claim under the Fourth Amendment or that favorable termination attached to the Fourth Amendment as opposed to Section 1983. He also urged the court to avoid numerous issues about the scope and elements of the claim because Clark had not raised them below.

Justice Stephen Breyer introduced Jean Valjean, the protagonist sent to prison for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family in Victor Hugos Les Miserables. Breyer wondered whether Valjean could bring a claim if the prosecution had dismissed the theft charges as an act of mercy. Breyer and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether a dismissal of criminal proceedings should be a favorable termination, given the many reasons that prosecutors might dismiss charges as part of a cooperation agreement, as an act of mercy, or out of prosecutorial caseload concerns. Ali responded that the reason for dismissal affects the success of the Fourth Amendment claim, including whether the plaintiff can prove lack of probable cause and overcome qualified immunity. Ali acknowledged in response to later questions from Alito and Kavanaugh that causation may be difficult to prove in this case, as Thompson must show that he would have been released from custody sooner but for the allegedly false criminal complaint. Those elements lack of probable cause, qualified immunity, and lack of causation weed out weak claims. Favorable termination serves a different purpose preserving the finality of the criminal judgment.

Jonathan Ellis, assistant to the solicitor general, argued for the United States in support of Thompson. The U.S. agreed with Thompson about the claim but identified one actionable seizure the period in custody caused by the unfounded and unwarranted criminal complaint while rejecting the period during the pendency of ordinary criminal charges as an actionable seizure. The U.S. also agreed about the purposes and scope of favorable termination and that it did not require indications of innocence.

Thomas, Gorsuch, and Justice Elena Kagan returned Ellis to the nature of the right, the elements of the claim, and whether the court could assume antecedent issues to focus on the later favorable-termination issue. Ellis argued that Clark had waived many of these issues, but the courts of appeals could benefit from resolution of others. And, he emphasized, favorable termination is easily satisfied here.

Alito then released the centaur. He compared ignoring whether the Fourth Amendment claim exists to asking a medical expert whether a centaur, the mythological creature with the upper body of a human and lower body and legs of a horse, would contract lung cancer from smoking five packs of cigarettes a day; the court cannot define or analyze the claim if the claim is fanciful. Ellis argued that Thompson brought the claim recognized in Manuel and that Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution was not the focus of this case. Favorable termination serves important values independent of other elements of the tort and thus should be retained.

Clarks attorney, John Moore, argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit got it right in defining favorable termination to mean criminal charges terminated in favor of the criminal defendant in a way reflecting on the merits of those charges. The rule, he said, has strong support in common law and exists for good reason. But he urged the court to resolve the case on the foundational issue that Thompson brought a claim for malicious prosecution that is not cognizable under the Fourth Amendment.

Breyer and Kavanaugh pushed Moore on how this definition of favorable termination fits with the criminal-justice process and how plaintiffs can meet that requirement. Kavanaugh called it an upside down rule those falsely accused whose claims are dismissed early cannot sue unless they can dig into the prosecutors mindset, while those who go to trial can sue. Breyer suggested that actual practice runs contrary to Clarks position, because normal proceedings do not affirmatively indicate innocence; prosecutors dismiss cases, and the accused does not object to dismissal. Moore cited statistics from an NAACP amicus brief showing that 85% to 90% of dismissals are for reasons wholly independent of the merits. But because the prosecutor decides whether to dismiss criminal charges and the police officer is the defendant in the Section 1983 action, an indication of innocence connects the elements to the officers conduct.

Moore had lengthy exchanges with Roberts, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Kagan about whether the court can and should resolve the downstream issues of favorable termination without resolving the upstream issues of identifying the precise claim, the constitutional source for the claim, and the elements of the claim. Moore argued that the court cannot define the scope and meaning of favorable termination without determining the existence and elements of the claim, which in turn depend on the constitutional source of the right. A Fourth Amendment claim challenging an unreasonable seizure does not impugn convictions or criminal proceedings, so the reasons for a favorable-termination requirement are absent. Those reasons were present in the courts prior favorable-termination cases, which considered due process claims. Moore conceded in response to a question from Justice Amy Coney Barrett that his arguments are stronger on the upstream issues than on the downstream issue in the question presented.

Ali argued that the court could resolve the case in three sentences; two, if you like semi-colons.

He urged the court to write that the 2nd Circuit decided that the favorable-termination requirement for some Section 1983 claims requires indications of innocence, but it does not; a criminal proceeding terminates in favor of the accused when it ends without a conviction.

Read the original:
Centaurs, Jean Valjean, and a proposed three-sentence ruling on the meaning of favorable termination - SCOTUSblog

Fourth Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement

This Fourth Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement (the "Amendment") is made and entered into by and between SUMMIT FINANCIAL RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the successor in interest to SUMMIT FINANCIAL RESOURCES, L.P., a Hawaii limited partnership ("Lender"), and ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Borrower").

Recitals

A. Lender's predecessor in interest and Borrower have entered into a Loan and Security Agreement dated February 27, 2017 (together with any and all exhibits, schedules, addenda or riders hereto, as amended, modified, supplemented, substituted, extended or renewed from time to time, the "Loan and Security Agreement").

B. Lender and Borrower have agreed to further amend the Loan and Security Agreement to increase the dollar sublimit amount with respect to Inventory Advances.

Amendment

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Lender and Borrower agree as follows:

1. Definitions. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, terms assigned defined meanings in the Loan and Security Agreement shall have the same defined meanings in this Amendment. The term "Amendment," as defined in the preamble to this Amendment, is incorporated by reference into the Loan and Security Agreement

2. Modification and Amendment of Loan and Security Agreement. Effective as of the date of this Amendment, the Loan and Security Agreement is amended and modified as follows:

The first paragraph of subsection (b) (Inventory Advances) of Section 2.6 (Inventory Advances) of the Loan and Security Agreement is hereby amended to increase the dollar sublimit as follows:

"b. Inventory Advances. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Loan Documents, no Inventory Advances shall be made on the Loan if, after making the requested Inventory Advance, the total, aggregate principal amount of all Inventory Advances will exceed the lowest of: (i) the total cost of Eligible Inventory (as determined by Lender in its sole discretion) multiplied by the Inventory Advance Rate; (ii) one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of outstanding Account Advances; (iii) Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000); and (iv) together with the aggregate amount of all outstanding Account Advances, the Maximum Loan Amount."

In consideration of Lender's agreement to increase the dollar sublimit on Inventory Advances, Borrower agrees to pay to the Lender a modification fee of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) (the "Modification Fee") on the date hereof. The Modification Fee shall include the legal fees of Lender's in-house counsel to prepare this Amendment.

3. Representations and Warranties. Borrower affirms and again makes the representations and warranties set forth in Section 6 (Representations and Warranties) of the Loan and Security Agreement as of the date of this Amendment.

4. Payment of Expenses and Attorneys' Fees. Borrower shall pay all reasonable expenses of Lender related to the negotiation, drafting of documents, and documentation of this Amendment, including, without limitation, the Modification Fee (which shall include all reasonable attorneys' fees and legal expenses, including allocated fees of in-house counsel, in connection with the drafting and revising this Amendment). Lender is authorized and directed to disburse a sufficient amount of funds under the Loan to pay these expenses in full.

Allied Healthcare - Fourth Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement

5. Loan Documents Remain in Full Force and Effect. Except as expressly amended or modified by this Amendment, the Loan Documents remain in full force and effect. Borrower confirms that the security interests granted by the Loan Documents also secure the Loan and Security Agreement as amended by this Amendment.

6. Borrower Covenants. Borrower covenants with Lender that Borrower shall execute, deliver, and provide to Lender such additional agreements, documents, and instruments as reasonably required by Lender to effectuate the intent of this Amendment.

7. Release. Borrower and its successors and assigns hereby fully, finally, and forever release and discharge Lender and its successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, agents, and representatives from any and all actions, causes of action, claims, debts, demands, liabilities, obligations, and suits of whatever kind or nature, in law or in equity, that Borrower has or in the future may have, whether known or unknown, in respect of the Loan Documents, the Loan, or the actions or omissions of Lender in respect to the Loan Documents or the Loan and arising from events occurring prior to the date hereof.

8. Authorization. Borrower represents and warrants that the execution, delivery, and performance by Borrower of this Amendment, and all agreements, documents, obligations, and transactions herein contemplated, have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action on the part of Borrower and are not inconsistent with Borrower's organizational documents or any resolution of the board of directors, members, managers, or other governing body of Borrower and do not and will not contravene any provision of, or constitute a default under, any indenture, mortgage, contract, or other instrument to which Borrower is a party or by which it is bound, and that upon execution and delivery hereof and thereof, this Amendment will constitute legal, valid, and binding agreements and obligations of Borrower, enforceable in accordance with its respective terms.

9. Integrated Agreement; Amendment. This Amendment, together with the Loan and Security Agreement and the other Loan Documents, constitute the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto and supersede all other prior and contemporaneous agreements. This Amendment and the Loan and Security Agreement shall be read and interpreted together as one agreement and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah without regard to its conflict of laws principles. This Amendment shall be deemed to have been executed by the parties hereto in the State of Utah and may not be altered or amended except by written agreement signed by Lender and Borrower. All other prior and contemporaneous agreements, arrangements, and understandings between the parties hereto as to the subject matter hereof are, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, rescinded.

Borrower acknowledges and agrees that this Amendment is a final expression of the agreement between Lender and Borrower and this Amendment may not be contradicted by evidence of any alleged oral agreement.

[Signatures on Next Page]

Allied Healthcare - Fourth Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement

Dated: October 7, 2021.

Allied Healthcare - Fourth Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement

Disclaimer

Allied Healthcare Products Inc. published this content on 13 October 2021 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 13 October 2021 21:21:19 UTC.

More here:
Allied Healthcare Products : Fourth Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement - Form 8-K - Marketscreener.com