2023-11-15T15:03:52-06:00 2022-12-31 873231666 PKF O'CONNOR DAVIES ADVISORY LLC 245 PARK AVENUE 12TH FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10167 990 2022-01-01 232022920 ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION ATLA 9148343322 500 MAMARONECK AVE HARRISON NY 10538 HAYWARD D FISK CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT 9148343322 2023-11-15 1 HAYWARD FISK 999009999 1 GARRETT M HIGGINS P00543209 2122862600 2023-11-15 3 AAL1 IAL1 2022 2023-04-26 12:10:37Z HAYWARD D FISK 500 MAMARONECK AVE HARRISON NY 10538 477923 0 X WWW.ATLANTICLEGAL.ORG X 1977 PA THE MISSION OF THE ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION ("ATLANTIC LEGAL OR "ALF OR "THE FOUNDATION") IS TO ADVANCE THE RULE OF LAW BY ADVOCATING LIMITED AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT; FREE ENTERPRISE; INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY; SCHOOL CHOICE; AND SOUND SCIENCE. 35 34 1 36 0 0 469175 455150 0 0 678 773 0 -45525 469853 410398 1200 1000 0 0 207672 281081 0 0 51673 117050 98873 325922 380954 143931 29444 321006 350660 14570 16946 306436 333714 X THE MISSION OF THE ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION IS TO ADVANCE THE RULE OF LAW BY ADVOCATING LIMITED AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT, FREE ENTERPRISE, INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, SCHOOL CHOICE, AND THE USE OF SOUND SCIENCE IN JUDICIAL AND REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS AND RULEMAKING. 0 0 206142 1000 0 ATLANTIC LEGAL IS A NONPROFIT, NONPARTISAN PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM WITH A HISTORY OF FIGHTING FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS BY ENSURING THAT COURTS APPLY SOUND LEGAL AND SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.ATLANTIC LEGAL CHALLENGES THE ABUSE OF POWER BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE MISUSE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY PRIVATE PARTIES TO DENY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.ATLANTIC LEGAL PROVIDES LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND COUNSEL, WITHOUT FEE, TO INDIVIDUALS (INCLUDING SCIENTISTS, EDUCATORS, AND PROMINENT PUBLIC SERVANTS), CORPORATIONS, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, AND OTHER GROUPS. 206142 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 35 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 CA FL IL MD MA NJ NY PA VA WV X X CHERI MAZZA PKF O'CONNOR DAVIES 2033232400 3001 SUMMER STREET STAMFORD CT 06905 X H DAN FISK ESQ CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT 40.00 X X 106000 0 0 ALINNE MAJARIAN JD SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 1.00 X X 0 0 0 AUGUSTUS I DUPONT ESQ VICE CHAIRMAN 1.00 X X 0 0 0 SCOT M ELDER SECRETARY 1.00 X X 0 0 0 NEVIN SANLI TREASURER 1.00 X X 0 0 0 MARCO Q ROSSI ASSISTANT TREASURER 1.00 X X 0 0 0 ANA TAGVORYAN ASSISTANT SECRETARY 1.00 X X 0 0 0 DAVID M AXELRAD DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 TRACY A BACIGALUPO DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 THOMAS E BIRSIC ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 JOHN L BROWNLEE ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 KRISTEN CALVE DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 SEAN CASEY DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 LEE CH CHENG DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 THOMAS EVANS DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 TIMOTHY E FLANIGAN DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 MARY L GARCEAU ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 JONATHAN P GRAHAM ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 ROBERT L HAIG ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 STEPHEN J HARMELIN ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 JOE G HOLLINGSWORTH ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 ROBERT E JUCEAM ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 JOHN J KENNEY ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 MARYANNE R LAVAN DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 STEVE MATTHEWS DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 MALCOLM S MCNEIL DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 GREGORY J MORROW ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 MARK D NIELSON DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 WILLIAM G PRIMPS ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 WILLIAM H SLATTERY ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 JAY B STEPHENS ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 CLIFFORD B STORMS ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 ALEX ROMAIN DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 CHARLES R WORK ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 LAWRENCE G MCMICHAEL ESQ DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 FRANK R JIMENEZ ESQ DIRECTOR, THRU FEB 2022 1.00 X 0 0 0 LAWRENCE EBNER EXEC. VP AND GEN. COUNSEL 30.00 X 106000 0 0 NISHANI DEVI NAIDOO ESQ VP & ASSOCIATE GEN. COUNSEL 10.00 X 0 0 0 212000 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 144500 310650 455150 773 773 22000 144500 67525 -45525 -45525 410398 0 0 -44752 1000 1000 212000 132290 49819 29891 62482 38989 14683 8810 1195 804 244 147 5404 3635 1105 664 11900 11900 22739 958 20944 837 45160 20409 16201 8550 2280 302 1675 303 2856 1650 793 413 7964 3907 1999 2058 2880 2198 682 1904 1904 STATE REGISTRATION FEES 1190 1190 380954 206142 123139 51673 252444 308908 5877 6650 19500 0 6584 667 36413 34247 188 188 321006 350660 14570 16946 14570 16946 X 306436 333714 306436 333714 321006 350660 29444 -2166 0 X X 0 1 X 1 0 X 516152 408172 301289 469175 455150 2149938 516152 408172 301289 469175 455150 2149938 773646 1376292 338 624 621 678 773 3034 2152972 0.63930 0.61150 X RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED 0 X 649988 -2166 241756 239590 410398 0 410398 622710 241756 241756 380954 0 380954 PART X, LINE 2: THE FOUNDATION RECOGNIZES THE EFFECT OF INCOME TAX POSITIONS ONLY IF THOSE POSITIONS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT TO BE SUSTAINED. MANAGEMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE FOUNDATION HAD NO UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS THAT WOULD REQUIRE FINANCIAL STATEMENT RECOGNITION OR DISCLOSURE. THE FOUNDATION IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO EXAMINATIONS BY THE APPLICABLE TAXING JURISDICTIONS FOR PERIODS PRIOR TO 2019. AWARD DINNER 166500 144500 22000 8098 30338 8900 20189 166500 144500 22000 8098 30338 8900 20189 67525 -45525 FORM 990, PART III 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE: - CONTINUED RECENT AND CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS FOR 2022 THROUGH JUNE 2023 DURING 2022, AND INTO 2023, ALF CONTINUED ADVANCING ITS ADVOCACY MISSIONS BY FILING AMICUS CURIAE (FRIEND OF THE COURT) BRIEFS ON CUTTING-EDGE LEGAL ISSUES IN THE SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. IN FACT, ALF'S AMICUS PROGRAM HAS BEEN BUSIER THAN EVER. WE ARE ON MANY LEADING LAW FIRMS AND NONPROFIT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS' "GO TO" LISTS FOR HIGH-QUALITY AMICUS SUPPORT. AS ALF'S NATIONAL REPUTATION FOR OUTSTANDING APPELLATE ADVOCACY CONTINUES TO GROW, OUR AMICUS BRIEFS ARE INCREASINGLY CITED AND QUOTED IN LEGAL MEDIA SUCH AS LAW360, WHICH RECENTLY APPOINTED ALF EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT & GENERAL COUNSEL LARRY EBNER TO ITS PRESTIGIOUS APPELLATE EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD. LARRY, A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED APPELLATE SPECIALIST WITH MORE THAN 50 YEARS OF LITIGATION EXPERIENCE, PERSONALLY AUTHORS MOST OF ALF'S AMICUS BRIEFS. ON SOME BRIEFS HE HAS ENLISTED THE ASSISTANCE OF A GROWING CADRE OF APPELLATE ATTORNEYS WHO CONTRIBUTE VALUABLE PRO BONO TIME TO ALF. OUR AMICUS FILINGS DURING 2022 AND THE FIRST HALF OF 2023 ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW. ADDITIONAL DETAIL, AND THE AMICUS BRIEFS THEMSELVES, ARE EASILY ACCESSED THROUGH ALF'S WEBSITE, ATLANTICLEGAL.ORG. A NUMBER OF RECENT SUPREME COURT OPINIONS ALIGN WITH ALF'S AMICUS FILINGS. THESE INCLUDE: BIDEN V. NEBRASKA (MASS CANCELLATION OF STUDENT LOAN DEBT); COINBASE V. BIELSKI (STAY OF TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL OF DENIAL OF RIGHT TO ARBITRATE); TYLER V. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN. ("HOME EQUITY THEFT" BY STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENTS); SACKETT V. EPA (CLEAN WATER ACT REGULATION OF PRIVATELY OWNED "WETLANDS"); AXON ENTERPRISE V. FTC & SEC V. COCHRAN (DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS THAT FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE STRUCTURALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL); AND VIKING RIVER CRUISES V. MORIANA (FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTION OF CALIFORNIA LAW BLOCKING WAIVER OF REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS IN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS). MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR SOUND SCIENCE FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF FAILURE-TO-WARN CLAIMS WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF URGING THE EN BANC ELEVENTH CIRCUIT TO HOLD THAT FEDERAL LAW PREEMPTS STATE-LAW DAMAGES CLAIMS ALLEGING THAT THE MANUFACTURER OF ROUNDUP (GLYPHOSATE) HERBICIDE FAILED TO INCLUDE ON ITS PRODUCT LABELING, A CANCER WARNING THAT THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) HAS DETERMINED IS BOTH SCIENTIFICALLY UNWARRANTED AND FALSE AND MISLEADING. THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA) EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS A STATE FROM IMPOSING PESTICIDE LABELING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE "IN ADDITION TO OR DIFFERENT FROM" THOSE REQUIRED UNDER FIFRA. ALF'S BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT A CANCER-RELATED LABEL WARNING WOULD BE "IN ADDITION TO OR DIFFERENT FROM" EPA'S REQUIREMENTS FOR ROUNDUP LABELING, AND THEREFORE, EXPRESSLY PREEMPTED. (CARSON V. MONSANTO) FAIR BALANCE ON FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE D.C. CIRCUIT ARGUING THAT THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR'S DELIBERATE EXCLUSION OF ALL INDUSTRY-AFFILIATED SCIENTISTS FROM THE STATUTORILY CREATED CLEAN AIR SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CASAC) VIOLATES THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT (FACA) REQUIREMENT THAT ALL FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES BE "FAIRLY BALANCED IN TERMS OF THE POINTS OF VIEW REPRESENTED AND THE FUNCTIONS TO BE PERFORMED." CASAC ADVISES EPA ON ADOPTION AND REVISION OF CLEAN AIR ACT NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT A MULTITUDE OF INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS. ALF'S BRIEF DISCUSSES WHY FACA'S "FAIRLY BALANCED" MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENT PROMOTES SOUND SCIENCE, WHICH IS UNDERMINED IF THE VIEWPOINTS OF WELL-QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS WITH FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF HOW ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IMPACT INDUSTRY ARE DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED. (YOUNG V. EPA) REMOVAL OF CLIMATE-CHANGE DAMAGES SUITS FROM STATE COURTS WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER NUMEROUS CLIMATE-CHANGE DAMAGES SUITS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AGAINST FOSSIL-FUEL ENERGY COMPANIES CAN BE REMOVED FROM STATE TO FEDERAL COURT. ALF'S BRIEF ARGUES THAT FEDERAL COURTS ARE THE PROPER FORUM FOR ADJUDICATION OF SUITS SEEKING DAMAGES FOR THE LOCAL EFFECTS OF THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY'S ALLEGED ALTERATION OF THE CLIMATE." OUR BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT BECAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A BORDERLESS, GLOBAL PHENOMENON, LIABILITY FOR THIS ALLEGED TORT OF NATIONWIDE AND WORLDWIDE DIMENSIONS CANNOT BE DIVIDED INTO POTENTIALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LOCAL BITS AND PIECES OF LIABILITY, EACH SUBJECT TO THE VAGARIES OF ONE OF 50 STATES' DIFFERING TORT LAW STANDARDS. INSTEAD, CLAIMS FOR ALTERATION OF THE CLIMATE UNAVOIDABLY IMPLICATE UNIQUELY FEDERAL INTERESTS THAT REQUIRE A UNIFORM RULE OF DECISION (SUNCOR ENERGY V. BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO) KEEPING JUNK SCIENCE OUT OF COURTROOMS WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF REQUESTING THE SUPREME COURT TO REINFORCE FEDERAL JUDGES' "GATEKEEPER" ROLE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702. MORE SPECIFICALLY, WE ASKED THE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF MEDICAL DEVICE PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION, TO DECIDE WHETHER THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT'S (I) LAX STANDARD FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY, AND (II) INSUFFICIENTLY DEFERENTIAL STANDARD FOR APPELLATE REVIEW OF DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS THAT EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY, CONFLICT WITH SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT (INCLUDING THE DAUBERT TRILOGY) AND FED. R. EVID. 702. ALF'S BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT RULE 702, WHICH ESTABLISHES THE CRITERIA FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL, AND OTHER EXPERT TESTIMONY, PRIMARILY IS INTENDED TO PREVENT JURIES FROM BEING EXPOSED TO "JUNK SCIENCE" TESTIMONY. THE BRIEF ARGUES THAT WHEN A TRIAL JUDGE SHIRKS HIS OR HER RULE 702 GATEKEEPER RESPONSIBILITY BY ALLOWING A JURY TO BE INFLUENCED BY JUNK SCIENCE TESTIMONYOR WHERE COURTS OF APPEALS, SUCH AS THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, HAVE ADOPTED LAX INTERPRETATIONS OF RULE 702A DEFENDANT CAN BE DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW. (3M COMPANY V. AMADOR) MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR EFFECTIVE EDUCATION ON-THE-JOB TRAINING OF F-1 STUDENT VISA HOLDERS ALF FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) HAS AUTHORITY TO ALLOW "F-1" STUDENT VISA HOLDERS TO STAY IN THE UNITED STATES AND WORK FOR COMPUTER OR OTHER TECHNOLOGY-SECTOR COMPANIES UP TO 3 YEARS AFTER RECEIVING A SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, OR MATHEMATICS ("STEM") DEGREE. ALF'S BRIEF TAKES NO POSITION ON THIS IMPORTANT STATUTORY INTERPRETATION QUESTION, BUT ARGUES THAT ITS RESOLUTION WILL DIRECTLY AFFECT, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, THE SIZE, COMPOSITION, AND PERMANENCE OF THE NATION'S CRUCIAL, HIGH-TECHNOLOGY WORKFORCE, AND THUS, THE NATIONAL, AND EVEN GLOBAL, ECONOMY. THE BRIEF ALSO EXPLAINS THAT GIVEN THE INTENSE, TECHNOLOGY-RELATED COMPETITION THAT THE UNITED STATES CONTINUOUSLY FACES FROM FOREIGN ADVERSARIES, ROBUST EMPLOYMENT IN THE TECHNOLOGY SECTOR IS A MATTER OF LONG-TERM NATIONAL SECURITY. (WASHINGTON ALLIANCE OF TECHNOLOGY WORKERS V. U.S. DEP'T OF HOMELAND SECURITY) PARENTAL RIGHTS WE FILED AN EIGHTH CIRCUIT AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT'S TRANSGENDER STUDENT POLICY VIOLATES PARENTS' RIGHTS TO GUIDE THE CARE, CUSTODY, AND CONTROL OF THEIR CHILDREN. REGARDLESS OF PARENTS' WISHES, OR EVEN KNOWLEDGE, THE POLICY EXPRESSLY ALLOWS YOUNG TEENAGE (AND PERHAPS PRETEEN) BOYS AND GIRLS TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN "NAMES/PRONOUNS, RESTROOM AND LOCKER FACILITIES, OVERNIGHT ACCOMMODATIONS ON SCHOOL TRIPS, AND PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES, AND TO DECIDE HOW TO "DRESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR GENDER IDENTITY." UNDER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S POLICY, A STUDENT NOT ONLY CAN REQUEST SCHOOL OFFICIALS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN INDIVIDUALIZED "GENDER SUPPORT PLAN," BUT ALSO DIRECT THEM TO CONCEAL THIS INFORMATION FROM HIS OR HER PARENTS. ALF'S BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT A LONG LINE OF SUPREME COURT CASES, AS WELL AS ENGLISH AND AMERICAN COMMON LAW, ESTABLISH THAT PARENTS ARE BEST QUALIFIED TO MAKE DECISIONS CONCERNING THE UPBRINGING AND EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN, INCLUDING IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSGENDER-RELATED ISSUES. (PARENTS DEFENDING EDUCATION V. LINN-MAR COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT) MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR FREE ENTERPRISE INTERNET TESTER "INFORMATIONAL INJURY" LITIGATION WE FILED A SUPREME COURT MERITS-STAGE AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT CONFERRING STANDING UPON A "TESTER" PLAINTIFF WHO HAS SUFFERED NO ACTUAL HARM FROM THE OMISSION OF ONLINE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW WOULD ESTABLISH A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT LEADING TO MANY TYPES OF INTERNET-BASED INFORMATIONAL INJURY SUITS FUELED BY THE PLAINTIFFS' CONTINGENCY-FEE BAR. THE PLAINTIFF, A DISABLED SERIAL "TESTER" LITIGANT, CLAIMS "INFORMATIONAL INJURY" FROM VISITING WEBSITES OF SMALL HOTELS THAT SHE HAS NO INTENTION OF PATRONIZING BUT ALLEGEDLY CONTAIN INADEQUATE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. (ACHESON HOTELS V. LAUFER) FORM 990, PART III 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE: - CONTINUED FEDERAL JUDGES' EXPERT TESTIMONY GATEKEEPER ROLE CONCERNING CLASS CERTIFICATION WE FILED A NINTH CIRCUIT AMICUS BRIEF IN A PUTATIVE CONSUMER CLASS ACTION THAT IS PART OF MULTIDISTRICT ANTITRUST LITIGATION AGAINST GOOGLE. A CALIFORNIA FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE CERTIFIED A CLASS OF 21 MILLION CONSUMERS WHO HAVE PURCHASED ALMOST 300,000 ANDROID APPS AVAILABLE ON MOBILE DEVICES THROUGH THE GOOGLE PLAY STORE. THE CONSUMER PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE THAT IF GOOGLE HAD CHARGED A LOWER, NON-MONOPOLISTIC SERVICE FEE TO APP DEVELOPERS, THEY WOULD HAVE PASSED THROUGH THIS ALLEGED COST SAVINGS TO APP PURCHASERS. GOOGLE HAS APPEALED THE DISTRICT COURT'S CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDER, WHICH RELIED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE EXPERT OPINION OF THE CONSUMER PLAINTIFFS' ECONOMIC EXPERT. ALF'S AMICUS BRIEF DISCUSSES THE IMPORTANT ROLE THAT FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 PLAYS IN CLASS-CERTIFICATION DECISIONS THAT RELY ON EXPERT TESTIMONY, AND THEN FOCUSES ON RULE 702'S "RELIABILITY" REQUIREMENT, AS AMENDED EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 2023. (CARR V. GOOGLE, LLC) PRIMACY OF FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE SUPREME COURT ADDRESSING THE FREQUENTLY RECURRING QUESTION OF WHETHER FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS MUST BE STAYED WHILE, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT (FAA), AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL OF DENIAL OF A MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION IS BEING PURSUED IN A FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS. ALF'S BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT UNLESS A STAY OF TRIAL-COURT PROCEEDINGS IS MANDATORY RATHER THAN DISCRETIONARY, THE PURPOSE OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AUTHORIZED BY THE FAA WOULD BE DEFEATED, AND THE SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS OF ARBITRATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO LITIGATION WOULD BE LOST. (COINBASE, INC. V. BIELSKI) FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF CALIFORNIA REGULATORY OVERREACH WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ASKING THE SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER A STATE CAN BAN THE SALE OF A FEDERALLY REGULATED AND APPROVED AGRICULTURAL FOOD PRODUCT MERELY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT LIKE HOW, WHERE, OR BY WHOM IT IS PRODUCED OR GROWN. THE LITIGATION CHALLENGES CALIFORNIA'S STATUTORY BAN ON SALE OF USDA-APPROVED FOIE GRASFATTENED DUCK OR GOOSE LIVERWHICH CAN BE PRODUCED ONLY BY FORCE-FEEDING DUCKS AND GEESE. ALF'S AMICUS BRIEF ARGUES THAT FEDERAL LAW PREEMPTS THE CALIFORNIA SALES BAN STATUTE, IN PART BECAUSE THE FORCE-FEEDING PROCESS THAT THE CALIFORNIA SALES BAN STATUTE PROHIBITS IS THE VERY SAME FORCE-FEEDING PROCESS THAT FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES IF A POULTRY PRODUCT IS TO BE SOLD AS FOIE GRAS. OUR BRIEF ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE SALES BAN VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERSTATE FEDERALISM BECAUSE IT ENCROACHES UPON OTHER STATES' SOVEREIGN RIGHTS TO REGULATE, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LAW, AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER PRODUCTS THAT ARE PRODUCED WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS. (ASSOCIATION DES LEVEURS DE CANARDS ET D'OIES DU QUEBEC V. BONTA) APPLICABILITY OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO DUAL-PURPOSE COMMUNICATIONS WE FILED A SUPREME COURT AMICUS BRIEF ADDRESSING AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE QUESTION THAT OFTEN CONFRONTS IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AS WELL AS ATTORNEYS IN LAW FIRMS. MORE SPECIFICALLY, ALF'S BRIEF ARGUES THAT A DUAL-PURPOSE" COMMUNICATION, SUCH AS A COMMUNICATION INVOLVING BOTH LEGAL AND BUSINESS ADVICE, IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE WHERE OBTAINING OR PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE WAS ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT PURPOSES, EVEN IF NOT THE SOLE PURPOSE, OF THE COMMUNICATION. (IN RE GRAND JURY) REMOVAL OF COVID-19 LIABILITY SUITS FROM STATE COURTS WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER COVID-19-RELATED LIABILITY SUITS AGAINST HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES, AND HEALTHCARE WORKERS ARE REMOVABLE FROM STATE TO FEDERAL COURT WHEN THEY IMPLICATE THE IMMUNITY-FROM-SUIT PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC READINESS AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (PREP ACT) ACT. ALF'S AMICUS BRIEF ARGUES THAT HEALTHCARE FACILITIES AND WORKERS WILL BE DETERRED FROM VOLUNTEERING FOR ESSENTIAL, FRONTLINE DUTY DURING PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCIES IF THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO THE THREAT OF BEING HALED INTO THE VERY TYPE OF HIGH-STAKES, STATE-COURT LIABILITY SUITS THAT THE PREP ACT EXPRESSLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY PROHIBITS. (GLENHAVEN HEALTHCARE, LLC V. SALDANA) STATE-COURT JURISDICTION OVER CORPORATIONS WE FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN TWO DIFFERENT CASES ARGUING THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HOLD THAT DUE PROCESS IS VIOLATED IF A CORPORATE DEFENDANT'S REGISTRATION TO DO BUSINESS IN A STATE WHERE IT IS NOT "AT HOME" IS DEEMED CONSENT TO, OR SOME OTHER BASIS FOR, EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S GENERAL ("ALL-PURPOSE") PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION. MODERN SUPREME COURT CASES ESTABLISH THAT A COURT CAN ASSERT GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER A CORPORATION ONLY IN A STATE WHERE THE CORPORATION IS "AT HOME"TYPICALLY WHERE THE CORPORATION IS INCORPORATED AND/OR HAS ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS. GENERAL JURISDICTION (AS DISTINCT FROM MINIMUM-CONTACTS-BASED "SPECIFIC OR "CASE-LINKED" JURISDICTION) MEANS THAT A CORPORATION CAN BE SUED IN THAT STATE FOR ANY AND ALL CLAIMS NO MATTER WHERE THE PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE. THE SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER, NEVER HAS EXPLICITLY OVERRULED A CENTURY-OLD OPINION WHICH HELD THAT A CORPORATION'S APPOINTMENT OF A STATE-GOVERNMENT AGENT TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF PROCESS AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE CORPORATION TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IN A STATE IS DEEMED CONSENT TO THE STATE'S GENERAL JURISDICTION. ALF'S BRIEF ARGUES THAT OVERTURNING THIS OLD PRECEDENT NOT ONLY WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH MODERN PERSONAL JURISDICTION CASE LAW, BUT ALSO WOULD DETER FORUM SHOPPING. (MALLORY V. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. AND COOPER TIRE & RUBBER CO. V. MCCALL) ENFORCEMENT OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO HOLD THAT THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT PREEMPTS CALIFORNIA FROM PROHIBITING ENFORCEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS THAT EXPRESSLY WAIVE AN EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO FILE A REPRESENTATIVE ACTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT (PAGA). IN JUNE 2022 THE COURT ISSUED A FAVORABLE DECISION HOLDING THAT THE FAA PREEMPTS CALIFORNIA'S "ISKANIAN RULE," WHICH HAD INVALIDATED WAIVERS OF PAGA REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS. (VIKING RIVER CRUISES V. MORIANA) MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS GOVERNMENTAL "HOME EQUITY THEFT" WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN A SUPREME COURT CASE PRESENTING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S TAKINGS CLAUSE (ALSO KNOWN AS THE JUST COMPENSATION CLAUSE) BY KEEPING THE SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER SEIZING AND SELLING A HOME TO SATISFY A DELINQUENT TAX DEBT. TO SATISFY THE ELDERLY PLAINTIFF'S $15,000 TAX DEBT, A MINNESOTA COUNTY SEIZED AND SOLD HER CONDOMINIUM FOR $40,000 AND RETAINED THE $25,000 SURPLUS. ALF'S BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT A STATE LEGISLATURE CANNOT "REDEFINE" PRIVATE PROPERTY AS PUBLIC PROPERTY TO CIRCUMVENT THE JUST COMPENSATION CLAUSE, AND THAT THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISAPPLIED SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT ON SEIZURE AND SALE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY TO SATISFY DEBTS OWED TO THE GOVERNMENT. (TYLER V. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA) FEDERAL REGULATION OF PRIVATE "WETLAND" PROPERTY WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THIS SUPREME COURT CASE CONCERNING THE PROPER TEST FOR DETERMINING WHETHER WETLANDS ARE "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES" UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER PRIVATE PROPERTYIN THIS CASE, A RESIDENTIAL LOT THAT HAS NO PHYSICAL SURFACE CONNECTION TO ANY NAVIGABLE BODY OF WATERIS A "WETLAND" THAT IS PART OF "THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES" FOR CLEAN WATER ACT REGULATORY AND PERMITTING PURPOSES. THIS ISSUE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THE EXPANSIVE AND INTRUSIVE MANNER IN WHICH EPA AND THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAVE DEFINED "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES." ALF'S AMICUS BRIEF ARGUES THAT THE COURT SHOULD REJECT ANY BROAD DEFINITION THAT WOULD EFFECT AN UNCOMPENSATED TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. (SACKETT V. EPA) MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR LIMITED & RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT NO CHEVRON DEFERENCE FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS WE FILED A MERITS-STAGE AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT CHEVRON DEFERENCE TO FEDERAL AGENCY INTERPRETATIONS OF AMBIGUITIES IN THE STATUTES THEY ADMINISTER SHOULD NOT EXTEND TO INTERPRETATIONS PURPORTING TO AUTHORIZE UNCONSTITUTIONAL REGULATORY ACTIVITY. THE SUPREME COURT HAS AGREED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE CHEVRON JUDICIAL DEFERENCE DOCTRINE SHOULD BE OVERRULED, OR AT LEAST CLARIFIED INSOFAR AS SOME COURTS HAVE EQUATED STATUTORY SILENCE WITH STATUTORY AMBIGUITY. THE CASE ARISES IN THE CONTEXT OF A NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) STATUTORY INTERPRETATION PURPORTING TO AUTHORIZE A REQUIREMENT THAT OWNERS OF SMALL FISHING VESSELS THAT OPERATE IN THE ATLANTIC HERRING FISHERY INCUR THE SUBSTANTIAL COSTS OF HIRING, QUARTERING, AND COMPENSATING AT-SEA REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MONITORS. ALF'S BRIEF ARGUES THAT THIS INVOLUNTARY INDUSTRY-FUNDED MONITORING REQUIREMENTIMPOSED DUE TO THE LACK OF CONGRESSIONAL FUNDINGVIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION'S APPROPRIATIONS CLAUSE. FORM 990, PART III 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE: - CONTINUED (LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES V. RAIMONDO) CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU "SELF-FUNDING" WE FILED A SUPREME COURT MERITS-STAGE AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING THAT UNDER THE SUPREME COURT'S "NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE," CONGRESS CANNOT DELEGATE ITS EXCLUSIVE APPROPRIATIONS CLAUSE "POWER OF THE PURSE" TO THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU (CFPB), OR TO ANY OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH ENTITY, SUCH AS THE FEDERAL RESERVE. THE AMICUS BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT CFPB'S STATUTORY SELF-FUNDING MECHANISM, WHICH BYPASSES THE CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS BY AUTHORIZING WITHDRAWALS DIRECTLY FROM THE SELF-FUNDED FEDERAL RESERVE, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (CFPB V. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MASS STUDENT LOAN DEBT CANCELLATION WE FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN TWO COORDINATED SUPREME COURT CASES CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S ANNOUNCED MASS CANCELLATION OF MORE THAN $400 BILLION IN STUDENT LOAN DEBT OWED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY MORE THAN 20 MILLION BORROWERS. RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE QUESTIONS OF WHETHER THE STATE AND INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING TO SUE, OR WHETHER THE MASS CANCELLATION IS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE, ALF'S AMICUS BRIEF RAISES THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF WHETHER THE PROGRAM IS CONSTITUTIONAL. MORE SPECIFICALLY, OUR BRIEF ARGUES THAT THE MASS CANCELLATION OF STUDENT LOAN DEBT VIOLATES THE APPROPRIATIONS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, U.S. CONST. ART. I, 9, CL. 7. THIS CLAUSE, WHICH IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, VESTS CONGRESS WITH EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER "THE POWER OF THE PURSE," MEANING THAT EVERY EXECUTIVE BRANCH EXPENDITURE MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY A CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION. OUR BRIEF CONTENDS THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S ABROGATION OF A HALF-TRILLION DOLLARS IN STUDENT LOAN DEBT RECEIVABLES HELD BY THE TREASURY IS AN UNAPPROPRIATED EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSETS, AND THUS, VIOLATES THE APPROPRIATIONS CLAUSE AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (BIDEN V. NEBRASKA & DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION V. BROWN) CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC & FTC ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS WE FILED AMICUS BRIEFS IN TWO COORDINATED SUPREME COURT CASES INVOLVING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS HAVE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO THE STRUCTURE OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC) "IN-HOUSE" CIVIL ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY TENURE-PROTECTED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES. ON APRIL 14, 2023, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY HELD DISTRICT COURTS HAVE SUCH JURISDICTION. THE COURT REJECTED THE SEC'S AND FTC'S CONTENTION THAT UNDER SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS, THEIR ORGANIC STATUTES IMPLIEDLY "STRIP" DISTRICT COURTS OF FEDERAL-QUESTION JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER STRUCTURAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS, AND THAT INSTEAD, THOSE CLAIMS CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY A FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AND ISSUANCE OF AN ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT. CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S OPINION, ALF'S BRIEFS ARGUED THAT JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED; THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW CANNOT BE MEANINGFUL IF A CIVIL ENFORCEMENT RESPONDENT MUST DEFER A STRUCTURAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE UNTIL AFTER HE OR SHE INCURS THE BURDENS, COSTS, AND REPUTATIONAL HARM OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING CLAIMED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. OUR BRIEFS ALSO CONTENDED, CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S OPINION, THAT THE SEC AND FTC LACK ANY SPECIAL EXPERTISE TO RULE ON THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONALITY. (SEC V. COCHRAN & AXON ENTERPRISE, INC. V. FTC) MISSION: ADVOCATE FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA WE FILED A SIXTH CIRCUIT AMICUS BRIEF ADDRESSING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE SURGEON GENERAL'S ALLEGED EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS SOCIAL MEDIA "MISINFORMATION" THAT QUESTIONS OR CRITICIZES THE SCIENTIFIC BASES FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S COVID-19 POLICIES AND MESSAGING VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, PRIMARILY THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL, PRESSURED TWITTER AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA TO CENSOR THEM AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO "QUESTION THE WISDOM, EFFICACY, AND MORALITY OF GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO THE [COVID-19] PANDEMIC, SPECIFICALLY LOCKDOWNS AND MASK AND VACCINE MANDATES." ALF'S AMICUS BRIEF, FILED IN SUPPORT OF NO PARTY, ARGUES THAT USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA TO CRITICIZE OR QUESTION THE SCIENTIFIC BASES FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S PANDEMIC MESSAGING AND POLICES FOSTERS SOUND SCIENCE, AND THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE GOVERNMENT FROM ABRIDGING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION BY PRESSURING SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO CENSOR CRITICS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES. (CHANGIZI V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES) CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC "GAG ORDERS WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON BEHALF OF SIX PROMINENT FIRST AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLARS URGING THE SUPREME COURT TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE SEC VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY IMPOSING A REQUIREMENT THAT ANY PARTY WITH WHOM IT SETTLES MUST AGREE TO A LIFELONG PRIOR RESTRAINT BARRING ANY STATEMENT, HOWEVER TRUTHFUL AND WHENEVER AND HOWEVER EXPRESSED, THAT EVEN SUGGESTS THAT ANY ALLEGATION IN AN SEC COMPLAINT IS UNSUPPORTABLE. ALF'S BRIEF, AUTHORED PRIMARILY BY PROFESSOR RODNEY SMOLLA, ARGUES THAT (I) THE SEC GAG RULE IS A PRESUMPTIVELY INVALID PRIOR RESTRAINT; (II) THE SEC GAG RULE IS A PRESUMPTIVELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE IN CONTENT AND VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION; (III) THE SEC GAG RULE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION; AND (IV) THE SEC GAG RULE IS PATERNALISTIC AND VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC TO RECEIVE INFORMATION. (ROMERIL V. SEC) FREEDOM OF SPEECH WE JOINED A COALITION AMICUS BRIEF REQUESTING THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS A STATE FROM COMPELLING ATTORNEYS TO JOIN AND FUND A STATE BAR ASSOCIATION THAT ENGAGES IN EXTENSIVE POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL ACTIVITIES. THE BRIEF EXPLAINS THAT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF MANDATORY BAR ASSOCIATIONS ENGAGE IN PERVASIVE POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL ACTIVITIES, AND THAT COMPULSORY PAYMENT OF DUES THAT HELP FUND SUCH ACTIVITIES REQUIRE EXACTING SCRUTINY UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. (MCDONALD V. FIRTH) FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B ATLANTIC LEGAL HAS ENGAGED AN OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM TO PREPARE ITS FORM 990. THE FORM 990, IS PREPARED BY THE OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM, IS PROVIDED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND EACH DIRECTOR BY ELECTRONIC MAIL PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE IRS. EACH DIRECTOR IS ASKED TO REVIEW THE FORM 990 AND PROVIDE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. THE OFFICERS OF THE FOUNDATION AND THE FOUNDATION'S BOOKKEEPING CONSULTANT ARE IN FREQUENT COMMUNICATION WITH THE FOUNDATION'S OUTSIDE ACCOUNTANTS BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND TELEPHONE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION, RAISE QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE FORM 990 PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE IRS. AFTER ALL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, THE FORM 990 IS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE FOUNDATION FOR HIS APPROVAL. IT IS THEN FILED WITH THE IRS. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C THE FOUNDATION'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY IS SUBMITTED ANNUALLY TO EACH BOARD MEMBER, OFFICER, ADVISOR AND STAFF MEMBER FOR REVIEW AND SIGNATURE WHERE THEY MUST DISCLOSE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE DETERMINED AND REVIEWED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR A COMMITTEE DESIGNATED BY THE BOARD. NO BOARD MEMBER IS ALLOWED TO VOTE OR PARTICIPATE IN BOARD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ANY MATTERS INVOLVING THE CONFLICT. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15A THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WITHOUT PARTICIPATION OF THE PRESIDENT, DETERMINES THE COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CONSIDERS COMPENSATION LEVELS PAID BY SIMILARLY SITUATED ORGANIZATIONS FOR FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE POSITIONS IN THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL MARKET AND NATIONWIDE. THIS PROCESS WAS LAST UNDERTAKEN IN MAY 2022 AND WAS DULY DOCUMENTED. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 THE FOUNDATION MAKES ITS FORM 990 AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 6104 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. THE RETURN IS POSTED ON GUIDESTAR.ORG AND OTHER SIMILAR TYPES OF WEBSITES. IN ADDITION, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, FORM 990, FORM 1023, AND BY-LAWS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OR BY CALLING THE ORGANIZATION DIRECTLY. PART VII, SECTION A, LINE A: LAWRENCE EBNER'S COMPENSATION IS IN EXCHANGE FOR CONSULTING, LEGAL RESEARCH, AND COMPOSITION SERVICES HE HAS PROVIDED TO THE ORGANIZATION, AND HE IS NOT COMPENSATED FOR HIS SERVICES AS AN OFFICER. FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C: THE FOUNDATION IS GOVERNED BY A 35 MEMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 34 OF WHOM ARE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION. THE BOARD ORDINARILY MEETS 3 TIMES A YEAR. BETWEEN BOARD MEETINGS, THE FOUNDATION IS DIRECTED BY AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CONSISTING OF 11 INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS. THE INDEPENDENT MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ALSO ACT AS THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OVERSIGHT OF THE AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SELECTION OF AN INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE ACCOUNTANT/AUDITOR. THIS PROCESS HAS NOT CHANGED FROM THE PRIOR YEAR.