theurbanhermit (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} theurbanhermit) wrote,@ 2008-04-23 08:37:00 |
|
3359
MIT HR last 7 days:
Director, EHS mit-00005309 Broad Institute Cambridge MA Full Time
Research Scientist mit-00005308 Center for Environmental Health Sciences Cambridge MA Full Time
Development Assistant mit-00005305 School Of Architecture And Planning Cambridge MA Full Time
Research Scientist/Computational Biologist mit-00005306 Koch Center for Integrative Cancer Research Cambridge MA Full Time
Administrative Assistant II mit-00005304 Engineering Systems Division Cambridge MA Part Time
Help Desk Analyst mit-00005307 Information Services and Technology Cambridge MA Part Time
Strategic Sourcing Analyst mit-00005303 Office of the Vice President For Finance Cambridge MA Full Time
Research Associate mit-00005302 Center for Transportation and Logistics Cambridge MA Full Time
Senior Member Relations Representative mit-00005299 MIT Federal Credit Union Cambridge MA Full Time
Administrative Assistant II mit-00005301 MIT Energy Initiative Cambridge MA Full Time
Technical Assistant mit-00005298 Koch Center for Integrative Cancer Research Cambridge MA Full Time
========================================
and new from Abt HR:
2008-2671 Senior Associate Social & Economic Policy United States-MD-Bethesda 04-21-08
--------
recall Abt had its own HR folk turnover, too . . . and lets not forget, from April 11th:
2008-2651 Director of Management Information Systems MIS United States-MA-Cambridge 04-11-08
=========
like berkman games? and don;t forget the Abt connected buttery with it's "computer expert" . . . who always showed up in the Harvard Coop or the FAS/BankAmerica building when I was near . . . see previous entries. . .
and those from Abt HR in between the two above:
2008-2662 Fin & Contract Admin International Economic Growth United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2663 Associate Finance & Contract Admin International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2664 Finance & Contract Admin International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2665 Finance & Contract Admin International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2666 Senior Finance & Contract Mgr International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2667 Senior Finance & Contract Mgr International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2659 Sr Analyst International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-17-08
2008-2657 Finance and Contract Analyst Social & Economic Policy United States-MD-Bethesda 04-14-08
----------------------------------------
boston.com:
Bill bars gangs from 'safety zones'
Initiative seeks fines, jail for loitering in parks, neighborhoods
By Maria Cramer and Shelley Murphy, Globe Staff | April 23, 2008
Gang members seen talking to one another or standing together on public property could be fined or jailed under a new bill being pushed in the Legislature and supported by some prosecutors and Boston police.
The bill would give broad authority to police and prosecutors to bring civil lawsuits against reputed gangs or their members, forbidding them to hang out together in the neighborhoods and parks that police say they terrorize.
Such a law has been hailed as a successful crime-fighting tool in cities such as Fort Worth, San Diego, and Los Angeles, which has been imposing civil injunctions against gangs such as the Crips and the Bloods since the 1980s.
But the approach has drawn the ire of civil libertarians who say it is too sweeping and violates the constitutional rights of people who have not been charged with any crime and may be wrongly identified as gang members.
Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis, who estimated that Boston has about 2,000 gang members, said he believes the injunctions would help neighborhoods.
"These groups of kids that hang around together that sell drugs, that run guns, if you're able to separate them, that's a huge benefit," said Davis, disputing assertions that the measure would violate the rights of some individuals.
"People will argue that not allowing people to stand together in a place is wrong," Davis said. "But no one has a right to commit a criminal conspiracy and hold a community hostage, and that's exactly what happens in some of the areas where gangs are well established."
Under the bill, suspected gang members would be barred from parks, neighborhoods, and other areas designated as "safety zones," and police could order groups of three or more gang members found there to leave. The restriction, which would not extend to church or school events, would also impose a 10 p.m. curfew on gang members.
Police said the theory behind the measure is that disrupting gangs will reduce crime and restore peace to neighborhoods plagued by violence. The legal enforcement tool would be civil injunctions against identified gangs and gang members who have been involved in a "pattern of criminal activity."
Gang members would face criminal contempt charges, fines, and possible jail time if they violate the order barring them from congregating in certain areas. They would have 10 days to challenge the injunction in court.
Gang members would be identified by police, based on prior convictions or intelligence linking them to gangs, according to law enforcement officials.
The bill, which was sent to the House Ways and Means Committee this month, has the support of numerous politicians, including Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
Representative Eugene O'Flaherty, a Charlestown Democrat, said he filed the bill last summer, after some parents in his district complained that their children were afraid to walk by street corners where they would be bullied or harassed by gangs.
"Some neighborhoods are really hurting, and we need to help," said O'Flaherty, whose cosponsor on the bill is Senator Robert S. Creedon Jr., a Brockton Democrat.
California's law, the model for the bill in Massachusetts, has been upheld by that state's highest court.
But John Reinstein, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said the bill raises constitutional concerns because it is overly broad and could sweep up nongang members seen talking or standing with gang members who live in their neighborhoods.
"I'm troubled by the extent to which the thumb of the state could come down on activities that are otherwise protected," Reinstein said, referring to the right of people to gather for a wide range of purposes.
Eugene F. Rivers III, pastor of the Azusa Christian Community and cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, said he is worried injunctions could be filed against people wrongly identified as gang members.
"At first blush, there are too many opportunities to abuse this," he said. "We have no way of independently verifying the quality of what passes for law enforcement intelligence. . . . It seems at first glance that there are too many opportunities for some black or brown kid who has no taste in clothing to be confused for a young hoodlum."
Not all law enforcement officials embraced the idea.
In a statement, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley expressed guarded support for the proposal, but also concern that injunctions could place more burdens on a busy and financially strapped prosecutor's office and violate the rights of a young person without a criminal past.
"Gangs drive a significant amount of violent crime in cities across the country, and as prosecutors we need all the tools we can get to fight them, while also respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding residents to congregate, associate, and travel wherever they wish," he said. "I'm not opposed to this strategy, but I do think we should examine it more closely to ensure that it will be properly and ethically used."
In Los Angeles, gang injunctions apply to the entire gang, even members not charged with crimes, because the membership is constantly changing, said a 2007 report by Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky DelGadillo.
"The gangs continue to commit crimes, regardless of who its members are at any given time," the report said.
Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, a former Boston commissioner, said he believes the injunctions would be more successful in Boston because the city is so much smaller.
"It will work beautifully here," Bratton said yesterday in an interview at the Boston Harbor Hotel, where he appeared with Davis for an award presentation. "Gangs here tend to operate in a very small area. . . . The ability to identify players and identify a geographic area, I think you would have a much bigger benefit here because you have such a smaller area of concentration."
Bratton said the injunctions do not help bring down the number of gangs, but he believes they help reduce gangs' illegal activities.
Essex District Attorney Jonathan W. Blodgett and Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe, who both signed on to the bill, said it has safeguards that help protect the rights of individuals, including the ability to challenge the injunctions in court. But it also gives police and prosecutors another tool to try to disrupt gang violence, they said.
"Nobody thinks that this is a panacea or that this is going to solve the problem in its entirety," O'Keefe said. "This is a problem that has so many different dynamics to it, it requires any number of tools. This is just one of them."
===========================
intelligence linking them? butthat can be so faked. . . see previous entries. . .
When I was PT security guarding the Farnsworth Art Museum, back when the Wyeth's allowedtheir name to be attached, there was teh incident of the woman the fall on the sidelwalk . . . the administrator of the museum, after the fallee was transferred to Portland Maine Medical Center, said that she'd only pay for glasses . . . like mom and the pair I wear?
See previous entries . . .
a clue? like the "We paid for. . . "
that links ME with Somerville again, and preying on early recovery folks. . .
bostonherald.com:
Bill bars gangs from 'safety zones'
Initiative seeks fines, jail for loitering in parks, neighborhoods
By Maria Cramer and Shelley Murphy, Globe Staff | April 23, 2008
Gang members seen talking to one another or standing together on public property could be fined or jailed under a new bill being pushed in the Legislature and supported by some prosecutors and Boston police.
The bill would give broad authority to police and prosecutors to bring civil lawsuits against reputed gangs or their members, forbidding them to hang out together in the neighborhoods and parks that police say they terrorize.
Such a law has been hailed as a successful crime-fighting tool in cities such as Fort Worth, San Diego, and Los Angeles, which has been imposing civil injunctions against gangs such as the Crips and the Bloods since the 1980s.
But the approach has drawn the ire of civil libertarians who say it is too sweeping and violates the constitutional rights of people who have not been charged with any crime and may be wrongly identified as gang members.
Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis, who estimated that Boston has about 2,000 gang members, said he believes the injunctions would help neighborhoods.
"These groups of kids that hang around together that sell drugs, that run guns, if you're able to separate them, that's a huge benefit," said Davis, disputing assertions that the measure would violate the rights of some individuals.
"People will argue that not allowing people to stand together in a place is wrong," Davis said. "But no one has a right to commit a criminal conspiracy and hold a community hostage, and that's exactly what happens in some of the areas where gangs are well established."
Under the bill, suspected gang members would be barred from parks, neighborhoods, and other areas designated as "safety zones," and police could order groups of three or more gang members found there to leave. The restriction, which would not extend to church or school events, would also impose a 10 p.m. curfew on gang members.
Police said the theory behind the measure is that disrupting gangs will reduce crime and restore peace to neighborhoods plagued by violence. The legal enforcement tool would be civil injunctions against identified gangs and gang members who have been involved in a "pattern of criminal activity."
Gang members would face criminal contempt charges, fines, and possible jail time if they violate the order barring them from congregating in certain areas. They would have 10 days to challenge the injunction in court.
Gang members would be identified by police, based on prior convictions or intelligence linking them to gangs, according to law enforcement officials.
The bill, which was sent to the House Ways and Means Committee this month, has the support of numerous politicians, including Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
Representative Eugene O'Flaherty, a Charlestown Democrat, said he filed the bill last summer, after some parents in his district complained that their children were afraid to walk by street corners where they would be bullied or harassed by gangs.
"Some neighborhoods are really hurting, and we need to help," said O'Flaherty, whose cosponsor on the bill is Senator Robert S. Creedon Jr., a Brockton Democrat.
California's law, the model for the bill in Massachusetts, has been upheld by that state's highest court.
But John Reinstein, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said the bill raises constitutional concerns because it is overly broad and could sweep up nongang members seen talking or standing with gang members who live in their neighborhoods.
"I'm troubled by the extent to which the thumb of the state could come down on activities that are otherwise protected," Reinstein said, referring to the right of people to gather for a wide range of purposes.
Eugene F. Rivers III, pastor of the Azusa Christian Community and cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, said he is worried injunctions could be filed against people wrongly identified as gang members.
"At first blush, there are too many opportunities to abuse this," he said. "We have no way of independently verifying the quality of what passes for law enforcement intelligence. . . . It seems at first glance that there are too many opportunities for some black or brown kid who has no taste in clothing to be confused for a young hoodlum."
Not all law enforcement officials embraced the idea.
In a statement, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley expressed guarded support for the proposal, but also concern that injunctions could place more burdens on a busy and financially strapped prosecutor's office and violate the rights of a young person without a criminal past.
"Gangs drive a significant amount of violent crime in cities across the country, and as prosecutors we need all the tools we can get to fight them, while also respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding residents to congregate, associate, and travel wherever they wish," he said. "I'm not opposed to this strategy, but I do think we should examine it more closely to ensure that it will be properly and ethically used."
In Los Angeles, gang injunctions apply to the entire gang, even members not charged with crimes, because the membership is constantly changing, said a 2007 report by Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky DelGadillo.
"The gangs continue to commit crimes, regardless of who its members are at any given time," the report said.
Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, a former Boston commissioner, said he believes the injunctions would be more successful in Boston because the city is so much smaller.
"It will work beautifully here," Bratton said yesterday in an interview at the Boston Harbor Hotel, where he appeared with Davis for an award presentation. "Gangs here tend to operate in a very small area. . . . The ability to identify players and identify a geographic area, I think you would have a much bigger benefit here because you have such a smaller area of concentration."
Bratton said the injunctions do not help bring down the number of gangs, but he believes they help reduce gangs' illegal activities.
Essex District Attorney Jonathan W. Blodgett and Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe, who both signed on to the bill, said it has safeguards that help protect the rights of individuals, including the ability to challenge the injunctions in court. But it also gives police and prosecutors another tool to try to disrupt gang violence, they said.
"Nobody thinks that this is a panacea or that this is going to solve the problem in its entirety," O'Keefe said. "This is a problem that has so many different dynamics to it, it requires any number of tools. This is just one of them."
----------
and rtecall the Ten Point connection with the Buttery and the houses "protecting" the dorchester courts . . . hmmm . . .
bostonherald.com:
GlaxoSmithKline buys Cambridge drug company Sirtis for $720 million
By Christine Mcconville | Wednesday, April 23, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Business & Markets
Photo by Matthew West
British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline is buying Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, a tiny Cambridge company, for a whopping $720 million, the two companies announced yesterday.
And with Glaxo offering $22.50 per share, an 84 percent jump from yesterday’s $12.23 closing price, the stunning international deal promises a financial windfall for Sirtris’ Boston-area investors, including Red Sox [team stats] owner John Henry and Fidelity Investments.
Henry, who invested $20 million in the company before it went public last May, is Sirtris’ third largest shareholder and stands to make a $31 million profit on the deal.
“(The deal) is great news for our company, our shareholders and Boston,” said Michelle Dipp, Sirtris’ senior director of corporate development.
Dipp said the purchase will allow Sirtris to maintain its Cambridge presence, its entrepreneurial culture and its committed researchers.
“The idea is (Glaxo) provides a large amount of financing, we have access to their resources, but they don’t integrate us,” Dipp said. “We will be able to stay here and grow. We will still be called Sirtris, and we’ll be keeping our culture.”
“Sirtris employees are delighted with the deal,” she said.
In exchange, Glaxo will be able to enhance its metabolic, neurology, immunology and inflammation research efforts, the company said in a statement.
This marks the second time in two weeks that a Massachusetts-based biotech firm has been purchased by an outside company. On April 10, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. of Japan announced plans to acquire Millennium Pharmaceuticals of Cambridge for $8.8 billion.
Sirtris is focused on discovering and developing small molecule drugs that may be able to treat diseases associated with aging.
The firm has a leading presence in the field of sirtuins, a recently discovered class of enzymes that are believed to be involved in the aging process.
Sirtris will become part of Glaxo’s drug discovery organization, while continuing to operate from laboratories in Cambridge as an autonomous drug discovery unit.
Christoph Westphal, chief executive and vice chairman of Sirtris, said the current management team will continue to lead this autonomous 60-person unit.
“We expect this transaction will accelerate our vision to target sirtuins to treat diseases of metabolism and aging and deliver tremendous value to patients, our shareholders and our employees,” he said in a statement.
The deal calls for a Glaxo subsidiary to buy all of the outstanding shares of Sirtris, at $22.50 a share.
Outstanding stock options will be canceled, with holders receiving the excess of the transaction’s price over the exercise price.
For example, Henry, according to the latest company filing, owns 2.26 million shares of the Sirtris stock, a sum that is now valued at $51 million.
Dipp said the deal has resulted in an “almost record breaking” premium for the company’s investors.
Jay Fitzgerald
The state of Massachusetts could one day be part-owner of the next Genzyme or Biogen Idec.
A little-noticed provision in the $1 billion life sciences initiative bill passed by the House earlier this year calls for a future quasi-public agency to become an equity partner in a biotech firm if state funds are used to help a small company get started.
The equity clause only applies to young firms that otherwise can’t get venture or angel-investor capital.
The equity stake would be limited to no more than 3 percent ownership - in return for small grants of about $150,000, said state Rep. Dan Bosley (D-North Adams), chairman of the House’s economic development committee, which pushed the concept.
Bosley said it’s not unusual for universities to negotiate similar deals with young start-ups with exciting but yet-unproven scientific potential.
The hope is that one of the young companies might hit it big via profits from a state investment, allowing the state to have a “revolving loan fund” to help other companies, said state Rep. Tom Conroy (D-Wayland), a major backer of the provision that was inserted into the final House bill.
Conroy, a former management consultant, said he used to be involved in similar deals when he was in the private sector.
Some within the biotech industry have expressed queasiness about the state getting involved in ownership of firms, according to one industry source.
Meanwhile, John Regan, executive vice president of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said there’s some “possibility for conflicts of interest” if a firm makes it big and the state has a stake in it.
But he said rules can be written to avert any future favoritism.
He noted that the Massachusetts Technology Development Corp., a quasi-public agency, cuts similar equity deals. The state’s constitution bans direct state investments in firms, so an arms-length quasi-agency would have to be created, he said.
The Senate has passed a similar life-sciences bill - but without the equity clause in it. Sen. Jack Hart (D-Boston), who could not be reached for comment, will be meeting soon with Bosley to hammer out a compromise bill.
A spokesman for Gov. Deval Patrick, who originally proposed the life sciences initiative, said “we are pleased with the revisions made in both” the House and Senate bills.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/ge
===========================
this is interesting given the HLS/Weiler/Clemesns connection and the Joe Wackrow/Derek Lowe connection . . . hmmmm . . .
see previous entries. . .
and from above: "Sirtris is focused on discovering and developing small molecule drugs that may be able to treat diseases associated with aging."
No wonder Star TRek: Insurrection is always on the TV of late . . .
See previous entries. . .
Consider - forign allies spying on US citizens so the US can avoid doing it itsaelf. . . but now biotech being bought from in Mass to overseas . . . could the Feds then go overseas for the biotech uploads of those it prey on?
See previous entries. . .
there is little chance now that any parent can leave for their children a better world than they, themselves, were born into . . .
more, i am sure, later. . .
MIT HR last 7 days:
Director, EHS mit-00005309 Broad Institute Cambridge MA Full Time
Research Scientist mit-00005308 Center for Environmental Health Sciences Cambridge MA Full Time
Development Assistant mit-00005305 School Of Architecture And Planning Cambridge MA Full Time
Research Scientist/Computational Biologist mit-00005306 Koch Center for Integrative Cancer Research Cambridge MA Full Time
Administrative Assistant II mit-00005304 Engineering Systems Division Cambridge MA Part Time
Help Desk Analyst mit-00005307 Information Services and Technology Cambridge MA Part Time
Strategic Sourcing Analyst mit-00005303 Office of the Vice President For Finance Cambridge MA Full Time
Research Associate mit-00005302 Center for Transportation and Logistics Cambridge MA Full Time
Senior Member Relations Representative mit-00005299 MIT Federal Credit Union Cambridge MA Full Time
Administrative Assistant II mit-00005301 MIT Energy Initiative Cambridge MA Full Time
Technical Assistant mit-00005298 Koch Center for Integrative Cancer Research Cambridge MA Full Time
========================================
and new from Abt HR:
2008-2671 Senior Associate Social & Economic Policy United States-MD-Bethesda 04-21-08
--------
recall Abt had its own HR folk turnover, too . . . and lets not forget, from April 11th:
2008-2651 Director of Management Information Systems MIS United States-MA-Cambridge 04-11-08
=========
like berkman games? and don;t forget the Abt connected buttery with it's "computer expert" . . . who always showed up in the Harvard Coop or the FAS/BankAmerica building when I was near . . . see previous entries. . .
and those from Abt HR in between the two above:
2008-2662 Fin & Contract Admin International Economic Growth United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2663 Associate Finance & Contract Admin International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2664 Finance & Contract Admin International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2665 Finance & Contract Admin International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2666 Senior Finance & Contract Mgr International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2667 Senior Finance & Contract Mgr International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-18-08
2008-2659 Sr Analyst International Health United States-MD-Bethesda 04-17-08
2008-2657 Finance and Contract Analyst Social & Economic Policy United States-MD-Bethesda 04-14-08
----------------------------------------
boston.com:
Bill bars gangs from 'safety zones'
Initiative seeks fines, jail for loitering in parks, neighborhoods
By Maria Cramer and Shelley Murphy, Globe Staff | April 23, 2008
Gang members seen talking to one another or standing together on public property could be fined or jailed under a new bill being pushed in the Legislature and supported by some prosecutors and Boston police.
The bill would give broad authority to police and prosecutors to bring civil lawsuits against reputed gangs or their members, forbidding them to hang out together in the neighborhoods and parks that police say they terrorize.
Such a law has been hailed as a successful crime-fighting tool in cities such as Fort Worth, San Diego, and Los Angeles, which has been imposing civil injunctions against gangs such as the Crips and the Bloods since the 1980s.
But the approach has drawn the ire of civil libertarians who say it is too sweeping and violates the constitutional rights of people who have not been charged with any crime and may be wrongly identified as gang members.
Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis, who estimated that Boston has about 2,000 gang members, said he believes the injunctions would help neighborhoods.
"These groups of kids that hang around together that sell drugs, that run guns, if you're able to separate them, that's a huge benefit," said Davis, disputing assertions that the measure would violate the rights of some individuals.
"People will argue that not allowing people to stand together in a place is wrong," Davis said. "But no one has a right to commit a criminal conspiracy and hold a community hostage, and that's exactly what happens in some of the areas where gangs are well established."
Under the bill, suspected gang members would be barred from parks, neighborhoods, and other areas designated as "safety zones," and police could order groups of three or more gang members found there to leave. The restriction, which would not extend to church or school events, would also impose a 10 p.m. curfew on gang members.
Police said the theory behind the measure is that disrupting gangs will reduce crime and restore peace to neighborhoods plagued by violence. The legal enforcement tool would be civil injunctions against identified gangs and gang members who have been involved in a "pattern of criminal activity."
Gang members would face criminal contempt charges, fines, and possible jail time if they violate the order barring them from congregating in certain areas. They would have 10 days to challenge the injunction in court.
Gang members would be identified by police, based on prior convictions or intelligence linking them to gangs, according to law enforcement officials.
The bill, which was sent to the House Ways and Means Committee this month, has the support of numerous politicians, including Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
Representative Eugene O'Flaherty, a Charlestown Democrat, said he filed the bill last summer, after some parents in his district complained that their children were afraid to walk by street corners where they would be bullied or harassed by gangs.
"Some neighborhoods are really hurting, and we need to help," said O'Flaherty, whose cosponsor on the bill is Senator Robert S. Creedon Jr., a Brockton Democrat.
California's law, the model for the bill in Massachusetts, has been upheld by that state's highest court.
But John Reinstein, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said the bill raises constitutional concerns because it is overly broad and could sweep up nongang members seen talking or standing with gang members who live in their neighborhoods.
"I'm troubled by the extent to which the thumb of the state could come down on activities that are otherwise protected," Reinstein said, referring to the right of people to gather for a wide range of purposes.
Eugene F. Rivers III, pastor of the Azusa Christian Community and cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, said he is worried injunctions could be filed against people wrongly identified as gang members.
"At first blush, there are too many opportunities to abuse this," he said. "We have no way of independently verifying the quality of what passes for law enforcement intelligence. . . . It seems at first glance that there are too many opportunities for some black or brown kid who has no taste in clothing to be confused for a young hoodlum."
Not all law enforcement officials embraced the idea.
In a statement, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley expressed guarded support for the proposal, but also concern that injunctions could place more burdens on a busy and financially strapped prosecutor's office and violate the rights of a young person without a criminal past.
"Gangs drive a significant amount of violent crime in cities across the country, and as prosecutors we need all the tools we can get to fight them, while also respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding residents to congregate, associate, and travel wherever they wish," he said. "I'm not opposed to this strategy, but I do think we should examine it more closely to ensure that it will be properly and ethically used."
In Los Angeles, gang injunctions apply to the entire gang, even members not charged with crimes, because the membership is constantly changing, said a 2007 report by Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky DelGadillo.
"The gangs continue to commit crimes, regardless of who its members are at any given time," the report said.
Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, a former Boston commissioner, said he believes the injunctions would be more successful in Boston because the city is so much smaller.
"It will work beautifully here," Bratton said yesterday in an interview at the Boston Harbor Hotel, where he appeared with Davis for an award presentation. "Gangs here tend to operate in a very small area. . . . The ability to identify players and identify a geographic area, I think you would have a much bigger benefit here because you have such a smaller area of concentration."
Bratton said the injunctions do not help bring down the number of gangs, but he believes they help reduce gangs' illegal activities.
Essex District Attorney Jonathan W. Blodgett and Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe, who both signed on to the bill, said it has safeguards that help protect the rights of individuals, including the ability to challenge the injunctions in court. But it also gives police and prosecutors another tool to try to disrupt gang violence, they said.
"Nobody thinks that this is a panacea or that this is going to solve the problem in its entirety," O'Keefe said. "This is a problem that has so many different dynamics to it, it requires any number of tools. This is just one of them."
===========================
intelligence linking them? butthat can be so faked. . . see previous entries. . .
When I was PT security guarding the Farnsworth Art Museum, back when the Wyeth's allowedtheir name to be attached, there was teh incident of the woman the fall on the sidelwalk . . . the administrator of the museum, after the fallee was transferred to Portland Maine Medical Center, said that she'd only pay for glasses . . . like mom and the pair I wear?
See previous entries . . .
a clue? like the "We paid for. . . "
that links ME with Somerville again, and preying on early recovery folks. . .
bostonherald.com:
Bill bars gangs from 'safety zones'
Initiative seeks fines, jail for loitering in parks, neighborhoods
By Maria Cramer and Shelley Murphy, Globe Staff | April 23, 2008
Gang members seen talking to one another or standing together on public property could be fined or jailed under a new bill being pushed in the Legislature and supported by some prosecutors and Boston police.
The bill would give broad authority to police and prosecutors to bring civil lawsuits against reputed gangs or their members, forbidding them to hang out together in the neighborhoods and parks that police say they terrorize.
Such a law has been hailed as a successful crime-fighting tool in cities such as Fort Worth, San Diego, and Los Angeles, which has been imposing civil injunctions against gangs such as the Crips and the Bloods since the 1980s.
But the approach has drawn the ire of civil libertarians who say it is too sweeping and violates the constitutional rights of people who have not been charged with any crime and may be wrongly identified as gang members.
Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis, who estimated that Boston has about 2,000 gang members, said he believes the injunctions would help neighborhoods.
"These groups of kids that hang around together that sell drugs, that run guns, if you're able to separate them, that's a huge benefit," said Davis, disputing assertions that the measure would violate the rights of some individuals.
"People will argue that not allowing people to stand together in a place is wrong," Davis said. "But no one has a right to commit a criminal conspiracy and hold a community hostage, and that's exactly what happens in some of the areas where gangs are well established."
Under the bill, suspected gang members would be barred from parks, neighborhoods, and other areas designated as "safety zones," and police could order groups of three or more gang members found there to leave. The restriction, which would not extend to church or school events, would also impose a 10 p.m. curfew on gang members.
Police said the theory behind the measure is that disrupting gangs will reduce crime and restore peace to neighborhoods plagued by violence. The legal enforcement tool would be civil injunctions against identified gangs and gang members who have been involved in a "pattern of criminal activity."
Gang members would face criminal contempt charges, fines, and possible jail time if they violate the order barring them from congregating in certain areas. They would have 10 days to challenge the injunction in court.
Gang members would be identified by police, based on prior convictions or intelligence linking them to gangs, according to law enforcement officials.
The bill, which was sent to the House Ways and Means Committee this month, has the support of numerous politicians, including Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
Representative Eugene O'Flaherty, a Charlestown Democrat, said he filed the bill last summer, after some parents in his district complained that their children were afraid to walk by street corners where they would be bullied or harassed by gangs.
"Some neighborhoods are really hurting, and we need to help," said O'Flaherty, whose cosponsor on the bill is Senator Robert S. Creedon Jr., a Brockton Democrat.
California's law, the model for the bill in Massachusetts, has been upheld by that state's highest court.
But John Reinstein, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said the bill raises constitutional concerns because it is overly broad and could sweep up nongang members seen talking or standing with gang members who live in their neighborhoods.
"I'm troubled by the extent to which the thumb of the state could come down on activities that are otherwise protected," Reinstein said, referring to the right of people to gather for a wide range of purposes.
Eugene F. Rivers III, pastor of the Azusa Christian Community and cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, said he is worried injunctions could be filed against people wrongly identified as gang members.
"At first blush, there are too many opportunities to abuse this," he said. "We have no way of independently verifying the quality of what passes for law enforcement intelligence. . . . It seems at first glance that there are too many opportunities for some black or brown kid who has no taste in clothing to be confused for a young hoodlum."
Not all law enforcement officials embraced the idea.
In a statement, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley expressed guarded support for the proposal, but also concern that injunctions could place more burdens on a busy and financially strapped prosecutor's office and violate the rights of a young person without a criminal past.
"Gangs drive a significant amount of violent crime in cities across the country, and as prosecutors we need all the tools we can get to fight them, while also respecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding residents to congregate, associate, and travel wherever they wish," he said. "I'm not opposed to this strategy, but I do think we should examine it more closely to ensure that it will be properly and ethically used."
In Los Angeles, gang injunctions apply to the entire gang, even members not charged with crimes, because the membership is constantly changing, said a 2007 report by Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky DelGadillo.
"The gangs continue to commit crimes, regardless of who its members are at any given time," the report said.
Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, a former Boston commissioner, said he believes the injunctions would be more successful in Boston because the city is so much smaller.
"It will work beautifully here," Bratton said yesterday in an interview at the Boston Harbor Hotel, where he appeared with Davis for an award presentation. "Gangs here tend to operate in a very small area. . . . The ability to identify players and identify a geographic area, I think you would have a much bigger benefit here because you have such a smaller area of concentration."
Bratton said the injunctions do not help bring down the number of gangs, but he believes they help reduce gangs' illegal activities.
Essex District Attorney Jonathan W. Blodgett and Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe, who both signed on to the bill, said it has safeguards that help protect the rights of individuals, including the ability to challenge the injunctions in court. But it also gives police and prosecutors another tool to try to disrupt gang violence, they said.
"Nobody thinks that this is a panacea or that this is going to solve the problem in its entirety," O'Keefe said. "This is a problem that has so many different dynamics to it, it requires any number of tools. This is just one of them."
----------
and rtecall the Ten Point connection with the Buttery and the houses "protecting" the dorchester courts . . . hmmm . . .
bostonherald.com:
GlaxoSmithKline buys Cambridge drug company Sirtis for $720 million
By Christine Mcconville | Wednesday, April 23, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Business & Markets
Photo by Matthew West
British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline is buying Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, a tiny Cambridge company, for a whopping $720 million, the two companies announced yesterday.
And with Glaxo offering $22.50 per share, an 84 percent jump from yesterday’s $12.23 closing price, the stunning international deal promises a financial windfall for Sirtris’ Boston-area investors, including Red Sox [team stats] owner John Henry and Fidelity Investments.
Henry, who invested $20 million in the company before it went public last May, is Sirtris’ third largest shareholder and stands to make a $31 million profit on the deal.
“(The deal) is great news for our company, our shareholders and Boston,” said Michelle Dipp, Sirtris’ senior director of corporate development.
Dipp said the purchase will allow Sirtris to maintain its Cambridge presence, its entrepreneurial culture and its committed researchers.
“The idea is (Glaxo) provides a large amount of financing, we have access to their resources, but they don’t integrate us,” Dipp said. “We will be able to stay here and grow. We will still be called Sirtris, and we’ll be keeping our culture.”
“Sirtris employees are delighted with the deal,” she said.
In exchange, Glaxo will be able to enhance its metabolic, neurology, immunology and inflammation research efforts, the company said in a statement.
This marks the second time in two weeks that a Massachusetts-based biotech firm has been purchased by an outside company. On April 10, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. of Japan announced plans to acquire Millennium Pharmaceuticals of Cambridge for $8.8 billion.
Sirtris is focused on discovering and developing small molecule drugs that may be able to treat diseases associated with aging.
The firm has a leading presence in the field of sirtuins, a recently discovered class of enzymes that are believed to be involved in the aging process.
Sirtris will become part of Glaxo’s drug discovery organization, while continuing to operate from laboratories in Cambridge as an autonomous drug discovery unit.
Christoph Westphal, chief executive and vice chairman of Sirtris, said the current management team will continue to lead this autonomous 60-person unit.
“We expect this transaction will accelerate our vision to target sirtuins to treat diseases of metabolism and aging and deliver tremendous value to patients, our shareholders and our employees,” he said in a statement.
The deal calls for a Glaxo subsidiary to buy all of the outstanding shares of Sirtris, at $22.50 a share.
Outstanding stock options will be canceled, with holders receiving the excess of the transaction’s price over the exercise price.
For example, Henry, according to the latest company filing, owns 2.26 million shares of the Sirtris stock, a sum that is now valued at $51 million.
Dipp said the deal has resulted in an “almost record breaking” premium for the company’s investors.
Jay Fitzgerald
The state of Massachusetts could one day be part-owner of the next Genzyme or Biogen Idec.
A little-noticed provision in the $1 billion life sciences initiative bill passed by the House earlier this year calls for a future quasi-public agency to become an equity partner in a biotech firm if state funds are used to help a small company get started.
The equity clause only applies to young firms that otherwise can’t get venture or angel-investor capital.
The equity stake would be limited to no more than 3 percent ownership - in return for small grants of about $150,000, said state Rep. Dan Bosley (D-North Adams), chairman of the House’s economic development committee, which pushed the concept.
Bosley said it’s not unusual for universities to negotiate similar deals with young start-ups with exciting but yet-unproven scientific potential.
The hope is that one of the young companies might hit it big via profits from a state investment, allowing the state to have a “revolving loan fund” to help other companies, said state Rep. Tom Conroy (D-Wayland), a major backer of the provision that was inserted into the final House bill.
Conroy, a former management consultant, said he used to be involved in similar deals when he was in the private sector.
Some within the biotech industry have expressed queasiness about the state getting involved in ownership of firms, according to one industry source.
Meanwhile, John Regan, executive vice president of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said there’s some “possibility for conflicts of interest” if a firm makes it big and the state has a stake in it.
But he said rules can be written to avert any future favoritism.
He noted that the Massachusetts Technology Development Corp., a quasi-public agency, cuts similar equity deals. The state’s constitution bans direct state investments in firms, so an arms-length quasi-agency would have to be created, he said.
The Senate has passed a similar life-sciences bill - but without the equity clause in it. Sen. Jack Hart (D-Boston), who could not be reached for comment, will be meeting soon with Bosley to hammer out a compromise bill.
A spokesman for Gov. Deval Patrick, who originally proposed the life sciences initiative, said “we are pleased with the revisions made in both” the House and Senate bills.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/ge
===========================
this is interesting given the HLS/Weiler/Clemesns connection and the Joe Wackrow/Derek Lowe connection . . . hmmmm . . .
see previous entries. . .
and from above: "Sirtris is focused on discovering and developing small molecule drugs that may be able to treat diseases associated with aging."
No wonder Star TRek: Insurrection is always on the TV of late . . .
See previous entries. . .
Consider - forign allies spying on US citizens so the US can avoid doing it itsaelf. . . but now biotech being bought from in Mass to overseas . . . could the Feds then go overseas for the biotech uploads of those it prey on?
See previous entries. . .
there is little chance now that any parent can leave for their children a better world than they, themselves, were born into . . .
more, i am sure, later. . .
