id
stringlengths 15
4.64k
| text
stringlengths 0
1.02M
|
|---|---|
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p18 | Senator DeWare: I was thinking of keeping this as secret as possible. The more people that know about it, the more - Mr. Kellerman: But we are supposed to trust our judges. Senator DeWare: I wonder if you are reading something into this clause which does not necessarily need to be read into it. Mr. Kellerman: It could be. Some people may have a different interpretation. I am a lawyer. As I read it, I see that possible interpretation. If I am wrong and that is not the intention of the drafters, let them clarify it. Senator DeWare: We will have to question them. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Mr. Kellerman: I may just be a bad reader, but many other lawyers may read as badly as I. Senator DeWare: You are a concerned reader. Senator Doyle: You pointed out a couple of spots here where we should consider closely the usefulness of what has been written into Bill C-7. Are there no places in the bill to which you might point and say, "That is a good thing. That will be helpful not only to law enforcement but also to the young offender."? Mr. Kellerman: First, much of it is like the law that already exists. If you were trying to be helpful to the young people who are offending - that is, assuming you think that it should be criminalized in the first place - then I would like to see a lot more emphasis on rehabilitation. There are just token words in clause 10 that state that, in the sentencing, the judge should consider rehabilitation. But the criminal courts are not the place to do that, generally speaking. If we are really serious about it, then the government will have to provide the facilities. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p19 | I just read in the paper that they have taken money away from the Addiction Research Foundation for rehabilitation. An inpatient program has just closed down. That is what is happening all over the country. They should take the money that is being wasted in the courts, put me out of a job, and spend the money on rehabilitation. I do not think there are a lot of good things in this bill. You will get lots of people who will think it is good, people who are fearful of the drugs in a way that I do not think they need to be fearful, and people who believe that enforcement is the way to combat the problem. I do not think enforcement is the way to combat the problem of drug addiction. Criminal enforcement is not the solution to the problem. Senator Doyle: Some years ago, Judge Le Dain conducted a rather lengthy study on marijuana in particular. He made some recommendations, none of which were taken seriously. Mr. Kellerman: Yes, and they have been ignored. Senator Doyle: Do you know if any studies have been done which show what might have happened if Judge Le Dain's recommendations had been taken up? Mr. Kellerman: There are states in the United States, for instance, and countries like Holland, where they have done the experiment. In Alaska, they have decriminalized marijuana. I do not see any huge program. There are approximately 11 states in the United States where they have decriminalized marijuana. It does not mean they have made it no offence at all, but they have made it like a parking ticket, or something like that. They have reduced the penalty and taken it out of criminal legislation. As far as I have heard, nothing terrible has happened; drug consumption has not gone up in any way. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p20 | The next guests are the ones to ask about that. They are the ones who know about this stuff. Senator Doyle: I fully intend to ask the next witnesses, but I was asking you as a lawyer who has devoted a lot of time and attention to this area, if you knew of any study that has been done. We are very good in Canada at doing studies. Has anyone studied what might have occurred had Le Dain's recommendations been adopted? Mr. Kellerman: The study would have to look at the question: What is the effect of people continuing to use marijuana? The problem is, there is some assumption that because people are arrested for use of marijuana, they stop. I do not know what the figures are but I think many people continue to use marijuana, even after having been arrested. I do not think the deterrent effect works very well. What I think happens is that people lose respect for the law. The question is then: What is happening with all those people who use marijuana? There are millions, as far as I know, and I think the studies show that. I do not think they are out there committing crimes or doing harm to other people. They function in their jobs. I know lots of people who use marijuana - I think we all do. I have doctor friends who smoked marijuana almost every night while they were going through medical school. They are excellent doctors. No one thinks they did not perform. They wrote their exams. That is the reality. I am sorry if it shocks anyone. There are people using marijuana all the time, young and old. People who used it for years continue to hold their jobs and function perfectly well. I know people personally who are like that. They are completely responsible, decent people, in the same way that some of your friends use alcohol all the time on a regular basis but moderately and sensibly. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p21 | Senator Carstairs: First, can you tell me approximately how many lawyers belong to your union? Mr. Kellerman: About 300, but it goes up and down. There have probably been about 600 that are now practising in Ontario. Senator Carstairs: As you may or may not know, apparently it was a decision made by the House committee reviewing this bill that they would begin yet again a comprehensive review of substance abuse which, hopefully, will address some of the things to which Senator Doyle made reference. We will do again, perhaps, an updated review of the Le Dain Commission report and also look into what is happening in other countries of the world who have dealt differently with the whole issue of marijuana. Mr. Kellerman: Yes, and other drugs, too. Senator Carstairs: What we have before us right now is an act which is taking two other acts and trying to put them together and rationalize them, if you will. If you were recommending amendments to this particular piece of legislation - accepting the fact that, for whatever reason, the decision has been made that now is not the time to legalize any drugs - then I assume that you would focus on the clauses that you pointed out to us today, namely, 4(4), 4(7), 5(4), 5(1), 53, 16, 17(3) and 55(2). |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p22 | Your concern then is that the process by which a person should be arrested, tried and convicted needs to be changed. Mr. Kellerman: I am looking at the way in which they are trying to change it to make it less fair. That is the way I would put it. Also, clauses 16 and 17 deal with the seizure of property, and I think that is being done unfairly. I am looking at the most obvious things, but the use of certificates for continuity involves the prosecution and how they get convictions. There is a concern about seizing people's property there as well. It is procedure but, for, instance in the continuity case, it goes to the whole question of whether innocent people will end up in jail because they do not have the right to cross-examine police officers who are involved in the process. I am saying that there is a certificate that they can put into evidence which proves the continuity of the drug. I am saying that that is a central issue in many, many drug prosecutions. In the last two weeks, several officers have been suspended or charged with planting drugs on people. Now, those very officers would have been able to prove their case by signing an affidavit stating that they had continuity. Those innocent people would never have been rescued. Clause 53 is a dangerous clause. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p23 | The Chairman: You consider it dangerous? Mr. Kellerman: Yes, more so in drug cases than in any other type of criminal case. The planting of evidence takes place more often in drug cases than anywhere else. You do not find a lot of cases where stolen property is planted on people. It is not impossible; it does happen. In this regard, one has only to read all the commissions in the United States where this was discovered on a widespread basis. It is happening in Canada, too. Senator Carstairs: Surely, this clause was supposed to be directed at the fact that there might be bags and bags of heroin, for example, which go to court and the defence lawyer says to the police officer, "Can you identify that bag as the bag that you picked up?" Mr. Kellerman: There is no need for that. That is never a problem. They initial everything. It is simple. Proving continuity is not a difficult problem. If you read any text about how to defend drug cases and how to prosecute them, lesson number one is that you have to show that the drugs were kept safe and so on. This is not an imaginary concern; nor is it a technicality. It has to do with people having the experience of having drugs planted. That can only be demonstrated through cross- examination, which is usually not fruitful. It is hard to prove these things, but at least do not take away the last tools to expose illegal activities on the part of the police. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p24 | Senator Carstairs: We have obtained different information from officials with respect to what would happen to a person on summary conviction. You seem to imply that they would still have a criminal record. Mr. Kellerman: Absolutely. Senator Carstairs: I thought we were informed the other day to the effect that they would not be able to prosecute this person as a second offence because they would not be aware of the fact that there had been a first conviction. Mr. Kellerman: That is not true at all. I do not know who would say that. Senator DeWare: Representatives of the Department of Justice. Mr. Kellerman: It is hard to believe that, unless I do not understand what is going on here. They are saying, "We will not have the fingerprints." The Criminal Records Act states that you can only fingerprint someone for an indictable offence. That has always included offences which can be prosecuted either summarily or by indictment, even though the Crown always intended to prosecute summarily. The fact that they do not have the fingerprints does not mean that you will not have a criminal record or that they do not have it on CPIC. Senator Carstairs: We were told specifically that it would not be on CPIC. Mr. Kellerman: There is nothing in the legislation which says that. It does not say that no record will be kept of a summary conviction with respect to drug offences. Every day in court I see people's criminal records being tendered as evidence when they are being sentenced. Not only do they have summary conviction offences, they actually have the cases in which there are discharges. The Criminal Records Act does not say it is not a record. It is a record and they will use it for a second conviction. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p25 | Senator Carstairs: This is something which needs to be cleared up. We are getting quite different information from you compared to what we received from the Department of Justice. Mr. Kellerman: Let me go one step further to tell you how bad it is. Even now, when someone receives a discharge for a marijuana offence, say one little joint of marijuana, there is nothing to prevent the provincial authorities from using that. First, it is used in court if they are caught again. The judge is told that they already received a discharge. Second, it affects them at the American border. Third, there is nothing in the law that prevents employers from asking, "Have you ever received a discharge?" The only people who are prevented from asking about a discharge are federal authorities and federal employers. They only ask, "Have you ever been convicted?" In the Citizenship Act and in the Immigration Act there are provisions which allow them to ask, "Have you been convicted of any offence?" So if you are discharged, you have not been convicted. You are protected there. Any provincial act, any private employer, at any border, they can ask, "Have you ever been found guilty and received a discharge?" You are asked that. I have been asked that at the American border numerous times. They even ask if you have been arrested for anything. They do not just ask if you have been found guilty. If they ask if you have been found guilty, you have to answer "Yes," even though you received a discharge. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p26 | Back in the 1960s, when the parents of middle-class kids were concerned about their kids not having records for simple possession of marijuana, the discharge provisions were introduced. However, they did not go far enough. They are still used in the courts. People have received discharges for drug offences or any other type of offence. It still prevents kids from getting jobs. I had a client whom the OPP would not bond because this young man had received a discharge. Even the provincial police do not respect the idea that this will not affect your future. You are not even guaranteed a discharge when you are convicted of a summary conviction offence. They may fine you. They may give you a suspended sentence and probation. At least if they said you will automatically get a discharge, that would be a step forward. Why do you not ask them why they are not giving automatic discharges to first offenders for simple possession of marijuana? That would be the first step. If you then asked me, Senator Doyle, I would say that is something good in the act. I would say that is a step forward. If they would give automatic discharges for first-time possession of marijuana, that would be a step forward. The Chairman: The testimony to which Senator Carstairs referred was to that of Gérald Normand who testified yesterday. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p27 | Mr. Kellerman: He is here. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I am missing something. I do not see it. The Chairman: Mr. Normand, would you come to the table, please? Senator Doyle: How many automatic discharges could a person get before he was charged with a second offence? Mr. Kellerman: I said the first time. Senator Doyle: How would you know it was the first time? Mr. Kellerman: They have it on the CPIC. It is all on the records. The Chairman: Perhaps Senator Carstairs should refer back to the point that you raised, Mr. Normand. Senator Carstairs: Perhaps I did not understand what you said yesterday. I thought you said that as a result of what has happened here, the offender could not be traced. In fact, every offence concerning marijuana would end up being a new first offence. Mr. Gérard Normand, Counsel, Department of Justice: What I said is that there will not be any fingerprints taken. Mr. Kellerman was referring to the CPIC. If there are no fingerprints and no photograph, then the record does not go there. There is a criminal record, yes. If the question is asked, there is a need to say that there is a criminal record. I specified that yesterday. I specified yesterday that in smaller communities people would know about that offence. If a judge remembers a face, he will know that this person has a criminal record. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p28 | Senator DeWare: Yes, you did say that. Senator Carstairs: There seems to be a discrepancy as to whether it goes to CPIC or not. Mr. Kellerman: That is not true. Every summary offence, whether you are fingerprinted or not, is on CPIC. I see it every day in court. Mr. Normand: What Mr. Kellerman is referring to is if there is a hybrid offence. Effectively, even if we choose to go by summary conviction, if at the time the person was arrested or detained there was a possibility that the charge could be by indictment, then at that time they take the fingerprints. They often do that for hybrid offences. Exclusively, summary conviction offences are very rare. First, Mr. Kellerman should know that. Mr. Kellerman: That is not true. Breach of probation is a strict summary conviction offence. It is on everyone's record whenever they breach their probation. I see it in court every day. They do not need to be fingerprinted in order for the record to show up, even on straight summary offences. It is there all the time. There is no guarantee that it will not be there. If you are saying that, then write something into the legislation that says that this will not be on the record. It will not go onto CPIC. Let us not just hope that it will not show up there, because it shows up every day. I have seen it in court every day for 20 years. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p29 | [Translation] Senator Nolin: You are telling us that this is an hybrid offence, therefore an indictable or summary offence. This means that fingerprints will be taken. I did not read the whole bill but I have a summary prepared by the Library of Parliament. Not many offences are punishable on summary conviction only. Mr. Normand: Very few are. Senator Nolin: Possession of 1 g of hashish or less than 30 g of marijuana is, but that is all. Mr. Normand: In this particular bill, these are the only instances. Senator Nolin: That settles it. [English] Did you get the translation of that? Mr. Kellerman: No, I got no translation. I understood a good part of it. Senator Nolin: Only one non-hybrid or only one infraction is summary. Mr. Kellerman: There is only one in this bill? Senator Nolin: Yes. Fingerprints would be taken for the rest. Mr. Kellerman: Oh, yes. Senator Nolin: Do you have a problem with that? Mr. Kellerman: Sure. I have a problem with the idea that you are leaving the impression that if people are convicted of a strictly summary offence, it will not appear on their record. It does appear on their record. It will appear in court, and the judge will know that they were convicted before. If the person has already been convicted, no lawyer can stand up in court and say, "My client does not have a record, so give him a discharge." |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p30 | [Translation] Senator Nolin: How do you reconcile these two statements, Mr. Normand? Mr. Normand: As far as I could see, the only offence punishable exclusively on summary conviction is breach of probation, and in order for probation to be breached, an offence had to be committed in the first place that necessitated taking fingerprints. From that point on, the case just runs its course, naturally. Senator Nolin: What happens to the fingerprints of a person charged with a summary offence? Mr. Normand: They are kept. Senator Nolin: You keep them. Mr. Normand: Yes, the police keeps them. Under the Identification of Criminals Act, fingerprints may be taken if there a chance the offence could be an indictable offence, therefore an hybrid offence. Senator Nolin: Regardless of the type of procedure that may be used after? Mr. Normand: Yes. Senator Nolin: I will have another question, but on a different subject; I shall therefore yield the floor to Senator Lewis. [English] Senator Lewis: Senator Carstairs dealt with my question. It related to clause 53 and the continuity of an affidavit. You have already explained that, but I take it this clause is really one means of speeding up the process by showing that an exhibit to be used in evidence is being held by the authorities or the police? Mr. Kellerman: Not just held by them, but telling where it was taken and where it has been since it was taken. That is what "continuity" means, a continuous line of control over the substance. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p31 | Senator Lewis: In other words, your problem seems to be a matter of tampering with evidence. Mr. Kellerman: Yes, absolutely. That is what happens in courts in real life. Senator Lewis: I know there are many legal fictions. One of them is that we have to assume that evidence is protected. Mr. Kellerman: That is why I said that, just last week, they charged police officers with tampering with evidence and planting evidence on people. They got the evidence somewhere other than from the accused. This is not uncommon. It happens in the courts. It happens fairly frequently where judges are saying publicly in court, "I do not believe this officer about where he said he got this drug." Senator Lewis: This will come as a bit of a shock to the public. Mr. Kellerman: I know, but if we presume that the police always tell the truth, why do we have trials? That is what trials are about. There is a presumption of innocence. In the face of the defendant saying, "I did not have that drug, and it was never on my body, and I never had control of it," why would we allow that to be overruled by affidavit evidence? This clause says that the judge "may", not "shall". Senator Nolin: If he is asked. It is up to you to ask. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p32 | Mr. Kellerman: Of course. Senator Nolin: That is why it is "may". Mr. Kellerman: Maybe, but if you are asked, then it should say, "if he is asked, shall...". I do not know; maybe "may" means "shall" here. It means "shall" sometimes. Senator Nolin: He is a judge. Mr. Kellerman: Sometimes the judge "shall" do some things; sometimes he "may". If the judge has to produce the affiant, I do not see that as a huge problem. However, the judge does not have to, and I do not think the defence should have to make any argument. If they want the police officer there to cross-examine him, it should be clear that they have the right to have him there to be cross-examined. That is what I am saying. Senator Lewis: If it was "shall", it would destroy the whole purpose of the clause. If the court "shall require" the person who makes the declaration to be cross-examined, it would be the same as if you never had the clause there at all. Mr. Kellerman: It should be reworded to say, "If the defence asks, the judge shall...". Senator Nolin: I am better in civil law, but if you have an affidavit, you are always allowed to ask questions of the person who signed the affidavit. Is it different in criminal law? |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p33 | Mr. Kellerman: You will not adjourn a case to go and cross-examine someone on their affidavit in a separate proceeding. I know that happens in civil law. In criminal law, generally, it is all in court. I know there are situations where sometimes someone who signs an affidavit is cross-examined outside the court on a separate occasion. Senator Nolin: As long as I can have access to cross-examine the person who signed affidavit, anywhere in the world, okay. Mr. Kellerman: Then you must produce the transcript in front of the judge. It is better for the judge to see the witness in a criminal case where the central issue is, "Did this person have the drug?" That is the central issue in the whole case. They are charged with possession or charged with possession for the purposes. It does not make sense that the central issue in the trial will take place outside the presence of the judge. Senator Nolin: If you take clause 53(2), that is perhaps the reason for "may". If a lawyer makes his or her case to the judge - Mr. Kellerman: You should not have to. That is what I am saying. This is written by the prosecution to shift the burden for an accused person to ask that a witness in the case, who is central to the whole case, show up. That is ridiculous. I mean you would not like that if you were being prosecuted for a crime. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p34 | It should be obvious that this little bit of amending is an effort to try to make the process easier for themselves, the prosecution, not just to save costs. It goes to the central issue in the trial. I am not arguing about the drug analysts. I am not arguing about the drug analyst. A similar provision exists for the analyst to send a certificate to the court to say, "I received the drug. I analyzed it. It turned out to be cocaine." However, that is not so central because usually the person is not saying, "This was not the drug", although sometimes that becomes an issue, too. I think this is erosion of the idea of having a trial in a court before a judge where you can face your accuser. The Chairman: Would you say that we are violating a principle of the Charter of Rights? Mr. Kellerman: I would say so. The Chairman: Which one? Mr. Kellerman: I refer to Section 7, the right to a fair trial and fundamental justice. The Chairman: You think this violates that? Mr. Kellerman: I believe there is an argument to made for that. There is probably another section which is violated, but I am certain that section 7 is. We have the right to a trial according to the principles of fundamental justice, and fundamental justice entitles you to face your accuser; the person accusing you of being in possession of a drug. That is the central issue in the case. I do not think you should have to ask permission to cross-examine that person. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p35 | The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank you very much. Mr. Kellerman: Thank you for hearing me. The Chairman: Our second group is from the Addiction Research Foundation. Dr. Perry Kendall, President and CEO, Addiction Research Foundation: Thank you for inviting the Addiction Research Foundation to make comments on Bill C-7. The foundation is one of the largest centres for research into alcohol and other drug problems in North America. We are an agency of the province of Ontario. We conduct research, we develop new treatment approaches and prevention programs and we deliver training to health professionals in addictions. We are also the largest treatment centre in Ontario, as well as being a collaborating centre with the World Health Organization. The foundation has actually appeared before committees of the House of Commons twice in recent years to discuss this bill and its predecessor, Bill C-85. As we said on those occasions, we believe that society should address drug problems the way it addresses any public health problem: through health promotion and prevention and through treatment. In addition, we believe that irreducible drug use is best dealt with from a perspective that encourages harm reduction and a careful calculation of the benefits and unintended costs of proposed social controls. In this context, we believe that Bill C-7 is a sadly missed opportunity. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p36 | Countries do not examine, discuss and alter laws of this nature very often. When they do, we believe there should be an opportunity for broad discussion and debate, for consideration not only of existing laws but of the way they are enforced, for consideration not only of what substances should be included, but of what happens in the lives of people who are subject to both the laws and the substances because, once again, drug use is a public health program. Criminal laws can and should play a part in the community's response to drug use, but they are only one part of an effective response. They should be considered in the context of a broader approach. Such an integrated approach is nominally the very essence of the government's own drug strategy, a strategy which was initially funded in 1987 and, in 1992, was re-funded by $250 million for five additional years. Its overall objective is to reduce the harm to individuals, families and communities from the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. To do this, fully 70 per cent of that budget is allocated to prevention, education and treatment. The strategy defines the harm caused by substance abuse as including sickness, death, social misery, crime, violence and economic costs to the community. I should like to read to you the basic principles of the strategy that are set out in the government's own publication on the subject: |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p37 | It has become clear to all involved in the Drug Strategy that there are no simple solutions to Canada's drug problem. Substance abuse has been with us since the beginning of time. The problem will not go away tomorrow. Solutions require a long term commitment. We now accept that the only way to solve the problem so that it stays solved is to change people's attitudes and lifestyles. This is not a short term goal. For many years, the federal government believed that the best approach was to concentrate on stopping the flow of drugs within Canada and abroad. But Canada soon learned, as have many other countries, that reducing supply is not enough. A balanced approach that focuses on both demand and supply reduction is critical to success. Canada has also come to realize that problem drug use is an issue too big, too complex, too expensive for any one group, including governments, to resolve in isolation. These words are reflected in the priorities set by the strategy, priorities which include but do not focus on the passage of a controlled drugs and substances bill. I can also tell you that the concepts behind the drug strategy are consistent with the more than 45 years of research, treatment, prevention, education and training at the Addiction Research Foundation. I mentioned a moment ago that drug use is a public health problem. I shall expand on that a little. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p38 | Nearly three-quarters of Canadians aged 15 or over drink alcohol and about 16,000 Canadians died from direct alcohol- related problems in 1991, for a death rate of 12 deaths attributable to alcohol per 100,000 population. Tobacco is smoked regularly by more than 30 per cent of Canadians and caused about 30,000 deaths in 1981, giving a rate of death of 177 per 100,000 Canadians. In contrast, the rates of consumption of all licit and illicit drugs, which includes over-the-counter preparations and prescription medications as well as the illicit drugs that are mentioned in this bill, are lower and the rate of all these drug-related deaths was 1.8 per 100,000 Canadians in 1991. Part of the foundation's mission is to reduce deaths from alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. Another part of our mission is to assess harms associated with drug use, both those caused by the drugs themselves and those caused by social policy initiatives. We have assessed Bill C-7 through the lens of this public health approach and, quite frankly, we also find it wanting. There are obvious differences in how this society approaches different drugs. On current patterns of use, the two most harmful drugs - alcohol and tobacco - are legal for adults to possess and purchase and are subject to relatively few restrictions. In fact, tobacco, which we know kills tens of thousands of Canadians each year both directly and, in smaller number, indirectly, is readily available in corner stores, can now be legally advertised and can be easily purchased by underage teenagers. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p39 | By contrast, cannabis, the most popular illicit drug, is subject to relatively severe penalties. The penalty for possession of even a small amount will mean a criminal record and may have lifetime repercussions. The penalty could close doors on careers and it could restrict ability to travel to other countries. It could also mean diminished contributions to society, both socially and economically, on the part of those with a record. The criminal law is the strongest instrument of social policy and should be its ultimate resort, applying the force of government against perceived wrongdoing. The criminal law is built on two basic premises. Its primary goal is to impose punishment on violaters of collective roles, and it assumes, as well, that potential offenders are rational beings who have the choice between right and wrong. This assumption and the role of punishment as a deterrent have limitations when directed toward drug users as opposed to drug sellers. In practice, the weight of the law falls mostly on young drug users who are often experimenting with substances like cannabis, just as they do with alcohol and tobacco, or it falls on drug users who are frequently physically and psychologically dependent on more dangerous substances likes crack cocaine or opiates. In our opinion, these people are seldom helped by legal punishments. Rather, they need stable family and social structures, housing, employment, counselling, treatment and education about drugs. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p40 | If Canada is to revise its drug laws, new legislation should spring from a framework where substance abuse control programs develop from the same principles for both licit and illicit drugs. These programs and principles should include a mixture of education and prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, social controls, and legal controls and sanctions. For a law to actually work, I submit that it should meet three tests. It must be effective, accepted, and equitable. It should not cause more problems than it is trying to prevent. Will Bill C-7 meet these three tests? The weight of the evidence that we have put together over the years would suggest that, for the most common illicit drugs, it will not meet the tests. Let us look at the first test: Will it be effective? We think it will not. Recent trends in drug use under the current law indicate that the law does not significantly deter people from using drugs. Every two years, the Addiction Research Foundation conducts the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey. The survey shows that drug use of all types was in a long-term decline since the late 1970s to approximately 1991. This year's survey, however, found an increase in the use of several drugs, particularly cannabis, the use of which nearly doubled to 23 per cent among Ontario students since 1993. Cannabis use, which is defined as using cannabis in the past 12 months, among Grade 11 students has now reached 40 per cent, which is roughly the same percentage of kids who smoke tobacco. Grade 9 students also showed significant increases in cannabis use. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p41 | Dr. Reg Smart, who is my colleague at the foundation and perhaps the country's leading addictions epidemiologist, writes that although our drug laws are premised on deterrence theory - that strong laws with stiff punishments will keep people from doing bad things - there is good evidence that people obey laws because of a general respect for law and for society's values, not for fear of punishment. His work tells us that if you ask students why they do not use cannabis, they mention lack of interest, concerns for health or other reasons. Only slightly more than 1 per cent said that illegality was important to their choices, and only one-third of 1 per cent do not use cannabis because they fear being caught by police. The same trend in use that we found in the student survey has been mirrored in other countries. Cannabis use is now increasing in the United States and in a number of jurisdictions in Europe where the data has been examined. In some of these countries, and even within the United States, there are states with stricter drug laws than Canada's. Other states or countries have more lenient laws. We can find no discernible relationship between patterns of use and the severity or the leniency of the law. Our current reality is that one in four adult Canadians has tried cannabis with about one in twelve currently using it. The great majority of these are neither dependent on it nor addicted to it. We also have more than a half-million Canadians with a criminal record for possession. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p42 | A seminal study by my colleague Dr. Pat Erickson looks at people who have been convicted of cannabis possession. She found that one year after being sentenced for simple possession, 92 per cent of first offenders were still using it. Many studies have shown that heroin addicts return very quickly to addiction after a prison term and are not in fact deterred. The foundation's study of cocaine users in the community showed that, although more than half had friends who had been convicted, almost none expected to be caught themselves. Between 1974 and 1981, the profile of a typical cannabis possession offender was that of a young single male possessing less than 14 grams and continuing to use the drug after conviction. A study of an older group using cannabis for an average of 13 years found that the users had no difficulty obtaining a regular source of supply and had little concern about getting caught. Another study found that a group of cannabis offenders considered injection drug use dangerous and thought the risk of harming themselves with all drugs except for cannabis was much greater than the risk of arrest. Although our current drug laws and Bill C-7 target hard drugs, in reality, the law as it is actually applied is primarily used against cannabis. Some two-thirds of the more than 50,000 drug offences a year in Canada involve cannabis. As well, 65 percent of the offences are for drug use, often meaning simple possession and not trafficking. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p43 | In other words, the laws are not being used primarily in supply reduction, and the demand side-effect of them would also seem to be minimal. Much police and court time is therefore being diverted from activity against large-scale drug enterprises. There is no reason to suppose that the reality would be any different under Bill C-7. Let us look at another test for a law: Would it be accepted by the people it is expected to impinge upon? In the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, we found a shift in attitudes among students towards drugs. Fewer students perceived cannabis to be a great health risk. They also perceive cannabis to be more available now than two years ago. In other studies I mentioned a moment ago, even people who have been convicted for possession are not deterred from subsequent use. For people who use cannabis, the law seems to be irrelevant in terms of their decision to use. They do not accept it as a guide for their personal behaviour. For non-users, it is debatable whether its legal status is the major factor in their decision to not use. It could be argued that the public agreed that criminalization is not the answer. In a Statistics Canada report released one month ago, 27 per cent of those polled thought that cannabis should be legalized, and 42 per cent thought it should be illegal but subject only to a fine or a non-jail sentence. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p44 | What about the third test: Will Bill C-7 be equitably applied? Both enforcement and sentencing under the current laws are inequitably applied. You heard that quite eloquently from the previous speaker. Among the drug-user population overall, arrests are over-represented among youth, the homeless, the marginal and visible minorities. Cannabis users who are middle-class and approaching middle age are less likely to be caught. Consequently, the law is and is seen to be applied unequally. To apply the law equally and consistently would, I submit, require an even greater diversion of resources away from large-scale trafficking and other law enforcement activities. Court sentences also vary greatly between and within provinces. Nationally, the most common sentence for simple cannabis possession is a fine. A study in 1980 found, however, that while nationally 29 percent of all such offenders in Canada received a discharge, in Ontario, 47 per cent could expect a discharge, and in Toronto, 75 per cent could expect a discharge. We have to consider the effect of Bill C-7 on the next generation. Cannabis use is up for students in Grades 9 and 11 in Ontario, and we suspect among young adults as well. What would be the benefit of criminalizing the cannabis smokers amongst this cohort? They are not likely to stop using. Criminal convictions are likely to hinder their future as productive citizens of this country, and discharges are unlikely to engender any form of respect for the law. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p45 | Bill C-7 retains criminal penalties for most offences continuing in the punishment-based tradition of the previous statutes. There is little consideration of public health or diversionary or alternative treatment issues. Any sentence, discharge or fine under the proposed summary-only offence for small amounts of cannabis still creates, according to our lawyer's advice, a criminal record, although I understand there is considerable debate around that. The specification of aggravating factors in the bill, whilst it is well-intentioned, may also not hit its intended target. The target I presume is the corrupter of youth or the large-scale drug trafficker who hangs around school yards trying to sell drugs to kids and hook them. In reality, you do not find these traffickers in schools. Young people tend to buy their drugs from other young people who are smoking in their milieu. Here again, our concern is that Bill C-7 does not match the reality. We are concerned that an attempt to deal harshly and rightly with those who prey on youth will only further serve to punish youth who would be the main beneficiaries of the effect. There are a number of other concerns and questions about Bill C-7 from the public health community. Agencies that are fighting the spread of AIDS with needle exchanges are still worried about the definition of containers as substances. Despite the assurances of the government, we are not fully confident that these critical programs will continue unhindered. If it is not the intent of the bill to hinder needle exchange programs but to exempt them, then let it state that clearly. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p46 | We are also concerned about the way drugs are scheduled in Bill C-7. As my colleague Dr. Harold Kalant, who is a scientist emeritus with the foundation, says, the scheduling is scientifically illogical. The scheduling in Bill C-7 is a legacy from the 1920s, when all the so-called narcotics were lumped together. Dissimilar drugs can be found in the same schedule while similar ones are found in different schedules. For example, coca and phenocyclidine are still lumped together with most of the opiates in Schedule One as they were in the Narcotics Control Act, while amphetamine and its derivatives are in Schedule Three and khat is in Schedule Four together with barbiturates. Yet cocaine and amphetamines and the active ingredient in khat are almost identical in their action. Amphetamines have nothing in common with LSD or methaqualone. One of our biggest concerns about Bill C-7, however, is that it largely ignores alternatives that are open to it. The bill states in section 10(1) that it encourages rehabilitation and treatment under appropriate circumstances. However, it does not specify for whom treatment should be given or under what circumstances. It does not specify how offenders are to be assessed for their need for treatment, how much treatment is to be given, whether it should be done before, after or during sentencing or incarceration nor whether treatment could be a substitute for incarceration or other penalties. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p47 | In its desire to conform to the international drug control treaties, the government seems to have overlooked the fact that the 1988 Vienna Convention explicitly allows non-criminal alternatives to incarceration. In principle, the 1988 convention requires signatory states to regulate cannabis possession as a legal offence. However, in fact, article in 3(4)(d) of the convention, it is explicitly stated that: ...parties may provide ... as an alternative to conviction or punishment ... of a [possession] offence, measures for treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation or social reintegration of the offender. The provisions currently made in Bill C-7 for the control of cannabis use and possession, therefore, exceed in stringency the requirements set by the international drug control regime. I know that one of the arguments for putting this in the bill and having cannabis criminalized is that it is necessary to do that to meet the international conventions. Even more significantly, they ignore the spirit of the international convention which explicitly allows for the establishment of non-criminal alternatives. Although section 10(1) of Bill C-7 suggests a move in this direction, these alternatives should be clearly written into the letter of the law to encourage their implementation. Bill C-7 therefore misses an important opportunity to humanize drug legislation in Canada and provide care for addicted offenders. In 1994, the Chief Coroner of British Columbia, who is himself a former high-ranking RCMP official, conducted an inquiry into in excess of 300 narcotic-related deaths in British Columbia. Among his recommendations, he said the Ministry of the Attorney General should enter into discussions with the federal ministers of justice and health on the feasibility of decriminalizing the possession and use of specified substances by people shown to be addicted to those specific substances. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p48 | He also recommended the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. should review the medical, personal, and social feasibility of providing a para-medical heroin maintenance program and that the Ministry of the Attorney General should seriously inquire into the merits of legalizing the possession of some of the soft drugs such as marijuana. Without debating the pros and cons of that, it would seem to us that it would make sense for these options to be discussed before the passage of such a bill as C-7, rather than afterwards. Canada's drug strategy recognizes the harm-reduction approach to drug problems, which is an approach which is also promoted by the foundation. Harm reduction acknowledges the reality that, like it or not, psychoactive substance abuse has been, is and will be part of all human societies. We do not have to like it, we should not encourage it or condone it, but we should seek ways to prevent and minimize the harms that may result from it. Aggressive enforcement has been associated with public health harms including the phenomenon of illicit substances becoming purer, more potent and cheaper in recent years. Some suggest that the prohibitionist policies south of the border have increased the size of illicit markets, the potency of the drugs and the profits from the trade. We are concerned that, in a tiny way, the same pattern could happen to khat, a drug which in plant form is popular in eastern Africa and the Arabian peninsula and is used by a considerable percentage of some immigrant groups in Canada. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p49 | Criminalizing this drug as this bill would - and the drug is currently only available in the form of a vegetable - could have the unintentional consequence of encouraging sellers and markets to refine it into a more potent powder whose effects would be potentially more severe than the current use of the vegetable. We are concerned that criminalizing khat would create a new form of a dangerous drug and criminalize a whole community in this country. I would submit that we should be looking at the experiences of other countries, notably Australia, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Spain, who have responded differently to their drug problems and have yet met the requirements of the international convention. My colleague Benedikt Fischer could give you more details, but I will briefly touch on a couple. South Australia is an Australian jurisdiction which is quite similar to Canada in terms of its legal system as well as its drug use patterns. It has introduced a civil "expiation notice" system for cannabis possession offenders. First-time and subsequent offenders for possession are given an on-the-spot fine for the violation which does not carry any criminal repercussions at all. Evaluations show that the criminal justice system, as well as large parts of the population, appreciate this system, and the use of cannabis and other drugs in South Australia has not increased compared with other jurisdictions. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p50 | The Netherlands, for almost two decades, has implemented a harm-reduction approach to the use of cannabis and other drugs. The Dutch tolerate the possession of personal amounts of cannabis and other drugs and allow consumption and availability in designated locations, thereby separating users from other illicit drug trade markets. Dutch society seems to tolerate this approach and there has been no explosion of domestic drug use. Most states in Germany, which have a long history of prohibition, have, following a recent constitutional court decision, stopped enforcing their drug laws against users of cannabis and other drugs. Drug-related health problems and crime in these states have decreased substantially. The emphasis on these reforms is on the users. The commercial large-scale drug trade remains, of course, the appropriate target of the law and criminal justice system. We are not here presently advocating for legalization but we should acknowledge the existence of a multi-nation movement towards drug policy reform which is based on the objectives of rational pharmacology, a public-health-oriented separation of drug markets, and comprehensive cost-benefit analysis addressing both the consequences of heavy drug use and those of harsh criminal measures against all drug users. At this point, as expressed in Bill C-7, Canada is ignoring this trend in policymaking. In short, the government is moving forward with Bill C-7 in a contradictory policy environment. The result has been criticized in many quarters. Professors Usprich and Robert Solomon, from the faculty of law at the University of Western Ontario, have written: |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p51 | The new legislation leaves untouched the vast majority of the problems with the existing legislation and creates several new concerns. The proposed legislation is more complex and impenetrable than its predecessors. It perpetuates punitive legislation based on a drug mythology that the Le Dain Commission's findings should have laid to rest 20 years ago. If the purpose of the bill is reduce drug use and abuse in Canada, then we believe it is unlikely to achieve its purposes. It is unlikely to act as a deterrent. It is unlikely to end the inequitable application of the law. It is unlikely to decrease the supply of drugs in this country. It is also unlikely to reduce the harm caused by drugs. The government has indicated that the passage of this bill will be followed by a review of the policy context for drug control in Canada. With respect, this timing makes no sense to us. The Addiction Research Foundation suggests that a policy review should precede policy formulation. Our lawmakers should have a better sense of available options and alternatives than have been presented around Bill C-7. Prevention of drug use, a reduction in drug use and a reduction in the harm to Canadian society can be better accomplished through education, social controls and treatment rather than through a single-minded focus on criminal penalties for users. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p52 | We would now be happy to answer any questions or elaborate further. Senator Pearson: I agree with most of what you say. When you deal with young people particularly, deterrence is not very effective. It does not matter what particular issue you are talking about, whether it is sexual behaviour or a young offender's behaviour or whatever. This piece of legislation is trying to put together some other pieces of legislation and move ahead. You gave a presentation to the House of Commons committee. Mr. Kendall: I was not there personally, but Mr. Kalant, Ms Erickson and Mr. Smart were. Senator Pearson: What you say is extremely reasonable, but all of this takes place within a larger context of the Canadian population's thinking. I am sure you have thought about this, but it is a question of how the general public reacts. When you come to the solutions to some of the problems that you have outlined, it will have to be done in this highly controversial area with considerable delicacy. As I read your brief, at one level it makes sense but at another level I do not see it flying. Do you have some comments on that? You are a little dismissive of the policy review, and I can see why, but it is the best thing with which we have to work. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p53 | Mr. Kendall: I am not dismissive of the policy review. None of us are dismissive the policy review. We would like to see a policy review. We would very much like to hear what the broader population of people, as well as experts, lawyers and others, would like to say. We should like to see a detailed presentation of a number of options from which policymakers or lawmakers could choose. We just do not think that choice has been presented either to the broader public or to the people here. Dr. Harold Kalant, Director Emeritus, Addiction Research Foundation: One of the functions of the law which is not used to best advantage - and one of the reasons why we feel this is a missed opportunity - is its educative or normative function. The law not only prohibits certain behaviours and applies penalties for them but also codifies what the society feels with respect to its values, goals and approaches; that is, the picture of the society that it wishes to present to and of itself. For that, the law could have, and we feel should have, a much expanded version to give credit where credit is due. In passage through Parliament, there was the addition of a mini-preamble in section 10(1) referring to the concepts of rehabilitation and treatment as legitimate concerns and goals of the law. But there could have been a much fuller treatment of it, namely, a preamble to the entire piece of legislation setting out how the government and the people of Canada, whom it represents, see drug use, drug abuse and drug addiction; what their values and views are about acceptable behaviour; and what they see as the difference between punishment and treatment or prevention or rehabilitation. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p54 | A philosophy could have been set out which would underlie a coherent piece of legislation. That advantage has not been taken yet. Senator Pearson: If you were to get agreement on that kind of thing, it would be a miracle in our society at this moment, which is moving to the right. Mr. Kalant: But there could well be certain general principles upon which the majority would agree. I agree that the principles would provoke argument, but agreement could probably be reached on general principles. My concern as a pharmacologist - and I teach this subject in the medical school at the University of Toronto - is that, even within the context of the present act, such a logic is not apparent in the schedules which are fundamental to the act. The penalties are prescribed in terms of the schedules. As Mr. Kendall already pointed out, cocaine is in Schedule I; amphetamine and cathinone in Schedule III; khat and caffeine and other amphetamine-like drugs such as phendimetrazine and diethylpropion are in Schedule IV, but no explanation is given concerning why that is done. Schedule IV throws together totally different drug types - that is, barbiturates, amphetamines, benzodiazepines, Nalbuphine and anabolic steroids, which have no known effect on mental functions or behaviour, though they are bad for sport and for the athletes who use them. But that is a totally different problem. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p55 | Schedule I includes most of the active opiate drugs yet it is quite arbitrary within categories. For example, nalorphine in one of the sub-categories is included, while levallorphan is excluded, yet they act in exactly the same way and carry the same advantages and disadvantages. Pentazocine is in yet cyclazocine and nalbuphine are out. These are all drugs of the same pharmacological category and have the same effects. Fortunately, naloxone, a blocker of opiates, has now been excluded. That was an improvement that was made in passage. Yet a new drug, naltrexone, which is recommended for the treatment of alcoholism and of opiate dependence, is not even mentioned. Its legal status is left up in the air. Schedules VII and VIII take account of different amounts of cannabis. How is this related to Schedule II, which lists cannabis and all the cannabinoids without reference to amounts. There is simply a lack of a logical, coherent setting-out of why the different drugs are being set into different schedules to be treated in different ways to carry different punishments. It is this kind of lack which was characteristic of the Narcotic Control Act and which, unfortunately, has carried through into the new consolidated act and represents no improvement whatsoever in the application of the knowledge to a logical framing of the law. Senator Pearson: We will try to follow that up and get more logical information. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p56 | Mr. Benedikt Fischer, Researcher, Drug Policy Research Group, Addiction Research Foundation: I wish to make a comment on the issue of the policy review. We have heard that a number of times. It has always been presented as if the policy review could and would take place as a separate enterprise aside from the law. We must understand here that, within Canada's drug policy, the criminal law is the central instrument. No reasonable and comprehensive policy review can take place without considering and examining this particular law as the central instrument of policy here. That is the kind of paradoxical thing that seems to take place. We imagine that a policy review is possible, totally disregarding this law. The criminal law - that is, the Narcotic Control Act at the moment and possibly Bill C-7 in the future - is the central instrument of drug policy in this country that puts all other non-criminal needs and alternatives into secondary place. That is the problem at the moment. That is why it is so important to regard and consider the criminal law as the momentary central instrument of policy in this country. We should ask ourselves: Is this what we want, especially in regard to drug users? Dr. Reg Smart, Head, Social Epidemiology, Addiction Research Foundation: It seems to many people, myself included, that drug possession is a victimless crime. The only victim is usually the possessor himself and there are no victims for most drug possession cases. Almost all the law we are talking about will be exercised against possessors of small amounts of cannabis and usually involve young people who usually do not have amounts that they would be selling or giving away. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p57 | If this is a victimless crime, we must understand that most victimless crimes have been done away within Canada. For example, suicide used to be a crime. People were put in a jail if they attempted suicide. We also did away with homosexuality as a victimless crime. We must also understand that in Canada, we do not change drug laws often. It is usually done only every 20 years or more. We see this as an opportunity to rethink what we are doing in the context of the modern era and in the context of an era that has gotten rid of most kinds of victimless crimes. The idea of having a policy review after we have made all these changes in Bill C-7 seems the wrong way to go about things. We should like to see all the issues we are talking about - that is, all the issues around decriminalization, how the law should look, the role of rehabilitation treatment and education - dealt with in the policy review, and out of the policy review should come some new legislative instrument. If we have Bill C-7, everything would be frozen. There would be a great reluctance to move on from Bill C-7. The policy review will be very much limited in the kinds of things that it can do. That is our concern in part. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p58 | Senator Carstairs: While I agree with almost everything that you have had to say today, I do not agree with your last statement that possession is a victimless crime, because I do not think you have traffickers unless you have possessors. If you do not have people who want to have a drug, then why would anyone traffic in that drug? There must be a need in order for trafficking to take place. Think about that one for a moment. More specifically, I wish to address the issue of your study. I started my teaching career in the early sixties, when I had students who were convicted and sent to jail for two years less one day for simple possession of marijuana. It had no deterrent effect whatsoever. I could smell marijuana when I walked into a classroom. But there seemed to be - and your study verifies that - a significant change between 1971 and 1991. The use of cannabis, in all its variety, seemed to decline. Now it seems to be going up again. Can you give us any explanation for why that is? Mr. Kendall: Our studies do not go into that. We are just now starting to look at that. There are a number of theories. Tobacco smoking has gone up. One theory is that cigarettes might be a gateway drug to marijuana. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p59 | The human lungs were not built to ingest hot gases at 400 degrees, but perhaps once you start with cigarettes - and people are certainly starting with cigarettes before they begin to smoke marijuana - there may be a cause and effect there. There might be a generational effect also. It is approximately 20 years since the last peak. We are now seeing, perhaps, the kids of parents who were at that peak and who carry different values and may be smoking themselves still. Generational cycles tend to appear. It may be the sixties revisited. Platform heels have come back in again as a fashion. Mr. Smart: I am not sure that the increase that we have seen recently will be a long-term increase. Sometimes there are little blips and sometimes there are long-term trends. We have seen in the study that the increases in cannabis use are not widespread. They do not occur in all segments of the school population. They only occur amongst males and among Grade 7, Grade 9 and Grade 11 students. Age for first use of cannabis has not changed. Rates of alcohol and drug problems have not changed. We are looking at this most recent increase with regard to whether or not this is a long- or short-term increase. Right now, we do not know the answer to that. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p60 | Senator Carstairs: Would you like to address the other issue concerning victimless crimes? Mr. Smart: When I was talking about drug possession, I was talking about possession-only cases. Of course, all kinds of drug offences involve some sort of possession. Importing, trafficking and growing are all possession cases in the broadest sense. I am talking about cases that come to court as simple possession cases not involving importing, trafficking, growing, et cetera. The vast majority are those. Senator Carstairs: But if a young person could not get possession of a drug, it would be different. Mr. Smart: If you are to import cannabis, then you will have to possess it. Senator Doyle: I am looking at my underlining on Mr. Kendall's presentation. In particular, my interest was provoked by the comment that, among the drug-user population, overall arrests are over-represented among youth, the homeless, marginal and visible minorities. From the point of view of a writer, I can recall having put some similar statements down on paper more than 30 years ago. While we are talking about changes, I was struck by the opposite - that is, how little things do change. I remember once writing a piece saying that there is a great deal of attention being paid by the police to people who are using cannabis, cocaine, and so on. If they want to catch these people, they should increase their take by going to every rock and roll concert that is held in this community, namely Toronto. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p61 | But, strangely, the police do not go there to find the users. They wait until they find people who might be described as the very young who cannot afford rock concerts, the homeless, the marginal and the visible minorities. Why is that? Why are the police not concentrating on that if that is where they want to be effective in stopping users? I do not seem to have the answers. I did not have answers 30 years ago either. Dr. Patricia Erickson, Senior Scientist, Addiction Research Foundation: As someone who has done a lot of studies that involve interviewing cocaine users, crack users and marijuana users, I am struck with how the general population of users that we see in our surveys and that we can approach through our methods of contact are all functioning pretty well. But when you get down to the street level, you find that the people that are most criminalized and most involved with drugs are these marginal groups. Street youths experience a lot of arrests and police attention, as do the under-privileged in the downtown area. It is not that the police set out to discriminate so much as these are the people who are easy to catch. They are visible. The marijuana users are downright foolish about how they use the drug sometimes in public and in their cars. They think that they are invincible and they get caught. There is a certain amount of visibility that goes into these decisions. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p62 | But I would emphasize that, in these police actions which we are seeing more often in the States - I closely follow the research of my many colleagues there - a dramatic over-representation of blacks is showing up in arrest statistics, way out of proportion to levels of use. This is beginning to undermine the fabric of the justice system itself. We are at a point in Canada where we are about to continue the tremendous powers that the police and courts have and strengthen them to continue a drug enforcement effort that will focus on these groups, again, in a way that is out of proportion to the real threat or harm created by drug use in society. We must look at other examples. We must say, "What kind of country do we want?" We see too much of the U.S. It scares us and it should. We tend to see the tools as drug-war tools because that is society is so often exposed to that. However, if people had time to be educated by the diversity of approaches taken in other countries, where drug problems are more contained and where drug users are helped and tolerated, you would see that the social problems around drug use are much less and far less than is seen in the United States. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p63 | I see this bill as not insignificant at all but as very much an issue of the future of our country. To my mind, it is on that scale. Senator Doyle: I would only add one thing to what you said. Thirty years ago, we were looking - sometimes with the help of the Addiction Research Foundation in Toronto - at the special cases, for example, those who were blacks, immigrants and people who were otherwise young offenders. It was not until some years later that that I found among the terrible offenders, although they were never caught, were my son and my daughter. One evening, the subject came up in conversation. They had an hilarious time telling mother and father about how they had narrowly escaped the law in this instance, us in another instance and all the surveys in further instances. They now seem concerned about what their own children will do. I do not know what lesson that provides except that perhaps it is not just this generation any more that Senator Pearson was speaking about. It was not just a generation of what we thought were peculiar people. The problems seem to be continuing, but the law does not seem to be changing very much. Or is it? Is the law going off on any new tack about which you would say to us, "Good on you"? |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p64 | Ms Erickson: One small point is that cannabis is now in Schedule II and separated from the traditional "narcotics". That is one small, symbolic step which I applaud. If you then followed through with actually setting out an offence-and- penalty structure that would, at least in the short term, reduce some of the more obvious harms, then that could be a significant improvement. As it stands, the bill could have been created almost without the Le Dain Commission or 20 to 25 years of research and experience. I think this bill underestimates the intelligence and awareness of the Canadian public about drug use and drug problems. I think the public is now ready for a bill that would take us into the year 2000 instead of taking us back to the 1960s. Senator DeWare: Am I getting the impression that we are, in a way, talking about decriminalizing cannabis? Mr. Kalant: As several speakers have pointed out, one of the problems is that decriminalization is a fuzzy term which has meant different things in different jurisdictions. None of us is saying that all drug use should be made legal, open and readily available. Personally, I do not believe that even marijuana should be made legal because the expression of disapproval that is implicit in having it called illegal helps to shape attitudes. Even if one cannot prove that it acts as a specific deterrent, it may well act as a general deterrent in the sense of making one aware that it is not something that society thinks is very desirable. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p65 | What we are talking about is not applying criminal sanctions of a gravity or severity that are totally out of proportion to the magnitude of the harm that is produced by the great majority. Senator DeWare: I think taking a young person and putting them in jail for five or six months and fining them $5,000 will not make them stop using the drug. I should like to talk to you about the Addiction Research Foundation. You deal with all drugs, such as alcohol, cigarettes and so on. Do you propose rehabilitation programs to other institutions? With how many are you affiliated? Mr. Smart: I am not sure how many affiliates we have. It is a large number. Many of us teach at the University of Toronto, so we have a close university connection. We also have lots of relationships with community organizations and with community treatment centres, of which there are approximately 40 or 50. We make our research available widely throughout Ontario, Canada and the whole world. Therefore, we have relationships with other research institutions in other countries, such as the United States and other places. Senator DeWare: We seem to send many people who are addicted to alcohol or cross-addicted to alcohol and drugs to Ontario. I am familiar with Don Wood and Holmwood, both of which seem to have decent records. Basically, in respect to those institutions, we are talking about older people. What about the younger people? Where do our 13- and 17-year-olds go to obtain the kind of help that they require? |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p66 | Mr. Smart: There are treatment programs in Ontario which specialize in treating young persons. We do have such programs of our own. There are quite a number of them. Sometimes young people have a great deal of difficulty finding out where they are, how to get into them, how good they are and whether the program is the kind they want. There are some issues centred around accessibility to such programs. Senator DeWare: In a province, who would the contact person be to gain access to that kind of help, provided they want it? If you did it province-wide, who would be your contact person? Mr. Kalant: Apart from the foundation itself, which has a central switchboard to which inquiries of all kinds can be directed, there is also a directory of treatment facilities which is published jointly by the foundation and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. To the best of the foundation's ability, that is made available to anyone who wants to consult it. Senator DeWare: Should part of the objective of any legislation be toward rehabilitation so that the cycle starts to slow down somewhere? Mr. Kendall: Yes. We agree with that, particularly as it involves injection drug use and opium dependency. There are many thousands of opiate dependent persons in Canada, a considerable number of them in Ontario, and a tremendous dearth of treatment programs, such as methadone maintenance or other drug maintenance programs in Canada. Compared with other parts of the world, we are shamefully lagging behind in that area. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p67 | Mr. Smart: There is a central registry of treatment agencies which one can call. I do not have the number at my fingertips right now. You can phone them and say and ask for treatment for this or that kind of problem; they will arrange for you to have treatment in an agency that has space available rather than saying that you must wait three months or six weeks. They will try to arrange for you to receive treatment as quickly as possible. Mr. Kendall: It is a computerized system called DART, Drug and Alcohol Registry of Treatment. Senator DeWare: There has to be something available when someone makes up their mind. They cannot wait for three months. Senator Milne: I was intrigued by the fact that you say that among, grade 11 students, use of cannabis goes up to about 40 per cent, roughly the same percentage which smokes tobacco. Are they the same students that smoke tobacco? Mr. Kendall: I would surprised if they were not. I do not know if our study took that into consideration. Mr. Smart: We have done it in the past. We did not do it this year because, in the past, we have always found that cannabis smokers are almost invariably cigarette smokers first. Once in a while, someone tries cannabis without having been a smoker of tobacco. However, it is so rare that one does not have to worry much about it. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p68 | Senator Milne: It is something I have always wondered. When you say it seems to peak in grades 7, 9 and 11, is that because you have not studied grades 8 and 10? This does not make any kind of logical sense to me whatever. Mr. Smart: In our survey, we study only grades 7, 9, 11 and 13. Mr. Kendall: We note a decline in grade 13. My interpretation of that, however, is that there is quite a high drop-out rate between grades 11 and 13. Those who do drop out tend to smoke more cannabis than those who stay in school. If one were to capture the dropouts, my own personal feeling is that we would see higher rates among that group than those who stay in for their pre-university years. Senator Milne: My own experience has been that most non-drug-users in the general population think that they should all be thrown in jail until they find out, as Senator Doyle did, that it is their own children who are about to be thrown in jail. Immediately, their views change. Senator Carstairs refutes the notion that simple possession is a victimless crime. Looking at it from one point, yes, it is. However, in order for them to have that drug in the first place, there must be trafficking. The two of them go hand-in-hand. There is no victimless crime here because the two are so closely interconnected. |
http://cfdp.ca/71ev-e.html_p69 | Mr. Kendall: About 70 per cent of the cannabis in Canada at the moment is domestically grown. There has been an increase in the sales of hydroponics so that it would be possible to envisage a system whereby people grow enough in their basement for their own consumption. That might be more of the victimless crime because there would be no intermediary and no purchaser. The Chairman: I wish to thank our witnesses for their attendance here today. As you have seen, this bill is raising a lot of interest. Your answers and your presentation have been very useful. Honourable senators, I require a motion that reasonable travel and living expenses for no more than one representative per organization invited to appear on Bill C-7 be paid for upon request at the discretion of the committee. Senator Carstairs: I so move, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman: It is so moved by Senator Carstairs. Is it agreed, honourable senators? Hon. Senators: Agreed. The committee adjourned. Updated: 24 Jul 2001 | Accessed: 27069 times |
http://contentdm.lau.edu.lb/digital/collection/p15255coll3/id/600/_p0 | CONTENTdm Javascript Required To experience full interactivity, please enable Javascript in your browser. |
http://debatalia.com/post/ignition-coil-wiring-harness-repair-kit-also-1971-vw-beetle-wiring_p0 | Ignition Coil Wiring Harness Repair Kit Also 1971 Vw Beetle Wiring - Auto Electrical Wiring Diagram Wiring Diagram Home ignition coil wiring harness repair kit also 1971 vw beetle wiring Wiring Diagram | Schema Cablage | Diagrama De Cableado | Ledningsdiagram | Del Schaltplan | Bedradings Schema | Schaltplang New Update deh wiring diagram pioneer car stereo wiring diagram wiring diagram , 1996 jeep cherokee turn signal wiring diagram , passat fuse diagram , whelen control box wiring diagram on whelen sa314 wiring diagram , transformer output power amplifier circuit diagram analogcircuit , 2007 mini cooper vanos wiring , electrical outlet wiring polarity , wiring 3 phase distribution board wiring harness wiring diagram , boat rocker panel wiring diagram , 1960 chevy c10 stepside , bmw e30 wiring diagrams as well also wiring diagram as well bmw , water line 3 connect the wires following the wiring diagram , murphy wiring diagram , logicbi 30 diagram , wiring diagram for pioneer dehp3000ib car audio receivers , 07 dt466 idm wiring diagram , 2002dodgeram1500ignitionwiringdiagramdodgeram1500wiring , how to wire led lights to 12 volt auto wiring ehow to 12 volt auto , hdmi pin schematic , 2013 honda cr v fuse box , wire diagram for 2008 xterra , 1998 ford explorer fuse box diagram , design a circuit diagram in proteus as shown in below figure , 2015 mustang speaker wiring diagram , 2003 toyota corolla wiring diagrams , 84 dodge engine wiring harness wiring diagram , channel letter diagram , 2010 mazda cx 7 fuse diagram , mclaren diagrama de cableado de micrologix 1500 , wiring a 3 way switch with dimmer diagram , sony cdx gt550ui wiring harness , 2001 mazda tribute radio wiring diagram , acer aspire v5 diagram , schematics of halfbridge atx pc supplies with dr b2003 atx , 03 kia optima wiring diagram , wiring harnesses for engine swaps , wiring a 3 bulb light fixture , yamaha xj700x engine diagram , e46 trunk wiring diagram , rj45 data jack wiring diagram emprendedorlink , crutchfield dvc wiring diagram , stereo wiring diagram for 91 ford ranger , 1988 ford f150 starter solenoid wiring diagram , 2002 polaris scrambler 90 wiring diagram , tornado diagram tornado safety guide , 1967 ford f100 ignition wiring diagram , 2012 f150 tail light wiring diagram , 300ex fuel diagram , lp series parallel wiring diagram , diagram likewise honda motorcycle engine diagram furthermore honda , bmw 740i e32 fuse box diagram , stereo wiring diagram for 1996 ford ranger , cbx 1000 wiring diagram , single hot rail wiring diagram , wiring diagram 1979 firebird formula , that sends power to the fuel pump relay but also to the fuel pump , 2kd engine wiring diagram , honda gx630 engine wiring diagrams , 2003 saab 93 fuel filter , wiring electric motors in series , subaru xv 2012 user wiring diagram , return spring diagram , wiring diagram signal switch receptacle , mcc wiring diagram pdf , cat5 ether wiring diagram , bmw 650 wiring diagram , 1991 honda civic wiring harness , wiring diagram model a ford , bldc motor controller circuit electronic circuit projects , motor wiring diagram furthermore yamaha warrior 350 wiring diagram , well pump system water well pump system parts and materials diagram , hcl h2o phase diagram , wall electric wiring detail royalty stock photos image , honda gx390 charging system wiring diagram , miller dynasty 200 single phase wiring diagram , fuse box on polaris atv , phone jack connector wiring b wiring diagrams , internal block diagram of 7805 regulator , 1985 toyota corolla wiring diagram engine wiring diagram 85 mr2 , 99 ford explorer sport fuse box diagram , wiring vga wall plate , pontiac gto ignition switch wiring diagram , wiring diagram furthermore white westinghouse gas dryer diagram , wiring a 220 dryer outlet , cnc axis4 board schematics rev a , 1969 camaro alternator wiring w pic team camaro tech , 2006 corolla fuse box location , volvo 940 haynes wiring diagram , flhx turn signal wire diagram , com circuitdiagram amplifiercircuit monostablemultivibratoriihtml , winch trailer wiring harness , 2012 f350 mirror wiring diagram , audio jack wiring two male ends , chrysler 300m radio wiring diagram , you can see that you can get some fine detail in the circuit board , 1955 buick century alternator wiring , need wiring help general ih red power magazine community , jet boat engineering , electric motors wiring diagram for ge motor ge motor ge model share , stereo wiring diagram for 2003 mitsubishi eclipse , wiring colours for light ings australia wiring , ford galaxy fuse box , 1987 toyota pickup undercarriage wiring harness , diagrama tcl a21v01 t0 , wiring diagram for domestic house , in addition 2 ohm subwoofer wiring diagram on onkyo wiring diagram , 2004 f 250 6 0 fuel filter cap , 2010 ford escape 3.0 fuel filter location , 3m opticom emitter wiring diagram , wiring diagram 1974 el camino , checkmate car alarm wiring diagram , 2003 suzuki aerio stereo wiring diagram , cree headlamps wiring diagram , mitsubishi outlander 2008 fuse box diagram , wiring harness for 2003 jeep liberty , kia electrical schematic , harley davidson wiring diagram also 2002 harley sportster wiring , ford escape fuel pump wiring , your new switch leading to the acc terminal on your ignition switch , simple flip flop circuit , acura 2008 wiring diagram , 2011 nissan sentra fuse diagram , 98 integra ignition wiring diagram , pickup series parallel humbucker wiring diagram single humbucker , polski fiat schema moteur mazda , auverland schema cablage telerupteur anime , wiring schematic light socket , skeeter wiring diagram , 84 blazer fuse box , farmall h wiring diagram color code , mercadies q45 fuse box 2008 , wiring a outlet from light fixture , 2000 chevy impala radio wiring , 1993 jeep wrangler vacuum line diagram , detailed wiring diagrams , |
http://debatalia.com/post/ignition-coil-wiring-harness-repair-kit-also-1971-vw-beetle-wiring_p1 | Contact - Privacy Policy - feed -map .. Copyright © Wiring Diagram - Electrical Wiring Diagram |
http://drlindamintle.com/2019/10/29/acupuncture-for-chronic-pain/_p0 | Dr. Linda Mintle – Acupuncture For Chronic Pain? Blog Books We Need To Talk Calendar About Contact Acupuncture For Chronic Pain? Home / Belief Net / Acupuncture For Chronic Pain? October 29, 2019 Belief Net 0 0 Chronic pain is the primary reason Americans are on disability. One of the main treatments for pain has been opioid medications. But opioids have the potential for abuse and addiction. Because so many people have been prescribed opioids for chronic pain, we are in trouble and have what has been called a public health epidemic. It’s serious,… Read the full post here » The post Acupuncture For Chronic Pain? appeared first on Doing Life Together. Related Posts The Mind-Body Connection: Keep it Positive Is Gossip Good? Reducing Feelings of Being Overwhelmed Living Beyond Pain: Get Your Life Back Leave a Comment Cancel reply © Copyright 2019, All Rights Reserved | AACC Workshop PDF |
http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/3931/_p0 | The use of Assertion Reason Questions to promote higher order thinking in Graduate Entry Nurses - Leeds Beckett Repository Leeds Beckett Repository Leeds Beckett Home| MyBeckett| Support Pages| Contact Us Home About Accessibility Browse Year Divisions Author Search The use of Assertion Reason Questions to promote higher order thinking in Graduate Entry Nurses Brownlow, R (2015) The use of Assertion Reason Questions to promote higher order thinking in Graduate Entry Nurses. In: Graduate Entry Nursing Symposium: Defining, maximising and promoting “post-graduateness" in Graduate Entry Nursing Programmes for the future of nursing, University of Nottingham. More Information Divisions: Faculty of Health and Social Sciences > School of Health and Community Studies Depositing User (symplectic) Deposited by Brownlow, Ros Date Deposited: 06 Oct 2017 13:00 Last Modified: 05 Nov 2019 13:10 Item Type: Conference or Workshop Item (Paper) Download Preview Presentation License: Creative Commons Attribution Download (1MB) | Preview Export Citation RDF+XML BibTeX RIOXX2 XML RDF+N-Triples JSON Dublin Core Atom Simple Metadata Refer METS HTML Citation ASCII Citation OpenURL ContextObject EndNote OpenURL ContextObject in Span MODS MPEG-21 DIDL EP3 XML Reference Manager RDF+N3 Multiline CSV Export Share Explore Further Read more research from the author(s): R Brownlow ORCID: 0000-0002-7638-5002 Statistics Additional statistics for this record Review View Item Details (must be logged in) Altmetric Altmetric Altmetric CORE (COnnecting REpositories) CORE (COnnecting REpositories) CORE (COnnecting REpositories) |
http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/3931/_p1 | Disclaimer| Accessibility| Privacy| Contact Us © Copyright Leeds Beckett University This site is powered by Eprints3 and is hosted and managed by ULCC. |
http://findnsave.chron.com/offer/Cold-Weather-Breather-Heater-Kit-9-22-kW-Air-Cooled-Generators/68877323/_p0 | Cold Weather Breather Heater Kit 9-22 kW Air Cooled Generators at Home Depot in Houston - 68877323 Houston Area Powered by Stores Categories Brands Weekly Ads Coupons Print Coupons Coupon Codes Local Local Ads More Local Ads Search Search Log inSign up Our Apps JavaScript is currently disabled in your browser. To get the full benefits of the site you must have JavaScript enabled. Home Depot > Home Appliances > Cold Weather Breather Heater Kit 9-22 kW Air Cooled Generators Home Depot Share it! Cold Weather Breather Heater Kit 9-22 kW Air Cooled Generators $84.99 Buy Now Add It The Breather warmer is only for use in extreme cold weather applications where heavy icing occurs. For use on Generac Air Cooled units manufactured 2013 to present, not all Air cooled units. Also consider model 7101 Battery warmer and 7102 oil warmer cold weather accessories (compatible on both 50 or 60 hertz units). Browse all deals at Home Depot See more in Home Appliances See more from Generac * This offer may contain time-sensitive information and offers. Please check with Home Depot to confirm actual price & availability. Advertisement Comments Post! Please enter your name Be the first to comment! 5 of 42 locations Find it at your local (view store) Home Depot 999 N Loop W Fwy Houston, TX 77008 713-802-9725 |
http://findnsave.chron.com/offer/Cold-Weather-Breather-Heater-Kit-9-22-kW-Air-Cooled-Generators/68877323/_p1 | Home Depot 5445 W Loop S Fwy Houston, TX 77081 713-662-3950 Home Depot 6810 Gulf Fwy Houston, TX 77087 713-649-1108 Home Depot 8400 Katy Fwy Houston, TX 77024 713-984-2741 Home Depot 10600 Eastex Fwy Houston, TX 77093 713-699-0965 Home Depot 8400 Westheimer Rd Houston, TX 77063 713-917-0510 Home Depot 11500 Chimney Rock Rd Houston, TX 77035 713-723-1400 Home Depot 14085 Northwest Fwy Houston, TX 77040 713-690-6619 Home Depot 1100 Lumpkin Rd Houston, TX 77043 713-461-9898 Home Depot 10707 North Fwy Houston, TX 77037 281-820-4745 Home Depot 6800 West Sam Houston Pkwy S Houston, TX 77072 281-498-6445 Home Depot 13400 Market St Houston, TX 77015 713-451-9600 Home Depot 14440 Hillcroft St Houston, TX 77085 713-283-8600 Home Depot 10111 Broadway St Pearland, TX 77584 713-436-5992 Home Depot 11820 Dickinson Rd Houston, TX 77089 281-464-2080 Home Depot 5455 Fairmont Pkwy Pasadena, TX 77505 281-998-9669 Home Depot 2828 Hwy 6 Houston, TX 77082 281-870-9369 Home Depot 10419 Highway 6 South Sugar Land, TX 77498 281-980-1777 Home Depot 4159 Fm 1960 Rd W Houston, TX 77068 832-484-1284 Home Depot 12727 Farm To Market 1960 W Houston, TX 77065 281-807-5128 Home Depot 6800 Hwy 6 N Houston, TX 77084 281-858-8040 Home Depot 5900 Hwy 6 Missouri City, TX 77459 281-403-1397 Home Depot 1514 E Broadway St Pearland, TX 77581 281-993-1111 Home Depot 15505 Southwest Fwy Sugar Land, TX 77478 |
http://findnsave.chron.com/offer/Cold-Weather-Breather-Heater-Kit-9-22-kW-Air-Cooled-Generators/68877323/_p2 | 281-242-9200 Home Depot 20360 Hwy 59 N Humble, TX 77338 281-540-2400 Home Depot 18251 Gulf Freeway Frontage Rd Webster, TX 77598 281-488-2274 Home Depot 21530 Sh 249 Houston, TX 77070 281-257-8900 Home Depot 1111 N Fry Rd Katy, TX 77449 281-599-9170 Home Depot 20131 Interstate 45 Spring, TX 77373 281-288-4900 Home Depot 17928 Spring Cypress Rd Cypress, TX 77429 281-304-1956 Home Depot 6850 S Fry Rd Katy, TX 77494 281-693-8420 Home Depot 4915 Garth Rd Baytown, TX 77521 281-428-5091 Home Depot 140 Rte 35 Business Alvin, TX 77511 281-585-6164 Home Depot 23575 Us Highway 59 Porter, TX 77365 281-577-9151 Home Depot 507 Farm-To-Market Road 2094 Kemah, TX 77565 281-538-3988 Home Depot 3200 Gulf Freeway Frontage Rd League City, TX 77573 281-337-5369 Home Depot 24400 Commercial Dr Rosenberg, TX 77471 281-239-2777 Home Depot 19103 Interstate 45 Conroe, TX 77385 936-321-0100 Home Depot 6119 Farm To Market 1488 Rd Magnolia, TX 77354 281-356-2087 Home Depot 1341 W Davis St Conroe, TX 77304 936-539-2440 Home Depot 702 65th St Galveston, TX 77551 409-744-4895 Home Depot 100 Abner Jackson Pkwy Lake Jackson, TX 77566 979-297-3562 Advertisement Add this to your Wishlist - Get local deals in your inbox or Sign up with Email Already a member? Log in. Share a link to with a friend via Email. To: From: Comments: Your Email Has Been Sent |
http://findnsave.chron.com/offer/Cold-Weather-Breather-Heater-Kit-9-22-kW-Air-Cooled-Generators/68877323/_p3 | Thank you! We'll Review this offer and take the appropriate actions. We appreciate you helping us make Find&Save the best shopping experience around. - The Find&Save Team Continue View All Find&Save Cities Terms Of Service Privacy Policy Trademark About Find&Save Copyright © 2019 Wanderful Media Houston Area Search Log in Sign up Stores Categories Brands Weekly Ads Print Coupons Coupon Codes Local Ads Find&Save Blog About OwnLocal Top about us Find&Save Blog About OwnLocal Remove My Business |
http://forum.samygo.tv/viewtopic.php?p=89847_p0 | UN46H6203af EEPROM Reset - SamyGO SamyGO Samsung TV Firmware on the GO Skip to content Search Advanced search Quick links Unanswered topics Active topics Search FAQ Login Register Home Board index 2008-2014 TV models H Series [H] Hardware Search UN46H6203af EEPROM Reset This forum is for information related with H series hardware instead of firmware/software. Post Reply Print view Search Advanced search 2 posts • Page 1 of 1 nickademus420 Posts: 1 Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 2:40 am UN46H6203af EEPROM Reset Quote Post by nickademus420 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:08 am Hi. New to the forums. Thanks in advance for any and all help you all may provide me. That being said, I am helping a friend fix their Samsung UN46H6203af 46" LCD Tv. It's standby light would come on, but when you pressed the power button on either the tv or the remote, it would just start blinking. I looked on the power supply for bulged caps or burn spots, nothing. The owner offered to buy a replacement power supply just to see if it was the issue, and after replacing, it did not fix the issue. Someone brought to my attention that sometimes and EEPROM reset may solve this non-powering on issue. I attempted to find the EEPROM chip on this particular mainboard, BN41-02245A. I have so far been unsuccessful. I have attempted to find a free service manual online for this or similar tvs, also unsuccessful. So I now turn to this board, to see if someone can clue me in on either the exact location of this chip, or at least the numbers on the board near the chip, or numbers on the chip. Really I'm looking for any information on how to perform this reset. |
http://forum.samygo.tv/viewtopic.php?p=89847_p1 | Thanks again for your time. Top juusso SamyGO Moderator Posts: 10125 Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:20 pm Re: UN46H6203af EEPROM Reset Quote Post by juusso » Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:59 am Hi resolution photos could help fo decide. LE40B653T5W,UE40D6750,UE65Q8C Have questions? Read SamyGO Wiki, Search on forum first! FFB (v0.8), FFB for CI+ . Get root on: C series, D series, E series, F series, H series. rooting K series, exeDSP/exeTV patches[C/D/E/F/H] DO NOT EVER INSTALL FIRMWARE UPGRADE Top Post Reply Print view Display: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by: AuthorPost timeSubject Direction: AscendingDescending 2 posts • Page 1 of 1 Return to “[H] Hardware” Jump to Search General ↳ SamyGO Main WiKi ↳ SamyGO Files ↳ SamyGO on Facebook ↳ IRC #samygo ↳ SamyGO on Twitter ↳ SamyGO github ↳ Donate 2015-2019 Tizen OS TVs ↳ R/QR Series ↳ [R/QR] General ↳ N/QN series ↳ [N/QN] General ↳ M/Q series ↳ M/Q series Wiki ↳ [M/Q] General ↳ [M/Q] Software ↳ K series ↳ K Series Wiki ↳ [K] General ↳ [K] Software ↳ [K] Firmware ↳ [K] Hardware ↳ [K] Support ↳ [K] Brainstorm ↳ J Series ↳ J Series Wiki ↳ [J] General ↳ [J] Software ↳ [J] Firmware ↳ [J] Hardware ↳ [J] Support ↳ [J] Brainstorm 2008-2014 TV models |
http://forum.samygo.tv/viewtopic.php?p=89847_p2 | ↳ H Series ↳ H Series WiKi ↳ [H] General ↳ [H] Software ↳ [H] Firmware ↳ [H] Hardware ↳ [H] Support ↳ [H] Brainstorm ↳ F Series ↳ F Series WiKi ↳ [F] General ↳ [F] Software ↳ [F] Firmware ↳ [F] Hardware ↳ [F] Support ↳ [F] Brainstorm ↳ E Series ↳ E Series Wiki ↳ [E] General ↳ [E] Software ↳ [E] Firmware ↳ [E] Hardware ↳ [E] Support ↳ [E] Brainstorm ↳ D Series ↳ D Series WiKi ↳ [D] General ↳ [D] Software ↳ MIPS ↳ [D] Firmware ↳ [D] Hardware ↳ [D] Support ↳ [D] Brainstorm ↳ C Series ↳ C Series WiKi ↳ [C] General ↳ [C] Software ↳ [C] Firmware ↳ [C] Hardware ↳ [C] Support ↳ [C] Brainstorm ↳ B Series ↳ B Series WiKi ↳ [B] General ↳ [B] Software ↳ [B] Firmware ↳ [B] Hardware ↳ [B] Support ↳ [B] Brainstorm ↳ A Series ↳ A Series Wiki Other ↳ BluRay Players ↳ BluRay WiKi ↳ Support ↳ Monitors ↳ Junkyard ↳ Bounties Home Board index All times are UTC+01:00 Delete cookies Contact us Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited Privacy | Terms |
http://gasmasteruk.co.uk/gas-interlock-systems/dsc_1894-2/_p0 | commercial gas range | Gasmaster UK 07896 677 083 or 01782 855 096 info@gasmasteruk.co.uk Home About Us Contact Us Testimonials Blog 0 Items Services Boiler Repair Boiler Replacement Boiler Servicing Appliance Installation Commercial Catering Gas Certificate Gas Cooker Installation Gas Fire Service Gas Interlock Systems Plumbing New Boilers Combination Boilers Heat Only & Conventional Boilers Landlords Landlords Gas Safety Check (CP12) Information for Landlords Landlords Legionella Risk Assesment Smoke Alarms Commercial Catering Commercial Catering Gas Certificate Gas Interlock Systems Gallery Select Page commercial gas range Services Boiler Repair Boiler Replacement Boiler Servicing Appliance Installation Gas Fire Service Commercial Catering Gas Certificate Gas Interlock Systems Plumbing Landlords Gas Safety Check (CP12) Landlords Legionella Risk Assesment Home About Us Contact Us Testimonials Blog © Gasmaster UK 2019 |
http://hammerton.uwclub.net/wc03/wc03_127.htm_p0 | Ronald Arthur (Ron) RUSSELL & Valmai Shirley BERESFORD Hammerton and Sykes Family History - Family Card Walter George BERESFORD(21 May 1912 - 17 March 1989) Jessie Audrey Bargenquest(21 January 1917 - 16 September 1986) m. 18 October 1980, Maryborough Ronald Arthur (Ron) RUSSELL Valmai Shirley BERESFORD b. 12 February 1936 d. 23 May 1989, Brisbane bur. Maryborough edu. ch. hob. occ. b. d. bur. edu. ch. hob. occ. Spouses: 1, 2 Children Clinton RUSSELL Jodie RUSSELL Jason RUSSELL Contents · Index · Surnames · Contact |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p0 | HYIPHOTLISTER.COM - The Best Hyip Monitor Promotor & Ratings Available on Never for $50.00/week Home » New Exclusive Premium Normal Trial Scam News Advertise Add program Banners & Ads RCB RCB Programs RCB Requests Directory Articles Support Never for $84.00/week Never for $83.00/week Never for $82.00/week Never for $81.00/week Never for $80.00/week Never for $78.00/week Never for $77.00/week Never for $76.00/week Never for $74.00/week Never for $73.00/week Never for $72.00/week Never for $71.00/week Never for $69.00/week Never for $68.00/week Never for $67.00/week Never for $62.00/week Never for $60.00/week Never for $55.00/week Never for $50.00/week Never for $48.00/week Never for $47.00/week Never for $46.00/week Never for $43.00/week Never for $41.00/week Never for $40.00/week Never for $39.00/week Never for $37.00/week Never for $36.00/week Never for $35.00/week Never for $34.00/week Never for $32.00/week Never for $31.00/week Never for $30.00/week Never for $29.00/week Never Never Never Never Never NEW PROJECT LISTINGS Exclusive Premium Normal Free Scam Closed < Add program Banners & Ads Exclusive List your program in the Exclusive listing Available Now for $5.00/week BtcRich.biz Paying Min/Max: $30 / $30,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 700% after 1 day, 6000% after 2 days, 50000% after 3 days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 105% in profit Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Feb 7th, 2017 Monitored: 1017 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p1 | Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark BtcMajor.com Paying Min/Max: $30 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 800% after 1 day, 8000% after 2 days, 80000% after 3 days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 93% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Jun 5th, 2017 Monitored: 899 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark BtcGuarantee.com Paying Min/Max: $30 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 600% After 1 Day, 5000% After 3 Days, 40000% After 3 Days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 92% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Apr 29th, 2017 Monitored: 936 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark BtcValue.biz Paying Min/Max: $30 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 800% After 1 Day, 7000% After 2 Days, 60000% After 3 Days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 90% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Jul 10th, 2017 Monitored: 864 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark OkeyDeposit Ltd Paying Min/Max: $35 / $350,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 800% After 1 Day, 7000% After 2 Days, 60000% After 3 days, 600% After 12 hours, 700% After 1 hours |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p2 | Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 63% Last Payout: Oct 14th, 2019 Added: Jan 29th, 2018 Monitored: 661 days Lifetime: 661 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark INSTANT HOUR LIMITED Paying Min/Max: $5 / $500,000 Referral: 3-10 Withdrawal: Instant 1.08% - 1.5% hourly for 96 hours, 5.0% - 8.0% hourly for 48 hours, 18% - 25% hourly for 24 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 56% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: May 24th, 2018 Monitored: 546 days Lifetime: 546 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Super Crypto LTD Paying Min/Max: $25 / $500000 Referral: 3-10 Withdrawal: Manual 0.88%-1.22% HOURLY For 120 Hours,1.83%-3.06% HOURLY For 60 Hours,10%-25% HOURLY For 24 Hours,66% DAILY For 2 Days,1200% AFTER 5 days,6000% AFTER 9 days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 29% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Feb 1st, 2019 Monitored: 293 days Lifetime: 293 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark PASSIVE REVENUE SHARE LTD Paying Min/Max: $10 / $N/A Referral: 20%-2%-1% Withdrawal: Instant 3% Daily For 90 Days, 6% Daily For 35 Days, 12% Daily For 18 Days, 20% Daily For 10 Days, 1000% After 70 Days, 2000% After 120 Days |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p3 | Our Invetment: $25.00 Payout Ratio: 28% Last Payout: Nov 5th, 2019 Added: Aug 27th, 2019 Monitored: 86 days Lifetime: 86 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark HourJustPaid.com Paying Min/Max: $5 / $285000 Referral: Upto 15% Withdrawal: Instant 1.49-1.80% Hourly For 70 Hours Or 5-6% Hourly For 30 Hours Or 12-18% Hourly For 15 Hours Or 1-2% Hourly For 1 Year Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 23% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Apr 10th, 2019 Monitored: 225 days Lifetime: 225 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark PayIcome.io Paying Min/Max: $35 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Instant 700% After 1 Day, 6000% After 2 Days, 50000% After 3 Days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 23% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Apr 10th, 2019 Monitored: 225 days Lifetime: 225 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark 600Bitcoin.com Paying Min/Max: $30 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 600% After 1 day, 5000% After 2 days, 80000% After 3 days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 22% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Apr 9th, 2019 Monitored: 226 days Lifetime: 226 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p4 | Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Hour Bull LTD Paying Min/Max: $5 / $490000 Referral: 3%~5%~10%~15% Withdrawal: Instant 1.45-2% hourly for 72 hours or 6-8% hourly for 40 hours or 20-30% hourly for 20 hours or 5-6% hourly for 8 hours or 15-18% hourly for 4 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 18% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: May 24th, 2019 Monitored: 181 days Lifetime: 181 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark 3Deposit.com Paying Min/Max: $50 / $500000 Referral: 0.5%-10% Withdrawal: Instant 1.1% daily for 120 days or 110% after 5 days or 4% daily for 30 days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 17% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: May 27th, 2019 Monitored: 178 days Lifetime: 178 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Deposit8.com Paying Min/Max: $10 / $100,000 Referral: 3%-5%-10% Withdrawal: Manual 1.08% - 1.5% hourly for 96 hours, 4%-6% hourly for 48 hours, 10%-20% hourly for 24 hours. Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 14% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Jul 1st, 2019 Monitored: 143 days Lifetime: 143 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p5 | Get Code Bookmark HOURXO LIMITED Paying Min/Max: $5 / $300,000 Referral: 3- 10 Withdrawal: Manual 1.08% - 1.5% hourly for 96 hours, 5% - 8% hourly for 48 hours. 18% - 25% hourly for 24 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 10% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Aug 10th, 2019 Monitored: 103 days Lifetime: 103 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark SuperHourLtd Paying Min/Max: $25 / $5000000 Referral: 0.5-10% Withdrawal: Instant 1.05%-1.40% hourly for 100 hours, 2.2%-4.2% hourly for 50 hours, 18%-28% hourly for 20 hours. Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 9% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Aug 19th, 2019 Monitored: 94 days Lifetime: 94 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark HourPerfect.com Paying Min/Max: $10 / $500000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 1.3% - 1.8% Hourly FOR 80 HOURS, 6% - 8% Hourly For 40 Hours, 20% - 30% Hourly For 20 Hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 8% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Aug 25th, 2019 Monitored: 88 days Lifetime: 88 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark FastBitcoin247.com Paying Min/Max: $30 / $50,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p6 | 650% After 1 Day - 1600% After 3 Days - 11000% After 6 Days - 20000% After 18 Days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 5% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Sep 26th, 2019 Monitored: 56 days Lifetime: 56 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark RealPayment.biz Paying Min/Max: $30 / $50,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Instant 300% After 1 Day, 1000% After 2 Days, 5000% After 3 Days, 20% Hourly For 24 Hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 3% Last Payout: Oct 29th, 2019 Added: Sep 26th, 2019 Monitored: 56 days Lifetime: 56 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Hour Great Limited Paying Min/Max: $5 / $100,000 Referral: 0.5%-10% Withdrawal: Instant 1.08-1.5% hourly for 96 hours or 5-8% hourly for 48 hours or 18-25% hourly for 24 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 3% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Oct 11th, 2019 Monitored: 41 days Lifetime: 41 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark OKinstant.com Paying Min/Max: $10 / $400,000 Referral: 2% - 15% Withdrawal: Instant 1.08%~1.30% Hourly for 96 hours, 2.55%~3.75% Hourly for 40 hours, 18%~27% Hourly for 20 hours |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p7 | Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 3% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Oct 15th, 2019 Monitored: 37 days Lifetime: 37 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark JoinHour Paying Min/Max: $10 / $350,000 Referral: up to 15% Withdrawal: Instant 1.04-2.2% hourly for 100 hours or 2.3-5.6% hourly for 50 hours or 24.5-37.5% hourly for 20 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 3% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Oct 18th, 2019 Monitored: 34 days Lifetime: 34 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark HoursPayDay LTD Paying Min/Max: $5 / $450000 Referral: 3%~5%~10% Withdrawal: Instant 2.15% hourly for 48 hours or 7.15% hourly for 28 hours or 15% hourly for 18 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 1% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Nov 6th, 2019 Monitored: 15 days Lifetime: 15 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark HourTee.com Paying Min/Max: $10 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Instant 1.05% - 1.5% for 100 hours, 7.0% - 9.0% for 40 hours, 24% - 28% for 20 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 1% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Nov 8th, 2019 Monitored: 13 days |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p8 | Lifetime: 13 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark USD GAINS LIMITED Paying Min/Max: $10 / $20,000 Referral: 2%-10% Withdrawal: Instant 108% After 3 Days,180% After 12 Days,280% After 24 Days,500% After 30 Days,1200% After 45 Days,18% Daily for 20 days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Nov 12th, 2019 Monitored: 9 days Lifetime: 9 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Boublr Paying Min/Max: $0.001 BTC / $50 BTC Referral: 8% , 3% , 1% Withdrawal: Automatic 200% after 100 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 16th, 2019 Monitored: 5 days Lifetime: 4 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark HourCool.com Waiting Min/Max: $10 / $300,000 Referral: 3%-5%-10% Withdrawal: Instant 0.9% - 1% hourly for 120 hours - 6.0% - 8.0% hourly for 48 hours - 20% - 25% hourly for 24 hours. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Oct 21st, 2019 Monitored: 31 days Lifetime: 31 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p9 | Get Code Bookmark DepositWorld.biz Waiting Min/Max: $30 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Instant 600% AFTER 1 DAY, 5000% AFTER 2 DAYS, 50000% AFTER 3 DAYS Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 21st, 2019 Monitored: 0 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Hooplex Problem Min/Max: $50 / $10000 Referral: Min 3,2,1% - Max 7,5,3,2,1,1,1% Withdrawal: Manual 30 Days/0.7% per day; 60 Days/0.8% per day; 90 Days/0.9% per day; 120 Days/1% per day; 150 Days/1.05% per day; 180 Days/1.1% per day. Deposit will be returned Our Invetment: $102.00 Payout Ratio: 302% in profit Last Payout: Oct 21st, 2019 Added: May 2nd, 2019 Monitored: 203 days Lifetime: 203 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark HourGood.com Problem Min/Max: $5 / $500000 Referral: 3%-5%-10% Withdrawal: Instant 1.08% - 1.5% hourly for 96 hours - 5.0% - 8.0% hourly for 48 hours - 18% - 25% hourly for 24 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 6% Last Payout: Oct 22nd, 2019 Added: Aug 21st, 2019 Monitored: 92 days Lifetime: 92 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p10 | ALL HOURS PAY LTD Not Paying Min/Max: $5 / $500000 Referral: 3-10% Withdrawal: Manual 1.1-1.3% hourly for 96 hours or 2.8-5.6% hourly for 48 hours or 9.7-16% hourly for 24 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 30% Last Payout: Oct 22nd, 2019 Added: Jan 3rd, 2019 Monitored: 315 days Lifetime: 315 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Isubi Not Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Instant 7% - 10.3% daily for 27 - 22 days | 252% after 15 days | 352% after 13 days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 15% Last Payout: Nov 5th, 2019 Added: Oct 25th, 2019 Monitored: 20 days Lifetime: 20 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark HourUnion.com Not Paying Min/Max: $ / $No Limit Referral: 3%-5%-10% Withdrawal: Instant 1.08%-1.1% hourly for 96 hours, 1.8%-2.5% hourly for 60 hours, 6%-9% hourly fpor 24 hours. Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 10% Last Payout: Aug 30th, 2019 Added: May 25th, 2019 Monitored: 128 days Lifetime: 128 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Premium List your program in the Premium listing Available Now for $5.00/week BtcReal.biz |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p11 | Paying Min/Max: $30 / $30,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 700% After 1 Day, 6000% After 2 Day, 50000% After 3 Days, 500% After 10 Hours, 600% After 5 Hours, 800% After 2 Hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 62% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Mar 28th, 2018 Monitored: 603 days Lifetime: 603 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark BTC TRADERS Paying Min/Max: $30 / $9999 Referral: 3 Withdrawal: Manual 115% -190% After 1 Hour Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 59% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Apr 13th, 2018 Monitored: 587 days Lifetime: 587 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark BPayment.biz Paying Min/Max: $30 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 500% after 1 day, 3000% after 2 days, 30000% after 3 days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 55% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: May 29th, 2018 Monitored: 541 days Lifetime: 541 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark BTCEnjoy Paying Min/Max: $30 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 600% After 1 Day,5000% After 2 Days,4000% After 3 Days,600% After 10 Hours,800% After 5 Hours,1000% After 2 Hours Our Invetment: $100.00 |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p12 | Payout Ratio: 52% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Jun 7th, 2018 Monitored: 532 days Lifetime: 532 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark INFINITY COINS Paying Min/Max: $30 / $9999 Referral: 3 Withdrawal: Manual 120% - 200% AFTER 1 HOUR, Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 40% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Oct 10th, 2018 Monitored: 407 days Lifetime: 407 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark DepositIncome Paying Min/Max: $30 / $100,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 600% After 1 Day, 600% AFTER 1 HOUR, 600% AFTER 1 MINUTE Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 33% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Dec 9th, 2018 Monitored: 347 days Lifetime: 347 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark BtcPromise.com Paying Min/Max: $30 / $100,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 600% after 1 day, 500% after 1 hour, 400% after 1 minute Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 27% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Feb 21st, 2019 Monitored: 273 days Lifetime: 273 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Crypto Bank Problem |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p13 | Min/Max: $10 / $7000 Referral: 3 Withdrawal: Manual 0.9%-1.5% daily for 120 Days, 123%-130% After 20 Days, 1.5%-2% Hourly For 100 Hours. Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 60% Last Payout: Sep 13th, 2019 Added: Mar 9th, 2018 Monitored: 622 days Lifetime: 622 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Mega Passive Cycler Ltd Not Paying Min/Max: $10 / $N/A Referral: 15 Withdrawal: Manual 0.5% Daily For 600 Business Days,5% Daily For 40 Business Day,10% Daily For 20 Business Days,20% Daily For 10 Business Days. Our Invetment: $20.00 Payout Ratio: 79% Last Payout: Apr 12th, 2019 Added: Oct 11th, 2018 Monitored: 199 days Lifetime: 199 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark SoftHour.biz Not Paying Min/Max: $10 / $200,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 0.90% Hourly for 120 Hours, 1.45% Hourly for 72 Hours, 2.20% Hourly for 48 Hours, 125% after 24 Hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 1% Last Payout: Oct 31st, 2019 Added: Oct 29th, 2019 Monitored: 16 days Lifetime: 16 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Normal List your program in the Normal listing Available on Never for $5.00/week BTCcoinmine cloud mine |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p14 | Paying Min/Max: $3 / $no max Referral: no Withdrawal: Automatic 3% per calendar day Our Invetment: $15.00 Payout Ratio: 113% in profit Last Payout: Oct 9th, 2019 Added: Sep 6th, 2019 Monitored: 76 days Lifetime: 76 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Deposit2Rich.com Paying Min/Max: $30 / $30,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 600% After 1 Day, 5000% After 2 Days, 40000% After 3 Days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 26% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Mar 3rd, 2019 Monitored: 263 days Lifetime: 263 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark TrustCash Paying Min/Max: $40 / $30,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 700% after 1 day, 1000% after 12 hours, 6000% after 2 days. 8000% after 6 hour, 90000% after 3 days. Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 25% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Mar 12th, 2019 Monitored: 254 days Lifetime: 254 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark DayDeposit.com Paying Min/Max: $35 / $200,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 700% after 1 day, 700% after 1 hour, 700% after 1 min Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 22% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p15 | Added: Mar 15th, 2019 Monitored: 251 days Lifetime: 251 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark WishBTC.com Paying Min/Max: $35 / $50,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 600% AFTER 1 DAY, 5000% AFTER 2 DAYS, 9000% AFTER 3 DAYS, 2000% AFTER 12 HOURS Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 11% Last Payout: Oct 21st, 2019 Added: May 17th, 2019 Monitored: 188 days Lifetime: 188 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark AharonFund Paying Min/Max: $15 / $200,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 15% Daily For 100 Days 200% After 3 Days 350% After Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 10% Last Payout: Jan 2nd, 2019 Added: Sep 24th, 2018 Monitored: 423 days Lifetime: 423 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Rivat Investment Paying Min/Max: $10 / $100,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 1.1%-10% Daily For 100 Days, 150%-200% After 3 Days, 180%-350% After 5 Days. Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 9% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Aug 22nd, 2019 Monitored: 91 days Lifetime: 91 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Demacia Investment |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p16 | Paying Min/Max: $10 / $200,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 10% Daily For 100 Days 200% After 2 Days 500% After Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 7% Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2019 Added: Sep 11th, 2019 Monitored: 71 days Lifetime: 71 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark PerfectUsd.com Not Paying Min/Max: $50 / $80000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 700% After 1 Day, 5000% After 1 Day, 20000% After 2 Days, 30000% After 2 Days, 80000% After 3 Days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 1% Last Payout: Oct 21st, 2019 Added: Oct 10th, 2019 Monitored: 26 days Lifetime: 26 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark InsiderTrading.Club Not Paying Min/Max: $20 / $5000 Referral: 0 Withdrawal: Automatic around 5% per week Our Invetment: $30.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 2nd, 2019 Monitored: 12 days Lifetime: 12 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Trial List your program in the Trial listing Available on Never for $5.00/week PayeerInvest.com Paying Min/Max: $1 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 140% after 1 day,160% after 2 days,480% after 32 days,6% daily for 200 days |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p17 | Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 26% Last Payout: Apr 12th, 2019 Added: Nov 15th, 2016 Monitored: 1101 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Orient Investment Company Paying Min/Max: $1 / $N/A Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 155% after 2 days, 190% after 4 days, 260% after 8 days and more Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 23% Last Payout: Apr 12th, 2019 Added: Dec 2nd, 2016 Monitored: 1084 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark PerfectMoneyInvest Paying Min/Max: $1 / $N/A Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 155% after 2 days, 190% after 4 days, 260% after 8 days, 260% after 8 days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 7% Last Payout: Jun 10th, 2019 Added: Sep 3rd, 2018 Monitored: 444 days Lifetime: 444 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Bits On Bits Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual New 260% After 10 Minutes, 270% After 30 Minutes, 310% After 2 Hours. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 1st, 2019 Monitored: 20 days Lifetime: 20 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p18 | Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Crypto Shares Paying Min/Max: $9 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 292% After 1 Hour, 383% After 3 Hours, 465% After 5 Hours. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 2nd, 2019 Monitored: 19 days Lifetime: 19 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Make Bitcoins Paying Min/Max: $8 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 285% After 10 Minutes, 310% After 30 Minutes, 410% After 1 Hour. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 3rd, 2019 Monitored: 18 days Lifetime: 18 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark No Limit Earn Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 150% After Only 20 Minutes, 190% After 2 Hours, 205% After 3 Hours. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 5th, 2019 Monitored: 16 days Lifetime: 16 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Total Fund Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 155% After Only 1 Hour, 185% After 2 Hours, 310% After 2 Hours. |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p19 | Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 6th, 2019 Monitored: 15 days Lifetime: 15 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Ultra Gold Paying Min/Max: $1 / $250000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 20% Hourly for 6 hours, 10%Hourly For 15 Hours, 350% After 3 Days, 1450% After 12 Days Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 6th, 2019 Monitored: 15 days Lifetime: 15 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Stone Cash Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 232% After 10 Minutes, 245% After 15 Minutes, 328% After 1 Hour. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 7th, 2019 Monitored: 14 days Lifetime: 14 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Mono Pay Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 200% After 20 Minutes, 220% After 30 Minutes, 260% After 1 Hour. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 8th, 2019 Monitored: 13 days Lifetime: 13 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p20 | Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Crypto Block Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 166% After 1 Hour, 177% After 2 Hours, 218% After 3 Hours. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 9th, 2019 Monitored: 12 days Lifetime: 12 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Web Profit Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 50% Daily For 3 Days, 132% After 1 Day, 145% After 1 Hour. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 10th, 2019 Monitored: 11 days Lifetime: 11 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Best Gold Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 27%-102% Hourly For 6 Hours. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 12th, 2019 Monitored: 9 days Lifetime: 9 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Mega Earners Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 36%-132% Hourly For 5 Hours. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 13th, 2019 Monitored: 8 days |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p21 | Lifetime: 8 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Bay Pay Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 200% After 10 Minutes, 250% After 1 Hour, 300% After 2 Hours. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 14th, 2019 Monitored: 7 days Lifetime: 7 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Million-fund Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 40% HOURLY FOR 4 HOURS,45% HOURLY FOR 4 HOURS Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 14th, 2019 Monitored: 7 days Lifetime: 7 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Trust-paying Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 15% hourly for 10 hours,25% hourly for 7 hours,30% hourly for 7 hours Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 14th, 2019 Monitored: 7 days Lifetime: 7 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Fast Money Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 36%-106% Hourly For 4 Hours. Our Invetment: $0.00 |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p22 | Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 15th, 2019 Monitored: 6 days Lifetime: 6 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Bit Kong Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 220% After 30 Minutes, 260% After 45 Minutes, 360% After 1 Hour. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 16th, 2019 Monitored: 5 days Lifetime: 5 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark System-fund Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 35% Hourly For 5 Hours,40% Hourly For 5 Hours,45% Hourly For 5 Hours Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 16th, 2019 Monitored: 5 days Lifetime: 5 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Viva Fund Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 30%-50% Hourly For 4 Hours. Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 17th, 2019 Monitored: 4 days Lifetime: 4 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Viva-fund Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p23 | Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 30% Hourly For 5 Hours,150% After 1 Day Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 18th, 2019 Monitored: 3 days Lifetime: 3 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Million-paying Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 132% After 1 Day,50% Daily For 3 Days,190% After 5 Days Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 18th, 2019 Monitored: 3 days Lifetime: 3 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Trusted-euro Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 5 Withdrawal: Manual 40% Hourly for 3 Hours,50% Hourly for 3 Hours,60% Hourly for 3 Hours Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 19th, 2019 Monitored: 2 days Lifetime: 2 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Global-pay Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 140% After 1 Day,231% After 3 Days,312% After 4 Days Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 19th, 2019 Monitored: 2 days Lifetime: 2 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p24 | Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Rise-fund Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 41% Hourly For 4 Hours,46% Hourly For 4 Hours Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 20th, 2019 Monitored: 1 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Fastdollar Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 25% hourly for 5 hours,30% hourly for 5 hours,40% hourly for 5 hour Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 20th, 2019 Monitored: 1 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark More-dollar Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 20% Daily For 7 Days,180% After 1 Day Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 20th, 2019 Monitored: 1 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Evo-paying Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 25% Hourly for 6 Hours,35% Hourly for 6 Hours,45% Hourly for 6 Hours Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p25 | Added: Nov 21st, 2019 Monitored: 0 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Lucky-invest Paying Min/Max: $10 / $10,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 20% Daily For 7 Days,30% Daily For 5 Days,220% After 1 Day Our Invetment: $0.00 Payout Ratio: 0% Last Payout: No Payouts Added: Nov 21st, 2019 Monitored: 0 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Scam BtcMidas.com Not Paying Min/Max: $30 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 700% after 1 day, 6000% after 2 days, 50000% after 3 days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 92% Last Payout: Aug 30th, 2019 Added: Mar 16th, 2017 Monitored: 928 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark PayInvest.biz Not Paying Min/Max: $5 / $10,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 0.9%-1.0% HOURLY FOR 120 HOURS, 3.0%-4.0% HOURLY FOR 72 HOURS, 15%-20% HOURLY FOR 24 HOURS Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 35% Last Payout: Apr 9th, 2018 Added: Apr 30th, 2017 Monitored: 377 days Lifetime: 13 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark FATFUNDS.ME |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p26 | Problem Min/Max: $5 / $1000000 Referral: 10% Withdrawal: Automatic 2.1% for 100 working days Our Invetment: $50.00 Payout Ratio: 488% in profit Last Payout: Oct 14th, 2017 Added: May 4th, 2017 Monitored: 931 days Lifetime: 685 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark CoinsCircle LTD Problem Min/Max: $5 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 1.11%~1.22% hourly for 96 hours, 2.78%~4.06% hourly for 40 hours, 9%~13% hourly for 24 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 28% Last Payout: Mar 3rd, 2018 Added: Jun 7th, 2017 Monitored: 897 days Lifetime: 598 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Investsar.com Not Paying Min/Max: $5 / $500,000 Referral: 12 Withdrawal: Manual 1.08%-1.35% hourly for 96 hours, 6%-8% hourly for 48 hours, 17%-24% hourly for 24 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 23% Last Payout: Jan 30th, 2018 Added: Jun 23rd, 2017 Monitored: 253 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark highinve Not Paying Min/Max: $20 / $50000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 1250% After 1 Hour, 3000% After 2 Hours, 6000% After 3 Hours, 10000% After 12 Hours, 100000% After 1 Day Our Invetment: $30.00 |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p27 | Payout Ratio: 227% in profit Last Payout: Feb 9th, 2018 Added: Jun 27th, 2017 Monitored: 234 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark COINKING INVESTMENT LTD. Not Paying Min/Max: $1$ / $10,000$ Referral: 6% Withdrawal: Instant 1% daily, 18% hourly for 13 hours, 200% after 1 day, 550% after 3 days, 6000% after 12 days Our Invetment: $50.00 Payout Ratio: 8% Last Payout: Jul 26th, 2017 Added: Jul 11th, 2017 Monitored: 863 days Lifetime: 685 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark FantasticDeposit.com Problem Min/Max: $10 / $50,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 1.08% - 1.45% HOURLY FOR 96 HOURS, 3% - 5% HOURLY FOR 48 HOUR, 10% - 15% HOURLY FOR 24 HOURS Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 14% Last Payout: Dec 25th, 2017 Added: Aug 4th, 2017 Monitored: 839 days Lifetime: 651 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark HourTrust.com Not Paying Min/Max: $15 / $300,000 Referral: 6 Withdrawal: Manual 0.5%-0.55% hourly for 210 hours . 1.45%-1.65% hourly for 72 hours .5%-8% hourly for 24 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 37% Last Payout: Aug 7th, 2018 Added: Aug 21st, 2017 |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p28 | Monitored: 393 days Lifetime: 20 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Trademasters Investment LTD Not Paying Min/Max: $1$ / $10,000$ Referral: 6% Withdrawal: Instant 3.5% hourly forever, 14% for 10 hours, 170% after 1 day. 575% after 3 days, 1150% after 6 days, 2550% after 9 days Our Invetment: $50.00 Payout Ratio: 21% Last Payout: Oct 2nd, 2017 Added: Sep 6th, 2017 Monitored: 806 days Lifetime: 685 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Fast Pay Btc Paying Min/Max: $5 / $500,000 Referral: 12 Withdrawal: Manual 1.41-1.58% HOURLY FOR 72 HOURS,3.68-4.13% HOURLY FOR 40 HOURS Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 16% Last Payout: Feb 8th, 2018 Added: Sep 11th, 2017 Monitored: 801 days Lifetime: 628 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark FEXBIT BUSINESS LIMITED Not Paying Min/Max: $30 / $50,000 Referral: 2 Withdrawal: Manual 101.5% -110% after 1 day, 106% - 150% after 3 days, 116% - 300% after 3 days Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 10% Last Payout: Dec 25th, 2017 Added: Sep 18th, 2017 Monitored: 116 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p29 | Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark DOLLAREUR Not Paying Min/Max: $20 / $50,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 1482% AFTER 1 Hour, 3268% AFTER 2 Hours, 6324% AFTER 3 Hours, 14285% AFTER 12 Hour Our Invetment: $30.00 Payout Ratio: 137% in profit Last Payout: Feb 9th, 2018 Added: Sep 22nd, 2017 Monitored: 147 days Lifetime: 1 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark ProfitHeap Not Paying Min/Max: $5 / $Unlimited Referral: 5-7-10% Withdrawal: Instant 142% after 1 day, 350% after 5 days, VIP Our Invetment: $50.00 Payout Ratio: 32% Last Payout: Oct 13th, 2017 Added: Oct 5th, 2017 Monitored: 777 days Lifetime: 685 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Crypto Profit Bank Not Paying Min/Max: $10$ / $10000$ Referral: 5% 3% 2% Withdrawal: Automatic 15% For 10 Hours , 5% Daily For 30 Days ,150% After 1 Days,200% After 5 Days Our Invetment: $50.00 Payout Ratio: 23% Last Payout: Oct 18th, 2017 Added: Oct 9th, 2017 Monitored: 773 days Lifetime: 685 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark LifePay.biz Problem Min/Max: $5 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p30 | 1.08%-1.1% Hourly For 96 Hours, 1.5%-2% Hourly For 72 Hours, 5%-8% Hourly For 36 Hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 8% Last Payout: Jan 12th, 2018 Added: Oct 28th, 2017 Monitored: 754 days Lifetime: 635 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark PayInstantly.biz Not Paying Min/Max: $30 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Manual 500% After 1 day, 500% After 1 hour, 500% After 1 min Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 42% Last Payout: Nov 7th, 2018 Added: Nov 13th, 2017 Monitored: 412 days Lifetime: 17 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark CoinsClub.biz Problem Min/Max: $5 / $500,000 Referral: 15 Withdrawal: Manual 0.95%~0.99% Hourly For 110 Hours Or 2.33%~3.66% Hourly For 50 Hours Or 11%~22% Hourly For 24 Hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 12% Last Payout: Mar 10th, 2018 Added: Nov 16th, 2017 Monitored: 735 days Lifetime: 606 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark InvestLister Limited Not Paying Min/Max: $10 / $N/A Referral: 3-20% Withdrawal: Manual 5% Daily For 150 Business Days, 10% Daily For 40 Business Days, 20% Daily For 20 Business Days, 35% Daily For 15 Business Days, 150% AFTER 1 BUSINESS DAY, 500% AFTER 5 BUSINESS DAY and more |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p31 | Our Invetment: $50.00 Payout Ratio: 16% Last Payout: Apr 9th, 2018 Added: Mar 1st, 2018 Monitored: 52 days Lifetime: 52 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Invexic Limited Problem Min/Max: $10 / $N/A Referral: 20 Withdrawal: Manual % Daily for 100 Trading Days, 6% Daily For 45 Trading Days, 10% Daily For 25 Trading Days, 600% After 35 Trading Days and 1500% After 60 Trading Days. Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 15% Last Payout: May 19th, 2018 Added: Mar 9th, 2018 Monitored: 622 days Lifetime: 622 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark BIT LANDIS LIMITED Not Paying Min/Max: $30 / $100,000 Referral: 3 Withdrawal: Manual 2.2% daily for 30 days Our Invetment: $30.00 Payout Ratio: 174% in profit Last Payout: Jun 2nd, 2018 Added: Mar 22nd, 2018 Monitored: 110 days Lifetime: 110 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark JoinDeposit.com Problem Min/Max: $20 / $300,000 Referral: 10 Withdrawal: Instant 0.58% - 0.64% HOURLY FOR 180 HOURS, 1.12% - 2.15% HOURLY FOR 96 HOURS, 10% - 18% HOURLY FOR 24 HOURS, 105% - 108% AFTER 1 DAY, 500% - 700% AFTER 3 DAYS, 2000% - 5000% AFTER 10 DAYS |
http://hyiphotlister.com/home/_p32 | Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 14% Last Payout: Oct 24th, 2018 Added: Jun 6th, 2018 Monitored: 533 days Lifetime: 533 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Guru of Finance Not Paying Min/Max: $10 / $500000 Referral: 10%-2%-1%, 8%-2% Withdrawal: Manual 2.2%-3% daily for 20-90 days, 2.5%-8% after 2-14 days. Our Invetment: $50.00 Payout Ratio: 235% in profit Last Payout: Nov 14th, 2018 Added: Aug 13th, 2018 Monitored: 107 days Lifetime: 107 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark InfinitHour Not Paying Min/Max: $5 / $500,000 Referral: 3-7 Withdrawal: Manual 1.08%-1.25% hourly for 96 hours, 5%-6% hourly for 48 hours, 16%-21% hourly for 24 hours. Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 6% Last Payout: Oct 24th, 2018 Added: Aug 23rd, 2018 Monitored: 97 days Lifetime: 97 days AHM 58 ISP H M F L h Details Vote Now Payouts Traffic Whois Report Scam Get Code Bookmark Global Safe Deposit LTD Problem Min/Max: $30 / $50,000 Referral: 5-15 Withdrawal: Manual 300% after 1 day, 900% after 2 days, 1200% after 3 days, 600% after 1 hour, 1800% after 2 hours, 2400% after 3 hours Our Invetment: $100.00 Payout Ratio: 11% Last Payout: Dec 20th, 2018 Added: Sep 6th, 2018 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.