son-of-frankensteinWelcome to my third installment in this month’s classic monster movie festival. This year I am revisiting the Frankenstein series. Today I want to explore the final movie where Boris Karloff starred as Frankenstein’s Monster; Son of Frankenstein. I want to use this final installment in the Karloff trilogy to look at how the character he played evolved through the three movies; Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein and Son of Frankenstein.

Joyce Wegmuller, reviewing Son of Frankenstein in Kiss My Review, said, “The progression of the character as Karloff played him through three movies is fascinating. In “Frankenstein” he is an infant — new born to the world, ignorant and curious. He first learns fear when Fritz taunts him with fire. His next lesson is abandonment by his creator. He experiences some tenderness with little Maria, but in his innocent attempt to share in the playful game, he kills her and learns another confusing lesson in loss. More betrayal by his creator drives him to rage and murder.”

In Bride of Frankenstein Karloff starts his character with rage. Wegmuller wrote, “His attempts to find some relief are met with violence from the villagers. During his one brief moment of solace with the blind hermit, he learns about friendship and love, not to mention the pleasures of wine and cigars. This interlude is interrupted and he finds refuge in the tomb where he meets Doctor Pretorius who puts the idea of a girlfriend to him. Even after Doctor Pretorius persuades Henry Frankenstein to help him create a mate for Karloff, things go very badly. The Monster is rejected and hated by the one creature who might possibly have accepted and loved him, his bride.”

At the beginning of the Son of Frankenstein, the Monster is not in a very trusting mood. He finds companionship in one character, the demented Ygor (played by Bela Lugosi) who compels him to murder enemies of Ygor. After the Monster believes that the son of his creator, Wolf von Frankenstein (played by Basil Rathbone), killed Ygor the Monster kidnaps Wolf’s son but in the end yields to his basic humanity and does not harm the boy. The Son of Frankenstein was a great end to the three picture run of Karloff as the Monster.

I thought about this development of Karloff as Frankenstein’s Monster when I read a blog post by Tony Maida and Rebecca C. Martin, writing in the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation blog entitled “One Year Later: The Yates Memo, False Claims Act and Director & Executive Liability”. In the piece they discussed two recent False Claims Act (FCA) cases which may shed light on the direction the Department of Justice (DOJ) is headed under the Yates Memo and FCPA Pilot Program.

The first involved North American Health Care Inc. (NAHC) and two individuals, its chairman of the board and a senior vice president of reimbursement. The company settled potential FCA claims for a total of $30MM and the two individuals agreed to pay $1MM and $500,000 respectively. The second matter involved the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Tuomey Healthcare, after the company paid $72.4MM in its FCA settlement and two years after his departure from company, resolved his “own liability for $1 million, has been required to release any indemnification claims he may have had against the company, and has agreed to a four-year period of exclusion from participating in federal health care programs.”

For both cases, the authors note that with “each of these closely timed settlements, the government’s announcement highlights the inclusion of individuals in the resolution and draws a clear connection to the Yates Memo’s premise.” They also point to the remarks of DOJ official Bill Baer at the SCCE 2016 Compliance and Ethics Institute, stating, “he spoke at length about the application of the Yates memo to civil matters, emphasizing the need for companies proactively to provide to the government information about all relevant facts, including those relating to individuals “no matter where those individuals fall in the corporate hierarchy”. The timing of these settlements and DOJ’s additional guidance suggests that we are seeing the impact of Yates on civil resolutions.” For my summary of Baer’s remarks, see this prior post.

Kevin M. LaCroix, writing in his always informative D&O Diary, in a piece entitled “The Yates Memo and Civil Liability for Corporate Officers and Directors, noted three key elements in these FCA settlements, which raise issues for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement actions after the Yates Memo and FCPA Pilot Program. First these cases were civil not criminal resolutions. LaCroix believes, I think rightly, that the DOJ intends to implement the Yates Memo’s guidelines on individual liability in connection with civil actions, in addition to criminal matters. He went to opine, “The fact that the principles embodied in the Yates Memo will be extended to civil enforcement actions as well is an added concern for corporate executives. At a minimum, the clear implication is that in connection with government-led civil enforcement actions, corporate executives could find themselves specifically targeted for civil liability.”

I would also add that under the FCPA Pilot Program, there were two recent settlements of privately held companies, HMT LLC and NCH Corporation, which are not subject to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversight for FCPA jurisdiction. Yet both companies were required to disgorge profits to receive declinations. Clear evidence that there will be a blurring of previously distinct remedies on the civil and criminal sides of FCPA enforcement.

Second, LaCroix believes it is significant that the individuals were not required to admit to criminal liability. As you might expect from his perspective as an expert in directors and officers’ insurance coverage, he is concerned “that individual’s caught up in one of these kinds of regulatory actions would be compelled as a condition of settlement to make admissions that potentially could eliminate whatever remaining possibility there might have been for the individuals to seek coverage under their company’s D&O insurance policies.” However, with no criminal admissions this concern was lessened, although not ameliorated because of LaCroix’s third element.

It was that Ralph J. Cox III, the former CEO of Tuomey Healthcare, was required to relinquish any right to indemnification. While noting this was not “unprecedented”; LaCroix pointed out that “if an executive waives his or her right to indemnification from the company, that likely would preclude the possibility for coverage under the D&O insurance policy’s corporate reimbursement coverage.” This element not only could negatively impact the corporate officer or director involved in any such enforcement action but potentially could impact the corporate defendant as well. By furnishing indemnity protection, it tends to keep all the defendants aligned. If an officer or director has to pay his own defense, they may well decide their interests are not aligned with the corporation and take actions based upon this calculus.

Many compliance practitioners have speculated on the evolution of DOJ prosecutions after the Yates Memo and announcement of the FCPA Pilot Program. These cases show one clear direction which the DOJ is headed. With the focus on the civil side of enforcement, these cases could well herald what the DOJ may expect in the area of individual enforcement actions involving senior executives or Board of Director members going forward. When you couple these cases with the remarks of Bill Baer, at the SCCE 2016 Compliance and Ethics Institute, the evolution is appearing clearer.


This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at

© Thomas R. Fox, 2016

Show Notes for Episode 27, week ending October 21, 2016-the Walla Walla Edition:

  1. Lennox Industries self-reports a $425 bribe- as reported on the FCPA Blog;
  2. Another guilty plea in FIFA corruption scandal-as reported on the FCPA Blog;
  3. Public Citizen letter to DOJ/SEC re: Wal-Mart FCPA investigation, to read the letter click here;
  4. Miller & Chevalier Autumn 2016 FCPA Report released, for a copy click here;
  5. First FCPA Mock Trial Institute-for information and registration, click here;
  6. FCPA Blog NYC Conference-for information and registration click, here. Best of all, for listens of this podcast you are entitled to a 20% discount off the regular price. You can access the discount by clicking here.
  7. The Jay Rosen Weekend Report





dylannobelBob Dylan won the Nobel Prize for literature. Those were words I never thought I would see in the same sentence, let alone write in the same sentence. Yet here we are, the first rock and roller to win the Nobel Prize. While he did win the award for his songwriting poetry, I do consider Dylan a rock and roller. It is not simply so I can claim him but, if you have ever seen him perform live, you know he can seriously rock out. In honor of Dylan, this week I will highlight songs which led him to this prestigious station in life, Bob Dylan – Nobel Laureate.

I open Bob Dylan – Nobel Laureate week with one of the most enigmatic Dylan songs of all time, Subterranean Homesick Blues, which was the lead track on the album Bringing It All Back Home. The song was Dylan’s first Top 40 hit in the US, peaking at number 39 on the Billboard Hot 100. With its open lines of Johnny’s in the basement, Mixing up the medicine; I’m on the pavement, Thinking about the government to my personal favorite You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows the song is a seemingly mixed metaphor of Jack Kerouac and Woody Guthrie. While the 1960s radicals The Weathermen took their name from this song, it now stands for understanding where things tend to be headed (cf. Mike Volkov).

I thought about where things might be headed for US companies, looking forward to doing business in Cuba, through the lens of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) over the weekend when I read that the Obama Administration, through a Presidential Policy Initiative, lifted a portion of the trade embargo applicable to Cuba. I was more interested in the part which Dylan’s wind blowing lines portended. The Initiative stated, in part, that “our role will be to pursue policies that enable authorized U.S. private sector engagement with Cuba’s emerging private sector and with state-owned enterprises that provide goods and services to the Cuban people.” It then went on to direct the US Department of Commerce to “continue a robust outreach effort to ensure that U.S. companies understand that U.S. regulatory changes provide new opportunities to obtain licenses or use license exceptions to increase authorized exports to Cuba, including to Cuban state-owned enterprises that provide goods and services to meet the needs of the Cuban people.” [emphasis supplied]

According to the New York Times (NYT), “The action formalizes the shift toward normalization that the president unveiled nearly two years ago.” Most of the attention was centered on “lifting the $100 limit on bringing Cuban rum and cigars into the United States”. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported, “The regulations announced Friday allow professional service companies, such as engineering and architecture firms, to work on projects related to developing, repairing or maintaining infrastructure… Businesses also may now enter into contracts that are contingent on steps to fully lift the U.S. embargo, which remains in place and requires congressional action to dissolve.”

The wind is clearly blowing for an opening of full relations between the US and Cuba and while there are still obstacles to overcome, it is no longer if full diplomatic relations will return but when. However, with its still full socialist state government doing business in or with Cuba presents some interesting issues from the FCPA perspective.

First, and foremost, the government literally owns (almost) everything. There is some private enterprise but it is very small scale, from the guys peddling bottled water on the street corner to the restaurateur who has converted his house into an eatery catering to foreigners. However, these small-scale entrepreneurs must stay small scale. You can basically have a license to operate one such private enterprise. And here even the homes are owned by the government, or as it would say, the property of the Cuban people.

This means that any US business that desires to open commercial operations in Cuba will have to deal directly with the Cuban government and this clearly means the FCPA will apply to every transaction. From the moment you apply for a visa to travel to Cuba until you walk about the departure gate at the airport to board your return flight to the US, you will be interacting with people who work for the government of Cuba. They may work for the state in a ministry, in a business that delivers products or services inside the country or interact with foreigners, such as US companies who want to do business in Cuba. But make no mistake about it, they are all paid by the government under a set pay scale across the island, with each business delivering a product or service recognized as one provided by the government of Cuba. If those factors do not convince you, note that all such commercial businesses are owned directly by the government.

This also means that anyone you hire to assist you in this process will be covered under the FCPA. Every Cuban law firm, authorized to do business with foreign clients, is government owned. Another chamber of commerce type person, economist or even law professor you might hire to assist you is an employee of the Cuban government so the FCPA will apply in all of your dealings with those persons and entities as well. This is true whether you consider the foreign official or instrumentality prong of the FCPA.

The process to obtain a license to do business in Cuba is long and very drawn out. Any business looking for a quick return on investment in this country should look elsewhere as it would appear that you are looking at most probably a two-year process just to obtain a license. Clearly an investment in Cuba is a long-term play so hopefully this means companies that understand such plays will be making the entrees going forward. Also with the government interactions you will need to make throughout the process, a robust set of internal controls will be a must going forward, with your key mantra of Document, Document, and Document.

As the world has seen what happens when a socialist economy moves dramatically to a market economy, it is safe to assume that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will be watching US companies very closely to monitor compliance with the FCPA. Here you can recall the several US entities which invested in Libya and are now under FCPA scrutiny for their dealing with the Libyan Sovereign Wealth Fund and its employees. Moreover, after the Nu Skin FCPA enforcement action, you should keep in mind that even a single FCPA violation can give rise to an enforcement action.

Yet any company that is actually doing compliance with an effective compliance program need not fear doing business with a socialist state such as Cuba. One of the key reasons to have a compliance program in place is so that you can manage high risk situations, including those with state-owned enterprises. Such is the situation in Cuba and no company needs to fear doing so going forward if they are they are doing compliance.

To see a YouTube version of Subterranean Homesick Blues from DA Pennebaker’s documentary Don’t Look Back, click here.


This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at

© Thomas R. Fox, 2016

qtq80-OzJJ18Sometimes an idea is so simplistically brilliant you wonder why no one actually thought of it before. That was the first thing I thought when two Houston lawyers, Keith Hennessee, OF Counsel at Givens & Johnston, and Joel Androphy, partner at Berg & Androphy, told me that they were going to put on the First Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Mock Trial Institute. The event will be held over two days in Houston, on November 16 and 17.

As the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) have increased their scrutiny of transnational business activities, and are actively coordinating with their foreign counterparts, the importance of having a thorough understanding of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is critical. With the advent of the Yates Memo, Yates Binders and the DOJ’s FCPA Pilot Program, many have opined that an increasing number of these cases will be litigated through discovery and trial. The Institute will focus on the unique evidentiary and trial challenges that the parties must negotiate to successfully litigate and try a FCPA case. Working from a hypothetical fact pattern, a faculty consisting of experienced trial attorneys from private practice and the government, along with consultants, will explore the strategic, tactical and practical aspects of successfully litigating FCPA cases. To prepare for the event, the panelists will be working in teams (defense and government) in order to make the trial as realistic as possible. The fact pattern is structured so that both sides will be able to focus on strong themes to use in the trial, from voir dire, through opening statements, direct and cross examination of key witnesses, and closing arguments. They will also be working with trial consultants to evaluate how to best to present their case in the mock trial.

The capstone of this unique event will be the mock FCPA trial, from voir dire through jury deliberations, presided over by a sitting federal judge, which attendees will be able to observe live and via video. Attendees of this program will improve their knowledge and understanding of the novel challenges involved in evaluating and potentially litigating a FCPA case, including the following:

  • Developing Trial Themes and a Litigation Plan
  • Jury Selection
  • Openings and Closings
  • Direct and Cross Examination

The goal of this event is to present a seminar on the FCPA in the form of a mock criminal trial of an individual and a corporation. The corporate defendant is Technical Analysis and Software Corp (TASSC) and the individual defendant is Yuan Wang Soon. The prosecution case against the individual defendant will be presented by a former DOJ chief and the defense of the corporation and individual defendant will be led by an experienced trial lawyer who has actually successfully defended a real FCPA case and the former chief of the criminal division of the US Attorney’s office in Houston.

For all who have complained there are never any trials involving allegations around the FCPA, this mock trial is the next best thing. Androphy, one of the top white collar criminal defense lawyers in Houston, who successfully defended John O’Shea, an individual charged with criminally violating the FCPA, will lead the defense team, together with his partner Sarah Frazier (who also assisted on the O’Shea trial) and Michael Clark, from the Duane Morris law firm.

To balance out this heavy weight defense team, the prosecution will be headed up by Will Stellmach, a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, who practices in the firm’s Litigation Department and is a member of the firm’s White Collar Criminal Defense Practice Group. Stellmach was previously the Acting Chief and Acting Principal Deputy Chief of the Fraud Section in the Criminal Division at Main Justice, overseeing a team of nearly 100 prosecutors investigating and prosecuting a range of complex financial crimes, including all criminal FCPA matters and national priority cases.

Presiding over this distinguished panel of counsel will be an equally distinguished judge, the Honorable Gregg Costa, Judge for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal. Judge Costa served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Texas, leading the prosecution team which tried and convicted Allan Stanford. Costa was later appointed to the bench as judge in the Southern District of Texas. He was then elevated to the Fifth Circuit.

Yet this is only one-half of the two-day event. The second day will be multiple panels discussing all aspects of the matter, from start to finish. The panels will begin with the trial lawyers discussion of key strategies, issues and themes in the trial. The next panel will focus on advising the company’s General Counsel (GC) on all issues surrounding the trial as well as ancillary issues such as SEC reporting requirements in FCPA enforcement actions.

I will be leading a panel of several distinguished current and former Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs). We will discuss not only what went wrong in the organization but how a company can move towards remediating an issue or issues during a FCPA investigation and trial. Several of the CCOs have worked in and through FCPA investigations so they will be able to bring their substantive, practical experience to the discussion.

Two of the panels I am excited to hear will be the discussion by corporate Heads of Litigation on several topics including options open to the company, government cooperation, and the impact of the Yates Memo in FCPA Cases. The second panel will include former federal investigators and consultants who will talk about their unique roles in investigating FCPA cases and participating in FCPA trials.

Finally, I will lead a second panel which will discuss two seemingly disparate topics. The first is ethical considerations in corporate investigations after the Yates Memo and DOJ Pilot Program. The second topic involves the Fourth Estate. There will be some top current and former investigative reports and business columnists who will bring their unique perspectives on how they would investigate and report on FCPA violations and FCPA trials.

For more information, including the full agenda, CLE credit and rates, you should check out the ABA website for the First Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Mock Trial Institute by clicking here.

john-fogertyI recently saw John Fogerty in concert. For those you are not aware, he was a founding member and the driving force behind Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR), one of the very top American groups from the 1960s and early 1970s. After the band’s disintegration, Fogerty continued on as a solo artist. CCR was distinctive in that its rock and roll roots were Stephen Foster as much as anyone and in the middle of the British invasion brought a uniquely American sound with a very hard edge. From the anthem of Vietnam vets, Who’ll Stop the Rain, to the greatest Halloween song Bad Moon Rising (that is – after Boris Karloff’s version of the Monster Mash); CCR brought serious American root chops to rock.

Fogerty continues to rock out and played a 2.5 hour set straight through from his opening song of Proud Mary to his encore performances of Travelin’ Band, Bad Moon Rising and Fortunate Son; it was one great night of rock and roll for any who listened to music in the 60s or 70s. His son played lead guitar for him and it was very obvious that Fogerty had a father’s joy in working with his son. If he comes to your town, I suggest you run, don’t walk, to the show.

Fogerty’s performance informs today’s blog post about the recent Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Nu Skin Enterprises Inc. (Nu Skin) and its Chinese subsidiary, Nu Skin (China) Daily Use & Health Products Co. Ltd. (Nu Skin China). Nu Skin is a Utah based entity, which, according to the SEC Cease and Desist Order (Order), is “in the business of manufacturing and marketing cosmetic and nutritional products primarily through direct selling, or multi-level marketing [MLM], channels.”

Although it was a relatively small enforcement action with a civil money penalty in the amount of $300,000, coupled with a disgorgement profits in the amount of $431,088, plus prejudgment interest of $34,600, the matter has several interesting aspects for the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) or compliance practitioner to consider. First, although it might seem somewhat unusual for such an entity to become embroiled in a FCPA enforcement action it is the uniqueness of it that points to several lessons to be garnered by any company doing business under a MLM sales model. Next the case involved corruption around a charitable donation and it, therefore, serves as a stark reminder of the high-risk of charitable donations under the FCPA. Finally, the matter reminds everyone of the strict liability nature of violations of the Accounting Provisions of the FCPA including both internal control provisions and books and records provisions of the Act.

The allegations are that Nu Skin China made a donation which totaled approximately $154,000 to a charity in China to secure the intercession of a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) official to stop an ongoing investigation of the company. Nu Skin China had engaged in direct selling in China, in violation of Chinese domestic law, and was under investigation by the Administration of Industry and Commerce.

Nu Skin China decided, rather than comply with the law, it would seek to influence the investigation through corrupt means. According to the Order, “A Nu Skin China employee contacted the Party Official, who was his acquaintance, to suggest a charity located in the province. The Party Official had a pending request to Nu Skin China to facilitate obtaining college recommendation letters to U.S. universities from an influential U.S. person for his child. The Party Official proposed a charity, although at the time a branch of the charity had not yet been established in the province and it had no operations there. The Party Official, however, was associated with the entity that was responsible for establishing the charity in the province. Further, the provincial head of the AIC had previously reported to the Party Official.” Not only was a donation to the Party officials suggested charity made by but “the request for the recommendation letters was elevated to “top priority” as it was “becoming increasingly important” for Nu Skin China. Nu Skin US subsequently reported to Nu Skin China that it had secured an agreement from an influential U.S. person to write the college recommendation letters for the Party Official’s child.”

Nu Skin China did not inform its US parent of the true nature of the donation; to wit, to corruptly influence the AIC investigation and proposed fine of approximately $485K. Because of the size of the donation, the US parent had to approve and advised its Chinese subsidiary that such a “large donation in China could pose FCPA risks, so it advised Nu Skin China to consult with outside U.S. legal counsel based in China to ensure that the donation complied with the FCPA. Outside counsel, in turn, recommended that Nu Skin China include anti-corruption language, which included language regarding the illegality of influencing government officials, in the written donation agreement with the charity. That language was inserted into a draft of the donation agreement between Nu Skin China and the charity. The anticorruption language, however, was removed from the final version of the donation agreement that Nu Skin China executed. Nu Skin US was not aware that the language had been removed.”

All of this presents several significant and important lessons for the CCO and compliance practitioner. There was no evidence that Nu Skin self-reported so it is not clear how the SEC was made aware of the FCPA violation. However, it is not too far a stretch to opine that the Chinese government could have tipped off the SEC. The case also demonstrates that it is every transaction that matters as this enforcement action was for a one-time transaction. Ongoing due diligence, compliance terms and conditions in contracts and monitoring the relationship after the contract is signed are mandatory for any high-risk transaction. This donation had been flagged by the US entity as high-risk yet there was no oversight by the US entity to make sure that the compliance mandates were followed.

This enforcement action also reinforces the need for robust management of FCPA high-risk charitable donations. As was noted in the Order, “given the well-known corruption risks in China, Nu Skin US did not ensure that adequate due diligence was conducted by Nu Skin China with respect to charitable donations to identify links to government or political party officials and to prevent payments intended to improperly influence such persons in violation of the company’s anticorruption policy and the FCPA.” The reason there are levels of oversight in any best practices compliance program is to prevent just this type of FCPA violation from occurring. It really does not matter if the China subsidiary misrepresented to the US parent both what it was doing and then failed to follow specific instructions. Oversight is there to make sure that internal rules and procedures are followed. That is the responsibility of the US parent.

Finally, companies need to understand the strict liability nature of enforcement actions involving Accounting Provision violations of the FCPA. The statute itself refers to “devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances” as the SEC had interpreted this portion of the FCPA to set a reasonableness standard. If there are payments which violate the FCPA, there were not sufficient internal controls to prevent them. It may sound like very backward logic but that is the reality of SEC enforcement actions and it points directly to the need for companies to have functioning internal compliance controls in place.

John Fogerty took me back many years to some great music I listened to and indeed loved as a teenager. The Nu Skin FCPA should remind every CCO and compliance professional that vigilance must be maintained in any high-risk country or high-risk transaction, even if you are selling through MLM. Failure to follow through with all required compliance program steps, including oversight from the home corporate office, can lead to serious consequences.


This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at

© Thomas R. Fox, 2016