New IP Camera Technology Improves Surveillance

Arecont Vision Sharpens the View at the Lucky Eagle Casino.

Arecont Megapixel Cameras Enable Improved Monitoring at Gaming Tables

GLENDALE, Calif.-- July 25, 2008 --The Lucky Eagle Casino in Southwest Washington State has completed a new installation of megapixel cameras from Arecont Vision, the industry leader in megapixel IP camera technology. The casino, which has been in operation since 1995, chose to upgrade their existing analog system in order to improve the ability to view and identify critical information on video.

"It is important that our surveillance operators clearly see the indexes of the cards," said Miguel Grijalva, Director of Surveillance, Lucky Eagle Casino. "We need to view suits and clearly distinguish between a heart and a diamond, and the analog cameras we had were not providing enough of this detail."

After installation on a test server of two Arecont Vision megapixel cameras, the AV2100 and the AV5100, for a two week evaluation, the Lucky Eagle Casino purchased Arecont Vision AV2100M 2 megapixel cameras to upgrade the existing system, supplementing their analog cameras. According to Mr. Grijalva, the Arecont Vision cameras deliver highly detailed images of jackpot hands, as well as increased accuracy in chip activity at the roulette tables.

Arecont Vision AV2100M 2 megapixel cameras have a frame rate of 24 fps (frames per second) with a resolution of 1,600 x 1,200 and a minimum illumination of only 0.1 lux @ F1.4. One of the latest additions to Arecont Vision's MegaVideo® line of megapixel cameras, AV2100M megapixel cameras leverage proprietary patent-pending technology and help alleviate the cost and frame rate shortcomings often associated with multi-megapixel camera systems. To help ensure image clarity, the AV2100M delivers full motion HDTV progressive scan resolution and for added cost-efficiency features Power over the Ethernet (PoE).

The HD resolution of the cameras allows wider shots, enabling the casino's surveillance staff to achieve comprehensive coverage using a single dedicated camera for each table. "The frame shot is the same as the analog camera frame shot, but the clarity is several times better," said Mr. Grijalva. "If a guest had a full flush, we can go back and readily confirm it because the picture quality is so excellent."

The camera also features a built-in electronic PTZ (pan/tilt/zoom) function. In addition to the improved clarity, the casino surveillance operators found that the digital zoom was highly beneficial in live monitoring or reviewing footage. These investigative digital capabilities help the casino spot unusual activity or instances of suspicious behavior or cheating, as well as help ensure employee procedure compliance.

According to Mr. Grijalva, his team was particularly impressed with the quality of the images produced by Arecont Vision AV2100M 2 megapixel IP cameras when viewing details on the roulette wheel and for identifying stacks of chips. "The new megapixel cameras have also helped determine if a customer's claim is valid or for claims of short changing on chips," he said. "We are considering adding Arecont Vision megapixel cameras to the lobby entrances for facial recognition now as well."

For more information contact Arecont Vision by calling toll free 1-877-CAMERA-8, or visiting www.arecontvision.com

About Arecont Vision

Arecont Vision is the leading manufacturer of high-performance megapixel IP cameras and associated software. Arecont Vision products are made in the USA and feature proprietary low-cost massively parallel image processing architectures MegaVideo® and SurroundVideo® that represent a drastic departure from traditional analog and network camera designs. These innovative technologies enable Arecont Vision to deliver multi-megapixel digital video at analog camera price points.

EDITORS' NOTE: Electronic files and photos are available upon request by emailing Jennifer O'Reilly at in|fusion advertising at joreilly@ifadvertising.com
Contacts

in|fusion
Jennifer O'Reilly
phone: 203-252-2173
fax: 203-252-2174
e-mail: joreilly@ifadvertising.com

Olympics Ticket Scams Continues

Investigation of Olympics Ticket Scams Continues, According to the Moriarty Leyendecker Erben Law Firm

HOUSTON & BOULDER, Colo.-- August 03, 2008 --An ongoing investigation of Olympics ticket scams has identified defrauded consumers throughout the world, according to the law firm of Moriarty Leyendecker Erben.

The law firm - whose senior partner, Jim Moriarty, was himself victimized by an official-looking ticket web site - has been contacted by individuals in several nations since the firm launched a web site (www.beijingticketscam.com) on Saturday to support the investigation.

"The consumer response to the investigation is extraordinary," Moriarty said. "Our team is reviewing longer-term litigation options, but with the opening ceremonies for the Games just a few days away, we're also trying to help these individuals salvage their Olympics trips. Their stories are heartbreaking. We've even heard from families of Olympians whose dreams to see their loved ones compete in China are at risk."

The International Olympic Committee and the U.S. Olympic Committee recently filed lawsuits in U.S. federal courts against operators of two web sites, alleging that they are using committee trademarks to deceive and defraud the public. The lawsuits do not seek to recover losses for defrauded consumers.

Moriarty said, "We believe the Olympic committees should have addressed this problem months ago, when consumer complaints first arose - not last week after the deadline for legitimate ticket holders to transfer Olympics tickets passed. That policy only compounds the problems of the victimized consumers who still hope to attend the Games."

For more information about the law firm's investigation, contact: Moriarty Leyendecker Erben, Attorneys at Law, www.beijingticketscam.com, 800-677-7095 or 713-528-0700; Houston Office: 1150 Bissonnet, Houston, Texas 77005; Boulder Office: 1123 Spruce Street, Boulder, Co 80302.
Contacts

Moriarty Leyendecker Erben
James R. Moriarty, 800-677-7095 or 713-528-0700

Government Rejects Request to Clean up Asbestos

LegalView Reports About the Government's Rejection of a Monetary Request to Clean up An Asbestos-Tainted Site

LegalView updated its mesothelioma blog to include news of the government denying federal funds to an area in Arkansas that was left tainted with asbestos after nearly 150 World War II structures were destroyed in a fire. The government rejected the requests from the town of Chaffee Crossing where citizens are currently at risk of contracting mesothelioma cancer.

Denver, CO - LegalView.com, the number one resource for everything legal on the Web, recently reported on its mesothelioma blog that federal funds were denied to cleanup an asbestos-tainted town in Arkansas. Chaffee Crossing is the site of a recent fire, which destroyed nearly 150 World War II (WWII) structures, releasing asbestos fibers and dust into the area potentially increasing the risk of citizens developing mesothelioma. The city requested federal funds from the government to assist the cleanup of the town, which is considered by several citizens there to be a Superfund Site. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is refusing to deem the site a Superfund because it claims that levels of asbestos in the air after the fire were too low to be deemed as such. However, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality found asbestos contamination in some areas to be much higher than EPA tests recorded. For those who live in the area or who have previously been exposed to asbestos, using LegalView's mesothelioma portal to locate a mesothelioma attorney is the best way to protect oneself.

Asbestos is a material that is derived from vermiculate, a mineral often mined for uses in construction and as building insulation. Asbestos was widely used as insulation in many early 20th Century constructions, such as those burned in Chaffee Crossing. However, after discovering the link of inhaling asbestos to an incurable form of lung cancer, the use of asbestos was discontinued and the EPA has spent billions of dollars in the removal of asbestos across the country. Individuals who have been exposed to asbestos are advised to contact an experienced mesothelioma law firm to receive an attorney consultation on developing a mesothelioma lawsuit in which compensatory damages can be sought. Mesothelioma is a painful and deadly illness that takes decades to reveal itself, by which time it can be too late to find ways in paying for medical expenses. Use the mesothelioma portal to learn more about this and other recent asbestos-related news.

Additionally, LegalView offers several other information portals relating to a range of issues such as the Baxter Heparin recall, traumatic brain injury (TBI) treatments and Erb's Palsy jury verdicts. Heparin is a blood thinner injected into patients undergoing heart surgery or similar procedures. It is used to prevent blood clots, which can be fatal during surgery. Recently, the Baxter Healthcare Corporation issued a Heparin recall because several patients had reported severe allergic reactions to the drug, which has been associated with at least 19 patient deaths. LegalView.com reported updates continually to readers as this story unfolded, providing insightful and imperative news for victims of the Heparin recall. Similarly, individuals can use the TBI practice area to learn the most up-to-date news on brain injury lawsuits, jury verdicts, treatments as well as how to locate brain injury lawyers.

For information on Erb's Palsy, a condition that usually develops because of labor complications, visit Erb's Palsy lawsuit as the condition is usually preventable and caused by a physician pulling on a baby during birth.

About LegalView:
LegalView.com is a public service brought to you by Legal WebTV Network, LLC, a Limited Liability Corporation created by a group of the nation's most highly respected law firms: Anapol Schwartz; Brent Coon and Associates; Burg Simpson; Cohen, Placitella and Roth; James F. Humphreys and Associates; Lopez McHugh; and Thornton and Naumes. For more information on the accomplishments and track records of LegalView.com's superior sponsoring law firms and to get in touch with LegalView attorneys, visit LegalView at www.LegalView.com.

Press Contact: Katie Kelley
Company Name: LegalView
Phone: 720-771-3246
Website: http://mesothelioma.legalview.com

Auction Rate Credit Linked Certificates Downgraded

Fitch Downgrades Capstan Master Trust Auction Rate Credit Linked Certificates Series 1-4

NEW YORK-- July 23, 2008 --Fitch Ratings has removed from Rating Watch Negative and downgraded the following series of Capstan Master Trust (collectively, Capstan). The following rating actions are effective immediately:

Capstan Master Trust Series 1

--$150,000,000 certificates due 2017 downgraded to 'A' from 'AAA'.

Capstan Master Trust Series 2

--$150,000,000 certificates due 2017 downgraded to 'A' from 'AAA'.

Capstan Master Trust Series 3

--$150,000,000 certificates due 2017 downgraded to 'A' from 'AAA'.

Capstan Master Trust Series 4

--$150,000,000 certificates due 2017 downgraded to 'A' from 'AAA'.

The actions reflect Fitch's view on the credit risk of the rated certificates following the release of Fitch's new Corporate CDO rating Criteria.

Capstan Series 1 through 4 are four series of auction rate credit-linked certificates, the proceeds from which were used to directly purchase $600,000,000 of credit linked certificates (the 'Underlying Collateral') referencing a static portfolio of primarily investment grade corporate assets, which was privately-rated by Fitch in July 2007. The Underlying Collateral is the sole asset of Capstan. Periodic interest payments on the auction rate credit-linked certificates are determined and paid according to an auction process, as described in the transactions' governing documents. In addition, Capstan has entered into a basis swap with Deutsche Bank AG (rated 'AA-/F1+'; Outlook Stable by Fitch), whereby income from the Underlying Collateral is transferred to Deutsche Bank AG in exchange for periodic interest payments due on the auction rate credit-linked certificates. The rating of Capstan is directly linked to the credit risk of the Underlying Collateral. Thus, the downgrades reflect Fitch's view on the credit risk of the Underlying Collateral for the deal, which was downgraded to 'A' from 'AAA' on July 23, 2008.

The key drivers of the downgrade on the Underlying Collateral include Fitch's updated corporate CDO rating criteria as well as the deterioration of the average portfolio quality from 'BBB/BBB+' on the closing date (July 2007) to 'BBB-' on July 16, 2008, representing an average downgrade of 2 notches across 51.2% of the portfolio. Currently, 18.4% of the portfolio carries a below investment grade rating, approximately 12.0% of the portfolio is on Rating Watch Negative and 17.6% is on Negative Outlook by Fitch. Moreover, 24.0% of the portfolio is concentrated in the banking & finance sector which is currently under stress.

Given Fitch's view of concentration and the current credit quality of the portfolio, the credit enhancement level of 9.8% is not sufficient to justify the current rating of the Underlying Collateral.

Fitch released updated criteria on April 30, 2008 for Corporate CDOs and, at that time, noted it would be reviewing its ratings accordingly to establish consistency for existing and new transactions. As part of this review, Fitch makes standard adjustments for any names on Rating Watch Negative or with a Negative Outlook, reducing such ratings for default analysis purposes by two and one notch, respectively. Fitch has previously noted that its review will be focused first on ratings most exposed to risks it has highlighted in its updated criteria. Consequently, the certificates were placed on Rating Watch Negative on May 15, 2008. As previously indicated, resolution of the Negative Watch status depends on any plans managers/arrangers may choose to modify either the structure or the portfolio. In this case, the arranger has confirmed that it does not intend to make any modifications.

Fitch's rating definitions and the terms of use of such ratings are available on the agency's site, www.fitchratings.com. Published ratings, criteria and methodologies are available from this site, at all times. Fitch's code of conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, affiliate firewall, compliance and other relevant policies and procedures are also available from the 'Code of Conduct' section of this site.

Contacts

Fitch Ratings
Derek Miller, +1-312-368-2076 (Chicago)
Kevin Kendra, +1-212-908-0760 (New York)
Media Relations:
Julian Dennison, +44 020 7682 7480 (London)
Sandro Scenga, +1-212-908-0278 (New York)

EPA Required To Regulate Invasive Species Pollution

Stanford Environmental Law Clinic Announces Ninth Circuit Upholds Case Requiring U.S. EPA to Regulate Invasive Species Pollution

STANFORD, Calif.-- July 23, 2008 --The Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School today announced that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of environmental organizations seeking to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate ship discharges under the Clean Water Act. Dealing a setback to the shipping industry, the decision follows a 2005 lower court ruling that the EPA had illegally exempted ship discharges from Clean Water Act requirements. That decision gave the agency until September 2008 to end the regulatory exemption and issue permits to ships, an order that the EPA appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

"The EPA spent nearly ten years fighting against using the nation's only comprehensive law to combat an environmental plague that is costing the U.S. economy billions of dollars," said Deborah Sivas, Director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School, which represented the three plaintiff groups. "We are gratified that the Appeals Court has held the EPA accountable so that this country can begin to control the dangerous tide of invasive species."

The court's ruling today upholds the lower court's order directing the EPA to take specific action to ensure that shipping companies comply with the Clean Water Act and restrict the discharge of invasive species in ballast water. In mid-June, the EPA issued a draft permit to regulate all vessel discharges. The draft permit requires treatment of a wide range of pollutants contained in ballast water and many other types of ship discharges.

Nina Bell, Executive Director of the Portland, Ore.-based Northwest Environmental Advocates, said the court's decision will properly shift some of the burden of invasive species from taxpayers to shippers. "The Ninth Circuit's decision is very important for the taxpayers who have been paying the huge price of the EPA's continuing refusal to implement the Clean Water Act," said Bell. "If the EPA had used its Congressional mandate thirty years ago, this country would have been using the Clean Water Act to effectively control ship discharges for all that time," she added.

The plaintiff groups cautioned that the shipping industry has already shifted its fight from the courts to lobbying Congress. "As soon as we won the district court case in 2005, the shipping industry immediately turned to Congress for a special exemption from the Clean Water Act, to preserve their ability to pollute at the nation's expense," Bell said.

Live species from other countries are carried to U.S. waters in ballast water that ships use for stabilization. The ballast water is discharged into bays, estuaries, and the Great Lakes as ships approach port and when cargo for export is loaded. Over 21 billion gallons of ballast water from international ports is discharged into U.S. waters each year. The cost of damage caused by invasive species to the U.S. economy is estimated in the billions of dollars annually.

"The San Francisco Bay and Delta have been completely invaded by non-native species introduced by commercial ships coming to our ports. Species such as the Asian clam and Chinese mitten crab are clogging the intake pipes of drinking water facilities and power plants, harming the commercial fishing industry, and destroying native species habitat," said Sejal Choksi, San Francisco Baykeeper.

The absence of effective federal action, combined with the high cost of invasive species to the environment, industries, and drinking water sources, has led numerous states to pass their own pollution control laws. Michigan and Minnesota require shippers to have discharge permits. California has the strictest controls on the discharge of ballast-borne invasive species in the world. Six Great Lakes states?New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin?joined the environmental groups' lawsuit to persuade the court to require a federal regulatory program.

The challenge was brought by Northwest Environmental Advocates, San Francisco Baykeeper and The Ocean Conservancy, three of the signers of a petition filed with EPA in January 1999. EPA denied the petition in 2003, triggering the lawsuit. The Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School and Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center (PEAC) at Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Ore., represent the three organizations.

About Northwest Environmental Advocates

Northwest Environmental Advocates, based in Portland, Ore., works through advocacy and education to protect and restore water and air quality, wetlands, and wildlife habitat.

About Baykeeper

Founded in 1989, Baykeeper works to reverse the environmental degradation of the past and promote new strategies and policies to protect the water quality of the San Francisco Bay. For nearly two decades, Baykeeper and its Deltakeeper project have been the premier watchdogs of the water quality of the vast San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed.

About the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford

The Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School (http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/clinics/environmental) enables students to provide legal assistance to nonprofit organizations on a variety of environmental issues, focusing primarily on natural resource conservation. The clinic's clients include large national environmental organizations and a variety of regional and local grassroots groups. Working under clinic attorneys, students routinely investigate cases, assist clients in developing legal strategies, draft comment letters, court pleadings, and briefs, present testimony before administrative agencies, and argue cases in state and federal courts. Clinic students also provide policy advice and work on regulatory and legislative reform in the environmental field.

About Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School (www.law.stanford.edu) is one of the nation's leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. Its alumni are among the most influential decision makers in law, politics, business, and high technology. Faculty members argue before the Supreme Court, testify before Congress, and write books and articles for academic audiences, as well as the popular press. Along with offering traditional law school classes, the school has embraced new subjects and new ways of teaching.

Contacts

Media:
Stanford Law School
Amy Poftak, 650-725-7516
Assistant Director of Communications
poftak@law.stanford.edu
or
Comment:
Stanford Law
Deborah Sivas, 650-723-0325
dsivas@stanford.edu
or
NWEA
Nina Bell, 503-295-0490
nbell(at)advocates-nwea.org
or
Baykeeper
Sejal Choksi, 925-330-7757
sejal@baykeeper.org