重庆肾结石碎石收费标准(重庆检查结石需要空腹吗) (今日更新中)

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- Investors say an Oceanside company that promised a green and environmentally friendly way for people to invest their money, instead left them with nothing.Team 10 has spoken to multiple people who said they invested with the Pacific Teak Reforestation Project, managed and developed by Pacific Management Group.On the company’s website, Ron Fleming is listed as PMG’s founder and chairman of the board. The website states the reforestation project “provides individuals, businesses, and institutions around the world with the opportunity to build their financial future, while saving one of the earth’s most precious and scarce natural habitats: the tropical rainforest.” The company said as the trees matured and grew larger, so did profits. The website stated that "in the time it takes teak trees to grow from seedlings to maturity--after only 15 full years of growth--[the] asset's value will likely increase as many as ten times based on historical price trends." Investors would then benefit from that profit.Mark Baker, who lives in Tucson, said he and Fleming grew up together and their mothers were best friends. In 2010, he invested ,000 of his retirement money into Pacific Teak.“That money to me was going to be part of my legacy to help my grandkids go to school,” Baker said.In 2014, he said he invested another 0,000. To this day, he said he has not received any return on that investment. “I’ve had to make a plan B for my retirement,” Baker said.Team 10 spoke to at least six people who invested with Pacific Teak. Their teak tree purchase agreements show the investors paid anywhere from nearly ,000 to nearly 0,000 for a teak tree project in Costa Rica.“It was a green investment... they were planting and they were redeveloping land that had been the victim of slash and burn techniques by the locals,” said Greg Robertson, another investor who currently lives in Rome, Italy.Robertson met Fleming on a flight in the late 1990s. “That developed into a friendship,” he said.He invested nearly ,000 in the project. “This was a very green project. It was long term,” he said. “It was all positives.”It was positive at first, but Robertson said it changed as time went on. “No monthly letters or annual business account letters... nothing. Zero,” Robertson said. “It was unusual.”Michael Tillman said he put in more than ,000 with Pacific Teak in early 2009. He has not received any money on his investment.“It’s just the stress of trying to figure out where I’m going to recoup this money to send my daughter to school,” Tillman said.Tillman said investors were given teak forecasters, which showed how much trees gained in value over the years. “So, I’m looking at the low end which is ,000... and I’m thinking, that’ll cover maybe a semester or two,” he said.Tilllman said he started to sense something was wrong a couple years ago when they stopped hearing from Fleming. Tillman got in contact with other investors, like Baker and Robertson, and discovered many people had not received any return on investment. “I’m already stressed out because for so long, I thought that it was taken care of,” Tillman said.Team 10 reached Fleming via email. He said he “resigned himself from executive position in Pacific Management Group the later part of 2013 due to health issues.” He also said that he left prior to Hurricane Otto in 2016, which he alleged caused catastrophic damage to the project.”The investors said they were not aware of Fleming’s retirement in 2013, as he never communicated that to them. The investors also said they were not informed of any hurricane damage until after they questioned Fleming for updates.“I was devastated. I never thought it was part of his character,” Baker said.A spokesperson with the Department of Business Oversight—which is now the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation—said Fleming was not supposed to operate in California. The DBO issued a desist and refrain order in 2016. It said Pacific Teak and Pacific Management Group did not have the proper permit to be in business. In addition, the state found the company “misrepresented that investors would receive substantial profits.” It also found the company was in violation of the Corporate Securities Law. The state said Fleming and the company “misrepresented to investors this investment opportunity was low- risk.” Fleming never responded to Team 10’s follow up questions, only writing that he was “super busy” with his youngest daughter getting married.Fleming’s attorney contacted Team 10, telling me the “matter is complex and there are many unfounded rumors, along with misstatements, that have been circulating.“The fact is that Mr. Fleming has done nothing unethical in connection with his association with Pacific Management from which he resigned in 2013. I would request that you and your employer be very careful in what you publish in this matter,” wrote attorney Dominic Amorosa.He added in a separate email: "I am not sure whether you can find any investor in the United States who believes that an investment must necessarily be successful notwithstanding any foreseeable or unforeseeable events." The investors are still in disbelief about the turn of events and hope they will able to recoup some of their money. “He didn’t care about us at all, just about himself,” Robertson said.“He messed up so many lives. So many lives,” Baker added.Investors said they reported Fleming to the FBI. A spokesperson said they could not confirm or deny any investigation, but will take appropriate action if it is warranted. 5616

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- Kidney dialysis affects thousands of people a day. Proposition 23 attempts to regulate some aspects of treatment. If passed, it would require a physician, nurse practitioner on-site during dialysis treatment.There are several ads on television, urging Californians to vote against the measure.Dialysis has been a part of DeWayne Cox’s life for years. “I was diagnosed 12 years ago with kidney failure and I began dialysis 10 years ago,” he said.Cox said he goes to a dialysis center three days a week. He calls Proposition 23 “unnecessary.”“I am taken care of from the moment I walk in the door to the moment I take my walkout,” Cox said. “It makes me angry that these propositions keep being placed on public voting for people who have no idea what dialysis is.”One No on 23 ad shows a dialysis patient saying “I could die if Prop. 23 passes because if my clinic closes, I don’t know where I’ll go for treatment.”According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office some clinics could close. “Given the higher costs due to the measure, some governing entities, particularly those with fewer clinics, may decide to close some clinics,” the report said.It also said clinics could respond in other ways, like continuing current operations but with lower profits.About 600 licensed clinics in California provide dialysis to roughly 80,000 patients each month, according to the LAO. If passed, the measure would also require the centers to regularly report dialysis-related infection information to the state.The No campaign has major committee funding from DaVita and Fresenius—two of the biggest kidney dialysis companies—as well as U.S. Renal Care.Californians have seen kidney dialysis propositions before. Proposition 8 in 2018 attempted to limit dialysis clinics’ revenues. The measure failed.The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the measure could increase health care costs for state and local governments by the low tens of millions of dollars a year. Under the measure, the LAO said state Medi-Cal costs, and state and local employee and retiree health insurance costs could increase due to governing entities negotiating higher payment rates and patients requiring treatment in more costly settings like hospitals. 2243

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — Lime is rolling its dockless scooters and bikes out of San Diego, a month after a hearing officer ruled the company could keep its operating permit.Lime announced Thursday they would not be renewing their permit to operate in San Diego but would monitor the opportunity to return in the future.“As part of our path to profitability, Lime has made the difficult decision to exit San Diego and focus our resources on markets that allow us to meet our ambitious goals for 2020," a statement from Lime said. "We’re grateful to our team members, riders, Juicers and communities who supported us throughout this journey. We appreciate the partnership we’ve enjoyed with San Diego and remain hopeful we can reintroduce Lime back into the community when the time is right."RELATED: City Council committee OKs changes to dockless scooter, bike lawThe company said it tried to work with city leaders on compliance and safety concerns, but was instead forced to defend its permit — which it did successfully. Lime added that the city's most recent regulations have led to a decrease in ridership and that the city has not been transparent when it comes to towing by city-contracted and private towing companies.In December, city council leaders voted to ban electric scooters from the city's boardwalks at Mission Beach, Pacific Beach, Mission Bay Park Bayside Walk, and La Jolla Shores. A month before, city leaders passed new regulations for e-scooters and bicycles, including a speed limit drop from 15 to 8 miles per hour on boardwalks, a ban on parking scooters in certain areas, and permitting fees.RELATED: San Diego scooter ridership drops off dramaticallyLime said it is also ending operations in Atlanta, Phoenix, and San Antonio as part of its "path to profitability."In September 2019, Uber also made the call to pull its dockless scooters and bikes out of San Diego. The company said at that time that, “we agree with local elected officials in San Diego who’ve said current micromobility regulations foster an unsustainable operating environment."Data released in October 2019 showed 222,076 people rode the dockless vehicles in the two week period ending Oct. 15, down from 441,830 rides from July 15 to July 30. 2243

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — It’s a form of paid time off that predates sick leave.California requires businesses to give an employee up to two hours of paid time off on Election Day to vote, if the employee is unable to vote during non-working hours.“They can take advantage of this paid time off at either the beginning of their shift or at the end of their shift and they can take as much time as they need to vote. But realize that only up to two hours of that time is going to be with pay,” said attorney Dan Eaton.Eaton said Californians have had some sort of mandatory paid time off to vote since 1891, making it the oldest kind of mandatory PTO.Workers who want to take advantage of this must notify their bosses two working days in advance. For people who work Monday through Friday, Eaton said they need to inform their bosses first thing Friday morning, although there are exceptions for unforeseen circumstances.The caveat is that this right is only for employees who cannot vote during their non-working hours.It’s somewhat harder to make that argument this election cycle at a time when every registered voter in California got a mail-in ballot, and early in-person voting at polling places begins Saturday, but Eaton doesn’t expect much pushback from companies.“There could be a court dispute but the optics of that are not going to be good even if, ultimately, the employer is legally justified,” he said.Even though turnout is on pace to be record-breaking this year, the U.S. still ranks near the bottom in voter participation each year. It ranked 26 out of 32 countries in the 2016 election, according to the Pew Research Center.So why not follow some other countries and make Election Day a national holiday?The idea has been floated before but it hasn’t gotten far. Senator Bernie Sanders tried unsuccessfully in 2018.“A federal holiday does not guarantee that your employer is going to close. And they’re expensive. Federal holidays tend to cost the federal government 450 million dollars just in personnel costs just for the one day in overtime,” said Matthew Weil at the Bipartisan Policy Center.Rather than a federal holiday, Weil said state holidays on Election Day can be helpful and several states have them. Among other advantages, he said they free up schools to be used as polling places.But state holidays won’t give many voters the day off from work. 2381

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — Local law enforcement made the holidays a little brighter for hundreds of deserving kids. The 26th annual "Shop with a Cop" event brought 300 kids out to go on a shopping spree with local officers, from San Diego Police to California Highway Patrol to San Diego County Sheriff's deputies.The shopping spree was just the tip of the iceberg for kids Saturday morning. Their day started at SeaWorld San Diego, where they had breakfast with officers and enjoyed a Christmas-themed dolphin show. RELATED:East County family's Santa treehouse helps families in needMAP: San Diego's best holiday light displays to see this yearMore than 300 officers then escorted the kids to the Sports Arena Target location via police motorcade, where the holiday fun began.Each child was given 0 for their own shopping spree, which they spent of everything from board games to action figures to even gifts back to officers.The goal is to not only provide kids with a happier holiday season, but to encourage positive interaction with law enforcement. 1059

来源：资阳报