昌吉增加性生活持久昌吉割包皮多少天,昌吉女性上环需要多钱,昌吉流产去哪里做好,昌吉严重早泄 能治好吗,昌吉妇科那个医院正规,昌吉现在做人流得多少钱,昌吉尿道炎产生的原因

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The FBI reached out to the public Wednesday for help in tracking down a man who faces federal charges for allegedly operating San Diego-based pornographic websites that recruited young women and at least one teenage girl to engage in commercial sex acts by force, fraud and coercion.The federal agency has posted a reward of up to ,000 for information leading to the arrest of 37-year-old Michael James Pratt, who co-owned and ran online sites called "Girls Do Porn" and "Girls Do Toys."An indictment unsealed last fall alleges that Pratt also produced pornographic content involving a 16-year-old girl.Pratt and his co-defendants allegedly videotaped sex acts under the guise of distributing the footage only to private clients, then disseminated the clips online without the victims' knowledge or consent.In January, a judge awarded about million to nearly two dozen women who sued the owners and operators of GirlsDoPorn.com. The plaintiffs -- identified in court documents as Jane Does 1 through 22 -- were awarded just under .5 million in compensatory damages and .3 million in punitive damages.Superior Court Judge Kevin Enright ruled that the defendants falsely claimed that the videos would never appear on the internet and were instead solely filmed for DVDs to be sold to customers living outside the United States.Those lies were often bolstered by "reference women" who posed as models and provided "new recruits with false comfort that the experience (was) safe and enjoyable, and that (previously recorded) videos have never appeared online or been discovered by anyone in the models' lives," according to the judge's 187-page ruling.Also charged and awaiting trial in the case are company co-owner Matthew Isaac Wolfe; porn actor Ruben Andre Garcia; administrative assistant Valorie Moser; and Amberlyn Dee Nored, who is accused of lying to victims about how the pornography they were performing in would be distributed.Anyone who may have information on the whereabouts of Pratt is asked to contact the FBI at 858-320-1800 or contact the agency online at tips.fbi.gov. 2121

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - Scorching heat is expected in the San Diego County deserts Thursday, while temperatures in the mountain and inland valley communities could hit triple digits.High pressure building over the southwestern United States will remain until Sunday, with temperatures expected to peak on Friday, according to the National Weather Service.The agency issued a heat advisory that will be in effect from 11 a.m. Thursday to 9 p.m. Saturday in the western valleys and the county mountains.An excessive heat warning will also be in effect from 11 a.m. Thursday through 9 p.m. Saturday in the county deserts.LATEST 10NEWS WEATHER FORECASTHigh temperatures Thursday are forecast to reach 79 degrees near the coast, 88 inland, 93 in the western valleys, 102 near the foothills, 102 in the mountains and 118 in the deserts.Highs in the desert communities could reach 121 on Friday, then 120 on Saturday, forecasters said. The western valleys could see the mercury hit 97 on Friday, while high temperatures near the foothills are expected to be in the low 100s Thursday through Saturday.The NWS urged residents to drink plenty of fluids, stay out of the sun and check up on relatives and neighbors. Also, young children, senior and pets should be never be left unattended in a vehicle parked during the day, with car interiors able to reach lethal temperatures in minutes.San Diego County officials opened seven cooling centers countywide with mandatory mask wearing and social distancing protocols. Borrego Springs Library2580 Country Club RoadBorrego Springs, 92004760-767-5761M-F 12 p.m.-5 p.m.Sat. Aug. 1 & Sun. Aug. 2: 12 p.m.-5 p.m.Fallbrook Community Center341 Heald LaneFallbrook, 92028760-728-1671M-F 12 p.m.-5 p.m.Lakeside Community Center9841 Vine StreetLakeside, 92040619-443-9176M-F 12 p.m.-5 p.m.Potrero Branch Library24883 Potrero Valley RoadPotrero, 91963619-478-5978M-F 12 p.m.-5 p.m.Santa Ysabel Nature Center22135 Highway 79Santa Ysabel, 92070760-765-4098M-F 12 p.m.-5 p.m.Spring Valley Community Center8735 Jamacha BoulevardSpring Valley, 91977619-479-1832M-F 12 p.m.-5 p.m.Valley Center Branch Library29200 Cole Grade RoadValley Center, 92082760-749-1305M-F 12 p.m.-5 p.m. 2206

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - The San Diego City Council declined to report details of its closed-door discussion Tuesday on a draft appraisal of price and payment terms for the city's potential sale of the SDCCU Stadium site to San Diego State University.The council met in closed session to discuss the undisclosed terms of the appraisal with its negotiating team, composed of officials in various city departments and the city attorney's office. Both the city and SDSU have expressed an intent to exchange the property for "fair market value," but what that entails remains opaque.D.F. Davis Real Estate estimated the fair market value of the site sits at .2 million, according to documents.The city is currently in the process of selling a 132-acre parcel of land to SDSU as the university intends to redevelop the parcel, which includes SDCCU Stadium, into a 35,000-seat stadium to be primarily used by the university's football team, a satellite campus, a park along the San Diego River and commercial and residential space.After the closed session, City Councilwoman Barbara Bry called for the draft appraisal to be released to the public and for all future discussions of the sale to take place in an open session."It is now time for SDSU to make an offer which honors the terms of Measure G and the promises that were made during the campaign," Bry said in a statement. "This offer should include a commitment to building the river park and designing a transit-dependent development."City officials have also noted their concern over certain elements of the project's draft environmental impact report, such as the university's analysis of how the project will affect traffic patterns in Mission Valley. The council must approve a final version of the report prior to completing the sale.On Monday, the Friends of SDSU, a group of university alumni and community members, called on the city to accept the appraisal without changes, arguing that the project would be transformative for the city and SDSU will be a good steward in overseeing the land."Introduction of extraneous considerations that are inconsistent with the provisions of voter-approved Measure G or are outside the mutually agreed-to guidelines for the appraisal could substantially delay or threaten altogether the successful transfer of this property," Friends of SDSU wrote in a letter to Mayor Kevin Faulconer and the council.San Diego voters approved the plan, then known as SDSU West and now dubbed SDSU Mission Valley, last November. Since then, the university has selected two firms to oversee the planning and construction of the future stadium and campus while negotiating the sale with the city.On the project's current timeline, university officials expect the California State University Board of Trustees to consider approving a draft environmental impact report on the SDSU West plan early next year. The university expects to break ground on the project in early 2020 and complete the redevelopment in its entirety by the mid-2030s. 3022

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - One person is dead after being found on the San Diego freeway in the San Ysidro area, authorities said.It was unclear how the person died, and no other details were released.The California Highway Patrol was first summoned to the southbound side of the freeway at the Camino de la Plaza access -- near the connection with the Jacob Dekema (805) Freeway -- at 12:45 a.m., according to H. Austin, with the California Highway Patrol's Border Communications Center.At 1:05 a.m., investigators called paramedics to the scene to provide medical assistance to at least one victim, he said.The incident was later upgraded to a fatality, Dekema said. 667

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - San Diego County's use and support of gun violence restraining orders as a preventive measure is cited as one of the major drivers in the orders' increasing implementation statewide in a recently published study.The UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program examined the use of extreme risk protection orders -- or ERPOs -- in California between 2016 and 2019, noting a "substantial increase" in their usage over those years.San Diego County had the most notable increase among California counties, issuing 267 gun violence restraining orders -- or GVROs -- in 2019, versus just five in 2016, according to the study that was published in June in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Throughout California, their use grew from 70 in 2016 to 700 last year.The orders allow law enforcement to temporarily seize firearms from people believed to be at risk to themselves or others.San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott's public endorsement of GVROs, development of a GVRO team and law enforcement training strategy were suggested as possible reasons for the disproportionate use of the orders in San Diego County and southern California as a whole.The study found that gun violence restraining order laws could be useful in prevention of mass shootings, suicides and "interpersonal violence."To that effect, the study cited two instances of GVROs issued in San Diego, one that was granted against a man with dementia who made threats to shoot his wife and neighbor, and another to seize a semiautomatic rifle from a man "who praised a recent mass shooter and made threats to bring his gun to work."Elliott's office has publicly detailed numerous other instances of GVROs served on local residents, including minors."It is encouraging to see our impact on California's use of this indispensable tool to prevent suicides, mass shootings, intimate partner homicides and other gun-related violence," Elliott said in a statement released Wednesday. "Red flag laws allow us to be proactive in identifying dangerous behavior so that we can avert a tragedy before it occurs, and I'm hopeful GVRO use will continue to rapidly grow."However, the study indicates there are many unknowns regarding GVRO use and effectiveness.GVRO use grew rapidly in 2019, and more study is needed to determine whether the increase in its use represented an increased need for the orders or simply marked a greater awareness of their availability, according to the study.While their use in California suggests GVROs "filled a gap in existing firearm violence prevention strategies," the study states more data is needed, as current data does not "allow us to measure the policy's effects on violence prevention."Their use in California also does not entirely allow for direct comparison with other states, due to differences in firearm laws. The study's authors suggest similar studies conducted in other states may shed more light on their effectiveness across the country.ERPO laws and policies are currently utilized in 19 states and the District of Columbia, and are under consideration in other jurisdictions, "however, little research exists describing their use," the study's authors found. 3204