呼市治疗痔疮的较佳方法托克托县有好的肛肠医院吗,武川县肛肠医院哪家超好啊,新城区附近有肛肠医院?,呼和浩特治肛瘘到呼和浩特那家医院,呼和浩特市做痔疮那家好,呼和浩特痔疮呼和浩特哪家医院好,呼和浩特治便秘专业医院那家好

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) — It’s been a historic wildfire season in California, made even more complicated by the pandemic.Emergency officials in San Diego County continue to shore up evacuation plans and brace for the worst, as more than a dozen wildfires in Northern California reveal the challenges of responding to two crises at once.As tens of thousands of Californians fled the wildfires last month, some turned to a shelter at the Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium. But with new rules in place to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, the shelter quickly filled up.The Civic Auditorium reached capacity August 21 and had to turn some evacuees away. The shelter remains at capacity, according to Cal Fire.About 27,000 people remained under evacuation orders as of Tuesday, according to Cal Fire. The Red Cross and partner organizations were sheltering more than 4,500 Californians in various settings as of Monday night.The Red Cross has put some displaced residents in hotels, a strategy that emergency workers in San Diego County are planning to emulate.“The county, since the beginning of the pandemic, has been working really proactively to identify and contract with hotels and motels to meet the unique housing and lodging needs of our community members,” said Senior Emergency Services Coordinator Julie Jeakle.With help from the Red Cross, the county has amassed a list of nearly 100 hotels and motels in San Diego County that could be called upon as emergency shelters. Some of these hotels were previously tapped as quarantine sites for individuals exposed to COVID-19.Traditional shelters in gyms or at schools won’t go away, but they’ll look different. Red Cross volunteers will conduct temperature checks and health screenings. People who show symptoms will be taken to another location to isolate, Jeakle said.“Individuals can also expect to see individually packaged meals, instead of the cafeteria style-meal service we’ve traditionally provided in the past,” she said. “They may also see some health and behavioral health services provided virtually.”But what if there’s a widespread event, with tens of thousands of evacuations like in Northern California?In the early days of the fire in Santa Cruz County, several hotels filled up. The county had to urge tourists to leave so evacuees could get access to rooms.San Diego County has turned to the Mission Valley stadium site for mass evacuations, including during the 2007 Witch Fire. But that site is currently under construction, and emergency responders would need permission from the stadium’s new owner, San Diego State.Another option: the Del Mar Fairgrounds.The fairgrounds was used as a large animal shelter four times in recent history: 2003, 2007, 2014 and 2017. But in 2007 it also hosted people, and Jeakle said the county had been in recent talks with the venue.Determining which site -- or sites -- will serve as an evacuation shelter will be based on several factors, including the size and severity of the emergency, Jeakle said.“We’re certainly here to serve if and when we’re needed,” said Del Mar Fairgrounds marketing director Jennifer Hellman.Hellman said the fairgrounds would have procedures in place requiring mask-wearing, social distancing and increased cleaning, and there would be hand sanitizer stations deployed throughout the site. 3325

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- Jack in the Box Monday announced that it’s looking into the possibility of selling the company. The company claimed in a press release it’s exploring several options to “maximize shareholder value.”Several of the options include the sale of the company or a previously announced plan to increase its leverage. RELATED: San Diego-based Jack in the Box suggests more kiosks, fewer cashiers as minimum wage risesThe company has already gone as far as to have discussions with possible buyers, though no timetable has been set. Jack in the Box is based in San Diego and is one of the nation’s largest burger chains with more than 2,200 restaurants in 21 states. 686

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - Members of a newly formed Guardian Angels chapter in Pacific Beach went on patrol for the first time Saturday night.Members of the Sacramento Chapter traveled to San Diego to train the new volunteers. Administrator Sarah Bonesteel joined after a neighborhood crime walk, saying "crime is getting out of control, we've lost our parks, and our library and things like that."RELATED: Guardian Angels look to start street patrols in Pacific BeachThe Guardian Angels are a national crime prevention nonprofit organization that started in New York in 1979. The group said it created chapters in over 130 cities in 13 countries.While the group has several programs to prevent crime, the most visible are its street patrols. The Pacific Beach Chapter hopes to provide a safe environment after the bars close.Guardian Angels patrol in groups of at least two while wearing red berets and uniforms, and say the patrols are meant to serve as a visual deterrent and aim to avoid violent confrontations.Angels on patrols are unarmed but trained in self-defense to protect themselves in case a situation becomes physical. They hope they do not have to use their training.The organization conducts background checks on new members to ensure everyone's safety. 1270

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