梅州女子可视打胎贵吗(梅州治疗盆腔炎 医院) (今日更新中)

Thousands of American troops sent to the US-Mexico border as part of the Trump administration's effort to handle the rising number of migrants crossing into the US since April 2018 will be awarded the 213

The University of Missouri-Kansas City has filed a lawsuit against a former professor, alleging that he stole and sold his graduate student's research for .5 million.The suit, filed this week, says Ashim Mitra swiped a "groundbreaking" drug formulation from the student and stands to gain as much as million more in royalties.Mitra, who has resigned from the university, denied the allegations to CNN.Also named in the lawsuit are Mitra's wife, who worked in her husband's lab, and two pharmaceutical companies that used the invention.The university alleges Mitra worked in secret with the companies to develop the patent, which outlines an innovative way of delivering drugs to the eye using nanotechnologyThe pharmaceutical product has recently received FDA approval, the university said. It's a treatment for dry eye, an ailment common to the elderly.The university's contentionIn a statement to CNN, the university said:"Mitra stole UMKC-owned inventions, sold them to industry, assisted those companies in patenting and commercializing them, denied credit to a deserving student and reaped a personal financial windfall -- all the while concealing his efforts and denying his involvement."The lawsuit seeks to designate the student, Kishore Cholkar, as the rightful inventor to the patent based on his research from 2010.The university policy is that it owns the rights to discoveries made by staff and students while they are working at the university. When commercial rewards are reaped, the inventor is entitled to one-third of the profits and the school keeps the remaining two-thirds, the school said.The professor's reactionReached by phone Thursday, the professor denied the allegations and told CNN that Cholkar doesn't deserve credit for the patent."Everyone is trying to jump in and get a piece of the pie," he said.He said he conceived of the formulation with the drug companies through his private consultancy business, adding that "the student arrived after the patent was signed."Cholkar's work involved a part of the eye not affected by the drug, Mitra said.He added that he's consulting with his lawyers on how best to tackle the lawsuit.Cholkar, the student, now works at a California-based pharmaceutical company. CNN has reached out to Cholkar for comment. 2298

The special counsel's office deliberated at length with Justice Department officials about issuing a subpoena for President Donald Trump to be interviewed, but ultimately the decision was made not to move forward with such a significant investigative step, according to a source familiar with the matter.For months, Robert Mueller's team had requested a sit-down interview with Trump, but the President's lawyers refused to commit and negotiations continued. Eventually, the special counsel submitted written questions to the President last fall concerning the time frame before the 2016 election, which Trump answered in late November 2018.The source said the sensitive discussions between Justice Department officials and the special counsel team, and the determination that a subpoena would not be pursued, were based on the perception of the evidence and merits of the issues -- separate and apart from the fact that current department policy dictates that a sitting president cannot be indicted.While not directly addressing the issue of a presidential interview, Attorney General William Barr's letter to Congress on Sunday offers a further glimpse into how officials at the department didn't believe they had a prosecutable case against Trump on collusion or on the question of obstruction of justice."In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the (Mueller) report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense," Barr wrote.The special counsel's office and the Justice Department declined to comment on internal discussions of a subpoena.In the end, the decision to not make a formal request for a subpoena was critical, because that demand, should it have been rejected, would have been communicated by the attorney general to Congress, as the special counsel regulations mandate. Instead, a formal request from Mueller wasn't made, allowing Barr to say in his letter to Congress on Friday "there were no such instances during the Special Counsel investigation" where Mueller was turned down.The-CNN-Wire? & ? 2019 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. 2463

Those that filed a claim to receive settlement funds from Equifax from its 2017 data breach need to verify their claim further before they receive their money, according to emails sent by the company on Sunday.In September 2017, the credit bureau announced that 274

The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a case brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Roman Catholic religious order for women, challenging lower court opinions that blocked the Trump administration's effort to weaken the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage mandate. Several cases are still percolating in the lower courts below and it is likely the issue will find its way back to the Supreme Court.The-CNN-Wire? & ? 2019 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. 531

来源：资阳报