No on 17 intentionally trying to mislead voters. 'Parade of Horribles' Listed by Opponents in their Ballot Statements are Result of Current Auto Insurance Regulations, Not Prop. 17

Yes on 17, Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates, a coalition of consumers, businesses, senior organizations, taxpayer advocates and insurers, filed a lawsuit today in Sacramento Superior Court to force Proposition 17 opponents to make changes to their ballot arguments and ballot rebuttals and correct the patently false and misleading statements contained therein.

Proposition 17 on the June 8, 2010, California statewide ballot simply makes an existing persistency or "continuous coverage" discount portable, allowing customers to take it with them if they change insurance companies. Prop. 17 will mean more competition and choice in the auto insurance marketplace and will result in lower rates for drivers.

Prop 17 does not create a new discount. Thus any reductions in premiums or increases for those who are uninsured and do not maintain coverage are the result of current auto insurance regulations, not Prop 17.

Despite this, opponents of Prop 17 are intentionally misleading voters by repeatedly stating Proposition 17 creates new penalties. Statements to this effect appear throughout opponents' ballot arguments and rebuttals and are false and misleading. The "parade of horribles" cited in No on 17's ballot arguments are, in fact, already happening today, and exist under current regulations.

Ballot arguments and rebuttals appear in the Official Voter Information Guide compiled by the California Secretary of State and are distributed to every voter in California. Election law (Elec. Code Section 9092, Gov. Code  Section 88006) states that information in the voter guide must not contain "false and misleading" statements.

Opponents' ballot arguments and ballot rebuttals are available on the Secretary of State's website at www.sos.ca.gov.

"Proposition 17 simply allows responsible drivers who already qualify for a continuous coverage discount to take that discount with them if they change insurance companies. It does not create a new discount," said Kirk West, former president of the California Chamber of Commerce and co-chair of Californians for Fair Insurance rates (Cal-FAIR). 

West continued: "Throughout this campaign, opponents have misled and attempted to confuse voters. Their ballot arguments and rebuttals are more of the same statements. As authors of Proposition 103, they understand that the so-called "penalties" they speak of are attributable to current law and not to Prop. 17. Yet they are hiding behind false and misleading statements because they are afraid to acknowledge taking an anti-consumer position on Prop. 17 by opposing a measure that will result in more competition and more choice for more than 80% of California drivers who would benefit under Prop. 17."

Today, more than 80% of drivers maintain auto insurance and qualify for the persistency or continuous coverage discount, but can only get that discount from their current insurer. Thus, if a driver wants to switch to a new insurance company, he or she loses the discount and has to pay more.

Opponents' primary allegation against Prop. 17, made in a variety of ways in the ballot arguments and rebuttals, is that if Prop. 17 is passed and the continuous coverage discount is made portable, drivers seeking insurance who do not continuously maintain insurance coverage will pay more.

In fact, because the persistency or continuous coverage discount is being offered today, drivers who do not maintain continuous insurance coverage are today paying more to offset price reductions for those who do get the discount.

In other words, any reductions in premiums for drivers who qualify for the persistency discount, or the increase in premium for those who do not maintain continuous coverage, are products of existing regulations - not Proposition 17. 

Moreover, Proposition 17 adds new provisions to existing law that require insurers to offer the persistency discount even after lapses of coverage for up to 90 days for any reason other than nonpayment and for military service overseas; and Proposition 17 expressly does not limit an insurer's ability to offer additional grace periods for lapses. Current law offers none of these protections. As a result, repeated statements in the ballot arguments by opponents that Proposition 17 will increase rates for motorists are false and misleading. Any such increases are the result of existing law, not Proposition 17.

March 15, 2010, is the statutory deadline by which all June 2010 ballot argument challenges must be resolved. Prior to the deadline, Yes on 17 and No on 17 will meet in Sacramento Superior Court for oral argument in front of the judge assigned to this case. Since the suit was filed today no court date or judge has been assigned. There will be no ruling prior to oral argument. In past cases, the presiding judge has ruled from the bench immediately after oral arguments.

Background on ballot arguments and rebuttals in California

In ballot proposition campaigns in California, both the Yes side and No campaigns submit ballot arguments and ballot rebuttals for publication in the Official Voter Information Guide prepared by the California Secretary of State's Office.

Ballot arguments are submitted first. The Secretary of State then exchanges the arguments so each side can prepare a rebuttal to the main arguments for and against the proposition.

Rebuttals are in turn submitted, and then made available for public review along with the rest of the Official Voter Information Guide.

Proponents and opponents review ballot arguments and rebuttals and decide if they meet the California standard. If they do not meet the standard and contain false and misleading statements, lawsuits are permitted to ensure voters are not misled.

Ballot argument/rebuttal submission and litigation takes place months in advance of Election Day to allow time for potential litigation, printing and mailing the Voter Guide.

SOURCE Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates

United Security Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq: USBI) today announced that, along with its banking subsidiary First United Security Bank and Acceptance Loan Company, Inc., a finance company operated by the bank (collectively referred to as the "USB Companies"), it has entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all claims alleged against the defendants named in the lawsuit styled Acceptance Loan Company Inc., First United Security Bank and United Security Bancshares, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of Clarke County, Alabama on December 18, 2009, Case No. 16-CV-2009-900168.00.

The USB Companies filed the lawsuit to seek recovery under a fidelity insurance policy and bond issued by The Cincinnati Insurance Company, which policy provides coverage for losses due to the dishonest or fraudulent conduct of employees of the USB Companies.  Acceptance Loan Company, Inc. originally submitted a claim under the policy in connection with the loan irregularities discovered during the second quarter of 2007 resulting from the fraudulent conduct of certain ALC employees.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, The Cincinnati Insurance Company agreed to pay to the USB Companies the sum of $4,150,000.  In exchange, the USB Companies agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, each of the defendants from the lawsuit and to release the defendants from all claims asserted or that may have been asserted against the defendants in the lawsuit.  The parties will be responsible for their own attorneys' fees and costs arising from the lawsuit, with the costs of mediation in the proceeding to be shared equally by the USB Companies and The Cincinnati Insurance Company.

"We are very pleased with the settlement agreement that was reached with the insurance company," said Terry Phillips, President and Chief Executive Officer of United Security Bancshares, Inc.  "USBI has been very aggressive in pursuing all available recovery in connection with the ALC losses and thus far has been successful in doing so."

The settlement agreement concludes the lawsuit.  The USB Companies entered into the settlement agreement to avoid the expense and uncertainty of future litigation of the claims alleged in the lawsuit.

United Security Bancshares, Inc. is bank holding company that operates nineteen banking offices in Alabama through First United Security Bank.  In addition, the Company's operations include Acceptance Loan Company, Inc., a consumer loan company, and FUSB Reinsurance, Inc., an underwriter of credit life and credit accident and health insurance policies sold to the bank's and ALC's consumer loan customers.  The Company's stock is traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol "USBI."

SOURCE United Security Bancshares, Inc.

The law firm of McCuneWright, LLP has filed for a preliminary injunction in United States District Court, Central District of California seeking an immediate order requiring Toyota to expand the Sudden Unintended Acceleration recalls.  

McCuneWright, which filed the first and leading class action lawsuit against Toyota to force the automaker to remedy the sudden unintended acceleration defects in all affected makes and models, is asking the court to issue a specific order requiring Toyota to provide a brake over-ride system on all Toyota models equipped with Electronic Throttle Control System -- intelligent ("ETCS-i") that have experienced significant numbers of sudden acceleration events.

The brake override system is a failsafe system that enables the onboard computer to detect when both the throttle and the brake are being activated simultaneously, recognize that there is an error in the signals it is receiving, and immediately return the throttle to idle.  It is an important failsafe system used by other vehicle manufacturers to keep a sudden unintended acceleration event from turning into a runaway vehicle with resulting crashes, injuries, and deaths.

Toyota has recently announced that it will install this important safety device on all new Toyota and Lexus vehicles.  In its November 26, 2009, recall, Toyota also announced that it would retroactively install this important safety device on just six existing models and further limited the recall to only recent model years -- 2007 -- 2010 Toyota Camry, 2005 -- 2010 Toyota Avalon, 2007 -- 2010 Lexus ES 350, 2007 2010 Lexus GS 350, 2006 -- 2010 Lexus IS 250, and 2006 2010 Lexus IS 350.

The preliminary injunction motion asserts that by limiting this brake over-ride system recall to recent model years for just six vehicle models, Toyota has left more than 75 percent of the affected models and model years out of this important recall.

"Toyota cannot justify limiting this important recall to models and model years that include less than 25 percent of the reported sudden acceleration problems," says Richard McCune, a partner at McCuneWright, LLP. "Toyota has identified an important solution to this problem and it has a duty to its customers and to public safety the apply it to all the Toyota vehicles. Toyota shouldn't wait until there's another deadly crash."

On November 5, 2009, McCuneWright filed the first and leading class action on sudden unintended acceleration, Choi, et. al. v. Toyota Motor Company, et. al. CV 09-08143 AHM (FMOx), in United States District Court, Central District of California.  The preliminary injunction and supporting exhibits can be found on the Court's website or is available at www.mccunewright.com/toyota.

SOURCE McCuneWright, LLP

Atricure Inc., a medical device manufacturer, has agreed to pay the United States $3.76 million to resolve civil claims in connection with the alleged promotion of its surgical ablation devices, the Justice Department announced today. Surgical ablation devices use focused energy to create controlled lesions or scar tissue on a patient's heart or other organs.

The settlement resolves allegations that the West Chester, Ohio-based company marketed its medical devices to treat atrial fibrillation (the most common cardiac arrhythmia or abnormal heart rhythm), a use that is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Atricure also allegedly promoted expensive heart surgery using the company's devices when less invasive alternatives were appropriate, advised hospitals to up-code surgical procedures using the company's devices to inflate Medicare reimbursement, and paid kickbacks to health care providers to use its devices. The United States asserted that by engaging in this conduct, Atricure knowingly violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and caused the submission of false and fraudulent claims in violation of the False Claims Act.

"This settlement reflects our commitment to enforce the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and protect Medicare from the improper marketing practices of Atricure and other medical device manufacturers," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. "We will continue to work with our partners at the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General's Office and the FDA Office of Chief Counsel to preserve the integrity of our public health programs."

The allegations were made against Atricure in a lawsuit filed under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private citizens, called "relators," to bring lawsuits on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment. The relator will receive a total of $625,000 as the statutory share of the current settlement.

"The misuse of medical devices has the potential of exposing patients to dangerous procedures and taxpayers to payment of unwarranted claims against Medicare," said Tim Johnson, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas. "This settlement demonstrates the government's commitment to maintaining safe and affordable health care for its citizens."

Assistant Attorney General West noted that the settlement with Atricure resulted from a coordinated effort by the Justice Department's Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, and the FDA Office of Chief Counsel.

This settlement is part of the government's emphasis on combating health care fraud. One of the most powerful tools in that effort is the False Claims Act, which the Justice Department has used to recover approximately $2.2 billion since January 2009 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs. The Justice Department's total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 have topped $3 billion.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

Tommy L. Thompson, Jr., 48, of Indianapolis, Christopher Wells, 45, of Indianapolis, Francis W. Coleman, 41, of Laurel, Md., Carl E. McCreary, 48, of Frisco City, Ala., and Fred D. Bear, Jr., 39, of Avon, Ind., were indicted in connection with an auto theft ring that allegedly stole more than 80 vehicles valued in excess of $1 million dollars. This indictment follows their arrests on Dec. 28, 2009 on a complaint filed in district court.

This indictment is the result of a seven-months long investigation by the U.S. Secret Service and the Indiana State Police with assistance by the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Greenfield Police Department, Shelbyville Police Department, Lawrence Police Department, Muncie Police Department, Greensburg Police Department, Fishers Police Department, Clarksville Police Department, Kokomo Police Department, Brownsburg Police Department, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department and the Alabama Department of Safety and Alabama Bureau of Investigation.

The indictment alleges that in June 2006, Christopher Wells and Francis Coleman entered into an agreement to steal motor vehicles and use counterfeit motor vehicle titles and counterfeit vehicle identification numbers to fool state title authorities into thinking the stolen vehicles were not stolen, and could be legally sold. Wells and Coleman were purportedly joined by Thompson and McCreary in or about April 2007, and all four participated until their arrest on Dec. 29, 2009. Bear allegedly participated from March 2008 through September 2009. In furtherance of this scheme, the defendants utilized the U.S. Postal Service and Federal Express to send and receive the counterfeit documents.

According to the indictment, Coleman, Wells, Thompson and others would steal motor vehicles from both within and outside of the Southern District of Indiana. They would then locate vehicles of an identical make and model in Canada and copy those vehicles' vehicle identification number (VIN). Coleman would create counterfeit Washington, D.C., or North Carolina motor vehicle titles and VIN stickers bearing the Canadian vehicles' information. Coleman would then either drive or ship the counterfeit documents to Wells in Indianapolis, where Wells, Thompson and others would clone the vehicles. After the vehicles were cloned, either Bear or McCreary would receive the vehicles for sale.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Bradley P. Shepard, who is prosecuting the case for the government, all are charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and each faces a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Thompson remains in custody and the remaining defendants are on pre-trial release.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jason Eric Kay, age 38, of Longmont, Colo., was arrested this afternoon without incident on charges of misbranding and altering food labels with intent to cause serious injury to the business of any person, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations (FDA OCI) announced. Kay will be held overnight in custody. He will likely make his initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Denver tomorrow.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, on Jan. 8, 2010, FDA OCI was notified by PepsiCo North America that the company had received multiple complaints from the public involving the re-labeling/tampering of 1 quart Tropical-Mango Flavored Gatorade bottles. The tampered bottles contained unauthorized labels depicting in part, a photograph of professional golfer Tiger Woods and his wife Elin Woods on one side, and the word "unfaithful" on the other side. PepsiCo through its wholly owned subsidiary, manufactures Gatorade. The company had not authorized the labeling of their product in this manner. The company further advised that the bar code on the label was fully functional and none of the bottles appeared to have been opened. Each bottle appeared to be individually numbered. Bottles were removed by personnel at Safeway and King Soopers stores in Erie, Boulder, Broomfield and Longmont, Colo.

"The consumer must have confidence that the labeling on the products they purchase has not been changed or altered in any way so that the information about the product is accurate," said U.S. Attorney David Gaouette. "Once a label is illegally changed, all of the information on that label is put into question."

Kay is charged with:

1. The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food that is adulterated or misbranded which carries a penalty of not more than 1 year incarceration and not more than a $100,000 fine.

2. The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to food, if such act is done while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded carries a penalty of not more than 1 year incarceration and not more than a $100,000 fine.

3. With intent to cause serious injury to the business of any person, tainting a consumer product or rendering materially false or misleading the labeling of, or container for, a consumer product which affects interstate or foreign commerce, which carries a penalty of not more than 3 years' incarceration, a not more than a $250,000 fine.

This case was investigated by the Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Pena.

A criminal complaint is a probable cause charging document. Anyone accused of committing a federal felony crime has a Constitutional right to be indicted by a federal grand jury.

These charges are only allegations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

A joint project of the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) and the Lawyering in the Digital Age Clinic at the Columbia University School of Law has resulted in data that shows a disturbing trend in law school diversity. See http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/salt.

While the results are not surprising, the project underscores that efforts to enhance diversity in law school enrollment have not been effective. Until such time as the trend is reversed, the quality of legal education in the U.S. will remain impaired, as will access to the U.S. legal and justice system for many Americans.

In general, the data produced by the joint project show that while law school enrollment from 1993 to 2008 increased by close to 3,000 new admissions, admissions by African-Americans and Mexican-Americans decreased by 7.5% and 11.7%, respectively. The issue is not a matter of qualifications, as the data indicate that the LSAT scores and GPAs of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans have markedly improved over the same period. Equally disturbing are data that indicate that the number of applications from African-American and Mexican-American students has remained steady from 1990 to 2008.

"Particularly significant results of the study are the data that show that African-Americans and Mexican-Americans have much higher shut-out admission rates than Caucasian students. So not only are admissions relatively decreasing for African-Americans and Mexican-Americans, they are more likely than not to get shut out of all the law schools to which they apply," said HNBA National President Roman D. Hernandez. "We knew these data have existed, but this latest review involving 2008 data is discouraging to say the least. There is no finger pointing here. We all need to work harder and our law schools need to reexamine admissions criteria. The HNBA has addressed law schools accreditation standards criteria before, and we are going to revisit that issue," said Hernandez.

A federal grand jury in Las Vegas today returned indictments against 10 Nevada-certified emissions testers for falsifying vehicle emissions test reports, the Justice Department announced.

Each defendant faces one felony Clean Air Act count for falsifying reports between November 2007 and May 2009. The number of falsifications varied by defendant, with some defendants having falsified approximately 250 records, while others falsified more than double that figure. One defendant is alleged to have falsified over 700 reports.

The individuals indicted include:

Eduardo Franco, 30

Alexander Wayne Worster, 27

William Joseph McCown, 48

Joseph DeMatteo, 52

David Eugene Nelson, 46

Louis Engene Demeo, 50

Adolpho Silva-Contreras, 47

Peter Escudero, 47

Wadji Waked, 24

Gary Smith, 47

Escudero resides in Pahrump, Nev. All other individuals are from Clark County, Nev.

The 10 defendants are alleged to have engaged in a practice known as "clean scanning" vehicles. The scheme involved entering the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for a vehicle that would not pass the emissions test into the computerized system, then connecting a different vehicle the testers knew would pass the test. These falsifications were allegedly performed for anywhere from $10 to $100 over and above the usual emissions testing fee.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Clean Air Act, requires the state of Nevada to conduct vehicle emissions testing in certain areas because the areas exceed national standards for carbon monoxide and ozone. Las Vegas is currently required to perform emissions testing.

To obtain a registration renewal, vehicle owners bring the vehicles to a licensed inspection station for testing. The emissions inspector logs into a computer to activate the system by using a unique password issued to the emissions inspector. The emissions inspector manually inputs the vehicle's VIN to identify the tested vehicle, then connects the vehicle for model year 1996 and later to an onboard diagnostics port connected to an analyzer. The analyzer downloads data from the vehicle's computer, analyzes the data and provides a "pass" or "fail" result. The pass or fail result and vehicle identification data are reported on the Vehicle Inspection Report. It is a crime to knowingly alter or conceal any record or other document required to be maintained by the Clean Air Act.

"Falsifications of vehicle emissions testing, such as those alleged in the indictments unsealed today, are serious matters and we intend to use all of our enforcement tools to stop this harmful practice. These actions undermine a system that is designed to reduce air pollutants including smog and provide better air quality for the citizens of Nevada," said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division.

"The residents of Nevada deserve to know that the vast majority of licensed vehicle emission inspectors are not corrupt and are not circumventing emission testing procedures," said U.S. Attorney Bogden. "These indictments should serve as a clear warning to offenders that the Department of Justice will prosecute you if you make fraudulent statements and reports concerning compliance with the federal Clean Air Act."

"Lying about car emissions means dirtier air, which is especially of concern in areas like Las Vegas that are already experiencing air quality problems," said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at EPA. "We will take aggressive action to ensure communities have clean air."

The maximum penalty for the felony violations contained in the indictments includes up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

An indictment is merely an accusation, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

The case was investigated by the EPA, Criminal Investigation Division; and the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles Compliance Enforcement Division. The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Nevada and the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section.

Judge Rules Chicago Transit Authority Cannot Ban Computer and Video Game Ads

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) a preliminary injunction in its suit against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), the ESA said today. The case, which the ESA filed in July 2009, challenges CTA's prohibition of certain computer and video game advertisements as a violation of the guarantees of free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In her opinion, Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer stated, "...the advertisements the CTA wishes to ban promote expression that has constitutional value and implicates core First Amendment concerns."

"This ruling is a win for Chicago's citizens, the video game industry and, above all, the First Amendment," said Michael D. Gallagher, president and CEO of the ESA, which represents U.S. computer and video game publishers. "It is our hope that the CTA sees the futility of pursuing this case further. To do so will waste taxpayer money and government resources. Chicago deserves better and we look forward to bringing this matter to an end."

ESA argued that CTA's Ordinance 008-147, which took effect in January 2009, unfairly targeted the entertainment software industry by prohibiting any advertisement that "markets or identifies a video or computer game rated 'Mature 17+' (M) or 'Adults Only 18+' (AO)." The ESA further contended the ordinance unconstitutionally "restricts speech in a public forum that is otherwise open to all speakers without a compelling interest for doing so." In addition, the ESA's complaint stated that the ordinance impermissibly discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and ignores less restrictive means of achieving the supposed ends of the ordinance. The court ruled that the ESA was likely to succeed on the merits of these claims at trial and, therefore, blocked enforcement of the ordinance until the case could be finally resolved.

The ESA also contended that the CTA's ordinance is unnecessary because game-related marketing is already subject to the Entertainment Software Rating Board's Advertising Review Council, which strictly regulates computer and video game advertisements that are seen by the general public. The Entertainment Software Rating Board assigns computer and video games ratings and content descriptors, which are both displayed on advertisements for those games.

The Entertainment Software Association is the U.S. association dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of companies publishing interactive games for video game consoles, handheld devices, personal computers, and the Internet. The ESA offers services to interactive entertainment software publishers including a global anti-piracy program, owning the E3 Expo, business and consumer research, federal and state government relations, First Amendment and intellectual property protection efforts. 

The Justice Department announced that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian national, was charged today in a six-count criminal indictment returned in the Eastern District of Michigan for his alleged role in the attempted Christmas day bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 from Amsterdam, the Netherlands, to Detroit.

Count one of the indictment charges Abdulmutallab with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, which carries a penalty of up to life in prison. Count two of the indictment charges him with attempted murder within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. Count three of the indictment charges him with willful attempt to destroy or wreck an aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

Count four of the indictment charges Abdulmutallab with willfully placing a destructive device on an aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, which was likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft. This violation carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. Count five of the indictment charges him with use of a firearm/destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence, which carries a consecutive mandatory 30 years in prison. Count six of the indictment charges the defendant with possession of a firearm/destructive device in furtherance of a crime of violence, which carries a consecutive mandatory 30 years in prison

"The charges that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab faces could imprison him for life," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "This investigation is fast-paced, global and ongoing, and it has already yielded valuable intelligence that we will follow wherever it leads. Anyone we find responsible for this alleged attack will be brought to justice using every tool -- military or judicial -- available to our government."

"The attempted murder of 289 innocent people merits the most serious charges available, and that's what we have charged in this indictment," said U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

According to the indictment, Northwest Airlines flight 253 carried 279 passengers and 11 crewmembers. Abdulmutallab allegedly boarded Northwest Airlines flight 253 in Amsterdam on Dec. 25, 2009 carrying a concealed bomb. The bomb components included Pentaerythritol (also known as PETN, a high explosive), as well as Triacetone Triperoxide (also known as TATP, a high explosive), and other ingredients.

The bomb was concealed in the defendant's clothing and was designed to allow him to detonate it at a time of his choosing, thereby causing an explosion aboard flight 253, according to the indictment. Shortly prior to landing at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Abdulmutallab detonated the bomb, causing a fire on board flight 253.

According to an affidavit filed in support of a criminal complaint, Abdulmutallab was subdued and restrained by the passengers and flight crew after detonating the bomb. The airplane landed shortly thereafter, and he was taken into custody by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. Abdulmutallab required medical treatment, and was transported to the University of Michigan Medical Center after the plane landed.

This prosecution is being handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, with assistance from the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department's National Security Division.

The investigation is being conducted by the Detroit Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is led by the FBI and includes U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Air Marshal Service, and other law enforcement agencies. Additional assistance has been provided by the Transportation Security Administration, the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the Wayne County Airport police, as well as international law enforcement partners.

The public is reminded that an indictment contains mere allegations and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.