and the government with financial data, a
summary of ownership, and the accounting
practices used to prepare the report.
Annual reports measure a corporation’s
financial health. They focus on past and present
financial performance, and make predictio ns
about future prospects. By law, any corporation
that holds an annual meeting for stockholders
or security holders is required to issue an annual
report. Regulations set down by the
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
(SEC) specify in detail
what information the report must include about
the corporation’s finances, markets, and man-
agement. The rules are strict: the SEC can levy
stiff penalties if corporations fail to comply.
Traditionally a rather dry and factual docu-
ment, the annual report has acquired a larger
audience in recent years as corporations increas-
ingly treat it as not merely a legal obligation but
also a public relations opportunity. Yet even as
annual reports take on the appearance of glossy
magazines, promote corporate public relations,
and make political arguments, they remain
bound by legal concerns about completeness
and accuracy, and sometimes expose corpora-
tions to lawsuits when they fall short.
Although federal law governing the financial
industry is quite old, its application to annual
reports grew in complexity from the mid-1970s

Corporations that fail to comply with all the
requirements can face enforcement proceed-
ings. In such cases, the commission has the
power to invalidate the election of directors and
decisions made at the shareholders’ meeting,
which can necessitate issuing a revised annual
report. Administrative remedies also exist.
Under the Securities Enforcement Remedies
and Penny Stock Reform Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C.
A. § 77g et seq.), the SEC can use violations of
any securities laws to force corporations to
make full disclosures in their reports. Corpora-
tions that are in the process of registering for
the first time with the SEC are particularly
scrutinized for overly optimistic projections.
Besides federal penalties, wishful thinking in
annual reports can lead to lawsuits. Hoping to put
the best spin possible on their achievements and
prospects, corporations sometimes attract
CLASS
ACTION
suits from shareholders who allege that the
corporations have exaggerated or misled the
public. One of many examples is a suit brought
against Pizza Time Theatre (In re Pizza Time
Theatre, 112 F.R.D. 15 [N.D. Cal. 1986]). Its 1982
annual report had cartoon characters bragging,
“We’re going full speed ahead!” And so they were:
Nine months later, Pizza Time Theatre declared
BANKRUPTCY. Shareholders brought a class action

ties, which came as a surprise to shareholders
and regulators that had relied on upbeat
financial information contained in these cor-
porations’ annual reports. The credibility and
legitimacy of corporate financial data quickly
became a topic of political debate.
The collapse of Enron was predicated on
fraudulent accounting practices that concealed
the amount of debt the corporation had accu-
mulated. Federal prosecutors accused the major
accounting firm of Arthur Anderson of aiding
Enron’s corporate officers in this enterprise and
successfully won a conviction against the firm for
its actions, including the des truction of docu-
ments. A careful review of Enron’s annual reports
revealed that certain transactions were buried in
obscure footnotes or were not reported at all.
During 2002 the SEC and Congress examined
theshortcomingsofannualreportsandother
corporate reporting practices. In a bipartisan
effort, Congress passed and President
GEORGE W.
BUSH signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,also known as
the Accounting Industry Reform Act, in July 2002
(Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, [2002]). The act
seeks to address
CORPORATE FRAUD by, among other
things, requiring chief executive and chief finan-
cial officers to personally certify the accuracy ofthe
financial information contained in quarterly and

Winkler, Carol. 2002. “Weighing SEC Ability to Fight
Fraud.” Boston Globe (December 26).
CROSS REFERENCES
Board of Directors; Financial Statement.
ANNUITY
A right to receive periodic payments, usually fixed
in size, for life or a term of years that is created by
a contract or other legal document.
The most common form of an annuity is akin
to a savings account. The annuitant, the person
who creates an annuity for his or her own benefit,
deposits a sum of money, the principal, with an
individual, business, or insurance company to be
invested so that the principal will earn income at a
certain percentage, usually specified by the terms
of the annuity. This income is used by the
company to pay the annuitant. Each payment
received by the annuitant, sometimes called the
primary
BENEFICIARY, represents a partial return of
the principal and a portion of the income
generated by its investment. Such annuities are
employed frequently to provide a source of
income to persons upon their retirement. A group
annuity contract supplies periodic payments to a
retired individual member of a group of employ-
ees covered bytheir employer’smastercontract.A
retirement annuity is a policy paid tothe annuitant
after retirement. If the annuitant dies prior to the
expiration of the annuity or wants to surrender the

annuitant to receive benefits in case of the
annuitant’s death, or to the annuitant’s heirs for
a period of time even if the annuitant has died
before the expiration of the designated period. A
deferred annuity is one in which payments start at a
stipulated future date only if the annuitant is alive
at that time. Payment of the
INCOME TAX due on the
income generated is delayed until payments start.
A deferred annuity is used primarily by a person
who does not want to receive payments until he or
she is in a lower tax bracket, such as upon
retirement.
A refund annuity, sometimes called a cash
refund annuity, is a policy that promises to pay a
set amount annually during the annuitant’s life.
In case the annuitant dies before receiving
payments for the full amount of the annuity, his
or her estate will receive a sum that is the
difference between the purchase price and the
sum paid during the annuitant’s lifetime.
A joint annuity is one that is payable to two
named persons but upon the death of one, the
annuity terminates. A joint and survivorship
annuity is a policy payable to the named
annuitants during their lives and continues for
the benefit of the surviving annuitant upon the
death of the other.
Tax Aspects
When an annuity is paid to an annuitant, he or

that the two parties are no longer
HUSBAND AND
WIFE
once the decree is issued. An annulment
means that the individuals were never united in
marriage as husband and wife.
Various religions have different methods for
obtaining a church divorce, or annulment, but
these procedures have no legal force or effect upon
a marriage that complied with the requirements of
law. Such a marriage must be legally annulled.
History
English COMMON LAW did not provide for annul-
ment. Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, the
only courts in England with the power to annul
an invalid marriage, when fairness mandated it,
were the
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. There was no
statute that provided relief of this kind.
Northeastern American colonies passed laws
enabling courts or legislatures to grant annul-
ments, while other colonies adhered more
closely to English traditions. The American
tradition of keeping church and state separate
precluded the establishment of ecclesiastical
courts in the United States. Following the
American Revolution, the civil courts in a
majority of states never assumed that they had
the authority to hear annulment cases.
A number of states eventually enacted laws

marriage if both parties did not genuinely
intend to be married.
FRAUD is the most prevalent ground for
annulment. The
MISREPRESENTATION, whether by
lies or concealment of the truth, must encompass
something directly pertinent to the marriage, such
as religion, children, or sex, which society
considers the foundation of a marital relationship.
Physical or emotional conditions may also be
grounds for annulment, particularly when they
interfere with sexual relations or procreation.
Other health conditions providing grounds
for annulment include alcoholism, incurable
insanity, and epilepsy. The mere existence of
one of these conditions is a sufficient ground for
an annulment in some states, whereas in others,
an annulment may be obtained for fraud if such
a condition was concealed.
Courts may also annul marriages that
involved lack of consent, mistake, or duress.
Lack of consent might arise if one party were
senile, drunk, underage, orsufferin g from serious
mental illness, or if there was nogenuine intent to
marry. A mistake as to some essential element of
the marriage may also justify an annulment, for
example, if the couple mistakenly believed that
one party’s insanity or impotence had been
cured. Duress arises when one party compels the
other to marry against his or her will.

Divorce, and the Validity and Extraterritorial Effect of
Decrees of Divorce. Holmes Beach, FL: Gaunt.
ANON.
An abbreviation for anonymous, nameless, or
name unknown.
ANSWER
The first responsive pleading filed by the defendant
in a civil action; a formal written statement that
admits or denies the allegations in the complaint
and sets forth any available affirmative defenses.
The answer gives the
PLAINTIFF notice of the
issues the
DEFENDANT will raise as the case
progresses and enables the plaintiff to adequately
prepare a case. In most jurisdictions, the answer
must be filed within 20 days after receipt of the
SUMMONS and complain t, although local rules
and customs may dictate different filing times.
The answer begins with a caption, which
identifies the location of the action, the court,
the docket or file number (assigned by the
court), and the title of the case (comprising the
names of the parties, e.g., Smith v. Jones).
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
ANSWER 301
A sample answer and
counterclaim
Answer and Counterclaim
United States District Court

payment to DirecTV.
DirecTV Obtained Evidence
7. Paragraphs 7-10. Bettiga does not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of most of these paragraphs.
However, Bettiga denies that DirecTV obtained evidence that he purchase an unlawful pirate device. At most, it obtained evidence
of his purchase of lawful standard electronic components usable for a wide variety of lawful purposes. Further, Bettiga never
possessed or used any pirate device. Further, he never manufactured, assembled, or used any pirate device. He merely
purchased standard electronic components. He merely tinkered and experimented with these components. His tinkering did not
result in a device capable of decrypting anything. It was capable only of converting a signal from one form to another.
DirecTV Obtained Records
8. Paragraph 11. Denied. Bettiga did not violate any federal or state statute or common law. He merely purchased standard electronic
components.
Bettiga never manufactured or assembled or obtained or possessed or purchased any unlawful pirate device. His
tinkering did not result in a device capable of decrypting anything. It was capable only of converting a signal from one form to
another. The device could not accomplish and was not designed to accomplish decryption of DirecTV's signal without additional
components and decryption software or device.
Jurisdiction, Venue, and Parties
9. Paragraphs 12-16. Denied except subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue are all admitted. Bettiga never
violated any right of DirecTV anywhere.
10. Paragraph 17. Admit except Bettiga does not have sufficient information to admit or deny the State of Incorporation of DirecTV.
11. Paragraph 18.
• Admit that Bettiga resides in Corpus Christi, Texas.
• Denied that Bettiga purchased any Pirate Access Device. He purchased standard electronic components useful for a wide
variety of lawful purposes.
• Bettiga did not purchase anything designed specifically to permit the surreptitious interception of DirecTV Satellite
Programming.
• Bettiga purchased capacitors, transisters, and an RS-232 Transceiver. These are all electronic components with completely
lawful uses. These components are not sufficient without more to create any Pirate Access or Decryption Device.
12. Paragraphs 19-21. Bettiga does not have sufficient information to admit or deny any of the allegations relative to the other
Defendants.
13. Paragraphs 22-24. Denied. Bettiga did not import any illegal device. He merely purchased standard electronic components useful

18 U.S.C. 2511
22. Paragraphs 33-36. Denied. Bettiga did not intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure or otherwise to intercept electronic
communications. He did not disclose or endeavor to disclose to others the contents of intercepted electronic communications.
He did not use or endeavor to use intercepted communications. Further, the statute does not apply in some respects as DirecTV
asserts because the statute in some respects is limited to "oral" communications.
18 U.S.C. 2512
23. Paragraphs 37-40. Denied. Bettiga did not assemble or possess any device primarily useful for surreptitous interception of
DirecTV's programming. Bettiga did not assemble a device capable of doing that. The device was not capable of decrypting the
DirecTV signal. It was merely a device built from standard components capable of transforming the signal from one form to
another (not decrypting it). The device was never sent through the mail and never was going to be sent through the mail. It was
not received by mail (standard electronic components were).
47 U.S.C. 605(e)(4)
24. Paragraphs 41-44. Denied. The device constructed by Bettiga was not capable of decrypting anything. It merely transformed a
signal from one form to another (not decrypted it). Bettiga did not program or reprogram access cards. There is not even a place
to put a card. The device was not capable of unlawful interception or receiving of DirecTV's signal. It was capable only of
transforming a signal from one electronic form to another (not decrypting it).
Conversion
25. Paragraphs 45-48. Denied. Bettiga never viewed DirecTV programming without authorization. He did not convert anything.
T
ex. Civ. P. Rem. Code 123.001, et seq.
26. Paragraphs 49-51. Denied. Bettiga did not intercept or attempt to intercept DirecTV's programming. He did not divulge
intercepted programming.
Injunction
27. Paragraphs 53-56. Denied. There has been no illegal conduct to restrain. There is no showing of imminent irreparable injury or
even any probability at all of illegal conduct to restrain.
Counterclaim
Factual Background
28. Bettiga has on more than one occasion been working on his computer when an advertisement for DirecTV appeared or "popped
up" on his screen without his consent or request. In fact, this DirecTV advertisement "popped up" on the screen of his attorney's
computer while working on this answer and counterclaim. This consumes computer resources and more importantly the time

respond to each allegation made in the
complaint. In federal court and in jurisdictions
that follow the Federal Rules of
CIVIL PROCEDURE,
denials must be unambiguous and stated in
concise language that clearly identifies the
allegations being denied (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)).
For example, if the complaint alleges that the
defendant was driving an automobile that
struck the plaintiff on Addison Street in
Chicago on March 11, an answer stating that
the defendant was in Milwaukee on March 11 is
unclear and ambiguous because it avoids the
question of whether the defendant was also in
Chicago at a different time on the same day.
The answer may plead any form of denial
that is truthful and made in
GOOD FAITH.
Although general denials that deny the truth
of every fact in the complaint or of every
element of a charge are sometimes used, they
are not considered a sufficient response. Courts
discourage general denials because they fail to
respond to specific allegations and do not give
the plaintiff sufficient basis to prepare a case. If
the defendant lacks the knowledge or informa-
tion needed to respond to the truth or falsity of
a charge, rule 8(b) and similar rules in other
jurisdictions allow the defendant to state such in
the answer. This has the effect of a denial (rule 8

Conclusions
36. The Court should deny DirecTV damages. The Court should certify a class. The Court should grant actual and exemplary damages
for trespass and for violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________________________
David A. Sibley
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 9610
719 N. Upper Broadway (78401)
Corpus Christi, Texas 78469-9610
(361) 882-2377 - Telephone
(877) 582-7477 - Telecopier
- E-mail
davidsibley.law - Home Page
State Bar No. 18337600
Federal I.D. 10053
Attorney-in-charge for Bettiga
Certificate of Service
On Sunday, January 5, 2002, I served this as follows:
Via Telecopier
Joe C. Fulcher
Attorney At Law
______________________________________________
David A. Sibley
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
304 ANSWER
which are grounded in SUBSTANTIVE LAW, state
that an allegation may or may not be true, but
that even if it is true, the law provides a legal
defense that defeats the plaintiff’s claim. The

same circumstances as the plaintiff’s claim or
from a different set of facts. A
CROSS-CLAIM may be
filed when one party to a suit charges another
party with responsibility for the plaintiff’s inju-
ries or damages. Under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure rule 13(g), a cross-claim must arise
out of “the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter either of the original action or of a
counterclaim therein or relating to any property
that is the subject matter ofthe original action.” A
cross-claim may also be filed separately from the
answer. Because counterclaims and cross-claims
raise new issues and initiate a separate
CAUSE OF
ACTION
, they must meet the procedural require-
ments of a complaint.
FURTHER READINGS
James, Fleming, Jr., Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., and John
Leubsdorf. 2001. Civil Procedure. Eagan, MN: West.
McCord, James W.H. “Drafting the Complaint: Defending
and Testing the Lawsuit.” Practising Law Institute 447.
Witus, Morley. “What Is the Answer? New Guidelines on
How to Draft the Answer and Affirmative Defenses.”
Michigan Bar Journal 7.
CROSS REFERENCE
Civil Procedure.
ANTARCTIC TREATY OF 1959
According to this treaty, Antartic Treaty, Dec. 1,

of time between the creation of the debt and the
filing of the petition for bankruptcy. A bankrupt-
cy court may set aside a voidable preference since
it gives one creditor a better right to payment
than other creditors who are similarly situated.
v
ANTHONY, SUSAN BROWNELL
People no longer are surprised when an Ameri-
can woman works outside the home, keeps her
own bank account, maintains custody of her
children after a divorce, or votes in a presidential
election. Yet, not too long ago, these practices
were unc ommon, if not illegal, in the United
States. Due in large part to the efforts of the
remarkable Susan Brownell Anthony and other
pioneers of feminism, women in the United
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
ANTHONY, SUSAN BROWNELL 305
States enjoy rights and opp ortunities that are
simply taken for granted today.
Anthony was born on February 15, 1820,
during an era when most women got married,
produced children, and deferred completely to
their husbands. Daniel Anthony, her father,
belonged to the Society of Friends (better known
as Quakers), a religious group that recognized
the equality of men and women. Daniel encour-
aged his daughter to think independently and to
speak her mind. He supported her educational
pursuits and emphasized self-sufficiency.

ment opportunities. As a woman, her only
options were to become a seamstress, a domes-
tic, or a teacher. Anthony chose teaching, and in
1838, began the first of several teaching jobs. In
1846, she became headmistress at Canajoharie
Academy in New York. There, she discovered
Susan Brownell Anthony 1820–1906
◆
❖
◆◆◆
◆
◆◆◆
❖
1820 Born
1838 Began first
teaching position
1869 Formed the
National Woman's
Suffrage Association
1870 Fourteenth Amendment ratified; gave African
Americans, but not women, the right to vote
1872 Voted in presidential election;
fined $100
1906 Died
1920 Nineteenth
Amendment
became law, giving
women the right to
vote
1868

the
TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT, a national campaign
to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol.
When it became clear that women were not
allowed full leadership in the existing temper-
ance organizations, Anthony helped form
the Woman’s State Temperance Society of
New York.
Like her father, Anthony also was a fervent
abolitionist. She became friends with
FREDERICK
DOUGLASS
and attended her father’s antislavery
meetings in the family home. Before and during
the
U.S. CIVIL WAR, Anthony devoted her
organizational skills to the cause. As head of
the Anti-Slavery Society of New York, she
planned lecture schedules and spoke publicly
against the evils of the Southern system and of
the discriminatory practices in the North.
During this time, she joined forces with another
abolitionist,
ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, who was
the acknowledged leader of the fledgling
women’s rights movement.
After the war, Anthony and Stanton contin-
ued to work together for social reform. They
were bitterly disappointed when their fellow
abolitionists refused to support their strategy for

registered and voted in the 1872 presidential
election in Rochester, New York. Anthony was
prosecuted for the offense and fined $100, but
she refused to pay. Her defiance rallied
supporters of women’s rights across the nation.
In time, Anthony merged her suffrage organi-
zation with another one, to form the National
American Woman Suffrage Association. She
served as president of this association from 1892
to 1900.
Not surprisingly, Anthony fought hard for
the liberalization of laws for married women.
During most of the nineteenth century, a wife
had very little protection under the law. Any
income she produced automatically belonged to
her husband, as did any inheritance she
received. Her husba nd could apprentice their
children without her permission and was
designated sole guardian of their children, no
matter how unfit he might be. A husband even
had the right to pass on his guardianship of the
children by will. In Anthony’s home state of New
York, her petition drives and lectures were
instrumental in convincing the legislature to pass
laws giving married women power over their
incomes and guardianship of their children.
Anthony was not afraid to flout social
conventions to achieve her goals. For a time
she wore bloomers, a controversial garment
named after Amelia Jenks Bloomer, the woman