The executive order Wednesday gives the Treasury Department authority to freeze the U.S.-based assets of anyone who “obstructs” the political transition in Yemen, including U.S. citizens who are “engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the Nov. 23, 2011, agreement between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power . . . or that obstruct the political process in Yemen.” One Obama official is quoted as saying that the order is meant to deter people opposing the regime to “make clear to those who are even thinking of spoiling the transition” to think again. . . .” That would be called a chilling effect designed to deter opponents of the regime.

One of the greatest threats posed by this order is that it places such actions in the the administrative law process on the agency level. Citizens are given fewer protections in that process and agencies given absurd levels of deference by federal courts. Various organizations have complained about that process in being detailed as aiders or abettors of terrorism. Glenn Greenwald has an article below discussing the new order.

The executive order appears to fall into that ever-widening category of extreme presidential powers claimed under the “Trust me I am Obama” rationale. Once again, Democrats and liberals are silent despite the fact that they would be outraged if this had been done by Bush. Once again, Obama’s failure to respect constitutional principles are excused by saying that others like Romney would be worse. This short-sighted and relativistic approach by Obama supporters will likely come back and haunt them when later presidents not of their liking invoking the same authoritarian measures created by Obama. What will be said then? These were really just for Obama? If Obama can do this with Yemen, how about critics of Israel or Saudi Arabia? You can question the factual need to support “stability” in these countries, but the question is one of the authority to order it. Once the authority is accepted, the rest is left to the discretion of the President, whoever that may be.

Note that the government already has ample means to move against any terrorist organizations and a material support law that has been denounced as so ill-defined as to cover the most minor interaction or contact with targeted groups. It also has laws barring efforts of citizens to lend military or violent means to support opposition to the regime. This executive order was intentionally written broadly to capture areas that are presumed to be protected like free speech.

While Section 11 contains vague boilerplate language, the obvious thrust of the law is to allow for greater government action against opponents to the Yemeni government than already exists on the books. Note that such opponents would not be terrorists to be nailed under this law, just indirect threats to stability.

The Administration has not shown how the existing laws would not be entirely ample in combatting unlawful activities by U.S. citizens and others in the country. Now however you can have your property seized and pulled into a government investigation if you “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services” that are viewed by Obama officials of “indirectly” threatening or obstructing the “stability” of the Yemeni government. Of course, nothing is more stable than an election with only one candidate — an election praised by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a great triumph for democracy.

This executive order was written by people without a scintilla of concern for free speech or due process. It also reflects a perception of immunity by the Obama Administration when it comes to civil liberties.

It appears that a man elected in an election of one fits nicely into our plans for fighting Al Qaeda. As a result, things like the first amendment in the United States are deemed as expendable by our own supreme leader.

Here is the executive order:

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- – - – - – -
BLOCKING PROPERTY OF PERSONS THREATENING
THE PEACE, SECURITY, OR STABILITY OF YEMEN

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Yemen and others threaten Yemen’s peace, security, and stability, including by obstructing the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power that meets the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Yemeni people for change, and by obstructing the political process in Yemen. I further find that these actions constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order:

Section 1. All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to:

(a) have engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power in Yemen, or that obstruct the political process in Yemen;

(b) be a political or military leader of an entity that has engaged in the acts described in subsection (a) of this section;

(c) have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the acts described in subsection (a) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(d) be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:

(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 5. Nothing in section 1 of this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the United States Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.

Sec. 6. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;

(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that

because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

Sec. 11. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

Source: Washington Post and Salon

What I thought was most interesting is that it did not change between caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee. For men, the difference was a ten percent advantage while for women it was a thirteen percent advantage.

The study was done by researchers at the National Cancer Institute. Here is another interesting fact. Americans drank 77.4 billion cups from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2012 — roughly 64 percent of U.S. adults drink coffee every day while 73 percent drink it weekly.

The study itself was huge with more than 402,000 men and women participating.

My only question is when my HMO will cover my Starbuck’s Latte.

Source: Bloomberg

As the girl got worse and worse the doctor reportedly told the parents to take her to a faith-healer or psychiatrist. Even though the girl was vomiting ten times a day and had to be carried around the house because she was too weak to walk, her father says that Pandit refused to test for TB and said that the pain was entirely in the girl’s head or lovesick heart.

What is really amazing is that Alina contracted TB in 2009 after a girl at her school was diagnosed with the illness, so there was a confirmed case of TB in her school but no test was ordered. A simple phlegm test would have been enough to diagnose the condition.

Even when at the hospital, after she collapsed, no test was performed an x-ray reportedly found a chest infection. Nevertheless, she was sent to see a clinical psychologist at Birmingham Children’s Hospital but was too ill to complete the assessment.

These cases should be raised with those politicians who continue to push for caps on malpractice (often a ridiculous $250,000) in Congress and state legislatures. Would $250,000 repay this family for the long agonizing death of this child?

Source: Telegraph

I have long been an advocate of longer school years and tougher test requirements. I am concerned with a sharp decrease in passage rates when the prior year showed an 80 percent passage. However, these do not appear a particularly high standard for passage and we are seeing more and more students graduate high school with minimal ability to write.

This was the first year that students and schools will be assessed on the basis of tougher tests and scoring systems. This move was the result of widespread failures on the FCAT and other standardized tests for public school students. The new standards required basic skills like proper punctuation, capitalization, and spelling. Students had to get a 4 out of 6 on the grade. That is pretty reasonable. The old standard was 3.5 which would mean that you could get almost half wrong and still pass.

The change resulted in only 27 percent of fourth-graders passing as opposed to 81 percent the prior year. For eighth graders the passage rate was 33 percent — down from 82 percent in 2011.

Florida has been given a waiver by the Obama Administration from No Child Left Behind.

I am surprised by the huge difference in passage rate, but I am inclined to believe that this is another sign of our underfunding of public schools and growing class sizes. Our students should be able to score a 4 out of 6 on writing — a critical skill for success in the workplace. I would be more inclined to change the curriculum and resource package than the test for that reason.

Source: Orlando

Mossow was charged with reckless endangerment while it is perfectly legal to solicit someone to shoot you. They went for a charge in the first degree. The two options are below.

S 120.20 Reckless endangerment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when
he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of
serious physical injury to another person.
Reckless endangerment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

S 120.25 Reckless endangerment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when,
under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he
recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to
another person.
Reckless endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony.

The nice thing about reckless endangerment is that there is no defense for consent. This is a difference between criminal law and torts that we often discuss in class. However, it is worth noting that, even in torts, courts routinely ignore consent as a matter of public policy. You generally cannot consent to illegal acts.

Mossow will not be able to use his friend’s invitation as a defense but might be able to use it to mitigate on sentencing. A plea seems like a good idea. The use of the first degree may have been a way to allow for a charge to be pled down. The first degree charge indicates “a grave risk of death to
another person.” Being shot with a .22 in the leg does carry a risk of death if you hit an artery or have some other complication, though it is generally not a life-threatening wound.

Of course, as the Matchbox Twenty song Bright Lights says, they now have “a scar I can talk about.”

Source: KSEE as first seen on Reddit

This cat looks like it is tired of dealing with the obnoxious dog and needs a sit down over the future of Rex.

The prosecution is likely to explore any differences between the paramedics and the doctor. Some issues are likely to be raise such as whether the paramedics saw a broken nose and whether such “closed fractures” can be easily missed by a paramedic on an street at night.  Moreover, such injuries could be sustained by Zimmerman as a result of Martin defending himself.

The leak of possible civil rights charges may be designed to try to get Zimmerman to accept a plea with prosecutors. I have reservations about such a charge based on the evidence that is available — as I have expressed over the overcharging in the case as second degree murder. This case has already raised serious questions of the influence of public pressure on the prosecutors. While there may be additional evidence that would support such a hate crime charge, the current evidence, in my view, falls short of the threshold showing needed for such a charge. The crime is defined as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” The “in part” component gives some wiggle room for prosecutors but you need to still show clear intent on the race issue. While state courts have rejected the need under state law for race to be the “primary” factor, there remains unease in cases where race appears a secondary issue. The Justice Department has sometimes moved against defendants who were acquitted of the same offense under state law as in the Pennsylvania case involving the death of a hispanic man. These cases raise serious questions of when trash talk reflects racial motivations.

We have seen the same type of claim under “Stand Your Ground” in mixed-race shootings without such hate crime allegations. I have previously express unease over the standard used for hate crime charges and the decision to pursue some cases while refusing to move on others with similar or stronger facts. This is a case that could be explained as a crime-obsessed as opposed to a race-obsessed neighborhood watch captain. Indeed, Zimmerman’s past violent record may indicate that he is prone to violence generally. There has been no new evidence revealed that shows that Zimmerman’s shooting was race motivated. His own mixed race background and injuries from the fight militate against such a charge. They certainly do not rule out such a charge, but more has to be shown in my view.

The case is already over-charged as second degree murder. If the Justice Department is going to bring a hate crime charge, it better have stronger evidence than we have seen from Angela Corey to support a second-degree murder charge. Corey was in my view clearly affected by the public pressure in the case in charging the case as second degree murder rather than manslaughter. I am equally troubled by Attorney General Eric Holder discussing the case in public speeches when his department is supposed to be conducting an unbiased review of the facts involving a man who has not been convicted of a crime.

The combination of the leak on the civil rights charges and Holder’s public statements leave the impression that the DOJ will not accept acquittal as an answer in the case if Zimmerman does prevail. The impression, in my view, diminishes the appearance of due process and fair trial for the accused.

What do you think?

Source: ABC

Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael N. Herring correctly stated that “It’s hard to think about what happened in the General Assembly and not conclude that it’s a form of bigotry.”

Anti-gay activists like the Family Foundation opposed him and legislators insisted that he might push for some “activist agenda” — presumably enforcing some form of gay justice whatever that might be.

There will come a day when the votes of these 33 legislators will be held up as an example of the perverse period in which we currently live — a time when a talented lawyer was denied a judgeship solely due to who he loved as a partner.
Source: Times Dispatch

Most people would not view a near death dealing lightning strike to be a good omen for the meeting. However, Merkel may be referencing The Nuremberg Chronicle (1493) which details natural phenomena and unnatural births. Of course, if the lightning strike is a good omen that near collapse of Greece, Italy, and Spain must be really really good omens.

The translation of Merkel’s comments indicate that she may have been referring to the fact that Hollande continued after the lightning strike as a good omen. However, that is not nearly as entertaining as the lightning strike as a good omen, as reported, and besides Hollande cannot be the creator of an omen, which rests with the almighty. Under that analysis, this would have been a divine test, which Hollande overcame.

That would also mean that this was a great omen for the President as he stated “we cannot sustain . . . “

Source: AFP

The worse anarchist squirrels have been seen with signs reading “We’re rodents but we’re not rats!” and ‘Wall Street is just Nuts . . . and we know nuts!”

Police report that efforts to try to speak with the squirrels led to a staring contest with the tiny protesters who just munching on nuts while glaring defiantly at officers.

The actual reference is pretty brief and mild:

The song, by the rapper Shahin Najafi, is addressed to Imam Naghi, a revered Shiite Muslim cleric who died in the ninth century. The song’s lyrics include some profanity and sexual innuendo, according to a translation of some verses by Golnaz Esfandiari, a blogger for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the American-financed news network. But what caused a stir in Iran was a chorus in which Mr. Najafi asks for Imam Naghi to return instead of Imam Mahdi, the Shiite messiah.

Hey Naghi! Now that Mahdi has slept, we are calling you.
Hey Naghi! We are ready wearing our shrouds, hey Naghi! Rise up!
Naghi! For sake of love and Viagra.

The Iranian clerics unanimously declared him to be an apostate, including powerful Ayatollah Naser Makareme Shirazi in the holy city of Qom. Makareme Shirazi declared that “any outrage against the infallible imams … and obvious insult against them would make a Muslim an apostate.”Previously, the cleric issued tough edicts against “women attending football matches, keeping pets and the Holocaust.”

The Iranian religion website which runs on the regime-controlled .ir domain has offered a $100,000 (£62,000) reward for anyone who kills Najafi. The site declared “A (website) founder who lives in one of the Gulf Arab states has promised to pay the ($100,000) bounty on behalf of Shia-Online.ir to the killer of this abusive singer.”

The rapper should not look to the imam for spiritual support. Imam al-Hadi, who was later poisoned, dealt with religious dissidents in a fatal fashion. In his day, for example, some scholars believed words such as “zakat” or “prayer” did not actually mean praying or giving alms. Instead, they believed that they referred not to an act but to a man. Imam al-Hadi disagreed and ordered them all killed, telling his followers “…if you overcome any of them (extremists), break his head with a stone!”

It may be blasphemy and apostasy but it has a nice tune you can dance to. Perfect for any rave in the West or stoning in Iran . . .

Source: Guardian

Chevilott is just two years shy of retirement after 23 years on the job. His supervisor was suspended for 30 days.

Chevilott’s superiors at the Department of Public Services found that he had violated department policies by possessing a weapon on work property.

At first I thought the Department must have had evidence that Chevilott was lying and that the gun was his. However, the stories all report that he found the gun in the weeds. It is not uncommon for criminals to toss a weapon when they are being pursued by police. The gun turned out to have been stolen when the police traced it.

Assuming that the Department does not believe this was his gun, there should be a firing . . . of every supervisor and official who approved this action.

What is astonishing is that I have been to Detroit and see public workers who appeared catatonic and unresponsive to verbal or physical stimuli. Yet, they have secure jobs. We have discussed how it seems that every Detroit city council member is either under investigation or facing criminal charges. They also have secure jobs until their convictions. This guy turns in a weapon before it could hurt someone and he is fired just short of retirement.

Can anyone find any more information that makes this appear less moronic?

The Boston Globe earlier published an account that became the primary defense for Warren supporters:

A record unearthed Monday shows that US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren has a great-great-great grandmother listed in an 1894 document as a Cherokee, said a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogy Society.

The shred of evidence could validate her assertion that she has Native American ancestry, making her 1/32 American Indian, but may not put an end to the questions swirling around the subject….

Chris Child, a genealogist at the New England Historic and Genealogy Society, said he began digging into Warren’s family history on Thursday, when media interest emerged.

At first, he found no link between Warren’s family and Native Americans in her native Oklahoma.

But Monday afternoon, he said, he discovered a few links. Warren’s great-great-great grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, is listed on her son’s 1894 application for a marriage license as a Cherokee.

Now however the newspaper has said that that was not true:

Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story in the May 1 Metro section and the accompanying headline incorrectly described the 1894 document that was purported to list Elizabeth Warren’s great-great-great grandmother as a Cherokee. The document, alluded to in a family newsletter found by the New England Historic Genealogical Society, was an application for a marriage license, not the license itself. Neither the society nor the Globe has seen the primary document, whose existence has not been proven.

That seems like a pretty important disclosure to be simply pushed into the correction section of the newspaper.

In the meantime, the New York Times is reporting that Warren was not just listed as a minority faculty member at Harvard but also at University of Pennsylvania. At the very most, Warren is no more than 1/32 Cherokee, even if the account of the great great great grandmother is proven to be true.

As I have mentioned before, I do not believe that Warren was given her positions due to the claim of minority status. She is an extremely intelligent and talented academic. The claim as a minority however has caused a stir among academics who have been discussing the lack of any criteria for such claims. Minority status is an obvious advantage for a law professor as school strive to diversify their faculty ranks. Claiming minority status has an important impact on reporting academic data for schools as it does for governmental reporting.a

What is intriguing is the claim by Warren that she was not aware that she was listed as a minority when that status was asserted by both Penn and Harvard. I do not believe that she would be considered a minority by any conceivable definition without making most Americans minorities. Presumably, these schools did not arbitrarily claim such status for a faculty member, but had to be given an affirmative claim of being a minority by the faculty member. Yet, this process is remarkably fluid and ill-defined at schools. Schools are eager to list every possible minority members in annual reporting.

I am more interested in the general issue of how to define minority status than the campaign. But, putting aside the raw partisanship over the Senate race, how important should this issue in your view be in judging a candidate?

The decision will result in the reversal of two dozen cases involving online pornography. The case before the Court involved former Marist College professor of public administration James D. Kent, 65. Kent who was convicted on 136 counts of procuring and possessing child pornography in 2009. He was sentenced to one to three years.

The case raises an issue that we have discussed previously on how prosecutors pile on counts of child pornography based on each image. However, these cases often involve the download of hundreds or thousands of images in a single click. I have seen cases where a couple of downloads involved a few pictures found to be child pornography and led to charges. In Kent’s case, he was found to have downloaded and then deleted files containing images of children.

Appellate Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote a majority opinion for four of the six judges.

Advocates are calling the ruling an “outrage” and the “decriminalizing” of child pornography. However, Ciparick’s decision simply emphasized conventional notions of scienter: “Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law.”

The case did not involve just a couple of images, making the choice of this appeal more interesting. However, Kent insisted that he was “doing research” on child pornography:

The allocated space on defendant’s hard drive also contained a “My Documents” folder with subfolders labeled “cdocs” and another labeled “work,” and an additional folder labeled “JK.” The “cdocs” subfolder contained approximately 13,000 saved images of female children, whom Investigator Friedman estimated to be 8 or 9 years old, dressed in lingerie or bathing suits and many with their legs spread open. The “work” subfolder contained an additional 17,000 saved images of female children, some organized into further subfolders named for a particular child. The JK folder held a file labeled “porndef.pb,” which contained a document that included the text of four messages dated between June 1999 and July 2000 and directed to the unidentified recipient “P.B.”1 The messages apparently relate to a potential research project on the regulation of child pornography and include comments such as “sooner or later someone at this college is going to wonder why I keep looking at porno sites.” A final message dated July 11, 2001 states:

“Well, this last batch pretty much tears it. While, as somebody’s father, I’m pretty appalled by this stuff, I also don’t want to get arrested for having it. So let’s do this—if this is a legitimate research project, let’s write it up and tell the deans (and preferably also the cops) what we’re doing and why. Otherwise, let’s drop it in the most pronto possible fashion.
“I don’t even think I can mail the disk to you, or anyone else, without committing a separate crime. So I’ll probably just go ahead and wipe them. You have the URL’s if you want to pursue it.
“See you sooner or later, no doubt. Kent.”

The Court however was concerned (as are many civil libertarians) with how courts have been treating access and downloading of images as proof of intent. With surfing on the web, the concern is that images can be accessed without knowing before hand that they are child pornography. This may not be the strongest such case for the defense but the concern is a valid one:

Like the federal courts to address the issue, we agree that where no evidence shows defendant was aware of the presence of the cached files, such files cannot underlie a prosecution for promotion or possession. This is necessarily so because a defendant cannot knowingly acquire or possess that which he or she does not know exists (see United States v Kuchinski, 469 F3d 853, 863 [2006] [to prosecute a defendant who lacks knowledge about the cache for possession of files stored therein "turns abysmal ignorance into knowledge and a less than valetudinarian grasp into dominion and control"]).

However, cached images can serve as evidence of defendant’s prior viewing of images that were, at one time, resident on his computer screen. Such evidence, like a pattern of browsing for child pornography, is relevant to the mens rea of both crimes by showing that a defendant did not inadvertently access an illicit image or site or was not mistaken as to its content.

Nonetheless, that such images were simply viewed, and that defendant had the theoretical capacity to exercise control over them during the time they were resident on the screen, is not enough to constitute their procurement or possession. We do not agree that “purposefully making [child pornography] appear on the computer screen — for however long the defendant elects to view the image — itself constitutes knowing control” . . . Rather, some affirmative act is required (printing, saving, downloading, etc.) to show that defendant in fact exercised dominion and control over the images that

The question comes down to whether there was proven intent and proven possession in the case. In the concurrence by Judge Smith, the dangers of a broad interpretation of the criminal law (as advocated by another judge) was discussed:

Judge Graffeo Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches argues, in substance, that we can best effectuate the Legislature’s intention by reading the statutes expansively, to include as many “consumers” as the statutory language can reasonably be interpreted to permit. I do not agree.

Under Judge Graffeo Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches’s reading, someone who does no more than click on a link for the purpose of looking at a pornographic picture for free — someone [*22] who has never interacted with a child victim, has never copied, downloaded or saved a pornographic picture of a child, and has never put a penny in the pocket of a child pornographer — is subject to up to seven years in prison for a first offense (see Penal Law § 70.00 [2] [d]). This is surely a stringent punishment for someone whom many would think more pathetic than evil. Nor can we safely assume that bringing as many consumers as possible within the reach of the law is the most effective way to lessen or eliminate the trade: A policy of draconian enforcement directed at the most minor and peripheral of users is perhaps no more likely to eliminate child pornography than a similar policy would be to eliminate illegal drugs.

One can certainly argue both sides of this question, but the vitriol and hatred directed at these judges is unwarranted and unfair. These judges are not pro-child pornography any more than the vast majority of citizens. They are attempting to maintain basic requirements of intent and proof in an area where politicians have been competing to show that they are the toughest on child porn. These are legitimate concerns raised by these judges, who voted to reverse despite the considerable public pressures and passions.

Source: Washington Times

The fire fighters argued that the redacted portions were not privileged because the oral communications of LGC’s counsel occurred during meetings that were open to the public under the open meetings law. Yet because there were no members of the public present at the meeting, the Court ruled that “[b]ecause the ultimate touchstone is the speaker’s reasonable expectation that the communications were made in confidence, the fact that the meetings were technically open to the public under RSA 91-A:2, I, is of no import.”

I am a bit surprised by the ruling since the meeting itself was classified as public and subject to public inquiry. I consider it a much closer question while I can certainly understand the position of the Court. For me it depends on the right of the public (including the media) to file for information on what was discussed at the meeting to determine the reasonable expectations of counsel and this client.

Here is the opinion: Firefighter Opinion

Source: ABA Journal

The deputy prime minister also warned about the rise of the neo-fascist Golden Dawn party, noting that “in the places where the police voted, the fascists got 25 per cent.” He added:

“You know how it happened in Germany – it started with the Jews, then the Communists, then everybody – it could happen here. This is the country, after the Soviet Union and Germany itself, with the biggest percentage of [Second World War] casualties in its population.”

That was a bit of a surprise, so I did some checking. First the use of “casualties” versus “deaths” makes the calculus more difficult. Second, the Greek numbers have varied widely among researchers.

Let’s start with deaths. Greek has somewhere between 320,000
to 805,100 deaths of civilians and military alike, according to some sources. That puts the percentage at between 4.44 to 11.15. That is quite high but it is not the third highest even assuming the top figure. For example, Lithuania lost 14.33 percent or 350,000 people. Latvia lost 11.78 or 230,000 people. A small country like Nauru (Australian) can claim that it lost 14.7 percent in its 500 deaths. Likewise, Portuguese Timor can claim as high as 14 percent of its population. Even if he dropped the percentage calculus for raw numbers, Greece still does not get the bronze on deaths. For example, the Philippines lost as many as 1,057,000 and Poland as many as 5,580,000. India lost between 1,587,000 and 2,587,000. French Indonesia between 1,000,000
and 1,500,000. The Dutch East Indies lost as many as 4,000,000.

The use of “casualties” make the ranking almost impossible since few records credibly establish the numbers for people who were able to walk away or survive the war. However, if those casualties tracked deaths (as they often do with a multiplier), Greece would not take the third spot.

Of course, it is really the other number crunching that has Europe worried about Greece, but this one appears to have been inflated for effect.

However, the statement does remind us of how costly the war was for Greece and these other countries. These are truly staggering numbers.

Does anyone have an alternative source supporting the claim?

Source: Telegraph

James and his 8-year-old daughter Danielle were playing basketball on the court when a teenager entered the court on a skateboarder. Dooley told the teen that he was not allowed to skateboard on the court and was confronted by James who demanded that Dooley show him the sign that says no skateboarding. The teen was Dooley’s neighbor.

What followed as a shouting match and, what Dooley described, as a shoving match with James as the aggressor. Dooley says that he showed James his gun and shot James only after he was in fear of serious bodily injury. Notably, James’ daughter, aged 10, became a defense witness. She said that her father was “on top” of Dooley “to keep him down so he could actually get the answer” about where the sign was.

However, Moody still ruled that “…the evidence showed that Mr. James had not been threatening or aggressive in any way toward Defendant, although he did appear to be shocked, defensive, loud, upset and agitated. It was not until Defendant reached for and pulled out his weapon – indicating an intent to escalate from an argument to violence – that Mr. James exerted and used physical force against Defendant.”

That is precisely the type of ruling that prosecutors hope for in the trial of Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. However, the Dooley case again shows how Special Prosecutor seriously over-charged the case against Zimmerman who is facing not a manslaughter charge but a second-degree murder charge. While Angela Corey insisted that the campaign for a criminal charge had no impact on her decision-making, the actual charge is disconnected with the criminal code and practices.

Source: ABC

The new ad, “Steel” describes GS Technologies, a steel mill in Kansas City, Mo., that was bought by Romney’s private equity firm Bain Capital. One former mill worker says “We view Mitt Romney as a job destroyer, a vampire. They came in and sucked the life out of us.” “Mitt the Job Destroyer” is still better than “Vlad the Impaler” but they seem to be saying that he is both.

The question is how strong the anti-vampire vote is. After all, Obama is no Buffy The Vampire Slayer himself, but then again who is?

Before the Republicans denounce the ad, they should consider that there could be some positive aspects to an undead president for the GOP:

1. They work nights.

2. They truly can take the bite out of crime.

3. They are always taking the pulse of voters.

5. One meeting of the Group of Eight would leave a group of one.

6. The GOP would finally secure the Goth vote.

7. We would finally have a president who is all bite and no bark.

8. Republicans can re-use those “Drill, Baby, Drill” signs.

9. No one is more anti-evolution than a vampire.

10. Perfect for the slogan, “Better Undead than Red.”

Source: Washington Post

The question in the case is increasingly arising in both state and federal courts: the rights of atheists and agnostics who object to proclamations and demonstration of faith. Even while nondemoninational, such proclamations associate the government with faith and the belief in God.

The panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that “[a] reasonable observer would conclude that these proclamations send the message that those who pray are favored members of Colorado’s political community, and that those who do not pray do not enjoy that favored status.”

The practice, they ruled, ran afoul of the Preference Clause of the Religious Freedom section of Colorado’s Constitution” because such proclamations are “predominantly religious; they lack a secular context; and their effect is government endorsement of religion as preferred over nonreligion.”

The federal courts have rejected this type of argument under the federal constitution — upholding ceremonial prayers to open legislative bodies etc. However, the Court noted in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53-54 (1985):

At one time it was thought that this right [to choose one’s religion] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the [United States Supreme Court] has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual’s freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects – or even intolerance among “religions” – to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

Despite such language, the Court has proven fairly hostile to claims of freedom “from” religion as opposed to freedom “of” religion. Some members of the Court have long held a narrow view that the religion clauses were meant primarily to protect against the establishment of a state religion as opposed to separation church and state entirely.

The Colorado panel noted that such practices “have the primary or principal effect of endorsing religious beliefs because they convey or attempt to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.” The panel distinguished cases of allowing legislative prayers and the alike:

The proclamations serve a different purpose than legislative prayers. . . .Here, the proclamations are not designed to solemnize a public occasion, and they are not part of the “ceremonial deism” that does not violate the Establishment Clause. See Elk Grove Unified School Dist., 542 U.S. at 37-44 (O’Connor, J., concurring). They are not a small part of something larger that serves a secular purpose. Rather, they stand, individually and collectively, as a call to “actual worship or prayer” that “has as its purpose placing the speaker or listener in a penitent state of mind, or that is intended to create a spiritual communion or invoke divine aid.” Id. at 40.

The proclamations serve an exclusively religious purpose. They encourage people throughout Colorado to engage in the religious practice of prayer, even if such prayer is generally nondenominational.

Indeed, these Days of Prayer are often cited as an effort to reaffirm the commitment to God in the face of increasing secularism. National leaders have portrayed secularists as akin to terrorists as a threat to the nation (here and here and here and here).

Here is the full opinion which is worth the reading:

In 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was interested in the growing number of studies at the Pentagon and their costs so he ordered a study of the studies. Yet, by the time that the GAO was recently called in the Pentagon researchers had only been able to look at nine studies, but was unable to “readily retrieve documentation” for six of the reports. The GAO criticized the study of studies in its study. However, the Pentagon has announced that it only “partially concurs” with the GAO’s report. Presumably, it will have to study those findings further. The ball is now in the Pentagon’s court.

Source: ABC

Library officials insist that they tried to get the book back and then Donna Michael, President of the Freeport Area Library Board, called in the heat.

The $81 bill represents a rate of ten cents a day over a 204-day period.

Soon however, the Freeport Area Library Board will not have to enlist police to seek out scofflaw bookholders. They have developed books that will defend themselves as shown in this demonstration:

Source: MSN

The marriage ban vote was not close in North Carolina — passing by an overwhelming 62-to-38 percentage points. Perdue proclaimed

“It’s wrong for North Carolina, clearly, clearly and simply . . . People around the country are watching us, and they’re really confused. To have been such a progressive, forward-thinking, economically driven state that invested in education and that stood up for the civil rights of people, including the civil rights marches back in the ‘50s and ‘60s and ‘70s — folks are saying, ‘What in the world is going on in North Carolina?’ We look like Mississippi.”

That last comment did not go over well with Mississippians from both parties and frankly I thought was rather uncivil for a sister state. However, the defense from Ole Miss was almost as off-putting. It is notable that Mississippi Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves did not try to defend his state as committed to equal rights of any kind. Instead, he insisted that Mississippi is better for business because “[w]e are creating an environment which encourages the private sector to invest capital in Mississippi, and I would invite any North Carolina-based company wanting to move to a lower-taxed, less-regulated state to look at our business-friendly opportunities.” That sounds a lot like, we come for the lack of equal rights but stay for the lack of environmental protections and taxes. Notably, Mississippi has the lowest per capita income of any state as well as the lowest level of health care protection for its citizens. It has secured the top spot for most obese state, however. Yet, Reeves wants people to know that the state is also a leader in lacking environmental protections for its citizens.

I am not sure which is worse: the comparison by Perdue or the defense by Reeves.

Source: New Observer

Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

I have to admit that I was not aware that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as its detractors call it, mandates that the insurance companies who don’t spend at least 80% of premium money on actual medical care expenses, must send rebates to policy holders.  “But the rebate provision of the law — the fruits of the so-called “80/20 rule” — is about to kick in big time, as millions of Americans receive rebate checks or premium reductions from insurance companies who have failed to spend enough on patient care. This cash could be a true game changer in public attitudes about whether the law actually is beneficial and good public policy. The rebate provision of the law has been known and discussed in health care policy circles for months, but has largely flown below the radar in the political world and for voters—until now.”  Time  

These rebates or premium reductions could not only be a big financial benefit to millions of policy holders, it could also be a big political boost for the Obama Administration in its attempts to convince the public of the many benefits provided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Now that I know that the ACA will provide these rebates, just how much money are we talking about?  The Time Magazine article linked above quotes a Kaiser Family Foundation study that suggests that big dollars are involved here.  “This analysis looks at the latest estimates provided by insurers to state insurance commissioners.The analysis finds that consumers and businesses are expected to receive an estimated $1.3 billion by this August in rebates from health insurers who spent more on administrative expenses and profits than allowed by the ACA. The rebates include $541 million in the large employer market, $377 million in the small business market, and $426 million for those buying insurance on their own. Rebates in the group market will generally be provided to employers, and in some cases be passed on to employees as well.Rebates are expected to go to almost one-third (31%) of consumers in the individual market. Among employers, about one-quarter (28%) of the small group market and 19% of the large group market is projected to receive rebates. The share of consumers in the individual insurance market expected to receive rebates ranges from near zero in several states to as high as 86% in Oklahoma and 92% in Texas. “ KFF

$1.3 Billion dollars is a significant amount that will be soon heading to the pockets of millions of policy holders.  I was especially interested in the states like Texas and Oklahoma where almost every policy holder in the respective states will be receiving a rebate.  Would it be a fair question to ask what are Texas and Oklahoma not doing to protect its citizens from insurance companies who may be pocketing more money and providing less care per health care dollar?

The ACA is a complicated law and it wasn’t the single payer plan that I was hoping and working for, but it has already helped millions by mandating that children can stay on Mom and Dad’s policies longer and by protecting patients from being denied coverage for pre-existing health issues.  Now that the 80/20 rule rebates are about to kick in, millions more people will feel a real benefit in their pocketbooks thanks to the ACA.  Now, if we can just get the Supreme Court to forget its partisan ways, maybe all of us can begin to benefit from the Affordable Care Act. What do you think of the Affordable Care Act and the 80/20 requirement?  Will the rebate checks and premium reductions mandated by the bill have an impact on people’s lives and their opinions of the Act?  If you have time on this beautiful Mother’s Day, let us know what you think.  By the way, Happy Mothers Day!

Additional source:  Raw Story

Link to the full Act:  Health Care.Gov

It is a perfect day here in Virginia for Mother’s Day. Leslie is on a bike trip with Jack and we are waiting with a feast for her turn with a bunch of flowers from our garden.

I hope all of our mothers have a wonderful and relaxing day today.

Jonathan Turley

Naomi Schaefer Riley, left, wrote a piece for The Chronicle of Higher Education’s (CHE) blog entitled The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations. The trouble is: she didn’t read the dissertations, she read the titles and a synopsis of the unfinished documents, and then blogged about her speculations.

Perhaps Riley’s speculations are persuasive to some, but The Chronicle of Higher Education is directed towards academics. Academics were stunned that her substance-free hit piece was given a forum in the CHE’s blog, informed CHE of their concerns, and Riley was fired. The Right Wing Noise Machine went into full hyperbolic outrage mode calling Riley a “voice of reason” and elevating her to a “major critic” of black studies.

However, Riley is not a critic of the content of black studies, she wrote the post to make a “case for eliminating” black studies. Riley’s complaint that “high incarceration rates to low graduation rates” are problems not discussed in black studies departments is disingenuous when someone is trying to make the case for elimination of black studies departments.

Riley cites only three examples to make her case. In one example the student asserts that black Republicans like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, and John McWhorter have “played one of the most-significant roles in the assault on the civil-rights legacy that benefited them.” Riley writes:

The assault on civil rights? Because they don’t favor affirmative action they are assaulting civil rights?

Riley has no way of knowing if the dissertation even mentions affirmative action, and offers no argument on why civil rights should be equated with affirmative action in this example.

Riley sees these dissertations as examples of “blame the white man” for the problems of blacks in America. But, she defeats her own position when she writes:

Because they believe there are some fundamental problems in black culture that cannot be blamed on white people they are assaulting civil rights?

This implies that there are some fundamental problems in black culture that can be blamed on white people. Perhaps the “high out-of-wedlock birth rates” that concern Riley can be blamed on the war on contraception led by the white leaders of the Republican party.

There are some awesome, academically-rigorous dissertations out there:

H/T: Brian Leiter (& here & here), John Casey (& here), Jerry Coyne.

We present the Queen of Rockabilly, Wanda Jackson, in glorious STEREO!

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.)

by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

In these days of ever eroding civil rights, it is important to recognize those in Congress willing to stand up for your rights.  This is especially true given the ever increasing domestic surveillance of citizens without warrant by government agencies in cooperation with the telecommunications industry; a clear abuse of citizen’s 4th Amendment rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”   Love him or loathe him, this week the Congressman willing to fight the good fight for your rights is Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.).

The open letter to AG Holder reads (in full):

May 10,2012
The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:
In January, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in United States v. Jones that the tracking of an individual’s movements through the use of a GPS tracking device was a search subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny. I applaud the Court’s decision and believe that it was a watershed for Americans’ privacy and civil liberties.

I was very concerned to read recent reports suggesting that state and local law enforcement agencies may be working around the protections of Jones by requesting the location records of individuals directly from their wireless carriers instead of tracking the individuals through stand-alone GPS devices installed on their vehicles. I was further concerned to learn that in many cases, these agencies appear to be obtaining precise records of individuals’ past and current movements from carriers without first obtaining a warrant for this information. I think that these actions may violate the spirit if not the letter of the Jones decision.

I am writing to ask you about the Department of Justice’s own practices in requesting location information from wireless carriers. I am eager to learn about how frequently the Department requests location information and what legal standard the Department believes it must meet to obtain it. I would also like to know how the Department practices may have changed these since the Jones decision.

I therefore request that you or your staff provide answers the following questions:
(1) How many requests for location information has the Department of Justice filed with wireless carriers in each of the past five calendar years and from January to April of this year? How many individuals’ location information was asked for in these requests?
(2) How many of these requests were complied with partially or entirely? How many individuals’ location information did the Department receive as a result of these requests?
(3) What historical and prospective (i.e. real-time) location information do you request from wireless carriers (e.g., cell site data, GPS data)?
(4) What legal standard does the Department of Justice believe applies to a request for historical location data (e.g., subpoena, court order, warrant, etc.)?
(5) Is this standard different or the same for prospective data?
(6) Is the standard different or the same for GPS data as opposed to cell-site data?
(7) Have these standards changed since the Jones decision? If so, how?
(8) Have any of the Department’s practices with respect to location information requests from wireless carriers changed since the Jones decision?
(9) How much money has the Department of Justice paid wireless carriers to offset expenses for their retrieval of this data in each of the past five years and from January to April of this year?

I respectfully request that you or your staff provide responses to these questions by June 11, a month from the date of this letter. I believe that this is an urgent matter and one that will provide critical information for policymakers and privacy advocates alike.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Al Franken
Chairman, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law

For those not familiar with the Jones decision mentioned in the letter, Senator Franken is referring to U.S. v. Jones, No. 10-1259, decided by the Supreme Court on January 12, 2012 and previously discussed on this blog here and here.  In summary, the government sought in Jones to create a precedent stating that they did not need a showing of probable cause to follow citizens with Global Positioning Devices such as cell phones.  In an increasingly rare victory for civil rights, the Supreme Court decided unanimously against the government.

Given that telecommunications companies have a history of turning over your records without subpoena and simply at the request of the government and that they were given retroactive immunity for such violations of law and your civil rights, Senator Franken’s letter is more than just functionary window dressing but is rather a necessary follow up to find out if the DOJ is complying with the law in the wake of Jones.

While Senator Franken’s actions are laudable,  are they sufficient guard for your 4th Amendment and privacy rights?  Or does Congress as a whole need to take more aggressive action to protect citizens over corporations who collude with government to usurp your Constitutional rights?

What do you think?

Source(s):  Letter dated May 10, 2012 from Sen. Al Franken (in his role as Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law) to Attorney General Eric Holder (.pdf), threat post 1 and 2 (from The Kapersky Lab Security News Service), The Wall Street Journal, U.S. v. Jones, No. 10-1259, January 12, 2012 (.pdf).

~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

I LOVE champagne mangoes. When they’re in season, I keep them on hand to eat as a snack or for breakfast with some strawberries. A few weeks ago, I puréed some champagne mangoes and fed them to my granddaughter for lunch. She loves them too!

Looking at the puréed mangoes, I got the idea of inventing a cocktail. My first attempt met with a highly positive response from my “cocktail tasters.” I thought I’d share my champagne mango recipe with Turley Blawg readers—in case they’re looking for a special drink to serve to their mothers on Mother’s Day.

Champagne Mango Martini

2 jiggers vodka

2 jiggers champagne mango purée

1 jigger triple sec

1 jigger freshly squeezed lemon juice

1 jigger simple syrup

Pour all ingredients into a cocktail shaker filled with ice. Shake vigorously. Strain into a martini glass and garnish with a strawberry. Tell your mothers to sit back, relax, sip, and enjoy!

Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades, Chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is concerned with the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) and the Scouts’ “possible problematic relationships with other organizations.” Rhoades is also concerned about various “problematic” program materials, although specifics details are being withheld.

The GSUSA is “a secular organization that refrains from teaching religious or spiritual beliefs or practices” that tries “to further girls’ leadership.” Therein lies the problem.

The Bishops are just the latest combatants in the War on the Girl Scouts. The first salvo was fired by James Dobson’s Focus on the Family when the Girl Scouts made their religious oath optional for membership. On the political front, Indiana state Rep. Bob Morris, R-Fort Wayne claimed:

A Girl Scouts of America training program last year used the Planned Parenthood sex education pamphlet “Happy, Healthy, and Hot.”

The GSUSA’s response was unequivocal: “No, we did not.”

Morris also claimed that “Planned Parenthood instructional series and pamphlets are part of the core curriculum at GSA training seminars.” GSUSA’s responded that they do “not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood.”

Indiana Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma mocked Morris by offering Girl Scout cookies, Thin Mints, to his colleagues in House chambers.

The GSUSA does not take a position or develop materials regarding human sexuality, birth control, or abortion. In the words of Rep. Morris: “If you’re not against it, you’re for it.”

CNN contributor Dana Loesch has suggested that conservatives should protest by boycotting Girl Scout cookies. Although I haven’t in the past, in the future I’m going to be buying Girl Scout cookies at every opportunity. I will donate them to the local food bank.

H/T: Steve Benen, David Crary (AP), Rob Boston (AU), Carol Morello (WaPo), Joseph L. Conn (AU).

Click to enlarge. Solution below the fold.

Grab your earbuds/headphones as we present The Cookies in glorious STEREO!

Angela Corey has become a minor legal celebrity for her tough-minded prosecution of the Trayvon Martin murder case.  Her toughness has also drawn the ire of U.S. House member Corrine Brown in a racially charged case in Jacksonville. The case involves Marissa Alexander who was charged under Florida’s ”10-20-life” law which mandates progressively tough penalties for violent felonies when firearms are involved.

Saying he had no choice, Judge James Daniel sentenced the mother of an 11-year-old to 20 years in prison after a jury convicted her of  aggravated assault for firing a warning shot to discourage her estranged husband from choking her. In a cruel irony another judge had rejected Alexander’s invocation of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, ruling she wasn’t in fear for her safety when she returned to her house to get the car keys she had forgotten after she ran into her garage in an attempt to escape.

The prosecutor was singled out for failing to exercise discretion in the case. ”There is no justification for 20 years,” Brown told Corey, ”All the community was asking for was mercy and justice.”

Corey had offered Alexander a plea deal which carried a three year sentence. Alexander bet on the good sense of the jury, and crapped out. Judge Daniel seemed frustrated by the case:

“Under the state’s 10-20-life law, a conviction for aggravated assault where a firearm has been discharged carries a minimum and maximum sentence of 20 years without regarding to any extenuating or mitigating circumstances that may be present, such as those in this case.”

Rep. Brown was not so diplomatic saying, “She was overcharged by the prosecutor. Period. She never should have been charged.” Brown, the Jacksonville congresswoman, told reporters  that the case was a product of “institutional racism.” Corey said the case deserved to be prosecuted because Alexander fired in the direction of a room where two children were standing.

Mandatory minimum sentences ignore mitigating factors and punish under a “bright-line” test. They are the darling of the “law and order” crowd who see the world in stark shades of black and white and who eschew any discretion for “lily-livered”  judges who have the disturbing habit of mixing compassion and justice in sentencing decisions.

Proponents of the 1999 “10-20-life” law point to  the fact that violent gun crime rates have dropped 30 percent statewide since the law was enacted. Is 20 years fair for a woman trying to defend herself? Should the prosecutor have heeded Rep. Brown’s suggestion and backed off the charges altogether? Can a law be just in the face of a result that flies in the face of “natural justice”?

Source: CNN

`Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Staff sergeant Jeremy Cooney has seen his share of courage while serving in Afghanistan, but he found the epitome when he returned home. Surprising his six-year-old son, Michael, at his school, the U.S. Marine got a surprise himself. The boy walked twenty five steps towards his father before falling into the warrior’s anxious arms. Michael has cerebral palsy, a cruel disease that affects brain and nervous system functions such as movement, learning, hearing, seeing, and thinking. Told by doctors her son would never walk, Michael’s mom, Melissa, and his siblings have worked tirelessly with him for weeks to master the miracle. And it was all hush-hush from SSgt. Cooney who made the thousands of miles journey to surprise his son. Here’s the life affirming video:

Source: CBS News

Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Iksil is also known as “Voldemort” because of the massive power he wielded. Dimon has worked hard to prevent reforms limiting or monitoring such risk-taking enterprises. This includes opposition to the Volcker rule and related reforms.

Now Dimon is expected to blame the whale rather than his own anti-reform position. It is not the first time that a mad leader personified his own failings:

“All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.”

- Moby Dick, Herman Melville

Dimon can save time on writing his own testimony and simply take this from Melville:

Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale!

He might however want to check what happened to Ahab in his final encounter with the whale.

Source: Time

Judge William Z. Wood of Forsyth Superior Court awarded Bolton the money after Mayfield failed to fail an answer or appear in defense of the claim. The case derived from an attack in 2011. Bolton had a package that was too big to fit in the post box. While there were signs reading “No Trespassing” and “Beware of Dog,” Bolton entered the property and was attacked by the dogs. The dogs are allowed to roam freely on the large parcel of property.

It is not clear from accounts how much of the verdict was simply based on default and how much on true fault. Here the postal worker entered despite the signs. Is it negligence to allow dogs to roam on your property if the property is posted? A trial would have raised some interesting question of whether the worker violated regulations in entering posted property and whether there is an assumption or comparative negligence defense. There is also the question whether the dogs had already demonstrated a vicious propensity to trigger strict liability. Since Mayfield did not answer the complaint, there was presumably no discovery done in the case.

Mayfield has not helped himself by publicly stating that he decided not to hire a lawyer because he doesn’t have the money. He is quoted as saying “If I had a $1 million to give away, I wouldn’t be in this situation.” The house was auctioned off for his failure to pay $3 million owed on the property. His statements rule out a motion to vacate the judgment and for a trial under these circumstances.

Mayfield was previously arrested for methamphetamine. Stolen NASCAR property was found among the drugs and guns found on this property. He has also been suspended as a driver due to drug use.

At this point, he appears to have decided that he is already effectively bankrupted and thus this award will simply be thrown on the pile. Presumably, he paid his criminal defense counsel before melting down financially.

Source: Yahoo

Ashtiani is depicted in a football stadium with a congratulatory letter in one hand and his foot resting on soccer ball. The MP’s forehead has a dark mark of a pious Shia Muslim. Ashtiani is unpopular with many for his interference with the country’s sports teams.

Esmail Kowsari, a member of the parliamentary committee on national security, explained: “[A cartoonist] should be persecuted if the cartoon is not ordinary and ridicules someone … Any crime has its own punishment, including lashing, imprisonment or being fined.”

I suppose it is only appropriate that a legal system that is little more than a caricature of the real thing should concern itself with flogging cartoonists.

Source: Guardian

The hieroglyphs, painted in black and red, appear to have been used as a reference chart for court scribes in A.D. 800. Archaeologist David Stuart of the University of Texas said
“The Mayan calendar is going to keep going for billions, trillions, octillions of years into the future.”

I am personally going to appear in Time Square on my next trip to New Year with a sign reading :Life Will End In Octrillion Years. Are You Ready?”

Source: Live Science

The Washington Post spoke to five students, including one who said that Romney had it out for a younger boy because of his long bleached-blond hair in 1965. The witness say that Romney led friends in tackling and cutting off Lauber’s hair. The witness is Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor. Romney is quoted at the time as declaring “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!”

The response from the campaign was a bit weak under the circumstances. The campaign simply said that Romney had no recollection of the event: “The stories of fifty years ago seem exaggerated and off base and Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents.”

I have met Romney and even flew across the country on a flight back to Washington. He has struck me as a particularly friendly and decent person despite our disagreement on many issues. However, despite the long passage of time, the leading of an attack on a gay student is a serious matter as it would in a racist or anti-Semitic attack. I would have expected a clear recollection that such an attack could never have occurred.

Four other students recalled the incident, including some who admitted to participating in it. Also troubling are accounts like this one: “In an English class, Gary Hummel, who was a closeted gay student at the time, recalled that his efforts to speak out in class were punctuated with Romney shouting, ‘Atta girl!’”

While Romney may claim that it was not an anti-gay attack but just a prank, one would expect him to have an equally clear memory of the event at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Certainly the memory stuck with Lauber who spoke to some of the witnesses years later. For my part, I am equally troubled by the claim of a lack of any recollection of such events.

Romney however appears to be trying to get ahead of the story and the confirmatory accounts of former friends. On a radio show, he said “Back in high school, I did some dumb things and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that. I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school and some might have gone too far and for that, I apologize.” However, he still denied any recollection of the attack on Lauber: “I don’t remember that incident. I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s so that was not the case.”

Do you think this is a viable campaign issue given the passage of time? If he was a bully decades ago, does it have bearing today on the man running for office?

Source: Washington Post

The forfeiture in Arizona Charter Athletic Association state championship at Phoenix College was explained as a religious objection to the girl based on the fundamentalist beliefs of the Catholic school. Of course, this is not a contact sport but the mere presence of a girl on the field appears to be a religious obscenity for the school. Many were shocked by this Talibanesque moment but the school is staying mum on the issue.

Our Lady of Sorrows is run by the U.S. branch of the Society of Saint Pius X which opposes the reforms of the Vatican II Council in the 1960s and broke with the Catholic Church in the 1980s.

As someone raised Catholic, I have no idea where such a religious objection comes from. Notably, in the prior two games against Our Lady of Sorrows, Paige didn’t play out of respect for the opposing teams religious beliefs. I am not sure I would have recommended such an accommodation. I do not see why Mesa must adopt a sexist rule out our deference to another school when there appears no segregation of genders on these teams under league rules.

Mesa Prep athletic director Amy Arnold “I respect their views, but it’s a bit out of the 18th century.” I would say that that is a bit harsh for 18th Century people.

Our Lady of Sorrows may find play a bit more to its liking in the Tehran league.

Source: AZ Central

Cook County has been on the forefront of cracking down on citizens attempting to film police. The Illinois law allows for sentences of up to 15 years in prison for those who record audio of police conversations without consent. The ACLU challenged the law by saying that they wanted to film police to create a film as part of a “police accountability program.”

Judge Diane Sykes wrote in the majority opinion below that “The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment’s free speech and free-press guarantees.”

Posner would have nothing of it: “Privacy is a social value. And so, of course, is public safety. The constitutional right that the majority creates is likely to impair the ability of police both to extract information relevant to police duties and to communicate effectively with persons whom they speak with in the line of duty.” Posner insisted that the decision would prevent police from speaking with candor to citizens out of fear that they might be monitored — a rather implausible claim in my view. However, Posner insisted that this is about privacy rights — of officers and others speaking with them:

Accuracy is a social value, and a recording of a con- versation provides a more accurate record of the conversation than the recollection of the conversants: more accurate, and also more truthful, since a party to a conversation, including a police officer, may lie about what he heard or said. But on the other side of the balance are the inhibiting effect of nonconsensual recording of conversations on the number and candor of conversations (and hence on values that the First Amendment protects); the baleful effect on privacy; the negative effect on law enforcement; and the litigation likely to be engendered by police officers’ shooing away intruders on their private conversations with citizens. These are significant social costs, and the majority opinion offers no basis in fact or history, in theory or practice, in constitutional text or judicial precedent, for weighting them less heavily than the social value of recorded eaves- dropping.
5-8-12

The ruling of the court is a further indictment of the campaign by Alvarez to reduce the rights of citizens in filming police and effectively deter the creation of videotape showing police abuse. The court details Alvarez’s extreme views:

On the merits the State’s Attorney has staked out an extreme position. She contends that openly recording what police officers say while performing their duties in traditional public fora—streets, sidewalks, plazas, and parks—is wholly unprotected by the First Amendment.

The court does a rather elegant discussion of forms of expression that are protected by the first amendment in rejecting Alvarez’s effort to strip videotaping of such protections:

The process of expression through a medium has never been thought so distinct from the expression itself that we could disaggregate Picasso from his brushes and canvas, or that we could value Beethoven without the benefit of strings and woodwinds. In other words, we have never seriously questioned that the processes of writing words down on paper, painting a picture, and playing an instrument are purely expressive activities entitled to full First Amendment protection. This observation holds true when the expressive medium is mechanical rather than manual.

Alvarez attacked the ACLU for even bringing the lawsuit, calling the challenge is “advocacy under the guise of First Amendment infringement.” It is not clear what Alvarez would view as such advocacy since many citizens have condemned her threats under the law as an effort to chill efforts to target police abuse. The court clearly shares the confusion:

We confess we do not understand the point. The ACLU’s status as an advocacy organization hardly defeats its standing. The organization intends to use its employees and agents to audio record on-duty police officers in public places. The ACLU claims a First Amendment right to undertake this recording, but the eavesdropping statute prohibits it from doing so. The ACLU itself, and certainly its employees and agents (Connell, Carter, and others), will face prosecution for violating the statute. Nothing more is needed for preenforcement standing.

Source: Chicago Tribune as first seen on ABA Journal.

Judd was not even in the state. He is currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana serving a 210-month sentence for extortion. Judd is serving 17 years for extortion after being sentenced in 1999 for making threats against the University of New Mexico. If successful, he would have to serve until June 24, 2013 as president while serving as a federal inmate. However, he could give himself a presidential pardon, which might be a practical necessity since it could be dangerous not to be able to reach the Commander and Chief during a lockdown or prison movie.

Judd is now qualified to have a delegate at the Democratic National Convention, because he won at least 15 percent of vote.

Notably, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia wouldn’t say whom he voted for in the primary. He just might want to put in for that Judd delegate position.

West Virginia’s Democratic governor, Earl Ray Tomblin, has also not revealed his vote.

In fairness to Obama, Judd is an experienced presidential candidate.In the 2008 Idaho Democratic primary, he finished third behind Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton with 1.7 percent of the vote, per The Charleston Gazette.

In all seriousness, the situation in West Virginia does not look good for Obama with many Democratic voters casting their lot with Judd. It was obviously a protest vote but even major Democratic leaders are expressly uncertainty over whether to support Obama.

With such an impressive primary behind him, I think we should help Judd with a campaign slogan. Here are my suggestion:

Experience Counts In Politics: Elect A Felon.

It has the best appeal since Bin Jule declared in Guys and Dolls: “I’ve gone straight, as has been proved by my record: Thirty-three arrests and no convictions!”

Source: CSMonitor

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, Obama stated:

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

That statement falls short of stating that this is a constitutional right as opposed to personal view. In past cases, the Obama Administration has opposed arguments that sexual orientation should be given the same protection as race — even after changing its position on “don’t ask don’t tell” and the “Defense Of Marriage Act.” However, this remains an important, if belated, recognition of the unfairness and inequity facing gay and lesbian couples.

The support of state authority on the question will help Obama control the political backlash in states like Virginia and North Carolina. However, it creates an interesting contrast to the position of the Administration in court in cases ranging from medical marijuana to health care to immigration where it has rejected claims of state authority.

At the moment, it remains dangerously undefined for the Administration: is same-sex marriage a constitutional right or a personal choice in the President’s view? If it is a constitutional right, can gays and lesbians claim heightened scrutiny of review associated with race or at least gender? That does not appear to be the thrust of Obama’s comments. The fact that the Administration continues to crackdown on state medical marijuana laws as a federal question, same-sex marriage would appear to rank below the question of the use of marijuana for terminally ill patients as a legal question.

It is hard to know how to react to the news. Civil libertarians are obviously less than enthused with the long opposition of the President or the view that the President had finally reached a point where even the normally favorable White House press corp was openly mocking his position. Even Democratic stalwarts this week were denouncing Obama and telling him to “man up” and take a stand on principle. It should not take a conversation with your daughters to recognize a fundamental right after years as a state legislator, U.S. Senator, and U.S. President. Yet, he has at least finally dropped his opposition and that puts him in a better position than Romney on the question.

The President should now offer a better idea of the constitutional footing of this right. His description of his thought process notably does not reference notions of equal protection as much as basic fairness:

“This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better I’ll be as president.”

The Golden Rule basis for this right leaves if on the same level as other personal choices and social disagreements — as opposed to a matter of equal protection or privacy. Yet, in a process of evolution, we are now at least in the same rough genus of rights. He also can rightfully claim to be the first president to support same-sex marriage.

Source: Yahoo

Akin’s amendment would require the Defense Department to “accommodate the conscience and sincerely held moral principles and religious beliefs” of every member “concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality.” What is most provocative the ban on an order for a chaplain to perform any duty, rite or ceremony that is “contrary to the conscience, moral principle or religious beliefs” of either the chaplain or of the faith group sponsoring the chaplain.

It raises the question of who a chaplain must serve. These chaplains don the uniform and agree to adhere to the command of the military. This includes the policies of equality and civil liberties. Clearly, a chaplain can decline to serve if principles of equality for gay and lesbian members are against their religious principles. This pits the value of religious freedom against both principles of equality and military command.

If military personnel — and chaplains — belong to religious faiths that oppose homosexuality, the order to recognize same-sex marriage would be viewed as a sin. However, to prevent such chaplains from serving would be to deny military personnel access to chaplains of their faith. While the language of this bill is vague and problematic, it is a difficult question.

One approach is to guarantee that gay and lesbian personnel have chaplains who will minister to them while allowing chaplains who oppose them. As for personnel, I do not see how the military can tolerate discriminatory actions or comments by personnel in violation of military policy and order. While there may be some need for accommodation in religious ceremonies and rites, the danger is that discrimination and harassment could be shielded as expressions of faith.

What do you think? Should there be some accommodation for anti-homosexual faiths in the military?

Source: Army Times

The bill proposes the following amendment:

Page 44, line 6, insert before the semicolon the following: “Provided, That upon a determination by the Attorney General that a State has in effect a law allowing an armed person to confront an unarmed person in public and shoot to kill even if the confrontation could have been safely avoided, the Attorney General shall withhold 20 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to that State under section 505 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755).”

It has become customary for Congress to raise some taxes for the sole purpose of giving the money back to the states with conditions or strings attached. I have also been a critic of this practice as inimical to federalism. This issue is before the Supreme Court in the health care litigation. One of the issues is whether Congress can coerce states into doing what it wants by withholding federal funds. The Court has upheld such conditions in cases like South Dakota v. Dole, which withheld highway funds to states that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21. The Court has long maintained that such conditional funds can violated the Constitution if they amount to compulsion.

These funds are clearly not so great as to amount to unconstitutional compulsion. However, I still believe that it is a bad practice for Congress to force states to adhere to its demands as to state laws. This is an area that is traditionally left to the states. States are allowed to pursue their own policies and priorities in crafting such laws. Indeed, Florida is considering repealing or reforming the “Stand Your Ground” law.

Despite the best motivations, this amendment intrudes upon the rights of citizens of each state to make these decisions for themselves.

Source: Politico

There was a huge turnout on Tuesday in North Carolina — attributed to the draw of the referendum. The proposed amendment states that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”

North Carolina is viewed as a key target with Virginia for both campaigns. The vote reflects the division in the state with more liberal urban areas opposing the amendment while more conservative rural areas supporting it.

Just for the record, I have long advocated that the solution to this debate is to get rid of “marriage” licenses in favor of a universal civil union standard — which is closer to the function of the state recording of such unions. I believe that marriage should be left to individual faiths and institutions as a religious-based concept. The role of the state is to record a civil commitment of two individuals to live as one couple. The current debate — including the demand for retroactive termination of marriages — shows how the term marriage continues to inject religiosity into what is a civil contract between citizens.

Notably, the last time North Carolina amended its Constitution on marriage was in 1875 when it banned interracial marriage. That ban only ended in 1971.

Source: CNN

Dana Milbank had a great line that Biden had “the classic Washington gaffe of accidentally speaking the truth.” Obama’s position is now so completely dishonest and conflicted that reporters appeared to openly mock Carney.

Reporters asked why the president would not “stop dancing around the issue” and correctly called the president’s treatment of issue as “cynical.” NBC’s Chuck Todd noted, “So help me out here. He opposes bans on gay marriage, but he doesn’t yet support gay marriage?”

Carney was left mumbling nonsense and repeating that “He, as you know, said that his views on this were evolving” and “It is as it was.”

This farce culminated with Carney insisting “His views are crystal clear.”

I have long been critical of the lack of principles of Obama on civil liberties as well as some civil rights questions like same-sex marriage. Throughout his presidency, Obama has refused to fight on principle in these areas when it would cost him politically. Same-sex marriage represents one of the most contemptible examples. this is like remaining uncommitted on inter-racial marriage before the ruling in Loving v. Virginia. Obama has gone through the state legislature, the United States Senate, and virtually all of his first term without “evolving” to support gay and lesbian citizens on this basic right.

Source: Washington Post

The assistant public defender for Cook County is accused of a patter of misconduct ranging from disclosing confidential information to saying “shit” in court. Judge Calabrese appointed Cesar to represent defendant Monica Boyd (“Boyd”) in The People of the State of Illinois v. Monica Boyd, 11-MC1-194192. While Boyd appeared in the morning, she failed to appear when the trial was called that afternoon. Cesar explained that Boyd had left the court to pick up her child. Calabrese was not convinced and ordered her arrest. This is what followed as detailed in Count IV in the complaint below:

MS. CESAR: Oh shit.
THE COURT: What did you say, Ms. Cesar?
MS. CESAR: Oh shoot, I said. Oh shoot. I’m sorry I didn’t talk to her, Judge. I’m just – - it’s my fault. I’m running around, talking to people.
THE COURT: I don’t think that’s what you said.
MS. CESAR: Whatever. I know the word you think I said. My mother never let me say that, and I’ll tell you why. But I said shoot, darn it.

Frankly, while worthy of the court’s stern response and even a sanction, this hardly seems worthy of an ethics complaint. She is also accused of raising her voice repeatedly to the court. In one such incident, Calabresi noted “Let me just indicate again, you are yelling on the record. This happens all the time when you don’t get your way. Because you lose something doesn’t mean you have to start yelling at me. I haven’t gotten deaf over the course of the time I have listened to your argument.”

Once again, these types of problems are usually handled short of a formal ethics charge. The disclosure of the confidential information and failure to convey offers are more serious, but once again I have seen such matters come up in court and be handled by the judge, sternly but without a formal charge.

The disclosure counts involved cases that Cesar would likely argue were clearly going to end in pleas since the facts were largely established. It does not make the disclosures proper, but she is likely to argue that she did not harm her client’s interests. Here is one such count:

COUNT II
(Revealing Confidential Information in the Gabriel Franco matter)

7. On May 17, 2011, the Chicago Police Department arrested Gabriel Franco (“Franco”) and charged him with retail theft, a Class A misdemeanor, for allegedly carrying six containers of Enfamil baby formula past the last point of sale at a Dominick’s store located at 2021 West Chicago Ave., Chicago, IL.

8. On May 18, 2011, Judge Calabrese appointed Respondent to represent defendant Franco in The People of the State of Illinois v. Gabriel Franco, 11-MC1-225627 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, First Municipal District, Branch 29.

9. Before the May 18, 2011 hearing, Respondent and her client, Franco, had a conversation regarding the alleged offense and circumstances surrounding the offense.

10. On May 18, 2011, case number 11-MC1-225627 was called. At that time, the State requested a continuance in order to have the complaining witness in court. Judge Calabrese granted the State’s motion for a continuance and set the next hearing date to May 26, 2011 at 9:00 AM.

11. On May 18, 2011, before concluding the hearing, the court addressed the issue of probable cause to detain Franco. For purpose of setting bond, the State informed the court of Franco’s criminal history and that he had an outstanding warrant in Lake County, IL.

12. Respondent then stated the following:

MS. CESAR: Your Honor, he lives with his parents. And it is my understanding that there’s a warrant and it is for retail theft. Mr. Franco did tell me that he is not working right now and he was stealing formula for his eight-month-old child. I know that that is not a defense, but it certainly is a mitigator.

13. At the time Respondent made the statements in paragraph 12 above, Respondent knew that her client, Franco, had yet to enter a plea. Respondent’s statements in paragraph 12 above, revealed to the court that Franco did in fact commit the crime of retail theft by stealing the formula, and Respondent revealed Franco’s motive to commit the crime, to feed his eight-month old child. Respondent conceded facts that the State is required to, and has the burden to, prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

14. Respondent did not have consent from Franco to inform the court that Franco had stolen the formula or his motive for engaging in that conduct. Respondent knew or should have known that without Franco’s consent, Respondent should not have revealed information relating to the criminal charge of retail theft.

15. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

revealing information relating to the representation of a client without the client’s informed consent, in violation of Rule 1.6(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (2010);

conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (2010); and conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute.

Conversely, this picture shows the perfect demeanor for a motion. This dog could literally ask for summary judgment before the filing of pleading and win.

Source: Legal Professions as first seen on ABA Journal.

The Bronx teen was arrested back in January after police said that they witnessed him carrying bags of crack and marijuana. One officer swore that “He observed the defendant to have on his person, in his hand, one (1) clear plastic bag containing a white, rock-like substance, which he threw to the ground. In his hand, two (2) clear plastic bags, each containing a dried green leafy substance with a distinctive odor, in public view.” However the surveillance video shows Reed with his hands out and no drugs in view. Police also said that “The defendant flailed his arms, refusing to be handcuffed at which time the defendant struck informant (the officer) in his nose with a closed fist.” While the video does show Reed trying to get away, he does not appear to throw a punch. However, it is hard to get a good view of what was occurring. What is clear is the image of a female officer who casually walked up to Reed on the ground and, without any apparent reason, kicked the young man.

The case is another example of the value of videotape evidence despite efforts of prosecutors in Chicago, Boston, and other cities to charge citizens with filming police in public. Here is a prior column on the issue. Until this video, it was simply Reed’s word against the officers.

Notably, after Reed’s mother, Schuan Reed, and her son Jashuan, 17, went to the precinct to inquire about Jateik, they were also arrested for allegedly assaulting and threatening police officers.

School officials insisted that they are only carrying out written policies and that sexual harassment is defined as any unwelcome sexual advance and has no age limit.

The boy had previously gotten into trouble for quoting from the song by LMFAO “Sexy and I Know It.”

I have written a variety of columns (here, here) and blogs (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) criticizing zero tolerance policies on drugs and guns where teachers and administrators who refuse to use a modicum of common sense in enforcement decisions.

Since this is the second time that the boy has been told to stop quoting from the song, I can understand a parent-teacher meeting or conversation, but suspension?

Notably, Colorado is considering repealing its zero tolerance law, which would return schools to the position of dealing with these issues informally and with a little judgment and discretion.

Below is the song, but be warned. If one line is enough to get you suspended, playing the whole song will likely lead to life in a super max prison in Colorado:

Source: CBS

It has long been known that cows are a major source of emissions of pollutants, particularly methane. Cows, sheep and other ruminants are estimated to be responsible for one-fifth of global methane production — a greenhouse gas linked to climate change.

Scientists used cow farts to estimate the amount of gas produced by dinosaurs at 520 million tons a year. Perhaps the creationists are right and man did walk with the dinosaurs. If so, those primitive cave pictures might have been efforts to design the world’s largest air freshener.

The most gaseous were likely sauropods who fed on vegetation in the Mesozoic Era like the Brontosaurus. Studies indicate that the Earth was up to 10°C (18°F) warmer in the Mesozoic Era and apparently a lot smellier.

Source: BBC