The real question in the class action lawsuit was whether the police can target illegal immigrants without racial profiling of citizens and legal residents of Hispanic origin.The instant lawsuit did not seek any monetary damages but a declaration that Arpaio’s office engages in racial profiling, and sought an order that requires the Sheriff’s office to make policy changes.

The court ordered the office of Joe Arpaio, famous for keeping prisoners in tents and making them wear pink underwear, to cease using race or ancestry as grounds for stopping, detaining or holding occupants of vehicles during Arpaio’s famous “saturation drives” or during other law enforcement activities.

In a written ruling, the court observed, “The great weight of the evidence is that all types of saturation patrols at issue in this case incorporated race as a consideration into their operations.”

The court observed, “in the absence of further facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a violation of either federal criminal law or applicable state law is occurring,” the office of the Maricopa County Sheriff is enjoined from enforcing its policy of “checking the immigration status of people detained without state charges, using Hispanic ancestry or race as any factor in making law enforcement decisions pertaining to whether a person is authorized to be in the country, and unconstitutionally lengthening stops.”

After the ruling was released to the public, Cecillia Wang, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrant’s Rights Project said, “Let this be a warning to anyone who hides behind a badge to wage their own private campaign against Latinos or immigrants that there is no exception in the Constitution for violating people’s rights in immigration enforcement.”

The court quoted Arpaio’s own words in the ruling, and cited him as saying, “My program, my philosophy is a pure program. You go after illegals. I’m not afraid to say that. And you go after them and you lock them up.”

However, this is not new for Arpaio who has recently been re-elected for the sixth time in the post of the Sheriff of Maricopa County. This August, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona closed a criminal investigation into accusations of financial misconduct by the Sheriff’s office and declined to bring any charges.

Another investigation by the DOJ into accusations of civil rights by the 81-year-old sheriff and his office is continuing.

Though Arpaio has always maintained that he is against racial profiling, he has been often criticized for his tough stance on enforcement of state immigration laws.

Tim Casey, the lead attorney representing the office of Arpaio proclaimed that an appeal to the ruling is planned within the next 30 days.

Arizona’s Maricopa County shares its border with Mexico, and is known as one of the busiest gateways for illegal immigrants into the country.

Prior to joining the LSC, Ronald Flagg worked as a senior counsel in the Washington, DC office of Sidley Austin LLP, and was the head of the law firm’s pro bono practice. He had been with Sidley for 31 years and is well-known for his strong commitment to social causes.

While in Sidley, Flagg was instrumental in launching a program to provide free legal services for veterans who had disputes over retirement pay, disability benefits and combat related compensation.

In his work for social causes Flagg has shouldered responsibilities like that of being the former chairman of the boards of the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Committee, chair of the governing board of the AARP Legal Counsel for the Elderly and being the current chairman of the National Veterans Legal Services Program. Flagg is also known for his work as an advocate in reforming the public school system in the District of Columbia.

A man true to his passion of serving the needy, Flagg is supposed to be absorbing a big pay cut to continue doing what he likes with greater scope. Currently, the average profits per partner at Sidley (as of 2012) are $1.8 million, while according to an LSC spokesman, he would be drawing an annual salary of $163,704 at LSC.

Sidley Austin is yet to choose a new head for pro bono to carry on Flagg’s work.

Speaking on Flagg’s appointment, LSC Chairman John G. Levi, who is a partner in the Chicago office of Sidley Austin, said, “I can think of no one who could better fill this role than Ron Flagg … While handling a very successful law practice, Ron has devoted himself to pro bono service to the needy, veterans, the elderly, to DC’s Public School students and many others. LSC is so tremendously fortunate to have Ron assume these responsibilities.

Carter G. Phillips, the Executive Committee Chair of Sidley Austin said, “Ron has been my colleague and partner for more than three decades … LSC will benefit from his wisdom and leadership just as we have … everyone here will miss having his wise counsel available every day.”

Speaking on his decision to join the LSC, Flagg said, “The Legal Services Corporation performs a critical mission in promoting access to justice in our country … I am honored and thrilled to be joining my new colleagues in supporting this mission.”

LSC summed up their press release with LSC President James J. Sandman saying, “Ron is both a lawyer’s lawyer and a leader. Landing him is a coup for LSC.”

In a new YouTube series titled, “Convos With My 2-Year-Old,” (embedded above) a man reenacts real-life conversations with his toddler, who is played by a full-grown man. The result is a hilarious and surprisingly insightful commentary on the language we accept as socially acceptable, simply because it is spoken by a child.

In a series produced by Warmland Films, creator Matthew Clarke acts out a scene that is based on a real-life conversation with his 2-year-old daughter, Coco. In a casting decision that makes all the difference, Coco is played by David Milchard, a sullen-faced, bearded, adult man who is as far removed as possible from Clarke’s winsome, cherubic daughter. Clarke’s wife and Coco’s mother, Leila Harrison, also stars in the video, playing herself.

In the video, Clarke returns home, presumably after a long at work, and happens upon a tea party that his daughter (played by Milchard) and wife are having. When he greets Harrison and begins making small talk with her, he is cut off by the appearance of Coco/Milchard, who tells him solemnly, “You can’t talk to her right now because I’m talking to her right now.”

The conversation quickly breaks down into a power struggle between Clarke and his daughter, who refuses to allow her father to speak to or interact with his wife. Clarke briefly attempts to assert his authority as the head of the household, telling Coco/Milchard, “That’s my wife and I can talk to my wife whenever I want to talk to my wife.” His efforts are flatly rebuffed by the adult-man Coco, who coolly tells her father, “No, she’s not your wife. She’s the princess.” Unhelpfully, Harrison concurs, “I’m the princess right now.”

In the final scene, the camera shows Clarke retreating out of the room, defeated, and then briefly cuts to the couch, where Clarke’s smiling, real-life daughter has now displaced the malevolent Milchard. It’s a poignant reminder of how incredibly differently that conversation might sound when coming out of the mouth of an adorable 2-year-old girl.

In taking the words of Clarke’s daughter and having them spoken in a different context, the viewer is able to receive the full effect of the conversation, unhindered by the allowances that adults often give to the impertinence of children. While the conversation would normally, when spoken by a child, be received as impish or endearingly cheeky, the replacement of his daughter with a decidedly non-charming adult man allows Clarke to strip away the biases we have as a result of the person delivering the words.

The video highlights the fact that parents often react lightheartedly to youthful disrespect, simply because the words happen to be coming out of a pint-sized body. When that same conversation takes place in a different context, the delivery is fundamentally altered, and the conversation becomes offensive, rude, or even downright menacing. Far from an innocent playtime, it becomes clear that an underlying fight for authority and power is at play between Clarke and his daughter.

The video begs the question, Why are adults so prone to consider offensive language and attitudes in children as “charming”?

Whatever social conclusions can be drawn from the video, the Internet world loved it. As of Friday, the video had already received nearly 1.5 million views.

South Korean sensation Psy, of “Gangnam Style” fame, rocked it out at the Cannes Film Festival this week, as he “partied with stars, scooped up swag, danced on a French TV show and even signed a deal to be honored at a gala in Monaco,”  as The New York Post explained. Not bad, considering Psy was in Singapore at the time.

“Seems like there’s another ME at cannes … say Hi to him,” tweeted the real Psy.

Being psyched out by the doppelganger, who is really ordinary citizen Denis Carre, 34, from rural France, Naomie Harris, who had her picture taken with him tweeted, “It looks as if we’ve been fooled, that wasn’t he real [PSY]! Could anyone else tell from the picture? Or am I just going crazy!? Haha!”

Carre learned of his unique power to impersonate Korean pop stars when he was mobbed by Psy fans at a club in Dublin. His family suggested he take advantage of his look-alike status.

“I know that my success is due to that of someone else,” he said. “All of this amuses me.”

He has even accepted money to pose in photographs, but now that he has been exposed as a mere look-alike, perhaps his days of nefarious duplicity are over.

Amanda Bynes, the increasingly eccentric star who once featured in Nickelodeon’s “All That” and “The Amanda Show” before taking on films like “What a Girl Wants” and “Hairspray,” recently had a bad night. A building officer called the cops after spotting her smoking a joint in the lobby and talking to herself. When the police arrived, she let them into her apartment, only to toss out a lit bong that had been sitting on the table, throwing it through the window and explaining that it was in fact a vase. The woman was already a strange sight with her platinum blond wig and shiny cheek rings, but when they placed her under arrest, she hollered “Don’t you know who I am?”

Not certain if she herself knew who she was, they had her evaluated by a psychiatrist. As an insider to the case reported to Fox News, “She was acting crazy, but there is no law against being crazy in the United States and they can’t hold you for that. She is not suicidal, and not considered to be a danger to herself or society. They really tried to find a way to hold her, but no avail. Amanda isn’t a dangerous girl, she seems desperate for attention and really acting out.”

When this insider said she has been acting out, they meant that she’s tweeted some bizarre and vulgar tweets about rapper Drake, and otherwise not handled her waning career with any amount of austere grace. But she was released from court the next day on her own recognizance – no bail needed to be posted – and she now faces marijuana and bong charges, which are all misdemeanors.

Obama has had considerable backing from unions these last couple elections, and such political constituents were especially attracted to Obama’s overhaul of health care through the Affordable Health Care Act. Now, there’s some backlash over how such Health Care is actually panning out, and it could spell trouble for Democrats in 2014’s election.

One of their largest complaints regards workers under multiemployer health plans, also known as Taft-Hartley plans; such workers may work temporarily or seasonally, and 20 million of them could be affected. Their current style plans cost more than traditional single-employer health plans, but with the stipulations Obama’s Affordable Care Act adds to that, such as requiring the plans to cover dependents to the age of 26, and eliminating annual or lifetime coverage limits and applying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, such plans may be dropped entirely.

“We’re concerned that employers will be increasingly tempted to drop coverage through our plans and let our members fend for themselves on health exchanges,” said David Treanor, director of health care initiatives at the Operating Engineers union, as reported by the Associated Press.

Bob Laszewski sees things a little differently. As a health care industry consultant, he says the things the unions are really concerned about are that “a lot of these labor contracts [they’ve been plugging for] are very expensive, and now employers are going to have an alternative to very expensive labor health benefits.”

“If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need a union? In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits from a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer.” Laszewski thinks union plans would not drop out all at once, nevertheless.

Whatever the case, the ire of unions may affect the elections of 2014. Unions may resent that their own plans can now be skipped over by employers, even though they usually offer better coverage and lower premiums.

“It’s not favoritism. We want to be treated fairly,” said Joe Hanson, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. “We would expect more help from this administration.”

He also said that “It makes an untruth out what the president said – that if you like your insurance, you could keep it. That is not going to be true for millions of workers now.”

Assuaging such concerns and doing some damage control is the next order of business for Democrats.

After a first-degree murder conviction earlier this month, the trial of Jodi Arias ended with a jury unable to reach a decision on her punishment, according to a recent Huffington Post report.

Arias was convicted earlier this month of first-degree murder in the 2008 stabbing of Travis Alexander. The murder drew widespread attention for its egregious violence: Alexander was stabbed 30 times, shot in the head, and had his throat slit by Arias, his ex-girlfriend. Arias’ defense lawyer, Jennifer Willmott, argued that Arias’ actions were borne out of her battle with various psychological issues. Psychologist Richard Samuels testified during the trial that Arias suffered from both PTSD and acute stress disorder. Ultimately, the jury found the defense’ argument unconvincing.

While the jury convicted Arias of first-degree murder in a “non-unanimous agreement” verdict, members of the jury were unable to reach a decision on whether Arias should receive the death penalty or life in prison.

Thursday was an emotion-wrought ending to Arias’ trial, with many members of the jury emerging from deliberations in tears. Under Arizona law, if the jury is unable to decide on her punishment, a new jury will have to be selected. If the second jury panel is unable to reach a decision as well, Arias’ fate will be determined by a judge. The judge would have the power to either sentence Arias to life in prison or make her eligible for parole after 25 years, but would not have the ability to sentence her to death.

Prosecutor Juan Martinez has been seeking the death penalty, noting that “Arias’ age is not a mitigating factor … Mr. Alexander was only 30 and will forever be 30 … the only thing you can do is return a verdict of death.”

Faced with the prospect of the death penalty, Arias appeared contrite in her testimony to the jury. In a May 8^th statement to the media, Arias had stated that she preferred death over life in prison. On Tuesday, however, Arias backtracked on her earlier statements. Looking appropriately mournful in black, she told the jury, “As I stand here now, I can’t in good conscience ask you to give me death.”

On Thursday evening, the I-5 Bridge over Washington State’s Skagit River collapsed, throwing two vehicles into the water, and resulting in at least three injuries. While the source of the collapse is still unknown at this time, the incident is drawing attention to the safety of Washington’s older bridges.

Built in 1955, the 1,111-foot bridge was the main route linking Seattle with Canada, with an average of 71,000 cars using the route daily. At about 7pm on Thursday night, a portion of the I-5 that spans above the Skagit River collapsed, tossing two cars into the water.

While the cause is not conclusive at this time, authorities speculate that the bridge may have collapsed when a commercial truck hit a portion of the structure. The National Transportation Safety Board has already begun investigating further into the cause of the bridge’s collapse.

Miraculously, no one was killed in the bridge’s failure, although three people were sent to local hospitals, all with non-critical injuries. One of the victims was Dan Sligh, who was driving with his wife on their way to a camping trip when the section they were driving on collapsed beneath them. The couple’s car was thrown into the water, and after being rescued by local authorities, the couple was sent to a nearby hospital with minor injuries. In an interview with KIRO-TV, Sligh says, “You’re kind of pinching yourself and realize you’re lucky to be alive.”

Transportation representatives have advised commuters to avoid the I-5 for the next few days as traffic is already being re-routed off of the bridge.

Already, the Skagit River Bridge collapse has sparked widespread attention to the fact that much of the state’s key infrastructure is structurally outdated. The evidence is piling up that there are plenty more potentially hazardous structures like the Skagit Bridge. Based on a recent report by the Public Works Department, nearly 40 percent of the bridges in Skagit County are 50 years or older. In the most recent review by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington’s bridges were given a “C-” for structural safety. Of note, the Federal Highway Administration database had labeled the Skagit River Bridge as “functionally obsolete.”

One thing is certain: the Skagit River Bridge collapse is sure to spur intensive investigation into the structural soundness of the state’s infrastructure. Hopefully this will lead to the eventual reconstruction of obsolete and unsafe bridges.

Image Credit: KOMO News twitter feed

A former CFO for Proskauer Rose has modified her allegations against the firm that abruptly fired her, changing her $10 million suit of 2011 which claimed that they unfairly fired her for age, gender, and disability-related discrimination, and focusing exclusively on the disability. After all, Elly Rosenthal had just survived breast cancer, and this after 3 months of medical leave to recover from two major surgeries, and it was upon her return that her responsibilities and standing were systematically undermined.

The final dismissal of March 12, 2011 came two decades after she got on board with Proskauer in 1992, two decades of work making the most use of her previous decades as an accountant for such other firms as Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and at accounting firm KPMG. Proskauer promoted her to chief financial officer in 2005.

As Am Law explains, that role was not awaiting her on her return from cancer leave. Instead, they had freshly created a new title of chief administrative financial adviser that would step her down a notch from the firm’s new CFO, Jim Barbaria. She complained that he was in fact less qualified than her, having never worked as a certified public accountant, and having never headed a finance department.

Further losses included a 10 percent pay cut, bringing her to $423,000, in consideration that she now worked less than five days a week upon her return, and she was also denied a bonus as a means of “offsetting the three months of paid medical leave.”

Nor was her 2009 performance evaluation stellar, but Proskauer’s chief operating officer, Art Gurwitz, who had already said “there will always be a place for you” at Proskauer, seemed a little less certain. He still contended that her history with the company made her a good fit for her new job, but said that “it is difficult to now be in a new management role at a time when the industry is changing-rapidly-and as a firm we are modifying/integrating/enhancing/eliminating,” the techniques and procedures she was used to.

This strain of thought led the company to “orchestrate a concerted campaign to undermine Ms. Rosenthal’s authority,” first by banishing her office to a different building from their new midtown Manhattan headquarters, and finally, in March 11, 2011, to tell her she was to meet with Gurwitz the subsequent day, upon which he said there was “no role” for her at Proskauer any longer, and she was in fact terminated and had three days to clear out her things.

Her complaint, which is focusing mostly on her treatment as a cancer victim, considers “Proskauer’s abrupt dismissal of Ms. Rosenthal, without warning of any kind, despite her nearly two decades of loyal service to the firm,” as constituting “malicious or recklessly indifferent treatment.”

By focusing on one specific claim of discrimination, they may have more of an inlet into making a case.

On Thursday, the Boy Scouts of America ended its policy of banning openly gay children and teens from participating in scouting. The decision was voted on by 1,400 volunteer leaders, and is expected to appease many in the scouting community while isolating others.

Over the last decade, the Boy Scouts of America has maintained a policy that excluded openly gay boys and men from participating in their programs, either as a scout or as a leader. This policy has come under fire over the last decade, as acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle continues to grow throughout the country, leaving many to see the Boy Scouts’ policies as retrograde.

Many, however, feel that because scouts are urged to swear an oath to god and represent traditional American values, that the gay lifestyle should have no place within scouting, and that including gays puts other, heterosexual members at risk.

The decision to allow gay scouts into troops was approved by a vote of 757 to 475, and will take effect on January 1, 2014, at which point gay children and teens will be welcome to join the Boy Scouts of America. The decision does not, however, impact the ban on openly gay adults leading scout troops. “The resolution today dealt with youth,” said Tico Perez, Boy Scouts of America national commissioner, and one of the advocates for reversing the ban on gay youths. “We have not changed our adult membership standards. Those were not on the table.”

The New York Times reports that many conservative churches and parents across the country have said they will drop out of the BSA, and claim that the organization is violating their religious beliefs. “The fallout from this is going to be tremendous,” said Robert Schwarzwalder, the senior vice president of the Family Research Council, and father of two scouts. “I think there will be a loss of hundreds of thousands of boys and parents. This great institution is going to be vitiated by the intrusion of a political agenda.”

The Times reports that many within the scouting community have begun talks to create a new, more conservative organization to provide boys with the same types of programs separate from the scouts.

Others are welcoming the groups change. Matt Comer, a 27 year-old openly gay man, was kicked out of the Boy Scouts after he started a gay-straight alliance at his school.  He told the New York Times that he felt vindicated, as he had always dreamed of becoming an Eagle Scout.

Still others in the gay community feel that the decision does not go far enough, and that the BSA’s ban on openly gay scout leaders is still an enormous issue that must be overcome. The group’s refusal to address the issue during the vote is still viewed as an enormous obstacle for overall acceptance of gay and lesbian scouting enthusiasts.

As a follow-up to our previous coverage of this story, two of the three Berkeley Law school graduates that were involved with the beheading of an exotic bird in Las Vegas have been sentenced, while a third will face more serious charges later this year.

Hazhir Kargaran, 26, who graduated from Berkeley Law School last semester, pleaded no contest to misdemeanor charges of animal cruelty, property destruction, and trespassing, and was sentenced to two days in jail and 48 hours of community service. The charges stem from a recent incident involving two other Berkeley Law School students in which Turk, a rare, 14 year-old helmeted guinea fowl owned by the Flamingo Hotel was beheaded.

Justin Teixeira, 24, a recent Berkeley Law graduate, and Eric Cuellar, a third year student at the school, are alleged to have chased Turk through the Flamingo hotel’s wildlife preserve. Security footage from the hotel shows the three to be intoxicated. A witness saw the three students emerging from the preserve’s trees carrying the body and severed head of the bird. The bird’s body was later found by hotel staff in a different part of the facility.

It is believed that Teixeira was the one who actually physically mutilated and killed the bird, and he is being brought up on more severe charges later this year. Cuellar has already pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of instigating animal cruelty, and was fined $200 and sentenced to 48 hours of community service.

Kargaran’s attorney spoke with the San Francisco Chronicle on Thursday. “Essentially [Kargaran] was part of a group that was, I guess, acting silly while intoxicated and chasing the animal around. One of the members of this group chose to be violent toward the animal, with drastic consequences. No one is alleging that my client in any way participated in or planned to harm the animal.”

Obama’s speech at Washington’s National Defense University was in line with his efforts to change the global image of the country – particularly in relation to the Islamic world.

Speaking on the new form of the “war on terror” Obama stressed, “Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.”

Speaking on the highly controversial Guantanamo Bay prison, Obama said, “There is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.” The President further mentioned in his speech that the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba “has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law.”

Obama also acknowledged the controversy over drone strikes and said that US would use drone strikes only when a threat was “continuing and imminent.” This stand is in stark contrast to the earlier policy of launching drones against any significant threat.

However, many think that the Obama administration is going to face significant opposition when they try to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act that provides the legal basis for the current and ongoing “war on terror.”

Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican issued a statement following Obama’s speech saying, “The President is correct to highlight the successes in America’s war on terror that have occurred since September 11, 2001 … He is wrong, however, to understate the continued threat to the U.S. homeland or to suggest that the lethality of the threats posed by a weakened al Qaeda and its affiliates is a return to a pre-9/11 norm that Americans should just accept.”

Preliminary results released on Wednesday showed that the measure, Proposition D, had 63 percent voting in favor of limiting the number of medical marijuana shops. However, two similar measures, also proposing restrictions on medical marijuana shops were defeated.

Currently, unofficial estimates claim that the number of dispensaries providing medical marijuana in Los Angeles can range anywhere from between 850-1700. However, official estimates peg the number at 850.

Supporters of Proposition D believe that passing of the measure and restricting the number of medical marijuana outlets on a rational measure – only outlets which existed before the city passed a moratorium in 2007 will be allowed to operate – may help to keep the federal government out of medical marijuana related issues in the city.

City Councilman Paul Koretz, the man behind Proposition D, said, “We’ve had a great amount of difficulty over the past few years on how to come up with a consensus for handling medical marijuana. This is the perfect solution.”

However, things are not going to be too smooth, as anticipated and one of the groups whose measures failed at the ballot have already indicated they would be challenging Proposition D in court. According to the group, the basis of disqualification in Proposition D is irrational and rather promotes shops that opened earlier and not shops that adhere to a certain set of rules.

Though California is the first state in the country to have legalized the use and sale of medical marijuana, cannabis remains as an illegal narcotic under federal law. A situation that has caused great confusion and bitterness in the legal arena and in the operation of the industry related to medical marijuana.

Once Proposition D comes into effect, the city will seek court orders to shut down dispensaries that do not qualify under the measure. At the same time the city will also seek back taxes from those outlets that continue to operate.

Proposition D also found the backing of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770, which seeks proper legitimization of operations and works to unionize workers in the medical marijuana industry. According to UFCW, a big number of shops who would be able to remain open and would qualify under Proposition D, already have union ties.

The measure comes within weeks of the California Supreme Court ruling that local governments have the right to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, as local governments have the final say over use of land.

Pope Francis has only been in the job for a few months, but he’s already making waves among Catholics and the overall religious community. In a homily delivered at Wednesday Mass in Rome, Francis explained how “doing good” is an act that could redeem even atheists in the eyes of God.

The pope’s declaration that those outside of the Catholic faith are eligible for redemption, specifically those that do not believe in a higher power, is something of an about face from Pope Benedict’s declarations that only those who accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior can enter heaven. Pope Francis was touted as more radical than his predecessor, and his statements are among the first evidence to support his reputation.

“They complain,” said the Pope in his homily, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” Francis explained that Jesus’ disciples were intolerant to the idea that those who do not have the truth, could not do good, and that Jesus corrected his disciples, telling them that the potential for good is within everyone on earth.

“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes he can… The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

The pope’s call for Catholics, non-believers, and everyone in between to work together in a positive way is not an unusual call, but for the leader of a major world religion to speak so acceptingly of, not just other faiths, but those who adamantly deny the tenets of that faith, is unusual, though Catholic priests are saying that it is Francis’ medium, not his message, that is progressive.

Speaking with the Huffington Post, Father James Martin, S.J. clarified the Catholic position. “Pope Francis is saying, more clearly than ever before, that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for everyone.  But rarely do you hear it said by Catholics so forcefully, and with such evident joy. And in this era of religious controversies, it’s a timely reminder that God cannot be confined to our narrow categories.”

The pope’s remarks have become extremely popular on atheist-friendly message boards and websites around the world, while some Catholics say that Francis is too forgiving of atheists.

Its not news that four American citizens have been killed by counter-terrorism drones, in a sort of dystopic sci fi series of attacks targeting enemies of the state. What’s news is that Attorney General Eric Holder admitted to it for the first time Wednesday. He addressed a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt, and from him the rest of us heard it. Holder admitted this because he was told to: President Barack Obama used the disclosure to draw attention to a speech he is scheduled to deliver Thursday about the U.S.’s “broader counter-terrorism strategy.” He intends to discuss our policies and practices in using “counterterrorism operations” such as unarmed drones to hunt down members of al Qaeda.

Of the four who were killed by drones, only one was specifically targeted – they admitted this – Anwar al-Awlaki. The disturbing idea of targeting and killing an American citizen without trial has upset our patriotic sensibilities, but Holder answers them, saying, “al-Awlaki was a senior operational leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the most dangerous regional affiliate of al Qaeda and a group that has committed numerous terrorist attacks overseas and attempted multiple times to conduct terrorist attacks against the U.S. homeland.”

How and why al-Awlaki’s son, another American citizen, a 16-year-old Denver native, ended up done in by drones a couple weeks later was another story. As for Samir Khan and Jude Kennan Mohammed, two other American citizens killed by drones, the letter says that “These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States.”

If admitting to murdering American citizens sounds a bit like a commercial for people to tune into a speech, Holder, at least, sees it as a noble act: “Since entering office, the president has made clear his commitment to providing Congress and the American people with as much information as possible about our sensitive counterterrorism operations,” as he told Leahy, as Fox News reported. “The administration is determined to continue these extensive outreach efforts to communicate with the American people.”

Audiences interested in the tepid, banal, and everyday will be excited to cloister together to view new episodes of Keeping Up with the Kardashians, who seem to move at a pace easy enough to follow. Kim Kardashian asks “How the f-ck did I get like this?” regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps a recourse to her sex tapes could explain the process. In a later scene from the commercial she models her bare belly while wearing lingerie.

“It was really hard for me to accept that the body changes, and I was having a different kind of pregnancy than Kourtney did,” she said in reference to her older sister. “She made it look really easy, but ever since the baby started to kick I’ve really embraced it. Now I love being pregnant!”

If these sound like comments your friends or sisters have also said then perhaps you will save yourself a season of watching people do what you already do yourself.

Or maybe you would love to tune in and hear such things as Kris Jenner, Kim’s proud mother, saying what you would expect a mother to say, “I’ve just never seen her this happy. She’s happier than she’s ever been and feeling so good. She’s just embracing the whole thing, and that just makes me very proud.”

Stay tuned as an expectant mother muses over her changing body shape, and her own mother is excited for a new member of the family! Thrill over things that happen in your own life each and every day!

An alternative would be to follow the lead of The Family’s Guys Peter Griffin and making a cardboard cutout of a television and putting it around your head, giving the impression that your real life were a television show. In fact, that would probably be more interesting.

Dickstein Shapiro has reduced their staff recently, laying off a lot of their New York office associates and some of their D.C. associates. They explained their decisions in a memorandum, and one spokesperson explained, according to Above the Law:

We periodically review the firm’s staffing to ensure that it is properly aligned with changing firm and client needs and make adjustments accordingly. We also continue to invest in practice areas which enhance our competitiveness and long-term success.

An utterly banal and unenlightening explanation, and considering their success last year, it is a bit inexplicable. The BLT talked a bit about the firms 2012 adventures:

On paper, Dickstein Shapiro’s fiscal year 2012 financial metrics represented a big change from 2011. Whereas gross revenue held steady in 2011, last year it dipped 3.2 percent to $258.5 million. But revenue per lawyer, profits per partner and net income all showed strong growth. Revenue per lawyer climbed 7.7 percent to $840,000 and profits per partner increased 3.8 percent to $950,000. Net income had the largest gain of any metric category, jumping 8.9 percent to $55 million.

 

“From the perspective of our firm, we thought it was a good year,” chairman Michael Nannes said. “We know it’s a challenging time.”

It was Above The Law’s assessment , though, that the decision to downsize was Dickstein’s response to losing a $482 million jury award to Dickstein client Bruce Saffran who had sued Johnson & Johnson.

The beheading of a soldier in London’s Woolwich neighborhood has shocked the country, and led many to speculate that the attack was an act of terrorism. The brutal and bloody murder was captured by a cameraman, and footage of the beheading was given to a British broadcaster, which ran the footage. Two suspects are currently in custody and being treated at a hospital after being shot by London police.

The attack, which occurred yesterday afternoon on a street in Woolwich, was witnessed by several bystanders.  The two suspects drove a car onto the sidewalk, hitting the victim, exited the car and then used butcher knives to hack away at his body. A third person filmed the occurrence with a video camera, though it is unknown if the camera-holder is connected with the two suspects.

After the victim was dead, one of the suspects, believed to be London resident Michael Adebolajo, raised his bloodied knife into the air and shouted political statements about the British government into the camera. After apologizing to the women at the scene of the crime for the fact that they saw the crime occur, he then said, “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We swear by almighty Allah that we will never stop fighting you.”

“You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you. You think [British Prime Minister] David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? You think politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we can all live in peace.”

According to the Mirror, the victim is believed to be an off-duty soldier who was returning to the barracks.

After the attack, Adebolajo and the other attacker, who were armed with at least one revolver, were gunned down by police officers. They are currently being treated at a London hospital, where one of the two suspects is in critical condition.

Cameron, who was visiting Paris at the time of the attacks, spoke about the attacks, saying “Tonight, our thoughts should be with the victim, with their family, with their friends. People across Britain, people in every community, I believe, will utterly condemn this attack. We have had these sorts of attacks in our country and we never buckle in the face of them.” Cameron also asked Home Secretary Theresa May to chair an emergency meeting to investigate the attacks and the possibility that Adebolajo was a member of a terrorist cell planning further attacks.

Image and Video Credit: ITV News

As globalization increases, law schools have been intensifying their international relations. Columbia University, for instance, has increased their relationships with such colleges as Peking University Law School, a relationship that began in 2006 when Columbia joined Peking in a reciprocal relationship of semester-long student exchanges, which expanded in 2011 into exchange programs for faculty to switch universities and lecture or co-teach courses. Now that direction of expansion has gone further, with the Columbia University Law School Dean David Schizer and Peking University Law School Dean Zhang Shouwen signing a memorandum of understanding between the two universities. This will allow opportunities for joint publications and joint seminars and forums.

Alexandra Carter, for one, is a Columbia University law professor visiting the Chinese campus.

“The purpose of my visit was not only to give a couple of lectures, but also to explore the opportunity for future collaboration both in [alternative dispute resolution] and in the field of clinical education,” Carter said, as ChinaDaily reported. “Clinical education is a form of learning that’s become extremely important at the top law schools here in the US and it’s an area that [Peking University] has started and is looking to expand.”

In this, Carter joined the hundreds of exchanges between the two schools. Benjamin Liebman, Robert L. Lieff professor of law and director of the Center for Chinese Legal Studies at Columbia estimates that between 50 and 60 Chinese scholars visit Columbia annually.

“The idea is to try to create a framework that allows deepening of collaboration between Chinese scholars and American scholars working on common issues,” said Liebman.

“There’s a long tradition of American scholars studying China and of Chinese scholars studying the West, but there’s not a long tradition of American and Chinese scholars working together to pursue common research questions,” Liebman said.

“There’s a lot of interest in developing joint research on issues like anti-trust regulations in China and the development of China’s courts, but we don’t have a specific research agenda going in,” Liebman said.

“In my view, the real goal and the strength of this relationship is the effort to work together on common issues,” Liebman said. “It’s not that we’re studying them or they’re studying us, but rather we’re looking at common questions that face our countries and face the global legal framework together.”

The partnership with China seems only to be deepening over time, and as the world continues to globalize and neutralize strict borders or divisions between people, this progression is aligned with the progression of the world.

Abercrombie & Fitch was found by a judge to have failed in providing adequate facilities for the disabled, and will be forced to renovate hundreds of stores. The ruling stated that 250 Abercrombie & Fitch and subsidiary Hollister stores do not provide the appropriate access for limited access customers, as stipulated by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The New Albany, Ohio-based chain was taken to federal court in Colorado by the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, on behalf of customers that said they had trouble getting into stores and that sales countertops are too high to be used by a person in a wheelchair. Several separate complaints were turned into a class action lawsuit targeting 248 Hollister stores across the country that featured faux-porch steps at the entrance, essentially preventing limited-access customers from entering.

Attorneys for Abercrombie & Fitch say that when the retail outlets were constructed, they were in full compliance with all construction standards, and that standards have since evolved.

The judge said that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not allow the customers behind the lawsuit to receive any compensation, but that he will order the stores in question to fix the problems according to current standards.

Rob Sirowitz, who filed one of the initial complaints that led to the lawsuit, told the Denver Post that he struggled to get into a Hollister store, and when he finally did, he could not get through an aisle because there was too much merchandise. “I can get into the store 10 to 15 feet and then I have to turn around and leave,” he said.

Anita Hansen, who also filed a complaint against the company, said that being in one of the company’s stores made her feel more aware of her handicap. “I don’t feel I have a disability when I shop somewhere else because I don’t need help to get around.”

A statement on the ruling from a Hollister spokesperson said, “We are surprised by the Judge’s decision that the Hollister entrances are not compliant with the ADA. We’ve maintained throughout the litigation, and continue to maintain, that the stores comply with ADA and allow access to all patrons.”

Abercrombie & Fitch is no stranger to controversy. The clothing line aggressively courts teens and young adults that deem themselves “cool,” often at the exclusion of all others. Abercrombie & Fitch has been criticized for refusing to offer their clothes in larger sizes, and several discrimination lawsuits have been filed against the company regarding their hiring practices.

The jury for the trial of Jodi Arias continues to deliberate as to whether she is eligible for the death penalty. On Wednesday afternoon, a member of the jury asked Judge Sherry Stephens what would happen if they could not reach a unanimous decision. The judge provided the jury with further instructions, and asked them to continue deliberations, which have carried on into Thursday.

When informed by the juror about a preliminary deadlock, Stephens said the she was able to offer assistance, but was “merely trying to be responsive to your apparent need for help” without urging the jurors to force a verdict.

Arias was convicted earlier this month of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. The trial was long, and Arias claimed that she murdered him in self-defense. Alexander was found stabbed multiple times, shot in the head, and with his throat slit. According to Arizona law, now that Arias has been found guilty, the jury must decide if she acted with cruelty deserving of the death penalty.

When she was first charged several years ago, Arias claimed that she would rather receive the death penalty than spend the rest of her life in prison, which is a sentiment she reiterated shortly after her conviction. But during an interview with TODAY show on Wednesday, Arias said that she would now prefer life in prison because she has more to contribute to the world, and plans on appealing the jury’s decision.

“What I receive will be what I deserve, I believe,” Arias told Dian Alvear. When asked about people who feel that the only way for Alexander to get justice is for Arias to get the death penalty, Arias said, “That’s not justice. That’s revenge.”

Arias also confessed to Alvear that she was suicidal at various points throughout the trial, but that thoughts of her family prevented her from following through with a self-inflicted death.

In the case that the jury is indeed deadlocked, Arizona law states that a new jury will be brought in to make a unanimous determination. If the second jury cannot make a decision, than the possibility of the death penalty is taken off the table, and Stephens will rule whether Aria will receive a life sentence or a life sentence with the possibility of parole in 25 years.

Departures from a law firm are complicated for any attorney, but for a partner the details can be quite intricate. Please note: First and foremost, the interests of your clients should be absolutely paramount. Consultation with existing ABA and state bar guidelines on firm transition is suggested.

Below you will find a list of important considerations for partners when changing firms. You will also find suggested practices for maintaining relationships, as well as obligations from a legal and moral perspective.

Before You Begin to Meet with New Firms

It’s important to review any existing employment agreement with your former firm to make sure you are in compliance with all provisions (pay particular attention to provisions regarding notice).

Practice discretion with your existing firm until you have consulted existing employment agreements and have cleared conflicts at your new firm (but also ensure that your actions are in compliance with existing ethical guidelines).

Take steps to ensure you are not releasing confidential client information to a third party. Translation: Do NOT release confidential client information to a firm during your interview process. (Examine ABA rules and rulings regarding this very grey area).

Once You Have an Offer in Hand

Ensure that all conflicts are cleared before notifying your existing firm.

Ensure that proper notice in compliance with existing employment/partnership agreements is given to the firm.

If transitioning to another state, attend to any waiver requirements. Depending on the jurisdiction, it may be prudent to wait until you have an offer to take this step as many state bars will begin calling references and could arouse suspicions. Coordinate bar fees with the new firm when the timing is appropriate.

Check professional rules of conduct to ensure compliance and appropriate timing before notifying clients of your departure.

Solidify any arrangements for support staff (secretaries, paralegals, associates) to relocate with you to the new firm (but again, check contractual and ethical compliance).

Once You Have Accepted an Offer

Some state bar rules require that firms send out a notice to their clients notifying them that a partner is leaving, when said partner is leaving, and informing them that the client has the right to choose which lawyer will handle his or her case. These letters should address how advanced fees will be handled and should also address how client files will be handled. These letters should include a place for the client to sign and return the letter. These letters can and most likely should be sent out jointly from the old firm and the departing partner. (Examine ABA models regarding this point).

Keep clients informed about the status of their cases and how the transition to the new firm will affect them.

Prepare memoranda to appropriate parties at the firm regarding the status of your current case load or transactions in progress.

When active files are being transferred to other attorneys at the old firm, extensive notes are required in detailing the status of matters and upcoming deadlines for filings. Where appropriate, obtain continuances, extensions, or motions to substitute counsel and notify clients and opposing counsel.

Attend to any matters not billed or collected.

Coordinate transitioning client files.

Check to ensure you are in compliance with your new malpractice insurance carrier’s requirements. One question to ask your new carrier, ”Do you insure prior acts?” Also examine whether you might need ”tail coverage.”

Inform courts, state agencies, or federal agencies where your matters are pending of new counsel arrangements and/or the address of the new firm.

Notify opposing counsel of any changes in counsel or counsel’s firm and address.

Advertise your new firm affiliation to clients, colleagues, and friends. Your new firm may have ideas on how to market this material, so it’s important to coordinate with the new firm. For materials sent to clients, tailor your notices to include information about how your new platform and firm can better serve their needs.

Send out a press release to legal and general press. Again, this will need to be coordinated with the new firm.

Work with your new firm on letterhead and business cards.

Determine how mail will be forwarded from the old firm to the new firm.

Inform local, state, and specialty bars about your change of affiliation.

Preserving Relationships

One of the more complicated facets of leaving a firm involves preserving the relationships between fellow partners. It’s important to say goodbye to your colleagues in a manner that preserves the relationship. Friendly referrals can continue between partners even after the partners no longer share a firm name and office space.

Spend time personally thanking the support staff who worked with you at your old firm.

A fresh start could involve some introspection on ways to personally improve your performance. Solicit feedback from partners and associates at the old firm about ways you can improve your performance.

This article is authored by Suzanne Dupree Howe, Managing Director, BCG Attorney Search.

The city settled with SEC without admitting or denying any allegations against its conduct. The city also agreed to retain an independent consultant to oversee any municipal bond disclosures.

According to the SEC, the city acted inappropriately and put the tax-exempt status of both bond deals in danger by loaning out the proceeds from the first bond deal to a private developer, and by restructuring a lease agreement related to the parking structure related to the second bond deal before its sale.

Elaine Greenberg, chief of the Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit in the SEC Enforcement Division, said in a statement, “South Miami’s fraudulent conduct put bondholders in danger of incurring significant additional costs associated with their investments.”

Stressing the fact that investors usually accepted lower interest rates on municipal bonds because the interest payments are exempt from taxation, Greenberg said, “tax-exempt status of municipal bonds is vitally important to bond investors, and we will closely scrutinize any conduct by issuers or others that threatens that tax exemption.”

In fact, the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds is one of the biggest reasons for existence of the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market. Both finance advisors and investors rely on exemption from state and federal taxes for financial planning.

This is the second municipal bond fraud-enforcement action by the SEC this month. In the earlier action, the SEC charged Harrisburg, Pennsylvania for committing fraud.

Sergeant McClendon, of Blakely, GA served in a position where he was “responsible for the health, welfare and discipline” of a company of cadets and was expected “to assist each cadet in balancing … moral-ethical programs.”

He used to videotape the cadets without their consent, and during many instances he did it when the female cadets were undressed in bathrooms or showers.

Though initially the Army did not make public the charges against Sergeant McClendon, it did so after The New York Times gained knowledge of the inquiry and asked about the matter.

According to Army officials, the Army is now contacting about a dozen women to offer psychological counseling and to alert them that their privacy may have been violated. Case documents indicate that on several instances Sergeant McClendon entered women’s bathrooms without knocking.

McClendon faces charges under four articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice – for cruelty and maltreatment, for actions prejudicial to good order and discipline, for indecent acts and for dereliction in the performance of duty.

Gen. John F. Campbell, the Army vice chief of staff said on Wednesday in response to media queries, “The Army is committed to ensuring the safety and welfare of our cadets at the Military Academy at West Point – as well as all soldiers throughout our Army.”

Gen. Campbell also stressed that “once notified of the violation, a full investigation was launched, followed by swift action to correct the problem.”

After the incidents became known within the Army in May, Sergeant McClendon was immediately transferred to Fort Drum, N.Y., before filing of charges against him.

Army spokesman George Wright said that the service and West Point would “rebuild trust … providing the full range of support to those whose privacy was violated (and) keeping them updated on the case.”

Sergeant McClendon joined the Army in 1990 and was deployed to Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and again from 2007 to 2009. He received a Bronze Star for his service to the nation as a combat engineer.

A Brooklyn gospel singer says that a shard of glass in her McDonald’s chicken sandwich irreparably damaged her vocal chords, affecting both her singing career and her job. Jacqueline Simpson claims to have eaten the glass at a Manhattan McDonalds in 2010. She claims that since then, her soprano voice has changed so much that she now sounds like a man.

Simpson has filed a lawsuit against the fast-food mega-chain, seeking damages for the effect that the “surprise” inside her sandwich caused to her life. She claims that, since swallowing the glass, which she described as larger than a penny, she has a “hoarse, ratty voice.” She told the New York Post that she still sings a lot, “but I can’t sing soprano like I used to.”

Simpson also says that her job requires her to speak on the phone regularly, and that, since the glass, she must now clarify that she is a woman and not a man.

Simpson filed a lawsuit in Brooklyn Supreme Court, and the damages she is seeking are not known.

McDonalds is no stranger to unusual lawsuits. Perhaps the most famous one filed against the company was the 1996 incident in which a woman sued them after spilling hot coffee on herself. In 2012, another woman sued the company after she spilled hot coffee on her baby. In 2012, a woman sued McDonalds for pushing her into a life of prostitution.

A recent episode of  Ellen featured a quasi-reunion of cast-members for Friends in a sketch where Jennifer Aniston meets up with Mathew Perry to ask advice on how to perform on the Ellen show. The skit seemed to flirt with the idea that the group would actually have some sort of reunion – or at least Jennifer Anniston liked the idea.

“You want to announce it here?” DeGeneres asked her co-host, as reported on Eonline.com.

“Do I?” said Aniston “Don’t you want to do it? Say you want to do it?”

She then added, “I will say this, though: doing that little bit with Matty and Court yesterday was … we were very nostalgic and miss working with each other. We miss each other, and it’s a great thing to go back to your family like that. Also, I know that people will love it.”

The skit staged an awkward reunion where Perry chides Aniston for showing up at his house at 8 a.m. She returns “We used to walk into each other’s apartments all the time. I mean, we’re friends!”

“That was a TV show, we haven’t actually seen each other in a pretty long time, like eight years.”

At this point, Courtney Cox steps out of the house and erupts, “You’re sleeping with her, too?!”

The Xbox 360 has been rocking the market for 90 months – quite a long time for a game console to last – but many agree its high time for Microsoft to produce their next evolution of gaming technology. Enter Xbox One. This new integrated gaming console, which also acts as a computer, allows Skyping, and integrates television control, is all but sure to dominate its market for years to come.

The sheer amount of power infused into the console staggers in comparison to the 360. Its maker boasts that it will have 8 times the graphic performance of the 360, with a raw transistor count of 5 billion as compared to the previous 500 million and a memory upgrade from 512 MB to 8 GB. This requires careful airflow to keep it cool; and the system has been carefully designed to use a minimum of energy and not overheat. It also connects to Microsoft’s Azure cloud computer platform, giving it the ability, for instance, to process multiplayer games with up to 128 participants, over the previous 32. The cloud access will allow the games to take advantage of the incredible possibilities and performance that programmers can utilize by having processing tasks done in the cloud.

“It’s not like on day one, everyone will have figured out how to take advantage of that power,” said chief product officer Marc Whitten, as reported by Wired. “It’s just one of those stakes we’re placing.”

The system has the next stage of its Kinect sensor, which uses a 1080p camera with a 60 percent larger field then its earlier incarnation. Games that involve reading body movements will be much smoother flowing to play. It also uses voice activation that can control not only pausing the game, but with integration into your television, can take you to whatever television show you want, without having to use a television controller. “Xbox, watch CNN” will be sufficient for getting to the channel you want.

Such technology, when combined with Skype and streamed video, allow you to converse with friends, even while playing video games.

Since the Xbox simultaneously runs three separate operating systems, multitasking will be its strong point. With an internet, television, and gaming console as separate units, things got confusing, but integrating all of that into one interface is one of the selling points of the new Xbox One, which is destined, perhaps, to rule the market for a long time to come. It has integrated some of the intuitive logic of smartphones, the streaming of Skype, and allowed television to work through it: it promises to be a success in the market.

The balance between a free press and national security is an important and precarious one, but the current presidential administration may be tipping the balance in favor of security. The administration of President Barack Obama is being condemned for tracking the movements of a journalist who worked with a State Department contractor to report on North Korea’s nuclear program. James Rosen, a reporter with Fox News, received information about North Korea from government contractor Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Kim has been charged by the Justice Department for violating the Espionage Act by providing information to Rosen, and a recent article from the Washington Post revealed that the Department of Justice has also been tracking Rosen and reading his emails.

Rosen has also been charged as a co-conspirator, which is related to the fact that he developed a plan for covertly communicating with Kim in order to obtain information.

Kim, who was working as a weapons contractor for the State Department and had security clearance, is accused of providing information about North Korea’s nuclear testing policies to Rosen, who reported the information in an article published in 2009. Kim has since been charged by the Department of Justice, and, seeking to obtain access to Rosen’s phone records and email correspondence with Kim, charged the reporter as a co-conspirator to Kim’s crimes in 2010.

The Obama administration’s investigation and prosecution of Rosen is comparable to another recent scandal in which the Justice Department obtained the telephone records of more than 20 Associated Press Journalists. While this investigation was on a larger scale, the government only investigated the reporters’ phone records and not their personal email.

Responding to the outrage of journalists across the country, President Obama said that press freedoms must be balanced against the protection of U.S. personnel overseas. The Justice Department said that it obeyed “all applicable laws, regulations, and longstanding Department of Justice policies intended to safeguard the First Amendment interests of the press in reporting the news and the public in receiving it.”

Information leaks have been an enormous problem for the current administration, and it has been aggressive in investigating and prosecuting those responsible for the leaks. The Obama administration pursued more information leak-related cases than all previous administrations combined.

Fox News, which employs Rosen and published the article that caused the investigation, released a statement saying, “We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter. In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.”

When a senator or public speaker discusses a given tragedy or law it’s always worth considering, “Yes, but what if it happened to him or her?” When Pat Robertson, outspoken Christian leader, suggested Oklahoma tornado victims should have prayed more, we wonder if he would say the same thing if his own house were hit by a tornado. Specifically, he said, “If enough people were praying He would’ve intervened, you could pray, Jesus stilled the storm, you can still storms.” Maybe some Robertson specific tragedy will soon even the score? But meanwhile, we have something a lot more like reciprocation with Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, the senior senator, who voted along with fellow Oklahoma senator Tom Coburn against a Hurricane Sandy relief bill. So does he want there to be no funding now that tornados have ravaged his home state? He sees the instances as “totally different.”

“They were getting things, for instance, that was supposed to be in New Jersey,” he told MSNBC. “They had things in the Virgin Islands. They were fixing roads there, they were putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C. Everybody was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place. That won’t happen in Oklahoma.”

Whether things really are “totally different,” there are at least some differences. Sandy was the nation’s second most expensive storm, costing $50 billion, whereas Oklahoma has requested around $67 million since 1999 for its series of tornadoes. It is unclear what federal disaster relief will be given, though President Barack Obama did say on Tuesday he has signed for some relief.

Coburn at least is consistent in saying that he expects any relief for Oklahoma to be offset by cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. The spokesman for Inhofe declined to comment on whether or not Inhofe will also seek offsets.

Steven Miller got grilled a second time Tuesday for his involvement with the IRS scandal that unfairly targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, and as of today, it’s Lois Lerner’s turn in the hot seat. Lois Lerner heads the Internal Revenue Service’s tax-exempt division. Only things might not be so hot for her in the hot seat – she can always plead the fifth.

That is exactly what her lawyer, William W. Taylor III, told committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., that Lerner would not reveal anything self-incriminating. He even suggested Issa dismiss her entirely from the hearing, giving that she plans to stay mum on certain issues.

But Issa wasn’t having it. She is, after all, under subpoena to appear, and “Chairman Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs,” said committee spokesman Ali Ahmed in a statement, as reported by Fox News.

So speaking or not, she’s going. She plans on remaining silent over two issues: first, what she knew about the intensified levels of scrutiny applied to conservative nonprofit organizations, something that’s been going on since 2010; and second, why she didn’t disclose what she knew to Congress.

After all, different Republican constituents were wondering why their groups were taking so long to be processed by the IRS.

Her lawyer Taylor said that Lerner “Has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation,” as his letter to Issa says, according to MailOnline, “but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course.”

The circumstances referred to have to do with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee seeking a person willing to take actual responsibility for the scandalous practices of targeting certain partisan groups in IRS vetting. Whether they will find somebody to hang it on is uncertain. Though Steven Miller was willing to apologize Tuesday and admit regret for the incident, nobody has claimed ownership of it.

Lerner, for one, claims that the increase in scrutiny for such groups as those that had the name “Tea Party” or “Patriot” was simply a reaction to a larger number of such groups applying, and that this was following the Supreme Court’s ‘Citizens United’ ruling. The Washington Post has called this a false claim, however, awarding it “four Pinocchios” for dishonesty.

Though Steven Miller was dismissed from his post, it is unclear at this point whether Lerner is under a similar threat of losing her position.

The State Bar of California’s Committee of Bar Examiners released the passage rate for those that took February’s Bar Exam, and found that it is slightly lower than it was for the same test in 2012. 41% of those that sat for the February 2013 exam passed the test, a drop of 1.2% from February 2012, which saw 42.2% percent pass. A total of 1,810 people who sat for the bar last February will be admitted.

A total of 4,419 people sat for the California State Bar exam in February, and 31% of those (1,370) were taking the test for the first time. Among first-time test-takers, the passage rate was 52%, and for those repeating the exam, the rate was 36%. The passage rate for students from ABA accredited schools was 50%, and 82% of the students that passed were from California.

In addition to those that passed the bar, 230 (50%) of the 460 lawyers who took the Attorney’s Examination, a modified, smaller version of the Bar Exam, passed.

While the passing rate showed a slight dip this year, 41% is still a good number. Known for having one of the more difficult bar exams in the United States, California had an eight year streak, from 2002 to 2010, of having a February exam passage rate of less than 40%. The lowest February passage rate in California was in 2002, when only 33.4% of those taking the test passed. The fact that this year’s rate is above 41% can be considered something of a victory for the state’s legal community.

February’s rate is significantly lower than the passage rate for those taking the July 2012 exam as well, which was 55.3%. The July exam traditionally has a higher passage rate than the February one, due primarily to the fact that law students graduate prior to and then sit for the July exam.

Today Cooley LLP announced that they have hired Ray Hartman, a litigator, for the firm’s San Diego Office. Hartman joins Cooley from DLA Piper, and has considerable experience in environmental, toxic tort, product liability, and real estate litigation. The addition of Hartman to the firm’s San Diego office will help strengthen the firm’s national litigation practice.

Hartman earned his J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of Law, his M.A. in Political Science, Law, and Public Policy from the University of Southern California, and his B.A., cum laude, from the University of San Diego.

“Ray is an extremely talented litigator with a particularly strong track record in environmental litigation. He will be a great asset to our clients, particularly those who face challenges in the environmental area,” said Mike Attanasio, chair of Cooley’s Litigation department and partner in charge of Cooley’s San Diego office. “With Ray’s admission, our national litigation practice becomes that much stronger as his trial and strategic counseling skills will be deployed across the firm to the benefit of our entire client base.”

“I know I am joining a truly dedicated and team-oriented group of trial lawyers who have proven through countless courtroom successes an ability to guide clients through their most challenging matters,” said Hartman. “I am excited to work with perhaps the best group of trial lawyers in the state.”

Cooley’s San Diego office is one of the ten the firm has across the country, with an eleventh in Shanghai. The San Diego office maintains a focus on serving technology and life science companies, venture funds, and investment banks in the Southern California region. Cooley has more than 700 attorneys currently practicing with the firm.

President Barrack Obama praised the Senate Judiciary Committee and said, “I encourage the full Senate to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor at the earliest possible opportunity and remain hopeful that the amendment process will lead to further improvements.”

In a last moment, but not entirely unexpected development, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy withdrew his proposed amendment to provide U.S. citizens the right to sponsor their same-sex partners for green cards.

Before withdrawing his amendment, Leahy said, “I’m committed to ending that discrimination.”

Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, a gay rights group said in a statement, “Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for not defending LGBT families against the scapegoating of their Republican colleagues.”

On a similar vein, but on the hiring of tech-workers angle, Marc Apter, president of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers stated, “It would be nice if Congress would look out for its citizens rather than the profit-driven interests of employers.” Apter referred to the removal of the provision in the tech-worker agreement that had been there to ensure U.S. companies searched for an “equally qualified” resident of U.S. before going out to hire foreign workers.

Under the new reforms that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 13-5 vote, depending on unemployment levels and other factors, the number of highly skilled workers allowed to be admitted to the country can rise from 85,000 to 180,000 each year.

However, the bill also spelled out that companies with 15 percent or more foreign workers would be subjected to tighter scrutiny in applications made for H-1B visas.

Speaking on the occasion, Guy N. Halgren, the chairman of Sheppard Mullin, said, “Mike’s practice straddles general business litigation and intellectual property litigation and transactional matters, practice areas that Sheppard Mullin has significantly developed.  His knowledge and experience is both complementary and supplementary to our existing practices, and we welcome him to the firm.”

On his part, Heimbold commented, “Sheppard Mullin is a top-notch full service firm that has strong litigation capabilities and offers an excellent platform to support my clients and grow my practice.  I was particularly attracted to Sheppard Mullin by the firm’s, collegial atmosphere and entrepreneurial culture.  I am also impressed by the depth and breadth of Sheppard Mullin’s corporate practice group, as well as the strength of firm’s patent litigation practice.”

Heimbold is one of the country’s leading lawyers in IP litigation. He received his J.D. from Loyola Law School in 1994 and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from California State University, Long Beach, in 1988.

Heimbold has served as lead counsel in jury and bench trials, arbitrations, administrative agency hearings, and appellate proceedings throughout the United States. He has handled cases involving misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, trademark and copyright licensing and infringement, patent infringement, shareholder and partnership disputes, environmental claims, product defects, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty and etcetera.

Heimbold is also well known as a highly esteemed transactional lawyer in the IP related market and has negotiated high profile technology licenses besides advising clients in the consumer products and entertainment industries on over $1 billion worth of M&A transactions.

Heimbold is a founding member of the firm he leaves and served on Steptoe’s executive committee in 2007 and 2008. Before joining Sheppard Mullin he had been named as a managing partner for Steptoe’s Century City office.

A Florida teenager is facing felony charges for her lesbian relationship with an underage girl, but her parents say that she is being persecuted not because of her relationship with a minor, but because the relationship is homosexual in nature. The public has rallied to the girl’s side, but authorities insist that charges won’t be dropped.

Kaitlyn Hunt is a high school senior at Sebastian River High School in Sebastian, FL, and has been carrying on a romantic relationship with another, younger girl at the school. When the two began dating, Hunt was 17 and the unidentified girl was 14. Hunt is now 18, and the girl is 15. Shortly after Hunt turned 18, the parents of the unidentified girl pressed charges on Hunt, and petitioned the local school board to have her expelled from Sebastian River.

Hunt was arrested at her home on February 16 by Sebastian Police and taken away in handcuffs. She was charged this week with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery of a child 12 to 16 years of age. While Hunt’s sexual relationship with the unidentified girl is indeed criminal, Hunt maintains that it was consensual and that both her own and the other girl’s parents were aware and approved of the coupling.

Hunt’s mother, Kelly Hunt Smith, created a Facebook page in which she relates her own version of the events, which include her daughter’s removal from the high school’s varsity basketball team for being gay, and says that the unidentified girl’s parents were out to get Kaitlin. “The parents then conspired with police to entrap Kaitlyn and press charges. The law is designed to protect our children, but the law does not serve its purpose when it is applied to consensual behavior between peers.” Steven Hunt, Kaitlyn’s father, claims that the parents are pressing charges because they blame Kaitlyn for their own daughter’s homosexuality.

Though two judges ruled that Hunt would not be expelled from Sebastian River High, Smith says that the unidentified girl’s parents put pressure on the County School Board, and Hunt has since been expelled and placed at an alternative school within the district.

Hunt’s story has gone viral across the internet, and several petitions have been started to request that her charges be dropped. One petition has drawn 30,000 signatures, and internet activist group Anonymous has taken up her cause.

Despite the outrage, a Florida state attorney told CBS that the charges will not be dropped.

At a press conference, River County Sheriff Deryl Loar said, “If this was an 18 year-old male and that was a 14 year-old girl, it would have been prosecuted the same way.”

Image Credit: Facebook