After two years without a charge for the death of Maurice Spagnoletti, the former Doral Bank executive, his widow has claimed a wrongful death suit against the bank he worked for. Police do believe that Spagnoletti was killed in a hit, an orchestrated event, that resulted in him being shot multiple times in his Lexus, driving home to his beach front property while on a busy highway. The widow and her family allege that the bank arranged to have him done in because he was exposing fraud within the bank.

Spagnoletti, 56, was shot in 2011. Prior to that, he had been exposing abuses of the bank, and they had been trying to bar his attempts.

“Spagnoletti lived in fear of imminent death and suffered mental anguish prior to being shot multiple times while driving alone in his car,” the suit says.

The FBI, meanwhile, is clueless in their investigation. “We have had some leads, but not enough to bring charges. That’s why we have been placing more emphasis on this case. It is very important to us,” said U.S. Attorney Rosa Emilia Rodriguez, according to Reuters.

The bank necessarily denies all allegations. “It is false, frivolous and has absolutely no legal basis,” the company said in a statement, also mentioning that they have cooperated with authorities. “[We] are confident that we will prevail against this malicious and reckless action that has no basis.”

No basis? At least it is suspicious that Spagnoletti was uncovering fraudulent accounting practices and improper payments, and seeking to have a senior bank employee fired for making hundreds of thousands on improper payments. Spagnoletti also received threats after he pursued this line of inquiry, suggesting a connection with his untimely death.

Doral Bank is Puerto Rico’s sixth largest bank, with 26 branches in Puerto Rico, Florida and New York.

10. SSC Ultimate Aero: $654,400

Why not buy American? Why not buy the third fastest street legal car in the world? Why not cruise at 257, after reaching 0-60 in 2.7 seconds? If you get pulled over, the cop might let you off based on sheer wow! But act fast – only 25 cars of this precise model will be made.

9. Pagani Zonda C12 F: $667,321

This Italian gem is sexy and svelte, and yet capable of horsing at 215 mph, after zipping from 0-60 mph in 3.5 seconds.

8. Ferrari Enzo: $670,000

Ferrari is a name sure to turn heads – if the model itself hasn’t already done so — and this particular model is especially precious with only 400 in existence, and selling at auctions now at over $1M. Cruising up to 217 it hits 60 after 3.2 seconds.

7. McLaren F1: $970,000

This 1994 beast is still making the list, with a top cruising speed of 240 and reaching 0 to 60 in 3.4 seconds. The bold upwards opening doors and broad shaped body distinguish it as a solid intimidator.

6. Hennessey Venom GT Spyder: $1,100,000

This dangerous sounding car costs over a million – an incomparable convertible that is sleek and sexy and vicious. Goes from 0-5 in 2.5 seconds.

5. Zenvo ST1: $1,225,000

The pride of new Danish supercar company, this skull-suggesting broad faced vehicle reaches 60 in 2.9 seconds and cruises at 233. The company made only 15 units with a guarantee to keep each of them running.

4. Maybach Landaulet: $1,380,000

The Landaulet is all about luxury. Designed for CEOs and Executives who have their own personal driver, the vehicle oozes distinguishment. The most expensive Sedan in the market, it reaches 60 in 5.2 seconds.

TIED FOR 3RD PLACE

3. Koenigsegg Agera R: $1,600,000

This svelte, race-car-looking model reaches 60 in 2.8 seconds, and can hit 260, though you need to sign a waiver for the car to do so, as it is electronically limited to 235.

3. Lamborghini Reventon: $1,600,000

With a name like Lamborghini you can just mention your car’s name and sense a tremble of envy. This model, the most power and also the most expensive Lamborghini has made, hits 60 in 3.3 seconds and speeds up to 211. There are only 20 of this particular unit in existence.

TIED FOR 2ND PLACE:

2. Pagani Zonda Cinque Roadster: $1,850,000

This sporty looking sports car goes from 0-60 in 3.4 seconds reaching 217 mph.

2. Aston Martin One 77: $1,850,000

Only 77 units of this car exist. It sails to 60 in 3.4 seconds and maxes at 220 mph, with 750 hp.

1. Bugatti Veyron Super Sports: $2,400,000

Ah the Bugatti! The most expensive street legal car on the market, it 0-60’s in 2.5 seconds, and reaches a top speed of 267. “Oh, I won’t be too late, I’m in my Bugatti” – end of conversation.

Comedian Russell Brand’s appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe talk show on Monday erupted into a bout of passive aggressive versus aggressive. Host Mika Brzezinski and her guest panelists Katty Kay and Brian Shactman began speaking about Brand as if he wasn’t in the studio, which enraged Brand and started an escalating verbal exchange in the course of an eight minute “interview.”

Brand, who appeared on the show to promote his upcoming stand-up comedy tour, was initially complimented by Brzezinski and her guests, before the complimentary dialogue begins to exclude Brand, much to his shock. The events begin just as Brand concludes a tirade against the media taking content out of context. (Ironically, it seems that many of Brand’s remarks during the rest of the interview have been taken out of context by the media.)

As Shactman begins to discuss the difficulty he has with getting past Brand’s English accent when he hears him on the radio in his car, he addresses the Brzezinski and Kay as if Brand isn’t in the room, saying “I find Brand difficult to understand sometimes, but now that he is in the room, I can understand him perfectly.”

Brzenzinksi responds, “Brand is something that I guess you need to experience in person.”

Brand quickly takes offense to being discussed as though he was a scientific specimen, and points out the poor manners of the host and the two panelists, who apologize and briefly correct themselves, before once again talking about him as though he is not sitting next to them in the same room.

What starts as a seemingly light-hearted criticism of the host and the panelists by Brand continues into uncomfortable territory, as Brand begins to attack Brzezinski, Shactman and Kay. He compares Brzezinski’s hair to Princess Diana’s, and criticizes the panelists for the superficiality in regards to their focus on appearance and depth of their commentary.

In a reversal of what he has been observing from his hosts, Brand addresses the camera and speaks about them, saying, “I understand that these people are typically very good at what they do.”

Finally, just before the show cuts to commercial, Brand comments on what he perceives as a suggestive gesture being made by Brzezinski involving a water bottle, advising her to take off her wedding ring before she continues what she had just been doing, embarrassing Brzenzinski.

Image Credit: Eva Rinaldi

26 years, without discipline, and the L.A. lawyer had the respect and prestige he wanted, with a “very good” rating from Avvo. But enough’s enough, and attorney Randalf Kincaid snapped at 405 Freeway at Burbank in a fit of road rage, got out his car, dressed in white shirt and tie, and the old man sucker punched another old man, dressed in white shirt and tie, on the open road, while other drivers looked on. One woman even recorded it.

“I thought maybe they knew each other, but then he hit him,” said the Jessica Breuer, who recorded the event, as reported by abc13.

“As I’m sitting there, suddenly the person in the car in front of me leaps out of his car, he runs over to the car in the other lane, and the guy opens his door, and the guy who had run out just starts hitting him,” said Breuer.

After bloodening the second man up a bit, bruiser Randalf Kincaid went back to his car, apparently to leave the scene, was prevented as he was taken down in a headlock. Other drivers helped separate the two and wait for authorities to come. Kincaid was arrested and taken to jail, while the other driver, who preferred to remain anonymous, wondered what all the fuss was about, and reported that Kincaid kept saying “You could have killed me!”

As the public eye focuses ever more harshly on the practice of genetically modifying food, Chipotle has joined other national brands in labeling the ingredients used by the company that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Chipotle is the first American fast food chain to label their ingredients in this fashion, and is doing so completely voluntarily.

The change was instituted in March, well before the use and labeling of GMOs in consumer products was protested in dozens of cities around the world last month. But because the labeling was neither publicized nor promoted, the change, specifically the red letter “g” next to any ingredient that has been genetically modified, went unnoticed for several months.

The labeling of GMOs has been a controversial issue over the last several years. Several states have attempted to pass legislation requiring GMOs to be labeled as such, but most attempts have failed. The Food and Drug Administration has issued assurances saying that GMOs are safe for human consumption, but some tests have shown results that call into question the FDA’s conclusions. Many others oppose the business practices of corporations that manufacture, sell, and produce GMOs.

Among the 24 ingredients listed on the site, 12 contain GMOs, including the tortillas, rice, and the majority of the meat options. The Huffington Post reports that Chipotle’s executives have previously campaigned in favor of legislation that would mandate the labeling of GMOs, and that the site’s ingredient page indicates that the company would like to phase out GMOs over the next several years, but that it is difficult to find reliable sources of soy and corn that don’t rely on GMOs.

While Chipotle is the first fast food chain to label GMOs in their ingredients, they are not the first national food company to do so. Ben & Jerry’s started labeling their GMO ingredients, and announced that they will be phasing out the use of modified ingredients over the next several years. Grocery store chain Whole Foods also announced that they will be requiring companies they work with to label GMOs in their products over the next few years.

Yale Law School, one of the oldest and most prestigious law schools in the nation, has acquired an extremely old and prestigious collection of historical legal manuscripts. The school has spent the last five years negotiating with London barrister and legal historian Anthony Taussig, who has agreed to give a small portion of his historical materials to Yale for an undisclosed amount of money.

The school has arranged to purchase 200 books and 400 manuscripts from Taussig’s collection.

The manuscripts will bolster an already impressive collection at Yale’s Lillian Goldman Law Library. The library has a focus on the works of William Blackstone, a 16^th century attorney whose work played a key role in the development of the American legal system, and the collection acquired from Taussig will add 23 additional Blackstone books to the school. The school also sought manuscripts that focus on the efforts to reform the law.

The National Law Journal reports that other highlights from the collection include the first book of English law, a 1481 abridgement of statutes; the first English book about women’s legal rights from 1632; and a pamphlet about the 1772 Sommerset case, which outlawed slavery in the British Isles. The collection also includes correspondence from and about Blackstone, and 207 letters written to 18^th century attorney William Tidd.

“There is a bit of a museum aspect to this,” said Mike Widener, the library’s rare book librarian. “We demonstrate to law students that they are joining a profession with a long, illustrious and important history. The collection offers a physical connection to legal history, and they show us how lawyers have used these resources. They are all marked up by those that used them.”

The new managing shareholder of Fort Lauderdale law firm Becker & Poliakoff has made some bold changes since taking over the firm, including moving to larger offices and acquiring two smaller firms, but no decision has been more controversial than the holdback of a portion of equity partners’ salaries. Gary Rosen, who took over the role of the firm’s managing shareholder 18 months ago, stressed that this type of policy is not atypical of large law firms, and is done as a means to stimulate growth at the firm and secure its financial future.

Rosen, a former litigator, spoke with the Daily Business Review about his year and a half as the leader of Becker & Poliakoff, and confirmed that of all of the firm’s recent changes, nothing has been as controversial as a decision to hold back 20 percent of each equity partner’s income. The policy, which withholds a portion of the partner’s income for several months, is used to shore up the firm’s cash flow. Popular at many larger law firms, all money that is held back is typically returned by the end of the fiscal year.

“The standard is partners do not take 100 percent,” said Rosen. “They are owners of the business. It makes sense to have a reserve. This has nothing to do with the economic circumstances of our business,” he added. “We’re fully reserved. Ultimately, I think the partners understood … and recognize it’s a smart way to run a business.”

As a mid-sized firm, Becker & Poliakoff attorneys were not expecting to have their salaries held back. Rosen’s predecessor instituted a 10 percent holdback for all attorneys, and this practice proved incredibly unpopular, and led to several lawyers leaving the firm and a lawsuit. Rosen feels that, as part-owners of the business, equity partners should be able to sacrifice some of their immediate earnings for the sake of the company.

Some of the firm’s equity partners disagree. One partner, speaking with Daily Business Review anonymously, said that it was not so much the holdbacks that are the problem, but how the policy was announced and has been instituted. Sharing the way that the partner learned of the holdbacks in January, the person said, “We received an email out of the blue, not a phone call, not an equity partnership meeting. Who does that?” Another partner said that a recent partner meeting led to a shouting match and tears, and that paychecks were withheld late last year without notice.

Rosen says that the attorneys had been fully briefed on the policy at a meeting, and that so far there have been few problems. The withholding of salary for equity partners will be effectively reduced to only 10 percent in July, and he says that all of the money that has been held so far will be returned to the partners by the end of the year.

Privately held Standard Innovation called their innovation of the two-armed vibrator “a global sensation” on their website and belonging to their brand “We-Vibe.”

It filed its complaint against vibrator manufacturer Lelo Inc and a long list of other companies including sales and distribution agents like Nalpac Enterprises, Williams Trading Co, Honey’s Place Inc, Lover’s Lane & Co, and others.

Earlier, an ITC judge had held in a preliminary finding made in January that the patent holder, based in Ottawa, did not have sufficient commercial activity in the United States to prevail at the ITC. However that finding was not accepted by the full commission.

The ITC banned sales and distribution of the two-armed vibrators made by Lelo Inc, and other patent infringers.

The “global sensation” is designed to be worn for use during sex by a couple. The latest models, as shown on their website can also be operated remotely (??)

It is expected that Standard Innovation, which was featured this year in Bloomberg and Huffington Post would be directly catering to U.S. customers.

However, it is not known how far it is going to aid public interest in knowing the number of NSA requests made, as far as the natures of those requests remain impossible to reveal for reasons of national security.

Google’s move comes in response of trying to protect its user base following the Snowden leak. The petition filed by Google at the FISC observed, “In light of the intense public interest generated by the Guardian’s and Post’s erroneous articles, and others that have followed them, Google seeks to increase its transparency with users and the public regarding its receipt of national security requests, if any.”

Tech companies like Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple struck an agreement with the U.S. government last week and released some information about the aggregate numbers of data requests made by government to the companies. However, those numbers were not separated into how many of those data requests were from the federal governments and how many from state or local governments or law enforcement agencies. The agreement permits the companies to release the aggregate numbers for a six-month period.

Major tech companies situated in U.S. are desperate to win back the trust of users and retain users after it was revealed by the Washington Post and Guardian that the NSA had “direct access” to the servers of these companies under the PRISM program.

Google also said that though it wanted to publish the aggregate number of NSA requests, the US DOJ and the FBI had told it that such an act would be considered illegal.

U.S. based tech companies, of course, were not so concerned about First Amendment rights of themselves or the right to information of the people, before the Snowden leak, as far as NSA surveillance was concerned. However, now one thing has become clear to the public across the world, that if you have data on a server in the U.S., the NSA can have access to it.

The real fear felt by the U.S. tech companies is possible rise of competitors in other countries whose servers cannot be legally accessed by the NSA, and who are not compliant to U.S. laws. This, however, is bound to happen once the cat is out of the bag.

Mass surveillance and data gathering and storing without reasonable suspicion, where the records can be accessed later at will by anyone who comes in control of such data, is a reality in U.S. democracy.

While it is of no concern to the ordinary citizen engrossed with daily struggles – the fact remains that the back of any voice of social or political dissent can be broken in an instant, with their connections and social circles exposed from past records collected and stored methodically – if people who have control over the data ever think of putting it to use according to their exigencies.

If such data is on U.S. based servers or on servers of U.S. based companies.

So, competitors and social media companies or search engines who have their servers elsewhere in the world and not subject to PRISM now have a chance of success unless U.S. tech companies can come up with solutions and guarantees acceptable to their user bases.

This is the problem that U.S. tech companies now have to address.

Laura Gambrel wanted just a small celebration for graduating from Indiana University in May; after all, she was going on to grad school in the fall to get her Masters of Public Affairs. Since Fathers Day and her sister’s birthday all fell at about the same time, they thought they should celebrate the whole shebang with a cake sporting her smiling face on it. As a last minute idea, the mother told the baker to put a graduation cap on her daughter’s head.

“My mom thought it would be funny to get a face cake,” said Laura, as reported by ABC News. “She got it and she asked them to draw a little cap on. But when she went to pick it up later, she saw that there was a cat on it, and started laughing hysterically and said, ‘No, that’s not what I meant at all.’”

But the cat was too good to remove. I mean, who wants to remove a cat once they get comfortable somewhere? So they left the picture of the “graduation cat” on her head.

“When I went to pick it up at the store, I could not stop laughing,” said Carol Gambrel, Laura’s mother. “I told them not to scrape it off. It was one of those young kids behind the counter and he seemed a little distracted with someone else ordering a cake a foot away from us. We went through the school colors and everything, and I said, ‘Oh, could you draw a cap on her head?’ And he gives me this look.”

“We were all just cracking up,” Carol Gambrel said. “Who would have thought she’d get her 15 minutes with a cat cake?”

The cat cake has garnished 29,000 votes on Reddit, proving that there are few things that couldn’t be made better by the presence of a cat.

It’s always tender when a father cares. But with Boing Boing founder Mark Frauenfelder making a crusade out of what he calls his 15-year-old daughter’s “shaming” by a TSA officer, you have to wonder. Having a sense of sexual shame (AKA modesty) is befitting to men and women everywhere, despite the fact that “slut-shaming” as become a sort of PC knee-jerk term to shame those with a sense of sexual propriety.

When a TSA officer at LAX was checking the IDs of the daughters and her friends, she said he was “glaring” at her and mumbling. She said “excuse me?” and he said, “You’re only 15, cover yourself!” The outfit doesn’t seem especially adult, nevertheless, and the father made a blog about it saying that it was “none of his business to tell girls what they should or should not wear.” He then went on to insinuate that “his creepy thoughts are his own problem.” But anybody who has watched “Toddlers & Tiaras” and seen little kids dressed up like adult entertainment dancers knows that “creepy thoughts” are not just a personal problem.

A friend of their family, Maureen Herman, was quoted in the blog as well:

Absolutely inappropriate, harassing, aggressive, creepy, unprofessional, and Taliban-y thing that he did. “Cover up” is a dangerous cultural attitude that fuels more than rude comments. It’s the foundation of the oppression of women, rape culture (“she was asking for it”), and the drive for reproductive control of women’s bodies.

That is to say, embedded in his quip that she was dressed too provocatively lies all that is wrong in humanity. Amazing! He stands for the oppression of women, rape culture, Islam, and he is against reproductive rights. Talk about overreacting to a minor problem. The daughter might appreciate such a protective father now, but come on! With all this ire about slut shaming, what about modesty shaming?

The TSA, for their part, responded to the incident in a memo to the Huffington Post:

TSA officers are trained and expected to perform screening methods in a dignified and respectful manner at all times. We work to make our screening procedures as minimally invasive as possible while providing the highest level of security for the traveling public.

 

We regret that this passenger had an unpleasant experience and are in the process of thoroughly reviewing the circumstances.

Of course the TSA exacts a sort of military state in airports – so they can at least hold to disciplined behavior and a respect for civilians.

Rap performer Lil Wayne sang his controversial invective against America in this video, crooning about the godlessness of America, while wearing a shirt that combined the holy crucifix with the dollar sign, and meanwhile stomping all over the American flag. The giant American flag drops to the ground and while Wayne raps, he steps all over the national icon.

“My country ’tis of thee / Sweet land of kill ‘em all and let ‘em die / God bless Amerika / This ole’ godless Amerika,” he croons through diamond-encrusted teeth, and sort of shuffles left and right over the flag.

For his part though, stomping the American flag wasn’t part of the show. He tweets that, “I didn’t step on the flag on purpose! It’s a scene in a video where the flag drops behind me and after it drop it’s just there as I perform.”

To credit him, he doesn’t seem to be deliberately stomping the flag, though he looks down at it often enough. Nevertheless, the Tweeterverse ain’t happy about it. As one person reported by the Washington Post said:

“Lil Wayne standing on an American flag for a music video? That’s disrespectful to the extreme.”

The footage was obtained by TMZ, but as Lil Wayne further explained, it will not be in the final video he is making:

“It was never my intention to desecrate the flag of the United States of America. I was shooting a video for a song off my album entitled ‘God Bless Amerika’. The clip that surfaced on the Internet was a camera trick clip that revealed that behind the American Flag was the Hoods of America,” he said. “In the final edit of the video you will see the flag fall to reveal what is behind it but will never see it on the ground.”

When asked a reasonably straightforward question during the Miss USA pageant, Miss Utah USA Marissa Powell was unable to provide a straightforward answer. While the question was phrased in a less than optimal manner, Powell’s stumbling, stuttering, pause-filled and incomprehensible response  was out there enough to go viral in a fashion comparable to Miss Teen USA’s Caitlin Upton’s response about “US Americans,” “such as,” and “the Iraq.”

The question posed to Powell was, “A recent report shows that in 40 percent of American families with children, women are the primary earners yet they continue to earn less than men. What does this say about society?” While the question, as read by Nene Leakes, is a little oddly worded, Powell’s response is even odder.

“I think we can relate this back to education,” begins Powell, who starts off intelligible but is already missing the point of the question, “and how we are…continuing to try to strive to [extended pause] figure out how to create jobs right now. That is the biggest problem. And I think, especially the men are… um….seen as the leaders of this, and so we need to try to figure out how to create education better  so we can solve this problem. Thank you.”

Shortly after the pageant, TMZ reports that Powell admitted to her friends that she couldn’t hear the question, and rather than ask the judge to repeat it, began to blurt out a response that came across as irrelevant and jumbled.

Unsurprisingly, Powell did not win the competition, losing out to Miss Connecticut Erin Brady, but Powell did win the competition in regards to achieving fame, however humiliating that fame may be.

Powell appeared on the Today show on Monday morning, where Matt Lauer asked her what was running through her mind when she provided the stunning answer to the question.

“Oh my gosh, so much,” said Powell. “I can’t even tell you. I was so excited and I was so nervous. I got up to this top five question and I was the first one. And I got up and the question was a little bit confusing to me and I just started speaking without even processing. I just started going.”

15 stores have been raided by the Department of Homeland Security, and it’s been exposed that undocumented immigrants from Pakistan have been employed using Social Security numbers stolen from children or the dead so that they can work up to 100 hours a week at lower than minimum wage. 40 further franchises are being investigated, and about 20 people have so far been arrested.

The 7-Elevens in question are in New York and Virginia, with most of the raids taking place in Suffolk County, Long Island, as PIX 11 News reported.

“These defendants ruthlessly exploited their immigrant employees, stealing their wages and requiring them to live in unregulated boarding houses, in effect creating a modern day plantation system” said federal prosecutor Loretta E. Lynch.

“The 7-11 franchises seized today will be better known for their big fraud than their Big Gulp,” said James Hayes, who isn’t paid for his stand up comedy, but is a special agent in charge of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s office of investigations in New York, as reported by ABC News.

This situation has been going on since 2000, and was finally addressed after several employees reported the injustice to the authorities.

The enlarged federal probe will look into how stores are run in Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. On Monday, 7-Eleven sent a statement to the Huffington Post:

7-Eleven, Inc. has cooperated with the government’s investigation. All of our franchise owners must operate their stores in accordance with laws and the 7-Eleven franchise agreement.

7-Eleven, Inc. will take aggressive actions to audit the employment status of all its franchisees’ employees.

7-Eleven, Inc. is taking steps to assume corporate operation of the stores involved in this action so we can continue to serve our guests.

We continue to cooperate with federal authorities in this matter.

The nine defendants on the case are being held without bail, and are scheduled to appear in court next on July 15.

After the Supreme Court ruled against an Arizona law requiring voters to prove their citizenship before registering to vote, one of the state’s senators, Ted Cruz introduced an amendment to the Senate’s immigration reform legislation granting states the right to request the right to proof that was rejected by the court.

The Arizona law, enacted in 2004, required all people registering to vote to prove their citizenship beyond what is formally requested in the voter registration process. On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions in the National Voter Registration Act were sufficient and legally superseded any state-created requirements.

Reacting to the decision, conservative Arizona Senator Ted Cruz tweeted his disappointment in the decision, and announced that he would seek to continue Arizona’s registration practices by creating the policy on the Federal level. “I’ll file amendment to immigration bill that permits states to require ID before registering voters & close this hole in fed statutory law,” tweeted Cruz.

As good as his word, later yesterday Cruz introduced an amendment to the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill that would permit states to require proof of citizenship for registration to vote in elections for federal office, essentially altering the National Voter Registration Act. Cruz has said that, by failing to prove citizenship for potential voters, there is more of an opportunity for voter fraud.

“This hole in federal statutory law allow non-citizens to register and thereby encourages voter fraud,” wrote Cruz on his social media account. “I will file a commonsense amendment to the immigration bill that permits states to require I.D. before registering voters.”

Cruz’s amendment is certainly not the only one being considered for incorporation into the immigration reform legislation. Politico reports that dozens of lawmakers are trying to get their policies attached to the immigration reform legislation, as Senators are currently in the process of determining which elements will ultimately be voted upon on the Senate floor.

In addition to his bill changing voting registration requirements, Cruz has also filed amendments to the immigration reform legislation that would bar undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States from ever becoming citizens and to prevent green card recipients from becoming eligible for public assistance even after a five-year waiting period outlined in the current bill.

Will the sale of Texas Wesleyan University School of Law by Texas A&M University take place by the fall semester? That’s what A&M administrators are hoping as they rush through the purchasing process, which so far has produced a letter of intent to sell from Texas Wesleyan. The purchased school will ultimately be called the Texas A&M School of Law at Texas Wesleyan University, and it will be the first law school in the A&M system.

Since it was first announced last year that the Texas A&M University System was planning to purchase Texas Wesleyan University School of Law, based in downtown Fort Worth, administrators have aimed for a fall 2013 opening date, and the acquiescence process is right on schedule for the reopening of the law school under the A&M banner. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the schools are still negotiating a final contract to the tune of $25 million, but the faculty remain confident that the rebranded school will open in the fall.

“We are proceeding with plans to begin law school classes in Fort Worth for the fall semester,” said Pamela Matthews, vice provost for academic affairs at Texas A&M University.

In addition to finalizing the deal between the two schools, the newly formed law school must be accredited by two bodies: the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools’ Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) and the American Bar Association.

SACSCOC, the regional accrediting body for 11 southern states, has the accreditation of the school on the agenda for this week’s meeting of the organization’s board of trustees.

The ABA is expected to make a decision regarding the Texas A&M’s acquisition in early August. Texas Wesleyan has applied for acquiescence under Interpretation 105-1, rules 20 and 21 of ABA rules. This means that the ABA could approve the newly acquired law school in place of the old law school without the need for “provisional accreditation”.

The plan has already been approved by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Students currently applying to the law school know that, as of right now, they will not be Texas A&M students, but that once the purchase is approved, they will automatically become A&M students, regardless of when the approval occurs.

Though a final deal and acquiescence are still in the pipeline, other elements of the new school are in place. Aric Short has been selected to serve as the school’s interim dean during the transition period. Once the acquisition is finalized, the new administration and faculty will create a process for selecting a permanent dean.

Law firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., announced today that Aarti Shah, a former senior investigative attorney at the International Trade Commission (ITC) has joined the firm’s Washington, D.C., office as a member of the Intellectual Property practice.

During her time with the ITC, Shah served in the Office of Unfair Import Investigations where she represented the United States as lead government counsel in investigations covering trade secrets, trademarks, and electrical, computer, mechanical, and chemical patents. Her notable cases in this role included serving as lead counsel in a patent infringement trial between Apple Inc. and Kodak over digital camera memory storage and power management and a patent infringement trial between Murata Manufacturing Corporation and Samsung regarding the structure of capacitors.

Shah also worked in the patent litigation department of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt where she focused on computer, electrical, mechanical, and pharmaceutical technologies.

“Mintz Levin has a robust practice representing clients in high-stakes matters before the U.S. International Trade Commission,” said Ivor R. Elrifi, Co-chair of the Intellectual Property Practice.  “Having served in a senior role at the ITC for several years, Aarti brings an extensive background and experience handling a range of complex matters.  She is an invaluable addition to our firm-wide Intellectual Practice as well as our expanding Washington, D.C. office.”

Mintz Levin is a Boston-based, international full-service law firm. The firm employs more than 450 attorneys at its nine offices around the world.

The jury accepted the argument of the Doctor that the staff of a hospital, where the patient, Daniel Metzgar, went after suffering swelling, was unfamiliar with penile implants, and therefore the results of their tests, including images, did not prove negligence.

Daniel Metzgar, 44, of Newark Delaware had approached urologist Thomas Desperito in 2010 for a penile implant. However, from about four months after the procedure, he began to experience discomfort and swelling and went to a local hospital. According to Metzgar, he had desperately looked for Dr. Desperito before approaching the hospital for treatment.

At the trial, Metzgar told jurors of his suffering: “I could hardly dance, with an erection poking my partner … It’s not something you want to bring out at parties and show to friends.”

Metzgar stated in the lawsuit that his social life had been severely hampered due to the constant erection, and that his stepson had grown distant as he felt uncomfortable to bring friends over. Metzgar also stopped showing up at his stepson’s school and sporting events.

He testified at the trial about the situation and said, “I was – I’m sorry – highly embarrassed.”

The device put in by Dr. Desperito was ultimately removed when Metzgar’s scrotum was punctured by the tubing. He received an implant from another doctor, and has been okay since then.

Dr. Desperito’s lawyer, Colleen Shields praised the decision of the jury and called it an “appropriate verdict,” while Metzgar’s lawyer Michael Heyden said “We’re stunned.”

The state law had been challenged by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and Indian tribes. The opponents of the state law held that its requirements deterred legal voters who did not have the necessary paperwork.

However, the Supreme Court also observed that Arizona had the right to assert its argument to ask for proof of citizenship in a separate litigation. As far as voting in federal elections were concerned that was in the arena of the federal law from 1993 and a state law could not prevail in imposing separate provisions in the same matter.

Under the federal law, in order to vote in federal elections one needs to provide one among several accepted proofs of identification and sign a statement declaring citizenship. No proof of citizenship is required.

Though the 7-2 majority held that state law was pre-empted by the federal statute which stated that states must “accept and use” a federal registration form, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented in separate opinions and observed that states alone should decide voter qualifications.

The majority held that it was still open to Arizona to challenge the current form in a separate litigation and Justice Scalia observed, “That alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to determine voting qualifications remains open to Arizona here.”

Arizona’s voter registration law has been hotly debated in the state and in other arenas. While Republicans stood by it, claiming that the law was designed to reduce voter fraud, Democrats maintained it was aimed at preventing minorities from voting, as minorities historically voted for Democrats.

Monday’s ruling would also affect three other states which have similar laws – Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas.

Employment law heavyweight Littler Mendelson, P.C., recently added a key partner to its San Francisco office. JoAnna Brooks joined the Northern California office in a lateral move, bringing her strong background in class action litigation.

Ms. Brooks is the former head of the class action practice group at Jackson Lewis, another San Francisco-based firm, where she worked for 10 years. At Jackson Lewis, Ms. Brooks worked on more than 50 cases in class action litigation, and her extensive experience in the area helps to fill a void at Littler. Her expertise lies in the retail sector, and she has been involved in issues as varied as contract and wage dispute, discrimination and harassment, and other defense-side work. She graduated with honors from Georgetown Law in 1995, where she received Moot Court awards, and earned her undergraduate degree from Purdue in 1992. She holds a membership with the San Francisco Bar Association.

The addition of Ms. Brooks comes on the heels of a string of high-profile laterals to the firm, including Michael Lotito, also formerly of Jackson Lewis. Littler Mendelson has been aggressively expanding in the past year, going after high-caliber attorneys with strong labor and employment backgrounds. With nearly a thousand attorneys and 57 offices worldwide, the law firm is known to be the largest international employment and labor law firm in the world. Littler specializes in servicing management clients on a variety of labor issues.

In a press release, co-presidents Thomas Bender and Jeremy Roth said, “High-profile lateral recruitment is one of the keys to our continued success and we are excited that a top tier labor and employment practitioner of JoAnna’s caliber joins several others Littler has recruited over the last year.” Bender and Roth pointed to the firm’s “global platform, innovative resources, and [the] depth of our subject matter expertise” as the reasons that so many attorneys have recently moved to the firm.

The market for lateral attorneys has long been a competitive one – even more so in the current legal climate. With many firms struggling to maintain enough work to keep attorneys busy, associates are often quick to lateral to other firms, especially if the opportunity seems more lucrative. Many law firms have downsized or capitulated after partner and associate exoduses and poaching by competing firms. The fight to retain and recruit talent has been especially fierce in recent years, as law firms compete against the onslaught of attorneys going in-house or into the public sector during a difficult job market.

Ad mogul Charles Saatchi may appear in paparazzi photographs to have choked his wife of nine years, TV chef Nigella Lawson, but don’t let that fool you. Though he grasped her neck four times and pinched her nose, don’t let’s talk spouse abuse, he says, because that’s just his way of being emphatic.

As he explained it, after UK’s Sunday People put the photos as its headline, they were having “an intense debate about the children,” but that he had merely grasped his wife’s neck repeatedly to “emphasize a point.”

Wife choking apparently is a sort of punctuation, a way of making a point clearer, like italics or bold face, purely a rhetorical device. Saatchi went on to describe what happened in more detail:

“There was no grip, it was a playful tiff. The pictures are horrific but give a far more drastic and violent impression of what took place. Nigella’s tears were because we both hate arguing, not because she had been hurt.”

“We had made up by the time we were home. The paparazzi were congregated outside our house after the story broke yesterday morning, so I told Nigella to take the kids off till the dust settled.”

And her sobbing was not due to being physically assaulted – heavens who would ever assume such a thing – but because she didn’t like to argue!

“A man reportedly grasps a woman’s neck 4 times in public & no one intervenes, incl. photographers who took photos,” labored Labour MP Luciana Berger, as reported by the Gawker. Good point.

Companies like Apple have been eager for the government to grant them permission to reveal information on how they handle government requests for information. This, after The Washington Post and the Guardian newspapers revealed Prism, the high security government program that eavesdrops on our internet information. The program culls records from all sorts of sources. Apple has meanwhile revealed that it received 4,000 to 5,000 requests by U.S. law enforcement for customer data for the six months that ended last May.

More specifically, Apple says 9,000 to 10,000 accounts or devices were specified in requests for information from federal, state, and local authorities, as reported by the Washington Post. Most of these requests were to aid police in investigating crimes such as robberies, and also missing children cases, suicide prevention, and so forth.

Facebook, meanwhile, claims it has received between 9,000 and 10,000 requests for data from the government over the same six months, targeting 19,000 users.

The idea of a benevolent higher power watching over us for our own good sounds almost theological, and some might even say that so long as the government truly is just, it should snoop as much as it wants (“What does an innocent person have to hide?”). But even assuming the government wouldn’t abuse their power – and we have no indication we should ever assume this – the right to privacy is worth fighting for anyway.

Because of the structure of the Supreme Court, the majority of remaining decisions will be authored by conservatives. This prediction is derived from the fact that, first of all, conservative voting judges outnumber liberals 5 to 4; but also it relates to the structure by which the court orders itself: the court divides its terms into seven segments called sittings, and every justice typically writes one  majority opinion per sitting. If we pay attention, then, to who has decided what, we can get a sense of who will be left to decide what’s left.

The liberal group, which includes Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer, has made 30 majority opinions; the conservative group, which includes Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Justice Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito Jr. and Thomas, has made 20.

What this means is that we should expect Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to write an opinion from the sitting that has one outstanding decision left, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which might decide whether race can be considered in determining college admission – affirmative action.

The Washington Post reported Doug Kendall, of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center, as saying that “working through these statistics sitting-by-sitting, Justice Kennedy and the Court’s conservatives stand ready to author some of the most important rulings of the Term.”

For instance, of the February sitting, one of the most important cases decides whether section 5 for the Voting Rights Act passes constitution muster. Only Roberts and Scalia remain to write an opinion of that matter, and Roberts has already voiced a criticism of section 5.

Or course these designations of conservative and liberal are not fatal; one can vote against what his party might predict him to vote. Roberts voted with liberals to allow the Affordable Care Act to pass into law, and Kennedy wrote the court’s choice to support gay rights recently.

A 5 year-old girl’s lemonade stand can sometimes be more than just a place to get a cold drink. This weekend, Jayden Sink sold “pink lemonade for peace” at the Equality House in Topeka, Kansas, directly across the street from the Westboro Baptist Church’s compound. Supporters flocked to the stand, while Westboro members attempted to shut the operation down.

As relayed by Sinks’ father, Jon, Jayden asked about the Equality House, which is painted in bright rainbow colors. After Jon explained the meaning behind both the Equality House and the Westboro compound, young Jayden was inspired to raise money towards a message of love and peace in opposition to the Westboro church, which is generally considered to be a hate-group.

Jon Sink told the Huffington Post that, after arranging the event with the Aaron Jackson, the owner of the Equality House, Jayden painted a sign that said “Pink Lemonade for Peace: $1 Suggested Donation.” She put the stand in the grass, and supporters from the neighborhood and eventually all over the city began arriving. A group of soldiers rode to the event on motorcycles to support Jayden, and she ultimately raised $400 by selling lemonade, and another $100 through an online campaign set up by a third party.

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church sent representatives out of the compound in an attempt to shut down the event. They called local police and yelled profanities at the customers.

“As we all know, the Westboro Baptist Church puts a lot of hate into the world,” said Jackson in an email he sent to the Huffington Post. “Since we cannot stop them, the next best thing is to smother them with love. That is what 5 year-old Jayden accomplished today! Not only did she quench the thirst of a lot of loving supporters, the money she raised was donated to Planting Peace so she could help Planting Peace promote a more peaceful world.”

Image Credit: Megan Rogers

Kanye West became a father this Father’s Day, when reality television star Kim Kardashian gave birth to their daughter. US Weekly reports on an unnamed hospital source who says the baby came “five weeks early. Kim got sick last night and had the baby early,” and though the birth was a natural birth, albeit a bit early, everybody is reportedly healthy and happy, with the baby weighing in under five pounds.

Though the progression of the pregnancy was detailed on Kardashian’s show, it’s unclear whether the child will become part of the show. “I think, as of now, that’s just, you know, a decision that Kanye and I made. … From the start, we’re just gonna try to keep it as private as possible,” she told Jimmy Kimmel last January.

USA Today noted tweets from family and well-wishers:

Rachel Roy tweeted,  “So to welcome the sweetest lil angel into the universe, my niece blessings and love to @KimKardashian & KW xxRR”

Russell Simmons tweeted, “There is no greater gift in life than a child’s laughter! congrats to Kim And Kanye…”

Nas tweeted, “Congrats to Kanye 4 the birth of his daughter today too! To my bros w/ daughters!!”

Bethenny Frankel tweeted, “All kidding aside, congrats @kimkardashian on your baby girl. It’s the most beautiful, best thing that could happen to you. Girls rule.”

No name has been announced yet, though Kim said it will likely start with a K.

A controversial Chinese dissident, Chen Guangcheng, claims he is being forced to leave his legal fellowship with New York University on account of pressure from the Chinese government. NYU recently opened a campus in Shanghai and collaborates on research and programs with China, but the university claims that Chen’s fellowship has reached its agreed upon conclusion and that they have treated him outstandingly during his time with the school.

Chen, a blind legal advocate who made international headlines when he escaped from house arrest and fled to the American Embassy in Beijing, was invited to NYU for a fellowship late last year. The school claims that the fellowship was always meant to last a year, but Chen told the New York Times that he has been asked to leave the school due to pressure from the Chinese government. NYU recently opened a campus in Shanghai, and the ability of NYU students and professors to require visas is necessary for many of the school’s programs to thrive.

Chen and his family have been living in an NYU-owned apartment since May 2012, and he claims that he was told to vacate the apartment by the end of June.

“The work of the Chinese Communists within academic circles in the United States is far greater than what people imagine, and some scholars have no option but to hold themselves back,” said Chen. “Academic independence and academic freedom in the United States are being greatly threatened by the totalitarian regime.”

NYU issued a statement in response to Chen’s claims, saying “We are very discouraged to learn of Mr. Chen’s statement, which contains a number of speculations about the role of the Chinese Government in NYU’s decision-making that are both false and contradicted by the well-established facts.” John Beckman, a spokesman for NYU, told the New York Times that while school officials were saddened by Chen’s accusations, they would continue to help Chen and his family.

The New York Times reports that Jerome Cohen, a law professor at NYU that helped arrange Chen’s fellowship, says that the school has been exceedingly generous to Chen, and has provide him with transportation, security and private lessons in law and English. Cohen said that Chen has received better treatment than any other political refugee, even Albert Einstein.

Chen worked as an attorney in China, where he fought against the government’s coercive family planning policies. After escaping house arrest, Chen made a name for himself as an outspoken opponent of the Chinese government. With the knowledge that his time with NYU is ending, Chen has received employment offers from Fordham University and Princeton.

Image Credit: Brendan Mcdermid / Reuters

Six former Bank of America employees allege that their former employer engaged in an active campaign to deny eligible home owners loan modifications, lied about the status of mortgage payments and documents, and offered employees bonuses for foreclosing on homes.

The former employees each worked at Bank of America centers across the United States, and have made several allegations against their former employer that suggest that the company used illegal and unethical means to prevent their customers from taking advantage of the government-sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The complaint alleges that Bank of America policies denied access to the program by ignoring or lying about customer paperwork in an attempt to either foreclose on homes or steer customers towards higher interest rates through the bank’s own refinancing program, that employees who complied with the policies were rewarded with retail gift cards, and that employees who refused to comply with the policies or questioned the ethics behind them where disciplined and sometimes fired.

The legal complaint further alleges that Bank of America officials falsified information about HAMP loans when reporting to the government, saying that it had given out the loan modifications when it had not. The court documents also say that bank managers were able to listen into any phone call without warning, and encouraged service representatives to lie about the status of filed documents and received payments in a manner that frequently led to home foreclosure.

One of the former employees behind the complaint claimed that he told supervisors that the practices were ridiculous and immoral, and was subsequently fired.

A spokesperson for Bank of America spoke with Reuters, responding to the complaint. “We continue to demonstrate our commitment to assisting customers who are at risk of foreclosure and, at best, these attorneys are painting a false picture of the bank’s practices and the dedication of our employees.” The spokesperson said that the complaint was filled with inaccuracies.

Since 2012, 18,000 homeowners have filed complaints about Bank of America with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the attorney generals of New York and Florida have accused Bank of America of violating the terms of a $25 billion settlement in 2012 regarding unverified documents being signed by bank employees.

The last ten years of Cate Edwards’ life have no doubt been a struggle. Her father, former presidential candidate and Senator John Edwards has fallen from grace due to a sex scandal that tore her family apart just before the death of her mother, Elizabeth Edwards, died from breast cancer. By starting a public interest law firm, she no doubt hopes to turn her adversity into strength that she can use to assist others in the Washington, D.C., area.

After her father lost a campaign for United States Vice President alongside Democratic nominee John Kerry, and a second presidential campaign stalled, he was investigated for using campaign funds to cover up an affair with the mother of his out-of-wedlock child. While her father defended himself, his marriage to Cate’s mother, Elizabeth, ended, and she died shortly after. Since Elizabeth’s death, Cate has headed a charity she founded in her mother’s name.

“We as people can’t get through anything tough alone, and we rely on one another,” Cate Edwards told ABC News. “I’ve relied on my family and my friends, and that support system got me through. “Any obstacles that I maybe ran into along the way they are now in the past. We are all moving forward we all have a strong relationship and yeah, we’re still a family.”

Edwards, 31, has started a public interest law firm in D.C. with her legal partner, Sharon Eubanks, called Edwards and Eubanks LLC. Eubanks is a litigator who spent two decades at the Department of Justice and has since focused on the civil rights litigation. The firm will specialize in employment, consumer rights, environmental justice and civil rights.

The firm’s mission statement is to ensure that high-quality legal representation is not limited to big corporations and wealthy individuals, and Edwards and Eubanks hope to use their resources to help provide a level playing field for working people.

“I’ve always wanted a legal career where I helped people where I was able to give something back and make a difference,” said Edwards.

Talks between North and South Korea failed to actualize last week due to disagreement over who should attend as delegates.

Earlier this year, North Korea escalated regional tension by conducting its third nuclear test and threatening to attack South Korea and US targets. It also cut off all communication and trade flow with South Korea and closed down a key joint industrial zone.

However, with sanctions continuing and international trade down, in recent weeks North Korea had been assuming a softer stance.

Denis McDonough, chief of staff to the US President said on CBS News that North Korea would be judged “by its actions, not by the nice words we heard yesterday.”

McDonough took a tough stance and said, “They’re not going to be able to talk their way out of very significant sanctions they’re under now.”

US National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden stated, “Our desire is to have credible negotiations with the North Koreans, but those talks must involve North Korea living up to its obligations to the world, including compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions, and ultimately result in denuclearization.”

However, BBC reported that the National Defence Commission of North Korea, the body, which runs the country de facto, had suggested that talks on denuclearization would also have to include reduction of U.S. weapons.

South Korea’s Unification Ministry spokesman Kin Hyung-seok said on the issue that “The window of dialogue is open but the North should take concrete steps first.”

US, Japan and South Korea are to meet in Washington this week to discuss the nuclear disarmament of North Korea.

Former securities broker David Evansen sent the information on May 21 in a 4-page letter addressed to Richard Ketchum, the chief executive officer of FINRA and to Susan Axelrod, the executive vice president of regulatory operations of FINRA.

The indictment, which was confirmed by the clerk’s office for the East Baton Rouge Parish court, showed that Atkins had pleaded guilty to one charge of charitable bingo fraud. He was sentenced to a year on probation, $1000 in fines and a hundred hours of community service.

A spokeswoman for FINRA, Nancy Condon, told the media that “Mitch Atkins resigned to pursue other interests.”

In his letter to the FINRA executives, Evansen, who had been banned from brokerage by FINRA, alleged that he had been banned because of a whistleblower complaint he filed with the SEC alleging fraud in a Texas clearinghouse.

Evansen observed in the letter concerning his ban and Atkins’ previous indictment for fraud, that “It was for no small purpose, that Mr. Atkins and FINRA, went to such lengths, to prevent the sunlight from illuminating the truth.”

The ostensible reason for banning Evansen from continuing his brokerage business was that he had failed to respond to a request for information. Evansen is currently in the process of appealing the ban imposed upon him in June 2011.

FINRA or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which is overseen by the SEC, has the power to ban registered brokers from the securities industry.

The bill passed 56-39 and made performing ultrasound tests at least 24 hours before abortion mandatory.

The requirement can be waived if concerned persons submit that the pregnancy is the result of an incest or sexual assault.

During a speech on the bill Republican State Representative Pat Strachota stressed that the bill was about empowering women and “about having full knowledge of the decision that women are about to make,” when they choose to go for an abortion.

The bill makes it mandatory for a description of the fetus and a visualization of the fetal heartbeat to be provided to the woman asking for an abortion. However the woman asking for the abortion can also decline to receive the reports.

Democratic State Representative Janis Ringhand severely criticized the bill saying, “I hope we come to our senses and realize that women are in charge of their own bodies. It’s not a political issue.” She said, “It’s just a crying shame that we’re here today doing this.”

Just before passing the ultrasound bill, on Wednesday, the Wisconsin state Assembly also approved a bill prohibiting public funds being spent for covering abortion in insurance plans for public employees. The bill also exempted religious organizations from being compelled to cover contraception on their employee healthcare insurance plans.

The lawsuit was filed by Good Morning To You Productions Corp, a New York company, which in the process of making a documentary about the song popular across the world, found to their chagrin that they were required to pay a hefty license fee to Warner/Chappell.

Using the song “Happy Birthday to You” without the permission of Warner/Chappell for reproductions and public performances can cost a penalty of up to $150,000 – something few outside the media world may be aware of.

The lawsuit alleged that Warner/Chappell collects about $2 million annually on licensing fees for the song and has collected “millions of dollars of unlawful licensing fees,” which the lawsuit wants to be returned to those who were forced to pay.

More interesting is the fact that the melody used to sing “Happy Birthday to You” was not meant for the song but was originally used in a song published in 1893 as “Good Morning to All.” The song was written by Patty and Mildred Hill.

The public began to use the melody for singing the simple lyrics of “Happy Birthday to You” of their own accord, and according to scholars, there’s yet no written record of or any evidence of any copyright of the combination using the song “Happy Birthday to You,” and the melody for “Good Morning to All.”

However, those who bought the copyright to the melody of “Good Morning to All,” have continued to collect license fees from those who used the melody to sing “Happy Birthday to You.”

The rights to the melody was originally purchased by one Clayton Summy, who bought it from the Hill sisters. Subsequently the Warner Music Group acquired the rights to the melody by acquiring Birch Tree Ltd in 1998. Birch Tree claimed it was founded by Clayton Summy.

Later Edgar Bronfman Jr. bought the Warner Music Group and sold it to Access Industries Inc.

If you’ve ever played with a puppy or dog and got nipped a bit and had to push them away, did you ever wonder what the hyperactive beasts would do if you just let them? Roger Brown found out; he woke up at 4:30 a.m. to discover his 6-month old pit bull pup had been chewing on his toes — and chewed the big one and small one clean off! That’s a whole lot of eww, but then, why didn’t Brown, who lives in Brazil, Indiana, wake up and reprimand the playful pup? Brown has diabetes, and his toes were infected. He could not feel the blistering infections in his foot.

He blames himself, not the puppy, and won’t have the dog euthanized as city officials would prefer. Police do not consider this an attack, and so he plans to “continue raising and nurturing” his dog as normal. He says he should have wrapped his foot when he went to bed as usual, and that it was his own fault for not doing so now.

We’ve all had kittens or pups who scratched us up enough for friends to politely ask, “why is your hand covered in lacerations? Do you need to see a shrink?” but apparently these furry beasts can go quite far in their playful ferocity if you don’t toe them in line.

France’s burkha ban is being pressed to the limit as nonconformists ignore the laws. Two incidents on Wednesday are revealing what an incendiary issue the law imposes; first of all, two men attacked a 21-year-old pregnant woman for veiling her face; they forcibly ripped the veil and tore her hair. The attack happened in Argenteuil, which is north west of the capital. The woman was subsequently hospitalized for undisclosed injuries.

Police later attempted to arrest a second woman for wearing a veil, at which point passersby formed a riot, attacking police, who resorted to tear gas and flash-balls to disperse the crowd.

“The police were attacked,” a source told Le Parisien newspaper, “They were insulted and beaten, including punches.” Two men were arrested, aged 23 and 27, one of them a cousin of the veiled woman. 60 people in all attacked police, showing the sort of unrest all cultures within cultures have when a strong religious affiliation inspires rejection of local laws and customs.

In this case, the law is a burkha ban under former president Sarkozy, who said face covering was an affront to the principles of the French Republic. Those wearing niqabs publicly can be fined the equivalent of about $200 dollars.