LAW BLOG NEWSLETTER
from The Wall Street Journal Online
July 30, 2009 -- 6:30 p.m.
___________________________________
TODAY'S POSTS
- 'Natural-Born' Killer? Mulling a Constitutional Amendment
- Profs Giving Gonzo Chilly Welcome in Steamy Lubbock
- Supreme Challenge? Judge Calls Out Scalia Over Heller Language
- Surprise, Surprise: Mid-Level Associates Feeling 'Significant Anxiety'
- The Lady in Wax . . . Gets Sued
- Next Up For Yahoo/Microsoft: An Antitrust Battle?
- The 'Rollover' Conundrum: To Charge or Not to Charge?
- Trial Ends in Jefferson Case; Jury to Get Case Thursday
- Madoff Trustee Spreads His Wings, Sues Ruth
***
'Natural-Born' Killer? Mulling a Constitutional Amendment
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sec. 1
The above portion of the great document has gotten a lot of airplay in recent months and weeks, what with the 1) speculation from some that President Obama is not a "natural born citizen" and 2) the countermovement against that speculation, which led to the invention of the derisive "birthers" neologism about three weeks ago.
Rather than delve into the heart of the controversy, we'd prefer to ask a broader question: has the "natural born Citizen" requirement for president outlived its usefulness? Should it be repealed?
A law professor at Temple, Peter Spiro, argues in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Thursday that the answer should be yes.
For starters, writes Spiro, the requirement is outdated:
The natural-born provision is an artifact of a time when one's birthplace was fraught with consequences. In the feudal conception of natural law, one was born into the protection of a territory's sovereign, for which one was thought to owe an indissoluble duty of allegiance. . . .
Today, birthplace is hardly so meaningful. Many more individuals are being born outside the United States to U.S. citizen parents (often with dual citizenship), and others are naturalizing at an early age and maturing as Americans in every sense. Notions of perpetual allegiance dissipated long ago.
Furthermore, writes Spiro, the requirement draws distinctions that are largely arbitrary:
Foreign-born adopted children are extended citizenship automatically upon admission into the United States with their new parents. Can any of the thousands who have moved here as infants from China, Korea, Guatemala, or Romania grow up to be president? . . .
And then there are the more than 15 million naturalized Americans who more clearly fall short of being natural-born citizens - among whom Obama might have been counted if the details of his mother's life were a little different. For them, the presidential eligibility clause represents sanctified discrimination, a kind of asterisk next to the principle that they enjoy equality with other citizens.
Constitutional amendments ain't easy to pass. But, writes Spiro, a natural-born killer movement would be likely to garner at least some bi-partisan support. After all, efforts to repeal the requirement were earlier this decade initiated by Republicans enticed by the prospect of an Arnold Schwarzenegger presidency. Utah Republican Orrin Hatch introduced the "Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment" in 2003, and it enjoyed bipartisan support, including that of Michigan's Canadian-born Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm.
LB Readers, let's hear your thoughts on this.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/30/natural-born-killer-mulling-a-constitutional-amendment#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Profs Giving Gonzo Chilly Welcome in Steamy Lubbock
You've got to hand it to Alberto Gonzales; the man sure does know how to attract controversy.
The latest: the former U.S. attorney general appears to be on some sort of collision course with faculty members at Texas Tech University, where he's slated to teach in the fall. Click here for an LB post on Gonzo's Lubbock move, from earlier this month.
Last week, Gonzo told a Texas television station that he was busy preparing the syllabus for his political-science class, called "Contemporary Issues in the Executive Branch." According to this writeup, from KCBD in Lubbock, Gonzales said he planned to play an important role in minority recruitment and retention at Texas Tech. He said:
People will see that Texas Tech has attracted someone of a high profile Hispanic who has had some very unique opportunities and experiences and a Hispanic who believes in the Tech mission and hopefully Hispanics will say well if Al Gonzales is interested in Texas Tech maybe I should give Texas Tech a second look.
Well, now comes word that a bunch of professors down at Texas Tech don't like the idea of Gonzo teaching at their school. Some 70 professors have ginned up and signed a petition protesting the notion. According to this story, from the Daily Toreador, Texas Tech's newspaper, the petition reads:
Gonzales's appointment is a troubling example of a 'celebrity hire. It is unclear what Gonzales has done that makes him deserving of employment at Texas Tech. Does he have a noteworthy academic record? Does he have a record of publishing in law reviews? Was his service to his country particularly distinguished?
The petition specifically calls out the school's chancellor, Kent Hance, who reportedly largely orchestrated the Gonzo hire. Hance has not responded to a variety of requests for comment.
Gonzales, however, has said the petition isn't holding him back, telling the Toreador:
We live in a country where, in the academic world, people can express publicly their approval and disapproval of various issues," he said. "What I'm focused on, is demonstrating that I'm serious about this teaching responsibility. I'm also serious about promoting diversity within Texas Tech. I hope that people will treat me fair and give me an opportunity to demonstrate that.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/30/profs-giving-gonzo-chilly-welcome-in-steamy-lubbock#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Supreme Challenge? Judge Calls Out Scalia Over Heller Language
Anyone who follows the Supreme Court could have predicted that the Supreme Court's Heller opinion from 2008, in which the court found that Washington D.C.'s gun control law ran afoul of the Second Amendment, would give lower courts, lawyers and legal academics much to chew on in years to come.
Already, for instance, courts have wrestled over whether the ruling would apply to the states - a potentially significant barrier to those looking to extend Heller's reach throughout the land.
But it seems a Tenth Circuit judge, Timothy Tymkovich, a George W. Bush appointee, has stumbled over what might be viewed as a loose thread in the opinion itself - and he penned his thoughts in a concurring opinion filed on Tuesday.
Let's explain. In one part of the majority opinion in Heller, Justice Scalia stated the following piece of dicta, that "...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons..."
Why would Scalia write such a line? According to Scotusblog, "he may have needed to put in a cautionary word to hold his five-Justice majority - an indication to make the decision seem somewhat less sweeping."
The Tenth Circuit case involved an individual in Oklahoma City who was arrested in 2007 while driving with a suspended driver's license. During the search of the car, the police found a loaded firearm. The defendant was charged with the federal crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm, described by Scotusblog as "a specific crime that the Heller dictum would seem to have left unaffected by the Second Amendment declaration of a personal right of self-defense with a gun."
The Tenth Circuit upheld the possession conviction, rejecting the defendant's Heller-based argument, relying heavily on Justice Scalia's dicta.
In any event, Judge Tymkovich called into question this language in his concurrence on Tuesday.
"I write," wrote Tymkovich, to express concern that the dictum inhibits lower courts from exploring the contours of Heller and its application to firearm restrictions."
Tymkovich continues:
Knowing the meaning of the Second Amendment right and having identified its individual nature, the issue becomes what limits the government may place on the right. Indeed, this is where the Second Amendment rubber meets the road. The restrictive firearm ownership and licensing laws at issue in Heller violated the right, the Court found. . . . But what about other laws? For example, the broad scope of [the felony possession law] which permanently disqualifies all felons from possessing firearms-would conflict with the "core" self-defense right embodied in the Second Amendment. Non-violent felons, for example, certainly have the same right to self-defense in their homes as non-felons.
. . .
Rather than seriously wrestling with how to apply this new Second Amendment rule, therefore, courts will continue to simply reference the applicable Heller dictum and move on. And in light of the Supreme Court's clear direction, this is perhaps how it should be. After all, "our job as a federal appellate court is to follow the Supreme Court's directions, not pick and choose among them as if ordering from a menu." . . . I nevertheless wonder whether Second Amendment law would have been better served if the regulations Heller addressed in dicta had been left to later cases.
Wow. Them's some pretty serious words to throw up the ladder at the Supreme Court.
In any event, according to Scotublog:
lawyers involved in the case said Wednesday that they plan a further challenge to the Circuit's ruling, either by asking for en banc review by the Circuit, or taking the case on to the Supreme Court - a choice they have not yet made.
Huh. Is it possible we could see a review of Heller (or at least one section of it) back on the Supreme Court's docket before long? (For more on this, check out Eugene Volokh's take over at Volokh Conspiracy.)
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/30/supreme-challenge-judge-calls-out-scalia-over-heller-language#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Surprise, Surprise: Mid-Level Associates Feeling 'Significant Anxiety'
The American Lawyer's mid-level associate survey, contained in the publication's August issue, lands on the desks of managing partners soon.
We can't imagine they're looking forward to it, despite the fact that they're just going to find out something most of them already know: mid-level associates are anxious, working less, and are much less gung-ho about their jobs than they were last year. While it's not surprising, it is, in our opinion, saying something for a group that often seems as contented with their jobs as Terrell Owens seems with his.
According to the survey results (all of which can be found here), 83 percent of the third, fourth and fifth year associates who responded to the survey felt "significant anxiety" over losing their jobs. Forty-six percent said their work had dropped off, while 56 percent said their firm's response to the recession had hurt associate morale.
But the survey results gave some firms reason to celebrate. Finishing first in the mid-level satisfaction survey by a good stretch: Boston's Nutter McLennan & Fish. Rounding out the Top 10: Thompson Coburn, Patterson Belknap, Gibson Dunn, Miles & Stockbridge, Hanson Bridgett, Vorys Sater, Susman Godfrey, Ropes & Gray and Debevoise. (The Bottom 10: White & Case, Potter Anderson, Day Pitney, Katten Muchin, Winston & Strawn, Greenberg Traurig, Kaye Scholer, Fried Frank and Dewey & LeBoeuf.)
Among firms in the AmLaw 100, the Top 10 proceeds as follows, after Gibson, Ropes & Debevoise: Finnegan Henderson, Wachtell, Cleary, Faegre & Benson, Mintz Levin, Dorsey & Whitney and Paul Weiss.
The lead piece accompanying the survey, written by Rachel Breitman, spends much ink on firm openness, a factor that can have a significant effect on a firm's rating. On Cahill Gordon, Breitman writes:
When law firm management refused to discuss layoffs, associates grew nervous. One firm that appeared to follow this model was Cahill Gordon & Reindel. Respondents said that the firm quietly let go an undisclosed number of associates in January. (Cahill declined to comment for this story.) As a result, the New York firm's associates rated Cahill's layoff communications a 2.6, and gave the firm a very weak 2 for openness about firm finances-the second-lowest rating of any firm. Morale at the firm also dropped, from a rating of 3.32 to 2.4. "Keep associates in the loop about how the firm is doing financially and whether or not there are likely to be additional layoffs, or other changes," wrote one Cahill lawyer. "The asso­ciates would be more comfortable with their employment situation if the partners were more open about the firm," said another.
Still, strangely, associates seem relatively sanguine about the future. Some 77 percent told told AmLaw they would recommend their firm to others. Given the chance, 93 percent said that they would choose to work at their firm again.
Photo: iStockPhoto
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/30/no-big-surprise-here-mid-level-associates-feeling-significant-anxiety#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
The Lady in Wax . . . Gets Sued
Note to self: When the time comes to commission a wax statue in our own likeness, do it with our own hard-earned money (and, of course, when it's complete, keep it away from open flame.) Use someone else's money for such a tribute, and you just might wind up in a lawsuit over it.
Alleged Example A: Barbara McKinzie, the international president of Alpha Kappa Alpha, the country's oldest black sorority. Members of the sorority are suing to remove McKinzie (pictured, left), alleging she spent hundreds of thousands on the group's money on herself, some of it to pay for a wax statue of herself (pictured, right). Click here for the story, from the Chicago Tribune.
In the suit, filed in Washington, D.C., the Alpha Kappa Alpha members also alleged that McKinzie bought designer clothing, jewelry and lingerie with the sorority credit card. "This is extraordinarily shocking if not illegal conduct," Edward W. Gray Jr., an attorney representing the plaintiffs suing the Chicago-based sorority, told the Trib.
McKinzie reportedly denied what she called the lawsuit's "malicious allegations," saying they were "based on mischaracterizations and fabrications ... not befitting our ideals of sisterhood, ethics and service," according to a statement issued this week by the sorority.
Fine, fine. But can we get back to the wax statue? In the sorority statement, McKinzie said the sorority's board approved the money to "help defray overall expenses for our 2010 convention." She said a total of $45,000 was spent on a wax figure of her and the sorority's first international president, the late Nellie Quander. McKinzie also said the expenses were "consistent with furthering AKA's mission" and did not violate any of the group's bylaws.
The lawsuit says $900,000 was spent on the McKinzie wax statue, but Gray said he has since learned the amount was for the two statues. The statues reportedly are to be displayed in the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum in Baltimore, Md., he said.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/30/the-lady-in-wax-gets-sued#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Next Up For Yahoo/Microsoft: An Antitrust Battle?
So, Microsoft and Yahoo have convinced each other that a search and advertising between the companies is a good thing. But will they be able to convince antitrust regulators that the deal's good for the marketplace? Possibly, but according to this WSJ story, it won't happen without some considerable scrutiny by federal antitrust regulators and lawmakers.
Under the partnership deal, Microsoft's technology will power Yahoo's search engine, while Yahoo will sell ads on behalf of both companies. Click here for the WSJ story; here for the NYT story.
Shortly after the deal was announced, the two companies went on a full-court press, sending out separate letters to major ad agencies and advertisers. One was entitled "Benefits to Consumers, Customers and the Internet."
But it's just the opening gambit in what could be a long chess match. In the few hours after the deal was announced, Sen. Herb Kohl (D., Wis.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Antitrust Committee, said it warrants "careful scrutiny" since it would combine "industry giants and direct competitors in Internet advertising and search markets." He promised the deal would be "closely reviewed" by his committee.
A Federal Trade Commission spokesman declined to comment. A Justice Department spokeswoman said the agency is "aware of" the deal but declined to comment further.
Consumer groups weren't as reticent, saying the deal could lead to less choice for consumers and more tracking of their online activities. "There are questions that must be answered regarding the collection and sharing of consumer data by the two companies," said Jeff Chester, founder of the Center for Digital Democracy, a Washington nonprofit focused on privacy issues.
The companies are confident that the deal will be approved, Yahoo General Counsel Michael Callahan and Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said in a joint interview. They argued that the deal shouldn't be seen as reducing the number of players in Internet search from three to two but rather as helping both companies better compete in online advertising with Google.
The combination is "really the only way to ensure" that there is "going to be a competitive long-term alternative to Google in paid search," Callahan said.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/30/next-up-for-yahoomicrosoft-an-antitrust-battle#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
The 'Rollover' Conundrum: To Charge or Not to Charge?
What to do about "rollover" deaths?
That question is plaguing some prosecutors around the country, who don't exactly know best how to handle situations in which a slumbering adult accidentally "rolls over" and suffocates to death a sleeping infant. Is it manslaughter? Criminal negligence? Or is it simply an accident that shouldn't be punished?
The WSJ's Chris Herring tackles the issue in the Journal's weekly Law Journal column. He opens with the following pair of cases:
In March, a slumbering Indiana father accidentally suffocated his six-month-old son to death while both were sleeping on a sofa. Law-enforcement officials later determined that the man had used methamphetamine and smoked marijuana before falling asleep that night.
A month later, in Milwaukee, a one-month-old infant died while in bed with his parents and brother, possibly due to suffocation. Before coming home to sleep that night, the baby's mother had had three drinks at a nearby bar.
The tragedies are similar, but the way law-enforcement officials handled them is not. In the pending Indiana case, the father, Darik Morell, was charged with neglect of a dependent resulting in death, a felony that carries a 20- to 50-year prison sentence. . . .
No charges, in contrast, were filed in the Milwaukee case, or in two other bed-sharing deaths in the area since March.
The main question, writes Herring: At what point does carelessness, absent malicious intent, become punishable by criminal law?
Experts say that often, there is no right answer. "Prosecutors have enormous discretion in these sorts of things," says Dan Blinka, a criminal-law professor at Marquette University. "They can choose to see these as simply tragic accidents, or they can see them as homicides."
Prosecutors are divided on how to apply the standard to bed-sharing cases or other accidental deaths, such as those that stem from auto accidents caused by fatigued drivers. (Click here, for instance, for a recent Washington Post story on a similar issue: What to do to the parents when a child dies in the backseat of a hot, parked car?)
Mike Dugan, a district attorney in Oregon's Deschutes County who charged two parents with criminally negligent homicide, has drawn a fairly hard line on bed-sharing death cases: He will prosecute them when they involve alcohol or drugs. "I'm not telling people not to sleep with their kids," he says. "But I am telling them that if you do it while you're drunk or high and it results in a death, chances are we're going to charge you."
LB readers, this is an interesting one. Do you think prosecutors should go after all of these cases? None of them? Should they draw the line, as Dugan has, when drugs or alcohol are involved?
Photo: iStockPhoto
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/30/the-rollover-conundrum-to-charge-or-not-to-charge#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Trial Ends in Jefferson Case; Jury to Get Case Thursday
Game-time. Gut-check time. It's getting down to that time for former Rep. William Jefferson, who, for the past six weeks has been on criminal trial down in Alexandria, Va. Closing arguments wrapped up on Wednesday. The judge in the case, T.S. Ellis III, is likely to send the case to the jury Thursday morning. Click here for the story from the New Orleans Times-Picayune; here for earlier LB posts on the Jefferson trial.
The quick refresher on the case. In 2007, Jefferson, a former Democrat from New Orleans, was charged on 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The government alleged that Jefferson used his congressional office to help promote business projects in western Africa in return for payments for his family. The most vivid evidence put on display: that feds found in Jefferson's freezer $90,000 stuffed in Boca Burger and pie-crust boxes.
During closings, government lawyer Rebeca Bellows said: "It's time, at long last, to bring Congressman Jefferson to justice . . . He was always looking for a payday. He not only sold his office he wanted to make sure he got top dollar for it."
According to reporting from the WSJ's Dionne Searcey, defense attorney Robert Trout countered that Jefferson's behavior was perhaps unethical and even stupid but not criminal. "To make something that isn't criminal into a crime, ladies and gentleman, that is power," Trout told jurors.
But before Trout took the stand, according to Searcey, prosecutors on Wednesday outlined a number of schemes Jefferson crafted to use his political office to create business opportunities for his family. The most notorious: an alleged plot to give at least $100,000 in cash to the vice president of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, in exchange for permission for a company that had family ties to Jefferson to offer telecom services there. Much of that cash - $90,000 in marked bills - was found in Jefferson's freezer.
During Wednesday's hearing prosecutors played video and audio tapes of Jefferson in meetings with the informant, Virginia businesswoman Lori Mody, at swanky Washington-area hotel restaurants. Searcey describes one snippet in which he camera focuses squarely on a white coffee mug while in the background Jefferson waves his hands as he talks about an alleged bribe, saying it'll be doled out "to make sure the hook is in there." Over dinner at the Mandarin Oriental he chides Mody for referring to what prosecutors say is a bribe to the vice president of Nigeria as a "goodwill present."
Mody delivered $100,000 to Jefferson in the parking lot of the Ritz Carlton. Jefferson allegedly intended to give the cash to Abubakar during a visit to Washington D.C. but he left town before it could be delivered, prosecutors said.
Trout conceded that Mr. Jefferson agreed to the bribe but did so only to please Ms. Mody and that he never intended to deliver it. He hid the cash in his freezer for safe-keeping, Trout said.
We'll the jury buy it? We'll soon know.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/29/trial-ends-in-jefferson-case-jury-to-get-case-thursday#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Madoff Trustee Spreads His Wings, Sues Ruth
Ever since Bernie Madoff's guilty plea back in March, life seemed to be finally settling down for Bernie's wife, Ruth. Last month, she agreed to give up her potential claim to more than $80 million of assets, but, in an agreement with federal prosecutors, was allowed to keep $2.5 million in cash. (Minus taxes and legal fees, she will have less than $2 million, according to a person familiar with the matter.) Then, earlier this month, federal investigators concluded they didn't have enough evidence to charge her criminally.
But things took a turn for the worse for Ruth earlier today when Irv Picard, the trustee for Bernie's collapsed firm, filed suit against her, seeking to recover some $44 million. Click here for the complaint, filed in Manhattan bankruptcy court.
So what, if Ruth seemingly wasn't a co-conspirator in Bernie's operation, gives the trustee the right to go after her? And why even bother? After all, anything he gets from her will likely be a drop in the bucket for victims of the fraud. Picard explains in the complaint:
For decades, Mrs. Madoff lived a life of splendor using the money of BLMIS's customers. Regardless of whether or not Mrs. Madoff knew of the fraud her husband perpetrated at BLMIS, during the past two- and six-year statutory periods, she received tens of millions of dollars from BLMIS for which BLMIS received no corresponding benefit or value and to which Mrs. Madoff had no good faith basis to believe she was entitled. The purpose of this action is to recover that money to the extent possible for the benefit of BLMIS and its defrauded customers.
And will the $2.5 million be part of what Picard goes after? Apparently so:
The United States government agreed not to contest Mrs. Madoff's claim to $2.5 million and to make a payment to her in that amount following forfeiture of the Madoffs' assets. The forfeiture Stipulation And Order . . . expressly provides that the $2.5 million payment to Mrs. Madoff "does not in any way preclude . . . Irving H. Picard, Esq. as trustee for the liquidation of the business of defendant Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC . . . from seeking to recover the Funds from Ruth Madoff." While Madoff's crimes have left many investors impoverished and some charities decimated, Mrs. Madoff remains a person of substantial means. The inequity between Mrs. Madoff's continuing financial advantages and the economic distress of Madoff's customers compels the Trustee to bring this action.
Peter Chavkin, a lawyer for Ruth, had this to say: "What makes this complaint particularly perplexing and totally unjustified . . . is the fact that Ruth already forfeited to the United States Attorney's Office almost all of the assets named in this complaint," assets that prosecutors will distribute to victims of the fraud. "We believe the Trustee's action is wrong as a matter of law and fairness."
LBers, we really want to hear from you on this one. Given all you know about Ruth, should she be allowed to hang onto her $2.5 million?
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/29/picard-spreads-his-wings-sues-ruth-madoff#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
___________________________________
LAW VIDEO
The worst may not yet be over for some of America's biggest banks. As John McKinnon reports, some of the country's biggest lenders, including Goldman Sachs, have been subpoenaed by a Senate committee as part of a fraud investigation.
___________________________________
TOP LAW NEWS
"Rollover" deaths, where a child is accidentally suffocated while sleeping in bed with his parents, pose a thorny question: At what point does carelessness become punishable by law?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124890672192991635.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Ruth Madoff is being sued by the official recovering money for victims of her husband's fraud. He is seeking at least $44.8 million.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124889554637990959.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Wealthy taxpayers have inundated the IRS with requests to come clean for past tax evasion amid a crackdown on undeclared income from overseas accounts.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124887938516790353.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
A Senate panel subpoenaed financial firms, including Goldman Sachs, seeking evidence of fraud in the mortgage market meltdown.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124890898142691729.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
A lobbyist who agreed to plead guilty to paying thousands of dollars in bribes to Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford will likely testify in Mr. Langford's upcoming trial, his attorney said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124897704098994493.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
A judge ruled that one of the youngest detainees brought to Guantanamo Bay is being held illegally and must be released.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124897066974094167.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
___________________________________
ADVERTISEMENT
Take Advantage of Online Journal Research and Tools!
Utilize our valuable research and tools for important business,
investing and financial planning decisions. Our research includes
quotes and up-to-date information on nearly 30,000 companies as well
as an article archive and extensive market data.
http://online.wsj.com/advanced_search?mod=emtdfix
Contact WSJ's Law Blog at lawblog@wsj.com
__________________________________
ONLINE JOURNAL E-MAIL CENTER
TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIRECTLY from this list, go to:
http://setup.wsj.com/EmailSubMgr/do/delete?addr=ignoble.experiment%40ARCONATI.US&id=145
Your request will take effect within 48 hours.
TO VIEW OR CHANGE any of your e-mail settings, go to the E-Mail Setup Center:
http://online.wsj.com/email
You are currently subscribed as ignoble.experiment@ARCONATI.US
FOR FURTHER ASSISTANCE, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-369-2834
or 1-609-514-0870 between the hours of 7 am - 10 pm Monday - Friday and 8 am - 3 pm Saturday or e-mail onlinejournal@wsj.com.
___________________________________
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy -
http://online.wsj.com/public/privacy_policy
Contact Us -
http://online.wsj.com/public/contact_us
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.