Feds, attorneys will discuss ruling on Monday.

See the article here:
Judge: Loughner Still Not Fit For Trial

After feds shut down popular file-sharing website.

Link:
Anonymous Hacked Justice Dept., FBI’s Sites

The U.S. economy grew more slowly in the summer than earlier thought, according to new data . But the reason could bode well for the final months of the year. Economic activity, as measured by gross domestic product, rose at an annual rate of only 2 percent in the July-through-September quarter, not the 2.5 percent that the Commerce Department estimated late last month. Read full article > >

View post:
Revised GDP figures offer hope for final three months of 2011

The new marching orders for federal workers during snowstorms this winter: Leave the office by the time we tell you to go home—or stay put until we say the roads are safe. In the first overhaul in 14 years to its bad-weather policy, the government is vowing to avoid the chaos that unfolded on Jan. 26 when thousands of commuters were trapped in their cars in gridlock for up to 12 hours. Most left the office just as a fast-moving snowstorm struck at rush hour. The government took the heat for dismissing people too late and not telling transportation officials. Read full article > >

Read the original:
New snow policy for feds: Shelter in place

NEW YORK — An Internet poker company that was blocked from operating in the U.S. in the spring as part of an online gambling crackdown was “not a legitimate poker company, but a global Ponzi scheme,” federal prosecutors said Tuesday. The popular Full Tilt Poker website illegally raided player accounts to fund operations and make lavish payments to its owners, Justice Department lawyers said in a revised civil lawsuit filed in New York. Read full article > >

Read more:
Feds: Full Tilt Poker site was Ponzi scheme, customer accounts were looted of $440 million

NEW YORK — An Internet poker company that was blocked from operating in the U.S. in the spring as part of an online gambling crackdown was “not a legitimate poker company, but a global Ponzi scheme,” federal prosecutors said Tuesday. The popular Full Tilt Poker website illegally raided player accounts to fund operations and make lavish payments to its owners, Justice Department lawyers said in a revised civil lawsuit filed in New York. Read full article > >

Here is the original post:
Feds: Full Tilt Poker site was Ponzi scheme, customer accounts were looted of $440 million

NEW YORK — An Internet poker company that was blocked from operating in the U.S. in the spring as part of an online gambling crackdown was “not a legitimate poker company, but a global Ponzi scheme,” federal prosecutors said Tuesday. The popular Full Tilt Poker website illegally raided player accounts to fund operations and make lavish payments to its owners, Justice Department lawyers said in a revised civil lawsuit filed in New York. Read full article > >

See the original post here:
Feds: Full Tilt Poker site was Ponzi scheme, customer accounts were looted of $440 million

From shot 29-year-old Mark Duggan referring to the police as “feds” to the nuanced use of the word “community”, the language of the riots can tell us something.

See more here:
The words behind the riots

Without notifying the public of their transactions, the Feds doled out money to three banks at interest rates as low as 0.01 percent during the 2008 financial crisis, Bloomberg News reported Thursday. Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, and the Royal Bank of…

Read the original post:
Secret 2008 Fed Loans Uncovered

Federal investigators will be able to comb through the accounts of Twitter users’ with ties to WikiLeaks. The exact order won’t allow the Feds to see the content of messages, only some data attached to the accounts. In a bold legal challenge, Twitter fought to make the initially sealed information request public, a request which was granted. The five accounts investigators are after belong to Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, security researcher Jacob Appelbaum, Dutch citizen Rop Gonggrijp, Icelandic parliament member, Birgitta Jonsdottir. The Twitter users, who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation, have vowed to appeal the ruling. A federal magistrate ruled Friday that prosecutors can demand Twitter account information of certain users in their criminal probe into the disclosure of classified documents on WikiLeaks. Three of the five account holders targeted by the government had asked the judge to reverse an earlier order she issued requiring Twitter to turn over the information to prosecutors. The Twitter users argued that the government was on a fishing expedition and its request amounted to an unconstitutional violation of their freedom of speech and association. But in a ruling issued Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan said the government’s request was reasonable and did nothing to hamper the Twitter users’ free speech rights. “The freedom of association does not shield members from cooperating with legitimate government investigations,” Buchanan wrote in her 20-page opinion. Read the full story at AP .

More here:
Twitter Must Give WikiLeaks-Associated Users’ Info to Feds

Is smearing toxic chemicals on a mailbox “garden-variety” crime or a federal treaty violation? When Carol Anne Bond of Lansdale, PA, put deadly poison on her best friend’s mailbox, she probably didn’t think she was violating an international treaty against chemical weapons. Nor did she probably imagine she’d end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving that most mysterious of Amendments, the Tenth. Tuesday’s oral argument in United States v. Bond will probably focus on the legally important parts of this case — quasi-theological concepts like the nature of the Article II Treaty Power, the meaning of the Article I “Necessary and Proper” Clause, and the real meaning of the Tenth Amendment — which from a journalistic standpoint is a shame, because the unimportant parts of the case are so amazing. I’m pretty sure Bond wasn’t thinking about these issues when she committed her crime — or thinking about of anything, beyond perhaps proving her suitability to appear on a future episode of a daytime talk show called “Highly Educated Microbiologists Who Do Crazy Stupid Things.” Bond, like Wile E. Coyote, smeared various highly toxic chemicals on surfaces in Haynes’s car and around her home, including her mailbox, 24 times. Bond had found out that her BFF Myrlinda Haynes had given birth to a daughter by Bond’s husband, Clifford. She began sending Haynes angry letters featuring defaced pictures of her, and she told her, “I’m going to make your life a living hell” and “dead people are going to visit you.” Bond tried to poison Myrlinda Haynes with 10-chloro10H-phenoxarsine she’d stolen from a storage locker at the chemical company where she worked. This stuff is deadly poison; if Haynes’ daughter had touched it, it would probably have killed her. Bond, like Wile E. Coyote, smeared various highly toxic chemicals on surfaces in Haynes’s car and around her home, including her mailbox, 24 times. Haynes noticed the contaminants and avoided them, except for one burn on her thumb. She also called local police, who good-heartedly suggested the powder must be cocaine. Then they suggested she keep her car cleaner. Only when she turned to the U.S. Postal Service did someone take her situation seriously. Surveillance cameras posted by USPS caught Bond in the act, and she was arrested. An unusual case now turns stranger. Federal authorities charged Bond with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 229 , a statute implementing the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention . She had possessed and used a chemical weapon, the government argued. She pleaded guilty in federal court and received a six-year sentence, which included an enhancement for using “special skill” in the commission of the crime. Bond reserved the right to appeal the application of this statute to her. But the appeals court held she had no “standing” to argue that her conviction exceeded the power of the federal government. The government hadn’t asked for that ruling, but the court went there on its own. At this point her story becomes entangled with issues of federal power that are a lot more important, though radically more boring, than Carol Bond’s crazed campaign for vengeance. Here’s the part that lawyers can love: The issue is not whether Congress, or the federal prosecutors, actually overstepped the Tenth Amendment by applying this federal statute to what her lawyer rather flippantly calls, in a brief to the Court, “garden-variety infractions” like using incredibly toxic, highly regulated chemicals around the home of a mother and her two-year-old infant. It’s whether Bond can even raise the issue. Ordinarily a criminal defendant has “standing” to argue any grounds that might prove her conviction was unlawful. Why wouldn’t she? “Standing” at its core refers to the idea that a person must be injured by a government action. It’s hard to imagine an injury more palpable than being hustled off to a federal gated community for six years. Bond, in fact, didn’t argue that her prosecution violated the Tenth Amendment. She just argued that the chemical weapons statute exceeded the power given to the federal government under the Treaty Power, Article II, § 2, clause 2. On its own, however, the Court of Appeals held that Bond’s challenge actually arose under the Tenth Amendment, and that only a state had standing to challenge a federal action as violating the Amendment’s provision that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Both Bond and the U.S. government now agree that the appeals court got the case wrong. Their only difference is on how broadly she should win. The government wants the Supreme Court to allow Tenth Amendment standing only in cases where defendants argue that the alleged federal overreaching exceeds a constitutional grant of power. Bond, and other conservative amici, wants the Court to allow litigants like Bond to challenge statutes on the grounds that they are unfair, not to them, but to their state governments. The Tenth Amendment is a little bit like the obligatory scene in an adventure movie where the old duffer tells Nick Cage there is a treasure out there and then keels over dead. The rest of the movie is a crazed search for the Holy Grail: a power the federal government doesn’t have! The only problem is that the Amendment doesn’t say what that power is. So the American imagination runs riot. People have assured me confidently that the Tenth Amendment makes the war in Iraq illegal, that it guarantees their right to use marijuana or that it makes it illegal for state police to stop their cars for speeding. If the Court allows the broader rule of standing, private parties will bring Tenth Amendment challenges to dozens of federal programs that they find inconvenient in some way. These citizens will get to assert “state’s rights” even when their states don’t want to assert them or even believe they have them. Conservative advocacy groups, sensing a chance to cut another hole in Congress’s pesky power, have rushed in with “friend of the court” briefs urging the Court to take a meat axe to the federal power to “punish crimes against the United States.” (A coalition of gun-rights groups filed a brief fairly slavering at the damage the Tenth Amendment could do to federal gun laws [ PDF ].) The more broadly a judge reads the Tenth Amendment, the more likely that judge is to look askance at something like the Affordable Care Act. Only one person before the Court argues that the Third Circuit got the case right; he was in essence drafted. When the government “confessed error” and refused to defend the judgment below, the Court reached out to Stephen McAllister , a law professor at Kansas University who clerked for Justices Byron White and Clarence Thomas, to write a special amicus brief defending the Third Circuit’s decision. He did an excellent job in a thankless cause. McAllister’s brief points out that this is not a “garden-variety” extension of the Commerce Clause; the statute at issue was passed in fulfillment of a treaty obligation, and is justified by the Treaty Power — long considered broader than Congress’s ordinary domestic powers — augmented by the “necessary and proper” clause ( PDF ). The chemical weapons treaty requires the United States to pass criminal laws against use of these compounds by private citizens. Cutting back on Congress’s power to fulfill treaties could threaten the nation’s foreign relations — and undercut a key purpose for which the Constitution was adopted. Probably the best outcome would be for Bond to win standing on narrow grounds, get remand to a lower court, and lose on the merits. But the worst would be for the Court to announce open season on federal law by litigants armed with a sense of grievance and a copy of Tenth Amendment. There’s no question that federal courts are overburdened by federal criminal statutes that duplicate state laws, often passed so members of Congress can pose as “tough on crime.” But United States v. Bond is not a case where Congressmen, preening for the cameras, have stretched the Commerce Power to criminalize jay-walking or removing mattress tags. Bond’s case is hardly “garden-variety” crime, after all. Restricting chemical weapons really is a matter for the federal government, not the states. And “garden-variety” law enforcement was unwilling or unable to deal with this horrifying misuse of toxic chemicals. Only the feds took the crime seriously and caught the perpetrator. The argument will be interesting, among other things, for oblique hints of how the Justices are thinking about the pending health-care challenge. The more broadly a judge reads the Tenth Amendment, the more likely that judge is to look askance at something like the Affordable Care Act. If you were a bookie, you’d probably have to make Bond the odds-on favorite to win. But how she wins could make a difference in cases less bizarre but more important.

See the original post here:
U.S. v. Bond: Reexamining the Mysterious 10th Amendment

Here’s a relatively good one from Ed Kilgore: In truth, the DLC was never the ideological or political monolith that its enemies–or even its friends–sometimes imagined. Yes, it was partially financed by corporate money (mainly because corporations wanted to hedge their partisan bets, and because the DLC was at least friendly to them), and it undoubtedly went far over the top in celebrating the “New Economy,” along with the deregulatory demands of the tech industry and its financial allies. But it also pioneered attacks on “corporate welfare” in the federal budget and tax code, opposed state-level tax giveaways as an economic-development tool, and opposed most of corporate America’s legislative priorities (other than on trade policy), most notably the Bush tax cuts and the health care industry’s cherished Medicare prescription drug benefit.  Yes, the DLC fought with the labor movement over trade policy, but it also supported the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which could not have pleased corporate donors, and, on one occasion, PPI’s Will Marshall co-authored an economic policy manifesto with American Prospect editor Bob Kuttner. And yes, the DLC often scourged Democrats for appearing to be weak on defense, and it became too closely associated with the Iraq war (though it quickly split with George W. Bush’s policies on Iraq after the invasion). But DLC founder Sam Nunn led the Democratic opposition to Operation Desert Storm, and many elected officials associated with the DLC opposed the 2003 war from the get-go. The DLC’s reputation for “Republican Lite” policy ideas was never that well-merited: At a time when these ideas were outside even the Democratic mainstream, the group came out for public financing of congressional elections and GLBT rights. I wish he hadn’t gone so squishy here. Citing opposition to Desert Storm is a clever way of changing the subject from the recent Iraq War. I would also hear more about the DLC’s advocacy on behalf of gay and transgender rights.  Part of the problem is that it seems the DLC was rather anxious to cast its net as widely as possible. ( Remember this? ) With that in mind, I wonder about the ideological coherence of the DLC’s membership. I suspect there’s a lot of space between Gavin Newsome and Tom Vilsack.

More here:
In Defense of the DLC

Do they have a secret underground world? U.S. authorities reported today that they’ve found yet another drug tunnel leading from Mexico to the United States. This one, which is a half-mile long, stretches to San Diego. Feds have uncovered an…

Read more:
Feds Uncover Another Drug Tunnel

International Study Shows US Health Care Is Lacking read more

Visit link:
News in Brief: International Study Shows US Health Care Is Lacking, and More …

A federal judge rejected the government’s request to stay her decision overturning Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell while the ruling is appealed, saying the feds had failed to prove that stopping the anti-gay policy would cause “irreparable harm” to the armed…

Read more from the original source:
Judge Rejects Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Stay