Dr Jeevani Hasantha Testimonials_3 Sue’s Squat Form Analysis for EricWongMMA Recent advancements in total hip arthroplasty on arthritic hips MarkGriffith3 says: Loss Of Motion After Knee Surgery May Increase Osteoarthritis Risk http://bit.ly/n9IKZn
Continue reading …PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley welcomed former New York Times columnist and theatre critic Frank Rich to his show on July 7 to absolutely rip on Mitt Romney as a leveraged-buyout specialist who “threw American workers out of work” and “the most transparent phony…that you can imagine.” So why is the unemployment rate at 9.2 percent? Rich said the Wall Street types (the “Robert Rubin retinue”) inside Team Obama ruined the chance to have “a WPA-style jobs program.” Smiley has constantly agitated President Obama from the left, so Rich's first piece for New York magazine insisting Obama's too friendly with Wall Street was right up his alley: TAVIS SMILEY: Well, I am glad, as many others are, your fans, glad to have you back and looking forward to digging into what you have to say in the coming months and years inside New York magazine. Let me start with the obvious. Why this particular piece about Obama as your debut? FRANK RICH: I guess as I was looking at various subjects, what really grabbed me and pushed me in this direction was the fact that Mitt Romney, a guy who is associated with corporate America, whose career was mainly in leveraged buyouts that often threw American workers out of work , that he is getting way with presenting himself as sort of a working-class hero, appearing in front of deserted factories and as a sort of nouvelle FDR.I thought how could Romney, of all people, get away with this pose, and I realized a lot of it has to do with the vacuum that Barack Obama has left in terms of his economic record as president. SMILEY: Is there a parallel? I'll come back to Obama and Romney in a moment. Is there a parallel, though, to how George Bush got away with demonizing John Kerry when Kerry served and Bush didn't? RICH: That's the exact parallel, only in this particular case – in that case, Kerry, his record was exemplary. He had done nothing to deserve it. There's just enough that's wanting in the Obama record so far that he gave Romney a slight opening for his exaggerations and caricatures. This is PBS, where liberals can come and agree with each other in blissful peace that conservatives are horrible people. Obama, Rich said, is a fundamentally decent guy who just needs to wake up and avoid the “Republican turf” of deficit reduction: SMILEY: I’ve said many times on this program and elsewhere between McCain and Obama, respectfully, the word “poverty” never came up one time. We could talk about the middle class; poverty never came up. It’s a word he still doesn’t want to utter to this day, the poor or poverty in this country. But I’m just trying to figure out how a campaign, whether you like or loathe them, agree or disagree, a campaign that was so good on being focused, that was so good on staying on message, that was so good at messaging during the campaign could so badly miss the issue of jobs in this White House? RICH: I couldn’t agree with you more, and of course we don’t know the answer, but there are several theories. One is that he was to some extent too much in the grip of people that he appointed, the sort of Robert Rubin retinue led by Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers. That was not that focused on jobs as the main thing. So even in the stimulus, explicit plans to try to have a WPA jobs program, to put people directly to work, was, we now know, essentially shot down by the Geithner forces in the internal administration debate. This is an administration that took almost a year after Obama entered the White House to have any kind of even sort of pro-forma jobs council, which is just amazing, given the circumstances that you so accurately describe when he came in. Then there was the health care focus and then what I don’t understand – and this is really the hardest question to answer – is how Obama, after health care, sort of waltzed past jobs as a focus and segued into the Republican turf of deficit reduction, almost as if he was intimidated by the Tea Party, even though every poll by every major pollster from Inauguration Day to the present shows that jobs and unemployment is a much higher priority for most Americans than the deficit. SMILEY: I'm just trying to get a sense of why you remain hopeful after all the words you used in this article. RICH: Well, I may be just a fool to hold on to any hope. (Laughter) Tavis, I can't make – I don't have any great argument except a fundamental conviction, I guess, that this is a decent guy, much of whose record in history, including, by the way, as a community organizer, suggests that his overall passions are not the ones we're seeing presented and seeing so compromised in the past couple of years. I also feel he is somebody wh when his back is against the wall tends to wake up and smell the coffee. A third thing is in the press conference that he gave last week, where he was immediately, of course, insulted by the Republicans for being so out there and so angry when in fact all he did was fight a little and show some spine, and yet that even got him called a four-letter word on another network, that Obama, he's still there. Romney is the most transparent phony, and I think many Republicans would agree, that you can imagine . He’s rolling up his shirtsleeves, he’s letting a few pieces of hair fall out of place, a little bit less hair gel, and we’re supposed to believe he’s Tom Joad in “The Grapes of Wrath.” That’s how he’s presenting himself. Four years ago or three years ago he presented himself as a religious conservative. That didn’t work. So that’s really a paper tiger if Obama is going to be the real tiger. SMILEY: Frank Rich is back, and unapologetically. I am happy about that, as I’m sure many of you are.
Continue reading …Vente villa 7 pièces, Châteauneuf-Grasse Vente appartement 5 pièces, Marcq-en-Baroeul Vente villa 5 pièces, Toulon Dizzlski says: RT @ggreenwald : America's creditor helpfully identifies its unspoken budget problem – bloated military spending: http://is.gd/b8nnNj
Continue reading …Campaign supported by Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party movement fails to muster two-thirds majority needed A Republican campaign to defend America against a sweeping assault on personal freedoms – or energy-saving lightbulbs as they are more commonly known – went down in defeat on Tuesday night. The result is a rejection of one of the great causes of the conservative Tea Party movement: the repeal of a 2007 law promoting environmentally efficient lighting. Presidential contender Michele Bachmann and talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck had dismissed the legislation as an assault on personal freedom. In a speech in New Orleans last month Bachmann declared: “President Bachmann will allow you to buy any lightbulb you want.” But Tuesday night’s vote in the House of Representatives failed to muster the two-thirds majority needed under special rules invoked by Republicans to fasttrack the repeal. The bill did get a 233-193 majority in the House, however, and Joe Barton the Texan Republican behind the measure told US politics website Politico he would try again to get the legislation through – by any means. “We can put it on an appropriations bill”, he said. “We can back it under a rule. I can try and go to some of the Democrats who didn’t vote for it and figure out a way to get them to consider voting for it in a different format.” The Texan said he had originally counted on getting more than 300 votes for the measure including help from some Democrats. But the Republicans’ hopes of using the defence of old-fashioned 100 watt bulbs as a rallying cry for freedom had already begun to dim by Tuesday night. The party cast the 2007 measure, which was signed into law by George Bush, as an outright ban on the familiar 100 watt bulb, and even an affront to its inventor Thomas Edison. In their view encouraging the adoption of curly lightbulbs was yet another example of government overreach by Barack Obama. Saving the lightbulb was not a traditional Republican cause, however. The original 2007 bill had strong Republican support; it was even crafted in part by Fred Upton, now the chair of the House energy and commerce committee. Upton, anxious to reinforce his conservative credentials, has since recanted: he voted for the repeal of the measure. The defence of the 100 watt bulb seemed in the Republican mind to be a winner until the run-up to the vote, when lighting manufacturers such as Philips and General Electric joined the White House, Democrats, and environmental organisations in opposing the Republican campaign. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, told reporters last week the 2007 measure was actually aimed at raising efficiency standards for all new bulbs by more than 25% beginning in 2012. The companies pointed out, meanwhile, that they were already shifting to newer LED and compact fluorescent bulbs. It also became more difficult for Republicans to maintain the argument that the new energy-saving bulbs were a burden on consumers. Although energy-saving lightbulbs do cost more than the old-fashioned variety, environmental organisations argued that the new standards would save the average American household around $85 a year (£50) in electricity costs. Energy United States Energy efficiency Ethical and green living Republicans US politics Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …One of America’s most famous polygamists and his four wives are taking their lifestyle from the television set to the courtroom. Sister Wives’ Kody Brown and the rest of his 21-person family will file a suit tomorrow, but its goal isn’t to get polygamy on the books as a recognized…
Continue reading …Click here to view this media As John wrote about yesterday, Alan Grayson is going to run for Congress again in Florida. He joined Ed Schultz to talk about the current negotiations going on right now over raising the debt ceiling and he didn’t have too many kind words about our social safety nets being put on the table and for Republicans being given a complete pass for claiming we have to make huge cuts to the budget without explaining what those cuts are. As Grayson noted, if we ended a lot of our ill advised military adventures, that would go a really long way towards balancing our budget rather than asking it be taken our of the hides of everyday Americans. Ed Schultz asked Grayson about President Obama putting Social Security on the table during these debt ceiling negotiations and I don’t necessarily agree with the way Schultz characterized it since unfortunately we don’t know enough details about what either side is offering up during these negotiations. That said, I do agree that I don’t think our social safety nets should have been put out there as a bargaining chip so that the Obama administration might be able to use to make the Republicans look like the unreasonable fools that they are if they still refuse to make a deal. The problem with making that offer is what if the Republicans take it? Then what? Anyway, par for the course, Grayson as usual didn’t pull too many punches here with how he feels about all of this. Transcript below the fold. SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. One of the things we‘ve been talking about is whether President Obama will draw a line in the sand when we need him to. Is the president trying to strengthen Social Security and Medicare? Or is he talking about crucial cuts? Let‘s bring in former congressman, Alan Grayson, who has been a fighter for the left since the day he got on the national scene. Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. I want to listen to part of what President Obama said today about the entitlements and Medicare. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: The vast majority of Democrats on Capitol would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements. And I‘m sympathetic to their concerns because they are looking out for folks who are already hurting and already vulnerable. And there are a lot of families out there and seniors who are dependent on some of these programs. And What I try to explain to them is: number one, if you look at the numbers, then, Medicare in particular, will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Alan Grayson, you have been a man known for your unvarnished opinion. If you were in Congress today, what would be your advice and how would you handle this? FMR. REP. ALAN GRAYSON (D), FLORIDA: I would not vote for any cuts in Medicare, I would not vote for any cuts in Social Security, and I‘d grabbing everybody else by the collar and telling them they should do the same. Look, you know, the Republicans have been saying now for months that we need to cut $2 trillion out of the budget over the next 10 years, without ever saying what they would cut. They got a free ride for the past two months or three months talking about all these wonder cuts that are going to reduce the deficit, reduce the debt, without ever saying what they are. Now, I know a way to cut $2 trillion out of the deficit in the next 10 years. You could end the wars. You could end the wars in Afghanistan, you could end the war in Iraq, and Libya, those wars cost us $157 billion last year, and the cost is going up, not down. If you want to save $2 trillion, how about peace? Why don‘t we give that a try? SCHULTZ: Social Security is even a bigger deal, it seems like. Although Harry Reid was on “Meet the Press” I think a couple of months ago, said we didn‘t have a problem. But I guess now, the president wants to put it on the table. The president has acknowledged it‘s not part of the deficit problem, and I think that‘s starting to sink with in Americans. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: With respect to Social Security, Social Security is not the source of our deficit problems. Social Security, if it is part of a package, would be an issue of how do we make sure Social Security extends its life and is strengthened. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: So, strengthened means cuts, OK? Let‘s get the code language out here. Any time you want to strengthen something, you are going ask consumers, who pay into the program that‘s been successful for all these decades, that they just got to do more for the top 2 percent. So, if it‘s not the source of the problem, why in the hell do we have to address it now? What do you think? GRAYSON: Because Washington has now divided between the meanies and weanies. That‘s the real two-party system today in Washington. The meanies and weanies. The meanies want to take Social Security and Medicare away from grandma and grandpa. The weanies are quite willing to go along with it and compromise. Well, people need Social Security and Medicare to live. And there‘s no compromise between life and death. There‘s no middle ground. The average person who retires in America today has less than $50,000 in savings. That‘s good for one, maybe two years, and those people live for close to— SCHULTZ: Yes. GRAYSON: There is no way anybody in America can get by without Social Security and Medicare, and that‘s what right wing in America wants to take away. I say, no, no compromise. We need to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. I want to see Medicare cover dental work. I want to see Medicare cover hearing aids. I want to see Medicare cover actual medical needs. SCHULTZ: Is this president weak? Why isn‘t he saying what you‘re saying? Why does he throw $4 trillion out on the table when he knows that‘s an unrealistic number? Is he just trying to prove a point that the Republicans are never going to deal with him? Hell, anyone could have told me that last week. GRAYSON: He is the president. He‘s the leader of my party. So, I don‘t know exactly what to say. But I do this—all of this compromise hasn‘t accomplished anything useful for anybody on our side. It hasn‘t done any good at all. The president should be saying to people, the Republican Party is cruel. The Republican Party is bigoted. The Republican Party cares about tax breaks for the rich. SCHULTZ: Congressman, there‘s a lot of people who need your voice. Are you going to get back into this political arena? GRAYSON: Ed, I announced today that I‘m running for Congress again. And already, at our Web site, congresswithguts.com, hundreds of people have made a contribution. So, yes, I‘m back. SCHULTZ: It‘s good to have you back. Former Congressman Alan Grayson with us tonight here on THE ED SHOW, thanks so much.
Continue reading …Jon Stewart and The Daily Show, in the middle section of the above video, did an expose on the Rupertgate phone-hacking scandal that’s engulfing Murdoch and is beginning to bleed into his American operations. A report is circulating that 9/11 families were targeted as well. WIll Bunch: Over the last few days, many people — myself included — have asked variations of this question: Will the Rupert Murdoch/News of the World phone hacking scandal, which some are calling Britian’s Watergate , reach us here in America, where the modern-day Citizen Kane’s holdings including the Fox TV and movie empire as well as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. The answer may be yes: A report in a rival British tabloid the Daily Mirror makes an allegation that, if proven true, many Americans will find just as revolting as the phone hacking of 13-year-old morder victim Milly Dowler, maybe even more so. Did Murdoch’s London-based News of the World contact a New York City private investigator about phone hacking American victims of the 9/11 attacks? The pair chatted behind closed doors as a former New York cop made the 9/11 hacking claim. He alleged he was contacted by News of the World journalists who said they would pay him to retrieve the private phone records of the dead. Now working as a private investigator, the ex-officer claimed reporters wanted the victim’s phone numbers and details of the calls they had made and received in the days leading up to the atrocity. A source said: “This investigator is used by a lot of journalists in America and he recently told me that he was asked to hack into the 9/11 victims’ private phone data. He said that the journalists asked him to access records showing the calls that had been made to and from the mobile phones belonging to the victims and their relatives. “His presumption was that they wanted the information so they could hack into the relevant voicemails, just like it has been shown they have done in the UK. The PI said he had to turn the job down. He knew how insensitive such research would be, and how bad it would look.” Indeed. That said, this article raises more questions than it answers, and I would note a couple of major caveats. One, the story is pretty thinly sourced, as we say in the business. Two, the Mirror is a non-Murdoch-owned British tabloid driven by the same kind of competitive pressures that led to this whole scandal in the first place. But I think the significance is this: Given the scandal in the UK, the American activities of Murdoch-controlled journalists — at both his British publications and his U.S. enterprises — deserve closer scrutiny, including from law enforcement. Maybe Murdoch’s journalists’ alleged illegal activities stopped at the far shores of the Atlantic, but we should find out for sure. I’ve asked the question a few times as C&L has covered this story. Have Fox News and/or other Murdoch entities applied the same phone-hacking skills to the U.S.? Rupert Murdoch may be heading off to answer questions before Parliament. News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch has been asked to appear before British Parliament to answer question about his company’s phone hacking scandal, as well as his son James and News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks. The culture, media and sport select committee, which has published critical reports on the affair, has written to the trio of executives inviting them to appear, the Guardian reported. News International said in a statement: “We have been made aware of the request from the CMS select committee to interview senior executives and will cooperate. We await the formal invitation.” CREW is demanding an investigation into Murdoch’s stateside activities. Ellen at Newshounds has six good reasons to demand an investigation into the company’s activities here. And you can go to Media Matters for a petition demanding such action. Eric Boehlert writes: Scandal Woes Mount for Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Publisher The revelation yesterday that Britain’s former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, alleged that his personal information was obtained illegally by Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times only intensifies the pressure on Les Hinton, Murdoch’s longtime confidant and publisher of the Wall Street Journal. Hinton was already facing scrutiny for the phone hacking scandal because he oversaw Murdoch’s News of The World when the tabloid appears to have engaged in rampant phone hacking. Worse, Hinton oversaw an internal investigation into the matter that James Murdoch now acknowledges “wrongly maintained that these issues were confined to one reporter .” Now with the Brown allegations come additional woes: Brown accused the paper of getting his bank details, saying he was “genuinely shocked” by its methods. The allegations widen the scandal that brought down Britain’s best-selling newspaper, the News of the World, to other newspapers also owned by Murdoch’s News International media group. Brown expressed dismay at the allegations Monday night and has given investigators “all relevant evidence” he has about the matter, according to a statement from his office. “The family has been shocked by the level of criminality and the unethical means by which personal details have been obtained,” the statement said. “The matter is in police hands.” Brown alleges the Sunday Times’ sting took place over a ten-year period . And who oversaw the Sunday Times during key portions of that span? Since the scandal took off, their stock price has been failing so Murdoch bought back a ton of shares: Rupert Murdoch’s $5bn News Corp buyback halts share slide The Guardian publishes a very good op-ed on the media and its corrupt, elitist purposes: This media is corrupt – we need a Hippocratic oath for journalists Our job is to hold power to account. Instead, most of the profession simply ventriloquises the concerns of the elite. Is Murdoch now finished in the UK? As the pursuit of Gordon Brown by the Sunday Times and the Sun blows the hacking scandal into new corners of the old man’s empire, this story begins to feel like the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. The naked attempt to destroy Brown by any means, including hacking the medical files of his sick baby son, means that there is no obvious limit to the story’s ramifications. The papers cannot announce that their purpose is to ventriloquise the concerns of multimillionaires; they must present themselves as the voice of the people. The Sun, the Mail and the Express claim to represent the interests of the working man and woman. These interests turn out to be identical to those of the men who own the papers. So the rightwing papers run endless exposures of benefit cheats, yet say scarcely a word about the corporate tax cheats. They savage the trade unions and excoriate the BBC. They lambast the regulations that restrain corporate power. They school us in the extrinsic values – the worship of power, money, image and fame – which advertisers love but which make this a shallower, more selfish country. Most of them deceive their readers about the causes of climate change. These are not the obsessions of working people. They are the obsessions thrust upon them by the multimillionaires who own these papers. The corporate media is a gigantic astroturfing operation: a fake grassroots crusade serving elite interests. In this respect the media companies resemble the Tea Party movement , which claims to be a spontaneous rising of blue-collar Americans against the elite but was founded with the help of the billionaire Koch brothers and promoted by Murdoch’s Fox News.Journalism’s primary purpose is to hold power to account. This purpose has been perfectly inverted. Columnists and bloggers are employed as the enforcers of corporate power, denouncing people who criticise its interests, stamping on new ideas, bullying the powerless. The press barons allowed governments occasionally to promote the interests of the poor, but never to hamper the interests of the rich. They also sought to discipline the rest of the media. The BBC, over the last 30 years, became a shadow of the gutsy broadcaster it was, and now treats big business with cringing deference.
Continue reading …WikiLeaks founder’s counsel claims in high court that Swedish judges were misled about sexual assault and rape allegations The European arrest warrant issued for the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, is invalid, the high court was told on Tuesday, because of significant discrepancies between its allegations of sexual assault and rape and the testimonies of two women he allegedly had sex with. The warrant details four allegations of unlawful coercion, sexual molestation and rape, relating to encounters between Assange and two Swedish women while on a trip to Stockholm last August. But Ben Emmerson QC, for Assange, said the warrant was a misinterpretation of the evidence and it was “surprising and disturbing” that Swedish district judges who requested Assange’s extradition had been misled. Emmerson was opening the latest step in the Australian’s attempt to avoid being sent to Sweden for questioning and possible charges which Assange has said he fears could pave the way for him to be further extradited to the US. There he could face charges relating to the leak of hundreds of thousands of classified government documents through WikiLeaks. An earlier appeal failed and Assange has appointed a new legal team which is taking a more conciliatory approach. Emmerson told Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Ousely that there was no evidence about there being a lack of consent in the encounters as appeared to be suggested in the wording of the arrest warrant. He said three of the allegations would not amount to criminal offences under English law. Emmerson said: “The senior district judge found that those factual allegations would establish dual criminality on the basis that lack of consent, and lack of reasonable belief in consent, may properly be inferred from the conduct described, particularly the references to ‘violence’ and a ‘design’ to ‘violate sexual integrity’. However, that description of conduct is not accurate. The arrest warrant misstates the conduct and is, by that reason alone, an invalid warrant.” Emmerson examined the witness testimonies of the encounters in graphic detail. Referring to evidence of an encounter on the night of 13 August given by a woman known as AA who was hosting Assange at her apartment, Emmerson said: “The appellant’s physical advances were initially welcomed but then it felt awkward since he was ‘rough and impatient’… they lay down in bed. AA was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … AA felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she did not articulate this. Instead she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … AA tried several times to reach for a condom which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and try to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. AA says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.” But, Emmerson said, crucially there was no lack of consent sufficient for the unlawful coercion allegation, because “after a while Assange asked what AA was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. AA told him that she wanted him to put a condom on before he entered her. Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom which AA found.” Emmerson told the court the case did not hinge on whether Assange accepted this version of events and others relating to other incidents because there were no charges against him, but whether the arrest warrant in connection with them was valid on “strict and narrow” legal grounds. As if to illustrate the change of strategy by Assange’s new legal team, Emmerson said: “Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating the complainant, the genuineness of their feelings of regret, to trivialise their experience or to challenge whether they felt Assange’s conduct was disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing at the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with.” Assange was in court with supporters including Vaughan Smith, the founder of the Frontline Club who is hosting his house arrest at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk, and John Pilger, the veteran investigative journalist. Assange arrived at about 9.15am, saying nothing to questions as he moved at a snail’s pace through a tight scrum of photographers. He was asked if he was looking forward to his latest day in court and whether he would take the case to the supreme court if he lost over the next two days. He said nothing. By the court railings, small groups of protesters gathered, including one carrying a banner saying: “Free Assange! Free Manning! End the wars.” Julian Assange WikiLeaks Rape Sweden Europe Robert Booth guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Subpoena from 3M would force defence secretary Liam Fox to answer claim under oath in US court Liam Fox, the defence secretary, may be forced to give evidence in a blackmail trial in the United States, the Guardian has learnt. The “unprecedented” legal action could make Fox the first serving British cabinet minister to give evidence in a serious legal case in America. The Guardian understands that US conglomerate 3M is preparing to serve Fox with a subpoena demanding that he gives evidence over a claim that he was aware of a threat to interfere with the award of a knighthood to 3M’s British-born chief executive. It has been alleged that a private equity partner of the Ministry of Defence demanded that 3M hand over $30m (£18.5m) or risk the embarrassment of the government interfering with the knighthood award to George Buckley, 3M’s chief executive. It has been alleged that Fox was party to a conversation about the alleged suggestion. A 3M subpoena would force Fox to answer the claim under oath. An email to the private equity company from 3M’s lawyers, seen by the Guardian, said: “We request that you accept subpoenas on [Fox's] behalf for the production of documents and deposition upon oral testimony.” 3M’s lawyers have yet to serve a subpoena on Fox. Harvey Boulter, chief executive of Porton Capital, which worked with the government to develop innovative technology to help combat MRSA, has been accused of blackmail and served with legal papers. Boulter and Porton Capital deny the claim. According to 3M’s lawyers, Boulter told them that if an earlier legal battle over the MRSA technology was not settled out of court he would use his political influence to interfere with Buckley’s recently awarded knighthood. The blackmail case is built on emails Boulter sent to 3M’s lawyers last month. “As a result of my meeting [with Fox] you ought to understand that David Cameron’s cabinet might very shortly be discussing the rather embarrassing situation of George [Buckley]‘s knighthood. It was discussed today,” Boulter said in one of the emails. “Governments are big and sometimes decisions in one part are not well co-ordinated.” Bill Brewer, 3M’s lawyer, said: “We are committed to determine who aided, abetted or participated with Boulter in any manner relative to the demands that were made to 3M during the weekend of 18 June.” The MoD has denied that Fox discussed the continuing legal case or Buckley’s knighthood. However, in a new statement, Boulter has again claimed that he and Fox discussed the litigation. The MoD declined to issue a fresh statement. Mark Stephens, a high-profile media lawyer with London firm Finers Stephens Innocent, said: “Calling a serving British cabinet ministers to give evidence is pretty unprecedented.” Stephens said that if the subpoena is served Fox would be pushed to give evidence in America or speak to US lawyers in a British court. Private equity Liam Fox United States Defence policy Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …For years, one of the most common, if not infamous, expressions on the streets of urban America has been “stop snitching,” which has evolved from a warning among those who mistrust the authorities to a mentality that threatens innocent people who witness violent crimes and major felonies, and establishes street cred just for avoiding cooperation
Continue reading …