Judges will consider application to stay judgment meaning officers can no longer bail suspects for more than four days without charging or releasing them The supreme court is to consider suspending a legal ruling on police bail that overturns 25 years of police practice. A court spokeswoman said three judges will consider the application to stay the judgment – which means officers can no longer bail suspects for more than four days without either charging or releasing them – on Monday. If granted, the move would put the ruling on hold until a full appeal is heard at the same court on 25 July. There will be no public hearing on Monday, with the three justices considering the application, by Greater Manchester police, in private. The Home Office was criticised on Thursday for not acting sooner to reverse the ruling, which could hamper tens of thousands of investigations and leave officers doing their job with “one hand tied behind their back”. The criticism came after the policing minister, Nick Herbert, told MPs that emergency legislation to reverse the ruling would be brought forward because he feared an appeal to the supreme court would take too long. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said the Home Office was “clearly in chaos”, adding: “The home secretary is still failing to sort the problem.” “Shocking delays and home office incompetence are still putting investigations at risk and jeopardising justice for victims.” She said ministers “confirmed that the home office has known about this for over a month yet they still haven’t finished the emergency legislation, and the police still don’t know what they are supposed to do with suspects today”. “That means thousands of ongoing investigations are being jeopardised,” she added. “The catalogue of incompetence is deeply worrying.” Herbert admitted that officials were told of the oral judgment in May, but its full impact only became clear when the written judgment was handed down on 17 June and ministers were alerted on 24 June . The row started when district judge Jonathan Finestein, sitting at Salford magistrates court, refused a routine application from Greater Manchester police for a warrant of further detention of Paul Hookway, a murder suspect, on 5 April. High court judge Mr Justice McCombe confirmed the ruling in a judicial review on 19 May, which meant time spent on police bail counted towards the maximum 96-hour limit of pre-charge detention. Afterwards, Home Office officials were told about the problems. Herbert told MPs: “The police believe that the judgment will have a serious impact on their ability to investigate crime. “In some cases, it will mean that suspects who would normally be released on bail are detained for longer. It is likely that, in most forces, there will not be enough capacity to detain everybody in police cells. “In other cases, it risks impeding the police to such an extent that the investigation will have to be stopped because the detention time has run out. The judgment will also affect the ability of the police to enforce bail conditions.” He said the judgment “upsets a careful balance which has stood for a quarter of a century and impedes the police from doing their job”, adding: “That is why it must be reversed.” About 85,200 people are on bail in England and Wales at any one time, and the common practice in most major inquiries of releasing suspects on bail and calling them back for questioning weeks later is “pretty much a dead duck” following the ruling, police chiefs said. Police Yvette Cooper Labour Liberal-Conservative coalition guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …In the third of his series Jason Burke reports on growing tensions as clergy oppose incremental moves away from conservative Islam Part two: ‘A very different society from Egypt, Tunisia or Syria’ Part one: Stability, security and Iran On a Friday at one o’clock, Sheikh Saad Bin Naser al-Shethri is leading prayers in a small mosque in an upmarket neighbourhood of Riyadh, the Saudi capital. The faithful fill two floors, listening to the cleric’s sermon on the true sense of the traditional greeting ” salaam aleikum ” – peace be upon you. This, Shethri says, means love thy neighbour. It is a moderate message from a man who even in fiercely conservative Saudi Arabia, home to the most rigorous strands of Muslim practice in the world, is considered a hardliner. Only 18 months ago, Shethri, 46, was fired from the country’s high council of religious scholars by King Abdullah, who has ruled the kingdom since 2005. His offence was to have criticised the king’s decision to allow male and female researchers to work together at the new multibillion pound science university built outside Riyadh. The king had called the university, a key part of Saudi Arabia’s drive towards economic modernisation, a “beacon of tolerance”. Shethri retorted that “mixing [genders] is a great sin and a great evil … When men mix with women, their hearts burn and they will be diverted from their main goal [of] education.” Shethri remains unrepentant. In an interview with the Guardian, his first with a western newspaper, he says the duty of religious scholars is to advise sovereign rulers but also “to make governors fear God if they err from the right path and to remind them of God’s punishment if they continue to err”. In an implicit criticism of the hugely wealthy royal family, Shethri said the Qur’an teaches money should not be admired nor should the rich be envied. The poorer you are, he said, “the less you will have to account for in this life and the next”. Such tensions between the descendants of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the tribal chieftain who unified the warring states of the Arabian peninsula to form Saudi Arabia in 1932, and the country’s clerics are not new. Having used fanatical Wahhabi religious fighters to conquer his new kingdom, Saud crushed their subsequent revolt and did a deal with the country’s ultra-conservative clergy that has endured to this day. The religious establishment was allowed substantial independence, the control of key ministries and a share of the wealth of the kingdom. In return, in crisis after crisis, it has come to the aid of the family, buttressing its authority with fatwa – religious opinions. So in 1991, clerics declared US troops could be based in the kingdom. After the 9/11 attacks, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, religious scholars in the kingdom repudiated al-Qaida’s extremism, grudgingly accepted some changes to schoolbooks that encouraged intolerance, and co-operated in restricting the flow of money from Saudi Arabia to radical organisations. This year, as demonstrations unseated leaders in Tunisia and Egypt and threatened many more, they told the faithful that protests against their rulers would be un-Islamic. “Relations between the royal family and the clergy are very good,” says Turki al-Sudeiri, editor of the loyalist al’Riyadh newspaper. But such support is often grudging. Shethri is not the only cleric to dislike the current king’s moves towards incremental reform. The most conservative part of Saudi Arabia is al-Qassem province, a 250-mile drive west across the desert plateau from the capital. Cities here have seen repeated challenges to the authority of the Saud family. There were riots when women’s education was introduced in the 1960s and in the 1990s the province was a base for the “awakening” movement of radical clerics who inspired and influenced Osama bin Laden. Here both the house of al-Saud and establishment clerics close to the current king are seen with unspoken suspicion. From al-Qassem, “Riyadh looks like Paris and [the relatively tolerant port city of] Jeddah looks like Bangkok,” says one Saudi reformer. But there is variety in even al-Qassem’s conservatism. Ibrahim al-Duwaish runs a social science institute in the small town of As Rass. The 41-year-old religious scholar uses an iPhone and says he enjoyed his time in the UK last year, where he admired the orderly traffic and numerous universities – although not public drunkenness at weekends. Once a firebrand reactionary and now seen locally as a relative moderate, he says there is nothing wrong with women driving in theory but that he opposed it in practice because women taking to the road would cause too many accidents. Equally, Duwaish welcomed the change new communications technology has brought to the kingdom as the internet means he can employ women at his institute. They are able to work from home and still avoid contact with men who are not their husbands or immediate family, he says. “If you ask women all over the world if they prefer a mixed environment or to be away from men, they would choose the latter,” Duwaish, whose centre was one of the first to publish a report on domestic violence in the kingdom, told the Guardian. As elsewhere in Saudi Arabia, As Rass has changed immensely since Duwaish was a child. The last four decades here have seen a huge transfer of population from the countryside to small towns and into cities, a leap in material comfort and the demolition of almost every building that pre-dated the vast oil wealth of the 1970s. Forty years ago most women and many men could not read. But there is nostalgia for times past. As Rass was a “quiet town where everybody knew each other”, Duwaish, remembers. “It was so pure, so quiet.” The growing number of heritage projects in Saudi Arabia indicates such sentiments are widespread. The As Rass municipality recently opened a “traditional” museum in the corner of a shopping mall where a former soldier wears traditional dress and makes old-fashioned coffee for visitors who sit on rugs. More than 80 visitors come every day,mainly young people curious about their heritage. The museum is a good initiative, said Duwaish, the cleric, because “when traditions disappear overnight, people react badly”. One such reaction in recent decades has been violent extremism. Saudi Arabia was hit by a series of al-Qaida-inspired attacks between 2003 and 2004, prompting widespread reform of the security services and hundreds of people being rounded up. Some of those responsible were veterans of militant training camps in Afghanistan, others were new recruits. Recent years have been calm, however. “The problem has now almost disappeared,” said Abdulrahman al-Hadlaq, a Ministry of Interior criminologist who works on radical Islam in the kingdom. “Al-Qaida here is dying. Public awareness is much higher, security is stricter.” More than 10,000 people have been arrested on terrorism charges, sometimes on flimsy evidence, human rights campaigners say. Many senior extremists have fled to Yemen. Last week, the trial of alleged militants accused of an assault on a housing compound full of expatriates in 2003 started. Dozens of death sentences are expected. Less serious offenders are dealt with more leniently. Hadlaq runs a team of counsellors, psychologists and clerics who work to rehabilitate former militants at a centre on the outskirts of Riyadh. Since it opened in 2007, hundreds of recently released prisoners, all convicted for militant activity, have “graduated”. Recidivism rates, Hadlaq said, were around 10% for those involved in support activities or who had travelled to Iraq to fight American troops there but approached 25% for the 123 Saudi citizens who had been incarcerated in Guantánamo Bay. Many of these “Gitmo veterans” now head the Ministry of Interior’s wanted list, according to General Mansour al’Turki, a senior official. Several are now leaders of the “al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula” group, based in Yemen. Yusef al’Rabesh, 32, is one “Gitmo veteran” who has been successfully “rehabilitated”, however. Detained like many others by American troops in Afghanistan in late 2001, he spent seven years in US custody before being released without charge. Rabesh claims he was in Afghanistan looking for his brother, a Taliban fighter. American military authorities said he was a trained combatant. In detention in Afghanistan and then in Cuba, “the [Americans] hit me, dragged me, chained me like a dog”, Rabesh said. “We were treated worse than animals. But the rehabilitation programme took this black experience away.” On his release, the government found Rabesh a job as a manager in a taxi company, a wife in his hometown of Burayda al Qassem province and provided tens of thousands of dollars for the wedding. He now “better understands Islam”, he says. “There are legitimate reasons for jihad in our religion but I have learned that no private person can say that a jihad is justified. It can only be the Islamic scholars who make that decision according to certain conditions,” he said. Last week, Prince Nayef, the most conservative of senior princes and minister of interior, told a local audience that terrorism had “wronged many, damaging the image of Islam, the Arabs and in particular the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” Nayef is head of the religious police who continue to enforce, even if less brutally and intrusively than previously, Saudi Arabia’s fierce puritanism and is known to be opposed to any major social reforms in the country. The erosion of Saudi Arabia’s deep conservatism is a reality but is neither a uniform nor linear process. It is extremely unlikely even the more moderate elements within the royal family will seek to accelerate the pace of reform and risk alienating the clerical establishment. Should Prince Nayef succeed – he is currently 76, third in line to the throne and eleven years younger than the king – most analysts expect a new reactionary atmosphere. Many Saudis will be pleased. “You have democracy. We have our religion,” said Abdallah al’Utaiba, 32, a camel dealer who listened to the news of the Arab spring uprisings on a radio in a tent in the dusty hinterland on the fringes of Riyadh. “You have lost your traditions. We have not. It is better that it stays that way.” Saudi Arabia King Abdullah Islam Arab and Middle East unrest al-Qaida Global terrorism Religion Middle East Jason Burke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …In the third of his series Jason Burke reports on growing tensions as clergy oppose incremental moves away from conservative Islam Part two: ‘A very different society from Egypt, Tunisia or Syria’ Part one: Stability, security and Iran On a Friday at one o’clock, Sheikh Saad Bin Naser al-Shethri is leading prayers in a small mosque in an upmarket neighbourhood of Riyadh, the Saudi capital. The faithful fill two floors, listening to the cleric’s sermon on the true sense of the traditional greeting ” salaam aleikum ” – peace be upon you. This, Shethri says, means love thy neighbour. It is a moderate message from a man who even in fiercely conservative Saudi Arabia, home to the most rigorous strands of Muslim practice in the world, is considered a hardliner. Only 18 months ago, Shethri, 46, was fired from the country’s high council of religious scholars by King Abdullah, who has ruled the kingdom since 2005. His offence was to have criticised the king’s decision to allow male and female researchers to work together at the new multibillion pound science university built outside Riyadh. The king had called the university, a key part of Saudi Arabia’s drive towards economic modernisation, a “beacon of tolerance”. Shethri retorted that “mixing [genders] is a great sin and a great evil … When men mix with women, their hearts burn and they will be diverted from their main goal [of] education.” Shethri remains unrepentant. In an interview with the Guardian, his first with a western newspaper, he says the duty of religious scholars is to advise sovereign rulers but also “to make governors fear God if they err from the right path and to remind them of God’s punishment if they continue to err”. In an implicit criticism of the hugely wealthy royal family, Shethri said the Qur’an teaches money should not be admired nor should the rich be envied. The poorer you are, he said, “the less you will have to account for in this life and the next”. Such tensions between the descendants of Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, the tribal chieftain who unified the warring states of the Arabian peninsula to form Saudi Arabia in 1932, and the country’s clerics are not new. Having used fanatical Wahhabi religious fighters to conquer his new kingdom, Saud crushed their subsequent revolt and did a deal with the country’s ultra-conservative clergy that has endured to this day. The religious establishment was allowed substantial independence, the control of key ministries and a share of the wealth of the kingdom. In return, in crisis after crisis, it has come to the aid of the family, buttressing its authority with fatwa – religious opinions. So in 1991, clerics declared US troops could be based in the kingdom. After the 9/11 attacks, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, religious scholars in the kingdom repudiated al-Qaida’s extremism, grudgingly accepted some changes to schoolbooks that encouraged intolerance, and co-operated in restricting the flow of money from Saudi Arabia to radical organisations. This year, as demonstrations unseated leaders in Tunisia and Egypt and threatened many more, they told the faithful that protests against their rulers would be un-Islamic. “Relations between the royal family and the clergy are very good,” says Turki al-Sudeiri, editor of the loyalist al’Riyadh newspaper. But such support is often grudging. Shethri is not the only cleric to dislike the current king’s moves towards incremental reform. The most conservative part of Saudi Arabia is al-Qassem province, a 250-mile drive west across the desert plateau from the capital. Cities here have seen repeated challenges to the authority of the Saud family. There were riots when women’s education was introduced in the 1960s and in the 1990s the province was a base for the “awakening” movement of radical clerics who inspired and influenced Osama bin Laden. Here both the house of al-Saud and establishment clerics close to the current king are seen with unspoken suspicion. From al-Qassem, “Riyadh looks like Paris and [the relatively tolerant port city of] Jeddah looks like Bangkok,” says one Saudi reformer. But there is variety in even al-Qassem’s conservatism. Ibrahim al-Duwaish runs a social science institute in the small town of As Rass. The 41-year-old religious scholar uses an iPhone and says he enjoyed his time in the UK last year, where he admired the orderly traffic and numerous universities – although not public drunkenness at weekends. Once a firebrand reactionary and now seen locally as a relative moderate, he says there is nothing wrong with women driving in theory but that he opposed it in practice because women taking to the road would cause too many accidents. Equally, Duwaish welcomed the change new communications technology has brought to the kingdom as the internet means he can employ women at his institute. They are able to work from home and still avoid contact with men who are not their husbands or immediate family, he says. “If you ask women all over the world if they prefer a mixed environment or to be away from men, they would choose the latter,” Duwaish, whose centre was one of the first to publish a report on domestic violence in the kingdom, told the Guardian. As elsewhere in Saudi Arabia, As Rass has changed immensely since Duwaish was a child. The last four decades here have seen a huge transfer of population from the countryside to small towns and into cities, a leap in material comfort and the demolition of almost every building that pre-dated the vast oil wealth of the 1970s. Forty years ago most women and many men could not read. But there is nostalgia for times past. As Rass was a “quiet town where everybody knew each other”, Duwaish, remembers. “It was so pure, so quiet.” The growing number of heritage projects in Saudi Arabia indicates such sentiments are widespread. The As Rass municipality recently opened a “traditional” museum in the corner of a shopping mall where a former soldier wears traditional dress and makes old-fashioned coffee for visitors who sit on rugs. More than 80 visitors come every day,mainly young people curious about their heritage. The museum is a good initiative, said Duwaish, the cleric, because “when traditions disappear overnight, people react badly”. One such reaction in recent decades has been violent extremism. Saudi Arabia was hit by a series of al-Qaida-inspired attacks between 2003 and 2004, prompting widespread reform of the security services and hundreds of people being rounded up. Some of those responsible were veterans of militant training camps in Afghanistan, others were new recruits. Recent years have been calm, however. “The problem has now almost disappeared,” said Abdulrahman al-Hadlaq, a Ministry of Interior criminologist who works on radical Islam in the kingdom. “Al-Qaida here is dying. Public awareness is much higher, security is stricter.” More than 10,000 people have been arrested on terrorism charges, sometimes on flimsy evidence, human rights campaigners say. Many senior extremists have fled to Yemen. Last week, the trial of alleged militants accused of an assault on a housing compound full of expatriates in 2003 started. Dozens of death sentences are expected. Less serious offenders are dealt with more leniently. Hadlaq runs a team of counsellors, psychologists and clerics who work to rehabilitate former militants at a centre on the outskirts of Riyadh. Since it opened in 2007, hundreds of recently released prisoners, all convicted for militant activity, have “graduated”. Recidivism rates, Hadlaq said, were around 10% for those involved in support activities or who had travelled to Iraq to fight American troops there but approached 25% for the 123 Saudi citizens who had been incarcerated in Guantánamo Bay. Many of these “Gitmo veterans” now head the Ministry of Interior’s wanted list, according to General Mansour al’Turki, a senior official. Several are now leaders of the “al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula” group, based in Yemen. Yusef al’Rabesh, 32, is one “Gitmo veteran” who has been successfully “rehabilitated”, however. Detained like many others by American troops in Afghanistan in late 2001, he spent seven years in US custody before being released without charge. Rabesh claims he was in Afghanistan looking for his brother, a Taliban fighter. American military authorities said he was a trained combatant. In detention in Afghanistan and then in Cuba, “the [Americans] hit me, dragged me, chained me like a dog”, Rabesh said. “We were treated worse than animals. But the rehabilitation programme took this black experience away.” On his release, the government found Rabesh a job as a manager in a taxi company, a wife in his hometown of Burayda al Qassem province and provided tens of thousands of dollars for the wedding. He now “better understands Islam”, he says. “There are legitimate reasons for jihad in our religion but I have learned that no private person can say that a jihad is justified. It can only be the Islamic scholars who make that decision according to certain conditions,” he said. Last week, Prince Nayef, the most conservative of senior princes and minister of interior, told a local audience that terrorism had “wronged many, damaging the image of Islam, the Arabs and in particular the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” Nayef is head of the religious police who continue to enforce, even if less brutally and intrusively than previously, Saudi Arabia’s fierce puritanism and is known to be opposed to any major social reforms in the country. The erosion of Saudi Arabia’s deep conservatism is a reality but is neither a uniform nor linear process. It is extremely unlikely even the more moderate elements within the royal family will seek to accelerate the pace of reform and risk alienating the clerical establishment. Should Prince Nayef succeed – he is currently 76, third in line to the throne and eleven years younger than the king – most analysts expect a new reactionary atmosphere. Many Saudis will be pleased. “You have democracy. We have our religion,” said Abdallah al’Utaiba, 32, a camel dealer who listened to the news of the Arab spring uprisings on a radio in a tent in the dusty hinterland on the fringes of Riyadh. “You have lost your traditions. We have not. It is better that it stays that way.” Saudi Arabia King Abdullah Islam Arab and Middle East unrest al-Qaida Global terrorism Religion Middle East Jason Burke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — A medical examiner says something went wrong with professional wrestler “Macho Man” Randy Savage’s heart before he crashed his car and declared the cause of death as heart disease. The autopsy released Thursday reveals that 58-year-old Randy Poffo, known professionally as Randy Savage, had an enlarged heart with severe blocking of his coronary arteries. With only minor injuries from the crash, the Tampa Bay area medical examiner determined the cause of death to be heart disease. Authorities say Savage was driving in Pinellas County May 20 when he lost consciousness and crashed into a tree. He was later pronounced dead at a hospital. Toxicology results showed small traces of alcohol and hydrocodone in Poffo’s system, but officials say the amounts wouldn’t have factored into the crash.
Continue reading …According to a set of new surveys conducted in several key swing states by groups in favor of protecting Social Security, making changes to the program as part of a deal to reduce the federal budget deficit is widely opposed by independents and voters who say they’re undecided on whom to support in the 2012 election, the key constituents that politicians court during election season. The vast majority of voters — including independents and Republicans — said they’d prefer raising taxes on the wealthy to shore up Social Security, a position that has few adherents in Congress. The new polls, from Social Security Works, The Alliance for Retired Americans and the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare, show that 74 percent of likely 2012 voters in Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Colorado say they would oppose cutting Social Security benefits in order to reduce the federal budget deficit. That opposition is fairly consistent across the five states, ranging from 71 percent opposed in Colorado to 78 percent opposed in Missouri. In the new polls, the results that could be of greatest political import show that 72 percent of independents in the combined surveys and 77 percent of those who say they are undecided in 2012′s U.S. Senate race (or the race for U.S. Congress in Colorado, where there are no Senate seats up for election next cycle) also oppose cuts to Social Security benefits. Although respondents’ views on Social Security seem to match better with those of Democratic lawmakers, the polls do contain some bad news for Democrats: Republicans hold an edge in questions about who would better handle Social Security. Combined respondents from the five states surveyed favored congressional Republicans over congressional Democrats on the issue by a 29 percent to 27 percent margin, and congressional Republicans over President Barack Obama by a 32 percent to 28 percent margin. Republicans’ edge on the issue appears to come largely from political independents, who favored Republicans in Congress over Democrats in Congress by a 4 percentage point margin and Republicans in Congress over the president by a 5 percentage point margin. Similarly, undecided voters in their states’ contests for U.S. Senate (or for the U.S. House, in the case of Colorado voters) gave Republicans a 3 percentage point advantage over Obama, though they favored Republicans over Democrats in Congress by only a 1 percentage point margin, well within the survey’s margin of error. How is it that voters don’t want Social Security cuts but simultaneously think that the program will be better protected by Republicans, who publicly insist on such cuts? Part of the answer likely lies with Republican-leaning independents in the poll, who can be counted on to support Republicans in general, despite the specific question at hand. According to the Pew Research Center’s recently released Political Typology Report, which analyzed characteristics of like-minded groups across the political spectrum, one key group that largely identifies as independents but typically leans toward the Republican Party, dubbed the Disaffecteds, was especially opposed to making changes to Social Security and Medicare as a way to reduce the budget deficit. Only 15 percent of Disaffecteds said they would favor cutting entitlements rather than cutting defense spending or other domestic programs, the lowest of any group analyzed by Pew Research — including groups comprised mainly of Democrats. Democratic leaders in Congress have expressed an openness to Social Security cuts, although it is unclear whether that is influencing how much independents trust Democrats on the issue, or whether Americans are even aware of the particulars of politicians’ positions on the issue. In addition, other polls have found greater trust for Democrats on managing the program, suggesting that some of those who said they were undecided on the new polls might lean towards supporting Democrats on Social Security if pressed. Respondents to the new polls were largely opposed to several more specific changes to the Social Security program. Fifty-nine percent opposed raising the retirement age to 69 years old, 57 percent opposed changing the formula to reduce cost of living benefits for beneficiaries and 60 percent opposed means-testing to reduce benefits for those making more than $60,000 a year. Opposition to the proposal varies slightly by state, but does not drop below 55 percent for any of these proposals in any of the states polled. On the other hand, the polls found broad agreement with a proposal to apply the Social Security tax to annual wages above the current cut off of $106,800 — 70 percent of combined respondents supported that change. The majority of Republicans and Tea Party supporters also favored lifting the taxable amount. This preference for raising taxes over cutting Social Security benefits is confirmed by other national polls. A May poll by the Pew Research Center found 59 percent of adult respondents disapproved of plans to raise the age when people can begin receiving retirement benefits, while 67 percent approved of making more of high-earners’ income subject to the payroll tax. Fifty-four percent of respondents to that poll said they would oppose reducing Social Security benefits for seniors with higher incomes. However, a March Washington Post/ABC News poll found adult respondents opposed to decreasing the rate at which Social Security benefits increase by a narrower margin (3 percentage points) than the new polls. The new polls also found support for a proposal not to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will expire in 2012 and instead re-purpose the revenue generated to pay for the Social Security program. That result is particularly unsurprising since most Americans supported ending those cuts the last time they were extended, even when the funds generated would not be used to pay for the popular Social Security program. While these surveys were sponsored by an interest group opposed to reductions in Social Security benefits, the broad conclusions they reached are similar to other national polls. For example, an AP/GfK poll conducted in May found that 59 percent of U.S. adults said that the budget could be balanced without cutting Social Security, while 39 percent said that Social Security would need to be cut. A USA Today/Gallup poll in April found that 65 percent of adults were worried that Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget plan would cut Social Security too much. The new polls were conducted by the Democratic firm Lake Research Partners. Respondents were selected from a voter list. In total, the surveys interviewed 2,694 respondents. The combined results for the surveys have a margin of error of 1.9 percentage points. The surveys in Colorado, Florida, and Missouri each had about 500 respondents and margins of error of 4.4 percentage points. The Minnesota survey had 584 respondents and a margin of error of 4.1 percentage points, and the Virginia survey had 603 respondents and a margin of error of 4 percent.
Continue reading …What if you made a 1.5 billion dollar mistake and couldn’t take it back? According to recently unearthed court documents, one of the world’s most prestigious law firms may soon face this question, and everyone from the federal government to one of Wall Street’s biggest banks wants to know the answer. This is a story about how small errors can have big consequences. Legal filings indicate that, three years ago, the venerable law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP accidentally gave away $1.5 billion of its clients’ money, and the fact that the clients just happened to include the investment bank JP Morgan Chase makes the story all the more intriguing. Dan Rather Reports producer Adam Teicholz, poring over court documents in the public record, has uncovered for the first time that this mistake could become the biggest legal malpractice case in American history. The story begins five years ago, hundreds of miles away from Wall Street. The Big Three automakers were struggling, even before the economy tanked. General Motors was desperate for cash and was able to get a massive loan from a group of banks, headed by JP Morgan. Wanting to protect its risky investment, the JP Morgan group staked claim to an astonishing $1.5 billion worth of the automaker’s cash and property as collateral. Fast forward to 2009, GM is heading to bankruptcy, and everyone who has done business with the company is worried about getting paid. The federal government is using TARP money to smooth the bankruptcy process and it repays JP Morgan the $1.5 billion… for the time being. It turns out that a year earlier a law firm representing GM had mistakenly filed a document saying that JP Morgan and the group of investors it headed, had given up their claim to the $1.5 billion in collateral. If a court ultimately decides that JP Morgan has technically lost claim to that money, that means the bank should never have been paid back with the TARP funds in the bankruptcy. All this may have gone by unnoticed by anyone beyond some very nervous lawyers at JP Morgan and the firm that made the error who got together in June 2009 and wrote an affidavit saying that the $1.5 billion release had been a mistake. Except at some point before March 2010, some other eagle-eyed lawyers, seemingly led by Eric Fisher (at the time of the law firm Butzel Long, and now at Dickstein Shapiro) found the error. They were representing groups to whom GM had owed money but who were not paid after the bankruptcy, people like parts suppliers and corporate bond holders (who are known as “unsecured creditors”). They saw $1.5 billion that could be theirs and started salivating, filing claim to the money in federal court. What this means is that, although JP Morgan is saying otherwise, the esteemed bank and the group of investors it led could be out well over a billion dollars. But this is about much more than a big bank losing big money. This is about how the bank’s lawyers may have made one grandiose oversight. Because although it was a different law firm that made the initial mistake, it was Simpson Thacher who signed off on it representing their client JP Morgan (“Nice job on the documents,” one Simpson Thacher lawyer wrote). And in the world of legal malpractice, who is representing whom means everything. Founded in 1884, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is one of New York’s famed “white-shoe” firms, with a client list that reads like a who’s-who of the world’s most important businesses. But now this firm is in a whale of a mess and could be in the position of shutting its doors for good. That’s because when a lawyer’s mistake leads to his client losing money, the client can sue, and in theory, every dollar of that loss comes out of the lawyer’s pocket. There is no doubt among the experts we spoke to that despite Simpson’s healthy profits, a $1.5 billion judgment against it could cause the firm to shut down, fire its lawyers and liquidate its assets. That probably won’t happen; law firms have malpractice insurance, and it’s not in JP Morgan’s interest to shut down Simpson Thacher. Plus, the fact that this case has been pending for a long time (our earliest documents date from March, 2010) means JP Morgan, the other creditors, and the government are probably working behind the scenes to negotiate a deal. Besides, when we talked to malpractice experts Bennett Wasserman and Krishna Shah, of the law firm Davis Saperstein & Salomon, they pointed out that recent case-law lets lawyers who make mistakes reduce their liability if their client has a lot of in-house lawyers reviewing everything. Few companies have more lawyers in-house than JP Morgan — although at this point it’s unclear to what degree JP Morgan’s own lawyers signed off on Simpson Thacher’s oversight. Still, the details as we have them don’t look good for the law firm, even though nobody thinks that there is any fraud involved, just an honest mistake. As for whether JP Morgan is responsible for their lawyers’ potentially costly screw-up even though they never meant to give up the money, bankruptcy experts we contacted said that they’re probably out of luck, based on the facts as presented in our documents. The bankruptcy code is crafted with a strong bias for so-called “bright-line rules.” Congress, when creating the law, wanted very much to avoid situations like the one at hand. It’s in the economy’s interest to get everything settled in a bankruptcy so all the debtors and lenders can know their liabilities and get on with doing business unencumbered by litigation and questions about who owns what. Once all the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed, generally courts are very loathe to disturb things. In JP Morgan’s favor, though, Barry Adler, the NYU bankruptcy professor who helped us navigate the complicated world of bankruptcy, told us, “It’s going to be a rare judge who says you lost 1.5 billion dollars because you checked the wrong box.” Even Adler says, however, that if bankruptcy judges stick to a strict reading of the law, JP Morgan and the lenders in the group will probably be out of luck, losing their collateral and ending up back at the end of the line like all other unsecured lenders, with just pennies on the dollar for what it’s owed. So if JP Morgan is going to have to cough up, who gets the money? GM’s unsecured creditors are the ones currently trying to get the court to force JP Morgan to relinquish the money. That means they clearly think it’s going to them. That would normally make sense; once the creditors with collateral get their money, the leftovers go to anyone else who’s owed money. This time is different, though, because the government played such a pivotal role in paying off the bankruptcy. And according to bankruptcy law, that means they are first in line to get paid back. The unsecured creditors are afraid enough of this argument that they’ve filed suit to get a court to cut the government out of the picture before anybody even knows if this 1.5 billion dollars is really up for grabs. The government refused to comment, but they gave a pretty big hint that they’re after something: before we could ask anything, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York Jerika Richardson said “I assume you’d be asking about what the United States’ interest in this money could be?” That sounded like an interesting question. “Sure. Yes,” our reporter said. She responded that in that case, “we’ve spoken to the line attorneys and we’re not going to be able to help out with this.” If the government does get its hands on the money, it will be quite a coup: President Obama was at a factory in Ohio earlier this month bragging about the success of the auto bailout. The administration has pointed out that the bailout, which was supposed to cost $48 billion, looks like it will only cost $14 billion. If JP Morgan and its affiliated investors have to let go of their $1.5 billion, and that money ends up going to the U.S. Treasury, the price-tag for taxpayers would drop that another 10 percent. After the last arbitration is complete and the last lawsuit concluded, who ends up paying is the biggest question of all. There is much about the outcome that is currently unknown, but these may be nervous days at one of the most world’s most successful law firms. The court documents that form the basis for this report were mostly generated by the group of investors and creditors trying to get the money from JP Morgan and the other lenders in its group. Still, the facts do not seem to be in dispute. We reached out to both JP Morgan and Simpson Thacher for comment. The law firm stopped answering our calls. JP Morgan declined to comment. Dan Rather Reports airs Tuesdays on HDNet at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET. This show is also available on iTunes.
Continue reading …What if you made a 1.5 billion dollar mistake and couldn’t take it back? According to recently unearthed court documents, one of the world’s most prestigious law firms may soon face this question, and everyone from the federal government to one of Wall Street’s biggest banks wants to know the answer. This is a story about how small errors can have big consequences. Legal filings indicate that, three years ago, the venerable law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP accidentally gave away $1.5 billion of its clients’ money, and the fact that the clients just happened to include the investment bank JP Morgan Chase makes the story all the more intriguing. Dan Rather Reports producer Adam Teicholz, poring over court documents in the public record, has uncovered for the first time that this mistake could become the biggest legal malpractice case in American history. The story begins five years ago, hundreds of miles away from Wall Street. The Big Three automakers were struggling, even before the economy tanked. General Motors was desperate for cash and was able to get a massive loan from a group of banks, headed by JP Morgan. Wanting to protect its risky investment, the JP Morgan group staked claim to an astonishing $1.5 billion worth of the automaker’s cash and property as collateral. Fast forward to 2009, GM is heading to bankruptcy, and everyone who has done business with the company is worried about getting paid. The federal government is using TARP money to smooth the bankruptcy process and it repays JP Morgan the $1.5 billion… for the time being. It turns out that a year earlier a law firm representing GM had mistakenly filed a document saying that JP Morgan and the group of investors it headed, had given up their claim to the $1.5 billion in collateral. If a court ultimately decides that JP Morgan has technically lost claim to that money, that means the bank should never have been paid back with the TARP funds in the bankruptcy. All this may have gone by unnoticed by anyone beyond some very nervous lawyers at JP Morgan and the firm that made the error who got together in June 2009 and wrote an affidavit saying that the $1.5 billion release had been a mistake. Except at some point before March 2010, some other eagle-eyed lawyers, seemingly led by Eric Fisher (at the time of the law firm Butzel Long, and now at Dickstein Shapiro) found the error. They were representing groups to whom GM had owed money but who were not paid after the bankruptcy, people like parts suppliers and corporate bond holders (who are known as “unsecured creditors”). They saw $1.5 billion that could be theirs and started salivating, filing claim to the money in federal court. What this means is that, although JP Morgan is saying otherwise, the esteemed bank and the group of investors it led could be out well over a billion dollars. But this is about much more than a big bank losing big money. This is about how the bank’s lawyers may have made one grandiose oversight. Because although it was a different law firm that made the initial mistake, it was Simpson Thacher who signed off on it representing their client JP Morgan (“Nice job on the documents,” one Simpson Thacher lawyer wrote). And in the world of legal malpractice, who is representing whom means everything. Founded in 1884, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is one of New York’s famed “white-shoe” firms, with a client list that reads like a who’s-who of the world’s most important businesses. But now this firm is in a whale of a mess and could be in the position of shutting its doors for good. That’s because when a lawyer’s mistake leads to his client losing money, the client can sue, and in theory, every dollar of that loss comes out of the lawyer’s pocket. There is no doubt among the experts we spoke to that despite Simpson’s healthy profits, a $1.5 billion judgment against it could cause the firm to shut down, fire its lawyers and liquidate its assets. That probably won’t happen; law firms have malpractice insurance, and it’s not in JP Morgan’s interest to shut down Simpson Thacher. Plus, the fact that this case has been pending for a long time (our earliest documents date from March, 2010) means JP Morgan, the other creditors, and the government are probably working behind the scenes to negotiate a deal. Besides, when we talked to malpractice experts Bennett Wasserman and Krishna Shah, of the law firm Davis Saperstein & Salomon, they pointed out that recent case-law lets lawyers who make mistakes reduce their liability if their client has a lot of in-house lawyers reviewing everything. Few companies have more lawyers in-house than JP Morgan — although at this point it’s unclear to what degree JP Morgan’s own lawyers signed off on Simpson Thacher’s oversight. Still, the details as we have them don’t look good for the law firm, even though nobody thinks that there is any fraud involved, just an honest mistake. As for whether JP Morgan is responsible for their lawyers’ potentially costly screw-up even though they never meant to give up the money, bankruptcy experts we contacted said that they’re probably out of luck, based on the facts as presented in our documents. The bankruptcy code is crafted with a strong bias for so-called “bright-line rules.” Congress, when creating the law, wanted very much to avoid situations like the one at hand. It’s in the economy’s interest to get everything settled in a bankruptcy so all the debtors and lenders can know their liabilities and get on with doing business unencumbered by litigation and questions about who owns what. Once all the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed, generally courts are very loathe to disturb things. In JP Morgan’s favor, though, Barry Adler, the NYU bankruptcy professor who helped us navigate the complicated world of bankruptcy, told us, “It’s going to be a rare judge who says you lost 1.5 billion dollars because you checked the wrong box.” Even Adler says, however, that if bankruptcy judges stick to a strict reading of the law, JP Morgan and the lenders in the group will probably be out of luck, losing their collateral and ending up back at the end of the line like all other unsecured lenders, with just pennies on the dollar for what it’s owed. So if JP Morgan is going to have to cough up, who gets the money? GM’s unsecured creditors are the ones currently trying to get the court to force JP Morgan to relinquish the money. That means they clearly think it’s going to them. That would normally make sense; once the creditors with collateral get their money, the leftovers go to anyone else who’s owed money. This time is different, though, because the government played such a pivotal role in paying off the bankruptcy. And according to bankruptcy law, that means they are first in line to get paid back. The unsecured creditors are afraid enough of this argument that they’ve filed suit to get a court to cut the government out of the picture before anybody even knows if this 1.5 billion dollars is really up for grabs. The government refused to comment, but they gave a pretty big hint that they’re after something: before we could ask anything, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York Jerika Richardson said “I assume you’d be asking about what the United States’ interest in this money could be?” That sounded like an interesting question. “Sure. Yes,” our reporter said. She responded that in that case, “we’ve spoken to the line attorneys and we’re not going to be able to help out with this.” If the government does get its hands on the money, it will be quite a coup: President Obama was at a factory in Ohio earlier this month bragging about the success of the auto bailout. The administration has pointed out that the bailout, which was supposed to cost $48 billion, looks like it will only cost $14 billion. If JP Morgan and its affiliated investors have to let go of their $1.5 billion, and that money ends up going to the U.S. Treasury, the price-tag for taxpayers would drop that another 10 percent. After the last arbitration is complete and the last lawsuit concluded, who ends up paying is the biggest question of all. There is much about the outcome that is currently unknown, but these may be nervous days at one of the most world’s most successful law firms. The court documents that form the basis for this report were mostly generated by the group of investors and creditors trying to get the money from JP Morgan and the other lenders in its group. Still, the facts do not seem to be in dispute. We reached out to both JP Morgan and Simpson Thacher for comment. The law firm stopped answering our calls. JP Morgan declined to comment. Dan Rather Reports airs Tuesdays on HDNet at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET. This show is also available on iTunes.
Continue reading …It's Fourth of July weekend – how about cheating on your spouse? For those not thinking about it, a piece to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday marvelously titled ” Married, With Infidelities ” is recommending it: In Savage Love, his weekly column, [Dan Savage, America’s leading sex-advice columnist] inveighs against the American obsession with strict fidelity. In its place he proposes a sensibility that we might call American Gay Male, after that community’s tolerance for pornography, fetishes and a variety of partnered arrangements, from strict monogamy to wide openness. Savage believes monogamy is right for many couples. But he believes that our discourse about it, and about sexuality more generally, is dishonest. Some people need more than one partner, he writes, just as some people need flirting, others need to be whipped, others need lovers of both sexes. We can’t help our urges, and we should not lie to our partners about them. In some marriages, talking honestly about our needs will forestall or obviate affairs; in other marriages, the conversation may lead to an affair, but with permission. In both cases, honesty is the best policy. Yes, honesty is the best policy – even when cheating on your spouse. Isn't that exactly you want – or want your beloved! – to read this weekend? But author Mark Oppenheimer wasn't done promoting the wonder of infidelity: Savage says a more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs. Treating monogamy, rather than honesty or joy or humor, as the main indicator of a successful marriage gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners. And that, Savage says, destroys more families than it saves. Staying faithful “destroys more families than it saves.” And this is what the Times thinks is acceptable fare on Sunday. I'm glad my children don't subscribe to this trash – how 'bout you? (H/T Hot Air )
Continue reading …So, it turns out that when you crack open the EVO 3D , pixie dust doesn’t pour out of the thing — disappointing, sure, but such is life. Thankfully, there are some interesting things to look at, however, like the dual-core processor and, of course, the cameras that let you take all of those awesome 3D shots of your pets. Wanna see more of the magic? How about a seven minute teardown video shot with a cameraphone? It’s not quite the manner of pro teardowns we’re used to seeing from the folks at iFixit , but there is a certain joy in watching a guy excitedly tear open his new toy. For the rest of you, we don’t recommend trying this at home — but if you do, definitely upload it to YouTube. Video after the break. Continue reading HTC EVO 3D torn down, three-dimensional magic revealed (video) HTC EVO 3D torn down, three-dimensional magic revealed (video) originally appeared on Engadget on Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:30:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …In his first broadcast since undergoing emergency surgery in Cuba early last month, Venzuelan President Hugo Chavez has revealed that doctors removed a cancerous tumor from his body. The president said he was still undergoing treatment, but did not reveal what the treatment entails, where the tumor was found, or…
Continue reading …