Suzanne Somers exposes the truth about how to improve your health to avoid and cure cancer without the use of chemotherapy! Click here to purchase her new book, Knockout.
PLUS, Dr. Cal Streeter tells you how to lose 100 pound in 5 months and what it was like to go to prison for standing up to the government.
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
March 4th, 2011
By: The Associated Press
Two Roman Catholic priests, a former priest and a Catholic school teacher were charged Thursday with raping young boys, while a former high-ranking church official was accused of transferring problem priests to new parishes without warning anyone of prior sex-abuse complaints.
The charges stemmed from a two-year grand jury investigation into priest abuse in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the second such inquiry in the city.
In the rare, if not unprecedented, move, the grand jury charged Monsignor William Lynn with endangering children in his role as secretary for clergy under former Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua.
Lynn, 60, had a duty to protect children in the five-county archdiocese and refer priests with known sexual problems for rehabilitation or prosecution, District Attorney Seth Williams said in announcing the charges.
“He instead lied to parishioners and went out of his way to reassign priests without telling pastors or principals . that they were pedophiles,” Williams said.
Lynn’s defense lawyer said the two endangerment counts should not apply because Lynn did not have any children under his care. He also questioned the merits of the counts, which carry a maximum 14-year prison term.
“We certainly don’t concede for a moment that he knew he was putting children at risk,” lawyer Tom Bergstrom told The Associated Press.
While American dioceses have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to abuse victims to settle civil lawsuits in recent years, criminal charges in clergy sex abuse cases have been rare.
People who were molested as children often wait for decades before gaining the courage to come forward — usually long after the statute of limitation for criminal charges has run out. A small number of accused clergy have been prosecuted and convicted since 2002, when the clergy sex abuse crisis erupted in the Archdiocese of Boston. However, no bishop or church administrator has been taken to trial over their failures to protect children from accused priests.
August 2nd, 2010
The World Socialist Web Site
By: Bill Van Auken
In response to the WikiLeaks posting of tens of thousands of secret documents on the Afghanistan war, the Pentagon has launched a manhunt within the military and called in the FBI for possible prosecution of the actual whistleblower who supplied the evidence of US atrocities.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, used a Pentagon press conference Thursday to vilify WikiLeaks and its editor, Julian Assange, while vowing to crack down on anyone involved in making public the documents comprising the so-called Afghan War Diary posted by the organization.
WikiLeaks has obtained some 92,000 secret documents on the Afghanistan war, while claiming it does not know the original source of the classified material. It has posted 76,000 of the documents online, most of them battlefield reports from units in Afghanistan. They have cast a new light on the savage war that has been waged against the Afghan people under Bush and Obama, as well as the duplicity of both administrations in their justification of the war to the American people.
The group has held back another 15,000 documents, consisting largely of intelligence reports, saying it wants to review them for information that could potentially place individuals in Afghanistan at risk.
The thrust of the statements made by Gates and Mullen, which dovetail with a sinister campaign in the corporate media, is that WikiLeaks and Assange in particular have already placed lives at risk by revealing military methods, as well as the identity of some Afghan informers and turncoats who collaborated with the US-led occupation.
The WikiLeaks editor “can say whatever he likes about the greater good he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.” Mullen told Pentagon reporters.
Gates said that the “battlefield consequences” of the leak are “potentially severe and dangerous for our troops.”
While some reporters asked whether there was any evidence that the leaked documents had resulted in deaths, no one at the press conference pointed to the absurdity and hypocrisy of the angry denunciations by Gates and Mullen.
Two men intimately involved in prosecuting a colonial war against the Afghan people that has caused the deaths of tens of thousands are charging others with having “blood on their hands,” because they dared to make public documents exposing crimes committed in this war.
According to some analyses, the documents released thus far catalogue the deaths of over 20,000 Afghans during the US-led war and occupation between 2004 and 2009. This is undoubtedly only a fraction of the actual total, as many known mass killings are not included in the material. This blood—real and not hypothetical—is on the hands of Obama, Bush, Gates, Mullen and their collaborators.
The sensationalized charges from Washington were contradicted by a top US military officer in Afghanistan. Maj. Gen. John Campbell, the US commander in eastern Afghanistan, told reporters Wednesday that the release of the documents had no “great impact on us.” He added, “We have not changed any of our operations or any strategy here based on that leak.”
In his remarks, Gates also made it clear that he had called upon the Justice Department and the FBI to assist in the Defense Department’s investigation of the leak for the purpose of potentially indicting Assange and others at WikiLeaks as well as any other civilians who may have aided in making the material available.
“The investigation should go where it needs to go,” Gates said. Questioned about whether this meant WikiLeaks was a target, he added that he didn’t “know if the investigation should stop” at the Defense Department and “having the FBI as a partner” would leave “open the full scope of investigation.”
Thus far, the military has reportedly focused its investigation on Private First Class Bradley Manning, a 22-year-old intelligence specialist who was charged earlier this month with providing WikiLeaks with a classified video that was posted online under the title “Collateral Murder.” The video, taken from the gun-sight camera of a US Apache helicopter, depicts the July 2007 massacre of over a dozen civilians in Baghdad, including two Reuters journalists. The film, which includes the chatter of the helicopter crew reveling in the killing, also shows an attack on a family that tried to aid the wounded, killing more unarmed civilians and wounding two young children.
An unnamed Pentagon official told the Wall Street Journal that an examination of the computer used by Manning showed that he had downloaded the Afghanistan logs, even though he was deployed at the time with the 10th Mountain Division in Iraq. Manning is also charged with illegally downloading some 200,000 State Department documents from the military’s secret Internet network.
Manning was turned in by an informer, Adrian Lamo, a former computer hacker whom the soldier had contacted and reportedly told via online chats that he had leaked the helicopter video and was prepared to do the same with other material.
Since his arrest, Manning has been held by the US military in Kuwait, awaiting an Article 32 hearing, essentially the military’s equivalent of a grand jury hearing. The imprisonment of the private overseas appears designed to prevent him from obtaining effective legal support as well as denying him contact with his family and the media. As Julian Assange has repeatedly charged, it has much the same purpose as the holding of supposed “enemy combatants” at the Guantanamo prison in Cuba.
The growing campaign against WikiLeaks picked up significant backing Wednesday when Senator Lindsey Graham, a ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for the government to bring criminal charges against the Internet-based group.
“I’m willing to prosecute anybody who led to undermining the war effort,” Graham said on Fox News. “As far as I know, there’s no immunity for a web site to be able to pass on documents… We need to go after anyone involved in the leak of classified documents.”
Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, meanwhile, called for life imprisonment for whoever was responsible for the leak.
Jane Harman, the Democratic congresswoman who chairs the House homeland security panel’s subcommittee on intelligence, also accused WikiLeaks of having given “the Taliban its new ‘enemies list.’”
The media, which has treated the leaked document with a combination of hostility and indifference from the outset, has largely rounded on Assange and WikiLeaks, taking up the charge that some of the documents revealed the identities of Afghan informers and could thereby expose them to danger.
The Times of London published a story Wednesday claiming that some of the leaked documents included the names and villages of Afghans who had provided intelligence to US occupation forces.
Assange, in an interview with the paper, pushed back against the charge that he had placed “innocent lives” at risk, pointing out that in many cases these informants were “acting in a criminal way,” frequently providing false information to US forces with the aim of “creating victims themselves.”
The WikiLeaks editor pointed out that the inclusion of the names and locations of confidential informants in documents available to virtually anyone in uniform, not to mention large numbers of civilian contractors, was the Pentagon’s policy, not his. He also said that the group had asked the Obama administration to help “to minimize the chances of innocent informers being named,” but that it received no response.
Much of the media has picked up this theme, attempting to portray Assange and WikiLeaks as responsible for endangering innocent lives in Afghanistan, in order to obscure the content of the leaked documents themselves, which detail the annihilation of tens of thousands of such lives as a result of the US war.
This found a particularly crude expression in an interview Assange gave Wednesday to NBC’s Today show, in which host Meredith Vieira asked the WikiLeaks editor, “if somebody is executed because now their name is out there, would you consider that your form of collateral damage?”
This attempt to draw an equals sign between the possibility that an Afghan quisling whose name appears in a leaked document will face retribution and the daily killing of civilians in aerial bombings, special forces assassination raids, drone attacks and checkpoint shootings is nothing short of obscene.
The only “crime” for which either Manning or WikiLeaks and Assange are guilty is that of breaking the media’s self-censorship of information exposing the bloody and criminal character of the US war in Afghanistan and presenting massive and incontrovertible evidence of war crimes to the American and world public.
There is no doubt that for this offense, the Obama administration and the US military and intelligence apparatus will seek vengeance. It will attempt to make an example of a young American soldier who apparently turned against Washington’s wars and, if possible, criminalize the activities of WikiLeaks.
The World Socialist Web Site calls upon working people to oppose the persecution of Private Manning and the campaign against WikiLeaks, which represent a fundamental attack on democratic rights and the right of the American people to information on the military atrocities being carried out in their name. Those who should face prosecution are the top officials in both the Bush and Obama administration who are responsible for launching and continuing criminal wars of aggression.
May 20, 2010
Infomerical King Kevin Trudeau is off the hook.
An appeals court Thursday morning threw out a federal judge’s contempt of court citation against the TV pitchman.
Author and infomercial king Kevin Trudeau was sentenced to 30 days in prison Wednesday after a federal judge last week found him in criminal contempt.
U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman ordered Trudeau to spend 30 days in jail for urging his followers to deluge Gettleman with e-mails as the judge prepared to make a key decision in a case against Trudeau.
The shenanigans shut down the judge’s BlackBerry and clogged his e-mail inbox.
But the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals — which stayed Trudeau’s sentence pending the appeal — vacated Gettleman’s penalty.
When they heard the appeal last month, appellate court judges questioned whether Gettleman stepped out of bounds by ordering Trudeau to spend 30 days in jail.
In arguments before the appellate judges, Trudeau’s lawyer, Kimball Anderson, said even when the president is sent an e-mail threat, the person accused of sending the threat gets a hearing.
After making a criminal contempt finding in February, Gettleman sentenced Trudeau on his own power.
“There’s nothing that says judges get more power than the president of the United States,” Anderson said last month.
Appellate Judge Ilana Rovner looked around in mock surprise last month. “Do you realize where you are?” she said, to laughter in the courtroom.
The three-judge panel hearing the argument seemed interested in whether Trudeau’s actions could be defined as criminal contempt of court because they happened outside of the court’s presence.
Anderson argued that such a finding could come only when the misbehavior occurs inside the courtroom.
In February Trudeau urged his supporters to e-mail Gettleman to influence him on an upcoming decision in a civil case against Trudeau over deceptive ads.
Gary Feinerman, appointed to argue on behalf of the judge’s order, said Trudeau intentionally stirred up his followers to send angry e-mails and that with today’s technology, a computer is considered part of the judge’s courtroom.
“The court, at that point, was under attack,” he said.
May 20, 2010
An appeals court in Chicago says infomercial pitchman and author Kevin Trudeau won’t have to serve a 30-day jail sentence for getting his supporters to flood a federal judge’s computer with e-mails.
The appeals court on Thursday dismissed Trudeau’s contempt of court conviction, saying an act of contempt must occur in the presence of the judge.
U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman had found Trudeau in contempt after his computer and BlackBerry were both jammed with e-mails from Trudeau’s supporters.
The appeals court disagreed with Gettleman’s finding that Trudeau had in effect committed contempt in the presence of the judge because the computer was a part of his court.
Trudeau has been fighting a battle with the Federal Trade Commission before Gettleman.
May 20, 2010
by Jeff Cohen
A federal appeals court today overturned a contempt of court ruling against infomercial pitchman Kevin Trudeau that would have sent him to prison for 30 days.
U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman had imposed the punishment after Trudeau had supporters flood the judge’s e-mail box with messages as the judge was presiding over a dispute between the Federal Trade Commission and Trudeau over claims Trudea made for various hair and weight loss drugs and treatments.
Gettleman had called the avalanche of e-mails an attempt to “harass, intimidate and influence” him.
In oral argument before the appeals court last month, Trudeau’s lawyer, Kimball Anderson, argued the e-mails were misguided but there had been no intent to disable Gettleman’s computers.
Gettleman’s position was argued by an appointed lawyer, Gary Feinerman, who said Trudeau had deliberately directed the e-mails, keeping the court from doing its job.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, written by Judge John Daniel Tiner, called Gettleman’s judicial action “an abuse of discretion.”
Direct contempt of court, such as the one issued by Gettleman, is appropriate if the conduct occurs in the presence of the judge and disrupts proceedings in open court, the appeals court said. Gettleman had contended that requirement was satisfied because he could read the messages on the court computer, but the higher court rejected that idea.
The judge and his staff had to do research to determine the e-mails were in fact coming from Trudeau, the court found, which indicated the conduct was not something Gettleman had witnessed. And there was no indication that the contempt finding was needed to restore order, the court said.
“The record in this case is devoid of any suggestion that Trudeau’s summary punishment was necessary to restore the court’s ability to resume its duties,” the opinion states.
The appeals court noted the matter may be referred to the U.S. attorney’s office for prosecution.