Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα case. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων
Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα case. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων

Τετάρτη 3 Απριλίου 2013

3D Printing Will Make Gun Control Laws Irrelevant, J.D. Tuccille Tells RT America


Defense DistributedYesterday, RT America ran a
report on the impact of 3D printing on the debate over firearms and
gun control laws. RT's Marina Portnaya interviewed me for the
report, and I told her
what
I've written

before
: 3D printing has the ability to decentralize
manufacturing to the DIY level and thereby render legal
restrictions irrelevant. If prohibited or restricted items can be
created in the privacy of your home or office, the law doesn't
matter. We also discussed chemical printing and CNC machines, but
as is often the case, only a brief bit on 3D printing made it into
the report, There's no
embeddable version available
The embedded video is below, or
you can see it
here
. My contribution begins at the 3:00 mark.


Κυριακή 31 Μαρτίου 2013

Tobias Dustin Summers Is Main Suspect In 10-Year-Old Girl Abduction Case

LOS ANGELES -- Police said Saturday they are looking for a transient in the kidnapping of a 10-year-old girl who was snatched from her San Fernando Valley home before dawn last week and abandoned hours later in front of a hospital.

Investigators identified 30-year-old Tobias Dustin Summers as a suspect in the case but couldn't elaborate on the motive or what led them to him. Police don't know if the girl was targeted but said they don't believe Summers had a connection to her family.


Read More...

raw_feed?d=yIl2AUoC8zA raw_feed?i=naBJF0zo8R4:5KeL89Hvw8k:F7zBn raw_feed?i=naBJF0zo8R4:5KeL89Hvw8k:V_sGL
naBJF0zo8R4

Σάββατο 30 Μαρτίου 2013

The Legendarily Bizarre Fake Identity Case Of 'Clark Rockefeller' May Also Feature A Grizzly Murder

Clark Rockefeller

A 52-year-old German immigrant by the name of Christian Gerhartsreiter is on trial this month in Los Angeles for the 1985 murder of California man John Sohus.

While Gerhartsreiter is little known, many have heard of his alter-ego, Clark Rockefeller. Rockefeller was the subject of Lifetime movie, "Who is Clark Rockefeller?" and a fantastic 2009 Vanity Fair profile.

His case may be the most unbelievable case of fraud in modern America. Now, if Gerhartsreiter is found guilty in LA, it may include a grizzly double murder too.

"Clark Rockefeller"

In the 1990s, Gerhartsreiter, who is believed to have snuck into the country as a teenager, managed to convince many of New England's elite that he was the moneyed son of George Rockefeller and Mary Roberts.

He was so convincing that he managed to marry Sandra Boss, a high-earning Mckinsey executive with degrees from Stanford and Harvard Business School, and the couple had a child together, living entirely off of Boss' salary, said to be in the realm of $2 million a year.

The couple eventually separated, Boss suspicious of her husband's identity (she hired a private detective who confirmed he wasn't a Rockefeller) and his behavior becoming increasingly bizarre.

Gerhartsreiter responded by putting his $800,000 divorce settlement in gold coins and abducting their daughter. After an international manhunt, he was caught and sentenced to jail in 2009 for the kidnapping and assault and battery, with the jury rejecting the defense of insanity.

The court case revealed some other tall tales by Gerhartsreiter, according to the Boston Globe,  including "his work with the international Trilateral Commission; the blame he bore for the collapse of the Asian financial markets; and that he ended seven mute years as a child with the word 'woofness.'"

ABC News more details from an FBI profile, noting that Gerhartsreiter "does not use metal utensils, will not eat bread unless it is white Pepperidge Farm with the crusts cut off, and that he met Sandra Boss at a Clue party where she was dressed as Scarlett O'Hara and he was Colonel Mustard. The two fell for one another while speaking Klingon, the language spoken by some on the TV series "Star Trek.""

After that trial's publicity, Gerhartsreiter was traced back to Germany, where his birth parents said they had not seen him since 1978. Gerhartsreiter refused to accept this, instead claiming former actress Ann Carter had raised him (a claim she later denied).

The Murder Twist

The new trial in LA only began earlier this month and relates to another time in Gerhartsreiter's life, and another identity — Christopher Chichester.

Sohus and his wife disappeared in 1985 in San Marino. Sohus' alcoholic mother told friends that the pair had gone on a top secret mission for the government. 9 years later human remains were found under the Sohus' home — the remains appeared to belong to John Sohus, and he appeared to have been bludgeoned to death, hacked to pieces, and put into plastic bags. His wife's remains have not been discovered.

For decades the case was unsolved, but as more details comes out about Gerhartsreiter's past, he has emerged as a clear suspect.

A "Christopher Chichester" was known to have rented guest house from Sohus' mother at the time. The same man later tried to sell witnesses an Oriental rug that appeared to have a bloody stain on it, according to the LA Times, and had the victim's truck after his death.

One piece of Sohus' body was found in a plastic bag stamped with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Gerhartsreiter studied at the university during the time that that logo was in use.

This week the court heard testimony from a girlfriend who lived in New York with Gerhartsreiter during the late 1980s that he acted bizarre when a police officer attempted to contact him about the murder. Gerhartsreuter — then living as Christopher Crowe — apparently died his hair black and his eyebrows blonde.

The ex-wife Boss is expected to testify in the case, which may well bring out more details.

Gerhartsreiter may never testify in the trial himself — defense lawyers are refusing to say if he will or not, according to the Boston Herald — so jurors were this week shown an August 2008 interview of Christian Gerhartsreiter on NBC's "Today", wherein he offers an oblique denial.

The denial comes around 11 minutes into the video below, but the entire interview is fascinating to watch — for example, the moment where Gerhartsreiter puts on a Scottish accent and recites Robert Burns.

Will He Be Convicted?

One big problem with the murder case is that events took place so long ago — at least two witnesses have failed to recognize Gerhartsreiter in court, the LA Times reports — and a lot of the evidence in the case is circumstantial at best.

Gerhartsreiter's defense rests upon pointing the blame towards John Sohus's wife Linda, arguing that she was more physically capable of killing her husband in such a violent manner (at 6 foot tall, Linda was almost a foot taller than Gerhartsreiter).

At this point everyone agrees that Gerhartsreiter is an unusual guy. Convicting him of murder, however, will be a much harder task.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

a2.imga2t.img

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=GuwU4NrTbto:p-ommeer2M businessinsider?i=GuwU4NrTbto:p-ommeer2M businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=GuwU4NrTbto:p-ommeer2M
GuwU4NrTbto

Τετάρτη 27 Μαρτίου 2013

What Happens If SCOTUS “Punts” on Prop. 8?


A quick survey of the press coverage of yesterday's oral
arguments in the California gay marriage case reveals multiple
appearances of the word punt. Politico
asked
, “Will Supreme Court Punt on Gay Marriage?” The
Village Voice

announced
, “Supreme Court Hears Arguments Against California's
Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Punts.” Townhall.com
observed
, “Early Indications: SCOTUS to Punt on Gay
Marriage?”


Let’s assume the Supreme Court does indeed avoid reaching the
constitutional question of whether or not Prop. 8’s ban on gay
marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment. What happens then?


One possibility is that the Supreme Court rules solely on
procedural grounds. Under this scenario, the Court would find that
the supporters of the original Prop. 8 ballot initiative have no
legal standing to defend the law in court, thereby voiding the
decision last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
that did recognize their standing and then struck down Prop. 8.


But that approach raises several new questions of its own. Does
District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s earlier ruling against Prop. 8
remain in force (since the state of California, which has standing,
was still defending the law at that point in the litigation)? If
so, does that mean gay marriage is legal in California? Or does it
mean Judge Walker’s ruling applies narrowly, impacting only the
specific same-sex couples that brought the original suit?


Alternately, the Supreme Court might follow the lead of Justice
Anthony Kennedy. During Tuesday’s oral arguments, Kennedy
repeatedly suggested the Supreme Court should never have accepted
the Prop. 8 case in the first place. “I just wonder,” Kennedy said
at one point, “if the case was properly granted.” Later he raised
the issue yet again, telling the lawyer who was arguing in defense
of Prop. 8, “you might address why you think we should take and
decide this case.”


If Kennedy can convince four other justices that the Court was
in fact wrong to take the case, the Supreme Court might engage in a
maneuver that lawyers refer to as a “DIG.” That is, the Court would
dismiss the Prop. 8 case as "improvidently granted." This unusual
approach would leave the 9th Circuit’s ruling against Prop. 8 in
effect, thereby leaving gay marriage legal in California while the
Court remained silent on the issue for the other 49 states.


Finally, as Tom Goldstein observes
at SCOTUSblog, the Court could even rope in its forthcoming
decision on the Defense of Marriage Act in order to avoid ruling on
Prop. 8. As Goldstein writes:



the Court is going to address laws discriminating against
same-sex couples in the pending Windsor challenge to
DOMA.  That could be a basis for declining to decide
Hollingsworth [Prop. 8].  Perhaps more likely, any
member of the Court could vote to vacate and remand the judgment in
Hollingsworth for further consideration in light of
Windsor.  In that scenario, five members of the Court
could agree to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision on alternative
grounds (some concluding that the petitioners lacked standing and
others concluding that the court of appeals should rethink its
decision in light of whatever the Court holds in
Windsor).



Whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides to do in the Prop.
8 case, Tuesday’s oral arguments
suggest
that a sweeping endorsement of gay marriage in all 50
states is not likely to be included on the menu of options.

The Ideal Gay Marriage Case Goes Before The Supreme Court Today

Edith Windsor

An 83-year-old widow with a huge tax bill is the perfect person to bring down an anti-gay law Bill Clinton signed in 1996.

Edith Windsor started her own crusade to bring down the Defense of Marriage Act, the Clinton-era law that says the federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court will hear Windsor's DOMA challenge today, in a case that could give federal benefits to same-sex couples in the nine states where gay marriage is legal.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard a related gay marriage case over California's gay marriage ban Proposition 8. The justices hinted that they might decide not to rule on the Prop 8 case at all.

But gay marriage activists are optimistic about a victory in the DOMA case since a couple of the court's swing voters will likely want the federal government to defer to states' own definitions of marriage.

The plaintiff whose story they'll hear today is a particularly compelling one. Unlike plaintiffs in many cases, Windsor wasn't hand-picked by lawyers to be the face of a legal battle.

Instead, she went out looking for lawyers to help her bring down DOMA because she was so incensed by the law, her lawyer Roberta Kaplan tells Business Insider.

By doing so, she started a case that evolved "the natural way where someone is truly indignant about what happened to them," says Kaplan, a corporate lawyer with Paul Weiss.

Windsor is an accomplished woman the Supreme Court's justices might be able to identify with, The New Yorker's Amy Davidson has pointed out. She's only a few years older than several of the justices and had an impressive career. (She was a systems engineer at IBM.)

She's also faced discrimination from the federal government. Windsor began to feel the effects of DOMA when her partner Thea Spyer died in 2007.

Because the IRS didn't recognize their marriage performed in Canada, Windsor had to pay $363,000 in taxes on Spyer's estate that a straight spouse wouldn't have had to pay.

Kaplan will argue today that the tax bill and the law that allowed it are unfair before the Supreme Court.

Windsor initially asked not-for-profit legal groups to argue her case, but they said it wasn't the right time, according to Kaplan. Kaplan felt differently when she and Windsor were introduced by a mutual friend.

"The minute I heard the facts of the case, it took me about three seconds to decide that it was absolutely the right case to bring," says Kaplan, whose firm took the case on free of charge.

Windsor's case involved a very specific injury that everyone can relate to: an unfair tax bill.

"Every American gets in their gut what it means to have to pay a huge tax bill where you wouldn't have to pay the same tax bill if you weren't gay. Everyone understands what that means," Kaplan says.

Windsor's age also makes her an ideal candidate to bring down DOMA. It will be easier to strike down DOMA if the Supreme Court rules the law must face "heightened scrutiny" because it impacts people who've endured a history of discrimination.

For Windsor, discrimination isn't "theoretical," Kaplan tells us. Windsor's brief to the Supreme Court chronicled her own "life in the shadows," as Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog reported.

When she fell in love with Spyer nearly 50 years ago, the brief noted, it was a “a time when lesbians and gay men risked losing their families, friends, and livelihoods if their sexual orientation became known."

If the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, same-sex couples in the nine states where gay marriage is legal will know the federal government now recognizes the legitimacy of their relationships. They'll also get benefits they didn't get before. If one spouse dies, the other could take his or her social security if it's more money. They won't have to pay estate taxes.

The repeal of DOMA could, in fact, have a very real impact on a lot of people. But one woman's story could help convince the Supreme Court to do away with the law.

Throughout preparations for the case, Kaplan, the lawyer who's telling that story, has kept a post-it note on her desk that's a variation of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 campaign phrase:

"It's all about Edie, stupid," the note reads.

SEE ALSO: The Worst Case Scenario For People Who Oppose Gay Marriage

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=hR23E3Smw2I:U-WoKof1ve businessinsider?i=hR23E3Smw2I:U-WoKof1ve businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=hR23E3Smw2I:U-WoKof1ve
hR23E3Smw2I

Τρίτη 26 Μαρτίου 2013

CASE SHILLER: Home Prices Rise 8.08% Beating Expectations

portland, oregonThe S&P/Case-Shiller home price index for January was up 8.08 percent year-over-year. This beat expectations for a 7.85 percent rise. Click here to refresh > On a month-over-month basis, home prices were up 1.02 percent, beating expectations of a 0.8 percent rise. The December number was reading was revised up to 0.92 percent, from the initial reading of a 0.88 percent MoM rise. Both the 10 and 20-city composite indices had their highest increases since summer 2006. "This marks the highest increase since the housing bubble burst," according to David Blitzer Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices. Economists have been cranking up their home price forecasts. Bank of America and Capital Economics now expect home prices to rise 8 percent in 2013. Bank of America's Michelle Meyer and Justin Borst say that a "positive feedback loop has begun". They argue that when people think home prices are rising, they think they will keep doing so and credit conditions will improve, and this increases demand for homes. Here is the trajectory of home prices since 1988: january home price chartSEE ALSO:&MICHELLE MEYER: Here Are The 4 Hot Housing Topics You Need To Watch > Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.Join the conversation about this story »