The Times covers a bit of prosecutorial misconduct on the Casey Anthony trial:
MIAMI — Assertions by the prosecution that Casey Anthony conducted extensive computer searches on the word “chloroform” were based on inaccurate data, a software designer who testified at the trial said Monday.
The designer, John Bradley, said Ms. Anthony had visited what the prosecution said was a crucial Web site only once, not 84 times, as prosecutors had asserted. He came to that conclusion after redesigning his software, and immediately alerted prosecutors and the police about the mistake, he said.
The finding of 84 visits was used repeatedly during the trial to suggest that Ms. Anthony had planned to murder her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, who was found dead in 2008. Ms. Anthony, who could have faced the death penalty, was acquitted of the killing on July 5.
But before we get too far down on the prosecutors, let's have an "out of the mouths of babes" sidebar:
Casey Anthony from a teen's point of view: 'Personally, I trusted the jury's decision'
...
The prosecutors firmly believed that the murder was premeditated. The evidence they used to support this were the searches made on the computer for chloroform.
The prosecution said it was searched 84 times. But this was after a second test by a brand new program. The original test said that on that day, MySpace was visited 84 times yet in the prosecution’s second test, MySpace wasn’t even mentioned.
Is it a coincidence that they were visited the exact number of times or did the prosecution make a mistake?
Evidently the young author is a shrewd judge of computer forensics. My *guess* is that the defense presented a rebuttal witness or scored points on cross-examination and the Times failed to mention that. CNN mentioned MySpace here:
Kevin Stenger, a forensic computer analyst and head of the Orange County Sheriff’s computer crimes unit, used computer programs Net Analysis and Cache Back to recover deleted Internet search histories from the unallocated space portion of the Anthony family’s HP desktop computer. Stenger testified that results obtained from the Net Analysis and Cache Back programs differed in some details. For example, Net Analysis indicated 84 visits to a MySpace website on one day, while Cache Back made no reference to that number. Stenger conceded that figure of 84 MySpace searches may actually be sequential (each visit given the next sequential number after the last search on a previous occasion) rather than indicating 84 searches on a single day. He identified a Google search for “how to make chloraform [sic]” on March 21, 2008.
No. One. Cares.
(sorry TM)
Posted by: Jane | July 19, 2011 at 11:24 AM
This can be a sylvia thread
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 19, 2011 at 11:29 AM
I have tried to post on all the threads and nothing comes up when I refresh. any advice?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | July 19, 2011 at 11:42 AM
crazy. That one went through. All the others show as if they went through but when I refresh - nada, nothing, zero.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | July 19, 2011 at 11:43 AM
Wait a few minutes and go back and look Jack. That happened to me this morning and eventually it showed itself.
Posted by: Jane | July 19, 2011 at 11:57 AM
I find it interesting. So at least one cares
(sorry Jane)
Posted by: MayBee | July 19, 2011 at 12:04 PM
Am seeing a bunch of stories lately about Islam having tenets prohibiting having a dog as a pet or letting a dog live in ones house.
I don't recall reading that in the Koran, but if its so, count me out as a possible convert to that idiocy.
Posted by: daddy | July 19, 2011 at 12:05 PM
daddy I've seen that discussed before and, as with everything else involving Islam, there are disagreements. I think there are some things in the Koran that indicate that Mo the Perv (golden showers be on him) liked dogs, but there are a lot of current pervs who designate them as haram so who knows.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 19, 2011 at 12:12 PM
count me out as a possible convert
Of course no one should be required to convert, because freedom of religion is so very important, but I hope we can all come together as a community and agree to make our Muslim neighbors more comfortable by fining or imprisoning anyone who violates any of the sacred tenets of the Islamic faith.
In fact, there's no need for us to come together as a community; the First Amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", but following the well-known principle that the federal government possesses all powers not explicitly denied it (and each branch possesses all powers explicitly denied only to another), I think it's clear that the President has the "constitutional option" to declare Islam the national religion by edict.
Posted by: bgates | July 19, 2011 at 12:16 PM
if he tries messing with my cats, he's gonna be an ex-Muslim.
Posted by: macphisto | July 19, 2011 at 12:25 PM
bgates, I can see you're a quick learner.
I think it's more an Arab cultural thing that dogs are dirty and contemptible. So when Barry said "They talk about me like I'm a dog," he was not thinking "dog=man's best friend."
Posted by: jimmyk | July 19, 2011 at 12:28 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | July 19, 2011 at 12:32 PM
jimmyk, are you suggesting that Jimi was a Muslim?
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | July 19, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Interesting that Teh Times didn't once mention "tot mom".
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | July 19, 2011 at 12:39 PM
Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 12:41 PM
I have tried to post on all the threads and nothing comes up when I refresh. any advice?
If you can read this, do what you did this time.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | July 19, 2011 at 01:01 PM
Charlie, are you the kind of guy who when someone says "it hurts when I do this," answers "well then don't do that"? :)
Posted by: Porchlight | July 19, 2011 at 01:25 PM
being treated "like a dog" is an old, old lyrical theme in black American music. in this case O! is more likely to have picked up the idiom from his study of American black-nuss than anywhere else.
Posted by: macphisto | July 19, 2011 at 01:25 PM
so the bottom line is that if they had convicted her, it would have been overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct. could it have been retried then, or would she have walked?
Posted by: macphisto | July 19, 2011 at 01:31 PM
walked
Posted by: Jane | July 19, 2011 at 01:54 PM
Why not retried?
Posted by: MayBee | July 19, 2011 at 02:02 PM
OT, the new Daniel Silva book 'Portrait of
a Spy' is very good, so much so that I couldn't detect the input of 'blind squirrels' Mayer, Shane, and Bamford. The villain of the piece, is a Awlaki type character, who once bamboozled the CIA and other agencies, not unlike Imam Rauf, who uses the contacts he gathered under the 'outreach' to create his own global jihadist network.. It does have traces of 'hopey changey' but it eviscerates the likes
of John Brennan, for their extreme naivete, under a pseudonym of course,
Posted by: narciso | July 19, 2011 at 02:10 PM
this Bachmann "illness" hit job has me seriously ticked off. These people are vicious scum who will do anything to tear down their opponents.
I would think that migraines would be considered an occupational illness in that line of work.
Posted by: matt | July 19, 2011 at 02:34 PM
Charlie, are you the kind of guy who when someone says "it hurts when I do this," answers "well then don't do that"? :)
Yup.
Its surprising how often it's the right advice.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | July 19, 2011 at 02:47 PM
I knew it. :)
Posted by: Porchlight | July 19, 2011 at 02:48 PM
This is not unlike the carp, that those 'disaffected' staffers threw at Christine,
last fall, now that FEC has called their bluff, where does one go, 'to get their reputation back' and in Palin's case, the aspersions that Larry Persilly and Frank Bailey have spread over the last three years.
Posted by: narciso | July 19, 2011 at 02:51 PM
Maybee,
Double jeopardy would attach. But - since I have long ago forgotten any law I don't practice, Clarice might know if there are exceptions to that rule for certain kind of misconduct.
Posted by: Jane | July 19, 2011 at 02:53 PM
matt shouldn't be surprised by this; this is how the left rolls. We never got the full medical report on Toonces, with its child's garden of controlled substances, or Clenis's petri dish of random stds; but Bachmann's expected to be an open book. Hell the public was shielded from the daily pharmacy that JFK consumed because "his people" wanted him to be presented as this energetic strapping lad, which was as big a crock as how much he and Jackie loved each other.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 19, 2011 at 03:06 PM
It isn't surprising Captain, but it is darn
depressing, how the Daily Caller brings out
the sniper teams, on behalf of 'Duke and Duke'
Posted by: narciso | July 19, 2011 at 03:15 PM
Tammy Bruce is just skewering Hanoi Jane's cluelessness and unwillingness to honestly own up to what she did that people are reacting to. At first I didn't know what her take on this would be, because she doesn't think that QVC should have cancelled her, but she has both barrels blazing at Barbarella.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 19, 2011 at 03:15 PM
Of course it's depressing narc; just like the ignorant fool who tossed a pie at Murdoch in an official meeting (and was protected then from Rupert's kickass wife from cold-cocking him into deserved lights out) will skate without anybody looking into who greased the skids for him to be there; similar to that Code Stink harridan who creeped out Condoleeza Rice was at an official hearing thanks to some congressional insider that the salad tossers were uncurious about.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 19, 2011 at 03:21 PM
Maybee,
Double jeopardy would attach.
Isn't that only if you are found not guilty?
How does double jeopardy attach to a mistrial?
Posted by: MayBee | July 19, 2011 at 03:21 PM
Reading Schiff's biography of Cleopatra, one notes that Plutarchs, CassiusDios and even Josephus, were as sparing with the truth, back then, as the MSM are now.
Posted by: narciso | July 19, 2011 at 03:21 PM
Narciso,
Thanks for the info on Daniel Silva's new book. I'm looking forward to reading it, but am a little concerned about the "traces of hopey changey."
Posted by: Barbara | July 19, 2011 at 03:24 PM
Well I don't want to give too much of it away, but he does think the Arab Spring is real, and there's a twist at the end, But he points fingers at the right places,the Sauds,
the Janus like nature of the Wahhabi infrastructure in the govt.
Posted by: narciso | July 19, 2011 at 03:31 PM
Reading Schiff's biography of Cleopatra, one notes that Plutarchs, CassiusDios and even Josephus, were as sparing with the truth, back then, as the MSM are now.
As a classicist and an MA in History at the U. of Mich, Ann Arbor, first discovered that AJP Taylor was fudging the timelines to get his desired conclusions over forty years ago.
The only history books I trust any more are my two lyin' eyes. And they're often out of focus.
The MSM as "the first draft of history" is appropriate when you realize that history is a narrative with a lot of winks and nods. More an exercise in fine writing, like Barbara Tuchman, whom I still read for delectation. John Lewis Gaddis is good too.
BTW, Suetonius is the go-to guy for Roman history during the era of the Julian Emperors. Even when he's reporting rumors, it's always scintillating.
Posted by: daveinboca | July 19, 2011 at 03:37 PM
"I think it's clear that the President has the "constitutional option" to declare Islam the national religion by edict."
If he does, this is one of the things you get:
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/4259/28/
"HOW UNCLEAN WAS MY VALLEY"
Warning: You may not like it.
Posted by: pagar | July 19, 2011 at 03:42 PM
Prosecutorial misconduct can result in charges being dismissed, reversed or reduced. Think Duke LaCrosse.
I don't think double jeopardy applies.
Posted by: Sue | July 19, 2011 at 03:43 PM
Thanks, Narciso.
Posted by: Barbara | July 19, 2011 at 03:44 PM
Actually, the prosecutor could still face some kind of punishment if the charges are serious enough, even if the defendant is found not guilty. The bar might get involved.
Posted by: Sue | July 19, 2011 at 03:44 PM
So why is it that I can never get a search to work like:
site:justoneminute.typepad.com +warren +cordray
Posted by: sbw | July 19, 2011 at 03:53 PM
What are the + signs for?
Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 04:08 PM
Ex-
Those words are the only ones searched for, as a string, barring the use of spaces between the words and the plus signs. I have no idea what they contribute to the search.
So, +warren+cordray is what the search should look like.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | July 19, 2011 at 04:15 PM
As far as I know, search terms with warren cordray as an argument will give posts containing both words, warren OR cordray will give posts containing either, and "warren cordray" will only give posts containing that exact phrase. Never saw the plus signs in google searches.
Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 04:22 PM
I don't see the original question but the answer on double jeopardy is if a defendant is found not guilty he may not be tried again for the same crime. Double jeopardy doesn't apply in cases of mistrials.
Posted by: Clarice | July 19, 2011 at 04:22 PM
If a person is found guilty and it turns out there was prosecutorial misconduct which likely affected the outcome, the conviction should be overturned and the defendant retried.
Posted by: Clarice | July 19, 2011 at 04:24 PM
Ex-
The pluses will search for that precise string only, as if it were one complete word. Without them, it searches for all reasonable iterations of the same, unqualified string of two words.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | July 19, 2011 at 04:29 PM
Excuse me while I head off to offend the Prophet.
KayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyRoooooooooooooo!
Posted by: daddy | July 19, 2011 at 04:30 PM
my original question assumes that if CA had been convicted, the conviction would have been reversed on appeal due to the prosecution's failure to inform the court or defense of the exculpatory information provided by Bradley; i wondered whether she would then have been retried or not.
Posted by: macphisto | July 19, 2011 at 04:32 PM
I just ordered eight of the older Daniel Silva books from BetterWorldBooks. Silva says they should be read in order so I am starting at the beginning.
Posted by: caro | July 19, 2011 at 04:32 PM
Thanks Sue and Clarice.
Clarice's 4:24 is what I thought.
A retrial in this case would have been interesting, because so much hinged on the shock value of the defense attorney's opening argument.
Posted by: MayBee | July 19, 2011 at 04:38 PM
Go to advanced search
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:justoneminute.typepad.com&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&biw=1223&bih=944&prmd=ivns
and try entering words in the lines that indicate all words, exact phrase, or one or more. The search syntax is shown on top. I couldn't figure out how to make it add the + signs, but choosing exact phrase shows the phrase in quotes.
Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 04:39 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | July 19, 2011 at 04:40 PM
mac- it seems should could have been retried.
Posted by: MayBee | July 19, 2011 at 04:40 PM
Clarice,
For some reason it doesn't resonate with me that you can be tried twice for the same crime.
In Oz a prosecutor can appeal a "not guilty" and get a retrial. I know someone who was convicted the second time around.
Posted by: Jane says obamasucks | July 19, 2011 at 04:47 PM
Mo the Perv
Hah!
Posted by: Janet | July 19, 2011 at 04:54 PM
For some reason it doesn't resonate with me that you can be tried twice for the same crime.
The Menedez Brothers and Phil Specter are two famous examples of this.
Posted by: MayBee | July 19, 2011 at 04:58 PM
If you couldn't be retried even on a guilty charge, there would be all the incentive in the world for the defense to engage in misconduct.
Posted by: MayBee | July 19, 2011 at 04:59 PM
You are right. I'm just shocked that I couldn't figure that out. What has happened to my brain?
Posted by: Jane says obamasucks | July 19, 2011 at 05:11 PM
You are too pure, Jane. Shenanigans never crossed your mind.
Posted by: MayBee | July 19, 2011 at 05:13 PM
MayBee,
There is a little thing called the state bar which provides the incentive for attorneys not to engage in misconduct.
Posted by: Sue | July 19, 2011 at 05:26 PM
This is getting ridiculous.
REUTERS: Senate group offers $3.75 trillion deficit cuts (and $1.2 trillion in "new revenues").
Thanks, fools. Instead of unifying behind the House plan and letting the Senate Democrats block a debt limit increase, they pull a McCain/Graham-like "gang of six" to allow Obama to appear reasonable while isolating the House Republicans and raising taxes. But what caught my eye was this:
How do they know which Republicans are members of the "Tea Party"? I've been to a couple of tea parties, but is there really such a thing as the "Tea Party"? If so, where do I sign up?Seems like a Journalist-type strategy to paint certain Republicans as extremists.
Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 05:29 PM
Ex-
It's an expedited function using the original search page, not advanced.
I tried it with the ubiquitous "that's how I role" and my pluses weren't allowed. I know it works on the home page. It is an old feature of the original search function. I get more precise searches that way, especially using Scroogle Scraper, which uses Google's algo, but strips out the ads. All of them.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | July 19, 2011 at 05:32 PM
Ex-
One of them there "revenue enhancers" is the mortgage deduction.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | July 19, 2011 at 05:44 PM
Double jeopardy doesn't apply in cases of mistrials.
I'd swear it came up in "L&O". The Defense wanted a mistrial declared with jeopardy attached--no retrial possible.
Posted by: Ralph L | July 19, 2011 at 05:44 PM
I don't remember how we got to "role", but I was able to use the advanced search with quotes around the phrase to get to what may be the original quote, which I re-post for posterity:
December. Time sure flies...Btw, the following syntax doesn't limit the results to the exact phrase:
Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 05:50 PM
One of them there "revenue enhancers" is the mortgage deduction.
Really? Must be a poison pill. Maybe I'm jumping on the "gang" too soon.
Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 05:52 PM
There is a little thing called the state bar which provides the incentive for attorneys not to engage in misconduct.
The incentives would have to be very well enforced, and investigations very thorough. With no chance of a retrial, the incentive to force a mistrial would be huge. Attorney misconduct is not the only way to get a mistrial. Imagine what the defendant could do in court, knowing he could get himself off (guilty only, perhaps, of contempt).
Posted by: MayBee | July 19, 2011 at 05:52 PM
As you might imagine, hit twisted Ryan's Original Intent.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | July 19, 2011 at 05:55 PM
Ot: I got the new Hammacher Schlemmer catalogue. If anyone is looking for the perfect gift for hit--they have a remote controlled beverage cooler.
My tastes are bit more lavish--I want the 20 foot animatronic triceratops. So if you happen to have $350k (not a typo) burning a hole in your pocket..there you are.
Posted by: Clarice | July 19, 2011 at 05:56 PM
That Reuters piece just says they want to abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Love this one:
Great move! The Senate committees are dominated by Democrats.Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 05:58 PM
Doesn't any revenue increase have to originate in the House?
Posted by: MayBee | July 19, 2011 at 06:01 PM
future cuts again...push it out as far as you can and hope everyone forgets about it.
What a bad joke our Senate has become.
Posted by: matt | July 19, 2011 at 06:01 PM
You know what I hate about you, Maybee? You are so logical.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Clarice | July 19, 2011 at 06:04 PM
MayBee, I think it depends on which side caused the mistrial.
And the jurisdiction.
Posted by: Ralph L | July 19, 2011 at 06:05 PM
Btw, $3.75 trillion in deficit cuts over 10 years does little to deal with what will be $16 trillion in new debt over the same period at the current deficit rate. And if we have another recession, the deficits aren't likely to go down from where they are now.
Not be a broken record (would kids have any idea what that refers to?), but I don't see any possible solution without a balanced budget amendment that forces these wimps to do what has to be done.
Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 06:06 PM
Did they use remote controlled beverages in "The Manchurian Candidate?"
Posted by: Ralph L | July 19, 2011 at 06:11 PM
I don't remember how we got to "role",
It was Rick Ballard a few days ago. Hit added a Heh! & a WWE "Know yer role."
Posted by: Janet | July 19, 2011 at 06:28 PM
interesting survey on a Silicon Valley news site that I get every day. The question was
"who has the best vision to solve the Federal debt crisis"
The choices were the Repubs, the dems, Obama, or none of the above.
Remember, this is la la land politically. The repubs got 43%, the Dems got 21%, Obama got 18% and none of the above got 18%. So now Bammers is lagging behind even his party in a famously purple part of the country that went for him big in the election.
Posted by: matt | July 19, 2011 at 06:30 PM
Did everyone see Murdoch's wife Wendi in that video of him getting pied? (Top one at the link.)
Now that's a wife!
Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 06:54 PM
The plus signs in a google search makes the boolean operator AND
warren cordray returns sites with either warren OR cordray. Sites with just warren but not cordray would be returned in the search,for example.
"warren cordray" returns only sites that contain the exact phrase "warren cordray"
+warren +cordray returns only sites where both warren AND cordray are present.
Also,
"hit and run" -beer returns only sites where the exact phrase "hit and run" is matched AND beer does not appear.
And no beer makes me sad.
Posted by: hit and run | July 19, 2011 at 06:56 PM
Of course the OR searches in google are ranked so that you have to go a few pages before you start getting results that has one word but not the other.
But I've been there plenty of times.
Posted by: hit and run | July 19, 2011 at 06:59 PM
((AND beer does not appear))
the question is does "baseball" appear? when you posted recently a bit about your baseball career, I had a "eureka" moment wrt your nic
Posted by: Chubby | July 19, 2011 at 07:01 PM
Good reason for more beer, an actual recall final plus two primaries for who gets to run against fleebaggers. Wispolitics Election Blog has the info and background.
As it stands, Duke and Duke favorite Beeks messed up his paperwork, so Dave Hansen (Fleebagger, Green Bay) is expected to tromp VanderLeest (windfarms & criminal record). There is a big disparity in turnout by polling place in that district -- whatever that means. The winner will have to be replaced in 2012 anyway.
Sumac in one of the primaries is a Tea Party organizer.
I'll post a link to the vote scorecard when available.
Posted by: henry | July 19, 2011 at 07:06 PM
I missed the baseball career post. Do tell! I just spent a weekend in Allentown, PA, with a pretty bad team, and I'm betting MarkO would be interested, too.
Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 07:08 PM
Simac, not Sumac. I guess Apple doesn't like the Tea Party.
Posted by: henry | July 19, 2011 at 07:08 PM
I played in college at a small school where we went to the NAIA college world series in Lewiston,ID.
My JOM name really doesn't have anything to do with baseball (unless subconsciouly!). It was intended as a desciption of how I saw myself commenting here when I first stepped out of the shadows.
Posted by: hit and run | July 19, 2011 at 07:12 PM
oh well, another eureka moment bites the dust
Posted by: Chubby | July 19, 2011 at 07:17 PM
Ralph L:
"The Defense wanted a mistrial declared with jeopardy attached--no retrial possible."
IANAL
I think the options and/or language may vary depending on whether a judge declares a mistrial within the course of a trial itself and when a trial is overturned on appeal.
An appeals court either reverses a decision or sends the whole thing back to the lower court for a do-over, although I don't know if this formula applies to criminal/jury trials. I'm also not sure what the rules are in re prosecutorial misconduct versus judicial error as the basis of an appeal.
I believe a judge can dismiss a complaint with or without prejudice, which I assume refers to whether the complaint cannot be revisited or can be refiled under different circumstances. Jeopardy would seem to be a particular subset of something like that.
/IANAL
Posted by: JM Hanes | July 19, 2011 at 07:21 PM
Didn't the gang of six just crap all over the House Republican's plan?
Posted by: Uncle BigBad | July 19, 2011 at 07:27 PM
I put this in the other thread. I just saw the most amazing take down of Chris Matthews ever, but a freshman congressman, I think named Walsh and not from California. It was the first segment of the show and if you get a chance to watch it, do. He ever referenced the tingle up matthews leg.
Bout time.
Posted by: Jane says obamasucks | July 19, 2011 at 07:28 PM
The '+' operator for Google search means "results must contain this item". The search "that's how I +roll" will find a variety of things, but all of them will have "roll".
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy | July 19, 2011 at 07:35 PM
Bret Stephens in the Journal, points out the that two of the most fervent torchbearers against Rupert, who I think handled himself very well today, the Guardian and the Times,
were unapologetic supporters of Wikileaks, even when it published unredacted lists of
persons who aided us in Afghanistan.
Posted by: narciso | July 19, 2011 at 07:39 PM
Probably Joe Walsh from Illinois.
Posted by: Janet | July 19, 2011 at 07:40 PM
MayBee:
Sue: "There is a little thing called the state bar which provides the incentive for attorneys not to engage in misconduct."
MayBee: "The incentives would have to be very well enforced, and investigations very thorough."
I'm not sure what tools are at a bar association's disposal. The threat of being reported to the bar might be enough to deter some, but it seems to me you would need subpoena power to really go after a corrupt Prosecutor (who has a number of built-in legal protections, himself). I could be wrong, but I believe such investigations would probably need to be undertaken by a state's Atty. General. I assume, however, that disbarment would almost surely follow if a prosecutor were booted for misconduct.
Posted by: JM Hanes | July 19, 2011 at 07:41 PM
Is this it, Jane?
Rep. Walsh on Hardball
Posted by: Janet | July 19, 2011 at 07:42 PM
In 1997, after a six-year relationship with Warner Bros., Milchan became a partner with Murdoch, selling him 20 percent of his film company, New Regency Productions, for $200 million. Murdoch also invested another $30 million in Regency Television. Today, Murdoch's equity partnership with Milchan is close to 50 percent.
"Milchan's deal with Fox also assures him a level of financial security," Bardach wrote. "With Murdoch's $200 million investment and a subsequent $600 million line of credit from a team of banks led by Chase Manhattan, Milchan is well into mogul territory.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3585
"Milchan's tony offices occupy most of Building 12, right next door to the Executive Building on the Fox lot," Bardach wrote. "And it is from this seat of power that Milchan is building an entertainment empire that could one day rival Murdoch's."
Posted by: Ben Franklin Forever | July 19, 2011 at 07:47 PM
The North Carolina State Bar v Michael B. Nifong, Attorney
Before the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the North Carolina State Bar
Posted by: hit and run | July 19, 2011 at 07:49 PM
Extraneus:
"How do they know which Republicans are members of the "Tea Party"?"
Michelle Bachmann formed a Tea Party Caucus in the House, but I think the media apply the term more indiscriminately than that.
"Great move! The Senate committees are dominated by Democrats"
In last version I heard about, I believe the Committee was to be divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats -- which doesn't exactly improve the odds of anything productive emerging.
Posted by: JM Hanes | July 19, 2011 at 07:49 PM
I don't know if this is definitive, but it seems to be a net of the Gang of Six plan:
Etc.Posted by: Extraneus | July 19, 2011 at 07:54 PM