Tag Archives: under-the-law

Tiger Woods’ Nude Photos Leaked

Follow this link:

Source: Caryn Levy / Getty Tiger Woods and his ex-girlfriend Lindsey Vonn are the latest celebs to be hacked and have their nude photos exposed on the Internet. According to TMZ , Woods is reportedly lawyered up and ready to take on celebrity site Celeb Jihad where the photos can currently be viewed. “It is an outrageous and despicable invasion of privacy for anyone to steal and illegally publish private intimate photos,” Vonn’s spokesman told The Big Lead . Lindsey will take all necessary and appropriate legal action to protect and enforce her rights and interests. She believes the individuals responsible for hacking her private photos as well as the websites that encourage this detestable conduct should be prosecuted to the fullest extent under the law,” he added. Woods has been making headlines as of late. The former golf champion recently went viral after footage of him being arrested for driving under the influence was released. A later toxicology report found that Woods had five drugs in his system at his time of arrest. Woods just can’t seem to catch a break. See Woods’ wood, here . RELATED STORIES: Tiger Woods Headed Back To Rehab Following DUI Arrest Tiger Woods’ DUI Arrest Footage Is Released  

Tiger Woods’ Nude Photos Leaked

New Movie: Peep The First Trailer For Denzel Washington And Viola Davis’ “Fences”

Take Your First Look Denzel Washington And Viola Davis’s “Fences” There’s growing anticipation for Denzel Washington’s latest directorial foray, “Fences”, featuring Viola Davis and we now have the first look at the film. Looks pretty intense. You coppin’ a ticket? Image via YouTube

Go here to see the original:
New Movie: Peep The First Trailer For Denzel Washington And Viola Davis’ “Fences”

Dancing Democracy: Louisiana Strippers Under Age 21 Fight For Their Right To Flaunt Fun Bags For Funds

Louisiana Strippers File Lawsuit To Combat Law Prohibiting Dancers Under Age 21 Three strippers in Louisiana are fighting for their rights to be as naked as the wish in pursuit of the paper. According to CBSNews , young WOMEN under 21 years of age who dance in the shaky-butts will no longer be allowed to do something strange for a lil piece of change under a new state law. The lovely ladies have filed a federal lawsuit which states that the new law not only violates their First Amendment rights, but also their right to equal protection under the law. How so? They say the law’s definition of strip club performers as “entertainers whose breasts or buttocks are exposed to view” fails to prohibit the same conduct by men who are between the ages of 18 and 21. Legislators clearly haven’t thought the new law all the way out. Let them tell it, the law is meant “to protect young women”. The ladies, however, tell a different story. The Jane Does also claim that the law is already endangering young woman. One plaintiff says she has witnessed pimps and prostitutes trying to use the new law in a New Orleans strip club to “recruit entertainers who are now lawfully employed, but who will lose their jobs as a result of the Act.” Another plaintiff, identified as an 18-year-old LSU student, says other dancers under 21 have told her they plan to switch to prostitution once they can no longer dance. Despite their common first letter, there is quite a bit of difference between pimpin’, prostitution and “protection”. Image via Shutterstock

Here is the original post:
Dancing Democracy: Louisiana Strippers Under Age 21 Fight For Their Right To Flaunt Fun Bags For Funds

Security Forces Arrest Two Teens For Murder of Fogel Family In Israel

http://www.youtube.com/v/MAgEsMIJRbw

Continued here:

On the eve of Passover, the Israeli security services announced the arrest of two teenagers from a nearby village for Read more » Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : IndyPosted Discovery Date : 17/04/2011 12:47 Number of articles : 2

Security Forces Arrest Two Teens For Murder of Fogel Family In Israel

Video: NY → NOM → bias → Russia → full civil equality under the law

http://www.youtube.com/v/iGmDZqmyrq0

See more here:

Born in Buffalo, then bred on an unhealthy diet of NOM’s empty calories. Now Louis stands in Russia, with love: Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : Good As You Discovery Date : 17/04/2011 19:11 Number of articles : 2

Video: NY → NOM → bias → Russia → full civil equality under the law

Time vs Politico: Halperin Rebukes VandeHei for Characterizing GOP Group as ‘Shadowy’

In the “secret” underworld of Republican fundraising, Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie use “cloaked” donor lists to “dig up dirt” on Democrats and funnel campaign contributions to Republican candidates. At least that’s the impression left by Politico’s Jim VandeHei. On the June 21 “Morning Joe,” Time magazine’s Mark Halperin challenged VandeHei’s characterization of American Crossroads GPS, a Republican political organization that finances issue ads designed to promote conservative positions on policy issues. “With all due respect to Jim and the folks at Politico, you know, they make this these shadowy donors, this shadowy group, I mean, these are citizens who, under the law, are able to give anonymously to a group like this and to fund political activity to help them win races,” complained Halperin. Highlighting the fact that American Crossroads, classified as a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, is not required to disclose its donor list, the Politico piece lead Halperin, who is no champion of conservative causes , to conclude that VandeHei and his colleagues believe the Rove – Gillespie operation is a “shadowy” organization. Halperin also accused VandeHei of promoting a double standard: “I’m not sure if this were a Democratic group people would look at this as something sinister but rather an attempt to fight for what they believe in the marketplace of political ideas.” “I think there’s been a big push of late to try to get at least more disclosure of donors I think from both sides,” countered VandeHei. It’s hard to believe Politico’s executive editor would paint other 501(c)4 organizations like the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, or the Natural Resources Defense Council as clandestine operations. But when it comes to a non-profit organization run by prominent Republicans, Politico cast a menacing shadow over the organization. The transcript of the program can be found below: MSNBC Morning Joe July 21, 2010 8:23 A.M. E.S.T. WILLIE GEIST: With us now, Executive Editor of Politico, Jim VandeHei, he’s back with a look at the Playbook. Hey, Jim. JIM VANDEHEI, Politico executive editor: Hey, how you doing? GEIST: Good. Let’s pick up on something we were talking about earlier in the show and that’s Karl Rove, had been having trouble apparently raising cash from donors because they don’t want to get their names out there so he did something about it. VANDEHEI: Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, some other prominent Republicans have put together a group they were trying to get a bunch money to run attack ads and go after Democrats. They weren’t having much luck because the way they set it up donors had to disclose their names. Now they’ve created a new organization that allows them to cloak the identity of donor names. Money is pouring in and they’re saying they’re going to put that money in to some dirt-digging against Democrats and also painting what’s happened in the Gulf as Obama’s Katrina. GEIST: Hey Mark Halperin, is this a new concept? Has Karl Rove tapped into a new idea here? We’re going to give him a mic too, it’ll be great. MARK HALPERIN, Time magazine: There are new groups based on this Supreme Court decision from January but I have to say, with all due respect to Jim and the folks at Politico, you know, they make this these shadowy donors, this shadowy group, I mean, these are citizens who, under the law, are able  to give anonymously to a group like this and to fund political activity to help them win races. I’m not sure if this were a Democratic group people would look at this as something sinister but rather an attempt to fight for what they believe in the marketplace of political ideas. VANDEHEI: I disagree with you, Mark. I think there was a tremendous amount of coverage back when George Soros and others were starting to do this for Democrats if you recall back in 2006, which helped them take back control of power and I think there’s been a big push of late to try to get at least more disclosure of donors I think from both sides. And there still exists this caveat in tax law – 501(c)3 or 4 – which allows you to do some of this activity anonymously. So I think certainly both sides do it. I think it’s most interesting right now for Republicans because they desperately need this infusion of cash to be able to win back the House and Senate because they’re suffering when it comes to money. HALPERIN: I agree, I just like to get under Jim’s skin when I can. VANDEHEI: You sound better when you didn’t have a mic, Mark. GEIST: The page and Politico in a smack down. Judge Buchanan would you like to render your ruling? Who’s right in this case? –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Follow this link:
Time vs Politico: Halperin Rebukes VandeHei for Characterizing GOP Group as ‘Shadowy’

Washington Post Hysterically Explains Why Tan Tax Isn’t Racist

If you thought ObamaCare’s new tax on tanning salons was racist, the Washington Post wants to set you straight: it ain’t! The reason according to a piece published at the Post’s website Thursday evening: the government didn’t INTEND to disadvantage white people with this law. It’s just an unfortunate consequence. I kid you not.  But this gets better, because the Post quoted a Harvard professor that said this is similar to crack cocaine laws that clearly disadvantage black people more than white people (h/t Jillian Bandes ): The case can seem deceptively simple: Since patrons of tanning salons are almost exclusively white, the tax will be almost entirely paid by white people and, therefore, violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law. “There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect,” he said. Kennedy said that this is why courts have upheld a raft of other laws that also happen to have a disproportionate impact on particular groups. For example, laws that impose higher penalties for possession or trafficking of crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine resulted in far harsher sentences for African Americans compared to whites. And laws that offer preferential treatment for veterans are much more likely to benefit men than women. But in both cases judges ruled that, because lawmakers did not intend to disadvantage black people or women when drafting those laws, they are legal. You got that? So quit you’re whining about this new tan tax, Snooki!

See more here:
Washington Post Hysterically Explains Why Tan Tax Isn’t Racist