Tag Archives: lawsuit

VIDEO Chevron Tries to Restrict 1st Amendment of "Crude" Documentary Filmmaker

The ongoing saga of the class action lawsuit, Aguinda v. Chevron, originally filed in 1993 by the people of Ecuador whose rainforest land had been contaminated by oil production practices, and documented on film by Joe Berlinger in “Crude,” has taken a new turn. Chevron's latest diversionary and delaying tactic is to engage in a widespread and unprecedented legal assault on the First Amendment in their attempt to force Berlinger, the celebrated independent documentarian, to turn over more than 600 hours of private film outtakes from “Crude.” Chevron's legal tactic has attracted widespread criticism from prominent individuals across the media community, including actor and filmmaker Robert Redford, journalist Bill Moyers, bestselling author John Perkins, documentarians Michael Moore and Ric Burns, the Director's Guild of America, the Writer's Guild of America, and others. Virtually every major U.S. media outlet, including the NY Times, LA Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, Associated Press, Dow Jones, HBO, and others have opposed Chevron's action in court. This latest action by Chevron is part of a worldwide, desperate litigation campaign by the oil giant to escape liability for what is thought to be the world's worst oil-related environmental catastrophe. The extent of the contamination is almost unfathomable – by Chevron's own admission they dumped at least 15.8 billion gallons of toxic 'produced water' in the region, and their own audits indicate that the number may actually be much higher – more than 18.5 billion gallons. Of the 18.5 billion gallons of toxins, at least 345 million gallons of it was pure crude oil. To put this in perspective, as of June 15, 2010, U.S. government estimates have indicated that the BP spill in the Gulf has spilled somewhere between 73 and 126 million gallons of oil. At least the BP spill was not intentional. By contrast, Chevron's dumping was, by the company's own admission, a deliberate production decision to maximize profits. According to experts, a saving of approximately $1-3 per barrel of oil was achieved by dumping the toxins rather than disposing of them properly. The end result of this has been incredible devastation of a formerly pristine section of Ecuador's Amazon rainforest. Though Chevron no longer operates in the area (having ceased Ecuadorian drilling operations in 1990), the pollution still remains. The people living in that region do not have widespread running water or plumbing, and have had no access to water that has not been polluted by the oil operations for nearly four decades. I have seen firsthand the reality of the aftermath of Chevron's actions in Ecuador. I have seen some of the unlined, unfenced waste pits that Chevron left behind. I have met many people there who have lost their parents, their children, and who are losing heir own lives. The area is besieged with oil-related illnesses; families are plagued with extremely elevated levels of childhood leukemia, spontaneous abortions, birth defects, and other serious oil-related health impacts. Experts have estimated that at least 1,400 people have died needlessly from oil-related sicknesses due to the illegal dumping. In 1993, the people in the region brought a lawsuit against the oil giant to force the company to clean-up the damage it caused on their land. An independent court-expert has estimated that the damage caused in the region could cost as much as $27.3 billion to clean up. However, even that amount will be insufficient to return the people to the lifestyles they knew before the Chevron showed up. Small wonder Chevron are running scared. Without taking sides in the lawsuit itself, the enormous legal liability tied to all of these harms provides the context for why Chevron is so aggressively attacking its critics across the world. Chevron has one animating principle in their attacks on Joe Berlinger, the Ecuadorean people, and anyone attempting to hold the company responsible for the pollution it left behind in Ecuador: to find some way of eliminating the legal liability to protect the company's bottom line. But the time has come for Chevron to stop its attacks, and to stop trying to evade its responsibilities. The company should cease its futile attempts to force documentarians and journalists to open up their files to the company's lawyers, and instead focus on the essential issue: how they will remediate the damage it caused in Ecuador to the 30,000 affected people and their land. http://www.crudethemovie.com/ added by: captainplanet71

Obama Administration Protected Black Panther Who Advocates Killing "Cracker" Babies

A former Justice Department lawyer hired during the Bush administration alleged on Tuesday that the department scaled down a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party last year because his former colleagues do not want to protect white people’s civil rights. The case arose after two members of the New Black Panther Party stood outside a polling place in a majority-black precinct in Philadelphia on Election Day in 2008. A video of the men, posted online, showed them dressed in paramilitary clothing, and one carried a billy club. In January 2009, less than two weeks before the Bush administration left office, the civil rights division invoked a rarely used section of the Voting Rights Act to file a civil lawsuit alleging voter intimidation by both men, the party chairman and the party. In April 2009, the division seemed to win the case by default because the New Black Panthers failed to show up in court. But the following month, a longtime Justice official, Loretta King — who was then the acting head of the division — decided to reduce the scope of the case. The department dropped the charges against the party, its chairman and the man who was not carrying a club. It pressed forward with the lawsuit against the man with the club, obtaining an injunction that forbids him from carrying a weapon near an open polling place in Philadelphia through 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw added by: ibrake4rappers13

Leicester Bryce Stovell: I’m LeBron James’ Dad!

Forget rumors of Delonte West nailing his mom this spring. LeBron James is now being sued a dude who claims he slept with Gloria James, oh, say about 25 years ago. LeBron, whose HUGE decision about where he will play next season coincidentally airs tonight on ESPN, is accused of tampering with evidence, as is Gloria. Leicester Bryce Stovell, 55, claims in his lawsuit that he is the biological father of James and alleges that the NBA star and his mom covered up this fact. He says he met Gloria in a D.C. area bar in 1984, had unprotected sex with her the night they met, and later found out she was 15 at the time. He was 29. Interestingly, the guy isn’t some deadbeat. This guy says he’s LeBron James’ dad. See a resemblance? Rather, he’s a Princeton and University of Chicago Law School grad who went on to be a senior legal advisor to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In any case, Stovell claims Gloria went back to her hometown in Ohio after they hooked up, but returned several months later to inform him she was pregnant with a boy named LeBron, although she never specifically identified the father. Stovell claims he reconnected with Gloria by phone in 2007, when he began to think he could be LeBron’s dad, partly because they look almost identical. Leicester notes that when he saw LeBron play, he was “struck by our similarity in appearance. Leicester Bryce Stovell claims during the 2007 call, Gloria James threatened to have him physically harmed and told him, “LeBron’s money is for his children.” A few days after the phone call, Leicester claims LeBron James – through his lawyer – agreed to take a DNA paternity test. Stovel claims he was given results that showed he was not LeBron’s dad … but suspects Gloria and LeBron are behind a fraud. Why would he do that? “Anger at perceived abandonment and conflict arising from his image as a successful fatherless child from the projects,” Leicester Bryce Stovell theorizes. He claims Gloria “fabricated” a story about LeBron’s real father for the “one dimensional commercial image-making purpose … to make [LeBron’s] life suggestive of Spike Lee’s popular 1998 sports drama film, He Got Game .” Leicester, who notes that LeBron named his son Bryce, is seeking $4 million from LeBron and Gloria, claiming fraud, defamation and misrepresentation. James’ camp has denounced the suit as a blatant attempt to capitalize on the attention LeBron will receive in the run-up to his announcement tonight. Do you believe it? More importantly, where will LeBron end up?

Follow this link:
Leicester Bryce Stovell: I’m LeBron James’ Dad!

State Lawmaker Discredits Campbell Brown’s ‘Misinformation’ About Arizona’s Immigration Law

Debating the fallout of the Obama administration’s attempt to squelch Arizona’s popular immigration law before it goes into effect later this month, CNN’s Campbell Brown on July 6 challenged a chief advocate of the law with a multi-pronged assault, only to see her attacks thwarted and her “misinformation” corrected. In a blatant contradiction, Brown dismissed State Senator Russell Pearce’s (R-Ariz.) “anecdote” about ranchers who are under siege because of the federal government’s failure to secure the porous border, but highlighted anecdotal evidence of opposition to the new law. “Well, I want to stay away from the anecdotal and stick with the figures as much as we can here,” instructed Brown when confronted with evidence of the Obama administration’s inability to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Later in the interview, Brown peddled the minority opinion among law enforcement groups to rebuke Pearce’s assertion that courts have upheld the right of states to enforce federal law: Law enforcement groups, some at least, have expressed concerns about whether they are going to be able to enforce this. There are two separate lawsuits as I’m sure you know in Arizona courts right now. One police officer, I believe, from Tucson suing, claiming the law will — and I have got the right quote here — “seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes.” “Well, those are fabrications,” retorted Pearce, who went on to list myriad law enforcement agencies in Arizona that have endorsed SB-1070 . Brown also took issue with Pearce’s claim that interior enforcement of federal immigration law is down 75 percent under the Obama administration, countering, “I don’t think those numbers are right. But everybody who has been on this program before, on both sides of this issue, has conceded that enforcement is actually stronger along the border with more police.” After Pearce reminded Brown of the distinction between border enforcement and interior enforcement, the CNN anchor conceded the point. Conversely, State Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz), an opponent of the new law, was not raked over the coals for criticizing a law that enjoys widespread public support or for defending the White House’s politically-motivated lawsuit. In fact, Brown merely touted Sinema’s credentials and lobbed her a softball. “Let me ask you, because, as I understand it, you are a constitutional lawyer,” explained Brown. “And Senator McCain says that challenging a law that hasn’t gone into effect is a pretty heavy lift. Does he have a point here?” At the end of the segment, the persistent lawmaker attempted to further discredit the CNN anchor’s fatuous claims, but Brown rushed to dispose of Pearce: “Well, as I said, I wish we had more time to discuss this.” “I do, too,” quipped Pearce. “It’s very important.” The transcript of the segment can be found below: CNN Campbell Brown 7/6/10 8:04 p.m. CAMPBELL BROWN: Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema back with us tonight. She’s a Democrat and a vocal critic of the new law. But also with is state Senator Russell Pearce, a Republican and one of the driving forces behind this new law. And, Senator Pearce, let met start with you. I want to read a little bit from the administration’s lawsuit that says — quote — “A state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws.” In other words, federal law trumps state law. How can you take issue with that? Arizona State Senator RUSSELL PEARCE (R): Well, you do take issue. First of all, enforcement is not regulatory, and the courts have ruled on this. The courts, the 5th, 6th, the 8th, the 9th, the 10th Circuit courts have all ruled. The United States Supreme Court has ruled on this, on states’ inherent authority to enforce the law. If Congress had not wanted us to enforce this law, they could have used what are called plenary powers. They’ve never done that. And absent that, through the supremacy clause, states have an inherent authority and responsibility to enforce the law. The misinformation out there is outrageous. The Obama administration simply is filing suit, a political lawsuit, if you will, because they have no leg to stand on, on the preemption issue. They are simply trying to enforce their current policy of no enforcement and amnesty. That’s what it’s about. They are not worried about profiling. This bill prohibits it. They’re not worried about what lawful contact is. The Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, in a 9-0 landmark decision said if you have a lawful contact, you don’t need reasonable suspicion. But we still put it in this bill. This is about an effort to stop any enforcement as they can usher in their amnesty program. It is a non-enforcement policy. That is the policy. Interior enforcement is down 75 percent in this administration. It’s outrageous. States have inherent authority and responsibility. BROWN: I don’t think those numbers are right. I don’t have the figures in front of me. PEARCE: The numbers are right. BROWN: But everybody who has been on this program before, on both sides of this issue, has conceded that enforcement is actually stronger along the border with more police. PEARCE: No, no, no, no. I was talking interior enforcement, not border. BROWN: OK. PEARCE: And even then, I was just down there. I was just down there with the ranchers and the widow of Rob Krentz, Susie. And they said it is worse, it’s as bad or worse than it has ever been. So, again, the misinformation has to stop. BROWN: Well, I want to stay away from the anecdotal and stick with the figures as much as we can here. PEARCE: Those are facts. OK, those are facts. BROWN: All right. Representative Sinema, let me go to you. You have got both of your state senators who say the White House should let the law go into effect and then see what happens before forging ahead with a lawsuit. So, why not wait and see how this shakes out and whether it does do good? Arizona Representative KYRSTEN SINEMA (D): Well, I think’s important to note, first and foremost, that the Department of Justice has the clear authority and legal right to bring suit, even before the law is implemented. This law presents a great challenge and a really interesting legal question for our whole country. And hopefully this lawsuit can provide some clarity for those of us who are state actors, so we know where the state authority ends in terms of implementing immigration reform and where federal authority begins. I think that this law will allow the court to provide clarity not just for Arizona, but for the entire country, so we can have some real guidance on what kind of laws we can move forward with and what kind of laws we have to push Congress to pass and to enforce. BROWN: Let me ask you, because, as I understand it, you are a constitutional lawyer. SINEMA: Right. BROWN: And Senator McCain says that challenging a law that hasn’t gone into effect is a pretty heavy lift. Does he have a point here? SINEMA: Oh, yes. It is difficult to challenge a law before it goes into effect. And what will be happening some time next week is that Judge Bolton, our district court judge, will be hearing what’s called a request for injunction by the other five lawsuits that have already been filed. These groups are asking the court to enjoin the law, which means to stop it from going into effect, on July 29. And the court only grants injunctions when the plaintiffs present a good case and show that they are probably going to win. BROWN: All right. Let me ask you about this, Senator Pearce, because you mentioned this in your comments a minute ago. Law enforcement groups, some at least, have expressed concerns about whether they are going to be able to enforce this. There are two separate lawsuits as I’m sure you know in Arizona courts right now. One police officer, I believe, from Tucson suing, claiming the law will — and I have got the right quote here — “seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes.” I mean, what do you make of those concerns? These aren’t about political issues. These are law enforcement officers, right? PEARCE: Well, those are fabrications. Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, the largest law enforcement association in the state of Arizona, endorsed this bill and has filed to be an intervener to support this law. The Arizona Policeman Association, an umbrella organization of over 9,000 police officers, endorsed this bill. Nine out of 15 sheriffs endorsed this bill. The state fraternal order of police endorsed this bill. The Border Patrol Association endorsed this bill. That is such a fabrication. You always have an individual. The police chiefs don’t endorse it because they work for open-border mayors, sanctuary mayors, who have always stated they don’t want to enforce the law, have done everything they can not to enforce it. Let me bring up an interesting point. BROWN: Hold on. Before you bring up that point, let me let her, let me let Representative Sinema respond to that, because we are running out of time for here. Go ahead. SINEMA: Well, I do think it is important to note that many law enforcement officers are struggling with the failure of Congress to enact meaningful comprehensive reform. Right now in our state, we really are struggling with the lack of some kind of comprehensive law that gives law enforcement and police officers the tools they need to keep our communities safe. But some law enforcement officials have indicated some concern about the law because they could be sued for enforcing the law or sued for not enforcing the law. BROWN: Right. SINEMA: So, it does place some of them in a difficult position. BROWN: Representative Sinema and Senator Pearce, I know there are very strong views on both sides of this issue. PEARCE: Well, I would like to correct some of the misinformation. BROWN: Well, as I said, I wish we had more time to discuss this. PEARCE: I do, too. It’s very important. BROWN: But thank you both for coming on. Really appreciate your time. SINEMA: Thanks so much, Campbell. PEARCE: Thank you. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read this article:
State Lawmaker Discredits Campbell Brown’s ‘Misinformation’ About Arizona’s Immigration Law

MSNBC Panel Invokes Anita Hill, Injects Sexism in Kagan Hearing

A liberal panel led by MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews injected sexism into the Kagan confirmation hearings on Tuesday morning, suggesting that Republican senators should curtail the tenacity of their questioning because the Supreme Court nominee happens to be a woman. Invoking the Clarence Thomas hearings, which focused on the testimony of Anita Hill, who accused Thomas of making inappropriate sexual comments, Matthews asked, “Am I wrong in hearing flashes here of the Anita Hill testimony way back when in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings?” Despite the absence of a sexual scandal, Matthews persisted with the bizarre analogy: “Are we past the sensitivity about a male member of the Senate grilling a female?” The “Hardball” host failed to clarify exactly who in 2010 is sensitive about male senators posing tough but legitimate questions to a woman nominated to the nation’s highest court. “I don’t think we are, Chris. I don’t think we are,” answered Sherrilyn Ifill, a law professor who teaches a seminar on “Reparations, Reconciliation, and Restorative Justice,” who appeared eager to respond to Matthews’s condescending question. Continuing to patronize female viewers who don’t believe that men and women should be treated differently in congressional hearings, Matthews asked Ifill, a woman, to flesh out the “rules of engagement” for handling female nominees. “So male-female interrogation has to be done more, what would you say?” probed Matthews. “Give me the verb [sic]?” “I think it has to be done with care, with care, with care,” explained Ifill. “We saw it last summer with the Sotomayor hearings where both race and gender were at play. I think some of the most uncomfortable moments that many of us experienced was when some of the Republican senators crossed that line.”              Like Matthews, the University of Maryland law professor failed to elucidate who specifically felt uncomfortable with Republican senators’ questions during the Sotomayor hearings. MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell echoed Ifill’s sentiment on handling female nominees “with care,” proclaiming, “The Senate Judiciary Committee is being very careful, with the exception perhaps of Jeff Sessions in his opening comments yesterday, in his opening statement. They’re being very careful about a female nominee.” David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the left-wing magazine Mother Jones , was the only panelist to duck Matthews’s sexist questions. “I’m not weighing in on this one,” he joked. A transcript of the segment can be found below: MSNBC News Live 6/29/10 10:54 a.m. CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let’s bring in our panel right now on the Supreme Court confirmation hearing. NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Susan Page, USA Today Washington Bureau Chief, David Corn, Washington Bureau Chief of Mother Jones, he’s also a blogger on PoliticsDaily.com, and Sherrilyn Ifill, who’s a professor of law at the University of Maryland Law School. Let’s go around the panel in that order, your thoughts about this whole topic here is so hot in terms of partisan politics. Traditionally the Republican Party does not like any restraint on spending, the Democrats like to see restraints because they’ve always believed that, somehow, the other party has an advantage in money. Andrea? ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent: This was the case that she lost before the Supreme Court, and so this is positioning by both sides. She clearly has a very good handle on the details of this case, but she was on the losing end of this argument and there’s no way that Orrin Hatch and other would ever agree. MATTHEWS: The “Hillary” movie was a very tough partisan movie put out for general commercial distribution and it was perceived to be a political document by the Democrats. MITCHELL: It was perceived to be a political document and that was the argument, that it should not be permitted. MATTHEWS: That it could not be financed by corporate purposes. MITCHELL: By corporate purposes. MATTHEWS: Right, David? DAVID CORN, Mother Jones Washington Bureau Chief: But as we know, the 5-6 justices on the Supreme Court took this case and they expanded it even more so which is what got President Obama and other people riled up and they took a bigger swing at the McCain-Feingold bill, which had been passed by the Senate, which now Solicitor General Kagan is appearing before. And it was decried as judicial activism by people on the left and liberals and The New York Times. So I think Hatch’s main political point here is to try and stop that narrative because I think it’s really been absorbed that Citizens United went too far as a court decision. MATTHEWS: And this came out in the president’s State of the Union where he took a swipe at the Supreme Court with Samuel Alito and other justices there and they didn’t like it. SUSAN PAGE, USA Today Washington bureau chief: They didn’t. You know, it’s interesting since Kagan argued this case she feels pretty comfortable with it and you see, I think, a more free-flowing exchange between the Senator and the nominee there then we’ve seen on some others. Kagan famously called these hearings “vapid and hollow” in the past but we’ve seen some flashes of humor here this morning. And interestingly, Kagan said that she thought it would be a terrific idea to have TV cameras in the Supreme Court. If she gets confirmed that’s an issue where she’ll have some real issues with her colleagues. MATTHEWS: Am I wrong in hearing flashes here of the Anita Hill testimony way back when in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings? Orrin Hatch has to be very careful. Most voters are female. This is a female nominee, right? They must have that memory. That political memory and almost their intellectual muscle. MITCHELL: They have learned the lesson. The Senate Judiciary Committee is being very careful, with the exception perhaps of Jeff Sessions in his opening comments yesterday, in his opening statement. They’re being very careful about a female nominee. You’re seeing her personality. She has done this before. She’s been on the coaching side of previous nominees. And you’re seeing that she’s engaging with Orrin Hatch. She’s very comfortable in the setting. CORN: But she’s not just female. She’s probably smarter than any of them and she certainly knows the details better. So they really go at her at their own peril because I think she could twist them or turn them very quickly. MATTHEWS: I think this is fascinating because I (inaudible) Dick Durbin, the senator from Illinois, the number two Democrat, Susan. And I said have we past the sort of the feminist era – I shouldn’t call it the feminist era, the feminist reality. Are we past the sensitivity about a male member of the Senate grilling a female? (Laughter) MITCHELL: No! PAGE: No! CORN: I’m not weighing in on this one. (Inaudible) IFILL: I don’t think we are, Chris. I don’t think we are. MATTHEWS: So male-female interrogation has to be done more, what would you say? Give me the verb? Give me the adverb? IFILL: I think it has to be done with care, with care, with care. We saw it last summer with the Sotomayor hearings where both race and gender were at play. I think some of the most uncomfortable moments that many of us experienced was when some of the Republican senators crossed that line. And so you still have to be careful. MATTHEWS: Okay give me the ground rules, give me the rules of engagement, professor. Is there a different rule? Let me ask you this: obviously the question of a political role here is relevant because this nominee is a Democrat – has been a Democratic appointee – has voiced views on issues like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a citizen. Where’s the line? How hard can they get in the questioning? IFILL: Well I find this quite astonishing because of course, you know, Justice Scalia was a political part of the Ford administration. Chief Justice Rehnquist came right from the Nixon administration into the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas was so political that he had to promise to strip down like a runner. So this is not unprecedented that someone with a political background gets nominated to the Supreme Court and it’s a little interesting to see the wide-eyed Republicans, you know, talking about her being too political. I think they can’t push too far lest she just say, “I’ll strip down like a runner, you know, like Clarence Thomas.” –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

View post:
MSNBC Panel Invokes Anita Hill, Injects Sexism in Kagan Hearing

Green Movement Calls Fireworks ‘Eco-Hazards,’ Sues to Ban July 4th Display in California

Apparently the “rockets’ red glare” isn’t “green” enough for some environmentalists. Fourth of July fireworks displays have been deemed “ecologically hazardous” by some eco-warriors, who are urging environmentally-conscious Americans to shun the tradition. [F]ireworks shows spray out a toxic concoction that rains down quietly into lakes, rivers and bays throughout the country,” wrote the Mother Nature Network’s Russell McLendon on June 30. “Many of the chemicals in fireworks are also persistent in the environment, meaning they stubbornly sit there instead of breaking down.” McLendon suggested avoiding fireworks and finding other ways to celebrate Independence Day. “The most eco-friendly alternative to fireworks is to forgo explosions altogether – go to a parade, go fishing, grill out, or help out,” he wrote. According to the writer, those stubborn traditionalists who insist on seeing “the sky festively illuminated” can always “try a laser light show” – which McLendon says is the eco-friendly – albeit, lame – way to celebrate the Fourth. The Mother Nature Network is an environmental news service that covers “the broadest scope of environmental and social responsibility issues on the internet.” It was founded in 2008 by Rolling Stones keyboardist Chuck Leavell. Its advisory board includes former Weather Channel star Heidi Cullen and Barbara Pyle, the co-creator and producer of the eco-cartoon ” Captain Planet and the Planeteers.” But while McLendon’s Mother Nature article simply recommends that people opt out of fireworks celebrations, one environmental group in California is taking a more heavy-handed approach. The Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation is suing the city of La Jolla, CA to stop its fireworks display, claiming that the Independence Day tradition is perilous to the area’s sensitive maritime resources. “The entire shoreline in La Jolla per the La Jolla community plan is a sensitive resource. It’s highly protected,” Marco Gonzalez, an attorney for the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, told News10. Gonzalez’s group launched its suit against the city on June 25. According to the organization’s lawsuit, the city of La Jolla did not apply for a Coastal Development permit or comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, two steps the group says are legally necessary before the city can host a fireworks display. The foundation also alleged that the ecological impacts of the Fourth of July show, including traffic and the pollutants from firework debris entering the region’s coastal resources, have not been considered in an environmental review. The environmental group’s suit will be heard on Wednesday, but another organization called the La Jolla Community Fireworks Foundation says it is battling to keep the annual city fireworks show going forward. “The 4th of July celebrates our country’s freedoms, and we intend to vigorously defend those freedoms here,” said the La Jolla Community Fireworks Foundation on its website. The Fireworks advocacy group insisted that the show will go on, in spite of the lawsuit. “The City of San Diego has issued us the necessary permits to continue the fireworks display and we intend to continue with the event,” said the statement on the organization’s website. Fireworks displays are just the latest great American tradition to get caught in the cross-hairs of the environmental “green” movement, joining the long-despised hamburgers , SUVs , and indoor air conditioning .

More:
Green Movement Calls Fireworks ‘Eco-Hazards,’ Sues to Ban July 4th Display in California

Creationists Lose Again

http://scottklarr.com/media/atheism/creationistPosterFull.png Some good news from Texas! Yeehaw! The Institute for Creation Research — one of the biggest nonsense-peddlers in the 6000 year history of the world — was handed a nice defeat this week. That link to the National Center for Science Education (the good guys) has all the info you need, but to summarize: the ICR moved from California to Texas. In the previous state, for reasons beyond understanding, they were able to grant Master’s degrees in their graduate school. But Texas didn’t recognize their accreditation, so they filed to get it approved. Not so surprisingly, scientists and educators rose in protest, and in 2008 the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board — the organization that grants accreditation — denied the ICR. The creationists appealed. In the meantime, they also tried to extend their ability to grant degrees temporarily while the lawsuit continued. What happened this week is that the extension as denied. And I mean denied. Check out what the court said: It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff [the ICR] to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information. That’s not surprising, as that’s the only kind of information the ICR is capable of producing. Not to mention wrong. See the Related Posts links below for lots more on the ICR’s recent follies. As far as I can tell, this defeat means that the ICR is still seeking accreditation, but until and unless it does, it cannot grant degrees in Texas. added by: mindcruzer

Joan Rivers — Under Attack in Nasty Lawsuit

Filed under: Joan Rivers , Donald Trump Joan Rivers is being sued by a bitter ex-manager — who claims he was never compensated for resurrecting Joan’s ” dormant career ” … but it’s clear this lawsuit is as much about hurt feelings as lost money.

TMZ’s ‘Gnarly Navel’ Contest — WINNER!

The tribe has spoken — and the Baby with the Bump beat the competition in our ” Gnarly Navel ” Contest ! This week’s photo competition is TMZ’s ” Trippin’ Out ” Contest — so email in pictures of you and your friends on a wild and crazy vacation — and… Read more

Read more:
TMZ’s ‘Gnarly Navel’ Contest — WINNER!

Jesse James — Web Company Ripped My Image

Filed under: Jesse James , Celebrity Justice Jesse James is going on the attack — suing a company he claims cheated him out of more than $150,000. Jesse filed the the lawsuit today in L.A. County Superior Court , and in the papers he says he signed a deal in 2009 with a company called Viewpartner… Read more

See the article here:
Jesse James — Web Company Ripped My Image