Things that make you say WTF

[tombogan03884]

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_19-2009_07_25.shtml#1248472734


 From a Florida Court of Appeals opinion released today:

     [T]he father [petitioned] for modification of the final [custody]
     judgment, requesting primary residential custody of their son....
     [T]he trial court based its ruling on evidence that the father was
     more likely to ensure the child was engaged in productive, normal,
     and healthy extracurricular activities, and the child would benefit
     from a greater male influence in his life. The trial court
     concluded that the child's development was "disturbingly retarded."
     It went on to find that the child possessed unreasonable fears for
     his age, and had "unmanlike" toilet behavior.

     [Footnote: The child would sit to urinate and was self-conscious
     about urinating in the woods during excursions with the father.]

   The court of appeals reversed, concluding that "the father failed to
   satisfy the extraordinary burden of showing a substantial and material
   change [in circumstances since the initial custody decision]." And the
   court seemed to dismiss the "toilet behavior" matter by saying, "The
   child simply did not conform to either the father's or trial court's
   perception of manliness."

References

   1. http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2009/072009/5D08-2499.op.pdf

[runstowin]

Our court system in general is run by idiots, unless the father is otherwise unfit, the boy is far better off with his dad, of course, the parents are to blame, they should have done whatever it takes to stay together for the sake of their son.

[tt11758]

Our court system in general is run by idiots, unless the father is otherwise unfit, the boy is far better off with his dad, of course, the parents are to blame, they should have done whatever it takes to stay together for the sake of their son.

In far too many cases parents that stayed together strictly for the sake of their children have ended up doing mroe damage to the child than had he been the product of a broken home.

[PegLeg45]

You're right on with the thread title, Tom........... I said it.

Toilet behavior?
Unmanlike?
WTF?

[TAB]

WTF...


any bets on rather or not he will be gay when he grows up? ( not that there is anything worng with being gay)

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_26-2009_08_01.shtml#1248734227

Ending Kidney Corruption:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_26-2009_08_01.shtml#1248734227


   [1]Sally Satel thinks politicians are drawing the wrong lessons from
   the connection between clandestine kidney brokering and the New Jersey
   public corruption busts.

     According to a federal criminal complaint filed in district court
     in New Jersey, Levy Izhak Rosenbaum of Brooklyn conspired to broker
     the sale of a human kidney for a transplant. The cost was $160,000
     to the recipient of the transplant, of which the donor got $10,000.
     According to the complaint, Mr. Rosenbaum said he had brokered such
     sales many times over the past 10 years.

    That it could happen in this country is so shocking,â said Dr.
     Bernadine Healy, former head of the Red Cross.

     No, it isn't. When I needed a kidney several years ago and had no
     donor in sight, I would have considered doing business with someone
     like Mr. Rosenbaum. The current lawâthe National Organ Transplant
     Act of 1984âgave me little choice. I would be a felon if I
     compensated a donor who was willing to spare me years of
     life-draining dialysis and premature death.

     The early responses to the New Jersey scandal leave me dismayed,
     though not surprised. "We really have to crack down," the
     co-director of the Joint Council of Europe/United Nations Study on
     Trafficking in Organs and Body Parts told MSNBC. That strategy is
     doomed, of course. It ignores the time-tested fact that efforts to
     stamp out underground markets either drive corruption further
     underground or causes it to flourish elsewhere.

     The illicit organ trade is booming across the globe. It will only
     recede when the critical shortage of organs for transplants
     disappears. The best way to make that happen is to give legitimate
     incentives to people who might be willing to donate. Instead, I
     fear that Congress will merely raise the penalties for underground
     organ sales without simultaneously establishing a legal mechanism
     to incentivize donors.

   Dr. Satel was lucky to have a generous friend in [2]Virginia Postrel
   who was willing to donate a kidney, many others are not so lucky. As
   Postrel [3]wrote in The Atlantic:

     Living donation is a low-risk procedure for the donor that offers
     life-changing rewards for the recipient. Yet the donor is the only
     person involved in the process who receives no compensation.
    " There's no reason that someone who does this should not get
     something substantial that will make a difference in their lives,"
     says David. To people who like to celebrate living donors as
     heroes, payment seems terribly crass. But the vicarious thrill of
     someone else's altruism comes at a terrible cost.

   Our current system is perverse. We encourage the needy with means to
   travel abroad (so-called "transplant tourism") and the desperate to
   enter the criminal underworld. Overall, fewer people are saved.
   Allowing payments to donors may be crass, but it is also more
   compassionate to those in need.

References

   1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574307932274150934.html
   2. http://www.dynamist.com/articles-speeches/opeds/kidney.html
   3. file://localhost/var/www/powerblogs/volokh/posts/Living%20donation%20is%20a%20low-risk%20procedure%20for%20the%20donor%20that%20offers%20life-changing%20rewards%20for%20the%20recipient.%20Yet%20the%20donor%20is%20the%20only%20person%20involved%20in%20the%20process%20who%20receives%20no%20compensation.%20%E2There%E2s%20no%20reason%20that%20someone%20who%20does%20this%20should%20not%20get%20something%20substantial%20that%20will%20make%20a%20difference%20in%20their%20lives,%E2%20says%20David.%20To%20people%20who%20like%20to%20celebrate%20living%20donors%20as%20heroes,%20payment%20seems%20terribly%20crass.%20But%20the%20vicarious%20thrill%20of%20someone%20else%E2s%20altruism%20comes%20at%20a%20terrible%20cost.

[tombogan03884]

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_26-2009_08_01.shtml#1248736577

Court Orders Woman Not To Post Details About Family Court Proceeding Involving Her Brother:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_26-2009_08_01.shtml#1248736577


   The [1]Rhode Island ACLU, which is representing the woman, reports:

     In a case raising important issues of freedom of speech, the Rhode
     Island ACLU has intervened in Family Court on behalf of a
     Barrington woman who has been barred by the Court from posting on
     the Internet any details about a pending Family Court custody
     proceeding in which her brother is involved. In a motion filed with
     the Court, RI ACLU volunteer attorney H. Jefferson Melish calls the
     ban a violation of Michelle Langlois' First Amendment rights. The
     motion also argues that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to
     issue the order because the proceeding was filed in Kent County,
     even though neither party lives in that county.

     Ms. Langlois' brother is involved in a child custody case with his
     ex-wife. After Ms. Langlois posted information about the case on
     her Facebook page, the ex-wife filed a "domestic abuse" petition
     against her, claiming that Ms. Langlois' postings constituted
    "âharassment." The ex-wife's petition sought a court order barring
     Ms. Langlois from posting any information about the case on the
     Internet. In late June, Family Court Judge Michael Forte issued
     such an order. When Langlois contacted the ACLU about the matter,
     the ACLU agreed to provide her representation to challenge the
     constitutionality of the Internet restriction.

     RI ACLU executive director Steven Brown said today: "The court
     order issued in this case is a significant intrusion on the First
     Amendment. Every person has the right to comment on public court
     proceedings, and the court order that prevents Ms. Langlois from
     doing so on the Internet is precisely the sort of prior restraint
     on speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect against.
     Ms. Langlois should no more be barred from speaking out about this
     case than should a reporter seeking to post information about it on
     a newspaper web site. We are hopeful that this troubling order will
     be dismissed.â"Michelle Langlois added:"I do not believe the truth
     was coming out in Family Court. I was simply using the internet to
     publicize my brother's plight."

   I've seen the order, which indeed says that Michelle Langlois "is
   restrained and enjoyed from posting details about the children and the
   pending Family Court proceedings on the Internet." The order strikes
   me as pretty clearly unconstitutional; I hope the Rhode Island ACLU
   prevails on this. An order that bars certain constitutionally
   unprotected publications might be constitutional (for instance,
   [2]information that a party has gotten using coercive discovery, or
   some other category of communication that may be constitutionally
   restricted). But I see no justification for categorically prohibiting
   the defendant from posting (1) any comments about a government
   proceeding, to which she is not a party -- including, for instance,
   criticism of the judge's behavior -- and (2) any information about her
   young relatives.

References

   1. http://www.riaclu.org/News/Releases/20090722.htm
   2. http://supreme.justia.com/us/467/20/case.html

[tombogan03884]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/ap_on_go_co/us_senators_mortgages

   AP IMPACT: Dodd, Conrad told deals were sweetened


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjt_gV050ek&feature=related Language alert

WASHINGTON – Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.

Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn't know they were getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment.

Dodd got two Countrywide mortgages in 2003, refinancing his home in Connecticut and another residence in Washington. Conrad's two Countrywide mortgages in 2004 were for a beach house in Delaware and an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck in his home state of North Dakota.

Robert Feinberg, who worked in Countrywide's VIP section, told congressional investigators last month that the two senators were made aware that "who you know is basically how you're coming in here."

"You don't say 'no' to the VIP," Feinberg told Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.

The next day, Feinberg testified before the Senate Ethics Committee, an indication the panel is actively investigating two of the chamber's more powerful members:

• Dodd heads the Banking Committee and is a major player in two big areas: solving the housing foreclosure and financial crises and putting together an overhaul of the U.S. health care system. A five-term senator, he is in a tough fight for re-election in 2010, partly because of the controversy over his mortgages.

• Conrad chairs the Budget Committee. He, too, shares an important role in the health care debate, as well as on legislation to curb global warming.

Both senators were VIP borrowers in the program known as "friends of Angelo." Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide, which played a big part in the foreclosure crisis triggered by defaults on subprime loans. The Calabasas, Calif.-based company was bought last July by Bank of America Corp. for about $2.5 billion.

Mozilo has been charged with civil fraud and illegal insider trading by the Securities and Exchange Commission. He denies any wrongdoing.

Asked by a House Oversight investigator if Conrad, the North Dakota senator, "was aware that he was getting preferential treatment?" Feinberg answered: "Yes, he was aware."

Referring to Dodd, the investigator asked:

"And do you know if during the course of your communications" with the senator or his wife "that you ever had an opportunity to share with them if they were getting special VIP treatment?"

"Yes, yes," Feinberg replied.

Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd's spokesman, said Feinberg has repeatedly made allegations of special treatment that were not true.

"As the Dodds have said from the beginning, they did not seek or expect any special rates or terms on their loans and they never received any. They were never offered special or sweetheart deals and if anyone had made such an offer, they would have severed that relationship immediately."

DeAngelis also repeated Dodd's statements from last February that an independent report showed the terms received by the senator and his wife were widely available at the time.

Conrad's spokesman, Chris Gaddie, said Monday that the senator "never asked for, expected or was aware of loans on any preferential terms" and has "worked overtime to set the record straight."

"He went with Countrywide simply because they already had his financial information," Gaddie said. He added that a Countrywide official had told Conrad that "it is not unusual for them to make exceptions for good customers if they could sell the loan in the secondary market. We now know that they did sell the apartment building loan in the secondary market."

The ethics committee determines whether senators violated standards of conduct. The outcome of the investigation could hinge on whether the mortgage violated strict limits on gifts to lawmakers or ran afoul of other Senate rules. The committee typically just issues a report. It could recommend a censure vote by the Senate, but that is rare.

Feinberg could face criminal prosecution if shown to have made false statements. He was questioned closely by three of the ethics committee's six senators: Democratic Chairman Barbara Boxer of California; the panel's senior Republican, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, and Republican Jim Risch of Idaho, according to Elana Goldstein, one of Feinberg's attorneys who accompanied him to both closed-door committee appearances.

The ethics questioning was intense at times, and Boxer asked the bulk of the questions. When Feinberg described a conversation he had with Dodd, she demanded to know how he remembered it. Feinberg said he recalled Dodd saying he had to leave to make a speech.

Boxer asked whether Dodd and Conrad received VIP treatment because they were senators. Feinberg said that was not the case; they received breaks as other influential people in Countrywide's "friends of Angelo" VIP program.

Isakson, a one-time real estate executive, asked more detailed questions about the mortgage agreements' terms.

Countrywide VIPs, Feinberg told the committees, received discounts on rates, fees and points. Dodd received a break when Countrywide counted both his Connecticut and Washington homes as primary owner-occupied residences — a fiction, according to Feinberg. Conrad received a type of commercial loan that he was told Countrywide didn't offer.

"The simple fact that Angelo Mozilo and other high-ranking executives at Countrywide were personally making sure Mr. Feinberg handled their loans right, is proof in itself that the senators knew they were getting sweetheart deals," said Feinberg's principal attorney, Anthony Salerno.

Two internal Countrywide documents in Dodd's case and one in Conrad's appear to contradict their statements about what they knew about their VIP loans.

At his Feb. 2 news conference, Dodd said he knew he was in a VIP program but insisted he was told by Countrywide, "It was nothing more than enhanced customer service ... being able to get a person on the phone instead of an automated operator."

He insisted he didn't receive special treatment. However, the assertion was at odds with two Countrywide documents entitled "Loan Policy Analysis" that Dodd allowed reporters to review the same day.

The documents had separate columns: one showing points "actl chrgd" Dodd — zero; and a second column showing "policy" was to charge .250 points on one loan and .375 points on the other. Another heading on the documents said "reasons for override." A notation under that heading identified a Countrywide section that approved the policy change for Dodd.

Mortgage points, sometimes called loan origination fees, are upfront fees based on a percentage of the loan. Each point is equal to 1 percent of the loan. The higher the points the lower the interest rate.

Dodd said he obtained the Countrywide documents in 2008, to learn details of his mortgages.

In Conrad's case, an e-mail from Feinberg to Mozilo indicates Feinberg informed Conrad that Countrywide had a residential loan limit of a four-unit building. Conrad sought to finance an eight-unit apartment building in Bismarck that he had bought from his brothers.

"I did advise him I would check with you first since our maximum is 4 units," Feinberg said in an April 23, 2004, internal e-mail to Mozilo.

Mozilo responded the same day that Feinberg should speak to another Countrywide executive and "see if he can make an exception due to the fact that the borrower is a senator."

Feinberg said in his deposition with House Oversight investigators last month that exceptions for the type of loan Conrad received were not allowed for borrowers outside the VIP system.

"If there was a regular customer calling, and of course you say, 'No, we're a residential lender. We cannot provide you with that service,'" Feinberg said.

Feinberg also told House investigators that Countrywide counted both of Dodd's homes as primary residences.

"He was allowed to do both of those as owner-occupied, which is not allowed. You can only have one owner-occupied property. You can't live in two properties at the same time," he said.

Normally, Feinberg said, a second home could require more equity and could have a higher mortgage rate.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the senior Republican on the House Oversight Committee, had his investigators question Feinberg as part of a broader investigation into Countrywide's VIP program.

Other names that have surfaced as "friends" of Mozilo include James Johnson, a former head of Fannie Mae who later stepped down as an adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and Franklin Raines, who also headed Fannie Mae. Still other "friends" included retired athletes, a judge, a congressional aide and a newspaper executive.

Conrad initially said in June 2008, "If they did me a favor, they did it without my knowledge and without my requesting it."

The next day, Conrad changed course after reviewing documents showing he got special treatment, and said he was donating $10,500 to charity and refinancing the loan on the apartment building with another lender. He also said then it appeared Countrywide had waived 1 point at closing on the beach house.

Gaddie said Feinberg has previously made statements to the news media that Countrywide waived 1 point without the senator's knowledge.

Feinberg testified that VIPs usually were not told exactly how many points were being waived, but it was made clear to them that they were getting discounts.

[tombogan03884]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/13/facebook.racial.threat/index.html

 (CNN) -- An African-American man has pleaded guilty after being accused of impersonating a white supremacist in a fictitious Facebook account to make death threats against an African-American university student.
A Mississippi man admitted creating a false Facebook profile in November.

A Mississippi man admitted creating a false Facebook profile in November.

Dyron L. Hart, 20, of Poplarville, Mississippi, pleaded guilty Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt to one count of communicating threats in interstate commerce, according to a Department of Justice statement.

Hart admitted creating the fictitious account in November, pretending to be a white supremacist outraged by the election of Barack Obama as the nation's first African-American president, the statement said.

He then transmitted a death threat via Facebook to an African-American student at Nicholls State University in Louisiana, saying he wanted to kill African-Americans because of Obama's election, according to the statement.

A court document provided by the U.S. attorney's office said Hart told an FBI interviewer that he intended the threat to be a prank "to get a reaction."
Don't Miss

    * Pentagon reviewing policy on social networking sites

The document said Hart admitted creating the Facebook profile under the name "Colten Brodoux" and used a photo of a Caucasian man that he found on a white supremacist Web site.

"This is an extremely odd case, a very unusual case," said U.S. Attorney Jim Letten of the Eastern District of Louisiana. "The contents of the messages were extremely troubling and provocative and very threatening."

Hart will face a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine when sentenced November 18, the statement said

[Kid Shelleen]

Lock him up and throw away the key.

He'll could the first black man in prison to join the Arian Brotherhood.