Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

After a federal jury convicted him of just one count -- lying to the FBI -- and deadlocked on 23 other counts, Rod Blagojevich declared his innocence today and defiantly taunted prosecutors.

"The government threw everything but the kitchen sink at me, and on every charge but one, they could not prove that I broke any laws except one, a nebulous charge from five years ago," he told a crush of reporters at the Dirksen Federal Building this afternoon. "I did not lie to the FBI. I told the truth from the very beginning."

"We have a prosecutor who has wasted and wanted to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money to take me away from my family and my home," he continued, accusing the government of persecuting him.

In a theatrical burst of emotion, Blagojevich attorney Sam Adam Sr. went after U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

"This guy Fitzgerald is a master at indicting people for noncriminal activity," he said. "This guy is nuts."

"Lincoln is rolling over in his grave," Adam Sr. continued, his voice rising. "[Fitzgerald] set the press against this man and, for 1 1/2 years, we have had to contend with the press.

"This is one of those situations where he villified the defendant so bad in the press that when the case started...[we] had to go to Ace Hardware and find a ladder to climb up to the bottom," he yelled.

Another Blagojevich attorney, Sam Adam Jr. implored reporters to ask Fitzgerald one question: "Why are we spending $25 to $30 million on a retrial when they couldn't prove it the first time?"

"We didn't even put a defense on, and the government couldn't prove his case," he said, adding that prosecutors "have to ask themselves, 'Is this worth it?' "

Fitzgerald appeared in the courthouse lobby a few minutes later but did not address any of the taunts and questions thrown at him by Blagojevich and his attorneys, explaining the government was already preparing for the former governor's next trial.

"We intend to retry those charges," Fitzgerald said. "So for all practical purposes, we are in the mode of being close to jury selection for a retrial.

"That's it," he added, cutting off questions.

Last week, the jury sent a note to the judge indicating it had reached agreement on two counts. Jurors said later that a juror backed down on the second count after reviewing testimony.

Blagojevich faces up to five years in prison on the one count he was convicted of: making false statements to the FBI. It is the fourth time since 1973 -- and the second time in just four years -- that a onetime Illinois governor has been convicted of wrongdoing.

As the jury's verdict was read, the former governor pursed his lips and shook his head slightly. His wife, Patti, rested her head on the chair in front of her and shook her head no several times.

After the judge left to the call of "all rise," Patti didn't stand up and looked angry with her head down, staring at her lap.

As jurors filed out, Patti collapsed into her seat and the former governor's attorney, Sam Adam Jr. moved next to Blagojevich and put his arm around him, rubbing his back.

Jurors also deadlocked on all four counts against Blagojevich's brother, Robert. Declaring a mistrial on the deadlocked counts, U.S. District Judge James Zagel gave the prosecution until Aug. 26 to formally announce plans to retry Blagojevich and his brother.

In the lobby of the federal building, Robert Blagojevich said jurors saw him as "an innocent target of the federal government."

"I have lived through the most surreal experience anyone can live through," said Robert Blagojevich, adding that he plans to spend time with his wife and his son now that the trial is over. "I spoke honestly and truthfully and answered the questions forthrightly."

On the one guilty count his brother received, Robert Blagojevich said: "I feel bad for him." He also said he is confident he will be vindicated in a retrial but will have to "go back" and determine if he can afford his defense team.

"I have felt like this has been a slow bleed from the beginning, both financially, emotionally and otherwise," he said. "But I can tell you what, I feel strong, I feel confident and I don't feel in any way deterred in my ability to articulate my innocence."

Robert Blagojevich's defense attorney, Michael Ettinger, said that while today's ruling isn't a victory "it's not a loss and I expect the next time to be a victory."

"We'll be ready for the next one," he said.

On the prospect of the prosecutors changing their strategy in a retrial, Ettinger said the defense could also change tactics.

'There's certain witnesses we might put on that we didn't put on this time," he said.

The verdict was announced shortly before 4:30 p.m. Blagojevich and his wife arrived at the courthouse for the announcement around 3:45 p.m.

"God bless you, God bless you, I didn't let you down," Blagojevich said as he shook hands with admirers on his way to hear the verdict. He also high-fived spectators. Patti laughed as Blagojevich kissed her on the cheek.

As he entered the courtroom on the 25th floor, Blagojevich said: "How are ya' doin'? Say a prayer for us."

Robert Blagojevich arrived with his wife and son around 3:55 p.m., waiving to onlookers and reporters gathered in the lobby.

U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald and Robert Grant, head of the FBI in Chicago, were in the courtroom for the announcement.

The jury's decisions denied Blagojevich the sweeping exoneration he has insisted would eventually be his ever since his 2008 arrest by federal agents who accused him of being the ringleader of a wide ranging plot to shake down state contractors and other politicians. And he may now have to try and persuade a fresh set of jurors of his innocence.

The turn of events also represents a stunning and rare setback for U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who in his nine years in the post has secured a near unbroken string of high profile corruption convictions of public officials, including former Gov. George Ryan.

The 23 deadlocked counts call into question the wisdom of a mid-trial decision to streamline the government case by not calling several key witnesses to testify.

On the flip side, the outcome could be seen as validation of a last minute decision by Blagojevich's lawyers not to have him testify or mount a defense at all--despite explicit promises that they would do just that expressed to the jury in opening statements in early June.

Though his ultimate fate remains undecided, the legal proceedings have left Blagojevich deeply in debt and a retrial would likely widen the hole.

His political career is also in shambles and he is barred by the Illinois Constitution from attempting to revive it. He was impeached by the General Assembly in early 2009--the first Illinois governor ever ousted from office in that manner--and because of that the state charter disqualifies him from ever again holding state public office.

Earlier today, the jury sent out a note indicating it might be getting close to concluding its deliberations.

In the note, jurors asked for two things: a copy of the oath they took when they were sent to deliberate; and instructions from the judge on how to fill out a verdict form when they can't agree on a specific count.

"Do we leave it blank or report the vote split?" the note asked.

Zagel agreed to send a copy of the oath to jurors and said he would also instruct them to write on top of the verdict form if they cannot reach a consensus on a count.

Here is the oath the jury took just before deliberations began: "Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and ______, the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help you God?"

Last week, in an earlier note, jurors said they had deliberated for many days "without rancor." The request for a copy of the oath could signal that the harmony in the jury room has begun to fray.

On Monday, Zagel agreed to hand over the transcripts of former deputy governor Bradley Tusk's testimony after jurors asked for them. They're the first witness transcripts jurors will have with them in the jury room since they started deliberating at the end of July.

Tusk told the court in June that Blagojevich planned to hold up a $2 million grant to a school in then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel's district until his Hollywood-agent brother, Ari, held a fundraiser.

ESPN personality and former Sun-Times sports columnist Jay Mariotti was arrested early this morning by Los Angeles police officers on suspicion of felony domestic assault, according to the L.A. Times.

Sources told the Times that Mariotti was angry with his girlfriend after he thought she was flirting with another man at a club in Santa Monica.

The argument continued at the couple's apartment near Venice where Mariotti allegedly pushed and shoved the woman and grabbed her arm, leaving marks, the sources said.

According the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Web site, Mariotti was arrested by police in the LAPD's Pacific Division at about 4:30 a.m. local time and booked into custody about an hour later.

The site said he was released on bond at about 12:10 p.m. California time. He had been held in police custody on $50,000 bail.

Los Angeles police media relations Officer Norma Eisenman confirmed that police from the department's Pacific Division arrested Marrioti this morning regarding a domestic incident but declined to release other details.

Mariotti's attorney, Deborah Yang, returned calls early Sunday but declined comment.

Roger Clemens, the larger-than-life pitcher who appeared destined for the Baseball Hall of Fame, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Washington on Thursday on charges that he lied to Congress when he said he never used performance-enhancing drugs.

Clemens became the third high-profile athlete in three years to be charged with lying about the use of banned substances and to have on-the-field accomplishments tarnished.

Marion Jones, who won five track and field medals at the 2000 Summer Olympics, served six months in prison after pleading guilty in 2007 to making false statements to federal authorities about her use of performance-enhancing drugs. Barry Bonds, baseball’s career home run leader, is scheduled for trial in March on charges that he made false statements to a grand jury about his use of performance-enhancing drugs during the investigation of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative in California.

The 19-page indictment charged Clemens, 48, with three counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of Congress during his testimony in a nationally televised hearing in February 2008 before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

At that hearing, Clemens and his former trainer Brian McNamee contradicted each other about whether Clemens had used steroids and human growth hormone. Andy Pettitte, Clemens’s friend and a longtime teammate, provided a written statement under oath to Congressional investigators in which he said Clemens admitted to him in 1999 or 2000 that he had used H.G.H.

Days after the hearing, the Democratic and Republican leaders of the committee asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into Clemens’s testimony.

If convicted, Clemens could face up to 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine, but under current sentencing guidelines, a conviction would most likely bring a 15- to 21-month sentence. He would probably receive less prison time if he accepted a plea agreement.

“Our government cannot function if witnesses are not held accountable for false statements made before Congress,” said Ronald C. Machen Jr., the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. “Today the message is clear: if a witness makes a choice to ignore his or her obligation to testify honestly, there will be consequences.”

The indictment is another blow to Major League Baseball, which is still dealing with the aftermath of the so-called steroid era, in which hundreds of players used performance-enhancing drugs without fear of penalty until the early 2000s. It also continues Clemens’s remarkable fall from grace, which included an admission that he had been unfaithful to his wife after published reports tied him to other women.

In a comment posted on his Twitter account shortly after the indictment became public, Clemens again denied using performance-enhancing drugs.

“I look forward to challenging the Government’s accusations, and hope people will keep an open mind until trial,” the message said. “I appreciate all the support I have been getting. I am happy to finally have my day in court.”

Clemens, a Texas native, became an overpowering presence with the Boston Red Sox in the second half of the 1980s, setting strikeout records and agitating hitters by throwing fastballs under their chins.

But he never won a World Series with the Red Sox, and in 1996 their general manager, Dan Duquette, declined to re-sign him, saying Clemens, 33 at the time, was “in the twilight of his career.”

Over the next decade, however, Clemens became better even as he grew older. He racked up four more of his seven Cy Young Awards and helped the Yankees win the World Series in 1999 and 2000.

In 2004, Clemens returned to Texas, pitching three seasons for the Houston Astros. After flirting several times with retirement, he returned to the Yankees in May 2007, appearing by surprise in the middle of a Sunday afternoon game at Yankee Stadium and dramatically announcing over the stadium loudspeaker that he had rejoined the team.

But five months later, Clemens was forced to confront allegations that he had used performance-enhancing drugs after the release of a report by George J. Mitchell, the former senator appointed by Commissioner Bud Selig to investigate doping in baseball.

Clemens was the highest-profile player cited in the report, which named him, Pettitte and roughly 100 other players for ties to steroids and human growth hormone.

The report based the accusations about Clemens and Pettitte on statements from McNamee, who said he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone on numerous occasions from 1998 to 2001. (McNamee said in a sworn statement that he had also injected

Clemens’s wife, Debbie, with H.G.H., at Clemens’s request.) Pettitte quickly issued a statement admitting his use of human growth hormone.
Clemens, however, was defiant and with the help of Rusty Hardin, a lawyer in Houston who shared Clemens’s brashness, began a public attack on McNamee’s credibility. Clemens went on CBS’s “60 Minutes” to deny the accusations, and in a news conference he and Mr. Hardin played a tape of a telephone conversation between McNamee and Clemens.

After several weeks of public back and forth between Mr. Hardin and lawyers for McNamee, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform summoned Clemens and McNamee to testify under oath. The committee said Clemens had questioned the credibility of the Mitchell report, which the committee had pushed baseball to compile.

Clemens swept through the halls of Congress, posing for photos with members of the committee that was investigating him and autographing their souvenirs. But that bravado worked against him, lawmakers said in interviews Thursday. He may have falsely believed that his fame would trump the testimony of Pettitte and McNamee that contradicted his own.

His chutzpah, the lawmakers said, may have led Clemens to issue outright denials when previous baseball players had evaded prosecution by using vague or equivocal language.

On Feb. 13, 2008, five months after Clemens pitched in his final major league game, he and McNamee sat a seat apart before the committee and disputed each other’s account. Responses from lawmakers broke along partisan lines, the Republicans generally siding with Clemens and the Democrats with McNamee.

Among those who testified before the grand jury were McNamee, Pettitte, David Segui — a former major leaguer who was named in the Mitchell report and has admitted using performance-enhancing drugs — and Jose Canseco, a friend and former teammate of Clemens who has also admitted using performance-enhancing drugs.

Canseco wrote a book in which he linked several high-profile players, including Mark McGwire, to the use of performance-enhancers, but he has been one of the few people to come to Clemens’s defense, saying he had no knowledge that Clemens used banned substances. One intriguing piece of evidence in the Clemens case was syringes that McNamee said he stored in his basement after using them to inject Clemens with drugs.

McNamee handed over the syringes and related drug paraphernalia to federal authorities shortly after Clemens began publicly disputing his account. The authorities tested them for the presence of performance-enhancing drugs and Clemens’s DNA. The New York Times reported last year that the tests revealed the presence of steroids. The Washington Post reported that authorities detected the presence of Clemens’s DNA.

In the Yankees’ locker room in the Bronx on Thursday, Pettitte and Derek Jeter, another longtime teammate of Clemens, declined to discuss the indictment. But Jorge Posada, who caught many of Clemens’s games as a Yankee, came to his defense.

“We’re still very good friends and hopefully everything will be all right,” Posada said. “I’m going to support him and going to be behind him, and that’s all I can say.”

The case has been widely cited by those pushing to change the law, including civil rights activists and the Los Angeles district attorney, as an example of the kind of heavy-handed sentencing it can lead to.

Judge Peter Espinoza of Superior Court, who ordered the release, said convictions under the three-strikes law — which calls for heavy sentences for a third conviction — had often brought “disproportionate” sentences and “resulted in if not unintended, then at least unanticipated, consequences.”

Several of Mr. Taylor’s relatives attended his hearing Monday afternoon.

Mr. Taylor, 48, is one of 14 California inmates who have been resentenced since students working on the Three Strikes Project at the Criminal Defense Clinic at Stanford Law School began reviewing cases in 2007, said Michael Romano, a law professor who helped found the clinic.

Gov. Pete Wilson signed the law in 1994. Twenty-four states have similar laws, according to the Sentencing Project, a national defense advocacy group.

In 1997, Mr. Taylor was homeless and sleeping at a church in downtown Los Angeles. One night, he tried to pry open the doors of the soup kitchen there because he was hungry, he told the police at the time. Judge James Dunn sentenced him to 25 years to life under the three-strikes law. In 1984 and 1985, Mr. Taylor had committed two robberies to support his crack cocaine and heroin addictions. He had no weapons during those robberies, and nobody was injured, according to case records.

Law students are reviewing about 20 more three-strikes cases, said Reiko Rogozen, a student who worked on the Taylor case. The cases are chosen based on letters from inmates, or are selected from a list presented by District Attorney Steve Cooley of Los Angeles as some of the harshest sentences under the law. Mr. Cooley often spoke of Mr. Taylor’s case in his 2000 campaign for district attorney against Gil Garcetti, who supported the law.

“Some have come off that list because we know Cooley may be sympathetic to those,” said Gabriel Martinez, who worked on Mr. Taylor’s case. “We want to start influencing case law and hopefully the overall policy so it no longer gives life sentences for nonviolent offenses.”

On Monday, Mr. Taylor’s relatives erupted in applause after Judge Espinoza ordered that he be released for time served. Ms. Rogozen put a hand on Mr. Taylor’s shoulder. He nodded and said quietly, “Thank you for giving me another chance.”

MANSFIELD, Ohio -- A Mansfield man is facing unusual charges for pushing his children in a stroller while he was intoxicated.

24-year-old Steven Melendez says his sons,who are one and three years-old, mean the world to him. However, Melendez concedes he had been drinking when he put the boys in a stroller and went to pick up a money order near their home on Monday.

Melendez tells Fox 8 "stupidly after having a couple of drinks you know I shouldn't be going out but I was trying to make sure I had the money and stuff and got it so I had everything that day. I went out and about and was headed there to get the money and the cops stopped me."

After receiving a 911 call from a concerned resident, Mansfield Police arrested Melendez on charges of child endangering and public intoxication.

Police say he passed out when they took him to the Richland County Jail to be booked, and he had to be taken to a nearby hospital for treatment.

Melendez says "point blank I was wrong, I shouldn't have went out and had anything to drink, I mean I wasn't stumbling stupid drunk or nothing but you know it happened, it's over. I've just got to go and do what I have to do to deal with it."

Melendez says he is now taking steps to treat his drinking problem.

He says "I'm not a negligent father you know and I love my kids, I never put them in jeopardy and maybe that day I made a stupid decision but you know everybody makes a bad decision, I mean no one wants to hurt anybody, especially not their own kids."

Melendez is now hoping to convince the judge hearing his case that he is a changed man and that he belongs in treatment as opposed to jail.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that juveniles who commit crimes in which no one is killed may not be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Five justices, in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, agreed that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment forbids such sentences as a categorical matter.

“A state need not guarantee the offender eventual release,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “but if it imposes the sentence of life, it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term.”

The ruling marked the first time that the court excluded an entire class of offenders from a given form of punishment outside the context of the death penalty. “ ‘Death is different’ no longer,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent.

The overall vote was 6-to-3, though that is a little misleading. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the majority in saying that the inmate who brought the appeal had received a sentence so harsh that it violated the Constitution. But the chief justice endorsed only a case-by-case approach, saying that an offender’s age could be considered in deciding whether a life sentence was so disproportionate to the crime as to violate the Eighth Amendment.

The case involved Terrance Graham, who in 2003, at age 16, helped rob a Jacksonville restaurant, during which an accomplice beat the manager with a steel bar. Mr. Graham was sentenced to a year in jail and three years’ probation for that crime.

The next year, at 17, Mr. Graham and two 20-year-old accomplices committed a home invasion robbery. In 2005, a judge sentenced Mr. Graham to life for violating his probation.

The Supreme Court has carved out categories of offenders and crimes that are not subject to the death penalty, including juvenile offenders and those who do not take a life. Monday’s decision applied those two decisions to life-without-parole sentences.

Justice Kennedy, who was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said both national and international practices supported the court’s ruling.

Justice Thomas said the majority was wrong about the facts in the United States and abroad and wrong as a matter of principle to take account of international opinion. Justice Antonin Scalia joined all of Justice Thomas’s dissent and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. most of it.

Thirty-seven states, the District of Columbia and the federal government have laws allowing life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses. That represents, Justice Thomas said, a super-majority of states in favor of the punishment.

Justice Kennedy responded that a study relied on by Mr. Graham and supplemented by the court’s own research had located only 129 juvenile offenders convicted under such laws. Seventy-seven were in Florida, the rest in 10 other states.

Those numbers, Justice Kennedy said, make the sentence “exceedingly rare” and demonstrate that “a national consensus has developed against it.”

Justice Thomas drew a different conclusion from the same numbers. “That a punishment is rarely imposed demonstrates nothing more than a general consensus that it should be just that — rarely imposed,” he wrote. “It is not proof that the punishment is one the nation abhors.”

Justice Kennedy added that the sentences at issue had been “rejected the world over.” Indeed, only the United States and perhaps Israel, he said, impose the punishment even for homicides committed by juveniles.

“The judgment of the world’s nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with basic principles of decency,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “demonstrates that the court’s rationale has respected reasoning to support it.”

Justice Thomas disputed Justice Kennedy’s math, saying 11 nations seem to allow the punishment in theory. More important, he said, “foreign laws and sentencing practices” are “irrelevant to the meaning of our Constitution.”

He added that most democracies around the world remain free to adopt the punishment should they wish to. “Starting today,” Justice Thomas wrote, “ours can count itself among the few in which judicial decree prevents voters from making that choice.”

Although the majority limited its decision to non-homicide offenses, advocates may try to apply its logic more broadly to the some 2,000 inmates serving life-without-parole sentences in the United States for participating in killings at 17 or younger.

California, which currently has 678 death row inmates, has the nation's largest death row population, yet the state has not executed anyone in four years.

California spends more than $130 million a year on its capital punishment system -- housing and prosecuting inmates and coping with an appellate system that has kept some convicted killers waiting for an execution date since the late 1970s.

A new report concludes that states are wasting millions on an inefficient death penalty system, diverting scarce funds from other anti-crime and law enforcement programs.

"Thirty-five states still retain the death penalty, but fewer and fewer executions are taking place every year," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "But the overall death row population has remained relatively steady. At a time of budget shortfalls nationwide, the death penalty is turning into an expensive form of life without parole."

A privately conducted poll of 500 police chiefs released with the report found the death penalty ranked last among their priorities for reducing violent crime. Only 1 percent found it to the best way to achieve that goal. Adding police officers ranked first.

The Death Penalty Information Center study found that death penalty costs can average $10 million more per year per state than life sentences. Increased costs include higher security needs and guaranteed access to an often lengthy pardon and appellate process.

Florida, where two men have been put to death this year, spends an average of $24 million per execution. That average has remained consistent since 2005, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Having the death penalty can offer powerful incentives in plea bargaining, Scheidegger said, and could provide states with large savings in trial and incarceration costs.

A philsophical debate, one that cannot easily be answered, emerges. Should the state spend so much money on an individual who has already been convicted and the only issue left to determine is the punishment? Should this money be implemented this way at the expense of spending money on law enforcement to meet future enforcement needs? Should there be a cap on litigation concerning death penalty cases? All these questions are not easily answered and states vary on this issue. It is interesting to note that it is cheaper to keep an inmate in prison the rest of his or her life than to execute them. From a personal stand point, wouldn’t it be a bigger punishment to keep a person in prison for life than to put the person out of their misery.

An increasing number of countries are grappling with whether morbidly obese children should be taken from their parents amid the Western world's obesity epidemic?

Removing children from their parents remains a last resort, but obesity experts are increasingly debating whether doing so can boost a child's chances for a healthier life. Childhood obesity can lead to a plethora of health problems, including Type 2 diabetes. Amongst other ailments, overweight children can also develop insulin resistance, hypertension, high cholesterol, sleep apnea and orthopedic problems and go into early puberty.

The latest case to make headlines concerns South Carolina mother, Jerri Gray, who lost custody of her 14-year-old, 555-lb. son in May. Obesity appears to be the primary reason the boy was taken away by the state. The mother was arrested after missing a court date to determine whether she should retain custody after doctors had expressed concern about her son's weight to social services. The boy is currently living with his aunt, and his mother is facing criminal child-neglect charges.

Several other cases in recent years — in California, New Mexico, Texas and New York, as well as Canada — have garnered attention because a child's obesity resulted in loss of custody. "It's happening more than the public is aware of, but because these cases are usually kept quiet [as a result of child-privacy laws], we have no record," says Dr. Matt Capehorn, who sits on the board of the U.K.'s National Obesity Forum.

Yet the parents' share of responsibility in weight gain isn't always easy to judge. "It's unfair to blame solely the parents, when there's a myriad of other factors influencing a child's weight," says Dr. Dana Rofey of the University of Pittsburgh. She says contributing factors include not just genetic predisposition and socioeconomic status but also environmental factors, like whether children have access to parks and playgrounds.

Some parents are stuck between a rock and a hard place because there are many busy parents with limited means and no health insurance, and lose control of monitoring their children’s eating 24/7.

It is an extreme measure for the state to take the children away from their parents and to charge the parents criminally. The state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child is obese due to the parent’s lack of oversight and that they are directly responsible. The judge should adhere to the best interest of the child standard and take into account whether it is in the best interest of the child to lose weight, or to remain in the home with the parents. It is debatable whether it is healthier for the child to lose weight at the expense of not being in their home, or it is healthier to be with the parents. A potential floodgate of these cases may arise. For example, what’s to prevent the state from taking 16 year old girls away from their parents for being too skinny – an equally important medical consideration. Parents have a responsibility to monitor their children’s behaviour because as a society, we don’t want the State to raise our children and have our world mirror Adolux Huxley’s Brave New World.

Holocaust denier, Eric Hunt, has filed a complaint against 80-year-old Pembroke Pines woman, Irene Weisberg Zisblatt, whose memoir describes her experience in the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. Zisblatt's autobiography recounts how she was packed into a boxcar for the trip from Hungary to the extermination camp along with her parents and siblings.

Twenty five year old Eric Hunt has filed the libel suit in Broward Circuit Court on Oct. 6 and is demanding a jury trial and punitive damages of "not less than $60 million." The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Peter Weinstein.

In a lawsuit filed in Broward Circuit Court, Eric Hunt alleges that the memoir entitled The Fifth Diamond: The Story of Irene Weisberg Zisblatt is full of "vicious lies" and "fantastical tales" that turn Jews into “haters” and abuse the Gentiles.

Hunt argues ridiculously that "Zisblatt blatantly stole other Jewish people's experiences during World War II and passed them off as her own in order to further the Jewish political agenda and profit off of these fantastical tales," Hunt, who is representing himself without an attorney, wrote in his lawsuit. "The defendants must not go unpunished for tormenting Gentiles and instilling hatred in Jews using such hideous lies."

Eric Hunt has already assaulted a survivor in the past. In 2007, Hunt accosted Holocaust survivor and scholar Wiesel, 81, in a San Francisco hotel elevator in an alleged attempt to force Wiesel to recant his own recollections of the Holocaust.

For this, Hunt was convicted in 2008 of false imprisonment, battery and elder abuse. A judge sentenced him to two years in prison, but gave him credit for time served and good behavior. The judge ordered Hunt to undergo psychological treatment. At sentencing, Hunt apologized and said he had suffered a "severe mental breakdown."

Hunt is clearly mentally perturbed as he is arguing against a historically proven occasion. This lawsuit, which should have been disposed of because it is so absurd and frivolous, is a complete waste of judicial assets and tax payer’s money. Further, Hunt poses a danger to the elderly survivors, and an embarrassment to anyone with any indicia of civility. There seems to be very little legal or factual bearing on the allegations. What matters here is Eric Hunt’s nefarious intent and not the ridiculous pleading. Although a win is almost certainly impossible for the wayward Hunt who is representing himself, to win, he would have to convince a really sympathetic jury, or do his best to make sure the jurors are KKK members, all of which thankfully is impossible. If anything, Hunt will shed light on and renew society’s concern for hatred and intolerance of others.

In Deerfield, Fl, a 15-year-old was terribly burned after three teens doused him with a flammable liquid and set him on fire. Authorities were investigating whether he was attacked because he had stopped someone from stealing his father's bicycle the day before. He had refused to attend classes at Deerfield Beach Middle School on Monday because of an incident Sunday.

Instead of going to school, Michael went to the apartment complex to visit a friend. He told deputies that while he was sitting by the swimming pool, he was splashed with a flammable liquid and set ablaze.

The victim, Michael Brewer, was hospitalized with burns over three-quarters of his body after the attack at a Deerfield Beach apartment complex. Three juvenile suspects were in custody, but their names and ages were not released.

Michael was burned on his torso and arms, Broward County sheriff's spokesman Jim Leljedal said. Family members said most of his hair, including his eyelashes, had also been burned off.

A neighbor heard his screams for help and put out the flames with a fire extinguisher. The teen then ripped off his shirt and jumped into the pool.

Michael is expected to remain hospitalized for five months.

Zachary Christie, a sweet young child, brought a camping utensil that doubles as a knife, fork and spoon to school.

He was so excited about recently joining the Cub Scouts that he wanted to use the spork during lunch. School officials concluded that he had violated their zero-tolerance policy on weapons, and Zachary was suspended and now faces 45 days in the district’s reform school. School officials had to suspend him because, “regardless of possessor’s intent,” knives are banned.

Initiated in part by the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech shootings, many school districts around the country adopted zero-tolerance policies on the possession of weapons on school grounds. More recently, there has been growing debate over whether the policies have gone too far.

But the question on the minds of many people is: Why do school officials not have more discretion in such cases?

School administrators argue that it is difficult to distinguish innocent pranks and mistakes from more serious threats, and that the policies must be very strict to protect students.

Critics argue that the zero-tolerance policies have led to sharp increases in suspensions and expulsions, often putting children on the streets or in other places where their behavior only worsens, and that the policies undermine the ability of school officials to use common sense in handling minor infractions.

Unfortunately for Zachary, Delware new law did not help him because it mentions only expulsion and does not explicitly address suspensions. A revised law is being drafted to include suspensions.

For Zachary, it is not school violence that has left him reluctant to return to classes.

“I just think the other kids may tease me for being in trouble,” he said, pausing before adding, “but I think the rules are what is wrong, not me.”

On Tuesday, October 13th, three men were convicted of the gang rape of a woman from West Palm Beach and the beating of her young son, and were sentenced to life in prison.

Palm Beach Circuit Judge Krista Marx sentenced Jakaris Taylor, 17, and Nathan Walker, 18, to life in prison while Tommy Poindexter, 20, was sentenced to life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison. A fourth defendant, Avion Lawson, 16, pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in December.

The four were convicted of entering into the then-35-year-old woman's West Palm Beach apartment in 2007 and raping her multiple times, then beating her then-12-year-old son and forcing her to perform oral sex on him. They then poured chemicals on the two victims and left only after being unable to find a match to set them ablaze.

Authorities say fingerprints and DNA found on clothing and condoms in the apartment identified the defendants, who were juveniles at the time of the crime.

Defense lawyers had argued that the men were juveniles at the time of the crime and sentencing juveniles to life in prison amounts to cruel and unusual punishment — which does not even occur in Iraq and North Korea. Defense Attorneys noted that two similar cases are currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Both Public Defender Carey Haughwout, who represents Poindexter, and Robert Gershman, who represents Walker, said they would file motions for new trials and appeal.