The Tampa socialite who received potentially inappropriate emails from one general and threatening emails from the CIA director's mistress has her own troubled legal history.

It turns out Jill Kelley — a woman known for throwing lavish parties for the military — and her husband Dr. Scott T. Kelley, a surgeon at the Moffit Cancer Center, have been sued nine times.

Details about the Kelleys' lawsuits aren't readily available but The Tampa Bay Times broke down what is known about the suits:

• A judge ordered Kelley to sell her land holding company's office building in downtown Tampa after Central Bank brought a foreclosure lawsuit against her and her husband. The Kelleys owed the bank nearly $2.2 million, according to court records.

• The couple had an $11,000 judgement brought against them in a case that began in Pennsylvania.

• Chase Bank sued the couple for indebtednes, Regions Bank sued the Kelleys for foreclosure and FIA Card Services brought a credit card case against the couple.

Business Insider tried to obtain copies of the various lawsuits but was told by Hillsborough County officials the request could not immediately be granted.

DON'T MISS: FBI Agent In Petraeus Case Removed After Allegedly Sending Shirtless Photos To The 'Other Woman' Jill Kelley >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Now that pot is legal in Colorado and Washington, marijuana enthusiasts may think their drug of choice will get cheaper.

In theory, legalization allows growers to produce pot in bulk and spares them expenses associated with breaking the law.

"If production moves from basements and backyards to industrial farms and huge greenhouses ... we would expect the production cost to plummet," drug policy expert Beau Kilmer has told BI.

But the recent moves by Colorado and Washington to legalize pot won't necessarily herald the arrival of affordable marijuana, Slate's Matthew Yglesias reports.

Here's why pot might stay expensive, according to Yglesias:

• Colorado and Washington are trying to make money off potheads, so it's likely the drug will be subject to the same kind of "sin tax" that has driven up the costs of cigarettes in New York.
• Federal law still bars pot, so growers might be loath take advantage of the economy of scale and start huge marijuana farms the feds could easily spot.
• They might also have trouble financing operations that are technically illegal under federal law.

The price of production could only go down if the pot is legal in the entire country, Yglesias says.

Read on to see whether the Supreme Court might make pot legal throughout the U.S.>

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

It should be no surprise that police officers, security guards, and bartenders face the highest rates of nonfatal workplace violence, according to 2009 Bureau of Justice statistics.

However, it might be surprising to learn that women were twice as likely as men to be the victim of homicide in the workplace in 2011.

One in 5 work related deaths were due to workplace violence, according to the graphic created by the Seyfarth Shaw law firm using 2011 data.

Credit: Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Government surveillance of citizens' online lives is rising sharply around the world, according to Google's latest report on requests to remove content and hand over user data to official agencies.

In the first six months of this year, authorities worldwide made 20,939 requests for access to personal data from Google users, including search results, access to Gmail accounts and removal of YouTube videos. Requests have risen steeply from a low of 12,539 in the last six months of 2009, when Google first published its Transparency Report.

Authorities made 1,791 requests for Google to remove 17,746 pieces of content in the first half of 2012, almost twice as many as the 949 requests made in the same period last year, and up from 1,048 requests made in the last six months of 2011.

"This is the sixth time we've released this data, and one trend has become clear: government surveillance is on the rise," Google said in a blog post.

One of the sharpest rises came in requests from Turkey, which held an election on 12 June 2011. Google reported a 1,013% rise in requests from Turkish authorities in the latest reporting period, including 148 requests to remove 426 YouTube videos, Blogger blogs, one Google document and one search result. The contested items allegedly criticised Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (the first president of Turkey), the government or "national identity and values". Google restricted Turkish users from accessing 63% of the YouTube videos. It did not remove the other content.

The US accounted for the most requests, as it has consistently since the report was launched. US authorities asked for private details of Google users on 7,969 occasions, up from 6,321 in the last reporting period. The number is more than a third of the 20,938 requests for users' details worldwide. Google fully or partially complied with 90% of those requests.

Over the six months, Google was asked to remove seven YouTube videos that criticised local and state agencies, police and other public officials. It did not comply with these requests.

US figures represent a larger share of the requests for a variety of reasons. Google has a larger number of US users, the US authorities are more familiar with working with Google and foreign countries sometimes make requests for information through US agencies. Those queries are logged as US requests, as Google is not told where the query originated from.

Europe now accounts for five of the top 10 countries making requests for user data. France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK are all in the top 10 in terms of numbers of requests. The number of requests for content removal in the UK shot up 98% and 60% in Spain. In the UK, local police authorities unsuccessfully pressed for Google to remove links to sites that accused the police of obscuring crime and racism. The UK is currently considering a bill that would require internet and phone companies to track and store every citizen's web and mobile phone use, including social networking sites, without retaining their content, for 12 months.

France and Germany, two countries that have pressed hard for more privacy online, made the most requests out of any European countries in this reporting period. Google complied with fewer than half of all requests in both countries.

The top three reasons cited by governments for the removal of content are defamation, privacy and security. Google also reported that it has received a number of falsified court documents calling on them to remove content.

"The information we disclose is only an isolated sliver showing how governments interact with the internet, since for the most part we don't know what requests are made of other technology or telecommunications companies. But we're heartened that in the past year, more companies like Dropbox, LinkedIn, Sonic.net and Twitter have begun to share their statistics, too. Our hope is that over time, more data will bolster public debate about how we can best keep the internet free and open," Google said in its blog post.

From January to June 2012, the following countries made the most requests for user data:

• United States (7,969)
• India (2,319)
• Brazil (1,566)
• France (1,546)
• Germany (1,533)

From January to June 2012, the following countries made the most requests to remove content:

• Turkey (501)
• United States (273)
• Germany (247)
• Brazil (191)
• United Kingdom (97)

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The electorate has spoken, and there will be four more years of a Barack Obama presidency.

The Democrats have retained control of the Senate, and the Republicans have a comfortable margin in the House of Representatives.

Since neither party has been given a mandate to govern, it means that either gridlock will continue or bipartisanship will return to Washington.  

Now that the election is over it is time to start to analyze how these developments may affect technology public policy.

One pressing area that Congress and the President need to address is cyber security legislation to protect our country's infrastructure from a cyber war.

During the past several years, there have been numerous cyber attacks on public and private computer networks that has demonstrated the need for a comprehensive partnership between the government and the private sector to protect our country's digital systems.

Unless bipartisanship reigns, it is doubtful that compromise cyber security legislation will be enacted. Even though the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act failed earlier this year, the White House may decide to implement an executive order to fill the void.

While an executive order may be one way for the administration to lead on this issue, it may not provide the same type of protection as bipartisan legislation.

With legislative compromise difficult to come by,  the President may influence technology public policy through administrative investigations and rulemaking. Since the FTC is investigating Google for allegedly  abusing its position to license some smartphone patents in a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory manner, will the administration soon open an investigation into Google's user privacy policies?

On March 1st of this year, Google replaced almost 70 different privacy policies for its services with one policy that enables it to comprehensively collect and share data about its users across its platforms to enhance its ability to serve ads. 

Last month, The European Union issued a report that indicated that Google's new privacy policy may violate the EU's data protection rules. Regulators in 27 EU member states along with Canada, Mexico, and Australia endorsed the report's recommendations, but the FTC declined to do so. Now that the election is over, will the FTC begin its own investigation into Google's privacy policies and data mining techniques?

Will the FTC utilize its rule making authority to create regulations to further restrict the ability of companies to data mine the digital content of children?  

It would be a welcome change to see more bipartisanship that enables Congress to pass technology legislation that protects the interests of both businesses and consumers. The technology sector may want to agree to some digital data mining restrictions as a pre-emptive move to try to avoid stronger regulations.

Unfortunately, due to the toxic environment on Capitol Hill and the inability for some to believe that people still have the right to privacy in the Social Media Age, it is more likely that the administration will be forced to utilize its investigation and rulemaking authority to take the lead on technology public policy.

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

News emerged Tuesday that Jill Kelley, the "other, other woman" enmeshed in the Petraeus scandal, has hired DC superlawyer Abbe Lowell as well as a crisis PR guru.

Lowell is a Beltway power broker and has represented lawmakers, lobbyists, local governments, and even the actors Steven Seagal and Sean Combs.

But he seems to be the go-to lawyer for clients with high-profile sex scandals, including the one behind a criminal case against John Edwards.

Here are other sex-scandal-plagued clients of Lowell's, according to his official law firm bio:

• Former senator John Ensign of Nevada, who had an affair with the wife of one of his staffers.
• Ex-Congressman Gary Condit, whose affair with DC intern Chandra Levy was exposed after her disappearance.
• Bill Boner, a former mayor of Nashville, Tenn., who appeared on the Phil Donahue show with a night club singer he got engaged to while still married to his third wife.
• Ex-Nevada governor Jim Gibbons, who was accused of groping a Las Vegas cocktail waitress in 2006. During the case Gibbons revealed he hadn't had sex since 1995, a local TV station reported in 2010.

SEE ALSO: The Socialite In The Petraeus Scandal Keeps Getting Sued Over Massive Debts >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has demoted four-star General William E. Ward over allegations that he spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on a lavish lifestyle while head of U.S. Army Africa Command (AFRICOM), Lolita Baldor of The Associated Press reports.

Ward will retire as a three-star lieutenant general, in spite of America's top military officer arguing against the demotion, and will also repay the government $82,000.

The demotion comes four days after retired four-star Army Gen. David Petraeus resigned as CIA director because of an extramarital affair and one day after it was announced that four-star Marine Gen. John Allen is being investigated for improper communications with the woman who prompted the investigation that ousted Petraeus.

Here is a recap of Ward's alleged misconduct:

• $129,000 on an 11-day trip to Washington with his wife and 13 staff where he only had short engagements on the first three days of the trip. The cost covers the hotel and 'other' costs such as transportation.
• $10,000 on hotel rooms for himself and staff during a 'refueling stop' in Bermuda on the way to an engagement in Germany. He and his wife stayed in a $750 suite. The bill does not include transport or other costs.
• $18,500 on producing and publishing 2,000 books about the Command's plush residence in Germany and its first three years of work.
• One staffer stayed in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in McLean, Virginia for 49 consecutive nights in early 2010 — even though Ward was in the area for just 18 of the nights.
• Use of government-rented vehicles to run errands including collecting flowers, books, football game tickets and snacks.
• Dinner and a Broadway show — paid for by a government contractor — before meeting Denzel Washington and staying in the five-star Waldorf Astoria Hotel.
• Wife joined him on 52 of his 79 trips even though she had no official capacity.
• Ward also set official meetings after being refused the use of military aircraft for personal travel.

Retiring as a three-star will cost Ward nearly $30,000 a year in retirement pay— giving him about $208,802 a year rather than the $236,650 he would get as a four-star.

SEE ALSO: Top US General John Allen Could Be Court-Martialed Over 'Flirtatious' Emails >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Prominent legal blogger David Lat is the definitive voice behind Above The Law and also founded Underneath Their Robes.

So when he tweets, we listen.

But unfortunately, he isn't tweeting good news:

Don't worry, he backs up his claim:

Just in case you aren't convinced:

Given the crushing debt students are taking on just to enter a less-than-desirable job market, we think Lat might have a point.

DON'T MISS: One Law Professor Essentially Wants To Do Away With Law School >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The current sex scandal involving the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the military, and possibly several private citizens isn’t the first in Washington, but it has some things in common with the huge scandal that hit Alexander Hamilton more than 200 years ago.

The Maria Reynolds affair was the David Petraeus-Paula Broadwell-John Allen triangle of its day in the 1790s, with its admission of adultery, scandalous mail exchanges, and a high-profile resignation.

The Hamilton scandal also involved some elements that have nothing in common with the current situation: blackmail, a potential Founding Fathers duel, and a key role by two future U.S. presidents, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe.

And Aaron Burr, the man who eventually killed Hamilton in 1804, made two cameo appearances as the events unfolded.

In the 1790s, Hamilton was arguably the second- or third-most powerful politician in the United States, after his mentor, Washington, and Hamilton’s arch-enemy, Jefferson.

But Hamilton had many foes due to his aggressive role in government. Hamilton had started the first political party in the nation, the Federalists and battled leaders within his own party as well as Jefferson and his followers.

Hamilton became the first treasury secretary of the United States in 1789 and was President Washington’s most-trusted adviser. But he resigned in early 1795, reportedly to seek a lucrative private sector career working as a lawyer in New York.

But Hamilton was harboring a secret.

During Washington’s first term in office, Secretary Hamilton started an affair in 1791 with Maria Reynolds, a Philadelphia woman seeking money to leave her abusive husband and return to New York.

Unknown to Hamilton, Reynolds’ husband knew of the affair. James Reynolds forced the married Hamilton to pay him blackmail if he wanted to continue the liaison. Hamilton did.

James Reynolds was then caught in a separate financial scheme and tried to implicate Hamilton in that plot in 1792. The speaker of the House, Frederick Muhlenberg; Monroe; and a third Congress member confronted Hamilton.

Not only did the treasury secretary confirm the affair, Hamilton also handed over much of his mail correspondence with Reynolds to the men. The letters apparently proved that Hamilton wasn’t involved in the second financial scheme involving Reynolds.

Monroe and Muhlenberg agreed to keep the incident quiet, but Jefferson may have known of the affair. Monroe had given copies of the letters and records of the meetings with Hamilton to John Beckley, the clerk of the House of Representatives, to be sealed.

Five year later, Beckley was fired as House clerk by the Federalists, and all of the papers were suddenly made public in 1797 in what we would call a tabloid publication run by Philadelphia publisher James Callender.

Furious, Hamilton responded by publishing a denial and marching to Monroe’s house to ask him how the confidential papers became public. Monroe and Hamilton argued, and dueling challenges were exchanged.

A deadly battle between the future president and Hamilton seemed destined to happen, but Monroe’s second intervened in a series of letters and calmed down the two men. The second was Aaron Burr.

Burr was also the divorce attorney for Maria Reynolds.

Hamilton responded by publishing more correspondence on the matter, including 50 letters from Reynolds and fellow politicians and the dueling threats with Monroe.

The Maria Reynolds affair ended Hamilton’s likelihood of holding political office again. He remained a behind-the-scenes player in the Federalist Party, but would never become president–and his party wouldn’t win the presidency again in his lifetime.

But one lingering question remains today: What was Hamilton’s true role in the affair?

One theory that emerged in the 1970s, from a Jeffersonian scholar, was that some of the letters from Reynolds, depicting Hamilton’s innocence in the financial part of the scandal, were forged.

American Heritage magazine has a detailed account of the story online.

It also has an interesting footnote about those 50 papers that Hamilton published in 1797, which allegedly proved his innocence. The originals were supposed to be in the possession of William Bingham, a U.S. senator in Philadelphia who was one of America’s wealthiest men.

Bingham said he never received the papers in Philadelphia and the originals have been missing since then.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The current sex scandal involving the C.I.A., the F.B.I., the military, and possibly several private citizens isn’t the first in Washington, but it has some things in common with the huge scandal that hit Alexander Hamilton more than 200 years ago.

The Maria Reynolds affair was the David Petraeus-Paula Broadwell-John Allen triangle of its day in the 1790s, with its admission of adultery, scandalous mail exchanges, and a high-profile resignation.

The Hamilton scandal also involved some elements that have nothing in common with the current situation: blackmail, a potential Founding Fathers duel, and a key role by two future U.S. presidents, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe.

And Aaron Burr, the man who eventually killed Hamilton in 1804, made two cameo appearances as the events unfolded.

In the 1790s, Hamilton was arguably the second- or third-most powerful politician in the United States, after his mentor, Washington, and Hamilton’s arch-enemy, Jefferson.

But Hamilton had many foes due to his aggressive role in government. Hamilton had started the first political party in the nation, the Federalists and battled leaders within his own party as well as Jefferson and his followers.

Hamilton became the first treasury secretary of the United States in 1789 and was President Washington’s most-trusted adviser. But he resigned in early 1795, reportedly to seek a lucrative private sector career working as a lawyer in New York.

But Hamilton was harboring a secret.

During Washington’s first term in office, Secretary Hamilton started an affair in 1791 with Maria Reynolds, a Philadelphia woman seeking money to leave her abusive husband and return to New York.

Unknown to Hamilton, Reynolds’ husband knew of the affair. James Reynolds forced the married Hamilton to pay him blackmail if he wanted to continue the liaison. Hamilton did.

James Reynolds was then caught in a separate financial scheme and tried to implicate Hamilton in that plot in 1792. The speaker of the House, Frederick Muhlenberg; Monroe; and a third Congress member confronted Hamilton.

Not only did the treasury secretary confirm the affair, Hamilton also handed over much of his mail correspondence with Reynolds to the men. The letters apparently proved that Hamilton wasn’t involved in the second financial scheme involving Reynolds.

Monroe and Muhlenberg agreed to keep the incident quiet, but Jefferson may have known of the affair. Monroe had given copies of the letters and records of the meetings with Hamilton to John Beckley, the clerk of the House of Representatives, to be sealed.

Five year later, Beckley was fired as House clerk by the Federalists, and all of the papers were suddenly made public in 1797 in what we would call a tabloid publication run by Philadelphia publisher James Callender.

Furious, Hamilton responded by publishing a denial and marching to Monroe’s house to ask him how the confidential papers became public. Monroe and Hamilton argued, and dueling challenges were exchanged.

A deadly battle between the future president and Hamilton seemed destined to happen, but Monroe’s second intervened in a series of letters and calmed down the two men. The second was Aaron Burr.

Burr was also the divorce attorney for Maria Reynolds.

Hamilton responded by publishing more correspondence on the matter, including 50 letters from Reynolds and fellow politicians and the dueling threats with Monroe.

The Maria Reynolds affair ended Hamilton’s likelihood of holding political office again. He remained a behind-the-scenes player in the Federalist Party, but would never become president–and his party wouldn’t win the presidency again in his lifetime.

But one lingering question remains today: What was Hamilton’s true role in the affair?

One theory that emerged in the 1970s, from a Jeffersonian scholar, was that some of the letters from Reynolds, depicting Hamilton’s innocence in the financial part of the scandal, were forged.

American Heritage magazine has a detailed account of the story online.

It also has an interesting footnote about those 50 papers that Hamilton published in 1797, which allegedly proved his innocence. The originals were supposed to be in the possession of William Bingham, a U.S. senator in Philadelphia who was one of America’s wealthiest men.

Bingham said he never received the papers in Philadelphia and the originals have been missing since then.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The first lawsuit has been filed over the "dangling crane" incident that forced residents and businesses near under-construction luxury highrise One57 to evacuate during Hurricane Sandy, and more are on the way.

On Friday, two dentists filed a $5 million lawsuit in federal court blaming contractor Australia's Lend Lease Construction for the crane collapse, according to Yahoo News.

And now The Hurwitz Law Firm is seeking additional plaintiffs for a suit it plans to file against the city, crane operator, and developer —Curbed obtained a copy of a flyer it is circulating in the area on Monday.

We reached out to the firm's Michael Hurwitz to find out more. He told us via email:

It is too soon to put a dollar amount on the damages we are seeking from each defendant, but I can tell you many local residents and businesses have sustained a variety of damages and ongoing interruption in ways that may not be readily apparent.

As we continue our investigation into the cause(s) of the accident, and the overall construction permitting process (inclusive of the developer's acquisition of floor area development rights enabling them to build to such heights), we will be able to form an opinion as to appropriate monetary & injunctive relief to be sought.

The law firm filed a summons and notice with the NY County Supreme Court on Friday. It alleges negligence and gross negligence resulting in the crane collapse, and will seek compensatory and punitive damages from the defendants.

Below is the summons:

Now go inside the new luxury building >

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

An Alabama firing range is reaching out specifically to the "ladies" in its area with an easy-listening, '80's FM-style radio jingle.

The unforgettable song goes: "Are you ready? Are you prepared? Your best defense can't be that you're scared."

Hoover Tactical Firearms — which hosted an official state Republican Mitt Romney "victory party" on election night — is catering to the ever-increasing female firearm touting population.

A recent Gallup poll found that 23 percent of women are now gun owners. Only 13 percent had guns in 2005.

There's even a slew of pink semi-automatic weapons, featuring logos from Prada to My Little Pony, marketed directly to women.

Have a listen:

DON'T MISS:12 Guns Made Specifically For Women >

Please follow Advertising on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

PARIS (AP) — A man described as a modern-day Rasputin was convicted Tuesday of brainwashing three generations of an aristocratic French family for nearly a decade, swindling them of their fortune and their turreted manor.

Thierry Tilly, who was sentenced to eight years in prison by a court in Bordeaux, became a confidante of the landed Vedrines family in 2000 in a case that has both riveted and shocked the nation.

Over nine years, the man who local media dubbed "the guru" manipulated the family of 11 — aged from 16 to 89 — into believing there was a secret masonic plot against their lives, according to court testimony.

Family members were so convinced of his story that they locked themselves inside their chateau for several years, terrified they would be killed. They sold their possessions — including the family manor — and handed over €4.5 million ($5.7 million).

French media reported that the money was poured into a fake Canadian charity that Tilly claimed was set up to pay the Vedrines' "protectors."

The French-born Tilly was convicted of arbitrary detention, using violence against vulnerable people and abusing people weakened by "psychological subjection."

"Eight years is a small price to pay for what he did to our family and children," Christine de Vedrines, a family member who had alerted police to Thierry, told the Sipa news agency on Tuesday. "The trial is behind us and we will do everything to rebuild."

His accomplice, Jacques Gonzalez, was sentenced to four years in prison.

Tilly's lawyer had argued that the family from the 13th-century village of Monflanquin in southwestern France had acted willingly.

"These 11 family members aren't ill, have their feet on the ground, a level of self-awareness. Eleven people manipulated by mysterious forces by a single man? The legal basis for case is weak," lawyer Alexandre Novion told The Associated Press.

Novion denounced testimony about the family's mental state, saying a man's freedom should not depend on "an old Freud tome found in a psychoanalyst's attic." He also said Gonzalez — and not Tillly — was the ringleader and absconded with all the money.

Although Tilly was deemed mentally stable during his trial, French media have reported that he has a history of lies and exaggerations. Tilly claimed before the Bordeaux court that he was a member of the Habsburg dynasty, that he once almost played football for Marseille, and that he knew former French President Francois Mitterrand.

Tilly remained defiant despite the conviction, saying he is a British citizen and will take his case to the European Court of Justice.

"(The trial) has only just begun," Tilly declared.

His lawyer, meanwhile, said he was not aware that his client was a British citizen. But during the time the family was under Tilly's sway, the group apparently moved briefly to Oxford with him. Tilly was arrested in Switzerland.

The case raised echoes of another controversial trial involving France's richest woman, 90-year-old L'Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt, who was swindled by a French tax lawyer into handing over a private Seychelles island to him.

_____

Thomas Adamson can be followed at http://Twitter.com/ThomasAdamsonAP

Lori Hinnant can be followed at http://twitter.com/lhinnant

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Throughout the country, judges have taken file-sharing plaintiffs to task for abusing the system, Ars Technica reports.

Just last week, Judge Leo Sorokin accused two porno publishers of lacking "interest in actually litigating" against the 11,570 "John Does" they accuse of copyright infringement.

This, however, is nothing out of the ordinary.

Porn studios often sue thousands of people identified only by their Internet provider numbers, and get their names through court subpoenas.

Once the porn companies have the names, they threaten with new lawsuits— this time including a person's name — unless they can reach a settlement.

This case doesn't seem to be any different.

The plaintiffs – Discount Video Center and Patrick Collins Inc. – still haven't produced a litigation plan and seemingly have no interest in doing so, according to the judge's opinion.

SEE ALSO: LA's New Condom Law Could Doom The Porn Industry >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The AP is reporting that Thai authorities have arrested smugglers accused of illegally transporting a pickup truck full of deadly cobras. The snakes were worth a total of about $16,500. 

The driver was arrested about 130 miles south of Bangkok, but was attempting to traffick a total of 600 snakes north of the border to Laos. The cobras — some of which died on the journey — are most likely from Malaysia, according to the BBC.

There is actually a quite sizeable underground market for illegal wildlife smuggling in Asia, and much of it comes from Thailand. This year, smugglers have been caught trying to traffick tigers and pangolins, according to Sky News. Back in May, authorities seized 4,300 cobras in Thailand.

Snakes are in higher demand in Laos, Vietnam and China; some use the snakes to create traditional medicines and human consumption (yup, some people eat cobras).

The Spike In Myanmar's Opium Production Could Destabilize All Of Asia >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Charles Philip, a shoe designer with customers including Rihanna and Jessica Alba, is suing Gap for allegedly copying some of his designs.

Page Six at the New York Post reports:

"In papers in LA federal court, Charles Philip alleges the mass retailer copied his distinctive designs and even used a similar name for its shoes, which sell for 80 percent less. “It’s more than [just] one shoe . . . it’s the entire collection,” Philip’s lawyer Andrea E. Bates told us. “This is what you’d expect to find on Canal Street.'"

Gap's shoes are part of a "Phillip" collection and even include a distinctive stripe in the shoe, the attorney told the Post.

Philip's complaint against Gap asks for financial damages and for the retail giant to stop manufacturing and selling the shoes.

Gap told the Post that it doesn't comment on pending litigation.

Here's one of Philip's shoes:

And here's a slipper Gap is selling (though we're not sure if it's from the collection in question):

DON'T MISS: The Most Outrageous Victoria's Secret Fashion Show Ever >

Please follow Retail on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Two former hedge fund managers reaped a total of $70.8 million in illegal profits by tapping a "corrupt network" of Wall Street analysts, a U.S. prosecutor said at the start of an insider trading trial on Tuesday.

Todd Newman, who was a portfolio manager at Diamondback Capital Management, and Anthony Chiasson, co-founder of Level Global Investors, were charged in January in a sweep dubbed "Operation Perfect Hedge" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. More than 70 people have been charged in the government's broad probe of Wall Street trading.

Chiasson, 39, and Newman, 48, are accused of illegally trading ahead of computer maker Dell Inc's earnings reports for the first and second quarters of 2008, netting profits of $57 million and $3.8 million, respectively. Chiasson is also accused of netting $10 million in illegal profits ahead of the May 2009 results of chipmaker Nvidia Corp.

Prosecutor Richard Tarlowe told jurors in U.S. District Court in Manhattan that Newman and Chiasson had made huge trades based on confidential company secrets obtained by a close-knit group of research analysts.

"This is a case about how the defendants got secret, confidential information about publicly traded companies," Tarlowe said. "They chose to break the law and to use (the information) anyway. Why? To make big money for themselves and for their hedge funds."

Lawyers for Newman and Chiasson countered that their clients did not know that any of the information was secret because the analysts who provided it had made their stock recommendations appear legitimate.

Several of those analysts have previously pleaded guilty to related insider trading charges. One of them, Jesse Tortora, began testifying for the prosecution on Tuesday.

"What Mr. Newman did not know was that mixed in Mr. Tortora's information... was information that Mr. Tortora now says was obtained improperly," Newman's lawyer, Stephen Fishbein, said in his opening statement.

Tortora, who worked for Newman as an analyst, made his work appear like "legitimate, honest research," Fishbein said.

Former Level Global analyst Spyridon Adondakis, who has also pleaded guilty, is expected to testify at a later date.

Together with Sandeep "Sandy" Goyal - who is cooperating with the government - and others, the analysts formed a "corrupt network of professionals who chose to break the rules," Tarlowe said.

THE CLIQUE

Reid Weingarten, a lawyer for Chiasson, went even further, saying the group of analysts had built a friendship around obtaining insider secrets. "They likened themselves to the 'Fight Club,'" Weingarten said, referring to the 1999 hit movie starring Brad Pitt.

"They traveled together, they partied together, they ate together, they went on vacation together and they shared information together," Weingarten said. "We call them the clique."

Weingarten also said that the Level Global fund, which Chiasson founded with his former boss David Ganek in 2003, placed a "huge emphasis on research" and every trade was backed up by a transparent investment theory. Ganek has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

The defendants face one count each of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and multiple counts of securities fraud. If convicted, they could face at least 25 years in prison.

The judge overseeing the case, Richard Sullivan, has denied repeated requests by the defendants to be tried separately.

Level Global was shut down in early 2011 following an FBI raid. Diamondback, which settled civil charges and entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department, continues to operate.

Jon Horvath, a former analyst at a division of SAC Capital, the hedge fund founded by Steven Cohen, was arrested along with Newman and Chiasson. Horvath, a technology sector analyst, pleaded guilty in September to insider trading charges and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

Tuesday's trial, which could last more than five weeks, follows the sentencing last month of onetime Wall Street luminary Rajat Gupta on insider trading charges.

Gupta was found guilty of leaking Goldman Sachs boardroom secrets to his friend Raj Rajaratnam and sentenced to two years in prison. Rajaratnam, founder of the Galleon Group hedge fund, received an 11-year prison sentence last year, one of the longest ever for insider trading.

The case is US v. Todd Newman et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12-cr-121.

SEE ALSO: Two-Timing London Banker Gets Both Of His Girlfriends Busted For Insider Trading >

Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Florida's permissive firearm laws have landed the state in the center of a national controversy but the Sunshine State is refusing to bow to pressure to reform its controversial Stand Your Ground Laws.

After George Zimmerman cited the law in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, Gov. Rick Scott created a Stand Your Ground task force to review the law.

And now the task force has decided not to change the gun laws, The Associated Press reported Tuesday.

"The task force concurs with the core belief that all persons, regardless of citizenship status, have a right to feel safe and secure in our state," the task force wrote in its recommendation. "To that end, all persons have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack with proportionate force in every place they have a lawful right to be and are conducting themselves in a lawful manner."

The group did make two small changes to the law but that might actually make it easier to claim self defense, according to the Miami Herald.

The task force shifted the issue to the Legislature and the courts but did recommend lawmakers look more closely at who can invoke Stand Your Ground laws.

That recommendation seems to fly in the face of studies that found the law is either often abused or completely ineffective.

Texas A&M researches Cheng Cheng and Mark Hoekstra reviewed the laws back in June and found that while Stand Your Ground laws don't deter crimes like aggravated assault or burglary, they do increase homicides.

"We find that murder and non-negligent manslaughter are increased by 7 to 9 percent. This could represent either increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal situations. Regardless, the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide."

That same month The Tampa Bay Times studied 200 Stand Your Ground cases and found the law has been used to free the aggressors, including one person who shot someone in the back.

DON'T MISS: This Pregnant Woman Was Allegedly So Mad Obama Won She Ran Over Her Husband >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

When Colorado and Washington voters passed measures legalizing recreational marijuana last week, they demonstrated — probably unknowingly — a rueful familiarity with the failure of Prohibition.

Guess whether I’m describing the 2010s (before last week, at least) or the 1920s: Government strictures make it impossible for people to legally acquire a substance they want. However, anyone who really wants it has no trouble getting it. As a direct result, large criminal enterprises create a vast underground — and not-so-underground — market. The federal prison system is forced to expand.

Also: The amount of money on the table is so great that these criminal enterprises engage in outright warfare with each other to get their hands on it. The flow of contraband across one of our international borders becomes a flood. Government spending on enforcement grows and grows, but the market isn’t curtailed. All the while, local, state, and federal governments in desperate need of revenue watch helplessly as hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal profits remain beyond the tax man’s reach.

Of course, I’m speaking of both then and now.

Another parallel: In the 1920s, one of the few ways to get liquor legally was to purchase a prescription from your physician — the going rate was $3 each — and take it to the local pharmacy. Today, Southern Californians can go to Venice Beach and find doctors advertising the on-the-spot availability of prescriptions, which can be filled at licensed dispensaries.

The only difference? As with everything else, the price has gone up.

Personally, I carry no brief for marijuana. I never liked the stuff myself, and when my now-grown kids were indulging, it filled me with anxious concern (and introduced a great deal of lying into the child-parent relationship).

But after spending five years researching and writing Last Call, my history of Prohibition, I could not ignore the reality confronting me: Prohibition didn’t work then, and for exactly the same reasons, it doesn’t work now. If people want something badly enough, they will find a way to get it. Every known society has tried to get rid of prostitution, and that hasn’t worked, either.

Now Colorado and Washington can help us find out whether modern prohibition mirrors its predecessor in another way. Of all the anomalies and ironies of the original Prohibition, the most startling one I discovered was this: It was harder to limit liquor consumption during Prohibition than afterward.

Before Prohibition was repealed, anyone capable of bribing the local cops — and in Philadelphia, that appeared to be almost everybody — could sell liquor anytime, anyplace, to anybody. Fifteen-year-old kid wants a double shot at 4 a.m. on a Sunday morning? No problem.

But when repeal arrived, suddenly there was regulation. In Pennsylvania and many other states after repeal, only the state itself could sell liquor; in others, strictly licensed retailers controlled the market. Age limits took effect. Blue laws put liquor out of reach on Sundays. Bars were compelled to close during certain hours, and those that violated regulations lost their licenses.

Bootleggers had to find new businesses, and the vast majority of them ended up in legal enterprises. Per-capita alcohol consumption didn’t return to pre-Prohibition levels for years.

And this is especially important, given the condition of our modern state and federal treasuries: Governments began collecting taxes on alcohol. In 1934, the first post-Prohibition year, taxes on potable alcohol accounted for fully 9 percent of federal revenue. State taxes were similarly bountiful.

The short answer? Tax, regulate, and legalize. What we’re doing now isn’t working, and it’s costing us an awful lot.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

When Colorado and Washington voters passed measures legalizing recreational marijuana last week, they demonstrated — probably unknowingly — a rueful familiarity with the failure of Prohibition.

Guess whether I’m describing the 2010s (before last week, at least) or the 1920s: Government strictures make it impossible for people to legally acquire a substance they want. However, anyone who really wants it has no trouble getting it. As a direct result, large criminal enterprises create a vast underground — and not-so-underground — market. The federal prison system is forced to expand.

Also: The amount of money on the table is so great that these criminal enterprises engage in outright warfare with each other to get their hands on it. The flow of contraband across one of our international borders becomes a flood. Government spending on enforcement grows and grows, but the market isn’t curtailed. All the while, local, state, and federal governments in desperate need of revenue watch helplessly as hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal profits remain beyond the tax man’s reach.

Of course, I’m speaking of both then and now.

Another parallel: In the 1920s, one of the few ways to get liquor legally was to purchase a prescription from your physician — the going rate was $3 each — and take it to the local pharmacy. Today, Southern Californians can go to Venice Beach and find doctors advertising the on-the-spot availability of prescriptions, which can be filled at licensed dispensaries.

The only difference? As with everything else, the price has gone up.

Personally, I carry no brief for marijuana. I never liked the stuff myself, and when my now-grown kids were indulging, it filled me with anxious concern (and introduced a great deal of lying into the child-parent relationship).

But after spending five years researching and writing Last Call, my history of Prohibition, I could not ignore the reality confronting me: Prohibition didn’t work then, and for exactly the same reasons, it doesn’t work now. If people want something badly enough, they will find a way to get it. Every known society has tried to get rid of prostitution, and that hasn’t worked, either.

Now Colorado and Washington can help us find out whether modern prohibition mirrors its predecessor in another way. Of all the anomalies and ironies of the original Prohibition, the most startling one I discovered was this: It was harder to limit liquor consumption during Prohibition than afterward.

Before Prohibition was repealed, anyone capable of bribing the local cops — and in Philadelphia, that appeared to be almost everybody — could sell liquor anytime, anyplace, to anybody. Fifteen-year-old kid wants a double shot at 4 a.m. on a Sunday morning? No problem.

But when repeal arrived, suddenly there was regulation. In Pennsylvania and many other states after repeal, only the state itself could sell liquor; in others, strictly licensed retailers controlled the market. Age limits took effect. Blue laws put liquor out of reach on Sundays. Bars were compelled to close during certain hours, and those that violated regulations lost their licenses.

Bootleggers had to find new businesses, and the vast majority of them ended up in legal enterprises. Per-capita alcohol consumption didn’t return to pre-Prohibition levels for years.

And this is especially important, given the condition of our modern state and federal treasuries: Governments began collecting taxes on alcohol. In 1934, the first post-Prohibition year, taxes on potable alcohol accounted for fully 9 percent of federal revenue. State taxes were similarly bountiful.

The short answer? Tax, regulate, and legalize. What we’re doing now isn’t working, and it’s costing us an awful lot.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »