Support for legalizing marijuana reached an all-time high-water mark in a new ABC/Washington Post poll out this morning— but the majority of voters still do not favor it.

The poll comes a week after ballot initiatives to legalize small amounts of marijuana possession passed in Washington and Colorado. Massachusetts, meanwhile, legalized the use of medical marijuana.

The survey finds that 48% of voters favor "legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use," while 50% oppose the measure. The 48% mark is the highest in the ABC/Post polls dating back to 1985.

Here's a look in chart form of the three issues polled in the survey:

There are sharp divides between gender, age and political party on the issue of marijuana legalization. By 5 points, men support legalization. Women, on the other hand, split 45-53 against it. Young, 18-to-29 voters support legalization by 10 points. Older, 65-plus-year-old voters split 37 points against it.

Finally, Democrats are the most likely to favor legalization, supporting it 57-41. Republicans split 31-69 against making possession of small amounts legal.

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Every time there's a hurricane the issue of price gouging comes up, and Sandy is no exception. People in New Jersey and New York might be a bit confused because they rarely get hurricanes, but if you live along the Gulf Coast, you've experienced this.

Price gouging is so ingrained in American culture as a cardinal economic sin that the arguments against it rarely go beyond "but it's gouging!" You might get so far as "and that's unfair!" But why?

The gut reaction may be that you're taking advantage of someone's hardship. But we do this all the time. Legal services are expensive, medical services are expensive, car repair is expensive. We routinely allow industries to take advantage of inelastic demands, so why do we care so much when that opportunism is short lived rather than pervasive? We normally don't criminalize being a douchebag and overcharging for goods and services.

The argument in favor of allowing price gouging is that the prices help to make sure goods go where they are most valued. If you're only willing to pay $4 for a gallon of gas, and your neighbor is willing to pay $10, maybe he's got a better use for it. Maybe you're saving up, just in case, while he's actually trying to get out of town. Maybe you're both using gas to power a hot water heater, but while you're providing yourself with hot showers, he's trying to bring a little comfort to his two young children, and that's why he's willing to pay more.

Of course the objection here is that high prices don't put goods in the hands of someone who values it more, but rather into the hands of someone who just has more money. The gas station charges a flat rate, not 1% of your weekly income per gallon. Price gouging is recessive, placing a bigger burden on the poor and privileging the already privileged.

But there has to be a way of deciding who gets the limited supply of goods, and the alternative to changing prices is just first-come first-serve. Under that model there will be tons of waste and hording. When you hear there's a gas shortage, you rush to the gas station to fill up your car. Nevermind that you're not planning on driving anywhere, you just do it because there's a shortage, and a lot of other people do it too, often consuming all the gas in their car while waiting in line to fill up.

We've stopped the rich from getting to exploit their wealth to fill up their cars, but we've also deprioritized people who'd be putting it to good (or better) use.

One scheme that gets used is rationing. Of course, it's hard to set up an organized rationing system in the wake of a natural disaster with only a few days of lead time. License plates ending in odd numbers can buy gas today, plates ending in even numbers get gas tomorrow. The only real effect that has is reducing lines. It doesn't really distribute resources better.

So why not allow a form of limited gouging? Allow goods to be sold at twice their previous price. That will go a long ways to discourage hording. Few people will spend an extra $40 to have a tank full of gas sitting around for a few days. But people getting out of town can afford to drop another $20 on five gallons in order to get far enough away that prices are back to normal.

People will stop to think just how many slices of bread they plan to eat when a loaf is $7, instead of instinctively grabbing three "just in case." And if you've ever been late to the grocery store raid, you probably wish they did institute price gouging. At $7 a loaf there might be some left for you, rather than getting nothing because all the stay at home moms beat the working stiffs to it.

So the next time price gouging happens in your area, maybe stop to think about just what would happen if it were allowed. You might ultimately decide that it's not worth the negatives, but it's hardly a black and white issue. Especially when you consider that raising prices will mean your area gets more goods. If there's a gas shortage, one way to get oil companies to send more your way is to let them charge more for it.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Irish abortion laws are facing increasing backlash after a woman died last month because the hospital refused to end a deadly pregnancy.

Savita Halappanavar, 31, was miscarrying her baby when she checked into University Hospital Galway last month.

The miscarriage process was causing Halappanavar severe pain and there was no chance of saving the baby but doctors told Halappanavar's husband Ireland "is a Catholic country" and they wouldn't terminate the pregnancy, the Irish Times reported Wednesday. 

“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive," Halappanvar's husband told the times. “Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said, ‘As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can’t do anything’."

Halappanvar's body was eventually so weakened from the miscarriage that her kidneys, heart and liver stopped functioning and she died from septicaemia.

Abortion in Ireland was first banned in 1861 and a 1983 constitutional amendment granted an embryo full rights as an Irish citizen.

A woman who gets an abortion in Ireland could face life in prison.

Even so, the doctors' refusal to abort Halappanavar's dying fetus contradicts an Irish Supreme Court ruling from 1992 meant to protect the mother in such circumstances.

The ruling came after a 14-year-old girl became pregnant after she was raped by a neighbor.

The girl, who felt suicidal after the attack, tried to travel to Britain to have an abortion, but Attorney General Harry Whelehan tried to bar her from leaving the country, citing Ireland's ban on abortions.

Ultimately the country's Supreme Court stepped in and ruled a woman had a right to an abortion if there was a "real and substantial risk" to her life, including the risk of suicide.

Ireland's new administration of Fine Gael and Labour is deeply split on the touchy subject.

Labour is in favor of relaxing the country's all-encompassing abortion ban but Fine Gael remains divided on the issue, according to The Guardian.

The abortion rights debate has raged on in America as well.

A county prosecutor in Idaho filed criminal charges last year against an unmarried mother of three who bought medicine over the Internet to end what would have been her fourth pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood lost its fight in July against South Dakota laws requiring doctors to inform women they are exposing themselves to a greater risk of suicide when they get an abortion.

DON'T MISS: U.S. Court Strikes Huge Blow To Chinese Dads Whose Fetuses Were Aborted >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Middle America's favorite pizza chain got slapped with a $250 million class action lawsuit for sending spammy text messages to its customers without their permission.

Filed in the U.S. District Court in Seattle on Monday, the lawsuit alleges Papa John's Pizza of violating state and federal law with text message blasts sent to customers through mass texting service OnTime4U.

Plaintiffs say they sometimes received 15 or 16 text messages in a row, sometimes in the middle of the night, for a grand total of 500,000 unwanted texts.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 requires companies to get permission from customers before sending them text messages. 

"After I ordered from Papa John's, my telephone started beeping with text messages advertising pizza specials," said one of the plaintiffs in a statement. "Papa John's never asked permission to send me text message advertisements."

This little direct marketing campaign could turn out a very expensive boondoggle for Papa Johns. The plaintiffs want Papa Johns to pay them $500 per text, though that figure could climb as high as $1,500 per text if the judge decides that the pizza chain knowingly and willfully broke the law. That said, Papa Johns also has a history of coming out on top in lawsuits like this. Beginning in 1998, Papa Johns defended itself against false advertising claims made by Pizza Hut over its tagline "Better ingredients. Better pizza." Pizza Hut denied that Papa Johns had better ingredients. The U.S. Supreme Court took Papa John's side.

Of course, winning one little Supreme Court case for its advertising methods doesn't make Papa John's unstoppable. Courts are notoriously unsympathetic to companies that spam their customers. And that detail about 15 to 16 texts in the middle of the night? It'd be hard to find a judge in America that wouldn't find that out of line. Seriously. Who are these people?

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

On Monday, it was announced that Kevin Clash, the 12-time-Emmy-winning voice actor behind the "Elmo" character on "Sesame Street" had taken a leave of absence from the kid-friendly show after allegedly having a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old boy.

52-year-old Clash admitted to a relationship with the accuser, but vehemently denied that anything happened while the teen while he was a minor.

While "Sesame Street" granted Clash a leave of absence "to protect his reputation," TMZ published alleged emails from the Muppeteer to the accuser, in which he wrote "I'm sorry that I keep talking about sex with you, its driving me insane...I want you to know that I love you and I will never hurt you. I'm here to protect you and make sure your dreams come true."

But on Tuesday, the accuser changed his tune and recanted his story, claiming he was an adult during the time of the affair, after all.

The accuser's lawyer released a statement saying, "[The accuser] wants it to be known that his sexual relationship with Mr. Clash was an adult consensual relationship. [The accuser] will have no further comment."

Sources close to the situation revealed to TMZ, "The accuser's attorney had been meeting with Clash's attorney ... discussing a financial settlement and 6-figures were on the table."

Clash then has also released a statement: "I am relieved that this painful allegation has been put to rest. I will not discuss it further."

SEE ALSO: Voice of Elmo takes leave of absence from 'Sesame Street' after allegations of sex with a teen >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Things got a little heated last week at an Obama campaign office in Fountain, Colo., when a reporter asked the Interior Secretary about something other than election day.

Ken Salazar was in the state campaigning for President Barack Obama when Colorado Springs Gazette reporter Dave Philippsasked him about a questionable government sale of 1,7000 wild horses to a private citizen, The Denver Post reported Tuesday.

Salazar didn't take too kindly to the question, according to an audio recording Philipps posted to sound clip-sharing site Chirbit.

"You should never do that," Salazar told Philipps about cornering him at a campaign event. "If you do that to me again, I'm going to punch you out."

Listen to the clip Philipps posted. The controversial sound bite begins at the 2:13 minute mark.

DON'T MISS: Pot Legalization Changes Everything For Colorado And Washington Cops >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Internet memes have become something of a staple in viral ads.

In the marketing world, they are everywhere imaginable — from Virgin Media to Vitaminwater's ads — but this commercial use raises some serious intellectual property questions, Corporate Counsel's Scott Slavick writes.

Mainly, are marketing teams allowed to freely use these memes for commercial purposes?

Well, not really.

They should err on the side of caution since the Copyright Act doesn't often consider commercial use to be protected the same way as creative use, Slavick writes.

In the past year, for example, one of the most popular and oldest memes out there, the Rickroll video, was taken down following a copyright dispute from AVG Technologies, Torrent Freak reported.

Slavick also warns against assuming the creator of a meme holds the intellectual property rights to the entire product. 

On the contrary, in most cases memes use copyrighted materials taken from TV shows or songs — examples being the Seinfeld and the Keyboard Cat memes. 

Companies that don't get permission to use a meme could be paying as much as $150,000 in damages if found liable of copyright infringement, according to Corporate Counsel.

So, before a cat plays the keyboards for your next commercial, make sure you have the right permissions to use it.

SEE ALSO:Judge Lashes Out At Porn Companies For Making Empty Lawsuit Threats >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

While ousted CIA Director David Petraeus eats dirt for his extra-marital affair, some people would like him to answer for much more serious crimes.

There is evidence that Petraeus, when he commanded US forces in Afghanistan, oversaw the intentional bombing of funerals and civilian rescuers with drones, which constitutes a war crime according to The International Criminal Court.

For years the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) has reported on the use of the double tap—a strategy used by terrorists that involves bombing a strike site multiple times in relatively quick succession to maximize devastation—and there are documented instances that Petraeus employed this tactic as CIA director.

In September the NYU and law schools released a report detailing how double tapsaffect the Pakistani population, noting that several international law professors have said that "intentional strikes on first responders may constitute war crimes."

The CIA used the tactic in Pakistan and AfghanistanIn May and June of this year, and the killing of a Red Cross worker in Yemen—the first overt example of "explicit intelligence posthumously proving" that an innocent civilian has been killed—is a prime example of an extrajudicial execution.

But will Petraeus really go on trial for drone tactics? Like allegations of torture overseen by the Bush administration, it's not likely.

Nevertheless the retired four-star general could face a court-martial if he began the affair with Paula Broadwell while on active duty in the army, since adultery is formally barred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Petraeus, 60, says the affair began a couple of months after he became CIA director in September 2011 after relinquishing command of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan in July 2011 and retiring from the U.S. Army the following month. But his story is challenged by the timeline of their interactions: Petraeus met Broadwell in the spring of 2006, began being studied by her in 2008, was visited by her six times over the course of the year after he took over allied troops in Afghanistan on June 30, 2010, and according to Michael Hastings, took Broadwell along with him on a government-funded trip to Paris in July 2011.

But we don't expect the court martial to happen either, since the U.S. Army would have to reinstate Petraeus to active duty before the trial and consequently add to the shame being heaped on the highest tier of the U.S. military.

SEE ALSO: Broadwell's comments shed light on what really happened in Benghazi >

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

In the wake of President Obama's reelection, residents in a host of states have expressed a desire to "secede" from the United States.

You can find petitions for the idea on the White House's website.  

The concept crops up after most U.S. elections — you'll recall some Vermonters asked to secede after President Bush's reelection in 2004.

But can states actually secede?

Not without a fight.

And we all know how that ended.

In 1978, Kenneth M. Stampp, who some believe to be the greatest Civil War historian of the 20th century, wrote that the constitution is actually silent on secession — and so in theory, the claims for secession were as strong as the ones against it.

As Daniel Hamilton, the co-director of the University of Illinois' Legal History Program, recently wrote in a symposium on the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War:

Stampp poses the question: “was secession unconstitutional?” And answers with, to my mind, a salutary and even correct answer: “we don’t know.”

In the same symposium, Stephen C. Neff, a professor at the Edinburgh Law School, said the South's used a "breach-of-compact theory" to justify secession. Southern legislatures asserted America was fundamentally a contractual union between sovereign states:

... which retained all aspects of their sovereignty after entry into the Union, save those that they had expressly delegated to the federal government. That original Constitutional contract—or compact—like any other contract, retained its legal validity only so long as the parties continued faithfully to adhere to it. Any breach of the compact by parties to it automatically entitled the innocent parties to withdraw from the arrangement. 

But Neff adds: "Support for this line of argument in the text of the Constitution itself was altogether absent."

As it turns out, the question ended up not being litigated in the Supreme Court —as would usually be done when states challenge federal law — but fought over for five bloody years.

Neff:

In 1871, Justice Joseph P. Bradley of the federal Supreme Court pronounced it to have been “definitely and forever overthrown.” What Justice Bradley tactfully left unmentioned was that overthrow had taken place on the fields of battle rather than in the panelled rooms of courts or legislatures. The question of the nature of the federal Union, in event, proved to be neither a judicial nor a political question, but a military one.

Are there any modern examples of states attempting to forcefully ignore federal law? Say, failing to implement school integration? Arkansas tried that in 1957, and failed.

What about Texas, which according to legend retains its own special secession clause? Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase settled that question all the way back in 1869:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

So sorry, angry states: this is probably a dead end.

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The porn industry is already fighting back against a new LA Countyordinance that forces its stars to wrap it up during shoots.

Measure B requires all porn actors to wear a condom and producers to get a permit to shoot raunchy scenes.

But porn stars and producers claim the industry already does plenty to keep actors safe so the condom requirement isn't necessary and will ruin films' authenticity.

The Free Speech Coalition sent a letter last week to the LA County Board of Supervisors declaring its plans to legally challenge the measure, AVN reported at the time.

"We believe that the law is not only unconstitutional on the grounds of forced expression, but also falls within the jurisdiction of the state of California rather than local government," Free Speech Coalition CEO Diane Duke wrote. "Therefore, we will file suit and challenge this intolerable law in court."

And the coalition might actually stand a chance.

Measure B could be seen as a restriction on filmmakers' expression, meaning the new statute violates the First Amendment.

"It has long been established that sexual speech that is neither obscene nor subject to some other legitimate proscription is fully protected by the First Amendment," Antonio Hayes wrote for Verdict. "Thus, requiring pornographic films to include condoms might be a content-based distinction with regard to that speech."

But if Measure B supporters can prove the industry actually is unsafe and riddled with STDs, the public health concerns might override any First Amendment concerns, ThinkProgress reported Tuesday.

DON'T MISS: 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 U.S. government has recently been cracking down on foreign bribery under a Watergate-era law.

But the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is kind of a squishy area of the law.

Can the feds use the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions to sue business people who wine and dine foreign officials?

Well, the U.S. government just released long-anticipated guidance that answers just that question.

Cab fare, "reasonable" meals and entertainment, and "appropriate" gifts are generally okay under the FCPA.

But business people should think twice before getting foreign officials single large gifts or lots of little ones that might add up to bribery, according to the new guidance.

One government official was given a country club membership, household maintenance expenses, a $20,000 car, and a limo. That's not okay, according to the feds.

In addition to avoiding lavish or frequent gifts, companies should make sure "travel" expenses are for legitimate business, the feds say.

In one instance, a New Jersey telecom shipped 315 Chinese officials to the U.S., purportedly to "inspect" facilities, when in reality they were going to the Grand Canyon and Disney World.

SEE ALSO: See Where Lawyers Rank On The List Of Most Psychopathic Professions >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Business Insider has been profiling inmates about life in prison, but every new story about life on the inside can bring new surprises.

Quorarecently asked inmates about what it's like to live with someone who has committed murder. The answers weren't what we expected.

They painted a picture of men besieged by troubled childhoods and substance abuse rather than blood-thirsty killers.

Dominick Whitaker, a man serving time in California for property crimes, roomed with several convicted murderers during his four-year stay at Calipatria State Prison.

He wrote a vivid description of life inside:

"My first cellie, was convicted of murdering his girlfriend and her brother during a bad drug deal. He used to have traumatic nightmares where he would wake up screaming in his sleep. It took me many months before I felt comfortable getting a full night of sleep, without sleeping with one eye open and both ears attuned to the slightest sound or movement. This is an experience that I will never forget, because you have  to wonder if you're safe inside a 6  x 9  cage with a total stranger who has a prior violent past and has been convicted of murder. There is no one there to help or protect you at 3 am. You have to realize and understand that violence is always right below the surface in prison. It doesn't take much for it to turn into a tidal wave very quickly. I have seen some very violent confrontations with cellies over the most trivial things."

Quora user CJ Hinke wrote that he roomed with a murderer in Australia and said while "there were a few genuine psychos, nearly all killed while using alcohol or drugs. All were young and highly unlikely to kill again."

Click here, here, here, here, and here for the stories in Business Insiders' prison series.

DON'T MISS: Why Veterans Like Anthony Smalls End Up In Prison >

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Jon Bon Jovi's 19-year-old daughter Stephanie Rose Bongiovi was arrested at Hamilton College in Upstate New York early Wednesday morning after allegedly overdosing on heroin.

Bongiovi was found unresponsive, but alive, in her college dorm room, where police and emergency personnel responded to the scene and discovered a “small quantity” of heroin, marijuana and drug paraphernalia, reports TMZ.

When the student came to, she was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, possession of marijuana and criminally using drug paraphernalia — all misdemeanors.

A  21-year-old male student was also arrested and charged with drug possession.

The two were eventually released from custody and have a court date in the future.

Following the incident, Hamilton College said in a statement WKTV:

"In addition to violating state law, the actions alleged to have been committed by the students violate Hamilton College policy. The college is cooperating with the police investigation. Our first concern is always for the safety of our students. Out of respect for the privacy of our students and in accordance with federal regulations we do not discuss individual health or disciplinary matters."

Bongiovi is the eldest, and only daughter, of Jon Bon Jovi’s four children with his wife of 23 years, Dorothea Hurley.

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Dan Rather is a hero to many in the news industry — including myself — for his determination to do anything to get the story.

The most famous example is probably when he tied himself to a tree during a hurricane in 1961 — a stunt that landed him a job at CBS New York.

But that's not the most daring thing he's done.

When I interviewed Rather in my last semester at journalism school, he told me about the time he used heroin for a story.

Rather previously discussed this incident in an interview with Cliff Jahr at the magazine Ladies' Home Journal in the 1980s.

During our interview, I asked Rather about his choice to take such a drastic step for a story. He paused, then said, "I made the mistake of ever talking about it." 

He was willing to open up to me about his experience. I've posted a transcript with his permission, edited slightly for clarity:

"I was working in radio in Houston in 1956 and 1957 and it's hard for people below a certain age to understand that drugs were not a problem at the time ... very little was known by most people about recreational drugs. 

A group of musicians came to Houston and they were arrested for heroin [possession]. I had never heard of heroin. In fact, on the radio later, I pronounced it [wrong]. ... Remember this was in the '50s. Houston was not the big city it is now.

I knew a lot of police officers. They said they had arrested these people for heroin. I had no idea what it was ... [the police] described it to me as best as they knew from what people told them. 

So I said it would be a good story to get some heroin — [though] I had no idea how to get it — and then describe how you feel. And so I did that with the help of the police in the police station. Hard to imagine these days, but I knew these guys pretty well.

So they injected me at the police station and I made notes as best as I could have, of what the effects were. And we produced a series of 'This is what heroin is; This is why people take it; This is what you experience while you're under the influence; This is why it's dangerous.'

It was no big deal, but it got to be a big deal. It didn't get a lot of attention at the time. That was that. 

I had never really thought about it ... that was until a magazine interview in the 1980s..."

Rather's willingness to take risks — and to take responsibility for his actions — generated controversy, but they won him a lot of respect too. There's a reason he was the face of CBS News for decades.

Don't miss: 

• 17 people who were fired before they became rich and famous > 

• 11 tough truths that every great leader knows >

• 14 of the most dangerous jobs in America > 

Please follow Careers on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Supreme Court has decided to review the Voting Rights Act before the end of this term, and already it seems unlikely that the law will survive.

The John Roberts court hasn't shown much support for what Attorney General Eric Holder called, "our nation's most important civil rights statute," referring to VRA's Section 5, according to The Nation.

Section 5 requires states with a history of bias against minorities to clear any changes to their voting rules with the federal government.

Judging by the court's toughness on cases involving racial preferences, the Voting Rights Act doesn't stand much of a chance, according to The Nation.

When he was just in his 20s, Roberts called on the Reagan administration to oppose changes to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans race-based discrimination in voting practices.

And more recently in 2009, when the court flirted with the idea of reviewing the act, Roberts suggested the law was outdated.

Justice Clarence Thomas has also shown a marked toughness toward race-based preferences, even before Roberts' appointment to the bench.

"I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators," he said in the 2003 case of Grutter v Bollinger, which upheld affirmative action, according to USA Today.

SEE ALSO: Eric Holder Is Reportedly Staying On As Attorney General > 

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Five New York real estate brokers are under investigation for allegedly charging extra fees to place HIV-positive tenants, The Real Deal is reporting.

Two of the unnamed brokers are from Queens, two are from the Bronx, and one is from Manhattan.

The city normally pays brokers a fee to find housing for tenants with AIDS.

But the fee has been a topic of controversy since March 2011, when the full commission (normally a month’s rent) was reduced by half as part of a plan to reduce spending, according The Real Deal.

City and state regulators are currently investigating the complaints.

DON'T MISS: Some Real Estate Agents Will Go To Crazy Extremes To Sell A House

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

ATLANTA (AP)—The CEO of Waffle House said Tuesday that a former employee who claims he tried to force her to have sex actually was a participant in consensual sex and has been trying to blackmail him.

"I am a victim of my own stupidity, but I am not going to be a victim of a crime — extortion," Joe W. Rogers Jr. said in a written statement.

The woman told Atlanta police last month that Rogers demanded she perform sexual acts in exchange for keeping her job and that he also tried to force her to have sex with him despite her repeated protests. She said this occurred for nearly 10 years, from 2003 through June of this year. The Associated Press does not generally identify alleged victims of sexual assault.

Rogers identified the woman as his former housekeeper, and said she is not telling the truth.

"Over an almost eight-year period when I was separated, single and re-married, I had a series of infrequent consensual sexual encounters with my housekeeper," Rogers said.

He said the woman worked for 15 hours a week from 2003 until she was let go in 2008. He said she later was rehired as his house manager and quit her job in June.

"Shortly thereafter, on July 16, 2012, I received a letter from her attorney containing false allegations and strong threats," Rogers said. "According to her attorneys, she now wants millions of dollars from me."

Rogers said he shared the letter from the woman's attorney with his wife and they hired lawyers to look into the situation. Rogers and the woman sued each other, but documents in those cases were sealed.

Rogers' attorney, Robert Ingram, said a Cobb County judge lifted a gag order in Rogers' lawsuit Tuesday "so Joe could get his version of the story out."

"We're doing that and we're also pursuing remedies for Mr. Rogers in court based upon what appear to be violations of the court's orders."

Ingram said the woman made intimate videotapes involving Rogers, and he said the court demanded that she turn over those tapes.

"They were tapes that (she) recorded, which is a crime in the state of Georgia to record somebody when that person had an expectation of privacy and doesn't consent to the recording," Ingram said.

A hearing on the Cobb County lawsuit is scheduled Wednesday.

The woman's attorney, David Cohen, phoned in a statement to The Associated Press late Tuesday disputing Rogers' version of events.

"We understand he's obviously trying to spin his wrongful actions in some positive light," Cohen said. "We believe attempting to attack the victim will only make matters worse and that the parties just need to let a jury decide the issues. Our position and facts as they have evolved thus far are stated in our verified counterclaim filed in the courthouse, which is part of the record unsealed by the court today."

In the police report, the woman identified herself as a single mother. She said she stayed in the job and submitted to Rogers because she couldn't find other employment with comparable pay. She said she gave Rogers a letter of resignation in June after her son secured a full college scholarship.

Rogers said he was wrong to have sex with the woman during a period when he was separated and later remarried.

"That was wrong of me and I am very sorry for the pain and embarrassment I've caused my wife and family. There is no excuse for what I have done," he said.

He added, "As personally embarrassing as this situation is for me, I am committed to the legal and law enforcement process to expose the motives of my former housekeeper and her attorneys."

Associated Press writer Lisa J. Adams contributed to this report.

Please follow Retail on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

John Devaney delivered what was clearly an extemporaneous rant about the state of the subprime market. "It was incredible," said Charlie. "Stream of consciousness.

He went on about how the ratings agencies were whores. How the securities were worthless. How they all knew it. He gave words to what we were just suspecting. It was like he was talking out of school.

When he finished there was complete silence. No one specifically attempted a defense. They just talked around him. It was like everyone pretended he hadn't said it."

Michael Lewis, The Big Short

I've now heard  from people at three different law schools that total applications during this admissions cycle are likely to be down significantly relative to last year.  Let's put these numbers in perspective:

Total applicants, 2003-2004 cycle:  98,700

Total first year enrollment: 48,239

Percentage of ABA law school applicants who ended up enrolling in that cycle:  48.9%

Total applicants, 2011-2012 cycle:  68,000

Total first year enrollment:  48,697

Percentage of applicants who ended up enrolling last cycle:  71.6%

I'm not normally a big fan of predictions, but I'm going to make one: We're about to see the Crash.  This is the spring of 2007 for the subprime CDO market.  This is the moment when the anxiety that replaced denial is in turn replaced by panic.

The Crash will look something like this:

(1) Within the next three months or so, it will become evident to most if not all schools who worry about LSAT medians and the like that the only way not to cut class size again is to just give up on trying to hold class medians.  (Check out the stats for American's entering class for a sneak preview).  Even the T-14 won't be completely immune, but once you get below the GULC Line you're going to see widespread panic.

(2) A lot of law school budgets won't be able to absorb either another reduction in class size, or another reduction in real as opposed to nominal tuition (through attempts to buy matric numbers via "scholarships"), or, especially, any combination of these two strategies, which were so widely employed during the last cycle.  The problem with cutting class size two years in a row is that the effect is cumulative: Now you're not just getting less revenue from your 1L class, you'll be getting less from two-thirds of the school's entire enrollment.  Law schools spend all the money they plan to bring in: there's no rainy day fund.

2012 was the Year of Trying to Hold On.  2013 will be the Year of Real Cuts (to admissions standards, to law school budgets, or both).

(3) Meanwhile in the third tier, where most schools have already abandoned any pretense to any admissions "strategy" other than filling their classes by hook or by crook, somebody is going to go out of business.  Quite a few bad law schools happen to be sitting on very valuable pieces of real estate, that could be re-purposed quite profitably to other uses. Some of these schools aren't affiliated with a central university, which means there's no one to bail them out should their credit lines get cut.  Law schools have no real assets beyond their physical plants (which again can be converted easily to other uses) and their human capital, which at proprietary schools can, unlike Alex Rodriguez's contract, be dumped at any time. If a proprietary school can't meet its bills, can't get more credit, and can't restructure fast enough, it goes out of business then and there.

(4) When the first school goes under, several more will follow in fairly short order.  Then the hard questions will really start getting asked and answered, all over legal academia.

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The identity of one of the key actors in the ongoing Petraeus scandal has been revealed by Michael Schmidt of The New York Times.

The man is Frederick Humphries, a 47-year-old agent who initially took the complaint from Jill Kelley about alleged threatening emails she was receiving. Humphries and Kelley were friends prior to the investigation.

These emails subsequently resulted in an investigation that uncovered an affair between C.I.A. director David Petraeus and his biographer Laura Broadwell, and led to the resignation of Petraeus from the CIA.

The FBI agent involved in the case was alleged to have been taken off the case after sending "shirtless" photos of himself to Kelley. Berger's lawyer, speaking to The NYT, denied the photo was sexual in nature:

“That picture was sent years before Ms. Kelley contacted him about this, and it was sent as part of a larger context of what I would call social relations in which the families would exchange numerous photos of each other.”

Humphries is also alleged to have contacted House Majority Leader Eric Cantor after he felt the investigation was being stalled for political reasons. His lawyer declined to comment on this to The NYT.

Apparently a well-respected counter-terrorism agent, Humphries had made some headlines in the late 1990s. This Seattle Times story shows how his French-language skills helped stop a terrorism attack, and features a couple of pictures:

Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

When John Berglund was growing up around his father's hardware shop in Chicago, it wasn't the power tools and jingling cash register that caught his eye. 

"I always was impressed when men would walk in with a suit and tie," says Berglund, now 57. "At that point, I was chasing the money." 

At one time, he considered a career in chemistry, but by 24, Berglund had traded in the lab coat for a shot in the legal world.

He began as a county prosecutor and spent some time as a lobbyist before carving out a niche representing major trade associations across the country.

For the next two decades, he bounced from one six-figure paycheck to the next.

He was at the top of his game, but it wasn't enough. 

In his upcoming book, "A Beach Less Traveled," Berglund describes the 10-year plan he hatched to ditch his career, wardrobe, and luxury comforts for sand, sweat and life as a small business owner in the Caribbean.  

The turning point

"I always thought it would be fun –– instead of arguing and fighting [at work] –– to be creating something," he tells Business Insider. Fascinated by different fragrances, the idea to launch his own perfume business began to form.

All roads were leading him back to the science lab, where he had abandoned his passion for chemistry so many years before. But this time, he wanted more than just a career change –– he was after a change in scenery as well. 

"We wanted to live and work where people vacationed," he says. He and his wife were nearing retirement and his children were already on their own. Now was their best shot at making it happen.

It was a painstaking process

It took years before Berglund's dream took on any tangible form. Money was mostly to blame.

To shore up their savings account and finance their new venture on his own, Berglund continued clocking into his nine-to-five.

"It made it tougher to leave because the money kept getting better," he says. "We also found creating my formulas for the perfumes was very expensive."

Berglund "dedicated a large fortune" to set up a temporary chemistry lab at home, and it was there that he tutored himself, tinkering with fragrances, devouring books on the subject, and meeting with industry experts around the world whenever he could.

It was painstaking work, and each new fragrance took at least a year to develop, he says.

"But we did have the best smelling trash in the neighborhood."

Their business finally got off the ground

With the creative side of the business slowly underway, Berglund and his wife soon found navigating the business side was no easier. 

"We bought two pieces of property in 2004, one on a corner we'd convert into a business, and another for our home," he says. "We totally remodeled them, and as so often happens, it went over budget significantly."

In fact, they were so far in the red that Berglund was forced to stay in the U.S. for another two years to generate enough income to meet their expenses. Taking out a loan was out of the question. 

"We really wanted to be debt-free and not have to answer to anyone other than ourselves," he explains. In all, they eventually invested $1 million into the business and their move.

"We didn't make the move until we felt we had everything in place."

They weren't completely oblivious to the risk they were taking either. The year was 2007, and the U.S. was spiraling toward a crippling recession. They were lucky to sell their Dallas home before the housing market caved.

"We were almost wondering if this was the right move," he says. "But when we bought property in 2004, we were already committed. Now there’s no turning back."

"All I own are flip-flops now"

They named their new shop "Tijon" after their son, and have been steadily growing their business in the town. The couple's eldest daughter is working on opening a second shop in San Jose this year.

Family and friends have been supportive he says, but occasionally their decision confounds people. Still, there are plenty of perks to write home about. 

"We sleep in until about 7:30 and walk next door to work. We have no commute. The weather is always nice," he says. "My suits are all in storage, and I'll probably never see them again. All I own are flip flops."

See Also: 

• This Couple found their retirement dream on an Argentina vineyard > 

• The 10 best states to retire in >

• This German woman has been living without money for 16 years > 

Please follow Your Money on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »