A November 20 Washington Times article by Jerry Seper repeated accusations in a House Republican report of wrongdoing by Eric Holder, who is reportedly President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general, in the context of President Clinton's 2001 pardon of Marc Rich. In doing so, Seper suggested that Holder had illicitly worked with Rich attorney Jack Quinn to bypass career Justice Department officials and falsely suggested that Holder had written an email telling Quinn that "the 'timing is good' for Mr. Rich's request for a pardon." In fact, Holder did not write the email that Seper cited, and according to testimony by former White House counsel Beth Nolan, pardon applications were directed to the White House because the Justice Department's pardon office stopped handling new applications in the fall of 2000.

Seper reported that "[t]he former prosecutor whom President-elect Barack Obama wants to run the Justice Department bypassed the agency's career lawyers during one of the most controversial final decisions made by President Clinton in January 2001 -- the pardon of billionaire fugitive financier Marc Rich, congressional records show." He later claimed that evidence in a Republican-led House Government Reform Committee's majority report on the pardon "included an email in which Mr. Holder told Mr. Quinn to 'go straight' to the White House and that the 'timing is good' for Mr. Rich's request for a pardon." In fact, the email was not written by Holder. Rather, Quinn sent it on November 18 to several recipients not including Holder.

According to the majority report, the subject line of the email was "eric," and the body of the email said: "spoke to him last evening. he says go straight to wh. also says timing is good. we shd get in soon. will elab when we speak." The majority report said, "assuming the 'eric' referenced [in the email] is Eric Holder, this e-mail contradicts the heart of Holder's defense." While Seper noted that Holder "told lawmakers during the investigation that he thought he had done nothing wrong" and that Government Reform Committee report "was approved by Republicans, led by Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, over the objections of Democrats," Seper did not note that the Minority Views Report -- signed by 14 members of the committee -- stated that it is "unclear that 'eric' even refers to Eric Holder" and that "[a]ssuming the e-mail accurately reflects the words of Mr. Holder, it shows that he advised Mr. Quinn to submit the pardon petition directly to the White House. But this is not proof of wrongdoing." The minority report continued: "As Beth Nolan testified, the Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department had indicated by then the he would not process any more pardon applications, while the President was continuing to accept clemency applications at the White House."

Indeed, according to the Nexis database transcript of a March 1, 2001, Government Reform committee hearing, then-committee ranking member Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) asked Nolan: "Did the pardon attorney's office tell the White House in September or October of 2000 that they couldn't take any more pardon applications and that they weren't going to be able to review them or get the information to the White House?" Nolan responded: "They told us that sometime in the fall, I'm not sure of the exact date."

From the Minority Views Report:

The evidence before the committee also does not prove the majority's accusation that Mr. Holder worked with Mr. Quinn to cut other Justice Department officials out of the pardon review process. In retrospect, it is clear that Mr. Holder should have done more to include other Justice Department officials in the review process. Indeed, Mr. Holder conceded as much during testimony. This mistake in judgment is not evidence of misconduct.

The majority points to a November 18, 2001, email message as proof of a conspiracy between Mr. Holder and Mr. Quinn. The subject line reads "eric." The text of the message reads: "spoke to him last evening. He says go straight to wh. Also says timing is good. We shd get in soon. Will elab when we speak." Neither Mr. Quinn nor Mr. Holder testified about this message, however. Indeed, as the majority itself acknowledges, it is unclear that "eric" even refers to Eric Holder.

Assuming the e-mail accurately reflects the words of Mr. Holder, it shows that he advised Mr. Quinn to submit the pardon petition directly to the White House. But this is not proof of wrongdoing. As Beth Nolan testified, the Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department had indicated by then the he would not process any more pardon applications, while the President was continuing to accept clemency applications at the White House.

Seper also reported that "[t]he House committee concluded in the March 2002 report that Mr. Holder played a significant role in facilitating the pardon, first by recommending Mr. Quinn to Mr. Rich's legal representatives." Indeed, the majority report read: "After numerous failed attempts to have his case settled, Marc Rich hired Jack Quinn to represent him. Quinn was hired after a recommendation from Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder."

Seper did not note that the minority report, however, stated the following of the claim that Holder "recommended" Quinn: "To reach the conclusion that Mr. Holder 'recommended' Mr. Quinn to Mr. [Gershon] Kekst, the majority ascribes great significance to a chance social encounter in late 1998 between Mr. Holder and Mr. Kekst, who had never before met." It continued:

According to Mr. Kekst, he found himself seated next to Mr. Holder at a large corporate event. After Mr. Holder indicated that he "worked at Main Justice," Mr. Kekst recalled asking him general questions about the system of accountability at the Department of Justice and, in particular, to whom U.S. Attorneys were responsible. Mr. Holder apparently responded that they were accountable to him; that was his job. He recalls asking Mr. Holder what a person would do if he believed he was the victim of an overzealous prosecutor. Mr. Kekst said that Mr. Holder suggested hiring a lawyer in Washington, D.C., who knows the process. He recalled that Mr. Holder then spotted Jack Quinn and said words to the effect of, "There is Jack Quinn, someone like that." According to Mr. Kekst, Marc Rich's name never came up in the conversation.

From the House Committee on Government Reform's March 1, 2001, hearings on President Clinton's pardons (from Nexis):

REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA): Did the pardon attorney's office tell the White House in September or October of 2000 that they couldn't take any more pardon applications and that they weren't going to be able to review them or get the information to the White House?

NOLAN: They told us that sometime in the fall, I'm not sure of the exact date.

WAXMAN: And so around the time that the pardon attorney's office at the Justice Department was telling the White House that it would process no more pardon applications, the president was seeking out more applications and there was also an increase in pardon requests. Isn't that right?

NOLAN: Right, there had been in fact a great increase all through the year in applications, so the pardon attorney's office had more applications and hadn't been able to move them in any significant, faster rate.

WAXMAN: In December and January, did you feel overwhelmed by the amount of pardon requests that you were asked to process?

NOLAN: We were really inundated with pardon requests, and, in fact, sometime around Christmas week, I think, I spoke with Mr. Podesta and said, "We have to have a cut off. We can't possibly finish what we have, if more pardon requests come in and..."

WAXMAN: Where were they coming from?

NOLAN: They were coming from everywhere, Mr. Waxman. We had requests from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and both Houses. We had requests from movie stars, newscasters, former presidents, former first ladies. There wasn't anybody -- I refused to go to holiday parties because I couldn't stand being -- nobody wanted to know how I was, thank you very much. They wanted to know about a pardon. So I just didn't go.

WAXMAN: So let me make sure I understand this. The White House was involved in closing up its operations, but still trying to issue new regulations and negotiating a Middle East peace agreement. The president was insisting that you consider as many pardon applications as possible, despite the fact that the Justice Department wouldn't take any more applications after October of 2000, and you were being besieged by members of Congress and others to consider an ever-growing number of pardons. And on top of that, I suspect you weren't even aware of some of the pardon activities. Is that a fair statement of what was going on at the White House?

NOLAN: I think that is a very fair statement. I would add that we were also doing this shortened transition period and trying to work with the incoming administration, so that was another...

WAXMAN: And, Mr. Podesta, is that an accurate statement from your point of view?

JOHN PODESTA (former White House chief of staff): I think that's accurate, yes.

WAXMAN: You were hearing from members of Congress, and I even called you on behalf of a constituent, who I thought deserved consideration for a pardon, Mike Milken, who did not get a pardon.

NOLAN: That's right.

WAXMAN: And I understand you got calls from congressman and senators. Did any of them suggest you not follow the Justice Department Guidelines?

NOLAN: Yes, certainly. Several of them suggested that they knew it was too late, really, to go through the Department of Justice, but they wanted to send the pardon application directly to the White House.

WAXMAN: How many contacts, if you know, did you get from members of Congress, House and Senate?

NOLAN: I don't no, sir. I had probably 30 or 40 phone calls. And I think I took less than half of the calls. I just couldn't possibly respond to all the calls I had.

WAXMAN: Mr. Podesta, do you have any idea of how many calls you...

PODESTA: I would guess it's in the high double or in the triple digits.

WAXMAN: Were there any examples that stand out in your mind of congressman or senators that were asking you to issue pardons and not follow the Justice Department guidelines?

PODESTA: Well, let me clarify one thing. I don't think that members of Congress said, "Please issue a pardon, and, by the way, don't follow the Justice Department guidelines." I think they basically just didn't care whether we followed the Justice Department guidelines.

For example, I think in one particular case in which we did issue a pardon for Mr. Lake, that was done at the end, and I think did not go through the Justice Department. I think both the chairman and the Senate Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the counterpart committee to your committee in the Senate called on his behalf, or at least made their views known on his behalf.

WAXMAN: Senator Hatch?

PODESTA: Senator Hatch and Senator Thompson. I don't think they really cared whether that had gone through the Justice Department guidelines or not.

From the Times article:

The former prosecutor whom President-elect Barack Obama wants to run the Justice Department bypassed the agency's career lawyers during one of the most controversial final decisions made by President Clinton in January 2001 -- the pardon of billionaire fugitive financier Marc Rich, congressional records show.

Eric H. Holder Jr., then the deputy attorney general, worked with former White House Counsel Jack Quinn to ensure that department officials -- particularly federal prosecutors in New York who handled the Rich case -- "did not have the opportunity to express an opinion on the Rich pardon before it was granted," the Republican-led House Government Reform Committee concluded in a 467-page report in 2002.

The committee's evidence included an e-mail in which Mr. Holder told Mr. Quinn to "go straight" to the White House and that the "timing is good" for Mr. Rich's request for a pardon. Normally, pardon requests are reviewed by career prosecutors before a recommendation is forwarded to the White House.

Mr. Quinn responded in a typewritten note to Mr. Holder, just 10 days before Mr. Clinton issued the pardon, "Your saying positive things, I'm told, would make this happen. Thanks for your consideration."

Mr. Holder was not available for comment on Wednesday. But he told lawmakers during the investigation that he thought he had done nothing wrong.

[...]

The House committee, which finished its investigation in 2002, concluded from its interviews and the documents that Mr. Holder helped bypassed the normal procedure for pardons in Mr. Rich's case. The report was approved by Republicans, led by Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, over the objections of Democrats.

"The evidence amassed by the committee indicates that Holder advised Quinn to file the Rich pardon petition with the White House and leave the Justice Department out of the process," the report said.

[...]

The House committee concluded in the March 2002 report that Mr. Holder played a significant role in facilitating the pardon, first by recommending Mr. Quinn to Mr. Rich's legal representatives, and by delivering what it called a favorable opinion of the last-minute pardon to the president from a position of authority.

On the November 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough declared that Minnesota Democrat Al Franken "only needs to steal 130 more votes to win" his Senate race against incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R), which is currently undergoing a recount. Scarborough similarly asserted on November 19, "If Al Franken can steal enough votes in Minnesota, that's get -- that gets Democrats to 59" Senate seats. In neither case did Scarborough offer any evidence of any wrongdoing by Franken or any willingness on Franken's part to do anything wrong to win. As Media Matters for America noted, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) stated as recently as November 16 that "[a]s of this moment, there is no actual evidence of wrongdoing or fraud in the process." Media Matters can find no evidence that Pawlenty has since revised his assessment. According to a November 15 MinneapolisStar-Tribune article, Pawlenty also said "he had complete confidence in the integrity of the recount that will be overseen by the state Canvassing Board" and quoted him stating: "That five-person Canvassing Board ... will run a fair and appropriate process, and they will render a fair and appropriate result."

Scarborough also falsely asserted on the November 21 edition of Morning Joe, "all the votes that were mis -- miscast were all miscast for the same guy, huh?" In fact, during the recount, some votes that were originally counted for Franken have been reassigned to Coleman, and vice versa (precinct by precinct results from the recount can be found here).

Additionally, shortly after Scarborough said Franken can win by "steal[ing]" votes, MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan replied: "Look, you've got a station wagon up in the Iron Range that's hold -- got more of them in there, I'm sure, Joe." Later in the broadcast, Scarborough similarly said, "Buchanan says Al Franken can steal 130 votes easily. He said he can usually hide 130 votes in the back of a station wagon." Buchanan and Scarborough were echoing the widely discredited rumor that 32 absentee ballots from Minneapolis were mishandled in the course of being transported by car, an allegation that has been dismissed by both the Coleman campaign and Pawlenty.

Fritz Knaak, a lawyer for Coleman, reportedly said on November 8, "We were actually told [ballots] had been riding around in [Minneapolis director of elections Cynthia Reichert's] car for several days, which raised all kinds of integrity questions." However, the Associated Press reported that same day that Knaak "said a Minneapolis attorney reassured Coleman's campaign that no one but an elected official had access to the 32 ballots and there was no tampering." On November 10, Knaak reportedly said of the purported incident, "It does not appear that there was any ballot-tampering, and that was our concern." Similarly, Pawlenty -- who also initially forwarded the car-ballot rumor -- said on the November 16 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday that "[t]here's a news report in Minnesota that the ballot-in-the-trunk story has now been retracted, that it wasn't accurate."

From the November 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

ANDREA MITCHELL (guest co-host): And in Minnesota, Republican Senator Norm Coleman's edge over Democrat Al Franken faded somewhat in the second day of a statewide recount. According to the secretary of state in Minnesota, Franken now trails Coleman by just 129 votes out of nearly 3 million cast.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, so, Pat Buchanan, Al Franken only needs to steal 130 more votes to win that thing, and you've got to be thinking, "That's child's play."

BUCHANAN: Look, you've got a station wagon up in the Iron Range that's hold -- got more of them in there, I'm sure, Joe.

MITCHELL: These are the good government guys in Minnesota. They don't work that way, you know --

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, these are the good government guys, but they're -- that all the votes that were mis -- miscast were all miscast for the same guy, huh? And again, Buchanan's thinking, "This is child play. I can steal 130 votes" --

MITCHELL: This is Michael -- now this is -

SCARBOROUGH: -- "by the time I went to get a beer."

MITCHELL: This is Walter Mondale country. These guys are reformers.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, they are, reform -- whatever.

BUCHANAN: I can find those, easy, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, 130's nothing. Nothing, nothing.

[...]

MITCHELL: And in Minnesota, Republican Senator Norm Coleman's edge over Democrat Al Franken faded somewhat in the second day of a statewide recount. According to Minnesota's secretary of state, Franken now trails by only 129 votes out of nearly 3 million cast.

SCARBOROUGH: All right. And Buchanan says Al Franken can steal 130 votes easily. He said he can --

MITCHELL: Out of the Iron Range.

SCARBOROUGH: -- usually hide 130 votes in the back of a station wagon.

In October 2007, while most tech media attention was focused on the OiNK raid, another large site got police attention. TV-Links, which linked to videos on YouTube-like sites was raided and shutdown, with the admin arrested. A year later, we catch up with the ex-admin of TV-Links for the entire story.

When it became apparent that TV-Links.co.uk had been raided by police and the admin arrested, the news was met with some disbelief. TV-Links was a site that linked to videos that were hosted on video sharing sites like YouTube. It carried absolutely no illicit video content of its own.

Nevertheless, following an investigation by UK Trading Standards, the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) and the police, the admin was arrested. At the time, FACT claimed that he was detained due to “offenses relating to the facilitation of copyright infringement on the Internet.” Except there was a problem.

There is no criminal offense of ‘facilitation of copyright infringement’ under English law. There would have been at least a civil offense if TV-Links had hosted the videos themselves, but they did not. Sites like YouTube and Dailymotion did, but the police or anti-piracy groups didn’t go after these giants. Indeed, the police themselves seemed to disagree with FACT’s reasoning for the raid, saying that the admin had been arrested for “supplying property with a registered trade mark without permission.”

…which raised another problem. The Trade Marks Act 1994 (specifically section 92) was designed to deal with physical, real-world counterfeit goods. Supplying links, if anything, could only be considered a service - definitely not a sale of physical goods. Getting a conviction on these grounds would be tricky, if not impossible. Considering the problems highlighted above, it’s no surprise that the TV-Links case has disappeared from the news radar.

TorrentFreak tracked down the now ex-admin of the site, 26 year-old Dave Rock, for the lowdown on this important case which seems to ask two questions: Can someone be held responsible when 3rd parties merely link to copyright works that are hosted by someone else, and furthermore, does this constitute a criminal offense under an act designed to protect physical goods?

It all starts on the morning of 18th October, just five days before the police raided OiNK. Dave had some unwanted visitors. At 06:20, two police officers, three FACT members, and around five Trading Standards officials descended on Dave’s home. Fortunately for him, in his case the media wasn’t tipped off, so there were no photographers and reporters outside his house. Alan Ellis of OiNK was not so lucky.

“The police and Trading Standards officers were always polite and professional, I wasn’t man handled like you see with the over acting police on the TV,” Dave told us. “I was arrested as soon as I opened the door, not cuffed and was allowed to grab a few bits, like my wallet and phone. They seized my laptop, my old PC and annoyingly, my girlfriends PC too, along with random CDs and four or five old hard drives, ranging between 8GB to 15gb.”

TV-Links Homepage (large)

When we asked Dave what was on the search warrant, he said: “They ticked Video Recording Act 1984 - Section 16A and Trade Marks Act 1994 - Section 93. But, thinking about some of the questions during the interview I got the impression they were looking for DVD copying kit or they hoped to find this type of thing. FACT’s website always boasts about DVD pirate busts.”

The police officers then took Dave to the station where he was questioned. Not by the police, but by people from Trading Standards and FACT, a well known private anti-piracy company-come-lobby group. Quite why a private company is allowed to directly question someone in a criminal case that they may wish to prosecute privately is another question, and one that many people will find unpalatable.

It seemed that both outfits were disappointed, they must have expected more than just hyperlinks. In common with thousands of forums around the world, Dave didn’t know any of the TV-Links staff personally, and obviously didn’t know anything about the users. Almost 75% of the site’s visitors came from China, 10% from the US and next popular was the UK, at just 3.8%. Hardly a threat to Great Britain Ltd, but of course the implication was that Dave was making money. The reality was that he was receiving around $2 to $5 per day in donations from random site users, which he used to cover the server costs.

After six hours, Dave was released - without being charged and with no restrictions. Now, well over a year later, not much has changed. For the last 6 months or so, Dave has had no contact with the police and no contact through his lawyer with FACT or (Gloucester) Trading Standards. In fact, GTS has no further involvement in the case and has deferred to FACT, just in case they want to make a private prosecution. But, everything has gone very quiet.

TorrentFreak asked Dave if it had ever been raised that he was arrested under laws ill-placed to deal with the situation. He told us, “When it comes to law there isn’t really any point arguing after the point, you need to concentrate on identifying [in this case] how FACT will interpret the current law and, if/when this ends up in court, how they will use it to their advantage.”

Until then, it just seems like a waiting game. “I guess you could call it being in limbo, but recently I haven’t given it much thought, I’m just getting on with my life,” Dave told us. “The only thing that’s a little annoying is that FACT still have all the gear seized by GTS, apparently they’ve been given it for “forensic analysis”. Do I hear you cry ‘breach of Data Protection Act‘, for passing private data to a private company? Again this is something we are still looking into.”

So how on earth did TV-Links end up on the radar in the first place? Why was such significance put on the site and why did the response include a raid with so many people in attendance from the police, government trading standards and Hollywood-funded private company FACT?

“One thing I’d like to mention, Gloucester Trading Standards were always polite and professional,” said Dave. “In my eyes they were led up the garden path by FACT. My personal opinion is that Gloucester Trading Standards were lead to believe I was copying and selling DVDs. But, when they entered my home they only found crappy old PC gear, Laptop and no DVDs, and lost all interest - if they were ever interested in the first place.”

Despite the lack of interest and indeed grounds for a conviction, it doesn’t change the fact that TV-Links is gone as a result of the above actions. Why did it even find a place in people’s lives in the first instance? Dave believes it’s down to sheer lack of choice. “TV-Links and other linking sites are only around because the big media companies haven’t supplied the viewing public with any viable alternatives, at least until recently in the UK. The BBC iPlayer is very good, but it’s a shame it’s only 7 days of TV.”

So, with the authorities backing away, what are the chances of TV-Links making a comeback? “Running the site did take up all of my free time, it was good fun running it but I’m happy I now have my evenings and weekends free,” Dave told us. He has no intention of bringing the site back, particularly since a TV-Links.co.uk replacement site popped up many months ago at TV-Links.ws.

Finally, when sites are busted, many people are interested in exactly how the owners were tracked down by the authorities. With TV-Links, the techniques weren’t mysterious at all. They didn’t need to be. The reason why it was so easy is the very reason Dave felt free to run the site in the first place:

“To be honest I didn’t really attempt to hide my ID, as under UK Law linking to another site isn’t illegal, so I didn’t see the need.”

Post from: TorrentFreak

divimg alt="" src="http://hits.guardian.co.uk/b/ss/guardiangu-feeds/1/H.15.1/502?ns=guardianpageName=World+news%3A+Colombia+tailor+offers+bespoke+bullet-proof+jackets+for+millionairesch=World+newsc3=guardian.co.ukc4=Colombia+%28News%29%2CWorld+news%2CFashion%2CDick+Cheney+%28News%29c5=Fashion+and+Beauty%2CNot+commercially+usefulc6=Rory+Carrollc7=2008_11_21c8=1121888c9=articlec10=GUc11=World+newsc12=Colombiac13=c14=h2=GU%2FWorld+news%2FColombia" width="1" height="1" //divpIt is Dick Cheney-inspired couture for anxious toffs: a range of stylish bullet-proof jackets for protection from trigger-happy hunting partners./ppThe jackets are the latest offering from Miguel Caballero, a Colombian tailor who has made a fortune from selling bullet-proof fashion to presidents, oligarchs, celebrities - and now hunters./ppBuckingham Palace has expressed interest in purchasing 52 jackets from the "cazadora extrema" (extreme hunter) range, the company told the Guardian, and a camouflage version will soon go on sale in its branch in Harrods. /pp"This is a new market for us. Dick Cheney has helped raise awareness of accidents," said Carolina Fernandez, a marketing director. /ppThe US vice president shot and injured a friend while quail hunting in Texas in February 2006. Harry Whittington received shotgun pellets to the face, neck and chest./ppFor Caballero's factory in Bogota, Colombia's capital, a new market was born. The company started 17 years ago making protective clothing for politicians and security forces caught up in Colombia's civil war, but now it exports four-fifths of its output./ppIt has opened a branch in Mexico, which is convulsed by drug-related violence, and will soon open another in Guatemala. High profile clients include Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, Spain's Prince Felipe and the Hollywood action star Steven Seagal, who requested a bullet-proof kimono./ppIn July Caballero opened a branch in Harrods, London's flagship store, to cater largely to security-conscious Russian and Arab plutocrats. "We're just starting there and it's going well," he said this week, just back from a visit to London./ppThe protective jackets, blazers and raincoats rely not on Kevlar but overlaps of special synthetic material. The "classic" model weighs 1.5kg and can stop a round from .38 revolver and 9mm pistol. The "platinum" model weighs 2kg and can stop a mini-Uzi and MP5 assault rifle./ppHarrods' displays some Caballero wares near the Beretta concession in the hunting and outdoors section. The rest is in a section visited by appointment only./ppBogota's most famous tailor hopes Prince Harry and other royals will be among his customers. "That would be wonderful publicity."/ppCaballero tests his jackets by cheerfully shooting staff members, reserving special glee for his lawyer, who has been blasted at least four times. /ppHe also shot the Guardian: a .38 at point blank range aimed at the left kidney. It felt like a light tap. The bullet, fished out from the jacket lining, was crumpled. "See? I told you," he beamed. "Nothing to fear."/pdiv style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;"ullia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/colombia"Colombia/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/fashion"Fashion/a/lilia href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/dickcheney"Dick Cheney/a/li/ul/divdiv class="guRssAdvert"a href="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/click.ng/richmedia=yessite=Newscountry=(none)spacedesc=rsssystem=rsstransactionID=1227272530402112113081454945"img src="http://ads.guardian.co.uk/image.ng/richmedia=yessite=Newscountry=(none)spacedesc=rsssystem=rsstransactionID=1227272530402112113081454945" border="0" //a/diva href="http://www.guardian.co.uk"guardian.co.uk/a copy; Guardian News Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our a href="http://users.guardian.co.uk/help/article/0,,933909,00.html"Terms Conditions/a | a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/webfeeds/1,,1309488,00.html"More Feeds/a

Quote: The wife of Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone has filed for divorce, it has been confirmed.

A spokeswoman for Slavica Ecclestone said the announcement had been prompted by media speculation.

This year's Sunday Times Rich List estimated her husband's personal fortune to be in excess of £2bn.

Mrs Ecclestone will be represented by divorce lawyer Liz Vernon, who represented the wife of Arsenal and England footballer Ray Parlour in 2004.

She secured a deal which gave her client a third of her ex-husband's future earnings for four years.

Simon Bethel, a family law specialist with law firm Mills & Reeve, said: "Given Mr and Mrs Ecclestone were reputed to be worth £2.4bn in the 2008 Rich List, this case may see the highest award to a wife in legal history." BBC.

Oh dear Bernie, that's gonna hurt.

The State Bar of Texas received a 2008 Excellence in New Communications Award from the Society for New Communications Research (SNCR). SNCR recognized Texas Bar Circle, an online social and professional network for Texas attorneys and the first network of its kind by a bar association. (PRWeb Nov 21, 2008)

Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/lawyer/social-network/prweb1649434.htm

http://www.autoaccidentlawyercapecod.com #508-775-3158 Call if you have been in a car or auto accident or personal injury on Cape Cod, Hyannis, Falmouth area

Auteur : lowellgiraffes
Tags : auto accident lawyer cape cod motor vehicle attorney hyannis ma
Envoyé : 21 novembre 2008
Note :0.0
Votes :0

The lawyer for the grandparents of a missing Florida toddler quit the job Thursday, saying only the little girl's imprisoned mother knows the truth about what happened.