Contract shows the University of Wisconsin will receive payment for faculty members performing abortions for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. In addition, the University of Wisconsin will supply Planned Parenthood with students who will receive "supervision and training" for such services.

Documents reveal the University of Wisconsin may be illegally funding abortion training for medical students at abortion centers.

Section 20.9275 of the Wisconsin law prohibits state and local funding for pregnancy programs, projects or services that: provide abortion services; promote, encourage or counsel in favor of abortion services; or make abortion referrals when not directly and medically necessary to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. “In the case of sexual assault or incest the crime [must have] been reported to the law enforcement authorities,” (2a).

Wisconsin law states: “‘abortion’ means the intentional destruction of the life of an unborn child, and ‘unborn child’ means a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive.”

Using the Freedom of Information act, pro-life organizations, Pro-Life Wisconsin (PLW) and a legal defense organization, Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), have uncovered documents and e-mails that show, since 2007, the University of Wisconsin has spent more than $58,878 paying for abortion training.

In a letter to the Alliance Defense Fund, the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority admits students receive paid “training.”

“Medical residents from the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority [UWHCA] participate in training at the Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin [PPWI] facility in Madison, WI,” writes James Dechene, senior vice president and general counsel for UWHCA.  ”UWHCA continues to pay its residents while they are in training at PPWI.”

In addition to paying their students, PLW and ADF have revealed a signed contract between the University of Wisconsin and Planned Parenthood that shows faculty of the University of Wisconsin are paid by Planned Parenthood to perform abortions.

It appears that the University of Wisconsin have developed a relationship with Planned Parenthood to use their facilities to allow faculty to conduct abortions for training their students.    The University supplies the students and facility and Planned Parenthood pays the University – who in-turn pays the faculty and students for the abortion services.

Dr. Laurel Rice, faculty and chair of Ob/Gyn Dept, UW-Madison School of Medicine, and was listed as one who will provide abortion services said she is looking forward to getting started with the abortions.

“The provision of abortion care is so central to my commitment to health care and leadership in the [University of Wisconsin School of Medicine Ob/Gyn] department, I will personally start to provide abortion care at PPWI’s comprehensive center one day a month beginning November 1, 2008. And I am excited to do so.”

Associate Dean for Administrative Affairs University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, Elizabeth Bolt, revealed her concern in a July 2008 e-mail: “The issue is whether this crosses the line of violating the state statute [Section 20.0275] of  university resources being used to support abortion services. I don’t think it does but sometimes politically, the perception is as important as the reality.”  Bolt adds, “I don’t want this letter to cause the legislature to scrutinize this area more closely or even worse, expand the statute. Right now, I think we’ve found a way to provide this training within the boundaries of the statute and I don’t want to jeopardize that.”

In a November 14, 2008 e-mail to Dr. Laurel Rice, Carl Getto, senior vice president of medical affairs at University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinic, confirms to her that the university has been paying for the rotation of the students, and ensures it will continue.

“UWHC has been paying for the [Planned Parenthood] rotation to date,” says Getto in his e-mail. “We will continue to do so. Please let Planned Parenthood know.”

Pro-Life Wisconsin communications director and University of Wisconsin alumni, Virginia Zignego says she is disgusted by the University of Wisconsin’s support of abortions.

“As a UW graduate, I am appalled that UW’s proud legacy of excellence in sports, music, research and nationally ranked programs is stained with the destruction of innocent human life,” said Virginia Zignego, communications director of Pro-Life Wisconsin. “UW’s blood runs red, indeed.”

Read: Abortion Laws in Wisconsin by the state legislature.

Related posts:

1. Tennessee Planned Parenthood Loses State Funding For Abortions Tennessee legislators unanimously voted to remove state funding for Planned...
2. Arizona’s Abortion Bill Stirs Planned Parenthood Just one day after Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill that puts...
3. Florida Planned Parenthood Will Launch Abortion Services Next Month Planned Parenthood, which lost a lawsuit on Thursday by...

Cease-and-desist letter sent by a Gilbert, Ariz., compliance officer demanding to terminate meeting for religious purposes in a private home.

According to city of Gilbert, Ariz., officials, their zoning ordinance bans churches from meeting, holding Bible studies, or having any other activities in private homes, regardless of their size, nature.

In November 2009, city officials sent a cease-and-desist letter to a pastor and his wife of Oasis of Truth Church ordering them to terminate all religious meetings in their home because such meetings are a violation of the city’s zoning code.  The compliance officer was not responding to a complaint, but rather to signs he came across near Sutherland’s home about the meetings.

In the letter the compliance officer writes:

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sutherland

On 11/23/09, I noticed a number of signs in Riggs Rd, near your house.  They were advertizing church services in a nearby residence. At that time, I followed the signs but failed to identify your house.

From the information on the signs, I discovered from your web site that you are holding religious assemblies at your home which is residential, Single Family (zoned SF-7).

The Town’s Land Development ode, Section 2.103, C (and Table) prohibits the use of single family residential structures for Religious Assemblies, Small Scale.

At this time, this letter will serve as a ten day written notice to quit such use.

I am sure you will have questions regarding this issue and so I invite you to contact me as below.

Yours truly,

Steve Wallace,
Inspector II, Code Compliance

The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal defense organization representing the group, calls the city’s ordinance unprecedented and unconstitutional.

“Christian church groups shouldn’t be singled out for discrimination and banned from meeting in their own homes,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Daniel Blomberg. “The interpretation and enforcement of the town’s code is clearly unconstitutional. It bans 200,000 Gilbert residents from meeting in their private homes for organized religious purposes—an activity encouraged in the Bible, practiced for thousands of years, and protected by the First Amendment.”

Blomberg adds that “the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause prevents the town from stopping the church from holding its meetings on the public sidewalk outside the pastor’s home, yet the town won’t allow him to hold the same meetings just a few feet away in the privacy of his own living room.”

The town contends that, under its zoning code, churches within its borders cannot have any home meetings of any size, including Bible studies, three-person church leadership meetings, and potluck dinners. This ban is defended based upon traffic, parking, and building safety concerns. However, nothing in its zoning code prevents weekly Cub Scouts meetings, Monday Night Football parties with numerous attendees, or large business parties from being held on a regular basis in private homes. In fact, the zoning code explicitly allows some day cares to operate from homes.

As a result, last Wednesday ADF attorneys filed an appeal arguing that:

• The town’s zoning code does not authorize such a broad ban on church meetings in homes;
• The Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause doesn’t permit a ban on church meetings where all other meetings are permitted;
• Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (FERA) protects “Arizona citizens’ right to exercise their religious beliefs free from undue government interference;”
• The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) prevents zoning officials from singling out churches for discriminatory treatment.

Oasis of Truth Church was launched in 2009 and consists of only seven adult members and four children. The members were meeting in different houses on a rotating basis three times per week. Attendance never exceeded more than 10 adults and there was never more than one vehicle parked in the street by the people attending the church meetings. Other cars were parked in the home’s driveway.

In December, the believers stopped gathering in the home. The church currently holds its Sunday meetings at a local school, where it can only meet for one weekly service due to rental costs.

Related posts:

1. County Apologies For Citing Pastor’s In-Home Bible Studies San Diego County officials apologized and agreed Wednesday to rescind...
2. Court Says Library Can’t Ban Meetings It Labels ‘Religious Services’ A U.S. federal judge ruled Friday that county officials can’t...
3. San Diego County Says No More Home-Based Bible Study Group A local pastor must stop hosting bible studies at his...

The announcement confirms rumors that started swirling around last night that the end was near for the firm founded in 1895.  According to the New York Law Journal, the dissolution will affect 62 professionals, including 19 partners, and more than 100 staffers.

The firm issued a statement saying:

It is with a heavy heart that we announce that after more than 100 years in continuous operation, Darby & Darby will begin the process of winding down the firm in anticipation of an orderly dissolution. While we continue to have exceptional clients, from individual inventors to Fortune Global 500 Companies, and remain profitable, many of the factors frequently cited in demise of other firms’ have made a similar impact on us.

Darby has been one of the largest and oldest intellectual property firms in the world.  According to their Web site, they have “long been an important player in pioneering and precedent-setting IP matters.”  Their homepage states: “Our attorneys hold advanced technical degrees and have distinguished academic credentials. We are intellectual property strategists, counseling our clients on how to maximize the value of their patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.”

Darby had recently lost several partners to larger law firms and was unsuccessful in finding a merger partner, said the NYLJ.

Darby & Darby has offices in New York, Seattle, Washington DC, Palm Beach Gardens and Frankfort.

Related posts:

1. Law Firm Dorsey & Whitney Shows 55 Employees the Door Law firm Dorsey & Whitney, in what is apparently the...
2. Former AG John Ashcroft To Start National Law Firm In today’s economy, when the usual news for law firms...
3. WilmerHale To Sack 57 Staffers In another hit to the legal community, WilmerHale is said...

Liberty University School of Law sent two teams to the regional ABA Law Student Division National Appellate Advocacy Competition (NAAC) held in Washington, D.C..

A Liberty University School of Law team placed first at the regional ABA Law Student Division National Appellate Advocacy Competition (NAAC), held in the nation’s capital.

Liberty had 2 teams among the 33 teams representing the 21 law schools from 10 states and the District of Columbia.

The team of Timothy Todd, Ben Walton and Matthew Hegarty was named Regional Champion, beating teams from Wake Forest University, the University of Mississippi, George Mason University and the top-ranked team from Georgetown University. They will advance to represent Liberty at the national competition in Chicago in April.

In addition to the regional championship, Liberty took 3 of the top 4 oralist awards from the tournament. Timothy Todd, Ben Walton and Andrew Connors were dubbed top, second best and fourth best oral advocates in the region, respectively.

Liberty law professor Nancy Kippenhan and Scott Thompson, director of the Center for Lawyering Skills, coached the Liberty teams.

“I have not seen such consistent performances at this level in my years of coaching,” said Thompson. “All four of our oralists delivered top-notch performances that will stack up against the best in the nation.”

Thompson said Liberty was one of only two schools that had both of its teams in the final eight at the tournament.

“Our students were outstanding in every aspect of the competition, and they glorified the Lord in their demeanor and in the use of their gifts and talents that God has given them,” Thompson said.

This is the second year in a row that Liberty has advanced to the ABA’s National Appellate Advocacy Competition.

Related posts:

1. Regent Wins National Negotiation Competition VIRGINIA BEACH, Virg. – The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) of...
2. Liberty University School of Law Announces Bar Pass Rates Liberty University School of Law announced this week a 100 percent pass...
3. Liberty University School of Law Partners with TeenPact Judicial Liberty University School of Law is hosting the TeenPact Judicial...

Constance McMillen, a senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School, was told by the school that she could not arrive at the prom with her girlfriend, a sophomore at the school.  School officials also informed McMillen she would not be allowed to wear a tuxedo to the event.

The school officials decided to cancel the event altogether.  ”Due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events, the Itawamba County School District has decided to not host a prom at Itawamba Agricultural High School this year,” the school board said in a statement.

The ACLU of Mississippi issued a demand letter accusing the school district of violating McMillen’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression and called the move to cancel the event, “shameful and cowardly.”

Kristy Bennett, Legal Director of the ACLU of Mississippi who is representing McMillen, says that school officials are “trying to turn Constance into the villain.”

In the complaint, Constance McMillen v. Itawamba County School District, the ACLU asks “the court to reinstate the prom for all students, charges that the First Amendment guarantees students’ right to bring same-sex dates to school dances, and cites cases holding that other parties’ objections don’t justify censorship.” Interestingly, in other cases, the ACLU argues against this very principle, saying third party objections do in fact justify censorship — at least when it comes to religious expression.

Steve Crampton, vice president of legal affairs at Liberty Counsel, told OneNewsNow the suit is an extreme move.

“There really aren’t that many cases on similar facts,” said Crampton. “Although the ACLU and a lot of the media has presumed they have this constitutional right that’s somehow well-established, I don’t think that’s really the case.”  Crampton notes that “[a] school normally has a right to establish a dress code. They have a right to impose reasonable regulations in an event that the school itself is sponsoring, and they have a right to enforce reasonable regulations and restrictions on conduct.”

Crampton noted that Mississippi has an anti-sodomy statue on the books and thus “the district might be motivated by a desire to prevent the ultimate conduct that is presumptively illegal in this state.”

Mississippi Code SEC. 97-29-59, states: “Every person who shall be convicted of the detestable and abominable crime against nature committed with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not more than ten years.”

Liberty Counsel has helped successfully defend other school districts in suits brought on by the ACLU.  The defense organization has stated they have offered to assist the school district but as of yet have received no response.

In an interview with the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, McMillen claims she is a Christian.  ”Regardless of what you believe, I’m a Christian. Sexual orientation doesn’t make a religion,” defends McMillen.  “Whatever makes her happy, I’m OK with,” said McMillen’s father.

Related posts:

1. Cali. School District Bows To ACLU Settlement Which Mandates “Homophopia” Training The ACLU has convinced a school district in California to...
2. School District Involved In Prayer Case Faces New Battle The Santa Rosa County School District must pay out $196,500...
3. ACLU Threatens School Over 4th Grade Single-Sex Classroom The American Civil Liberties Union is threatening another school, this...

Apple's new tablet computer -- iPad. Yeah, we like how it looks too.

For those looking to be the first in line for Apple’s new iPad, your wait is over.  Apple announced it will start take pre-orders “online at apple.com at 5:30am Pacific time on Friday, March 12.”

The first of Apple’s new tablet computer will be in stores April 3 and only connect to Wi-Fi networks at a cost of $499, $599 or $699, depending on the data storage capacity.

The 3G-equipped iPad’s — units that connect to exclusively AT&T’s 3G cellular network and costs $15 per month for up to 250 megabytes of data usage or $30 per month for an unlimited amount of data — are expected to go on sale in “late April” for $629, $729 or $829.  Apple has not yet disclosed international pricing.

For those not yet familiar with the unit, imagine a massive iPhone or iPod iTouch for Shaq with a bunch more features.

The iPad will operate “almost all” of the 150,000 applications that are currently available for the iPhone and iPod Touch. That means your personal applications, and those legal ones like Documents To Go, Thomson Reuters’ Black’s Law Dictionary, and Court Days, and the new FastCase app, which allows you to take your legal research with you, will be accessible on the larger, super thin, feature-rich iPad.

In addition, to 14 new applications specifically designed for the device, the iPad goes head-to-head with the popular e-book readers such as Amazon’s Kindle and Barnes and Noble’s newly released,Nook.   But the cool thing is that Barnes and Noble said in their blog that they are embracing the iPad.

“Designed specifically for the iPad, our new B&N eReader will give our customers access to more than one million eBooks, magazines and newspapers in the Barnes & Noble eBookstore, as well as the existing content in their Barnes & Noble digital library.”

Related posts:

1. Hey You, Be Careful What You “Tweet” Be careful what you “Tweet” or you may be headed...
2. Court Orders Christian Home-Schooled Child To Government-Run School A New Hampshire 10-year-old home-schooled Christian girl is ordered to...
3. Judge Orders ACORN Gov’t Funding Resumed A New York federal judge said Congress’ move to cut...

“The Pledge is constitutional,”  wrote Judge Carlos Bea for the majority in the 2-1 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel.  Judge Bea said the words “under God” are an appeal to patriotism, not religion. “The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded.”

The panel ruled 3-0 on the national motto printed on the U.S. currency with Bea noting that the Ninth Circuit upheld the use of the motto on coins in 1970.  He said that although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, in a 1989 case the Court cited “In God We Trust” as a “reference to our religious heritage.”

The challenges were filed by Michael Newdow, an atheist who argued that the references to God disrespect his beliefs and are unconstitutional.

In 2002, Newdow challenged the pledge on behalf of his daughter, and the same court agreed, striking down the pledge.

Two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that ruling, saying Newdow did not have legal standing to challenge the pledge because he did not have legal custody of his daughter. Newdow regrouped himself and filed challenges on behalf of parents who do have custody of their children.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a member of the three-judge panel that ruled the words “under God” in the pledge unconstitutional in 2002, dissented from today’s ruling. Reinhardt says that the 1954 law adding “under God” to the pledge was “designed to promote religion and to indoctrinate schoolchildren with a religious belief.”

“The teaching of religious views is the function of the family and the church, not the state and the public school system,” wrote Reinhardt.

So why did Reinhardt join in, making a 3-0 ruling in favor of “In God We Trust” if he feels such a policy is unconstitutional?  Reinhardt explained that although he disagreed, he was compelled to follow the precedent the court had just established in the Pledge case.

Interestingly, on Tuesday, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts discussed the principle and importance of upholding the constitution regardless precedent.

Speaking to law students at the University of Alabama Law School about the history of the Court, the Justice took time to answer several questions by the students.

One student asked, whether the President of the United States or Congress should support and pass legislation they believe may be unconstitutional; referring to the example of  the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 in which former President Bush signed the law despite “reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising.”

“Congress who passes law, if they think it’s unconstitutional, they shouldn’t pass it,” responded the Chief Justice.  “The President who signs it, if he thinks it’s unconstitutional, he shouldn’t sign it. They have the same obligation we [judges] have, and it’s a high obligation; and they should take it more seriously.”

Related posts:

1. Court of Appeals: Display with Ten Commandments Is Constitutional The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor Thursday...
2. Federal Appeals Court Hears Argument On Ten Commandments Display A three-judge panel at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is...
3. Texas Judge Upholds the State Pledge, “Under God”. The phrase ‘under God’ in the Texas Pledge of Allegiance...

District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. was photographed on Capitol Hill during a House task force meeting considering his impeachment. Taken Nov. 18. PHOTO: HARAZ GHANDBARI/AP

Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana was impeached for allegedly taking money and gifts from attorneys before his court and for lying in a bankruptcy filing.

“Judge Porteous is one of a kind and it is time for him to receive his comeuppance,” said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, (R-Wisc.). Sensenbrenner said he has been involved with many House investigations into improper conduct by federal officials but has never seen the “overwhelming and blatant corruption we have before us today.”

The four impeachment articles was approved by a 412-0 vote and three subsequent articles were approved 410-0, 416-0 and 423-0.

“Our investigation found that Judge Porteous participated in a pattern of corrupt conduct for years,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment.

The impeachment articles state:

• As a federal judge Porteous refused to remove himself from a case, even though as a state judge, he had taken money from the law firm that represented the defendant.
• As a state and federal judge, Porteous accepted meals, trips, home repairs and car repairs from a bail bondsman and his sister. In return, while on the state bench, Porteous set and reduced bonds as requested by the couple, and improperly set aside or expunged felony convictions for two of the bondsman’s employees.
• The judge lied in his personal bankruptcy case by using a false name to conceal his identity as a debtor, his assets, his gambling losses, preferential payments to some creditors and new debts while the case was pending.
• Making false statements about his past to both the Senate and to the FBI in order to win confirmation as a federal judge. He falsely responded on a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that he did not know of any unfavorable information that would affect his nomination.

Now a 12-member Senate committee will conduct the trial and recommend whether to remove Porteous from his post. It would take 67 senators voting to convict — a two-thirds Senate vote — to strip Porteous from his lifetime appointment.  If convicted in the Senate, the judge would become the eighth federal judge to be impeached and convicted.

Porteous continues to receive his $174,000 federal judicial salary. He has been banned from hearing cases since September 2008 but will be allowed to resume hearing trials this September, when the ban expires, unless the Senate removes him from office or he resigns.

Related posts:

1. D.C. Council Votes 11-2 To Allow Gay Marriage Washington D.C. council members overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that recognizes gay...
2. ACLU Sues School District Over Moral Traditions An 18-year-old lesbian in Mississippi has filed a lawsuit claiming her high school...
3. Judge Indicted In Soliciting DWI Defendant In Exchange For Sex A Texas Criminal Court-at-Law Judge is accused of soliciting a...

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts address students at the University of Alabama Law School in Tuscaloosa, Ala., March 9, 2010.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts visited the University of Alabama Law School on Tuesday in which he said the President’s rebuke during the State of the Union was “very troubling.”

Justice Roberts addressed students at the law school about the history of the nations highest court and then took time to answer questions from members of the audience.

Responding to a  law student’s question (44:55 in video below), Roberts said anybody was free to criticize the court,  without any qualm,” since they do it enough in their descents — which got laughter from the crowd.  In fact he adds that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.  But his concern was over whether “the setting, the circumstances, and the decorum” is the proper venue to have such criticism.

“The image of having the members of one branch of government, standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering — while the court, according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit their expressionless, I think is very troubling,” the Justice said.   “It does cause you to think whether or not it makes sense for us [members of the Supreme Court] to be there.”

“To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally,” added the Justice, “I’m not sure why we’re there.”

During the Jan. 27 State of the Union address, President Obama used his platform to rebuke the Supreme Court for their 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs FEC that ruled corporations had the same right to free speech as individuals, and thus the government could not stop corporations from spending any amount of money to help their favored candidates.

The White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Thursday that the court isn’t forced to be at the speech – they chose to attend.

“I don’t know why they’d feel uncomfortable, they made the decision” to be at the address, said Gibbs.

“What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections – drowning out the voices of average Americans,” Gibbs said. “The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response.”

Related posts:

1. Chief Justice Roberts Comments on State of the Union Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently addressed students at...
2. Sonia Sotomayor Sworn In As 111th Supreme Court Justice (VIDEO) Sonia Sotomayor, with her left hand on the Bible, took...
3. Justice O’Connor Back On The Bench To Hear Discrimination Case Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor will be sitting...

In a written ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon said ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was punished by Congress without the enactment of administrative processes to decide if money had been handled inappropriately.

Gershon wrote that it was “unmistakable that Congress determined ACORN’s guilt before defunding it.”  She said Congress may investigate ACORN but says they cannot “rely on the negative results of a congressional or executive report as a rationale to impose a broad, punitive funding ban on a specific, named organization.”

ACORN has been accused of voter registration fraud, embezzlement, violating their tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates, and engaging in partisan political activities.

The legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which says it’s dedicated to protecting constitutional rights, welcomed the judge’s decision.

“The judge’s ruling is a complete rebuke to the right wing’s smear tactics that unfortunately Congress fell for,” legal director Bill Quigley said. “This is why we have a system of checks and balances.”

In asking the judge to reconsider her December ruling, the government cited a Dec. 7 report written by former attorney general for Massachusetts, Scott Harshbarger.  The government said the report “reinforces Congress’ purpose in preventing fraud, waste and abuse” by describing ACORN’s long-standing management problems.

The government will consider whether to appeal, spokesman Robert Nardoza said.

Related posts:

1. S.C. Supreme Court Orders Gov to Take $700M in Federal Stimulus Money South Carolina’s Supreme Court sided with state legislators and ordered...
2. ACORN Charged With Voter Registration Fraud LAS VEGAS, Nev, — The AP has reported that  Nevada...
3. Judge Orders Partial Release of Cheney CIA Leak Interview A federal judge ordered the Justice Department on Thursday to...