Cheryl Shuman, The Infamous One and Only :-)

Cannabinoids play an important role in stress-related disorders: Study

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:12:53 PST

Use of cannabinoids (marijuana) could assist in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder patients. This is exposed in a new study carried out at the Learning and Memory Lab in the University of Haifa's Department of Psychology. The study, carried out by research student Eti Ganon-Elazar under the supervision of Dr. Irit Akirav, was published in the prestigious Journal of Neuroscience.

In most cases, the result of experiencing a traumatic event - a car accident or terror attack - is the appearance of medical and psychological symptoms that affect various functions, but which pass. However, some 10%-30% of people who experience a traumatic event develop post-traumatic stress disorder, in which the patient continues to suffer stress symptoms for months and even years after the traumatic event. Symptoms include reawakened trauma, avoidance of anything that could recall the trauma, and psychological and physiological disturbances. One of the problems in the course of treating trauma patients is that a person is frequently exposed to additional stress, which hinders the patient's overcoming the trauma.

The present study, carried out by Dr. Akirav and research student Eti Ganon-Elazar, aimed to examine the efficiency of cannabinoids as a medical treatment for coping with post-traumatic stress. The researchers used a synthetic form of marijuana, which has similar properties to the natural plant, and they chose to use a rat model, which presents similar physiological responses to stress to that of humans.

The first stage of the research examined how long it took for the rats to overcome a traumatic experience, without any intervention. A cell colored white on one side and black on the other was prepared. The rats were placed in the white area, and as soon as they moved over to the black area, which they prefer, they received a light electric shock. Each day they were brought to the cell and placed back in the white area. Immediately following exposure to the traumatic experience, the rats would not move to the black area voluntarily, but a few days later after not receiving further electric shocks in the black area, they learned that it is safe again and moved there without hesitation.

Next, the researchers introduced an element of stress. A second group of rats were placed on a small, elevated platform after receiving the electric shock, which added stress to the traumatic experience. These rats abstained from returning to the black area in the cell for much longer, which shows that the exposure to additional stress does indeed hinder the process of overcoming trauma.

The third stage of the research examined yet another group of rats. These were exposed to the traumatic and additional stress events, but just before being elevated on the platform received an injection of synthetic marijuana in the amygdala area of the brain - a specific area known to be connected to emotive memory. These rats agreed to enter the black area after the same amount of time as the first group - showing that the synthetic marijuana cancelled out the symptoms of stress. Refining the results of this study, the researchers then administered marijuana injections at different points in time on additional groups of rats, and found that regardless of when exactly the injection was administered, it prevented the surfacing of stress symptoms.

Dr. Akirav and Ganon-Elazar also examined hormonal changes in the course of the experiment and found that synthetic marijuana prevents increased release of the stress hormone that the body produces in response to stress.

According to Dr. Akirav, the results of this study show that cannabinoids can play an important role in stress-related disorders. "The results of our research should encourage psychiatric investigation into the use of cannabinoids in post-traumatic stress patients," she concludes.

SOURCE University of Haifa

Cheryl Shuman Social Networking on IPeace

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:42:33 PDT

Find more videos like this on iPeace

Cheryl Shuman Social Networking on IPeace

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:05:52 PDT

Visit iPeace

Proposed L.A. Medical Marijuana Ordinace

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:26:46 PDT

City Attorney Urges for Public's Help in Passing His Medical Marijuana Ordinance

City Attorney Carmen Trutanich wants the City Council to pass the latest proposed ordinance aimed at regulating medical marijuana dispensaries (you can read that ordinance in full, embedded below).

After placing a moratorium on new facilitates over two years ago--it didn't work, around 1,000 have opened since--the City Council was supposed to develop and pass an ordinance. That still hasn't happened and this week a sense of urgency was placed on the issue after an Obama Administration policy was set forth and a Superior Court Judge said enforcing an extended moratorium was illegal.

Trutanich's ordinance includes a tough set of regulations, including banning the sale and manufacture of edible marijuana products. The ordinance would also force dispensaries to install a quality web based closed-circuit security system where tapes must be handed over to police at their request, even without a search warrant, court order or subpoena. Collectives must also turn over all records, such as members' (who most call customers) information and activity, to police without a search warrant, court order or subpoena.

This afternoon, staffer Jane Usher sent an e-mail to neighborhood council members urging them to public hearings about the ordinance:

Marijuana advocates who want to legalize retail sales turn out in force for the City Council hearings on this topic. While it is also common for the hearings to include a handful of chronically ill patients who rightfully deserve access to medicinal marijuana, most speakers appear to be profiteers, with little compassion for patients and much concern for their personal pocketbooks. These profiteers are well organized and are confident that they can ride roughshod over this City. Who is missing from these hearings? Missing are the pot shop customers, ranging in age from 14 to 30, who are not in medical need of marijuana but, rather, are recreational users. More importantly, you are missing. It is critical that you and your neighbors be heard. The downside risk is too great that this City will continue to be the lawless Wild West for unregulated marijuana shops and their attendant crime and social ills.

Usher's full letter and the proposed ordinance are below:

Dear Neighbors --

We are writing to provide you with an update regarding medical marijuana in this City. There is considerable misinformation circulating on this topic. We hope to inform you and to encourage you to share your views in this matter with the City Council. We do not have a City Council hearing date, but will write again once the day and time are known. Our proposed medical marijuana ordinance is attached.

1. What is the law? Both state and federal law ban and criminalize the sale of marijuana. California voters created an exception for the seriously ill in our 1996 Compassionate Use Act. This Act and its implementing state legislation immunize "qualified patients" and their "primary caregivers" from criminal prosecution if their only conduct is the collective cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use to treat specific serious illnesses. The Compassionate Use Act ballot argument stated that the Act would not allow the sale of marijuana. The California Supreme Court has confirmed that this is our law. On Monday, the Obama administration also advised us that the federal government will honor California law.

2. What has happened in Los Angeles? California cities are authorized to write their own local regulations governing access to medical marijuana, consistent with state law. Los Angeles has yet to take this step. As Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Chalfant ruled this week, our temporary rules have expired. Even so, to date, they were not being enforced. In this vacuum, as many as 1,000 marijuana dispensaries have opened in Los Angeles for the commercial sale of marijuana. No one knows the sources for the vast citywide quantity of marijuana, but it is apparently not the result of cultivation by patients and caregivers. Unlike for every other product that we consume or ingest, there is no local, state, or federal agency that oversees the quality, content, and potential threat of chemical or foreign matter contamination. Moreover, the increased crime at and around the pot shops is taxing our police force and our neighborhoods.

3. What is the next step? Los Angeles needs to adopt regulations about where and how true medical marijuana collectives can operate. The City Attorney transmitted this office's draft ordinance to the City Council yesterday. The draft enables collective cultivation for compassionate use, but does not allow the outright sales that Los Angeles is currently experiencing. Once the City adopts a permanent ordinance, we can begin to close shops operating illegally and monitor legitimate collectives that lawfully provide medical marijuana to residents in need.

4. How can you help? Marijuana advocates who want to legalize retail sales turn out in force for the City Council hearings on this topic. While it is also common for the hearings to include a handful of chronically ill patients who rightfully deserve access to medicinal marijuana, most speakers appear to be profiteers, with little compassion for patients and much concern for their personal pocketbooks. These profiteers are well organized and are confident that they can ride roughshod over this City. Who is missing from these hearings? Missing are the pot shop customers, ranging in age from 14 to 30, who are not in medical need of marijuana but, rather, are recreational users. More importantly, you are missing. It is critical that you and your neighbors be heard. The downside risk is too great that this City will continue to be the lawless Wild West for unregulated marijuana shops and their attendant crime and social ills.

Many thanks for reading. Please let the City Council know your views. Please write or email us back with your questions.

Proposed L.A. Medical Marijuana Ordinace -

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13514424/Proposed-LA-Medical-Marijuana-Ordinace

Contact:
Cheryl Shuman
310.717.0897
NORML90210@gmail.com

Poll - LA Voters Oppose Plan to Close Med. Marijuana Dispensaries

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:20:41 PDT

Poll - LA Voters Oppose Plan to Close Med. Marijuana Dispensaries

Limelight-loving L.A. City Atty. Carmen Trutanich has been making headlines and television appearances in recent weeks with his all-out legal assault on medical marijuana dispensaries. Unfortunately for Trutanich, U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder feels that prosecution of medical marijuana patients should be a low priority for law enforcement officials and said so in a memo released Monday. Ouch. Trutanich and L.A. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley got another setback on Monday as well when a circuit judge ruled that the city's moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries was illegally extended. Double ouch.

But what might be the most compelling reason of all for Trutanich and Cooley to back off the cannabis biz is the overwhelming support for medical marijuana of the voters who elected them both in the first place.

As John Hoeffel reports from the L.A. Times local desk, over three-quarters of eligible voters are strongly pro-medical marijuana and would prefer to see the dispensaries regulated and taxed, not forced to close:

The poll, completed Monday and Tuesday, also found that 74% support the state's medical marijuana law, while 54% want to see marijuana legalized, regulated and taxed.

The Marijuana Policy Project, based in Washington, D.C., commissioned the poll by an independent firm, Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, after Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley threatened all dispensaries in the county with prosecution.

--snip--

The poll of 625 voters found that 77% of voters want to regulate dispensaries, while 14% want them closed. Both Democrats (83%-7%) and Republicans (62%-30%) support regulation over prosecution. The Los Angeles City Council is on the verge of adopting regulations after two years of debate and almost 13 years after voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act.

Even with the stated 4% give-or-take margin of error of the Mason-Dixon poll, this is a uniquely compelling report for Trutanich and Cooley to pay close attention to, especially since it will be these very same voters who'll be determining their reelection prospects in the future.

Contact:
Cheryl Shuman
310.717.0897
NORML90210@gmail.com

Los Angeles Medical Marijuana News

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:13:17 PDT

Los Angeles could act on medical pot in early November
A proposal to ban all sales of medical marijuana in the city is unlikely to be taken up next week. Aides to Councilman Smith say he supports it and believes it would force most dispensaries to close.

The Los Angeles City Council moved Thursday to consider a controversial medical marijuana ordinance in early November, as a poll released by a national organization that supports marijuana legalization found that more than three-quarters of voters in the county want dispensaries regulated, not prosecuted and closed.

The council action comes after a Superior Court judge ruled Monday that the city's moratorium on dispensaries had been illegally extended. With the city unable to enforce it, Councilman Greig Smith decided Thursday not to hold a hearing on the proposed ordinance in the Public Safety Committee, but to send it straight to the council.

Council President Eric Garcetti's office indicated it will not come up next week but might the week after.

The measure, which was largely drafted by City Atty. Carmen Trutanich's office, would prohibit sales of medical marijuana. Smith's aides said he supports the provision and believes it would force most dispensaries to close. City officials have no idea how many there are, but estimates range from several hundred to 1,100.

Most dispensaries in the city sell marijuana and pay state sales taxes. Operators, however, say the transactions are donations that are intended to recoup their operating costs.

"I would prefer to stop all sales of medical marijuana in the city, but the ordinance proposed by City Atty. Trutanich comes as close as the law will allow," Garcetti said.

Trutanich and Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley say that most, if not all, dispensaries are operated for profit. Under state law, medical marijuana cannot be cultivated or distributed for profit.

The proposed ordinance would "put the genie back in the bottle and it will add order to this chaos," Trutanich said. He said he had a team of lawyers working on the issue and promised to proceed judiciously.

"You don't see me jumping out and doing legal stuff willy-nilly," he said after a speech at City Hall to members of the Chamber of Commerce.

"We're aware of the public's demand for medical marijuana, and we have to make sure we don't interrupt that, but we have to make sure that the public is also protected."

Medical marijuana advocates say the proposed ordinance is a thinly disguised ban. About 75 rallied Thursday outside City Hall. Supporters carried placards aimed at Trutanich and Cooley, including: "LA is unTru!," "Shame on Nuch" and "Cooley = 100% Lies," a reference to the district attorney's contention that "about 100%" of the dispensaries operate illegally.

Rumors of raids on dispensaries rippled through the crowd, and advocates from the Union of Medical Marijuana Patients said they were exploring whether they could get an injunction to stop Cooley.

The poll, completed Monday and Tuesday, also found that 74% of the county's voters support the state's medical marijuana law, while 54% want to see marijuana legalized, regulated and taxed like alcohol.

The Marijuana Policy Project, based in Washington, D.C., commissioned the poll by an independent firm, Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, after Cooley and Trutanich threatened to prosecute dispensaries.

"I think the take-home message here is voters in L.A. County overwhelmingly support the state's medical marijuana law. They think dispensaries, properly regulated, can be a part of that, and Mr. Cooley's really out of step," said Bruce Mirken, the California-based spokesman for the organization.

The poll of 625 regular voters found that 77% want to regulate dispensaries, while 14% want them closed. Both Democrats (83 vs. 7%) and Republicans (62 vs. 30%) support regulation over prosecution.

Contact:
Cheryl Shuman
310.717.0897
NORML90210@gmail.com

Anthony Pellicano Pleads No Contest Anita Busch Case

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:35:25 PDT

Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano and another man, accused of threatening reporter Anita Busch in 2002 to scare her off a story, pleaded no contest today to making a criminal threat.

Pellicano, 65, and Alexander Proctor, 66, were charged four years ago in the threat on Busch's life. Busch, who was then working for the Los Angeles Times, found a fish with a rose in its mouth on the broken windshield of her car along with a sign reading "Stop," court documents allege.

The windshield was punctured and made to appear like a bullet hole, prosecutors wrote in the complaint against the two men.

In June, both men pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The case against Pellicano and Proctor was put on hold while the closely watched federal trial against Pellicano and his accomplices moved through the courts. At the conclusion of that trial in December, Pellicano was sentenced to 15 years in prison on a long list of federal wiretapping and racketeering charges. Pellicano and Proctor were transferred to state custody for their arraignment.

According the district attorney's office, they were sentenced to the maximum of three years in prison. "The state terms are to be served concurrently with their remaining federal prison sentences, prosecutors said.

President Barack Obama Issues Medical Marijuana Policy

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:49:28 PDT

AP Newsbreak: New medical marijuana policy issued

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.
Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.
The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.
Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries — businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.
Attorney General Eric Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.
A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.
"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."
At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.
In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.
And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.
The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. Attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.
Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama's repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.
Shortly after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.

Contact:
Cheryl Shuman
Executive Director
Beverly Hills
NORML90210 Chapter
Working to Reform Marijuana Law in Beverly Hills
Phone: 310.717.0897
Email: NORML90210@gmail.com

Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier - Cheryl Shuman - IMG_1130

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:19:37 PDT

Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier - Cheryl Shuman - IMG_1130
Originally uploaded by cherylshuman

This is Sadie. She is one of the Soft Coated Wheaten Terriers that I rescued :-) She loves to sleep on her back :-)

Pellicano's Co-Defendants Senticed to Prison

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:15:49 PST

3 of Pellicano's co-defendants sentenced in LA

Posted: 03/03/2009 06:18:54 PM PST

LOS ANGELES—Three of Anthony Pellicano's co-defendants have been sentenced for their roles in the Hollywood private eye's illegal wiretapping scheme.

Former Los Angeles police sergeant Mark Arneson and former telephone technician Rayford Earl Turner were sentenced to 10 years in federal prison Tuesday. Both men were convicted of federal racketeering and racketeering conspiracy counts last May.

Abner Nicherie, one of Pellicano's clients, got 21 months in prison for aiding and abetting a wiretap.

All three have been taken into custody to begin serving their sentences.

Pellicano was sentenced in December to 15 years in prison for digging up dirt for well-heeled clients to use in lawsuits, divorces and business disputes.

Facebook Anyone? Cheryl Shuman Profile

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:38:07 PST

President Barack Obama Inauguration Speech Text Version

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:15:30 PST

OBAMA: My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet (it)."

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

QVC Optician to the Stars Premier with Cheryl Shuman

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:19:57 PST

Watch | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

"E" Entertainment-Cheryl Shuman Optician to the Stars

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:33:31 PST

Internet Defamation Law Blogger FAQ

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:04:15 PST

Bloggers' FAQ - Online Defamation Law

The Bloggers' FAQ on Online Defamation Law provides an overview of defamation (libel) law, including a discussion of the constitutional and statutory privileges that may protect you.
What is defamation?

Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

What are the elements of a defamation claim?

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2. a false statement of fact;
3. that is understood as

a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.

4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

Is truth a defense to defamation claims?

Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

What is a statement of verifiable fact?

A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":

A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.

This California case also rejected a claim that the defendant linked the plaintiffs' names to certain web addresses with objectionable addresses (i.e. www.satan.com), noting "merely linking a plaintiff's name to the word "satan" conveys nothing more than the author's opinion that there is something devilish or evil about the plaintiff."

Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?

Yes. A private figure claiming defamation — your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop — only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.

A public figure must show "actual malice" — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Who is a public figure?

A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures — a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate — someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure — for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.

Examples of public figures:

* A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
* A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
* A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
* Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events

Corporations are not always public figures. They are judged by the same standards as individuals.

What are the rules about reporting on a public proceeding?

In some states, there are legal privileges protecting fair comments about public proceedings. For example, in California you have a right to make "a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other public official proceeding, or (D) of anything said in the course thereof, or (E) of a verified charge or complaint made by any person to a public official, upon which complaint a warrant has been issued." This provision has been applied to posting on an online message board, Colt v. Freedom Communications, Inc., and would likely also be applied to blogs. The California privilege also extends to fair and true reports of public meetings, if the publication of the matter complained of was for the public benefit.

What is a "fair and true report"?

A report is "fair and true" if it captures the substance, gist, or sting of the proceeding. The report need not track verbatim the underlying proceeding, but should not deviate so far as to produce a different effect on the reader.

What if I want to report on a public controversy?

Many jurisdictions recognize a "neutral reportage" privilege, which protects "accurate and disinterested reporting" about potentially libelous accusations arising in public controversies. As one court put it, "The public interest in being fully informed about controversies that often rage around sensitive issues demands that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them."

If I write something defamatory, will a retraction help?

Some jurisdictions have retraction statutes that provide protection from defamation lawsuits if the publisher retracts the allegedly defamatory statement. For example, in California, a plaintiff who fails to demand a retraction of a statement made in a newspaper or radio or television broadcast, or who demands and receives a retraction, is limited to getting "special damages" — the specific monetary losses caused by the libelous speech. While few courts have addressed retraction statutes with regard to online publications, a Georgia court denied punitive damages based on the plaintiff's failure to request a retraction for something posted on an Internet bulletin board. (See Mathis v. Cannon)

If you get a reasonable retraction request, it may help you to comply. The retraction must be "substantially as conspicuous" as the original alleged defamation.

What if I change the person's name?

To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation need not be mentioned by name — the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable. So if you defame the "government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable as the president.

Do blogs have the same constitutional protections as mainstream media?

Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities."

What if I republish another person's statement? (i.e. someone comments on your posts)

Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker — if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation. Recognizing the difficulty this would pose in the online world, Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides a strong protection against liability for Internet "intermediaries" who provide or republish speech by others. See the Section 230 FAQ for more.

The vast weight of authority has held that Section 230 precludes liability for an intermediary's distribution of defamation. While one California court had held that the federal law does not apply to an online distributor's liability in a defamation case, the case, Barrett v. Rosenthal, was overturned by the California Supreme Court (EFF filed an amicus brief in this case)

Can I get insurance to cover defamation claims?

Yes. Many insurance companies are now offering media liability insurance policies designed to cover online libel claims. However, the costs could be steep for small blogs — The minimum annual premium is generally $2,500 for a $1 million limit, with a minimum deductible of $5,000. In addition, the insurer will conduct a review of the publisher, and may insist upon certain standards and qualifications (i.e. procedures to screen inflammatory/offensive content, procedures to "take down" content after complaint). The Online Journalism Review has an extensive guide to libel insurance for online publishers.

Will my homeowner's or renter's insurance policy cover libel lawsuits?

Maybe. Eugene Volokh's the Volokh Conspiracy notes that homeowner's insurance policies, and possibly also some renter's or umbrella insurance policies, generally cover libel lawsuits, though they usually exclude punitive damages and liability related to "business pursuits." (This would generally exclude blogs with any advertising). You should read your insurance policy carefully to see what coverage it may provide.

What's the statute of limitation on libel?

Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. In certain circumstances, such as when the defendant cannot be identified, a plaintiff can have more time to file a claim. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published.

What are some examples of libelous and non-libelous statements?

The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false):

* Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959)
* Calling an attorney a "crook"
* Describing a woman as a call girl
* Accusing a minister of unethical conduct
* Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son

Not-libelous:

* Calling a political foe a "thief" and "liar" in chance encounter (because hyperbole in context)
* Calling a TV show participant a "local loser," "chicken butt" and "big skank"
* Calling someone a "bitch" or a "son of a bitch"
* Changing product code name from "Carl Sagan" to "Butt Head Astronomer"

Since libel is considered in context, do not take these examples to be a hard and fast rule about particular phrases. Generally, the non-libelous examples are hyperbole or opinion, while the libelous statements are stating a defamatory fact.

How do courts look at the context of a statement?

For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog's audience.

Context is critical. For example, it was not libel for ESPN to caption a photo "Evel Knievel proves you're never too old to be a pimp," since it was (in context) "not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably susceptible to such a literal interpretation. Ironically, it was most likely intended as a compliment." However, it would be defamatory to falsely assert "our dad's a pimp" or to accuse your dad of "dabbling in the pimptorial arts." (Real case, but the defendant sons succeeded in a truth defense).

What is "Libel Per Se"?

When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be libelous per se:

A statement that falsely:

* Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
* Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
* Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
* Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.

Of course, context can still matter. If you respond to a post you don't like by beginning "Jane, you ignorant slut," it may imply a want of chastity on Jane's part. But you have a good chance of convincing a court this was mere hyperbole and pop cultural reference, not a false statement of fact.

What is a "false light" claim?

Some states allow people to sue for damages that arise when others place them in a false light. Information presented in a "false light" is portrayed as factual, but creates a false impression about the plaintiff (i.e., a photograph of plaintiffs in an article about sexual abuse, because it creates the impression that the depicted persons are victims of sexual abuse). False light claims are subject to the constitutional protections discussed above.

What is trade libel?

Trade libel is defamation against the goods or services of a company or business. For example, saying that you found a severed finger in you're a particular company's chili (if it isn't true).

Facebook Anyone? Cheryl Shuman Profile

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:52:19 PST

Eyewear Makeovers Optician to the Stars on ABC

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:31:17 PST

Find more videos like this on AS Inner Circle

Christensen, Pellicano Now in Jury's Hands

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:16:46 PST

LAW PRACTICE • Aug. 28, 2008
Christensen, Pellicano Now in Jury's Hands

By Robert Iafolla
Daily Journal Staff Writer
This article appears on Page 2

LOS ANGELES - Jurors in the federal wiretapping conspiracy case against attorney Terry N. Christensen and private eye Anthony Pellicano began deliberations Wednesday. But before a bailiff guided them back to the jury room to elect a foreperson and start discussing the previous 20 days of trial, they heard one last presentation from the prosecution.
In his rebuttal, Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel A. Saunders dismissed Christensen's defense as a combination of "smoke screens, misleading questions, inconsistent defenses, character assassination and rank speculation."
"Don't take my word for it, take theirs," Saunders said before closing out with a series of more than 60 of the most incendiary audio clips taken from the 34 recorded conversations between Christensen and Pellicano that formed the cornerstone of the case against the pair.
Christensen, the managing partner of Christensen, Glaser, Fink, Jacobs, Weil & Shapiro, and Pellicano each face one count of conspiracy and one count of wiretapping for allegedly intercepting the phone calls of Lisa Bonder Kerkorian. At the time, Bonder Kerkorian was embroiled in a bitter child support dispute with a longtime Christensen client, billionaire financier Kirk Kerkorian.
Pellicano was convicted in May of 76 counts related to illegal investigative techniques, including wiretapping.
Saunders delivered his rebuttal Wednesday due to closing arguments running long the previous day. Employing outrage and sarcasm, he attacked what he called the "smorgasbord" of defense theories that Patricia Glaser, Christensen's law partner and lead attorney, offered the jury during her three-hour closing.
Glaser had argued that Pellicano obtained information from traditional investigative sources, and even if he was wiretapping, Christensen did not know about it. She offered the initial conversation between Christensen and Pellicano as proof the sleuth was hired to discover the paternity of Bonder Kerkorian's child, not to wiretap. Saunders called that "perhaps the most misleading" of all the defense theories.
"Yes, defendant Christensen wanted to know information," Saunders said. "But how was defendant Pellicano going to get that? Wiretapping. Information was the ends and wiretapping was the means."
Glaser also asserted Pellicano lied to Christensen and altered the recorded conversations of the pair because he was working for billionaire Steve Bing, who fathered Bonder Kerkorian's daughter and was desperately trying to avoid responsibility for the child.
"They say Pellicano working for Steve Bing was motive to alter the recordings," Saunders said to the jury. "What motive? If they're going to throw something out there, you deserve a rational, coherent explanation."
But in the end, the prosecution's case came back to the recordings. The clips Saunders played to finish his rebuttal were paired with their transcripts projected on a screen so the jury could read along.

L.A. Times Chuck Phillips

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:14:46 PST

8/1/2008
Inmate Whose Innocence Was Touted by Chuck Philips Accuses Philips of Conspiring with Suge Knight to Threaten Him and Suborn Perjury
Filed under: Dog Trainer, General — Patterico @ 12:20 am

In sworn testimony this week, a prison inmate has accused former L.A. Times reporter Chuck Philips of conspiring with Suge Knight to suborn perjury and threaten him. In this post, I have the transcript and excerpts of the testimony in which the inmate makes the accusation.

Philips’s accuser, Waymond Anderson, isn’t just any prison inmate. His past claims have commanded extraordinary attention from the Los Angeles Times, and from Philips in particular. In 2007, Philips wrote a front-page article setting forth evidence suggesting that Anderson is not guilty of murder. Philips has publicly proclaimed his belief in Anderson’s innocence.

And when Anderson accused a plaintiff’s lawyer of bribing him to make up testimony in a civil case against the City of Los Angeles, the newspaper wrote an article worded to suggest that Anderson’s claims might be credible.

Now Anderson is claiming that the bribery story was concocted by the City Attorney and Chuck Philips — the same Chuck Philips who recently was laid off in the wake of a scandal over a retracted story based on phony documents provided by a prison inmate. And, Anderson claims, Philips smuggled threatening messages from Suge Knight into prison to deliver to Anderson.

I wonder if the L.A. Times will continue to tout Waymond Anderson’s credibility, now that he is accusing their former Pulitzer-prize winning reporter of suborning perjury and aiding and abetting threats.

The fascinating details are in the extended entry.

In January 2007, Chuck Philips wrote a Page One article that strongly suggested Waymond Anderson is not guilty of murder. (Full disclosure: my boss prosecuted Anderson. I have not discussed the case with her.)

Philips’s lede was clearly sympathetic to Anderson:

He was an R&B singer who had scored a nationwide hit with “My Girl.” He performed around the country, drove luxury sedans and owned a palatial home in Calabasas.

Then, suddenly, Waymond Anderson was an accused murderer. Police in bulletproof vests surrounded his black Mustang on Jan. 29, 1994, and handcuffed him as his wife and 6-year-old son watched.

Months later, Philips reported that the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has strongly disputed the evidence that Anderson is innocent — and alleged that the documents supporting Anderson’s bid were phony.

Nevertheless, Philips continued to maintain his belief in Anderson’s innocence. In a March 17, 2008 interview with hiphopdx.com, Philips said:

I’ve got a guy that I’m working a story on that’s been in prison for 13 years for something he didn’t do, but if you were to read the reports you would believe he did everything.

chuck-philips.jpg
Above: Chuck Philips believed in Waymond Anderson’s innocence

In addition to publishing an article setting forth evidence of Anderson’s alleged innocence, the Los Angeles Times also devoted an entire article to reporting on a deposition in which Anderson accused a lawyer of bribing him.

Interestingly, Chuck Philips’s January 2007 story advocating Anderson’s innocence never mentioned Anderson’s role as a witness in the lawsuit brought by the estate of Christopher Wallace against the LAPD and the City of Los Angeles. This was an odd omission. For years, Philips had been reporting on the Wallace family lawsuit, in articles that generally reflected hostility to the family’s theory: that corrupt LAPD officers had conspired with rap mogul Suge Knight to kill Wallace.

Indeed, Philips had long maintained a close relationship with Knight that some claimed was more than cozy. One former Death Row bodyguard had testified in a pretrial deposition: “Chuck Philips was frequently at Death Row functions and received payments from Death Row Records.” That witness also implicated Suge Knight and the LAPD in the Wallace murder. Philips later trumpeted the witness’s recantation of that accusation without telling readers that 1) the same witness had accused Philips of receiving payments from Knight; or 2) that the witness had testified that he feared Suge Knight would kill him.

In 2002, Philips famously wrote a widely ridiculed story based on anonymous sources, claiming that Biggie Smalls and Southside Crips were responsible for the murder of Tupac Shakur. The credibility of the story rested largely on the dubious assumption that one of the world’s most famous rappers, an instantly recognizable 300+ pound man named Christopher Wallace, had managed to travel to Las Vegas and deliver the murder weapon to the killers without being recognized by a single living soul — other than anonymous sources who had allegedly spoken with Philips. Philips’s story diverted attention from theories, including one discussed in the book “LAbyrinth” by Randall Sullivan, discussing plausible links between Knight and the Tupac murder.

Philips has a clear history of hostility to the Wallace family’s lawsuit (brought by attorney Perry Sanders), claiming that LAPD officers David Mack and Rafael Perez conspired with Suge Knight to kill Biggie Smalls. For example, Philips once reported that one of the main plaintiffs’ witnesses was an FBI informant. Philips gave the man’s street name and other identifying information. The man was later being beaten by gang members and driven underground.

Also, Philips wrote a story claiming that Amir Muhammad was not a suspect in the murder of Biggie Smalls. This story, which took issue with the theme of an earlier story by reporters Matt Lait and Scott Glover, diverted attention from a possible link (one of many) between Knight and the Biggie Smalls murder.

Before Chuck Philips wrote his story about Anderson’s alibi, Waymond Anderson was on record as supporting the plaintiffs’ theory, having told police that Suge Knight and corrupt LAPD officers Mack and Perez had conspired to kill Christopher Wallace.

After Philips published his article about Anderson’s alibi, that all changed.

In a deposition given in August 2007, Anderson recanted his testimony. He now said that he had lied when he had implicated Suge Knight in Wallace’s murder. He also claimed to have been bribed by lawyers for the Wallace estate.

The L.A. Times played up Waymond Anderson’s new allegations. The paper called Anderson’s recantation a “surprising twist” that created an “unexpected reversal” for the plaintiffs. The paper deemed Anderson’s allegations that the plaintiffs’ lawyer had bribed him to be “some of [Anderson's] most explosive testimony.” The paper further bolstered the credibility of Anderson’s allegation by pointing to a similar accusation by David Mack as “an accusation that has echoes in Anderson’s claim.”

But a federal judge who was fully familiar with the contents of Anderson’s deposition was less impressed by Anderson’s accusations. In an extraordinary order filed on November 13, 2007, Federal District Judge Florence Marie-Cooper wrote that the plaintiffs “provide substantial evidence to prove[] that Mr. Anderson is a liar.”

The L.A. Times has not mentioned this order to its readers.

florence-marie-cooper.jpg
Above: Federal Judge Florence-Marie Cooper

A review of the allegations Anderson made in his deposition reveals the judge’s skepticism about Anderson’s credibility to be a massive understatement. (A full discussion of that deposition will be the subject of a future post.)

Some might say that Anderson’s sudden turnabout was very convenient for the City of Los Angeles — and for Suge Knight. One person who thought so was Perry Sanders, who was quoted in the L.A. Times article about Anderson’s deposition. Sanders accused Anderson of changing his testimony to suit Chuck Philips:

Sanders, a Louisiana lawyer who also has offices in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Anderson’s allegations were “100%, demonstrably false.”

“This is wholesale, made-up-out-of-whole-cloth perjury,” he said in an interview.

Sanders added that Anderson appeared to have been acting at the behest of a Times reporter, Chuck Philips, who has written extensively about Wallace’s death, including articles that raised questions about the theory that LAPD officers were involved.

The Times published an article by Philips earlier this year that cast doubt on Anderson’s conviction in a 1993 arson-murder. Anderson has since filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking his release.

Sanders said Anderson “clearly would like to please Mr. Philips, because he’s singing his song, first, second and third verse and certainly the chorus.”

The article interviewed both Philips and then-editor James O’Shea, who ridiculed the idea that Waymond Anderson might be changing his testimony to suit Philips:

“This guy clearly doesn’t understand what an investigative reporter does for a living,” [Philips] said. “I don’t make up stories, I report them.”

Times Editor James O’Shea said Sanders’ accusations against Philips were “utterly groundless.”

That may be — but now Anderson himself is making the same claim.

This past week, Anderson’s habeas claim has been the subject of a hearing in Department 130 of the Criminal Courts Building downtown. You can read Anderson’s testimony from Wednesday here. The transcript is a matter of public record. I did not receive it from anyone in (or connected with) my office.

I’m not going to be like the L.A. Times and call Anderson’s testimony “explosive” — because, unlike the continually suckered saps at that paper, I tend to be skeptical of inmates’ uncorroborated testimony.

But you’ll see why I find the testimony . . . amusing.

On Wednesday, Anderson himself testified that his claim that he was bribed by Sanders was part of a scheme cooked up by the City Attorney, in cahoots with the Los Angeles Times (specifically Chuck Philips).

THE WITNESS: Recently, I was asked by the — what I was told by the City of Los Angeles if I kept saying that David Mack and Raphael Perez –

THE COURT: You were asked by the City of L.A.?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And what did they ask you to do about David Mack and Rafael Perez?

THE WITNESS: That if I kept saying that David Mack and Rafael Perez was responsible for the murder of Biggie Smalls, I would never get out of jail and –

Anderson goes on to name Don Vincent, a Deputy City Attorney who was not present at his deposition — but who has admitted speaking to Anderson — as the source of these threats. Anderson continues:

THE COURT: Did he tell you on the record during the deposition?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. It was meetings that took place between himself and the Los Angeles Times.

Anderson claims that he spoke with Vincent over the phone from Corcoran State Prison 3-4 months before his deposition.

THE COURT: And he told you that, if you didn’t stop saying that David Mack and Rafael Perez were responsible for the murder of Biggie Smalls, whose correct name is Christopher Wallace –

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: — that you would never get out of prison?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

These extraordinary claims might not grab one’s attention, but for the tremendous weight that the L.A. Times has previously placed on Waymond Anderson’s credibility — thanks to Chuck Philips’s unswerving faith in Anderson. (Philips does like to trust prison inmates — a fact that was ultimately his downfall.)

Anderson goes on to say that Chuck Philips (mistakenly referred to as “John” at one point) brought documents to Anderson at the prison on behalf of the City Attorney, so that Anderson could familiarize himself with the facts of the case in furtherance of a scheme to falsely claim that Perry Sanders had bribed him:

THE COURT: . . . Basically, they gave you all the deposition transcripts they had?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Why did the Times give them to you?

THE WITNESS: They were trying to disqualify Perry Sanders. . . . They were trying to disqualify Perry Sanders from the Christopher Wallace case. . . . it was all a lie, sir.

Anderson also accused Chuck Philips of smuggling messages into prison from Suge Knight, that contain threats to Anderson.

Q. And was this Chuck Phillips, was he an L.A. Times reporter?

A. Yes, sir. He’s been fired.

Q. But he came to visit you in advance of the deposition?

A. Several times. I received threatening letters.

THE COURT: Who did?

THE WITNESS: I did.

Q. (By Mr. Bernstein) From who?

A. Suge.

Q. Suge Knight?

A. Yeah.

Q. Was Suge Knight in prison with you?

A. No.

Q. How did you get these threatening letters?

A. They were brought in by Chuck Phillips [sic].

Q. Chuck Phillips gave you threatening letters that he said were from Suge Knight?

A. They were kites. They call them kites.

Q. Kites. Can you describe that for me.

THE COURT: Was Chuck Phillips in prison?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

THE COURT: Kites are normally written transactions between prisoners, right?

THE WITNESS: Right, but this kite — what Suge sent me was rolled up in paper like a prisoner would do it, and it was smuggled into the Corcoran visiting room. I turned over all the kites to the F.B.I.

Anderson’s testimony is ongoing. And so is this story.

Again, I wouldn’t believe the word of this inmate without hard corroboration — and even then, I’d question the corroboration. The point of this post is not to persuade the reader that Anderson’s claims are credible.

Quite the contrary. The reader should be thinking: why would the L.A. Times ever have listened to this person — and puffed up his claims time and time again — when there was so much evidence to discredit him?

The reason is clear: Chuck Philips.

There is much, much more to come, folks.

What you see here is the tip of the iceberg.

UPDATE: Here is the L.A. Times story, which includes a denial from Philips. I will note that this is the first time that the paper has ever told readers that a judge had previously considered Anderson’s alibi and said that Anderson and those supporting him had tried to “perpetrate an elaborate fraud upon the court.” Philips never told us that!

Will the paper finally begin looking into this reporter’s past? I doubt it.

But I promise you, this is not the last shoe to drop.

Detective Craig Stevens Testifies Against Pellicano

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:13:20 PST

LITIGATION • Apr. 09, 2008
Ex-Cop Says He Gave Pellicano Data

By Robert Iafolla
Daily Journal Staff Writer
This articke appears on Page 2

LOS ANGELES - A former Beverly Hills police officer testified Tuesday that he provided sensitive law enforcement information to notorious private investigator Anthony Pellicano.
Craig Stevens, now a grocery store clerk, said he was paid upwards of $10,000 for making between 75 and 100 inquiries for Pellicano in a police database over a nine-year period. He said he also gave the sleuth police reports and photographs.
In January 2006, Stevens pleaded guilty to seven felony counts. He said he agreed to cooperate with the government in hopes of receiving a lighter sentence.
Pellicano and four co-defendants are in the sixth week of their trial for federal crimes related to an alleged conspiracy to sell confidential information obtained from restricted databases and wiretapped phone calls. Prosecutors allege Pellicano's clients sought the information to discredit rivals and manipulate the justice system.
Prosecutors said they expect to wrap up their case today. Among the last set of witnesses is former Hollywood power broker Michael Ovitz, who reportedly hired Pellicano on several occasions to assist with lawsuits and business disputes.
Over the course of the trial, the prosecution has called a number of witnesses who testified under immunity grants or as part of plea deals. And with varying levels of success, defense attorneys have attempted to impeach those witnesses, often implying they would say whatever they think the prosecution wants them to say.
Perhaps the most effective impeachment of the trial so far occurred Tuesday during defense attorney Chad S. Hummel's cross-examination of Stevens. Hummel played a voice-mail message, which Stevens left for Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel A. Saunders before a plea deal was reached, in which Stevens sounded desperate to cooperate.
"If there's anything I can do to minimize, obviously to help myself, I mean I'm throwing my mercy at your feet," Stevens said on the recorded message. "Anything I can do to help the situation."
But Stevens added he would cooperate "honestly" and maintained he did not know any other law enforcement figures involved with Pellicano.
In court, Stevens said he left the phone message during a time of personal crisis.
"I had hit a low point," he said. "I was an alcoholic for many years, and if I didn't get it off my chest, I would have literally drank myself to death."
Hummel, who represents former Los Angeles police Officer Mark Arneson, also used his cross-examination to compare and contrast his client with Stevens. Prosecutors allege Arneson, in his role as the primary source for law enforcement information, was a member of Pellicano's racketeering enterprise.
Stevens said Pellicano never told him about wiretapping and didn't share information about the investigation targets. Similarly, Hummel claimed in his opening statement that Arneson did not know about Pellicano's investigations or his methods.
And Stevens said the only service he provided Pellicano was the law enforcement information. He always received cash and tried to hide those funds from authorities, he said. Conversely, Arneson did a variety of legitimate work for Pellicano, was always paid in checks and declared that pay as income on his taxes, according to Hummel.
Hummel pointed out that, although Stevens pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and accessing law enforcement databases, he did not plead guilty to racketeering. Hummel has admitted Arneson ran names for Pellicano, but has said that was in exchange for tips on criminals, not as a part of a criminal enterprise.
Former Pellicano Investigative Agency bookkeeper Gaye Palazzo testified under an immunity grant that Pellicano paid Arneson for law enforcement information and defendant Rayford Turner for telephone company information.
Palazzo also told the jury about transcribing intercepted phone calls on Pellicano's instructions. But even though she said she had a six-year on-again, off-again relationship with Turner that was "98 percent physical," she claimed no knowledge of Turner's being involved in wiretapping.
Herbalife co-founder Richard Marconi testified to paying Pellicano $25,000 to perform background investigations on two of the company's executives. Marconi said he did so on the orders of his partner, Mark Hughes, who has since died.
Earlier in the trial, Suzan Hughes told the jury she hired Pellicano to investigate her former husband, the very same Mark Hughes.

Correction
A story on Page 1 of Monday’s paper, “Comedian Testifies to Hiring Pellicano for Extortion Case,” misidentified one of Anthony Pellicano’s four co-defendants. Abner Nicherie is on trial for one count of wiretapping. His brother, Daniel Nicherie, pleaded guilty in 2006 to wiretapping and three charges from an unrelated case. The Daily Journal regrets the error.

Detective Craig Stevens On Pellicano Payroll

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:06:43 PST

Former Cop Testifies in Wiretapping Case

By GREG RISLING – 2 hours ago

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A former Beverly Hills police officer is testifying in a Los Angeles courtroom that he received about $10,000 from indicted private investigator Anthony Pellicano to illegally access criminal databases.

Craig Stevens said Tuesday he began working with Pellicano in the early 1990s after they met through their daughters.

Stevens estimates Pellicano asked him for police reports, criminal histories and driving records up to 100 times.

Pellicano and four other co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to using wiretaps and other tactics to dig up dirt to help clients in disputes.

Stevens is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to two counts of wire fraud and four counts of unauthorized access of protected computers to commit fraud.

Serial Monogamy-Dick Clark, Danny Bonaduce Interview Cheryl Shuman and Dr. Suzanne Lopez Experts on Serial Monogamy for "The Other Half"

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:37:57 PST

Dick Clark, Danny Bonaduce Interview Cheryl Shuman and Dr. Suzanne Lopez Experts on Serial Monogamy for "The Other Half"

This was a really fun talk show to do. As many of you know I've been married twice with an additional nine marriage proposals that I passed on :-). I'm actually quite monogamous, I just can't seem to find that "life long partner"... thus, I've become somewhat of an "expert" in serial monogamy. My philosophy is basically as a successful business woman who is independent, with two grown children, my reasons for desiring a relationship or perhaps another marriage are simply for finding my soul mate, best friend and lover. I have no need to marry to find financial security or a father for my grown children and I certainly don't want any more children. At this point in my life, I'm looking for someone that we have an amazing connection with in every way possible. At the moment, I've launched an international search for the most eligible bachelors and bachelorettes available for our annual star-studded charity event "Celebrity and Most Eligible Singles Charity Auction" in Beverly Hills, California. Oh and by the way, if you pay close attention to the close of the segment, Dick Clark himself, leans over to me and says, " I wish I had known you when I was single. :-)"

QVC Optician to the Stars Premier with Cheryl Shuman

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:40:21 PST

Jay Leno, Host of NBC's Tonight Show with Cheryl Shuman

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:17:59 PDT

Jay Leno, Host of NBC's Tonight Show
With Cheryl Shuman

Jay Leno, Cheryl Shuman, Optician to the Stars, Celebrity Eyewear, Events, Hollywood, Gossip, NBC, Tonight Show

Optician to the Stars Cheryl Shuman Entertainment Tonight

cheryl@cherylshuman.com (Cheryl Shuman) — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:02:09 PST