Sunday, February 26, 2012

News and Events - 27 Feb 2012




24.02.2012 21:26:10

Police uncover 'serious and organised' criminality in ?63m scam to breach European fishing quotas

An inquiry into the UK's largest fishing scandal has uncovered "serious and organised" criminality by Scottish trawlermen and fish processors in an elaborate scam to illegally sell nearly ?63m of undeclared fish.

Three large fish factories and 27 skippers have pleaded guilty to sophisticated and lucrative schemes to breach EU fishing quotas, in what one senior police officer described as "industrial level" deception.

They went to extraordinary lengths to conceal their illegally caught fish, installing underground pipelines, secret weighing machines and extra conveyor belts and computers to allow them to land 170,000 tonnes above their EU quota of mackerel and herring between 2002 and 2005.

The extent of the "black landings" scandal emerged as 17 skippers and one of the three factories were given fines totalling nearly ?1m at the high court in Glasgow on Friday, after admitting repeated breaches of the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures (Scotland Order 2000. Another six skippers pleaded guilty at the same hearing to landing undeclared fish worth nearly ?7m at Lerwick, in the Shetlands, and Peterhead, Aberdeenshire.

Four skippers pleaded guilty in January and a further four in the ring, who can't be named for legal reasons, are still to be prosecuted.

Judge Lord Turnbull, told the 17 skippers sentenced on Friday they were guilty of a "cynical and sophisticated" operation, which brought embarrassment and shameon them and their families. "The motivation was purely financial," he said. "Those who were already making a good living saw this as a way more income could be generated and were prepared to participate in deliberate lies and falsehoods."

Once the illegally caught fish had been sneaked past Government inspectors, it was put on sale in the Lerwick and Peterhead markets, where it was sold to wholesalers and fishmongers as if it had been legally landed, in defiance of strict EU regulations designed to protect Europe's fish stocks from over-fishing.

The Guardian can reveal that the illegally landed fish was sold with the knowledge of the government-funded industry marketing authority Seafish, which took a ?2.58 levy for every tonne of over-quota mackerel and herring. That earned it ?434,000 in fees before the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, now part of Marine Scotland,
raided two factories in September 2005.

The headquarters of Seafish in Edinburgh were
raided by police and documents seized in 2008, but five months later prosecutors decided not to take any further action. It is thought the Crown Office, the Scottish prosecution body, believed there was no evidence that could lead to the agency being accused of involvement in the scam.

With a series of court cases stretching back to 2010, the scandal has implicated more than half the Scottish mackerel and herring fleet active at that time. It is understood that the true value of the illegal landings linked to the factories involved is closer to ?100m, but prosecutors decided to pursue just ?63m of landings.

Prosecutors have also confiscated ?3.1m from 17 skippers who landed catches in Lerwick, and against two of the three firms so far convicted, under proceedings of crime legislation introduced to tackle serious criminal gangs and drugs lords. The largest confiscation order, ?425,9000, was against Hamish Slater, the skipper of the trawler Enterprise from Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire, who admitted landing ?3,980,000 worth of undeclared fish. A number of skippers landed fish worth more than ?2m.

At Shetland Catch in Lerwick, one of Europe's largest fish processors, the company installed a duplicate conveyor belt when its new factory was built, fitting a secret weight-reading device in the loft and a computer in an engineer's workshop "a considerable distance" from the factory floor.

In its processing plant at Peterhead, north of Aberdeen, Fresh Catch installed an underground pipe to divert fish to secret weighing devices, which used remotely operated pneumatic valves. It built a secret storage room, and operated the clandestine machinery from a hut known to workers as the Wendy House, disguised with fake "Danger: high voltage" signs on its door.

A second factory in the town, Alexander Buchan, which has since closed, fitted a secret scale and conveyor belt, which allowed up to 70% of a boat's catch to go undeclared. It printed a guidance manual showing its staff how to handle undeclared landings, and its staff misled trading standards officers about its purpose.

Detective Superintendent Gordon Gibson, of Grampian police, the senior investigating officer in Operation Trawler, said: "Make no bones about it: it was serious, it was organised and it was criminal. The element of preparation involved was significant, given the methods and means that all these individuals went to.

"Was I surprised? Absolutely. I was surprised at the levels they had gone to disguise their criminal conduct."

An industry source admitted: "This wasn't casual or by accident. It was organised, it was systematic, it was deception. No one disagrees with that."

In a further penalty, which is thought to have cost the convicted skippers millions, the European commission cut the quotas soon after the scandal was reported to Brussels by the UK government in 2005, calling it a "quota payback".

Although none of the trawlermen have been banned from fishing, their quotas were cut by more than 116,000 tonnes of mackerel and nearly 47,000 tonnes of herring over a seven-year period. That payback will end next year.

One source with detailed knowledge of the case said this had damaging consequences for skippers and crews involved, as the market value of mackerel and herring since 2005 had been as much as double the price 10 years ago.

The convictions follow a complex, 10-year investigation involving forensic accountants from KPMG, who analysed the paperwork for thousands of landings, a core team of 25 detectives and support staff from Grampian and Northern police, four British sea fishery officers with Marine Scotland, the Home Office Holmes police computer system, money laundering experts with the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, and specialist prosecutors at the Crown Office.

Operation Trawler has brought to an end a practice which was once endemic in the British fishing industry, but has been made extremely difficult by hi-tech monitoring and tracking of every registered trawler at sea, and much tighter controls on landings at processing firms.

The skippers and firms involved have refused to discuss their convictions; Shetland Catch is still facing confiscation proceedings. But sources with detailed knowledge of the scandal have admitted the practice was widespread within the pelagic fishing industry. Lawyers for one of the convicted men, George Anderson, 55, from Whalsay, Shetland, claimed this year that he evaded the controls because he believed that discarding under-sized fish was "repugnant".

"Black landings" are still common practice across the EU, and prosecutions still take place. In Lerwick and Peterhead, some insist that the undeclared landings, which helped many of the skippers and their crews enjoy comparatively luxurious lifestyles, were well-known within the industry and among regulators.

Asked about its knowledge of the illegal landings, Seafish told the Guardian it was legally required to take the levy, and insisted it had tipped off the authorities to the over-quota landings. However, one source said that the issue was discussed in board meetings, "but the Seafish line was that we weren't a fishery protection agency, our job was to take a levy on every tonne landed."

He added: "They were totally aware they were getting a levy on quota and over-quota fish."

The source denied it was serious and organised crime: the skippers involved paid income tax and business taxes alongside the Seafish levy on all their illegal landings, largely because the over-quota fish was sold in the fish markets as if it were legally declared. Fraud charges were dropped by prosecutors at an early stage, he said.

But he added: "There is nobody defending this. It was morally wrong; it was ecologically wrong and sustainably wrong. There is no excuse.

"A lot of the skippers are saying, 'What we did wasn't right; it was wrong. We really want to draw a line under this and move forward.'"

He said the scandal had the effect of transforming Scotland's pelagic fishing industry into one of the most sustainable in the world: after the raids, the mackerel and herring fleet introduced very strict monitoring and quota management. Since 2008, its fisheries have won a prized Marine Stewardship Council eco-label, and are now the largest in Europe with MSC certification.

But the "black landings" scandal is coming back to haunt the industry. It is expected to lose its MSC accreditation later this year after a bitter dispute with the Faroe Islands and Iceland: both countries have claimed much larger mackerel quotas than is sustainable for the north-east Atlantic stocks, in breach of MSC rules. The Faroese in particular believe the over-quota prosecutions puts the Scottish industry's credibility in severe doubt.

"It's not a proud moment for what is a very proud industry," one senior figure conceded.

Richard Lochhead, the Scottish agriculture secretary, said the convicted were guilty of appalling behaviour. "These illegal activities are a stark and shameful reminder of the culture that existed in some sectors of the fishing industry in past years," he said.

"Thankfully, there has been seismic change in the attitude and behaviour of the fishing fleet, which can only be good thing in securing a viable future for the industry."

Dr Mireille Thom, a senior marine policy officer for the conservation group WWF Scotland, said: "Deliberately ignoring quota rules by landing 'black fish' isn't a victimless offence. Such landings not only undermine the conservation of fish stocks and the fortune of the fleets that fish them, they also distort competition by depressing fish prices. In short, they threaten the public good for the benefit of a few."



guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds




26.02.2012 11:49:00

"The transition to new management will hopefully help J&J focus on rectifying its manufacturing problems," said George Sillup, professor of pharmaceutical marketing at St. Joseph's University and a former J&J executive. But, Sillup notes, J&J is a huge operation with $65 billion in revenue, and reputations - good or bad - don't change quickly. "The concern with that is, once you start going wrong, you can't turn the battleship. That is very difficult to recoup."

The challenge is not only in the more well-known consumer divisions. J&J has issues in pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

One example is the antipsychotic drug Risperdal, J&J's third-best-selling prescription medication, which had sales of $1.6 billion in fiscal 2011.

J&J's subsidiary Janssen makes Risperdal. Gorsky, who started as a Janssen sales rep, was leading the company in the early 2000s when problems with the drug first came to light.

In January, the company paid $158 million to settle allegations - first made in Pennsylvania by whistle-blower Allen Jones - that the company illegally promoted Risperdal for unapproved use in children and adolescents, in part by paying Texas Medicaid officials to give it preferential treatment.

Such episodes would run counter to J&J's official credo that says the company's "first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses, and patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services." After mentioning employees and communities, "our final responsibility" is to shareholders.

"After settlement was announced in the Austin courtroom, I had a brief, congenial conversation with J&J's corporate representative," Jones said last week when asked about the CEO change. "I asked him to please go back to his company and fix things - to try to make the J&J Credo mean something again. I sincerely hope that J&J has the same desire and that this is a step in that direction."

The litigation is not over, not by a long shot. J&J said last week in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the company started 2012 with 10,415 lawsuits pending, including 420 involving Risperdal. Besides other state battles, J&J said in the SEC filing, it is negotiating with the federal government to settle civil and criminal allegations of improper marketing. That bill might run beyond $1 billion. Then there are individual suits, 63 of which are being argued by Philadelphia lawyer Stephen Sheller's firm.

In court filings, Sheller has argued - unsuccessfully so far - that evidence of negative clinical data provided by J&J in discovery should be forwarded to the FDA with the idea that Risperdal would be pulled from the market because of negative side effects.

"I hope they've had an epiphany and will do the right thing," Sheller said of paying the plaintiffs, some of whom rely on taxpayer-funded Medicaid to provide health care, including for diabetes and gynecomastia (enlarged breasts in boys , which are some of the possible side effects of Risperdal.

Gorsky got the job in part because he was in charge of J&J's DePuy medical-device unit and was intimately involved in J&J's pending $21.3 billion acquisition of Synthes Inc., another device-maker, with several facilities in Chester County. Before J&J made the largest purchase in its history, Gorsky met several times with Synthes chairman Hansjorg Wyss in 2010 when Wyss was looking to sell his company. At the same time, Synthes was preparing to settle criminal and civil charges involving illegal human testing of one of its products, a bone cement.

DePuy is facing lawsuits over recalled replacement hips. Now, integrating Synthes with DePuy will not be easy, and the device market has been hurt by the recession in the United States and Europe.

J&J's challenges were the subject of a recent article in the online periodical
Knowledge@Wharton from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. The article's title: "Patients Versus Profits at Johnson & Johnson: Has the Company Lost Its Way?"

Gorsky holds an M.B.A. from Wharton.

In the article, a Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics, Thomas Donaldson, gave J&J credit for taking steps to fix manufacturing plants, but said J&J managers were having to juggle a lot of balls.

Permalink |
Leave a comment  »




25.02.2012 0:06:13

Ryan Braun stood alone at a microphone at Milwaukee Brewers spring training camp in Arizona and told Major League Baseball — in defiant but polite terms — what it could do with its drug testing program.

Calling the process "fatally flawed" and having characteristics "opposite of the American judicial system," Braun breathed a public sigh of relief, not only because he won't be suspended for 50 games for testing positive for elevated testosterone, but also because his reputation, he believes, has been restored.

[
Jeff Passan: Braun ruling deals blow to MLB testing
]

"We won because the truth is on my side," Braun said as teammates listened from the stands at the Brewers facility in Phoenix.

The truth is, Braun won because he had the very best legal advice possible, and there's nothing wrong with that — if you can afford it. Per
the Associated Press:

Braun detailed how the urine sample he provided on Oct. 1, the day the Brewers opened the playoffs, was not delivered to Federal Express until Oct. 3. Baseball's drug agreement calls for samples to be delivered to FedEx on the same day they are collected.

And so, on Thursday night,
the arbitrator with a Jedi's name — Shyam Das — ruled in Braun's favor. It's the first time an appeal of this nature at the major-league level has been sustained. And it's pretty simple as to why. No mind tricks were necessary. Perhaps Braun's legal team could have fought the suspension in other ways, but they didn't need to. Braun had MLB dead to rights on the rules.

No matter what the sample collector did with Braun's urine — even if he kept it safe in a special urine-only refrigerator with deadbolt locks and a pee guard dog — it doesn't matter. The rules say he had to express the sample to the testing facility on the same day, and he didn't.

[
Y! Sports Radio: Jeff Passan says Ryan Braun still has much to prove
]

MLB is said to be furious with the ruling — worrying that it puts its entire drug testing program at risk — and is looking into a lawsuit to get Das' ruling set aside or overturned. But if the 48-hour lag time "doesn't matter," then why is it in the agreement that samples must be rushed to the testers in Montreal? Based on its track record in court when it comes to arbitrators rulings, MLB is bound to lose this fight. They might want to, instead, read this part of Braun's statement:

"We're part of a process where you're 100 percent guilty until proven innocent — it's the opposite of the American judicial system. If we're held to that standard, it's only fair that everybody else is held to that exact same standard.

"With what's at stake — this is my livelihood, this is my integrity, this is my character — this is everything in my life being called into question. We need to make sure that we get it right. If you're going to be in a position where you're 100 percent guilty until proven innocent, you can't mess up. And today is about making sure that this doesn't happen to anybody else who has played this game."

Amen. Two or three mens, in fact. Braun also pointed his finger at news media to whom sources inside MLB leaked information that turned public what was supposed to be confidential and private matter.

"Despite the fact there have been many inaccurate, erroneous and completely fabricated stories regarding this issue, I've maintained the confidentiality of this process," Braun said. "There's never been a 'personal medical issue,' I've never had an STD [and] many of the original stories reported by the original network have continued to live on and it's sad that people continue to leak information that's inaccurate."

This part is not up to ESPN to fix. MLB needs to tighten its security, and its own lips, or else this will happen again.

Braun might or might not be innocent. But being not guilty is all he needs to play, and there's no good reason to not enjoy him do so. Unless you're a Cubs fan. Here's Braun's statement in its entirety:


Spring Training has arrived!

Follow Dave on Twitter —


@AnswerDave

and engage


The Stew on Facebook for your fill of Grapefruit and Cactus!

Other popular content on the Yahoo! network:

Fantasy baseball video: Don't draft these guys for your team

Two things Danica Patrick won't say

Y! TV: Jimmy Fallon sings Pearl Jam's 'Jeremy [Lin]'




26.02.2012 22:18:40



iOSAT received approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1982, and is the only full strength tablet for radiation blocking which may legally be sold in the United States. Only iOSAT has passed all FDA tests for purity, quality, safety, and efficacy.

Our price: $8.94
 
Buy it now for $8.94
(List Price: $50.00 Shipping: FREE

Category: Minerals (T4349


Friday, February 24, 2012

News and Events - 25 Feb 2012




24.02.2012 21:26:10

Police uncover 'serious and organised' criminality in ?63m scam to breach European fishing quotas

An inquiry into the UK's largest fishing scandal has uncovered "serious and organised" criminality by Scottish trawlermen and fish processors in an elaborate scam to illegally sell nearly ?63m of undeclared fish.

Three large fish factories and 27 skippers have pleaded guilty to sophisticated and lucrative schemes to breach EU fishing quotas, in what one senior police officer described as "industrial level" deception.

They went to extraordinary lengths to conceal their illegally caught fish, installing underground pipelines, secret weighing machines and extra conveyor belts and computers to allow them to land 170,000 tonnes above their EU quota of mackerel and herring between 2002 and 2005.

The extent of the "black landings" scandal emerged as 17 skippers and one of the three factories were given fines totalling nearly ?1m at the high court in Glasgow on Friday, after admitting repeated breaches of the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures (Scotland Order 2000. Another six skippers pleaded guilty at the same hearing to landing undeclared fish worth nearly ?7m at Lerwick, in the Shetlands, and Peterhead, Aberdeenshire.

Four skippers pleaded guilty in January and a further four in the ring, who can't be named for legal reasons, are still to be prosecuted.

Judge Lord Turnbull, told the 17 skippers sentenced on Friday they were guilty of a "cynical and sophisticated" operation, which brought embarrassment and shameon them and their families. "The motivation was purely financial," he said. "Those who were already making a good living saw this as a way more income could be generated and were prepared to participate in deliberate lies and falsehoods."

Once the illegally caught fish had been sneaked past Government inspectors, it was put on sale in the Lerwick and Peterhead markets, where it was sold to wholesalers and fishmongers as if it had been legally landed, in defiance of strict EU regulations designed to protect Europe's fish stocks from over-fishing.

The Guardian can reveal that the illegally landed fish was sold with the knowledge of the government-funded industry marketing authority Seafish, which took a ?2.58 levy for every tonne of over-quota mackerel and herring. That earned it ?434,000 in fees before the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, now part of Marine Scotland,
raided two factories in September 2005.

The headquarters of Seafish in Edinburgh were
raided by police and documents seized in 2008, but five months later prosecutors decided not to take any further action. It is thought the Crown Office, the Scottish prosecution body, believed there was no evidence that could lead to the agency being accused of involvement in the scam.

With a series of court cases stretching back to 2010, the scandal has implicated more than half the Scottish mackerel and herring fleet active at that time. It is understood that the true value of the illegal landings linked to the factories involved is closer to ?100m, but prosecutors decided to pursue just ?63m of landings.

Prosecutors have also confiscated ?3.1m from 17 skippers who landed catches in Lerwick, and against two of the three firms so far convicted, under proceedings of crime legislation introduced to tackle serious criminal gangs and drugs lords. The largest confiscation order, ?425,9000, was against Hamish Slater, the skipper of the trawler Enterprise from Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire, who admitted landing ?3,980,000 worth of undeclared fish. A number of skippers landed fish worth more than ?2m.

At Shetland Catch in Lerwick, one of Europe's largest fish processors, the company installed a duplicate conveyor belt when its new factory was built, fitting a secret weight-reading device in the loft and a computer in an engineer's workshop "a considerable distance" from the factory floor.

In its processing plant at Peterhead, north of Aberdeen, Fresh Catch installed an underground pipe to divert fish to secret weighing devices, which used remotely operated pneumatic valves. It built a secret storage room, and operated the clandestine machinery from a hut known to workers as the Wendy House, disguised with fake "Danger: high voltage" signs on its door.

A second factory in the town, Alexander Buchan, which has since closed, fitted a secret scale and conveyor belt, which allowed up to 70% of a boat's catch to go undeclared. It printed a guidance manual showing its staff how to handle undeclared landings, and its staff misled trading standards officers about its purpose.

Detective Superintendent Gordon Gibson, of Grampian police, the senior investigating officer in Operation Trawler, said: "Make no bones about it: it was serious, it was organised and it was criminal. The element of preparation involved was significant, given the methods and means that all these individuals went to.

"Was I surprised? Absolutely. I was surprised at the levels they had gone to disguise their criminal conduct."

An industry source admitted: "This wasn't casual or by accident. It was organised, it was systematic, it was deception. No one disagrees with that."

In a further penalty, which is thought to have cost the convicted skippers millions, the European commission cut the quotas soon after the scandal was reported to Brussels by the UK government in 2005, calling it a "quota payback".

Although none of the trawlermen have been banned from fishing, their quotas were cut by more than 116,000 tonnes of mackerel and nearly 47,000 tonnes of herring over a seven-year period. That payback will end next year.

One source with detailed knowledge of the case said this had damaging consequences for skippers and crews involved, as the market value of mackerel and herring since 2005 had been as much as double the price 10 years ago.

The convictions follow a complex, 10-year investigation involving forensic accountants from KPMG, who analysed the paperwork for thousands of landings, a core team of 25 detectives and support staff from Grampian and Northern police, four British sea fishery officers with Marine Scotland, the Home Office Holmes police computer system, money laundering experts with the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, and specialist prosecutors at the Crown Office.

Operation Trawler has brought to an end a practice which was once endemic in the British fishing industry, but has been made extremely difficult by hi-tech monitoring and tracking of every registered trawler at sea, and much tighter controls on landings at processing firms.

The skippers and firms involved have refused to discuss their convictions; Shetland Catch is still facing confiscation proceedings. But sources with detailed knowledge of the scandal have admitted the practice was widespread within the pelagic fishing industry. Lawyers for one of the convicted men, George Anderson, 55, from Whalsay, Shetland, claimed this year that he evaded the controls because he believed that discarding under-sized fish was "repugnant".

"Black landings" are still common practice across the EU, and prosecutions still take place. In Lerwick and Peterhead, some insist that the undeclared landings, which helped many of the skippers and their crews enjoy comparatively luxurious lifestyles, were well-known within the industry and among regulators.

Asked about its knowledge of the illegal landings, Seafish told the Guardian it was legally required to take the levy, and insisted it had tipped off the authorities to the over-quota landings. However, one source said that the issue was discussed in board meetings, "but the Seafish line was that we weren't a fishery protection agency, our job was to take a levy on every tonne landed."

He added: "They were totally aware they were getting a levy on quota and over-quota fish."

The source denied it was serious and organised crime: the skippers involved paid income tax and business taxes alongside the Seafish levy on all their illegal landings, largely because the over-quota fish was sold in the fish markets as if it were legally declared. Fraud charges were dropped by prosecutors at an early stage, he said.

But he added: "There is nobody defending this. It was morally wrong; it was ecologically wrong and sustainably wrong. There is no excuse.

"A lot of the skippers are saying, 'What we did wasn't right; it was wrong. We really want to draw a line under this and move forward.'"

He said the scandal had the effect of transforming Scotland's pelagic fishing industry into one of the most sustainable in the world: after the raids, the mackerel and herring fleet introduced very strict monitoring and quota management. Since 2008, its fisheries have won a prized Marine Stewardship Council eco-label, and are now the largest in Europe with MSC certification.

But the "black landings" scandal is coming back to haunt the industry. It is expected to lose its MSC accreditation later this year after a bitter dispute with the Faroe Islands and Iceland: both countries have claimed much larger mackerel quotas than is sustainable for the north-east Atlantic stocks, in breach of MSC rules. The Faroese in particular believe the over-quota prosecutions puts the Scottish industry's credibility in severe doubt.

"It's not a proud moment for what is a very proud industry," one senior figure conceded.

Richard Lochhead, the Scottish agriculture secretary, said the convicted were guilty of appalling behaviour. "These illegal activities are a stark and shameful reminder of the culture that existed in some sectors of the fishing industry in past years," he said.

"Thankfully, there has been seismic change in the attitude and behaviour of the fishing fleet, which can only be good thing in securing a viable future for the industry."

Dr Mireille Thom, a senior marine policy officer for the conservation group WWF Scotland, said: "Deliberately ignoring quota rules by landing 'black fish' isn't a victimless offence. Such landings not only undermine the conservation of fish stocks and the fortune of the fleets that fish them, they also distort competition by depressing fish prices. In short, they threaten the public good for the benefit of a few."



guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds




23.02.2012 23:43:58

Gildardo Duarte-Nova, 31, and Maria Guerra, 34, both of a North Essex Street address in town, were both charged with multiple second- and third-degree narcotics charges


dover-drugs.JPG


From left, Marie Guerra, 34, and Gildardo Duarte-Nova, 31, who are both accused of illegally importing and distributing prescription drugs.









DOVER — Two residents suspected of illegally importing and then distributing prescription drugs were arrested this week following a three-month joint investigation by local, county, state and federal authorities, the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office said in a press release today.

Gildardo Duarte-Nova, 31, and Maria Guerra, 34, both of a North Essex Street address in town, were both charged with multiple second- and third-degree narcotics charges, including possession and distribution counts.

Detectives seized 2,600 pills and more than $11,000 in cash, the release said. The pills have a street value of more $100,000.

The federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Administration placed detainers on Duarte-Nova and Guerra, both of whom were determined to be in the country illegally, the prosecutor’s office said.

The joint investigation was undertaken by the prosecutor’s office’s intelligence crime task force and its special enforcement unit, Boonton Township police, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration and ICE.

More Morris County news




24.02.2012 23:53:26



iOSAT received approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1982, and is the only full strength tablet for radiation blocking which may legally be sold in the United States. Only iOSAT has passed all FDA tests for purity, quality, safety, and efficacy.

Our price: $8.94
 
Buy it now for $8.94
(List Price: $50.00 Shipping: FREE

Category: Minerals (T4349





24.02.2012 2:43:39



The UA may have to keep the bongs at bay, as a new bill would make medical marijuana on campus illegal, even if it is allowed in the state.

The university already bans medical marijuana on campus in order to receive federal funding under the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 and the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1989. House Bill 2349 would make it illegal for the ban not to exist.

read more

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2012/02/23/Medical-Marijuana-Ban-Hit-Campuses#comments



23.02.2012 23:45:56

Joseph_edwards




New Orleans Police Department- Public Information Office


Criminal Intelligence Center Team Thwarts Murder-for-Hire Scheme

(February 23, 2012 - New Orleans Police, Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s deputies and Louisiana State Troopers- all working collaboratively in the Criminal Intelligence Center (CIC in Jefferson Parish- foiled a robbery and murder-for-hire plot on a New Orleans businessman before it happened, and arrested the alleged mastermind behind it.

Last Monday night, NOPD officers arrested 42-year-old Joseph Edwards and charged him with “Inciting a Felony”. Through investigation, detectives found that Edwards had previously worked for the man he was allegedly plotting to rob and have someone kill.

Several weeks ago, NOPD Detective Steve Williams started developing information about the robbery and murder plan Edwards was hoping to pull off on Mardi Gras day. Physical surveillances and undercover interviews of the targeted businessman’s associates conducted by investigators gave detectives sufficient reason to obtain a search warrant for Edwards’ residence. During the search, detectives found more evidence that indicated Edwards was planning to rob the safe in one of the businessman’s retail stores. It was learned that the store’s safe sometimes contained between $150,000- $200,000. The evidence collected also implicated Edwards as plotting to have the business owner killed.

“This was an impressive investigation by NOPD, JP and Louisiana State Police. These investigators – who all sit under the same roof in the Criminal Intelligence Center- worked long hours together to gather the necessary information to stop this plan before it moved forward”, said Superintendent Ronal Serpas.

“They succeeded in making the arrest not only because of the technology and assets that the CIC provides, but also through good old-fashioned police work. They should all be commended.”

At the time of his arrest, Edwards
was wanted on 2 municipal attachments and had a prior arrest for Criminal Trespassing in New Orleans.

Edwards’ record in Connecticut is more extensive. There, he was arrested for Possession of Burglary Tools, Burglary, Criminal Mischief, Attempted Larceny, Failure to Appear, Evade Responsibility-Property Damage/Injury, Possession of Narcotics, Use of Drug Paraphernalia, Conspiracy Possession of Narcotics, Carrying Pistol Without Permit, Illegal Alteration of a Firearm, Illegal Possession of a Weapon in a Motor Vehicle, Larceny, Evade Injury/Property, Traffic Violation, Injury or Risk of Injury to or Impair Morals of Children and Sexual Assault.

# # #

Contact: Remi Braden


rabraden@nola.gov



Sent by Remi Braden to 1st District News & Info, 2nd District News & Info, 3rd District News & Info, 4th District News & Info, 5th District News & Info, 6th District News & Info, 7th District News & Info, 8th District News & Info, N.O.P.D. Command Desk, N.O.P.D. Crime Prevention, N.O.P.D. Public Information Office, N.O.P.D. Superintendent (e-mail accounts through NOLAReady

... powered by Cooper Notification's Roam Secure Alert Network

--

You received this message because you registered on NOLAReady. To change your alerting preferences go to www.NOLAReady.info/mygroups.php

Tell a friend/co-worker about NOLAReady! Forward this message to them and have them register for this free service at www.NOLAReady.info

Permalink |
Leave a comment  »




info@foodsafetynews.com (News Desk
23.02.2012 12:59:06
The
permanent injunction against a Pennsylvania farmer who was selling raw milk across state lines also imposes a number of conditions on him and his dairy that may have implications for other cases of interstate sales of unpasteurized milk, as well as for the legality of so-called "cow share" and "private buying club" schemes.
But the conditions set by the court may not affect the Lancaster-based farmer. His supporters claim he is shutting down his dairy.
Earlier this month, a federal court granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration a permanent injunction preventing Daniel L. Allgyer and his Rainbow Acres Farm from distributing raw milk and raw milk products across state lines.
U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, a 2004 appointee by President George W.  Bush to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, also ruled that Allgyer's participation in a so-called "private buying club" did not shield him from federal oversight, and that Allgyer's "cow share" agreements were a subterfuge for sales of raw milk.
Members of the private buying club had allegedly purchased "shares" of individual cows and then claimed that their reputed ownership entitled them to raw milk from those cows. 
Allgyer provided the association members who lived outside of Pennsylvania with containers of raw milk, even though federal law prohibits sales of raw milk for human consumption across state lines. Raw milk sales are legal within the state of Pennsylvania.
The court said Allgyer also violated federal law by not providing any labeling on the raw milk containers sold to consumers.
The permanent injunction would require Allgyer to place a statement on his products, invoices and website that he will no longer distribute unpasteurized milk or milk products in interstate commerce. He also would have to keep complete records of each sale, including the name and address of each buyer, the date of sale or distribution, and the amount and type of products sold, and provide a copy of the court's order to all employees and persons who work with him to distribute unpasteurized milk and milk products.
Raw milk products for human consumption (with the exception of certain cheeses aged at least 60 days have been prohibited in interstate commerce since 1987. Prior to that,pasteurization was adopted as a common practice decades to prevent foodborne illness from bacteria such as E.coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Yersinia, Brucella and the causative organism of tuberculosis. 
A
recent study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention covering a 13-year period determined that raw milk products are 150 times more likely to cause a foodborne illness outbreak than pasteurized milk products. While pasteurization effectively kills bacteria through heating, milk is occasionally contaminated after pasteurization.




michele@informedeating.org (Michele Simon
24.02.2012 12:59:06
You've probably never heard of the Microbiological Data Program (MDP but if you eat fresh produce, you should, because it's currently on President Obama's budgetary chopping block. The MDP is a small ($5 million annually pathogen monitoring program tucked away in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It tests fruits and vegetables for deadly bugs like E. coli, salmonella, and listeria.
While the testing program may be inexpensive, it's critical because no other federal mechanism currently exists to conduct regular testing of fresh produce. (The Food and Drug Administration--which technically has jurisdiction over produce safety--conducts only limited inspections.
To date, the MDP has
tested high-risk produce such as alfalfa sprouts, cilantro, green onions, peppers, tomatoes, spinach, and other leafy greens. Every one of these vegetables has caused a food-borne illness outbreak or recall over the years, some of them lethal thanks in part to an industrialized food system that transports bugs nationwide. You might recall, a shocking
34 people (and counting died from a listeria outbreak last year in cantaloupe in 26 states (yes, melon - also on USDA's tested produce list . That tragedy alone should cause the Obama Administration to rethink this thoughtless budget cut.
It's not like this is some wasteful government program. It's a relatively cheap way to help save lives, so what's going on? Here is how food safety attorney Bill Marler
explains who just might be behind the idea:
The produce industry hates this program as it has found pathogens in domestic and imported samples and FDA has responded to the information and recalled products. The produce industry--via the fruit and vegetable advisory committee--recommended to USDA and Congress that the program be terminated.
The produce industry hates the program? Now we're getting somewhere.


According to this AP
story, lobbyists with the United Fresh Produce Association and other major trade associations "have repeatedly pushed the government in recent years to get rid of the comprehensive testing program, saying it has cost growers millions in produce recalls." (Isn't that the idea--to get tainted food off the market? Instead, industry suggests more private sector testing.
More private sector testing? Like the
third-party "audit" that missed the deadly listeria in the cantaloupe at Jensen's Farms? According to a
Congressional report on the matter released in January, FDA called it "an inherent conflict of interest" for a private auditor to provide safe handling advice in exchange for payment. Moreover, such auditors don't have to adhere to scientific standards, are not regulated by the FDA, and cannot enforce FDA rules.
This is also the same United Fresh Produce Association that
claims to care about food safety but
does not want to pay the fees necessary to fully implement the Food Safety Modernization Act, the new law intended to improve inspection and oversight by the Food and Drug Administration.
According to the
Center for Responsive Politics, the United Fresh Produce Association has spent more than a million dollars a year on lobbying in each of the past three years. Of course only some of that money was spent lobbying on food safety but the trade group must expect a good return on its investment.
For its part, USDA claims the program doesn't belong there but is better suited to FDA, raising once again, the challenges caused by our currently fragmented oversight system and lack of a single, effective food safety agency.
The Food Safety Modernization Act may help fix some of these problems, but we still have to find the funding. Obama's budget also
seeks a 17 percent increase for FDA, but almost all of the new money would come from industry fees, which again, industry is dead set against. Moreover, it's not at all clear that FDA will pick up the slack from USDA's testing of fresh produce.
In sum, Obama is proposing to cut a nominal food safety program that's working fine, while suggesting new funds come from fees that industry will fight. Of course, testing won't solve all problems either. Not with an industrialized food system that consistently externalizes costs in favor of profits. Maybe if we examined how massive consolidation of produce growers, processors, and distributors contributes to these nasty outbreaks in the first place, and considered better prevention through smaller-scale production models, we wouldn't have to haggle over this testing program. But meantime, can't we find somewhere else to cut $5 million that doesn't make our problems even worse?
-----------------------------
Michele Simon, a public health lawyer, recently joined the Center for Food Safety as a Policy Consultant, where she will help CFS expand into issues related to food safety and nutrition. This commentary was first posted Feb. 22, 2012 on the
Center for Food Safety website.  





24.02.2012 20:23:41

LOS ANGELES (AP -- A Los Angeles judge has refused to release Michael Jackson's doctor on bail while he appeals his conviction for involuntary manslaughter in the pop star's death.

Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor rejected Conrad Murray's bid for bail during a hearing Friday. Murray was not present.

Pastor says Murray is a flight risk and would be a danger to society if he tries to practice medicine again.

The judge says he was scared when he heard Murray say during a documentary interview that he thought it was permissible to give the anesthetic propofol in a home setting.

Jackson died of an overdose of the drug in June 2009 while in Murray's care.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

With Michael Jackson's doctor in solitary confinement, his lawyer planned to implore a judge to release him on bail as the appeal of his involuntary manslaughter conviction winds its way through the courts.

Attorney J. Michael Flanagan was to appear Friday to argue a motion he has filed saying that Conrad Murray should be released either on his own recognizance or on bail with an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. Murray is in a Los Angeles County jail,

He submitted a declaration from Valerie G. Wass, the lawyer handling Murray's appeal, who said she will present "at least one argument raising a substantial legal question" which could lead to reversal of Murray's conviction. If he remains jailed, they said, he could serve his entire sentence before the appeal is decided.

Flanagan suggested that the four-year sentence imposed on Murray was excessive.

"It is difficult to understand how a 58-year-old man with no prior record, who was convicted of one count of a crime that does not involve intended consequences or malice could be given an upper term sentence," he wrote in his motion.

Murray actually turned 59 on Sunday.

Prosecutors David Walgren and Deborah Brazil said in their reply motion that Murray was properly sentenced in the star's death and would be a flight risk and a danger to the community if released. They said he practiced "dangerous and experimental medicine" on Jackson leading to his death.

Murray was convicted Nov. 7 of involuntary manslaughter after a trial focusing on use of the anesthetic propofol. Jackson died of an overdose of the drug in June 2009 while in Murray's care.

Murray's four-year jail sentence is the highest penalty that could be imposed for that crime. Under current sentencing guidelines he will probably serve half of that term.

Flanagan has said Murray knows he cannot work as a doctor but would find other employment. He said Murray is extremely sorrowful about Jackson's death.




24.02.2012 21:23:45

Avant-garde publisher who challenged the Lady Chatterley ban

Barney Rosset, who has died aged 89, was the most influential avant-garde publisher of the 20th century. He was also one of the boldest, in his willingness to question the laws governing censorship. His decision, as head of Grove Press, to challenge the ban on DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover in 1959 led to the novel being published legally in the US for the first time, a year before the British edition. Having won the battle, Rosset immediately set about bringing Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer to American bookbuyers. Another trial involved William Burroughs's Naked Lunch.

Among the first authors to be signed by Grove was Samuel Beckett, in 1953. As well as supplying the publisher with novels and plays that would sell in great numbers, Beckett also provided a moral example: "I hope you realise what you are letting yourself in for," he wrote in reply to Rosset's expression of interest. His novels had proved unsaleable, his plays unperformable. All were difficult in ways "which I am not at all disposed to mitigate". The same intransigence emanated from Miller.

Rosset was born in Chicago, the son of a banker whose bequest to his errant son was to prove instrumental in the shaping of modern literature. Having graduated from the University of Chicago, Rosset served in the US Army Signal Corps. Afterwards, using $250,000 of family money, he made a feature film, Strange Victory (1948 , which was a commercial flop.

A more economical investment was Grove Press, which he bought for $3,000 in 1951. For the first two years, he specialised in reprints before moving on to literature in translation. At the same time as bringing Beckett to Grove – named for the firm's original address in Grove Street, Greenwich Village – Rosset signed Jean Genet and Eugene Ionesco. Others whose work appeared under the imprint include the poets Frank O'Hara and LeRoi Jones, the playwright David Mamet and the novelists John Rechy, Alexander Trocchi,
Alain Robbe-Grillet and Marguerite Duras. Together, they formed if not a school, then a trademark that was perfectly matched to the anti-authoritarianism of the epoch.

The brand reflected Rosset's personality. His first publishing venture was a newsletter called Anti-Everything. He said he was attracted to Miller's Tropic books not so much for their literary quality, nor the erotic content, but because they were "anti-American and anti-conformity". Like the French publisher Maurice Girodias, whose Olympia Press was an abundant supplier to Grove (Miller, Beckett, Genet, Trocchi and Burroughs were all first published there , Rosset liked the risque element – sex was anti-conformity, too – but the enduring Grove titles are those that were artistically daring at the same time.

Publishers have always loved a banned book. Rosset stood apart from his peers not only in his willingness to challenge prohibitions, but in being able to fund the action. In his posthumous memoir, The Tender Hour of Twilight, published in early 2012, Rosset's second-in-command, Richard Seaver, wrote: "Everyone knew that Barney was rich, but never knew to what degree." At one stage, he sued his father over the restrictions imposed on his inheritance. "And to the consternation of all," Seaver wrote, "he won."

Seaver joined the firm in 1959 at the time of the Lady Chatterley trial. ("Why not join the fun?" Rosset asked him. In his memoir, he outlined the simple strategy for publishing forbidden books: print them, ask shops to take them (often a vain effort , then wait for the law to call. When readers could get to the books, they sold in huge quantities, but the tolls were expensive. Seaver called the chapter on Lawrence's novel "Lady Chatterley's Lawyers".

Literature was not Rosset's only interest. Grove also published film scripts, and commissioned several of its leading authors to write original screenplays, which were then produced on television. Under this scheme, Beckett wrote Film (1965 , starring Buster Keaton. Duras's Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959 and Robbe-Grillet's Last Year at Marienbad (1961 were cult films that became cult Grove Press paperbacks. The house magazine at Grove Press, Evergreen Review, contained photography, graphics, screen-stills and jazz criticism. Published in the same format as a floppy Grove paperback, it still seems like the essential literary magazine of the time.

Several events at the end of the 60s conspired to bring Grove Press down from its peak. The first was the curse of many successful businesses – overreach. From 20 or so employees in its heyday, Grove was employing 150 by the end of the decade. Having never lost a yearning for the screen, Rosset acquired a cinema and bought films to show in it. The only commercially successful one was I Am Curious (Yellow (1967 , which landed the Grove team in court again, followed by I Am Curious (Blue (1968 , which was neither a hit nor a profitable scandal. At around the same time, the firm moved from its cramped but cosy premises in the Village to a set of plush, custom-built offices. Meanwhile, Grove's early roster of Beats, drop-outs, drug experimenters, sexual outlaws and anarchic playwrights could only gaze upwards and wonder.

Another destabilising force was the changing nature of sexual freedom. Male-directed free love, incorporated in the works of Miller, was being challenged by the imperatives of women's lib. Preoccupied with legal matters and the shapely forms of Grove secretaries, which turn up with amusing frequency in Seaver's memoirs, the firm's leading players had failed to notice. In 1970 Grove was unionised behind the bosses' backs and suffered occupations by radical feminists. The heady world in which art and love joined hands to challenge the status quo was never to be the same.

Rosset retained independence until 1985, when he sold out to George Weidenfeld and Ann Getty, on the understanding that he would remain in charge. He departed within a year. The name now survives as part of the publisher Grove-Atlantic. Later adventures included Blue Moon books, which published a range of erotica (as well as a late work, Stirrings Still, by the ever-loyal Beckett , and an online version of Evergreen Review.

In 1949 Rosset married the abstract-expressionist painter Joan Mitchell, while the pair were resident in Europe. Mitchell wanted to return to the excitement of New York. "She said, 'Who's going to carry my paintings – they're big!' I said, 'I will, but only if you marry me.' Big mistake! She said okay." He complained that her family never accepted him. "To them, I was a Jew. My Irish-Catholic half didn't count." The marriage lasted three years. In 1953 he married Loly Eckert, a sales manager at Grove, and the couple had a son, Peter. Three subsequent marriages produced three more children: a son, Beckett, and two daughters, Tansey and Chantal. Rosset's children and his fifth wife, Astrid Myers, survive him.

• Barney Lee Rosset, publisher, born 28 May 1922; died 21 February 2012



guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds




23.02.2012 20:04:00

Pfizer is facing a lawsuit in the US over congenital birth defects linked to the use of its antidepressant Zoloft (sertraline during pregnancy.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 18 children born with defects, claims that Pfizer failed to adequately warn doctors and patients of the drug’s risks.

As Zoloft is widely prescribed in the US and in Europe (as Lustral for depression and related conditions, the lawsuit has the potential to trigger a widespread legal and sales backlash against the drug.

Zoloft is an SSRI approved by the FDA for treatment of major depressive disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, acute post-traumatic stress disorder, premenstrual dysphoric disorder and social anxiety disorder.

The lawsuit, filed in St. Louis Circuit Court, asserts state law claims against Pfizer of negligence; negligence of pharmacovigilance; strict liability; negligent design; failure to warn; and fraud. Actual and punitive damages are sought.

The plaintiffs claim that Pfizer knew, or should have known, of studies showing that children born to mothers who had taken SSRIs during pregnancy had a greater risk of serious birth defects such as atrial septal defect and multiple holes in the heart.

They further allege that Pfizer knew Zoloft was being prescribed to women of childbearing age but did not adequately warn doctors or the public of the risks.

“Since the 1990s, mounting evidence has shown that SSRIs, including Zoloft, are dangerous for pregnant mothers and their developing babies,” commented lawyer Jeffrey J. Lowe. “Unfortunately, Pfizer hid that information.”

Permalink |
Leave a comment  »




23.02.2012 2:38:00
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has questions about the safety and legality of AeroShot, the inhalable caffeine product released last month. So does the American Academy of Pediatrics.



24.02.2012 12:20:05

LOS ANGELES (AP -- With Michael Jackson's doctor in solitary confinement, his lawyer planned to implore a judge to release him on bail as the appeal of his involuntary manslaughter conviction winds its way through the courts.

Attorney J. Michael Flanagan was to appear Friday to argue a motion he has filed saying that Conrad Murray should be released either on his own recognizance or on bail with an electronic monitoring ankle bracelet. Murray is in a Los Angeles County jail,

He submitted a declaration from Valerie G. Wass, the lawyer handling Murray's appeal, who said she will present "at least one argument raising a substantial legal question" which could lead to reversal of Murray's conviction. If he remains jailed, they said, he could serve his entire sentence before the appeal is decided.

Flanagan suggested that the four-year sentence imposed on Murray was excessive.

"It is difficult to understand how a 58-year-old man with no prior record, who was convicted of one count of a crime that does not involve intended consequences or malice could be given an upper term sentence," he wrote in his motion.

Murray actually turned 59 on Sunday.

Prosecutors David Walgren and Deborah Brazil said in their reply motion that Murray was properly sentenced in the star's death and would be a flight risk and a danger to the community if released. They said he practiced "dangerous and experimental medicine" on Jackson leading to his death.

Murray was convicted Nov. 7 of involuntary manslaughter after a trial focusing on use of the anesthetic propofol. Jackson died of an overdose of the drug in June 2009 while in Murray's care.

Murray's four-year jail sentence is the highest penalty that could be imposed for that crime. Under current sentencing guidelines he will probably serve half of that term.

Flanagan has said Murray knows he cannot work as a doctor but would find other employment. He said Murray is extremely sorrowful about Jackson's death.




24.02.2012 21:31:38

I've been a fan of
Saturday Night Live
for as long as I can remember. There's something about a fresh host and strong cast members that keeps me coming back every week. I know a lot of people have mixed feelings about the show -- some say the quality has declined in current years -- but I don't necessarily agree. I like how some of the cast members get their start on the show and eventually grow into full-fledged comedy stars. I still love past cast members like Will Ferrell, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler -- even Kristen Wiig has grown on me in recent years. Of the current cast, Bill Hader is hands down the best there is. There's nothing that man can't do! From Clint Eastwood to his flawless Alan Alda impression to the fan favourite, Stefon, he's a perfect example of what makes the show so enjoyable to watch.

Maya Rudolph hosted last week and I particularly enjoy the episodes where former cast members return to host. They prove why we loved them before and why we miss them now. It also brings back other former cast members who pop in to show their love and support for the host. Amy Poehler and Justin Timberlake were the two famous extra faces we saw pop up in sketches, both were quite welcome (even if JT was never a formal member, he's been on that show a million times . Amy and Maya reprised their roles as hosts of "Bronx Beat" while Justin and Andy Samberg played two members of their crew. Later, Justin went on to parody (rather accurately recent musical guest
Bon Iver
. But even without them, Maya stood strong on her own and made me laugh.

I really haven't cared for the bands over the last few weeks, I feel
SNL
has gone from the very mainstream (i.e. Kelly Clarkson, Coldplay to recent musical guests such as Sleigh Bells and Karmin that I'd never even heard of, and honestly didn't enjoy very much. That aside, something about this episode in particular caught my attention.

Oftentimes you can find out who the upcoming hosts are through TV websites or online leaks, but when I watched
SNL
this week and saw the promo for Lindsay Lohan hosting and Jack White as the musical guest on March 3, my feelings were mixed. First off, I should say that I love the White Stripes and the Raconteurs, and I think Jack White is brilliant. I'm excited for his solo album and am looking forward to him to be the musical guest. But... Lindsay Lohan? Really?

I had to rewind my PVR to make sure I read it correctly and I honestly thought at first it was a repeat airing from when she hosted previously. But alas, that's not so. My first question is, why? Why for so many reasons? She has no upcoming film projects or TV shows to promote as the hosts usually do. In fact it is widely known she hasn't worked as an actress in quite some time and has numerous, notorious run-ins with the law. She was even
supposed to appear on
The Ellen Degeneres Show
recently and bailed.

I just can't help but feel that SNL and Lorne Michaels are really taking their chances with this one. There are so many variables: she has to actually show up and be willing to work, things she hasn't been known to do as of late -- and what happens to the shows hard working cast members if she decides not to try? Is she still relevant enough in the media to warrant the gig as host? I'd argue not, or at least not for her contributions as an actress.

On a show that is known to parody people with legal/drug issues, are they going to keep quiet on all of her recent troubles? Also, what kind of message is this promoting? It almost feels like they are somehow rewarding her recent bad behavior, I just don't understand the motivation behind it. Maybe Lorne Michaels is hoping people will tune in to see if it's a trainwreck or not? But what if it is? How many chances can a person be given to start over or "make a comeback"? Does anyone think this will be the time for her? Because honestly, I don't.

As I said I'm a rather faithful
SNL
watcher, so I will tune into this episode out of loyalty, excitement for Jack White and a certain amount of curiosity. Will you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cassandra-scrimgeour/lindsay-lohan-snl-host_b_1287844.html#comments