The New York Times published the adorable back story about this photo—which has been hanging in the West Wing of the White House for more than three years—on Thursday, and it's quickly become the most-emailed article on the Times' website.

In May 2009, the child, Jacob Philadelphia, was visiting the White House with his father, a former Marine who was leaving his 2-year stint working for the National Security Council as part of the White House staff. The father asked to take a family photo with the president. Jacob said he had a question for Obama, who was then in his fifth month in office.

The Times recounts the rest:

"I want to know if my hair is just like yours," he told Mr. Obama, so quietly that the president asked him to speak again.

Jacob did, and Mr. Obama replied, "Why don't you touch it and see for yourself?" He lowered his head, level with Jacob, who hesitated.

"Touch it, dude!" Mr. Obama said.

As Jacob patted the presidential crown, ... [White House photographer Pete] Souza snapped.

"So, what do you think?" Mr. Obama asked.

"Yes, it does feel the same," Jacob said.

As the paper noted, President Obama has largely avoided discussing race during his first term. But the photo "is tangible evidence" that the president "remains a potent symbol for blacks, with a deep reservoir of support."

"As a photographer, you know when you have a unique moment," Souza told the paper. "But I didn't realize the extent to which this one would take on a life of its own. That one became an instant favorite of the staff. I think people are struck by the fact that the president of the United States was willing to bend down and let a little boy feel his head."

WELLS FARGO

"The engine is smoking like a chimney," Norman Rousseau told his wife after working on an RV that was expected to be home for the couple after they were evicted from their house in Newbury Park, Calif.

Those would be the last words Oriane Rousseau heard from her husband, who shot himself May 15, days before the couple were scheduled to be evicted after a long battle over their mortgage held by Wells Fargo.

"I lost my husband and it hurts me like hell," Oriane Rousseau, the wife of Norman, told CBS's Los Angeles affiliate. "I don't want this to happen to anybody. This is horrible. I lost my husband. I lose my pets, I lose my house, I lose my furniture, everything...for nothing."

In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for Wells Fargo, which acquired the Rousseau loan from a lender it bought out, wrote, "Our thoughts are with the friends and family of Mr. Rousseau at this difficult time. The eviction has been postponed and we will continue to work with Mrs. Rousseau. Despite current reports, we tried repeatedly to find affordable options for the family."

The 53-year-old, who battled different ailments, would pick up odd jobs but was struggling financially. His wife, Oriane, was working part-time jobs. The couple's troubles began after they were solicited to refinance their mortgage and became locked into an alleged predatory loan for the home, which they purchased in 2000, according to their attorney Chris Gardas.

The couple alleges there was a dispute with the bank over one payment and say they received harassing calls over the issue.

The couple later began a loan modification process, according to Gardas. "The details of the new loan were misrepresented and the couple became locked into a loan with a higher interest rate and were charged thousands in origination fees," according an amended lawsuit filed by the couple.

Wells Fargo is also one of five big banks that agreed to pay a $25 billion settlement over allegations of mortgage fraud. The bank filed a response to the Rousseau suit, denying the allegations and asking for a dismissal, plus more fees -- this time for the bank's attorneys.

The suit claims the bank told the couple not to make payments during the loan modification process. Then they were denied the modification. And, while facing foreclosure, the couple claims they were not given enough time to make the mortgage current, according to Gardas.

Over the last year, the family has spent thousands on legal fees and consultation, says Gardas.

In the last few months, Rousseau was said to be under incredible stress.

"There were times where I knew there was something off," said Gardas. "He was continuing to look for work and, on the night before, his spirit seemed a whole lot better."

"He located a motor home and he was going to pick it up," he continued. "They were resolved they would live in the motor home and the family wouldn't live on the street. I was supposed to talk to him later that night but I didn't get a call from him. "

Rousseau, who never took off his wedding band, would give his wife the ring while working on the truck to avoid losing it.

The next day, under a blanket, Rousseau shot himself in the head.

BLOGGER'S NOTE

my personal experience with Well Fargo: 

I bought a new townhouse in January 2001.  By September of the same year, interest rates had dropped significantly, and I decided to refinance - not to take out equity, just to lower my  interest rate.  I made the unfortunate decision to use Wells Fargo as my new mortgage holder.

In December of 2001, I received a notice, from the county, saying that my property taxes had not been paid.  I didn't give that a lot attention because I had a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) backed mortgage, and I knew that my mortgage company, Wells Fargo, was responsible for paying the taxes (and insurance) out of the escrow account that had been first established in January 2001 (and that was transferred at the time of my refinance). 

When I got the second notice from the county I called Wells Fargo, and called Wells Fargo,  and called Wells Fargo,  and called Wells Fargo.  Each time I had to talk to someone different.  They put me on interminable hold.  I was told don't worry it's all taken care of. 

Sure enough in March I received notice that the taxes had been paid.  And a few weeks later, I received a letter from Well Fargo indicating that my monthly escrow payment was being increased.  And wouldn't you know - almost to the penny the increase covered the taxes just paid, late fees and penalties.  I was livid.  I repeatedly asked what happened to the $3,000.00 that was in escrow at the time of my settlement.  Wells Fargo claimed that my escrow account was empty.

I contacted FHA and one of their loan officers told me that I was indeed correct.  There had to have been an escrow account and that, "Wells Fargo should have paid the taxes at the time of settlement, or directed the title company to do so."  I called my Congressman.  His office directed me to send a letter, along with all my documentation to the Maryland Office of Consumer Protection.  The Congressman's office would then send a letter on my behalf asking that an investigation be opened and expedited.

In August of 2002, I received a copy of a letter sent by the Maryland State's Attorney to Wells Fargo directing them to cut me a check - within ten days -  for the amount of funds that were in the escrow account in September 2001.  Wells Fargo sent the check.

These people are thieves.  If they can steal from you, they will.   Your life, your family means nothing to them.  If they could find a way to surreptitiously knock you in the head and take your money, they would.  They tried to do that to me.

2,000 people falsely convicted of serious crimes in the United States have been exonerated in the past 23 years

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 2,000 people who were falsely convicted of serious crimes have been exonerated in the United States in the past 23 years, according to a new archive compiled at two universities.

Michael Greene served 27 years for rape, in Texas, before being exonerated by DNA evidence

There is no official record-keeping system for exonerations of convicted criminals in the country, so academics set one up. The new national registry, or database, painstakingly assembled by the University of Michigan Law School and the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law, is the most complete list of exonerations ever compiled.

Larry Fuller, a 32 year old Vietnam veteran sentenced to 50 years in prison, in Texas, - exonerated after serving 25 years

The database compiled and analyzed by the researchers contains information on 873 exonerations for which they have the most detailed evidence. The researchers are aware of nearly 1,200 other exonerations, for which they have less data.

James Waller convicted of rape, in Texas, exonerated by DNA evidence after 24 years in prison.

They found that those 873 exonerated defendants spent a combined total of more than 10,000 years in prison, an average of more than 11 years each. Nine out of 10 of them are men and half are African-American.

Nearly half of the 873 exonerations were homicide cases, including 101 death sentences. Over one-third of the cases were sexual assaults.

DNA evidence led to exoneration in nearly one-third of the 416 homicides and in nearly two-thirds of the 305 sexual assaults.

Cornelius Dupree, convicted in Texas of robbery and rape, exonerated by DNA evidence after serving 30 years in prison.

Researchers estimate the total number of felony convictions in the United States is nearly a million a year.

The overall registry/list begins at the start of 1989. It gives an unprecedented view of the scope of the problem of wrongful convictions in the United States and the figure of more than 2,000 exonerations "is a good start," said Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions.

Juan Rivera, convicted of murder in Illinois, served 20 years in prison before being exonerated

"We know there are many more that we haven't found," added University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross, the editor of the newly opened National Registry of Exonerations.

Lynn DeJac, convicted of murder in the state of NY, exonerated after 13 years in prison

Counties such as San Bernardino in California and Bexar County in Texas are heavily populated, yet seemingly have no exonerations, a circumstance that the academics say cannot possibly be correct.

The registry excludes at least 1,170 additional defendants. Their convictions were thrown out starting in 1995 amid the periodic exposures of 13 major police scandals around the country. In all the cases, police officers fabricated crimes, usually by planting drugs or guns on innocent defendants.

Alan Crotzer convicted of robbery & rape, in Florida - exonerated by DNA freed after 24 years in prison

Regarding the 1,170 additional defendants who were left out of the registry, "we have only sketchy information about most of these cases," the report said. "Some of these group exonerations are well known; most are comparatively obscure. We began to notice them by accident, as a byproduct of searches for individual cases."

James Harden convicted of rape in Illinois, exonerated by DNA evidence after 19 years in prison

In half of the 873 exonerations studied in detail, the most common factor leading to false convictions was perjured testimony or false accusations. Forty-three percent of the cases involved mistaken eyewitness identification, and 24 percent of the cases involved false or misleading forensic evidence.

Ernest Sonnier, convicted of rape in Texas, exonerated by DNA evidence after 23 years in prison

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In two out of three homicides, perjury or false accusation was the most common factor lead

ing to false conviction. In four out of five sexual assaults, mistaken eyewitness identification was the leading cause of false conviction.

Glen Edward Chapman, convicted in NC of murder, exonerated after 15 years on Death Row

 

Seven percent of the exonerations were drug, white-collar and other nonviolent crimes, 5 percent were robberies and 5 percent were other types of violent crimes.

"It used to be that almost all the exonerations we knew about were murder and rape cases. We're finally beginning to see beyond that. This is a sea change," said Gross.

Anthony Graves convicted in Texas of murder, exonerated after 18 years in prison - 12 on The Death Row

Exonerations often take place with no public fanfare and the 106-page report that coincides with the opening of the registry explains why. On TV, an exoneration looks like a singular victory for a criminal defense attorney, "but there's usually someone to blame for the underlying tragedy, often more than one person, and the common culprits include defense lawyers as well as police officers, prosecutors and judges. In many cases, everybody involved has egg on their face," according to the report.

Billy James Smith convicted of rape in Texas, exonerated after serving 20 years in prison

Despite a claim of wrongful conviction that was widely publicized last week, a Texas convict executed two decades ago is not in the database because he has not been officially exonerated. Carlos deLuna was executed for the fatal stabbing of a Corpus Christi convenience store clerk. A team headed by a Columbia University law professor just published a 400-page report that contends DeLuna didn't kill the clerk, Wanda Jean Lopez.

Leo Jones, convicted of murder in Florida, exonerated after execution

David Wayne Spence, convicted of murder in Texas, exonerated after execution

Troy Griffin, convicted of murder in Massachusettes, exonerated after execution

Thank you Roberta! 

‘Predatory’ prison phone rates

Civil rights leaders urge reform

.

By Liz Goodwin National Affairs Reporter

What if it cost $17 to make a 15-minute phone call in the U.S.? How often would you call home?  That's the dilemma facing many inmates who must rely on the prison phone service and pay sky-high rates.

A bipartisan group of prison reformers is calling on the Federal Communications Commission to stop phone companies from charging inmates what they call unreasonable and predatory rates to make phone calls.

Why such astronomical fees? Phone companies often pay commissions to the state after they've won an exclusive contract to provide phone service at a state's prisons. (All but eight states allow these exclusive contracts.) The phone companies then pass on the cost of paying the state to inmates and their families, who have to shell out as much as $17 for a 15-minute call, the group says. That can add up to $250 a month to call home for an hour each week—a cost that the often-poor families of inmates can hardly afford.

But the money also drives revenue to the country's cash-strapped, crowded prison systems. In 2011, these phone company commissions generated $152 million in revenue for state prisons alone. In the federal system, which charges lower rates, the millions raised from commissions helps fund recreational and job-related activities for inmates, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

Still, the ability to call home at a reasonable price is an important factor in whether inmates rehabilitate and reintegrate into society when they return, say reformers.

The millions in telephone fees "is a tax on the poorest people in our society," David Keene, the former head of the American Conservative Union, said on a call with reporters.

"It makes no sense to cut off or make impossible their communication with their families," he said.

Prisoners and their relatives have petitioned the FCC to cap phone fees at 25 cents per minute for collect calls, with no connection fee. (Some prisons currently charge a connection fee of as much as $4 and then a per-minute rate of more than a dollar.) The proposed guidelines have stalled with the FCC since 2007, and the group of religious, civil and human rights leaders are urging action in a letter they sent to the FCC on Friday.

A spokesman for the FCC told Yahoo News that the agency is still working to address the phone issue.

Pat Nolan, a former California assemblyman who was imprisoned for two years for corruption and now advocates for prison reform, told reporters about his struggles paying for phone calls with his family during that time. Often he would go over the household finances with his wife and listen to his daughter talk about her schoolwork. "That was really valuable time, but it also was horribly expensive so we couldn't do it very often," he said.

Prisoners' phone calls are recorded and often capped at 15 minutes, and phone privileges can be taken away in some circumstances.

Perhaps the topic is ripe for review. Conservatives and liberals have found rare common ground in recent years on prison reform issues. Last year, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Grover Norquist, the conservative activist who founded Americans for Tax Reform, teamed up to say that states send too many people to jail for drug offenses. America has just 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of its prison population, which results in a state prison system that costs $60 billion a year.

Looking Back at Huey Newton’s 

Thoughts on Gay Rights

This was a speech given August 15 1970 by Huey Newton co-founder of the Black Panther Party..here he addresses the issue of Gay Rights… Its serious food for thought coming in the aftermath of President Obama endorsing Same-sex Message…

Huey Newton

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion.  I say ” whatever your insecurities are” because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So you’re some kind of a threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm. 

Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women’s right to be free. We have not said much about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the most oppresed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it’s a phenomenon that I don’t understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don’t know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants.

That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn’t view as revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I’m now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that “even a homosexual can be a revolutionary.” Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.

When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations, there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and the women’s liberation movement. Some groups might be more revolutionary than others. We should not use the actions of a few to say that they are all reactionary or counterrevolutionary, because they are not.

We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge, somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are unrevolutionary or counterrevolutionary, then criticize that action.  If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women’s liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say “insecurities,” I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms “faggot” and “punk” should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people. 

We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and women’s liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the most appropriate manner. 

Renewal of Hope

By Eugene Robinson, Published: May 10, Washington Post 

President Obama’s evolutionary leap on same-sex marriage is a historic advance in the nation’s long march toward equality and justice. It is also a bold political gambit that sacrifices some votes in exchange for potentially renewing his image as a leader of vision and hope.

The truth is that it should not have taken Obama so long to recognize that gay men and lesbians should have the right to marry. I’m one of the many observers who never understood how his former opposition to same-sex marriage could be squared with the worldview that emerged from his speeches and actions. It seemed incongruous that someone who so valued fairness and inclusiveness would have such a blind spot.

Nor do I understand Obama’s criteria for deciding that his “evolving” view on gay marriage had completed its transformation. Was it only half-baked, say, a month ago?

Ultimately, history will care only that Obama was the first president to acknowledge that same-sex marriage is a national issue involving the civil rights of millions of Americans. The astonishment and joy expressed by so many gay people nationwide after Obama’s announcement Wednesday showed what a big deal this is.

We all know where this is heading. Obama said that although he supports same-sex marriage, the decision should be left up to the states. That would seem to bode ill, since 30 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage; on Tuesday, North Carolina overwhelmingly approved such an amendment, with 61 percent of voters approving a ban on same-sex marriage.

But polls show that public opinion on gay marriage has been shifting rapidly across the country. A Washington Post survey in March reported that 52 percent of Americans think it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry; 43 percent think it should be illegal. In a March 2004 poll, The Post found that 38 percent of respondents thought gay marriage should be legal, with 59 percent opposed. That’s almost a complete reversal in eight years.

Moreover, polls show a clear generational divide: Americans younger than 40 approve of gay marriage by a big margin. This explains the rush to amend state constitutions in what amounts to a King Canute-like attempt to hold back the actuarial tide.

But same-sex marriage is already allowed in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District. As more couples wed, courts across the country will have to rule on questions involving marriages that are recognized in some states but not others. It may be a long, tangled process, but eventually a day will come when same-sex marriage is considered unexceptional and only historians appreciate that once upon a time it was controversial.

Obama’s pronouncement hastens that day. It also has shorter-term implications.

It seems clear that his position on gay marriage will cost Obama some support in what promises to be a tough battle for reelection. The crucial impact will be in the swing states. North Carolina, for example, is a former Republican stronghold that Obama won in 2008. Will the people who voted so decisively against same-sex marriage be motivated to vote against him in November?

Some will, undoubtedly. But it was interesting that Obama’s all-but-certain GOP opponent, Mitt Romney, reacted to the president’s shift on gay marriage with a relatively subdued statement, reiterating his opposition but acknowledging that the issue is a “tender and sensitive topic.” The risk for Romney is that, although his position — he wants a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — is popular among Republican primary voters, it might be seen as mean-spirited and punitive by the independents who will ultimately decide the election.

Politically, Obama may have taken a big step toward reclaiming the future.

The magic of hope and change that suffused his 2008 campaign has dissipated after 40 grueling months in office. Obama’s supporters could point to his accomplishments and cite the reasons why Romney would be a poor replacement, but the optimism and excitement were missing.

Obama could have kept silent on gay marriage, and frustrated progressives would still vote for him. Instead, he spoke out when he didn’t have to and took a stance that might hurt him in key states — reminding us how he can surprise and inspire.

Did I just catch a whiff of that hopey-changey stuff in the air?

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

Protection for Whistleblowers

By Joe Davidson, Published: May 9

It wasn’t on the schedule of events for this Public Service Recognition Week, but the Senate sent an important signal of appreciation to federal employees when it approved whistleblower protection legislation.

With unanimous consent Tuesday evening, the Senate passed the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act — again.

The bill has been around a dozen years and has been approved at different times by the House and the Senate. But those earlier victories did not lead legislation to law, and there’s no guarantee that will happen this time.

“We’ve had this thrill before,” said Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower advocacy organization. “It won’t matter until it’s on the president’s desk.”

The legislation, which would expand the scope of whistleblower protections, is designed to better shield workers who can risk their careers by disclosing significant mistakes in government operations. The legislation would:

●Extend protections to Transportation Security Administration and intelligence agency employees

●Prohibit the revocation of security clearances in retaliation for whistleblower disclosures

●Allow jury trials in certain cases for workers who sue agencies that allegedly retaliate against whistleblowers

●End the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ monopoly on whistleblower cases for a five-year period

●Facilitate the ability of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to discipline officials who retaliate against employees who blow the whistle.

The importance of whistleblowers was shown this week when OSC cited the efforts of Federal Aviation Administration employees to correct situations that could impair air safety. “The  Office of Special Counsel has been handcuffed by several court decisions that narrowed the scope of protections for federal workers,” said Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner. “I commend the Senate for acting to strengthen the whistleblower law.”

Senate approval, however, is not the same as congressional approval. Time and again, Devine and other advocates have had their hopes rise, only to be disappointed by members of Congress, who otherwise praise efforts to fight government fraud, waste and abuse.

“This is the fourth time the Senate has unanimously approved similar legislation to restore protections for federal whistleblowers,” Devine said. “The spotlight now shifts to the House of Representatives, where action is long overdue. Despite unanimous [committee] approval last November, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has not yet reported the bill to the full House.”

But the House has been in the whistleblower spotlight before, without it showing the way to final legislative action.

“This reform would have been law in December 2010, except that then-incoming House leaders asked Senate allies to place an anonymous hold, blocking final enactment on grounds that they [House leaders] would produce a better reform,” Devine said. “It is past time to prove it. The House [Republicans] won the last election on a pledge to reduce government waste, fraud and abuse. That commitment has rung hollow, as there has been no action to protect those who risk their professional lives to stand against federal wrongdoing. What are they waiting for?”

A spokeswoman for the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee said it had no comment on the Senate bill, because staffers did not have time yet to study the legislation.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said he is “pleased the Senate approved much needed legislation to protect well intentioned federal employees who expose waste, fraud, and illegal behavior in the government. In many respects, this legislation mirrors efforts being undertaken in the House and I look forward to working out differences between the House and Senate so that legislation enhancing protections for whistleblowers becomes law.”

His spokesman said the panel's report on the legislation will be filed soon.

The seeming inability of Congress to pass the legislation is mysterious because it has bipartisan support, and everyone is against government waste. Four senators, a Democrat, two Republicans and an independent — Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) — issued a joint statement in praise of the bill after the Senate vote.

“Whistleblowers are critical to effective, accountable government,” said Akaka, the measure’s main sponsor. “My bill gives them the protection they need. The American people deserve to know that whistleblowers will be protected when they have the courage to come forward to disclose wrongdoing.”

Devine said a major hang-up has been concern in the House that national security could be compromised if sensitive issues were revealed during whistleblower disclosures.

Grassley doesn’t see it that way. The legislation “is especially important in establishing whistleblower protection for employees in the intelligence community for the first time,” he said, “without endangering national security.”

Lieberman agreed, saying the protections for employees of the intelligence community would “strengthen our national as well as our economic security.”

Paralyzed Woman Finishes London Marathon

Claire & Dan Lomas

For five years, Claire Lomas hasn't been able to walk, hasn't been able to feel her legs. But that hasn't stopped her. She was once a professional horse rider, but in 2007, a freak accident paralyzed her from the chest down.

She spent all her time in a wheelchair, at least until January. That's when she started walking again, thanks to a $75,000 bionic suit.

"It's amazing after five years of sitting down to be back on my feet," she said earlier this year, "and it's fully weight-bearing and I can walk in it as well."

Each time she steps forward, her suit hisses a sound not dissimilar to Robocop. The ReWalk and two canes support her, and the suit senses when she wants to walk and shifts her weight for her. But it's not easy. Each day, when she started, she could take only 30 steps. Every moment was a chore, and because she couldn't feel where she standing, she always feared falling over.

But that didn't stop her, either. Loman set out to walk 55,000 steps – or 26.2 miles. She set out to run the London Marathon.

She started, alongside 35,000 runners, 16 days ago. Today, in the shadow of Buckingham Palace, she finished -- to the screams of thousands of fans who came out to support her.

"It's a moment I'm going to treasure for the rest of my life," she said in a nationally televised, live interview with the BBC after she crossed. "The support here has been – I didn't expect it here like this. I couldn't believe it when I turned up this morning in the taxi to start, and I thought it was just a busy day in London. Someone told me they're all there for me. I was like, no!"

But they all were there for her, inspired by her determination to finish the race, inspired by her becoming the first woman in a robotic suit to complete a marathon, inspired by her ability to, as she told ABC News today, "just keep persevering."

Thanks to all her fans, Lomas raised more than $100,000 for spinal cord research. In the interview with ABC News, she said she felt lucky -- despite her accident.

"After my accident, for a few days, you think, why, why has this happened? But it has. And that's that. You just need to find new things to do," she said while on her way to a party in her honor. "Of course I have bad days and difficult times. But I just get through them, and gradually, things get better."

A lot better. And that is, perhaps, the most extraordinary part of the story. Today is not the most important day of Lomas' life. It's not even the most important day since the accident.

In the last three years, Claire Lomas has gotten married and given birth to a healthy baby girl. Mazie is 15 months old, and was right there as Lomas crossed the finish line.

"We're having a bit of a competition to see who can walk first," she joked with the BBC in February. "We're about level at the moment. But young veins learn quicker, so I'm not sure whether she's going to overtake me soon!"

And her husband Dan was there every step of the way, helping support the suit – and her.

"Some days were more difficult than others. Yesterday particularly was tough. Felt really tired. I didn't have a great yesterday, and I knew if I stopped, I wouldn't want to get going again," she told ABC News. "But with all the support, it just helped me carry on."

And in many ways, Lomas was carrying on, even from the days before her accident. She's always thrived on difficult tasks. The last 16 days, she suggested, was just what she loves to do.

 

"Before my accident, I'd always had a lot of challenges," she said. "I'm that type of person. It doesn't change who you are, when you have a spinal injury and you still want to push yourself."

Senate Finance Committee probes ties between

drugmakers and advocacy groups

Misleading details about safety maybe causing deaths

WASHINGTON — As the Senate Finance Committee launched an investigation Tuesday into the relationship between makers of narcotic painkillers and the groups that champion them, a leading advocacy organization said it was dissolving “due to irreparable economic circumstances.”

The American Pain Foundation, which described itself as the nation’s largest organization focused on patients’ pain, was the subject of a December investigation by ProPublica in The Washington Post that detailed its close ties to drugmakers.

The group received 90 percent of its $5 million in funding in 2010 from the drug and medical-device industry, ProPublica found, and its guides for patients, journalists and policymakers had played down the risks associated with opioid painkillers while exaggerating the benefits from the drugs.

It is unclear whether the group’s announcement Tuesday evening — that it would “cease to exist, effective immediately” — was related to letters Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the finance panel chairman, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent earlier in the day to the foundation, drug companies and others.

In the letters, the senators cited an “an epidemic of accidental deaths and addiction resulting from the increased sale and use of powerful narcotic painkillers.” That class of drugs includes popular brand names like Oxycontin, Vicodin and Opana.

Growing evidence, they wrote, suggests that drug companies “may be responsible, at least in part, for this epidemic by promoting misleading information about the drugs’ safety and effectiveness.”

The American Pain Foundation’s website carried a statement Tuesday night saying its board voted May 3 to dissolve the group because it couldn’t stay “operational.” The foundation did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

The senators are targeting a who’s who of the pain industry, seeking extensive records and correspondence documenting the links, financial and otherwise, between them and the makers of the top-prescribed painkillers.

The letters also cite reporting by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today that found the companies’ close ties extended to physician societies and academic research groups.

The Senators' letters went to three pharmaceutical companies — Purdue Pharma, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Johnson & Johnson — as well as to five groups that support pain patients, doctors or research: the American Pain Foundation, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Pain Society, the Wisconsin Pain and Policy Studies Group, and the Center for Practical Bioethics.

The Federation of State Medical Boards, the trade group for agencies that license doctors, received a letter, as did the Joint Commission, an independent nonprofit group that accredits hospitals nationwide and made pain management a national priority in 2001.

The senators requested information on payments since 1997 to 10 groups and eight people, including two doctors featured in ProPublica’s December report. They asked about any influence the companies had on a 2004 guide for doctors about pain that was distributed by the Federation of State Medical Boards, on guidelines by the American Pain Society and on the American Pain Foundation’s Military/Veterans Pain Initiative.

Patients in serious pain need access to opioids, the senators wrote, but drugmakers and health-care groups “must distribute accurate information about these drugs in order to prevent improper use and diversion to drug abusers.”

Concerns about the overuse and abuse of painkillers have intensified in recent years. As sales of the powerful drugs have boomed — rising 300 percent since 1999 — so, too, have overdose deaths. Opioids were involved in 14,800 overdose deaths in 2008, more than cocaine and heroin combined, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Pain doctors and patient groups say that while overdoses are a legitimate concern, only a small percentage of deaths involves patients who get them from their doctors. Most involve illicitly obtained drugs, statistics show.

The groups also say that patients have a low risk if they do not have addictive personalities and that any restrictions should not punish patients who suffer from serious pain.

Securities and Exchange Commission Accuses

Ephren Taylor

of $11 Million Christian Ponzi Scheme



Ephren Taylor



Ephren Taylor stepped into the pulpit with the ease of preacher's son, taking the microphone at the New Birth Baptist Church in Atlanta, where the powerful pastor Eddie Long was introducing him to the Sunday morning crowd.

Bishop Eddie Long

"Everything he says is based on the word of God," Long pledged to the members of his megachurch. But Taylor wasn't a visiting minister. He was a financial adviser, one who claimed to have made his first million before he turned 18. And he promised he could do the same for his fellow Christians.

"We're going to show you how to get wealth and use it for the building of his kingdom," Taylor shouted to the congregation one morning in 2009. It was all part of what he called his "Building Wealth Tour," which crisscrossed the country touting his investments and financial advice.

But according to the Securities and Exchange Commission, what Taylor was actually peddling was a giant Ponzi scheme, one aimed to "swindle over $11 million, primarily from African-American churchgoers," that reached into churches nationwide, from Long's megachurch in Atlanta to Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church congregation in Houston.

But Taylor has disappeared, hiding out from lawsuits, federal charges and angry, mostly African-American, investors in at least 40 states.

Taylor, now 29, first gained national attention with a rags to riches story of growing up dirt poor in Blackwater, Miss., before developing a video game that turned him into a teenage millionaire.

In a 1997 interview with ABC News, when asked how much he was worth, Taylor ventured what he said was a guess. "Ballpark? Maybe $20 million on a bad day," he said.

His personal history, coupled with what he claimed was a philosophy of "socially conscious investing," made him popular with church congregations.

"He quoted scriptures," said Lillian Wells, who met privately with Taylor in 2009 after hearing him speak at New Birth.  Wells said Taylor convinced her to invest her entire life savings in a North Carolina-based real estate venture called City Capital Corporation, which he claimed was turning around homes in inner cities. In exchange, she was promised a 20 percent return on her money.

But, Wells said, when she wanted to recoup her initial investment, Taylor disappeared. "I couldn't get a hold of anybody," Wells said. "You just can't get them. That's it. You just couldn't get anybody."

With her retirement savings gone, Wells is now trying to save her home from foreclosure. She said she's not sure if she will ever get her money back, but she wants to see Taylor held accountable.

"We're suffering because of what he did. It needs to be stopped," she said.

Lisa Conway became suspicious of Taylor after she went to work for him in 2010. At first she was excited to sell another type of investment City Capital was pitching, but soon she said she began to suspect the business was not on the up and up.

"I wanted to believe the answers were legit when we had the meetings," she said. But "I would see things that weren't appropriate."

Conway said she started to think that the money coming in was lining Taylor's pockets, and according to government officials, she was right. The SEC claims Taylor spent his investors' money on his car payments, credit card bills and rent on a New York City apartment. The SEC also alleged that he doled out cash to make a splashy music video starring his wife, Meshelle, draped in white fur and diamonds. The name of the song? "Billionaire."

Conway said investors soon started suspecting trouble as well, and panicked families began banging down the doors of the North Carolina office where she and Taylor worked.

"They put locks on the doors," after one particularly angry client stormed in. Taylor started to panic, Conway said, sensing that his house of cards was beginning to tumble.

"You could see him sweating," she said. "You could see him coming in and trying to save the day or the moment that we're in it, but it just looked shady."

As the SEC complaint alleges, "simply, City Capital could not pay its bills."

"Any investor who resisted was subjected to an endless cycle of unreturned phone calls and emails [and] empty promises of imminent action," reads the complaint. "To the extent investors survived this gauntlet to still insist on repayment, any funds they received invariably came from new investor money."

So while Lillian Wells was getting nowhere searching for her money in Georgia, some of her cash may have been going to new investors like Gary and Anita Dorio in Texas.

The Dorios first met Talylor in Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church, and gave Taylor $1.3 million, their life savings and her mother's retirement. And for about a year, they say it seemed like a good deal. At the beginning, Taylor was sending them monthly checks for $11,000.

"He asked us, you know, 'what do you need? Give me a figure.' and he made it happen," said Gary Dorio.

The Dorios say the paperwork Taylor provided was very convincing. They thought they were investing in an inner city laundromat, a juice bar and a gas station.

"We actually got pictures of the businesses that they were operating," said Gary Dorio. "We called, and they answered the phone and they said who they were."

But ultimately, they discovered that many of the businesses they thought they were investing in never even existed. Their lawyer Cathy Lerman said hundreds of investors have told her the same story.

"You will hear from investors, 'I spent $100,000 on a laundry in Kansas.' and then there'll be ten or 15 other people who also spent $100,000 on a laundry in Kansas," she said. "At the end of the day they had nothing to show for it."

In the end, the Dorios did walk away with a rental property in Cleveland, but it came with a catch: A $67,000 bill for back taxes on the property. The head office of the businesses Taylor listed in their documents was nothing more than a post office box inside a UPS store in Tennessee.

Today, the Dorios said they are fighting foreclosure. "Our marriage is definitely-- it's-- it's-- it was a strain," Gary Dorio said. "We've had our moments."

But the couple said they have sought comfort in their faith.

"Don't be overcome by evil-- by evil. But overcome evil with good," said Anita Dorio, quoting a Biblical passage.

While the Dorios said they are still devout Christians, they have left Lakewood Church, the house of famous televangelist Joel Osteen, who, like many other pastors who let Taylor speak at their churches, preaches what's known as the "prosperity" gospel.

Anita Dorio acknowledged that the church was careful not to explicitly endorse Taylor. "Before the seminar began-- a staff member did make the announcement, 'we're not endorsing this person. We're not telling' you to invest with him. We're just here to listen to what he has to say.'"

Lakewood Church told ABC News they opened their doors to Taylor to speak on the subject of "Biblical financial principals," but "when he began to promote his services as a financial advisor," he "was stopped from doing so."

The Dorios said while they don't really want to blame church leadership and said they did warn them about Taylor after the alleged fraud was discovered. Anite said the the response she received from the church was "'oh Anita, how could you?' Like I should have known better."

At New Birth Baptist Church in Atlanta, Lillian Wells said she didn't get much further when she spoke to her pastor, Bishop Eddie Long.  "He came in and said, 'the church ain't got no money,'" she said.

Now, she and several other New Birth members are suing the church and Long. The pastor claimed he and the church did nothing wrong. In a YouTube video, Long appealed directly to Taylor, asking him to return the money. "Please, do what's right," he said.

Gary and Anita Dorio are also suing Taylor, as part of a class action lawsuit that was filed last October in the Federal District Court in Raleigh, N.C. But they said they have forgiven Taylor and place their hopes for justice in God's hands.

"It's not the easiest thing to do, but we live by what the word of god says," said Gary Dorio. "And we have to forgive Ephren. We have come to a place where we've forgiven him. We pray for him, his family."

Blogger's Note:  Bishop Eddie Long is the Minister who was charged by five young men with sexual abuse.  The men who filed the suit were 17- and 18-year-old members of the church when they say Long abused his spiritual authority to seduce them with cars, money, clothes, jewelry, international trips and access to celebrities.  Bishop Long settled out of court with his accusers.  Terms of the settlement were not revealed.

President George W. Bush and three former presidents visited the sprawling New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in the Atlanta suburb of Lithonia for the 2006 funeral of Coretta Scott King, the widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.   Bishop Long introduced the speakers and the Rev. Bernice King, the Kings' younger daughter, delivered the eulogy. She is also a pastor at New Birth.

 

 

 

Rapunzel?

Go Dallas!

Rapunzel

 

 

 

Yep ... Purple Haze