Recently in General Category
An Illinois playground was [booby]-trapped with straight-edged razors glued to equipment frequented by children, WQAD.com reported.
The sharp razors were discovered by parents at Millennium Park in East Moline, near the state's western border with Iowa. The parents say their 2-year-old son was cut by one of the blades on the monkey bars.
Here's betting dollars to doughnut holes that if and when the guy who did this gets caught, his defense lawyer will pony up for a rent-a-shrink whose opening paragraph will contain the word "bi-polar." Any takers?
Will Baude over at the Volokh Conspiracy points to an interesting new paper by law professor Irina Manta that makes an innovative constitutional argument about copyright prosecutions and the jurisdictional element. The abstract provides the details:
Our current methods of imposing criminal convictions on defendants for copyright and trademark infringement are constitutionally defective. Previous work has argued that due process under the Sixth Amendment requires prosecutors to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including the jurisdictional element. Applying this theory to criminal trademark counterfeiting results in the conclusion that prosecutors should have to demonstrate that an infringing mark needs to have traveled in or affected interstate commerce, which is currently not mandated. Parallel to this construction of the Commerce Clause, criminal prosecutors would also have to prove that Congress has the power to reach individual copyright infringers under the Intellectual Property Clause. This presents little difficulty under the traditional understanding of the clause as prosecutors would only need to show that convicting a defendant serves to secure the rights of authors. Some contemporary scholars have argued, however, that the text of the Intellectual Property Clause must be understood to mean that Congress can only enact copyright legislation if it serves to promote progress. If this notion is correct and is combined with this article's theory of the requirements of the Sixth Amendment, prosecutors would have to prove that individual convictions will serve to promote progress before courts can impose sentences in given cases. While this could raise costs and has the potential to reduce the number of cases brought, prosecutors may have little choice but to introduce expert testimony to demonstrate an effect on progress, similar to the use of expert evidence in antitrust litigation and related contexts.Well worth a read even for those of us unfamiliar with IP law.
Maybe not. National Review Franklin Center Fellow Jillian Kay Melchior appears in this video interview with some disturbing findings.
One would expect that the Affordable Care Act would constitute a "federal health care program" and therefore would be covered by the anti-kickback statute. But one would apparently be wrong. The Pathology Blawg has the story:
[T]he Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has determined the federal health care exchanges and health insurance subsidies for low income individuals under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) do not constitute a "federal health care program" and therefore the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) will not apply.Thus, it seems that fraud prevention is not high on the list of imperatives for the Affordable Care Act. This is of course strange insofar as healthcare costs are always touted as one of the primary reasons why we need healthcare reform. Although as Robert Radick mentions in Forbes,"the precise logic behind Secretary Sebelius's decision is not yet clear."
To all who have served in defense of our country and the cause of freedom, thanks.