truesee's Blog

Michael Clare, Bronx pastor charged with raping, impregnating 12-year-old girl, rejects plea deal

Kevin Deutsch
DAILY NEWS WRITER

Monday, March 21st 2011, 2:04 PM

• 

  Members of the SAPD SWAT team work the scene of a standoff at the Rodeway Inn.

  Photo: EDWARD A. ORNELA SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS NFS

  Members of the SAPD SWAT team work the scene of a standoff at...

• 

  Members of the SAPD SWAT team work the scene of a standoff at the Rodeway Inn.

  Photo: EDWARD A. ORNELAS SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS NFS

  Members of the SAPD SWAT team work the scene of a standoff at...

• 

  Members of the SAPD SWAT team work the scene of a standoff at the Rodeway Inn.

  Photo: EDWARD A. ORNELAS SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS NFS

  Members of the SAPD SWAT team work the scene of a standoff at...

• 

  Members of the SAPD SWAT team work the scene of a standoff at the Rodeway Inn.

  Photo: EDWARD A. ORNELAS  SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS NFS

  Members of the SAPD SWAT team work the scene of a standoff at...

Ricardo Jones

The price of the Beefy Crunch Burrito had gone up from 99 cents to $1.49 and the man at the Rigsby Road Taco Bell drive-thru had just ordered seven.

Lindsay Lohan has been in more courtrooms the past four years than she has been in movies.

The troubled actress was first arrested in May 2007 on a misdemeanor drunk driving charge in Beverly Hills, then in July was arrested again in Santa Monica and charged with drunk driving, cocaine possession and driving with a suspended license, for which she pleaded guilty the following month. 

In November, Lohan surrendered to a Los Angeles County Jail, and then in 2009 her probation was extended another year because she failed to complete a mandatory alcohol counseling program.

Cut to 2010 and Lohan’s legal jeopardy deepened as she violated the terms of her probation by failing to appear in court and missing the alcohol counseling classes, which then resulted in her serving time at Lynwood Correctional Facility in July. A few weeks later, the “Mean Girls” star failed a drug test and was handcuffed and taken to the slammer before posting bail that night, and during her court-enforced rehab stay at Betty Ford the 24-year-old was accused of allegedly tussling with a staffer at the clinic.

Then earlier this year, drama-prone Lohan was charged with felony grand theft by the Los Angeles County District Attorney for allegedly stealing a necklace from a Venice jewelry store.

Factoring in all the court dates, court postponements (like when she was partying in Cannes and couldn’t get back to the U.S for a hearing), arraignments, judge and prosecutor fees, jail visits (she has had three stints in the slammer – 84 minutes, two weeks and one evening before posting bail, mug shots (four and counting),  probation officers, random drug testing resources, SCRAM bracelets (these generally cost over $100 to install and have a daily fee of about $18) and LAPD security to and from court, how much is Lohan costing the taxpayer?

“It has been four years, and we’re talking about quite a few county law enforcement professionals, so it is probably safe to say several million dollars,” California-based civil law trial attorney David Wohl told FOX411’s Pop Tarts.

And given that Lohan has thus far refused to enter into a plea deal regarding the theft incident, her current theft case could potentially go to trial, costing Californians much more.

“Each court hearing can take hours of prosecutorial time, judicial time and judicial staff such as a court clerk, stenographer and bailiffs in the courtroom protecting Lindsay. If only 100 hours total was spent on her first DUI case out of the Beverly Hills Courthouse, you’re talking about a minimum of $10,000 just in prosecutorial/attorney time alone. Multiply that by the number of cases she has and you'll see that the Lohan case is costing this state tens of thousands of dollars," explained Criminal Defense Attorney RJ Manuelian. "The irony is, that the further Ms. Lohan is prosecuted ‘in the interest of justice,’ injustice is done to our state economy."

"What makes matters worse is that Ms. Lohan is still facing a possible probation violation from Judge Fox's court in Beverly Hills," Manuelian said. "If she goes to jail, that adds more financial burden to our state's financial crisesandit burdens our already overcrowded jails. In the end – more money we don't have. Scott Peterson's trial cost the state over $3 million, and Lohan’s latest case certainly has the potential to reach hundreds of thousands of dollars should it go to trial.”

Hollywood publicist Michael Sands, who has worked on a number of celebrity-related legal cases, also said Lohan has cost Los Angeles county well over one million dollars to date.

“If the stolen necklace case goes to trial, it will cost anywhere from $500,000 and up. In just one day with one court appearance, Lindsay could blow over $100,000 and we all have to foot the bill,” Sands said. “The legal fees for the prosecutors are totally exorbitant, and then to have to have police dignitary forces take her to court and guard her costs hundreds and hundreds of dollars per hour. She is a real tax burden to the state.”

Wohl did the raise the point that those involved in Lohan’s sentencing are only doing their jobs – and if it isn’t her they’re dealing with, it is someone else.

“Most of the people involved are just doing their jobs – whether they're dealing with Lilo or any other criminal, so they don't cost the taxpayers any extra, with the exception of overtime pay for the countless cops who have to provide courthouse security for her court appearances,” Wohl said. “The real inconvenience to taxpayers could come if her cases go to trial. Hundreds – perhaps more – will be dragged from their jobs to the courthouse to try and find 12 jurors who haven't been exposed to the details of Lohan's alleged ‘one woman crime wave.’ While the current Judge has all but sentenced her to jail, the reality is that no one has heard the evidence in her case. If she decides to have a trial, the reality is that LA could become host to the biggest three ring legal circus since OJ.”

- Deidre Behar contributed to this report.

Mon Mar 21 11:14am EDT

Sumo wrestler becomes heaviest man to ever finish marathon

Chris Chase

The heaviest person to ever complete a marathon weighed 275 pounds. Add that weight plus the total weight of a great long-distance runner (about 120 pounds) and you'll get Kelly Gneiting.

Gneiting, a three-time U.S. sumo champion, tipped the scales at 400 pounds when he began this weekend's Los Angeles Marathon. Nine hours, 48 minutes, 52 seconds later he crossed the finish line and set the Guinness World Record for being the heaviest person to ever complete the 26.2-mile race.

The 400-pound American jogged the first eight miles of the race and walked the last 18, often stopping at intersections and stoplights because he was well behind the 13-minute-per-mile pace set by race organizers. He says he became delirious after mile 10 and only realized he hit the 15-mile mark when a friend gave him a clean pair of socks.

"I was really struggling in the last five miles," he said to the Los Angeles Times, "but I said to myself, 'If I have to crawl, I will.'"

When he finally finished, he had set the weight world record and a personal best by over two hours. "I'd like to see the Kenyan improve his marathon time by two hours," he joked.

Gneiting weighed 200 pounds in college but says he packed on the weight after getting married. He became a sumo wrestler 11 years ago and won his first national title four years later. Despite his weight, Gneiting says he's still fit and wants to prove it by competing in other competitions. Next up? Swimming the English Channel.

Police said a patron of the Imperial Palace Casino, whom police did not identify, reported she had dropped the cash.

Police said Mitzi Bright Poteet, 55, of McHenry, saw the other patron drop the money and look for it, but failed to return it to her. Poteet was arrested about 6:30 p.m. Saturday and taken to the Harrison County Adult Detention Center.

State College, Pennsylvania (CNN)-- A Pennsylvania mother has decided she does not want her two children to take the two-week-long standardized tests given by her state as part of the federal No Child Left Behind law. And she hopes other parents will do the same.

Michele Gray's sons -- Ted Rosenblum, 11, and John Michael Rosenblum, 9 -- did independent study the week of March 14 while their classmates were filling in hundreds of bubbles in classrooms with doors marked, "Quiet. Testing in Progress."

Gray says the only legal exemption that would allow her kids to sit out the tests was a religious objection. So that's what she did.

But Gray says her concerns go well beyond religion. "The more I look at standardized tests, the more I realize that we have, as parents, been kind of sold a bill of goods."

She says the tests are not accurate measures of accomplishment, create undue anxiety for students and are used to punish schools.

She gives the example of her sons' award-winning school, Park Forest Elementary, which last year was put on "warning" status after the school's special education students fell below the level of progress the state expects on their exams.

"The more I looked at it, the more outraged I became," Gray said, "This is not something I want to be contributing to (or) something I want my children participating in."

Dr. Timothy Slekar, an associate professor of education at Penn State Altoona, agrees. It was his op-ed piece on the Huffington Post website that inspired Gray to take action.

Slekar is also a father and this year chose not to allow his 11-year-old son Luke to take the tests. He says schools are narrowing their curricula in an effort to boost test scores and wasting too much time preparing for, and then taking, the tests.

He says the tests aren't an accurate indicator of a child's -- or a school's -- performance. "I'm a father and an educator who's finally said, 'This is it. I'm done.' Something has to give. Something has to change," Slekar said.

Another education professor, Dana Mitra, also isn't happy with the tests, but decided to allow her third-grader daughter to take them this year because she's afraid that holding her daughter out could harm the school's test results.

"Given that we're interested in wanting our schools to be the best that they can, we feel pressure as parents to want to help our school," she said. She's not sure what she'll do with her daughter next year.

Testing proponents, such as United Negro College Fund President and CEO Michael Lomax, say parents who opt out "are doing their own children a disservice." He added, "Testing is a parent's ally" and that in order to compete with countries such as China and India, U.S. schools need to be held to a higher standard. And testing, he says, is the way to do it.

"The testing isn't the reason the schools are failing. The instruction is the reason the schools are failing," Lomax insisted.

But "opt-out" parents like Gray and Slekar are undeterred.

Gray has a Facebook page aimed at helping other parents learn that they are able to opt out of testing and how to do it.

Parents in Colorado have created a similar website.

Despite these efforts, opting out of standardized tests is rare nationwide. The U.S. Department of Education says it doesn't track the numbers.

At Park Forest Elementary, where Gray's children go, nine out of 500 were held out of standardized tests this year, including Gray's. Last year, all the students there took the test.

President Barack Obama, at a March speech at a Virginia school, acknowledged testing reform is needed. But he says testing isn't going away.

"There will be testing," he said. "We can have accountability without rigidity -- accountability that still encourages creativity inside the classroom, and empowers teachers and students and administrators."

His administration recently announced a $300 million grant aimed at revamping standardized tests.

Meantime, Ted and John Michael won't be participating. Their mother thinks if enough parents follow her lead, high-stakes testing may go away altogether.

Michael Lomax thinks parents like Gray are hurting education. "I'm sure they love their kids," he said, "but I think they are wrong."

Friday, March 18, 2011 6:15 am

An eighth-grader has been expelled and an 18-year-old medical marijuana patient - whose mom is his caregiver - faces a felony charge as a result of marijuana cookies allegedly being passed out to some middle-school students at DeSmet School last week.

For a change, the U.S. isn't the first in line to save the world

Joshua Greenman

Sunday, March 20th 2011, 4:00 AM

Arizona State's Anthony Robles, a one-legged wrestler, defeats defending champion for Div. I title

Nina Mandell
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Sunday, March 20th 2011, 2:55 PM

(CNN)-- A critique of the U.S. involvement in the military intervention in Libya that will no doubt be common in coming days is that the Obama administration is making a large error by embarking on a war with a third Muslim country, as if reversing Moammar Gadhafi's momentum against the rebels will be a rerun of the debacle of the war against Saddam Hussein.

A further element of this view is that -- whatever the outcome of the Libyan intervention -- the United States' standing in the Islamic world will once again be severely damaged by an attack on a Muslim nation.

There are, of course, some real similarities between Hussein and Gadhafi -- both ruthless and erratic dictators of oil-rich regimes who fought bloody wars with their neighbors, brutalized their own populations, sought weapons of mass destruction, and sired some equally unattractive sons and heirs.

The déjà vu quality of the Libyan situation may help account for recent polls taken before the intervention which found that while Americans were either split or slightly in favor of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, most were opposed to stronger U.S. military action.

Beyond the obvious difference that Obama has not authorized the use of U.S. ground forces in Libya, there are several other differences to consider:

First, the Obama administration was handed a gift by the Arab League, which in its more than six-decade history has garnered a well-earned reputation as a feckless talking shop, but unusually took a stand one week ago by endorsing a no-fly zone over Libya.

That endorsement put the Arab League way out in front of the Obama administration, which was then dithering about whether to do anything of substance to help the rebels fighting Gadhafi.

The unexpected action by the Arab League gave the administration the impetus and diplomatic cover to then go to the United Nations Security Council to secure a broad resolution endorsing not only a no-fly zone, but also allowing member states to "take all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya.

This U.N. resolution is reminiscent of the one that President George H.W. Bush secured in November 1990, which gave Iraq six weeks to withdraw from Kuwait following Hussein's invasion of that country. The U.N. resolution in 1990 similarly empowered states to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq out of Kuwait if Hussein ignored the deadline.

The similarities do not end there. The coalition that massed to drive Hussein out of Kuwait involved significant forces from major Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. So too the Libyan no-fly zone will be enforced by the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, along with western powers such as France and the U.K.

This is all quite in contrast to George W. Bush's ineffectual attempts to gather international support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There was no U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing the use of military force against Hussein, and no Muslim countries participated in the American invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Indeed, before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Turkish parliament voted against allowing American troops passage across Turkey to invade northern Iraq, which put a wrench in U.S. military planning.

Underlining the fact that the Iraq War was widely viewed as illegitimate by Muslim countries, the same year that Turkey voted against allowing American soldiers to use its soil to attack Iraq, Turkish soldiers were also leading the International Security Assistance Force helping to keep the peace in post-Taliban Afghanistan, a military operation that was also authorized by the United Nations and was not seen as illegitimate by much of the Muslim world.

The Bush administration's largely unilateral decision to go to war in Iraq (the U.K. and a few other nations provided troops) undermined America's standing in Islamic countries. A poll taken a few months after the 2003 invasion found that Indonesians, Jordanians, Turks, and Moroccans all expressed more "confidence" that Osama bin Laden would "do the right thing" than that Bush would.

According to a poll four years later, America's favorability rating stood at 9% in Turkey (down from 52% before September 11, 2001) and 29% in Indonesia (down from 75% before September 11).

The high level of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world that was generated by the Iraq War is unlikely to be replicated by U.S. military action against Libya, because Gadhafi is widely reviled in the Arab world. His antics on the world stage have earned him the enmity of even his fellow autocrats -- who will not be welcoming him if he chooses to "retire" to Saudi Arabia as other murderous dictators of his ilk have in the past (think Idi Amin).

And the fact that both the Arab League and the United Nations have endorsed a military action against Gadhafi strongly suggests that the Libyan intervention will not generate a renewed wave of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.

Instead, it underlines a striking feature of the protests that have roiled the Middle East in the past several weeks: Strikingly absent from those protests has been the ritualized burning of American flags, something that hitherto was largely pro forma in that part of the world. That's because Arabs have finally been able to express publicly that their biggest enemy is not the United States, but their own rulers.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Peter Bergen.

ACTION TAKEN TO STOP GADHAFI:

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/03/20/dickey.action.against.libya.cnn

GADHAFI CALLS ON ISLAMIC NATIAIONS:

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/03/20/jamjoom.gadhafi.arab.reax.cnn

TRIPOLI RESIDENT DESCRIBES EXPERIENCE:

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/03/20/bpr.tripoli.resident.speaks.cnn