Here is a presentation in pdf. format that explains the Patriot Act's changes to the money laundering and forfeiture laws. It was published on the In Defense of Freedom list-serv and forwarded to us. Lawyers and journalists should find it especially helpful.

Here is the 77 page opinion dismissing the terrorism counts against New York lawyer Lynne Stewart. Civil Liberties expert Elaine Cassal provides her take on the decision. She begins,

John Ashcroft must be tearing out his primly coiffed hair about now. On July 21, Federal District Judge John G. Koeltl (Southern District of New York) dismissed the terrorist charges against New York attorney Lynne Stewart. In a 77-page opinion, Judge Koeltl agreed with famed civil rights attorney Michael Tigar's argument that the anti-terrorist act under which she was charged was overly vague as applied to attorney speech and conduct related to client representation.

Here are the details of the Lynne Stewart case. Our coverage of the case is here. Here's one of the reasons we think the case is chilling.

In Counterpunch, David Lindorff writes Ashcroft Rebuked: Lynne Stewart's Big Win

The National Law Journal provides this in-depth analysis of the Judge's decision.

Why are Bush and Ashcroft insisting that Haitians who have been granted asylum continue to be detained? This makes us so angry.

Four months ago, immigration lawyers rejoiced after a federal judge granted political asylum to two men who scrambled to shore with more than 200 Haitians when their boat ran aground near this city last year. One man had left Haiti after the killings of his brother and sister. Another had fled after a pro-government mob attacked his house.

....Today, the two Haitian men are still behind bars, even though the judge determined that their fears of persecution were legitimate. Federal prosecutors have appealed that ruling and government officials have ordered the continued detention of the two men until the appeal is decided, a process that could take several months.

There's lots of good articles on the Senate panel's 900 page report on intelligence lapses by the CIA and FBI.

If you have the time, here is the link to the full report. If you want the shorthand version, here are some key excerpts. All of the New York Times coverage is accessible in one place, here.

David Corn in the Nation provides this analysis, conlcuding that the report is an Indictment of both the intelligence agencies and the Administrations charged with their oversight. Financial Times asks about the Saudi Connection.

Michael Tomasky, soon to be the Editor-in-Chief of American Prospect, has some advice for the Democratic candidates on how to deal with their Ralph Nader problem:

So here's a thought for an enterprising Democratic candidate: Attack Nader right now, and with lupine ferocity. Say he's a madman for thinking of running again. Blast him especially hard on foreign policy, saying that if it were up to the Greens, America would give no aid to Israel and it would cease to exist, and if it were up to the Greens, America would not have even defended itself against a barbarous attack by going into Afghanistan. Have at him, and hard, from the right. Then nail him from the left on certain social issues, on abortion rights and other things that he's often pooh-poohed and dismissed as irrelevant. Cause an uproar. Be dramatic. Don't balance it with praise about what he's done for consumers. To the contrary, talk about how much he's damaging consumers today by not caring who's in charge of the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Communications Commission.

We think it's sound advice. So does Eric Alterman.

Update: Hessiod at Counterspin has more news, of which he says:

Yet more evidence that many 2000 Nader Voters [especially in a State like Michigan] were more ANTI-GORE than Pro-Nader. Anyone who thinks that sucking up to the Green party will convince them to do the right thing and work with the Democrats to topple Bush next fall...are smoking the same thing many of the Green Party voters are smoking.

Update: Here's the other side, from Kerim at Keywords.

For the record, we don't hate the Greens. But we do think Nader cost Gore the election. We also agree with the commenter who said Clinton and Gore were both bad on criminal justice issues. We've written articles about it. They were awful. But there's no comparison between them and Bush and Ashcroft. We have long been saying we don't want to end up with a Democratic candidate who is nothing more than Bush Lite after you've scratched the surface--we want the party to take a left turn. But we'll support whichever Dem gets the nomination because it will be a vast improvement over Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

A gag order has been issued in the Kobe Bryant case. It covers the attorneys, witnesses, law enforcement officers, court staff, the accuser and Bryant.

MSNBC's Keith Olberman is reporting that the University of Northern Colorado has confirmed that the accuser was hospitalized in February due to her being a danger to herself. The Washington Post follows up here.

We will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight discussing Kobe Bryant around 9:30 to 9:40 PM or so EST. (always subject to cancellation for breaking news.) We'll be debating the issue of whether the accuser's name in a rape case should be kept secret, and whether the radio talk show host was right or wrong to publish her name on the Internet.

Update: OnLine Journalism Review has just posted a thoughtful article by Mark Glaser on this issue, and the Releasing Name of Bryant's Accuser Stirs Debate on Online Standards .

Jonathan Shapiro, a onetime newspaper reporter and a former federal prosecutor in Washington and Los Angeles, writes an impressive op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times explaining why mug shot photos incriminate the accused and should not be freely available.

In Attorney General Opinion No. 03-205 issued last week, Lockyer allows police, district attorneys and sheriffs to release mug shots of defendants at their discretion, giving clear license to a practice that the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, the federal Justice Department and almost all other law enforcement offices frown upon.

Mug shots are more than just embarrassing photos. They are potentially prejudicial pieces of evidence. ...Lockyer must know that the state bar prohibits attorneys from making statements or releasing information that might unduly color the opinions of potential jurors. Prosecutors are specifically bound to refrain from leaking information that could violate a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.

Go read the whole thing.

(update: link now working)

Remember this case? It seems like another lifetime that we were dissecting every nuance in it daily. But, there is news today. The Judge has agreed to allow the defense to examine the bodies of Laci Peterson and the couple's unborn child.

Noah Levitt writes a comprehensive article in Findlaw on the Liberia situation. He argues that the U.S. should step up to the plate and save Liberia.

In this column, I will use a legal concept drawn from contract law to explain the basis for the U.S.'s responsibility toward Liberia. The concept is "detrimental reliance." A contract is an exchange of promises. When one party breaks its promise, and the other has relied on that promise and suffers as a consequence, the latter party is said to have "detrimentally relied."

Liberia detrimentally relied on a number of promises and representations - explicit and implicit - made by the U.S. over the past century and a half. Historically, the United States has acted in such a way as to represent that it will provide for Liberia's economic well being and security. But over history, it has often let Liberia down - at no time more conspicuously than now.

Comments, anyone?

The last thing the jury saw and heard before deciding whether to sentence to Christopher Trotter to life or death for the brutal murder of a pregnant woman was a 90 minute video tape of his father. The jurors looked very solemn as they left the courtroom--they returned hours later with with a life verdict. A very moving story.

[thanks to Rev. Mr. George W. Brooks, Director of Advocacy, Kolbe House, Chicago, for the link]

MSNBC just announced that Jack Kemp is throwing his hat in the ring to run for Governor of California....no details yet.

Calpundit also sends us to Josh Marshall who reports that the issue of the Bush administration's credibility is about to explode on two fronts:

First is the SOTU Address and the misrepresentation of the Iraq-uranium connection, to which you can now add inter-agency strife caused by Tenet playing the blame game:

Until or unless the President steps in to provide leadership, the long-awaited showdown between the "neoconservatives" and the "pragmatists" will soon reach crisis proportions…this, due to CIA director George Tenet's extraordinary decision to name the President's staffers responsible for misleading, or false, pre-Iraq war intel, Administration sources confirm today. [Source: Nelson Report, we don't have a link for it.]

But now there is another problem--

The UPI reports that the 9/11 report to be released tomorrow shows no evidence that Saddam was either involved in the 9/11 attacks or supported Al Qaeda.

"The report shows there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaida," said a government official who has seen the report.

Josh has much more on these issues, here and here.