A California attorney recently decided to file a lawsuit claiming that 10 different types of fish oil supplements contain industrial chemicals banned in 1979, and the companies who make and sell the supplements have not effectively notified people.

Chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyl compounds, or PBCs, were claimed by the lawyer’s suit to be found in supplements sold by CVS and Rite-Aid drugstore, and in supplements made by Houston, Tx.-based Omega Protein Inc. According to the San Jose Mercury News, Omega Protein claims to be the world’s largest producer of fish oil supplements.

David Roe filed the lawsuit in San Francisco citing Proposition 65, a law he helped write, reports the San Jose Mercury News.The law requires product labels to clearly state if an item contains toxic ingredients above regulatory safe levels.

Roe told the Mercury News that some of the tested supplements exceed the limit for PCBs by 10 times for cancer risk, as established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A limit on PCBs with regard to birth defects has not been established.

Benson Chiles, director of the New Jersey-based Coastal Ocean Coalition, is serving as a co-plaintiff on the suit and said that buyers need to be wary of what may be in the supplements.

Other companies named as defendants in the suit include Twinlab, GNC stores, Now Health Group, Solgar, and Pharmavite, which produces Nature Made supplements.

Two manufacturers were quick to respond to the lawsuit by saying their products are indeed safe for consumption.

Representatives of Twinlab and Pharmavite told the Mercury News that they distill their fish oil products to remove impurities and that any levels of PCBs are within government guidelines.

“PCBs are ubiquitous within the environment, which means that all fish - whether fish found in oceans and rivers or fish oil supplements - contain at least trace amounts of PCBs,” Erin Hlasney with the Council for Responsible Nutrition told the Mercury News. “The lawyers are using California’s Prop. 65 statute to bring attention to their case by attempting to frame this as a public health concern, when in reality, fish oil has enjoyed decades of safe use.”

The main crux of the suit is to simply make it known to consumers purchasing for health benefits that the supplements could carry a health risk, Roe told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Opinions are divided after the U.S. Department of Justice chose to not discipline two former DOJ lawyers who drafted memos in 2002 that legalized certain torture techniques against suspected terrorists, and gave the president near unlimited decision-making power to protect the country.

A five-year inquiry by the DOJ’s ethics department recommended that attorneys Jay S. Bybee and John C. Yoo be put under a disciplinary review for writing what are now described as the “torture memos.”

Bybee and Yoo wrote the memos in 2002 while working for the Justice Department during George W. Bush’s administration. The memos declared techniques such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation legal for the Central Intelligence Agency to perform on suspected terrorists, while also allowing the president freedom to order the military into action without consent of congress.

But shortly after the recommendation was made, the Justice Department’s David Margolis, a higher ranking official, overruled the inquiry ruling against the former DOJ lawyers.

Editorial writers with the Washington Post agreed with Margolis’ decision, pointing out that Bybee and Yoo were under pressure by the Bush administration to swiftly come up with a policy after terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The Post described David Margolis’ decision as courageous and quoted him as saying Bybee and Yoo acted under “good faith” and with the backing of several court decisions that could support the memos.

But the Post also wrote that Margolis was still sharply critical of the lawyers’ actions.

“Yet Mr. Margolis also made clear that Mr. Bybee and Mr. Yoo at virtually every turn argued for the most extreme application of executive power — a particular obsession of Mr. Yoo’s — and interpreted anti-torture provisions in the narrowest way possible,” the Post wrote in their editorial. “They failed to fully air arguments that cut the other way. Their work shows how quickly matters can go awry when ideology and fear drive decision-making during a crisis.”

The New York Times chastised the Justice Department for not following through on the recommendation to place both Bybee and Yoo under disciplinary actions by their respective state bar associations.

The Times wrote that while many Americans were both scared and clamoring for harsh punishment against terrorists after the Sept. 11 attack, the Justice Department had a responsibility to be even that much more vigilant when government officials wanted to sidestep laws.

“When [the Justice Department] renders an opinion, it has the force of law within the executive branch,” the Times wrote about the Justice Department. “Poor judgment is an absurdly dismissive way to describe giving the green light to policies that have badly soiled America’s reputation and made it less safe.”

The Times also pointed out that Margolis was critical of Bybee’s and Yoo’s professionalism in writing memos that seemed to offer little more than a preemptive criminal defense for questionable actions by the Executive Branch.

The Times wrote that Bybee and Yoo aren’t necessarily in the clear, since federal House and Senate Judiciary Committees will still be holding hearings in relation to the ethics report.

“The quest for real accountability must continue,” the Times wrote. “The alternative is to leave torture open as a policy option for future administrations.”

The tables have turned for Phillip Offill Jr.

In January, Offill went to an Alexandria, Va. courthouse because he was charged with the exact same type of crime he spent 15 years prosecuting as a federal Securities and Exchange Commission litigator.

On January 28, Offill was convicted on 10 counts of conspiracy and wire and securities fraud by a jury, according to a release from the U.S. Justice Department. Offill was immediately jailed after the verdict and faces significant prison time after the conviction.

According to the Dallas Morning News, Offill could face as many as 185 years in prison and be ordered to pay back as much as $15 million in lost funds.

“It is a sad day when a former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission attorney uses what he learned in the government to later defraud the investing public,” Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division said after the verdict was given.

In 2004, Offill and Phoenix-based attorney David Stocker were involved in a scam to drive up prices of certain securities through press releases and spam-style email blasts, only to then sell the interests once the value went falsely went up, according to UPI. This type of scam is commonly called a “pump and dump.”

Along with the spreading information through media, the two lawyers also avoided stock registration requirements in order to hide the true nature of the stocks’ value when they wanted to sell at a high price, UPI reported.

In the criminal indictment against both Offill and Stoker, the two were accused of collaborating to register millions of shares in nine small companies that the two lawyers sold to investors, the Morning News reported. Once the prices went up through their media blasts and the lack of true records about the companies’ real finances, Offill and Stocker sold all shares in the valueless companies before stocks collapsed.

Stocker pleaded guilty to charges in 2009.

Earlier in January, Offill attended a court hearing within the federal court in mid-January on a contempt of court charge. He took the stand and defended himself against charges that he helped a client violate a court-order freeze on assets. Ironically, the freeze was placed on the individual after the SEC charged him with securities fraud, which is exactly the type of crime Offill used to prosecute.

Offill argued during the hearing that the assets considered frozen belonged to other companies that were labeled in the original court order as being a part of the freeze. He is scheduled to be sentenced in April.

Divorce is never a fun situation to tackle - however for many people it ends up being a somewhat painless process, from a legal standpoint. When it comes to emotions, obviously that’s another story - and some say celebrities who divorce have it worst of all.

According to an ABC News article, celeb divorces are the ugliest of the ugly. Not only do these people have to deal with the emotional pain and stress caused by divorce, but because of their fat wallets, the legal battles can be especially trying.

When these relationships include one celebrity and one non-famous person, sometimes that is the worst case scenario because the non-famous spouse might become more emotional or vindictive - wanting more assets or alimony than they would if the media weren’t involved and covering the couple’s every move.

Because of the natural human instinct to not want your personal life spread all over the news, often celebrities are willing to settle things quickly and pay more money - just to have the situation out of their lives.

Some of the most expensive celebrity divorces on record are:

• Rupert and Anna Murdoch ($1.7B)
• Craig and Wendy McCaw ($460M)
• Robert and Sheila Johnson ($400M)
• Michael and Juanita Jordan ($168M)
• Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving ($100M)

Paul Kelleher took the time and trouble to clean up his mother’s affairs after she died of cancer at the age of 52.  She left behind no estate to speak of, so the task was more one of notification and clean-up than actual administration.  But according to TPM Muckraker, Kelleher got a bit of a surprise when he called Bank of America–the bank representative breezily asked him how he planned to take care of his mother’s balance.

Of course, Kelleher wasn’t obligated to pay his mother’s outstanding balance; her estate would have been liable, if she’d had one, but heirs are generally not liable for outstanding debts of the deceased.  And, of course, Bank of America knows that…but how many people on the street are sure enough of it to respond, as Kelleher reportedly did, “…you should feel free to just go through the standard probate procedure. I’m certainly not legally obligated to pay for her.”?

Kelleher, fortunately, had enough understanding of the law to make that statement–and to stand strong in the face of the representative’s apparent dismay that he wasn’t going to “help out” his mother.

This is just one of many examples that demonstrate the willingness of collection representatives–both from primary creditors and from collection agencies or debt purchasers–to say whatever seems likely to be most effective in separating you from your money…whether or not you’re legally obligated to pay a debt.  Make sure that you understand your rights and obligations before entering into an agreement with a creditor or collection agency.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff, John Harris, were arrested this morning on federal corruption charges.

The complaint generally alleged that the two had conspired to defraud the people of Illinois of their honest services, and contained a second count specifically alleging that Blagojevich and Harris had attempted to exchange government business and other benefits for the firing of Chicago Tribune writers who had been critical of Blagojevich.

The complaint was supported by a 76-page affidavit from FBI Agent Daniel W. Cain, outlining evidence obtained through, among other things, recording of conversations at the Friends of Blagojevich offices in Chicago.

For many, the most shocking aspect of the allegations was the revelation that Blagojevich had allegedly been planning to “sell” the appointment to fill the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.   In conversations related in the affidavit, Blagojevich is alleged to have mentioned having his wife appointed to paid corporate board positions, garnering a lucrative non-profit position for himself, and obtaining promises for campaign funds in exchange for an appointment to the vacant Senate seat.

Blagojevich also reportedly considered the potential benefits of appointing himself to fill the vacancy, including the resources that would be available to him if he were to be indicted.  For a man concerned about indictment, Blagojevich appears to have been remarkably unconcerned about the possibility of wiretapping or a close associate offering testimony against him.

If convicted and sentenced to prison, Blagojevich will be the fourth Illinois governor in recent years to serve jail time.

The battle over the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000 raged on for months in Florida, and quickly spread to other states using the breathalyzer device.  Hundreds of cases were stalled or dismissed while courts in different jurisdictions reached conflicting conclusions about the defendant’s right to obtain the breathalyzer machine’s source code, and the corporation that developed the Intoxilyzer made it clear that the source code would not be divulged regardless of the outcome.  In Florida, the state legislature stepped in to alter the state’s DUI statute to specifically state that the defendant had no right to review the source code.

Now, more than two years later, a Tucson judge has thrownTucson judge has thrown out breath test results in another 69 cases–bringing the recent total in Arizona to more than 300.  This time, the machine in question is the Intoxilyzer 8000, the new and improved product that manufacturers and prosecutors alike hoped would put an end to the struggle by eliminating alleged flaws in the system.  But the new breathalyzer seems to come with its own set of inconsistencies and possibilities for error.

While the company’s reluctance to divulge its trade secrets in public courtrooms across the country is understandable and prosecutors claim that their hands are tied by that refusal, the bottom line remains what it was three years ago when defense attorneys first began to gain momentum with these requests and always will be:  a defendant is entitled to examine the evidence against him, and if the evidence isn’t available for examination, it shouldn’t be introduced.  Fortunately, many judges have that bottom line clearly in view.

On Friday, a Philadelphia federal judge threw out a complaint that was filed by a lawyer claiming that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) wasn’t a legal U.S. citizen. the lawyer was aiming to get Obama taken off the Nov. 4 ballot.

Phillip J. Berg alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and was actually a citizen of Indonesia and was therefore ineligible to be the president of the United States.

On Sept. 24, Obama and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) asked the judge to dismiss his complaint, calling his allegations “ridiculous” and “patently false”. They further said the Berg had “no standing” to challenge the qualifications of any presidential candidate because he didn’t show the requisit harm to himself.

Berg had earlier requested a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22, which was denied by the same judge; however, the judge didn’t rule on the merits of this lawsuit until last week.

On Friday the judge agreed with Obama and the DNC. In a 34-page document, the judge wrote that Berg’s accusations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to award standing to any voter.

The judge further said the Berg’s claim and tactics were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion”.

Berg had argued that Obama’s Democratic nomination kept people from voting for Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY), for whom Berg had backed in the primary elections.

The judge said Berg’s arguments “ventured into the unreasonable”.

The FACTS

Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. He is a U.S. citizen.

In an effort to squash the rumors, the campaign posted a documents issued by the state of Hawaii on its Web site to confirm his birth on American soil.

Berg alleged that the document was a forgery.

The nonpartisan Web site, FactCheck.org examined the original documents and ruled it legitimate.

In addition, a Aug. 13, 1961 birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama’s birth there on Aug. 4.

Additional Resources:

–The Presidential Candidates on the Economy

–Obama Talks about Credit Card Debt and Bankruptcy

–Presidential Candidates on the Housing Crisis

–2008 Presidential Election: A Look at the Foreclosure Crisis, Taxes & Retirement

The Washington Post reported on September 12 that court documents were released showing a key witness in the Rosenberg trials gave a different statement in front of the grand jury than she did at the trial.  The testimony helped send Ethel Rosenberg to the electric chair with her husband, Julius, in 1953.

Ruth Greenglass, who was married to Ethel’s brother, David, testified that she had been recruited by Julius to spy for the Russians.  The contradictions in her testimony suggest that it was Ruth’s notes that were passed to the Soviets and not the Rosenberg’s.  In recent years, David recanted his original testimony, and the recently opened transcripts show that Ruth’s statement changed from what she said at the trial to what she said in front of the grand jury.  Ruth was never tried and her husband served 10 years in prison.

A strange tale of international intrigue and mystery was published yesterday in the New York Times—but the intrigue comes from obscure international child custody laws, and the mystery from a New York man who was totally clueluess about how to apply them to his situation.

The story involves the adopted child of Eric Hyett and Joshua Glazer, who were married in one of the first same-sex marriage ceremonies in Massachusetts.  Their child, Jedidiah Hyett-Glazer, now 2, was born to a surrogate mother, and lived with the men until their split sometime last year.  A joint custody arrangement was ordered, with one man keeping the boy during the week, the other during the weekend.

However, Hyett failed to show up to return the child to Glazer after an extended stay, and later revealed over the phone that he was in Israel with the child and would not return.  Hyett said that he had read the law, and claimed that his action was at worst a first-degree custodial interference, a crime for which he could not be extradited.  He also claimed sanctuary in Israel with the child as per the Hague Convention, a treaty that governs international adoption.

However, Hyett should have consulted a divorce lawyer.  Not only was he wrong in claiming a provision of the Hague Convention—an Israeli family court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction—but he was wrong that his custodial interference would not cause him to lose custody.  Glazer was given custody and Hyett now awaits trial in Manhattan, facing up to four years if convicted.

It’s a strange story, but one that reminds you how important a divorce lawyer can be in making sure you’re on the right side of the law, in tricky matters of child custody and especially when dealing with international matters.