Beaufort Books was aiming for an October 3 release of the book, in which Simpson describes how he would have killed Nicole Brown Simpson and friend Ronald Goldman.

Plans by Simpson to release the book last year sparked a wave of outrage across the United States, prompting publisher HarperCollins to scrap the title and Fox News to cancel an accompanying television interview.

Simpson, 60, who always has vehemently denied involvement in the killings, was acquitted of killing ex-wife and Goldman after a racially charged trial in 1995. The verdict sparked outrage in much of America.

He was later found liable for the deaths in a 1997 civil suit and ordered to pay 33.5 million dollars in damages to Goldman’s family.

The case took a further twist when a US judge in March ruled that any income from the book should go to the Goldman family to cover the damages award made in the civil case but never paid by Simpson.

Another judge later awarded the rights of the book to the Goldman family.

A spokesman for literary agent Sharlene Martin, who handled the deal, earlier said that the book was to be repackaged by the new publisher.

The publisher “pledged to leave Simpson’s manuscript entirely intact, but they will also add key commentary,” spokesman Michael Wright said in a statement, without elaborating on the commentary.

Source: Yahoo News

p/s: There a lot of people out there can kill for money.Take care of your self.

But after two years, Mrs. Winkelman says, there was a changing of the guard, and new school administrators and school board members said Jacob had to attend regular public school.

Under the Disabilities Act, parents are entitled to go to court to enforce the law, but a majority of the courts have required that parents be represented by a lawyer. If parents didn’t have an attorney, their cases were thrown out.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that parents cannot be shut out of court just because they are representing themselves.

The ruling was a blow to school boards across the country. National School Boards Association General Counsel Francisco Negron says that allowing non-lawyer parents in court will lengthen the process because parents are not legally trained and often are emotional.

Source: NPR

Most of what Congress knows about the White House’s involvement in the firings has come from indirect clues dropped in testimony by other officials. The White House will only let Congress interview the president’s advisers in private without an oath or transcript.

That’s why Congress was eager enough to hear from Monica Goodling that they granted her immunity to testify. As the Justice Department’s White House liaison, she may be able to give the first clear view into the White House’s role.

Harvard Law Professor David Barron says the arrows pointing to the White House may also give a clue about why Gonzales remains in his job despite bipartisan calls for him to resign.

“The more that these investigations begin to touch on the conduct of the president himself, the more need there may be for the president to keep the attorney general in office, for fear that if he goes, then the president stands exposed directly to the investigations,” Barron said.

Before the scandal exploded, a top aide to the deputy attorney general testified that the White House played a minor role in the dismissal of the prosecutors.

E-mail has since revealed that the idea to fire the U.S. attorneys originated at the White House.

And when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, testified before Congress about who made the final firing decisions, he said this:

“The decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president.”

That places the White House at the beginning and the end of the firing process. But the big question that no one has answered is who handled the middle? How did the names on the list get there in the first place?

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has told Congress that he doesn’t know.

“What I understood was that the recommendation that would come to me would be a consensus recommendation of people that I trusted,” he said.

White House involvement in U.S. attorney hirings and firings is perfectly acceptable unless partisan politics played a role where it shouldn’t have. And in this case, there are allegations that politics influenced the firings.

For example, the Senate ethics committee is investigating whether Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, improperly pushed U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to indict Democrats before the 2007 election.

Iglesias was later fired. Gonzales has testified that he doesn’t know who first suggested Iglesias be dismisssed, but people at the White House expressed concern.

“I’d heard concerns raised by [presidential adviser Karl] Rove,” Gonzales told Congress. “And what I know today … is that there was a meeting in October with the president in which the president, as I understand it, relayed to me similar concerns about pursuing election fraud.”

Rove also played a role in the dismissal of Arkansas’ U.S. attorney. The new prosecutor there, Tim Griffin, worked for Rove. In fact, the Justice Department had to backpedal from a letter to Congress that said Rove played no role in the replacements after internal e-mail showed that Rove was very involved.

And last week, the White House unexpectedly popped up in another Justice Department controversy.

Back when Gonzales was White House counsel, someone sent him to Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room.

Even though Ashcroft had signed his authority over to Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Gonzales urged Ashcroft to override Comey and authorize the president’s secret domestic spying program.

Comey also said he had “some recollection” that President Bush was involved enough to make a call to Ashcroft’s wife, telling her that Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card were on their way to the hospital to see her ailing husband.

“I don’t know that for sure,” Comey said, but added that the call to Mrs. Ashcroft “came from the White House.”

The day after Comey’s testimony, a reporter asked President Bush whether he placed the call.

“There’s a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn’t happen,” the president said, adding that he wouldn’t talk about it.

Earlier this week the president said Gonzales has done nothing wrong, and Mr. Bush continues to stand by him.

Source: NPR 

Tags: hill, bush, white+house, congress, us, u.s, us+attorney

 

Mel Gibson has been formally charged with drink-related offences after an incident in which he made anti-Semitic comments during his arrest.

The Oscar-winning director is accused of driving under the influence, having a raised blood-alcohol level and having an open alcohol bottle in the car.

He could face up to six months in jail if convicted.

During his arrest, Mr Gibson made what he has said were “harmful” anti-Semitic comments. He has since apologised.

Mr Gibson said in a statement his outburst did not reflect his true views.

“Please know from my heart I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith,” he said.

Mr Gibson has also asked to meet Jewish groups to “discern the appropriate path for healing”.

‘Relapse’

In an earlier statement he said he had suffered a horrific relapse in his battle with alcoholism.

The Associated Press news agency reports that Mr Gibson told the arresting officer: “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” and asked him: “Are you a Jew?”

Mr Gibson is expected to appear in court on the drink-driving related charges on 28 September.

He was arrested last Friday after being seen driving at 87mph (139km/h) in a 45mph (72km/h) stretch of Malibu’s Pacific Coast Highway, the local sheriff’s department says.

Authorities say his blood-alcohol level was found to be 0.12%. The legal limit in California is 0.08%.

Mr Gibson has not been charged with speeding or in relation to his anti-Semitic comments.

Mr Gibson, 50, won a best director Oscar for his 1995 film Braveheart, in which he also starred.

His 2004 biblical epic, The Passion of the Christ, was recently named the most controversial movie to date by US magazine Entertainment Weekly.

“Another Chapter for Hollywood Artist”

Tags: charge, mel+gibson, drink+drive