Judge rejects Polanski effort to unseal transcripts

A Los Angeles judge Monday denied Roman Polanski's request to unseal transcripts of recent testimony by the original prosecutor in his 33-year-old sex crime case, rejecting arguments that they were necessary for the filmmaker's extradition proceedings.

Polanski's legal team contends that the transcripts prove that the L.A. County district attorney's office provided Swiss authorities with false and incomplete information in a request to extradite him.

But Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that he ordered retired Deputy Dist. Atty. Roger Gunson to testify only in case the former prosecutor was unable to attend a hearing in the case later if Polanski returns to Los Angeles. The judge said California law requires such testimony to remain sealed and noted that Swiss authorities had not requested the transcripts.

Polanksi's lawyers argue that the transcripts would show that the judge overseeing Polanski's case in 1977 intended for the filmmaker's 90-day diagnostic testing term in prison as his full punishment behind bars. Polanski was released after 42 days. His attorneys say he fled the country after learning that the judge was going to send him back to prison to serve an additional 48 days.

Polanski's attorneys argue that the issue is important, in part, because the United States' extradition treaty with Switzerland allows the extradition of a defendant only if the remaining time to be served behind bars is more than six months. They note that an affidavit by L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. David Walgren that was given to Swiss authorities does not say Polanski's diagnostic testing was meant to serve as his full prison term.

“This affidavit does not provide the facts, and Mr. Gunson's testimony proves that,” attorney Chad S. Hummel said in court Monday.

But Walgren described the allegation as “baseless and reckless.” He said the U.S. Justice Department had reviewed Polanski's allegations and determined that the affidavit was accurate.

The district attorney's office, he said, is awaiting Polanski's return to Los Angeles for sentencing on his conviction for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/judge-rejects-polanski-effort-to-reopen-old-case.html#more

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Iraqi boy set on fire in Baghdad and brought to U.S. for treatment is granted asylum

An Iraqi boy set on fire while playing outside his Baghdad house in 2007 has been granted asylum to stay in the U.S., his attorney said Monday.

Youssif, his parents and his younger sister applied for asylum last year because they feared they would be killed if they returned to their home country. Youssif, who has had more than a dozen surgeries, also is still undergoing treatment at the Grossman Burn Center.

“It is a big relief,” said the family's attorney, Maurice M. Suh. “We're glad that the right decision was made.”

The family learned the news Monday morning, just before heading to the hospital for Youssif's mother to give birth to their third child.

The brutal attack occurred in January 2007, when unidentified assailants doused 5-year-old Youssif in gasoline and set him ablaze. After the boy's story aired on CNN, the Sherman Oaks-based Children's Burn Foundation brought him and his family to Southern California in September for treatment. The family's last name is being withheld for security reasons.

When he first arrived, Youssif had trouble eating and brushing his teeth because he couldn't open his mouth wide, Dr. Peter Grossman said. And his scarring was so significant that he turned heads wherever he went, he said. Since then, Grossman has operated on Youssif multiple times to reduce the scarring.

Though Youssif still has scars, Grossman said they are nowhere near what they were when he first came to the U.S. “I don't think we've hit a home run, but I think we've hit a triple,” Grossman said, adding that there is still more to do.

His mother said both Youssif's appearance and his mood have improved a lot in the last three years. At first, he was angry, aggressive and introverted. But over time, he has become more calm and comfortable.

“After the surgeries, a lot of things changed,” said his mother, Zaienab. “He could eat. He could smile.”

The treatment has been better than the family could have wished for, she said. “Imagine, here Youssif loves the hospital. In Iraq, if you just mention the word hospital, he would start shaking and crying,” she said.
Now 7, Youssif speaks English, loves Spider-Man and playing soccer with his classmates. His favorite movie is "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs."

The family filed for asylum in December 2009, and Youssif's parents attended their asylum interview in February.

Youssif's mother said that because of the media attention, many people in the Arab world know of her son and the treatment and financial support they have received in America.

“It is well-known that Youssif was treated by Americans and a Jewish doctor,” she said. “If anyone deals with Americans, they consider them traitors... They would kill us at the airport.”

In addition, the family is still vulnerable because Youssif's parents are in an interfaith marriage – his father is Sunni and his mother is Shiite.

“The same factors exist as did before, but now they are even more of a target,” Suh said. In addition to putting the family in danger, Suh said sending Youssif back to Iraq would interrupt his medical care.

“It would be the cruelest thing to treat him halfway and send him back, where he wouldn't receive treatment,” Suh said.

After school one recent day, Youssif walked up to the family's apartment and his mother hugged him and gave him a kiss on the head. He took off his Batman backpack and sat down for a snack.

His mother said staying in the United States will allow her to provide a safe future for her children.

“It was our dream to help Youssif,” she said. “We've accomplished that. Staying here is another dream.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/iraqi-boy-set-on-fire-in-baghdad-and-brought-to-us-for-treatment-is-granted-asylum.html#more

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Even terrorism suspects have rights

By Erwin Chemerinsky

May 11, 2010

Last week, following the attempted bombing in Times Square, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) proposed that those aiding foreign terrorist activity should be stripped of their citizenship. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly agreed, with a few reservations, that the idea had merits.

On Sunday, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said on morning news shows that Congress should consider legislation that would allow questioning of terrorism suspects without warning them of their right to remain silent, as required by the Supreme Court in Miranda vs. Arizona.

Both of these proposals are dangerous and ineffective violations of basic civil liberties, and they are almost surely unconstitutional. In 1967, in Afroyim vs. Rusk, the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot strip individuals of citizenship unless they choose to renounce it. In words directly applicable to the Lieberman proposal, the court stated: "Citizenship is no light trifle to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so.... The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship."

Nor can Congress eliminate the need to inform terrorism suspects of their right to remain silent. The Supreme Court has held that the warning is required by the privilege against self-incrimination found in the 5th Amendment. Previous efforts by Congress to eliminate or modify this have been declared unconstitutional.

Moreover, such actions are unnecessary. Those who commit terrorist acts can and should be severely punished; stripping them of their citizenship and failing to inform them of their right to remain silent serve no additional purpose.

There is no reason to believe that advising terrorism suspects of their rights obstructs effective law enforcement. Take the case of Faisal Shahzad, accused of placing the car with explosives in Times Square. He spoke to authorities before being given his Miranda warnings, and continued to speak after. In fact, police have demonstrated over decades that they can function effectively even when suspects are advised of their rights. If there is a public safety emergency, current law permits questioning without Miranda warnings. Those determined not to speak will refuse to do so whether or not they have been informed of their rights.

Proposals for depriving Americans of their citizenship or civil liberties ignore the risks of doing so. If individuals accused of terrorism acts can be deprived of their citizenship or their rights, would this extend to defendants such as Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols, who were convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing? In fact, why shouldn't all mass murderers be deprived of these rights as well? They too terrorize communities.

The great fear is that when the government has the power to strip some people of basic rights, it cannot be easily limited. Fundamental protections of our democracy are lost, and for no gain. We have seen time and again that terrorists can be successfully prosecuted without stripping them of their rights during the process.

Responding to acts of terrorism with deprivations of civil liberties is a familiar and troubling pattern. This is exactly what happened after 9/11, as Congress quickly passed the Patriot Act and the George W. Bush administration instituted unconstitutional policies such as indefinite detentions and warrantless electronic eavesdropping. There is little indication that these abuses have made the nation any safer.

It is deeply distressing that Democrats, now that they are in power, feel the same need to respond to terrorist activity by proposing unconstitutional and ineffective violations of civil liberties. There is, of course, enormous political pressure to show toughness against terrorism. But that should not take the form of depriving citizens of their constitutional rights.

Throughout American history, the response to crises often has been to violate basic rights, only to realize in hindsight that the nation wasn't made any safer for sacrificing its constitutional birthright. I still hope that the country will learn from this history and that Congress will reject the misguided proposals of Lieberman and Holder.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Irvine School of Law.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0511-chemerinsky-20100511,0,5912050,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Civilian trial for 9/11 suspects should be off the table

by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Vincent J. Vitkowsky

May 10, 2010

In a recent hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said that a civilian trial in New York City for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other accused 9/11 plotters was still "not off the table." This is unfortunate, and not only because such a trial would inevitably compromise classified information, impose massive security and logistical costs on New York, and provide the defendants with a superb propaganda platform. Another major problem with a civilian trial has been largely overlooked: the impact on the 12 private citizens unlucky enough to be chosen as jurors.

The trial of Mohammed would be a long and dangerous ordeal for jurors. They would be forced to surrender years of their lives. They would have to be entrusted with classified information of value to Al Qaeda. Their identities almost certainly would become public knowledge, and they could easily be subjected to intimidation. Consider Osama bin Laden's threat on March 25 to execute all captured Americans if the defendants or any other Al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody are executed. Wouldn't jurors who vote to convict or impose the death penalty have reason to fear that they themselves could become targets for revenge attacks? Meanwhile, a juror who, however improbably, voted to acquit a defendant thought to be responsible for an attack that killed thousands of Americans is likely to be ostracized by many of his fellow countrymen. Either scenario would wreak havoc with civilian jurors' lives.

The problems posed by holding highly publicized terrorists trials, involving defendants who belong to a functioning paramilitary organization, are well illustrated by the British experience in Northern Ireland, where the British government was forced to create specialized terrorism courts, in part because of the inability to obtain convictions from thoroughly intimidated jurors. Under constant threat from the IRA and other factions, most prospective jurors in Northern Ireland either showed a propensity to acquit or were afraid to serve.

Closer to home and more recently, the experience from the civilian trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, also demonstrated the formidable potential for verbal intimidation, propaganda and grandstanding, with significant deleterious impact on the jury. Even though Moussaoui pleaded guilty, a jury had to be empanelled because the government sought the death penalty. The sentencing phase alone took a full year. The prosecution reviewed the horrors of 9/11, and the defense put the government on trial by arguing that the U.S. did little to prevent the attacks.

Moussaoui had to be ejected from the courtroom several times. As the prosecution described 9/11, he pumped his fists and shouted, "God curse America!" He called the collapse of the twin towers "gorgeous," and predicted that "3,000 miscreants" will burn in "hellfire." He testified that the 9/11 survivors and family members were "pathetic" and "disgusting." Most of the jury favored death, but there was a lone holdout, so the jury delivered a sentence of life imprisonment. Upon hearing it, Moussaoui declared, "America, you lost! I won." It was difficult not to conclude that, given Moussaoui's involvement in the worst terrorist attack on American soil, the failure to secure the death penalty was both a setback for the prosecution and a source of grief for many of the victim's' families.

To be sure, similar concerns about intimidation can arise when private citizens serve as jurors in some criminal trials. Organized crime's presence in the U.S. is of much longer standing than Al Qaeda's, and jurors have often faced threats of retribution. That is one reason criminal trials do not always succeed. Witness, for example, the government's capitulation earlier this year in deciding not to proceed against John Gotti Jr. in New York after four mistrials in over five years. Yet, while Gotti is a U.S. citizen, entitled to be tried in a civilian court, Mohammed is not.

All of the jury intimidation problems are resolved entirely by trying Mohammed and the other accused 9/11 plotters before a military commission. The jury in this setting would consist of 12 officers who have voluntarily accepted the risks of their profession, including the prospects of facing death on or off the battlefield. Given the choice between trying the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks before a vulnerable jury in civilian court or before a military commission in a secure location such as Guantanamo Bay, we should choose wisely.

David B. Rivkin Jr., an attorney in Washington, served in the Department of Justice in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Vitkowsky is an attorney in New York City. Both are affiliated with the Center for Law and Counterterrorism.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rivkin-20100510,0,5066042,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 10, 2010

Roman Polanski, who pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl three decades ago, has decided to speak in his own defense. In a screed posted on a sympathetic website, the director of "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby," now under house arrest in Switzerland, offers an array of assertions: He was treated unfairly by the California courts; he has the right to be sentenced without returning to this country; the United States wants to serve him "on a platter to the media"; and the prosecutor who is seeking his extradition is running for higher office and "needs media publicity."

Polanski's statement is punctuated by the refrain "I can remain silent no longer!" But he hasn't served his cause by opening his mouth. Most of his complaints are easily dismissed, including his gibe at L.A. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, who is running for state attorney general, and his suggestion that prosecutors should defer to the wishes of Samantha Geimer, his victim, that the case not be pursued further. As we have observed before, the case against Polanski was brought not to satisfy Geimer's desire for justice but to prosecute an offense against the laws of California.

Perhaps most objectionable is Polanski's plea that he be "treated fairly like anyone else." The implication is that he has been singled out because of his celebrity status. It's more plausible that he was treated more leniently than an ordinary defendant accused of drugging and raping a young teenager. (The rape charge was dropped, and Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sex with a minor.)

More substantial is Polanski's argument that the original judge in his case reneged on a plea-bargain deal. Polanski and his defenders claim that sealed testimony by a prosecutor confirms that the judge had promised to limit the director's sentence to a 90-day diagnostic study. If this is true, it raises legitimate concerns about due process. But a fugitive from justice is in no legal or moral position to claim that his rights were violated. That is the message of the latest development in this long legal saga, an appeals court's decision two weeks ago that a Los Angeles judge acted within his discretion in refusing to sentence Polanski while he remained abroad.

Polanski has every right to "remain silent no longer." But he should give voice to his complaints in court, and in this country.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-polanski-20100510,0,7273572,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the New York Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Florida Suit Poses a Challenge to Health Care Law

As they constructed the requirement that Americans have health insurance , Democrats in Congress took pains to make their bill as constitutionally impregnable as possible.

But despite the health care law's elaborate scaffolding, attorneys general and governors from 20 states, all but one of them Republicans, have now joined as confident litigants in a bid to topple its central pillar. In the process, they hope to present the Supreme Court with a landmark opportunity to define the limits of federal authority, perhaps for generations.

In the seven weeks since the legislation passed, at least a dozen lawsuits have been filed in federal courts to challenge it, according to the Justice Department. But the case that could carry the most weight, and may be on the fastest track in the most advantageous venue, is the one filed in Pensacola, Fla. , by state officials, just minutes after President Obama signed the bill.

Some legal scholars, including some who normally lean to the left, believe the states have identified the law's weak spot and devised a credible theory for eviscerating it.

The power of their argument lies in questioning whether Congress can regulate inactivity — in this case by levying a tax penalty on those who do not obtain health insurance. If so, they ask, what would theoretically prevent the government from mandating all manner of acts in the national interest, say regular exercise or buying an American car?

Other experts, however, dismiss the Florida lawsuit as a politically motivated lark at taxpayer expense, and argue that the insurance mandate falls comfortably within Supreme Court precedents. The states, they say, may not even withstand a challenge to their standing to bring the suit, since they are only indirectly affected by the mandate.

The focus of the litigation is the 16-word clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, a provision the court has interpreted broadly but not without boundaries. The lead plaintiff, Attorney General Bill McCollum of Florida, who is running for the Republican nomination for governor, argues that the new law's historic reach presents the courts with fresh circumstances.

“In the last 50 years or so,” Mr. McCollum said, “other than Brown v. Board, I think the constitutional precedents here will have a greater impact on more people than maybe anything else the court has decided.”

Jonathan Turley, who teaches at George Washington University Law School, said that if forced to bet, he would predict that the courts would uphold the health care law. But Mr. Turley said that the federal government's case was far from open-and-shut, and that he found the arguments against the mandate compelling.

“There are few cases in the history of the court system that have a more significant assertion of authority by the government,” said Mr. Turley, a civil libertarian who acknowledged being strange bedfellows with the conservative theorists behind the lawsuit. “This case, more than any other, may give the court sticker shock in terms of its impact on federalism.”

Mr. McCollum, 65, said he first became fixated on the constitutionality of the mandate last September, after reading a column in The Wall Street Journal by two Washington lawyers, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, of the white-shoe firm Baker Hostetler. Mr. McCollum had worked for the firm after retiring from the House of Representatives in 2001, but said he had never collaborated with the men and knew them only well enough to say hello in the hallway.

Mr. Rivkin, 53, and Mr. Casey, 52, who have worked together since meeting in the Reagan Justice Department, had been warning in columns since the early 1990s that a health insurance mandate would extend Congress's power to regulating Americans “merely because you exist.”

The lawsuit grew out of regular conference calls among a group of attorneys general who were threatening to challenge the so-called Cornhusker Kickback, a provision favoring a single state, Nebraska, that ultimately was dropped from the bill.

The complaint initially was filed by attorneys general from 13 states, with Mr. McCollum's name listed first, like John Hancock's. Seven other states have since committed to join, some after bitter disagreements between governors and attorneys general from opposing parties. Virginia, which pre-emptively enacted a law intended to nullify a federal insurance mandate, has filed a separate lawsuit.

The states have hired Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Casey as outside counsel under a contract that restricts their fees to $50,000 this year. The lawyers agreed to reduce their hourly rate to $250, from $950, a practice Mr. Rivkin said was standard for public-sector clients.

Four of the attorneys general named as plaintiffs are running for governor. Attorney General Henry McMaster of South Carolina, who faces a competitive Republican primary for governor in June, is broadcasting a television advertisement about the litigation in which he vows to “protect the sovereignty of South Carolina.” Mr. McCollum's campaign Web site features a petition in support of his lawsuit to “stop Obamacare.”

The Justice Department said it would “vigorously defend” the cases. “We are confident that this statute is constitutional and that we will prevail,” said Tracy Schmaler, a department spokeswoman.

Congressional bill writers took steps to immunize the law against constitutional challenge. They asserted in the text that the insurance mandate “substantially affects interstate commerce,” the Supreme Court's standard for regulation under the Commerce Clause. They labeled the penalty on those who do not obtain coverage an “excise tax,” because such taxes enjoy substantial constitutional protection. Supportive analyses by prominent law professors were read into the Congressional Record.

Nonetheless, there is a broad assumption that the health care law will earn Supreme Court review, although it could take two years or more to get there. The judge in Pensacola, Roger Vinson, has scheduled oral arguments for Sept. 14 on the Justice Department's anticipated motion to dismiss the case. With no real facts to try, those legal arguments would effectively serve as a trial.

The lawsuit could have been filed anywhere. But several lawyers involved said they wanted the first review to rest with the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, a generally conservative bench that handles cases from Florida.

The state's Northern District includes a courthouse in Tallahassee, six blocks from Mr. McCollum's office. But Mr. McCollum instead filed the case 200 miles away in Pensacola, bypassing a Tallahassee judge who was named by President Bill Clinton and ensuring that the judge would be a Republican appointee.

“We thought with the judges, we'd do as well there as anywhere else,” Mr. McMaster said. “But it's the strength of the case we're counting on.”

The suit lodges three related claims against the health law.

It challenges the federal government's vast expansion of Medicaid as “an unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of states.” The Justice Department plans to counter that states do not have to participate in Medicaid, according to sources familiar with its thinking. But the states argue that their health care systems have grown so dependent on Medicaid that withdrawing would be catastrophic.

A second count attacks the tax penalty on the uninsured, saying it is an illegal direct tax, and not an allowable excise tax on goods or services.

But the central challenge concerns the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause, as expressed in four decisions handed down over 63 years. If the court interprets the clause broadly, as it did in two seminal cases on the subject, the health insurance mandate is likely to survive.

In those two cases, Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 and Gonzales v. Raich in 2005, the court ruled that Congress's regulatory authority was so extensive that it could even prevent growers from cultivating crops for personal use because of the cumulative impact on the market.

But twice in the last 15 years, the court has invalidated laws that used the Commerce Clause to justify the regulation of noneconomic activity, like restrictions on carrying guns near schools. The constitutionality of the individual mandate, therefore, may rest on whether the justices can be convinced that decisions not to obtain insurance substantially affect interstate commerce.

Lawyers for the government will contend that, because of the cost-shifting nature of health insurance, people who do not obtain coverage inevitably affect the pricing and availability of policies for everyone else. That, they will argue, is enough to satisfy the Supreme Court's test.

But to Mr. Rivkin, the acceptance of that argument would herald an era without limits.

“Every decision you can make as a human being has an economic footprint — whether to procreate, whether to marry,” he said. “To say that is enough for your behavior to be regulated transforms the Commerce Clause into an infinitely capacious font of power, whose exercise is only restricted by the Bill of Rights.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/health/policy/11lawsuit.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the White House

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Launching America's New Approach to the Drug Problem

Today marks an important milestone in our work to create a healthier and safer America.  The newly released 2010 National Drug Control Strategy serves as a blueprint for action to address drug use and its consequences.  Emphasizing collaboration and innovative strategies, it outlines five-year goals for reducing drug use and its consequences through a balanced policy of prevention, treatment, enforcement, and international cooperation.

The new Strategy, the inaugural drug control plan for the Obama Administration, was created with input from a nation-wide listening tour and will be implemented through a coordinated National, State and local effort.   This collaborative approach will maximize Federal resources and enhance information sharing. And there is no time to waste in addressing this ongoing concern. 

Drug use affects millions of American families, strains our economy and healthcare system, and harms the well-being of young people and our returning veterans.  The recent violence in Mexico serves as a tragic reminder of the threat that drug trafficking presents and the need for every nation to take steps to protect its people from violence, corruption and instability caused by illegal drug trafficking.  Successfully addressing these issues will mean continuing the Administration's unwavering support for law enforcement and the criminal justice system, disrupting domestic drug traffic and production, and working with partners to reduce the global drug trade while also reducing our Nation's demand for drugs. 

Informed by consultations with State and local officials, community-based organizations, practitioners, and researchers, the Strategy outlines a balanced approach that emphasizes community-based prevention, integration of evidence-based treatment into the mainstream health care system, implementation of the Southwest Border Strategy and other international partnerships to disrupt transnational drug trafficking organizations, as well as innovations in the criminal justice system that help people get the treatment they need and reduce rates of recidivism.

Specifically, the Strategy outlines five-year goals to reduce drug use and its consequences:

• Reduce the rate of youth drug use by 15 percent;
  
  
• Decrease drug use among young adults by 10 percent;
  
  
• Reduce the number of chronic drug users by 15 percent;
  
  
• Reduce the incidence of drug-induced deaths by 15 percent; and
  
  
• Reduce the prevalence of drugged driving by 10 percent.

These are ambitious goals and there are many challenges ahead, but there are also many good reasons to be optimistic.  We have a variety of tools to confront substance abuse and its consequences and, thanks to the efforts of countless organizations and dedicated citizens, millions of Americans have already overcome addiction and drug abuse and are now in recovery.  Together, we can work to reduce drug use and its consequences to create a safer, healthier Nation. 

For more information about the 2010 National Drug Control Strategy, please visit the Office of National Drug Control Policy website . 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/10/launching-america-s-new-approach-drug-problem

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Justice Department

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you, Jack [Calhoun].  I appreciate your kind words, and I'm grateful for your outstanding leadership.  Your commitment to the success of this network – and to our nation's young people – is clear.  Not only have you delayed your retirement; you've also agreed to a demanding travel schedule that takes you across the country, and all around this state, every month.  Your work is making a difference here in California.  And your guidance is helping today's Justice Department meet its obligations to combat crime, to protect the safety of our communities, and to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to improve their lives and fulfill their potential.

I'm here today to discuss the work, and the responsibilities, that we share.  Responsibilities to ourselves, to each other, to our communities, and to the alarming number of children and young people who have been victims of, perpetrators of, and witnesses to gang violence.

This conversation is critical.  I want to thank Mayor Johnson for hosting us.  And let me thank each of you for your participation and engagement.  In the cities you lead, and in the communities you serve, the next chapter of our nation's history will be written.  Our future progress depends on our current priorities.  It depends on today's commitment to empowering the next generation of Americans.  And it depends on our ability to confront our nation's most overwhelming and intractable challenges, including the prevalence and consequences of gang activity and the devastating impact of childhood exposure to violence.

Every person here understands what we're up against.  Whether you work to shape policy, to create support programs, or to advance policing efforts, your dedication is inspiring.  And I'm grateful that this network brings together such diverse partners.  You've proven that, to succeed in protecting the safety and potential of our children, we need a variety of perspectives; we need to test multiple strategies; and, above all, we need a comprehensive, collaborative approach.

By working in partnership, you've helped to create peace in some of California's most dangerous and divided neighborhoods.  You've helped enemies find common ground.  You've helped to raise spirits, and prospects, in our most vulnerable communities.  And you've lifted up countless young people who were heading down dark, dangerous paths.  Quite simply, you have worked miracles. 

The mayors, police chiefs, law enforcement officers, service providers, researchers, educators, and donors in this room are innovators in the administration of justice.  And I'm grateful to count each of you as partners.  You have provided the Justice Department with valuable insights from the front lines. You've told us what works, what doesn't, and what we must do to enhance public safety.  And, as you've created new programs and field-tested new strategies, you've shown that, despite budget and infrastructure challenges, solutions are possible.

In just three years, this network has made meaningful, measurable progress in addressing gang activity and community violence.  Each city in this network has developed and implemented a comprehensive strategy.  And many have seen crime rates fall.  Yes, we should celebrate these achievements.  But we must also face facts.

Today, far too many of our children are in need and in pain.  Too many kids have given up on themselves and given in to a life of crime.  Too many communities are ravaged by gang violence.  Too many families have been destroyed.  Too many lives have been lost.  Children like 11-year-old Mynesha Crenshaw, who was killed by gang-fueled gunfire in San Bernardino last year, in her own home, as she and her sister were making dinner.  Children like 6-year-old Azahel Cruz, from Monterey, who was also killed at home by a stray bullet.  Children like Josue Lopez-Gil, who – just one year out of elementary school – was murdered by a 13-year-old classmate affiliated with a street gang in Oakland.

Each one of these children died for the same, senseless reason.  They were, as Monterey's Deputy Police Chief Kelly McMillin put it, “unlucky to be caught between two groups of young men who simply don't like each other…who, if challenged on the point, would doubtless be unable to describe the source or reason for their hatred.” 

So how do we honor these victims? How do we hold their killers accountable? And how do we prevent future tragedy?

These questions can't be answered easily or quickly.  But we can – and we must – begin to answer them by coming together, by sharing what we've learned, and by being clear about what's working and where we need to improve.

For me, combating gang violence, and helping children who've been exposed to such violence, has been both a personal and professional concern for decades.  As a prosecutor, as a judge, as a U.S. Attorney, and as the Deputy Attorney General, addressing the causes and remedying consequences of violence was at the forefront of my work.  Today, as Attorney General and as a parent, it remains a top priority.

It is also a top priority for this administration. In fact, in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2011, $12 million in new funding has been requested specifically for gang and youth violence prevention efforts and programs.  But, as important as these investments are, addressing the challenges before us requires more than simply moving money out the door.

Of course, we must continue to strengthen our law enforcement capacities and capabilities.  And we must build on the work that law enforcement officials, in partnership with our U.S. Attorneys' Offices and Justice Department prosecutors, have done to take violent offenders off our streets.  But law enforcement can't do it alone.  As Jack often says, “we can't arrest our way out of this problem.”  Achieving the progress we need to make demands that our enforcement efforts are complemented by strong prevention, education, and intervention initiatives.

Putting gangs out of business and providing young people with opportunities to improve their lives will take time.  It will also take unprecedented, community-wide cooperation.  We need to find ways to help young people resist the allure of gangs through programs like Ceasefire, Peacekeepers, and Youth Corps.  And we need more of the city-wide task forces that have been so successful in San Jose, Santa Rosa, and other cities.

We also need more programs like “Summer Night Lights,” which Mayor Villaraigosa established in Los Angeles.   Last year, I had the chance to see this initiative in action.  They're literally turning the lights on in the parks where crimes often occur and offering recreational, educational, and artistic activities.  This approach is having a positive effect, and it's an example of the innovative approaches we must adopt.

We also must develop more evidence-based strategies for combating crime and use data to target our policing efforts in “hot spots” of criminal activity.  We also need to engage more “non-traditional” crime fighters – more public health officials, parents, and teachers; more non-profit and faith-based groups; and more young people.  Finally, we need to focus greater attention on early childhood experiences – and, specifically, on the impact of childhood exposure to violence.

Last fall, the Justice Department released findings from our National Survey on Children Exposed to Violence, the first comprehensive look at children as victims and witnesses of crime, abuse, and violence from infancy to age 17.  The survey concluded that most children are exposed to violence in their daily lives.  It was a wake-up call for the Department – and, I know, for many of you.

The study found, for example, that the majority of our kids – more than 60 percent – have been exposed to crime, abuse, and violence.  Two in five children have experienced direct violence more than once over the course of a year, and nearly three in ten were assaulted at least once in that period.  Ten percent of children have suffered some form of abuse or neglect, and one in sixteen has been victimized sexually.  In measuring indirect exposure, the study found that one in four children have witnessed a violent act, with many seeing one family member assault another.

This problem affects each one of us.  And effectively addressing it must become our shared concern and cause.

But the good news is that, today, there is good cause for optimism.  Research has shown that early intervention is effective in countering the effects of violence.  Quality programs have shown clear benefits in enhancing resiliency and fostering healthy child development – benefits that extend to children who've suffered frequent exposure to violence.  In other words, it's within our power – within your power – to help the kids who need us most.

At the Department of Justice, we have made an historic commitment to this work.  I'm proud that, for the first time, the Department is directing resources for the express purpose of reducing childhood exposure to violence and raising awareness of its ramifications, advancing scientific inquiry on its causes and characteristics, and, of course, countering its negative impact.

Last month, we announced that $5 million in grants would be awarded under the children's exposure to violence initiative by this fall.  And the Administration's budget request for the next fiscal year includes an additional $37 million to help us provide critical resources, research, and services for communities nationwide. 

While I'm encouraged by these new investments, and by our collective work in combating gangs and reducing childhood exposure to violence, I can't pretend that addressing the challenges before us will be easy.

My predecessor, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, once said that, “It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped.  Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.”

Today, as I look around this room, I can't help but be keenly aware that each one of you has sent forth many, many ripples of hope.  By your actions, you have demonstrated your commitment to solving a problem that, simply put, will determine the future of course of our country.  Together, I believe we can write a bold new chapter in our American story.  And I believe that we can transform our nation for the better – one city, one community, and one child at a time.

Thank you.

http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-100510.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From ICE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WASHINGTON - John Morton, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), delivered remarks today at ICE headquarters honoring ICE agents and officers killed in the line of duty. The ceremony coincided with National Police Week, which is held annually each May to honor federal, state and local officers and agents who work tirelessly to keep our nation safe.

Morton, who was joined by U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas, stated that the business of law enforcement can be difficult, challenging and dangerous regardless of where officers serve in our nation. Last year, the United States suffered the loss of 116 law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty.

Morton acknowledged that ICE agents and officers work in a world marked by high risk, long hours and personal sacrifice. He reiterated how grateful he is for the work ICE employees do on a daily basis, and stated that we would not be a great country if it were not for the dedication and the strength of our criminal justice system.

During the ceremony, Morton unveiled ICE's own Honor and Remembrance Memorial. The memorial is dedicated to the law enforcement officers from ICE and its legacy agencies who gave their lives in the line of duty. The families of four fallen agents and officers attended this solemn ceremony.

Additionally, ICE Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations Alonzo Peña spoke today at D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) headquarters. He thanked the MPD, the Fraternal Order of Police D.C. Lodge #1 and the D.C. Chapter of Concerns of Police Survivors for their call to "serve and protect." Peña thanked the MPD for protecting the residents of the District each and every day in order to make our streets safer and our country more secure.

He added that we honor all the courageous men and women in law enforcement - especially those who gave their lives while providing the highest level of safety and security to the American people.

To read the Assistant Secretary's remarks, visit the Speeches and Testimonies page.

http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1005/100510washingtondc2.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the FBI

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Honoring the Fallen

Robert S. Mueller, III
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Police Week 2010

Hello, I am FBI Director Bob Mueller. On behalf of the men and women of the FBI, I want to recognize and thank all of our law enforcement colleagues, as we observe National Police Week.

This week, we honor and remember those men and women who have given their lives in the line of duty. Their deaths remind us all that the safety and freedom we enjoy do not come without a price.

Those of you in law enforcement know that your jobs involve great sacrifices. Every day, you live out the meaning of words like duty … service … honor … and bravery.

You walk the beat and keep the watch, making it possible for our citizens to live without fear—to go to work and school, to walk the streets of our cities, and to return home each night, safe and secure.

The FBI is proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you, as we continue our work together to protect our families and communities. Thank you again for your commitment and your service. God bless.

http://www.fbi.gov/multimedia/rsm_policeweek050610/transcript.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FBI Releases Preliminary Statistics for Law Enforcement Officers Killed in 2009

According to preliminary statistics released today by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 48 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty during 2009. Geographically, 21 of the victim officers were killed in the South, 13 in the West, seven in the Northeast, and five in the Midwest. Two officers were slain in Puerto Rico. The total number of officers killed is seven higher than in 2008.

By circumstance, 15 deaths occurred as a result of ambush situations, nine officers died during arrest situations, eight were killed while handling traffic pursuits/stops, five died responding to disturbance calls, four while investigating suspicious persons/circumstances, four during tactical situations, two while handling and transporting prisoners, and one while handling a person with a mental illness.

A breakdown of weapons revealed that firearms were used in the majority of slayings. Of the 45 officers killed with firearms, 28 were killed with handguns, 15 with rifles, and two with shotguns. Three officers were killed with vehicles.

At the time they were killed, 35 law enforcement officers were wearing body armor. Twelve officers fired their weapons, and nine of the slain law enforcement officers attempted to fire their weapons. Seven officers had their weapons stolen, and two officers were slain with their own weapons.

The 48 law enforcement officers were killed in 37 separate incidents in 2009. All of the incidents have been cleared by arrest or exceptional means.

In addition to the officers who were feloniously killed, 47 law enforcement officers were accidentally killed in 2009. This number is 21 lower than the previous year's number.

The FBI will release final statistics in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program's annual report, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted , which will be published on the Internet in the fall of this year.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel10/prelimleoka_051010.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the DEA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Former Governor of Mexican State Extradited For Conspiring To Import Hundreds of Tons of Cocaine and Laundering Millions of Dollars In Bribe Payments Through Lehman Brothers

MAY 10 -- (MANHATTAN, NY) - JOHN P. GILBRIDE, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") and PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced today the extradition from Mexico of MARIO ERNESTO VILLANUEVA MADRID, the former governor of the Mexican state of Quintana Roo, on charges that he accepted millions of dollars in bribes from the notorious Juarez Cartel, in exchange for assisting in the importation of over two hundred tons of cocaine onto American streets. VILLANUEVA MADRID was also extradited on a second Indictment in which he is charged with laundering nearly $19 million in drug proceeds through accounts at Lehman Brothers in New York and elsewhere.

VILLANUEVA MADRID was turned over by the Mexican Procuradoria General de la Republica ("PGR"), or Attorney General's Office, to agents of the DEA and deputies of the United States Marshals Service ("USMS"). He was flown by DEA Air Wing jet to White Plains, New York, and arrived late Sunday. VILLANUEVA MADRID is expected to appear in Manhattan federal court later this afternoon.

DEA Special Agent-in-Charge JOHN P. GILBRIDE stated: "The apprehension of Mario Villanueva Madrid exemplifies international law enforcement collaboration at its best. Villanueva allegedly abused the trust placed in him by the citizens of Quintana Roo, when he facilitated drug trafficking and money laundering across international borders. I congratulate the law enforcement officials on both sides of the U.S. Mexico border for ending Villanueva's abuse of power and corruption."

U.S. Attorney PREET BHARARA stated: "The seeds of today's violent turmoil in Mexico were first sewn over a decade ago by alleged criminals like Mario Villanueva Madrid. The Indictment charges that Villanueva Madrid turned the Mexican state of Quintana Roo into a virtual narco-state, selling its infrastructure and even its police to one of the world's most dangerous mafia enterprises. By allegedly corrupting his powerful office for profit, Villanueva Madrid permitted the Juarez Cartel to pump 200 tons of poison through Mexico and onto American streets. Today, the former Governor of Quintana Roo finally faces justice in an American courtroom. We are profoundly grateful for the courage the Government of Mexico has demonstrated through this extradition, and we applaud the hard work and perseverance of the DEA, our partners in this and so many other vital international organized crime cases."

According to the Indictments and other documents filed in Manhattan federal court:

For over 20 years, the Juarez Cartel has been one of Mexico's most notorious and violent cocaine cartels, responsible for the importation of hundreds of tons of Colombian cocaine over the Southwest U.S. border. From 1994 to 1999 alone, led by ALCIDES RAMON MAGANA and JESUS ALBINO QUINTERO-MERAZ, the Cartel transported over two hundred tons of cocaine into Texas and Arizona, and subsequently to major U.S. cities including New York.

In 1994, the Cartel established operations in the eastern Mexican state of Quintana Roo, which is where the resort city of Cancun is located. Under arrangements made with Colombian cocaine organizations, Juarez Cartel speedboats with armed crews rendezvoused off the Atlantic coast of Central America with Colombian speedboats. The Colombian boats were laden with shipments of cocaine ranging from one to three tons. On the high seas, usually at night to avoid detection by U.S. Coast Guard and Mexican naval patrols, the cocaine was offloaded from the Colombian boats and loaded onto the Juarez Cartel boats.

The ton-quantity shipments of cocaine were transported to Quintana Roo port cities, including Cancun and Calderitas, as well as the state capital, Chetumal. The shipments were also taken at times to the country of Belize, which borders Quintana Roo to the south, and transported to Quintana Roo by truck, or by small planes leaving from clandestine airstrips in Belize. By 1994, VILLANUEVA MADRID was the sitting Governor of the State of Quintana Roo. He had previously served as Mayor of Cancun, and in April 1993 was elected Governor of the State. In 1994, to ensure that its cocaine shipments would travel safely through Quintana Roo without interference from law enforcement, Juarez Cartel leaders MAGANA and QUINTERO reached an agreement with VILLANUEVA MADRID. Under the agreement, VILLANUEVA MADRID was paid between $400,000 and $500,000 for each shipment of cocaine that the Juarez Cartel transported through Quintana Roo.

From 1994 through 1999, the Juarez Cartel paid VILLANUEVA MADRID millions of dollars in narcotics proceeds. In return, VILLANUEVA MADRID placed the police and state government infrastructure of Quintana Roo at the disposal of the Cartel. State and federal police officers provided armed protection for Juarez Cartel boat crews as they offloaded cocaine from speedboats, and escorted the cocaine shipments -- which were hidden inside tanker trucks -- as they traveled through the state. State government airplane hangars were used to store and offload cocaine shipments that arrived by plane from Belize. Cartel members were provided with state police identification cards and firearms permits, so that they could travel through Quintana Roo with impunity.

By late 1995, VILLANUEVA MADRID had accrued millions of dollars in narcotics proceeds. During this time period, in an effort to hide the illicit funds, he began transferring them to bank and brokerage accounts in the United States, Switzerland, the Bahamas, Panama and Mexico, many of which were held in the names of British Virgin Islands shell corporations. Several of these accounts were established at Lehman Brothers, Inc. ("Lehman") in New York, with the assistance of CONSUELO MARQUEZ, a Lehman registered representative.

In 1998, Mexican authorities began investigating VILLANUEVA MADRID for violations of Mexico's narcotics, organized crime and corruption laws. In March 1999, VILLANUEVA MADRID's term as governor of Quintana Roo expired, and with it his immunity from prosecution under the Mexican constitution. That month, VILLANUEVA MADRID fled and remained a fugitive for over two years. In April 1999, the PGR disclosed that it had issued a warrant for VILLANUEVA MADRID's arrest on narcotics, organized crime and corruption charges.

In the weeks and months surrounding his flight, VILLANUEVA MADRID, assisted by MARQUEZ liquidated the millions of dollars in narcotics proceeds he had deposited at Lehman, through a series of wire transfers totaling over $11 million. These transfers were made through an account at the Mexican bank Banamex that MARQUEZ had secretly opened for VILLANUEVA MADRID in the name of "Lehman Brothers Private Client Services." A large portion of the illicit proceeds -- over $7 million -- were then deposited into an account at Lehman that MARQUEZ had opened in the names of a non-existent Mexican family. MARQUEZ was previously convicted in Manhattan federal court in connection with this matter.

In May 2001, VILLANUEVA MADRID was located by Mexican authorities with the assistance of the Mexico City Country Office of the DEA, and arrested. VILLANUEVA MADRID had grown a long beard and shoulder-length hair, and had been hiding in remote areas in the Yucatan peninsula, assisted by a network of criminal associates and former aides.

All of VILLANUEVA MADRID's illicit funds at Lehman and in other U.S. accounts, totaling over $19 million, were seized and later forfeited by U.S. authorities.

Following his arrest, VILLANUEVA MADRID was prosecuted by Mexican authorities and convicted in a Mexican court on organized crime and corruption offenses. He was serving his Mexican sentence when he was extradited. VILLANUEVA MADRID is charged with cocaine importation conspiracy and cocaine distribution conspiracy in Indictment S11 01 Cr. 021. VILLANUEVA MADRID is also charged with conspiring to launder narcotics proceeds, and thirteen separate additional counts of money laundering, in Indictment S5 02 Cr. 416. If convicted, VILLANUEVA MADRID faces a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison on the narcotics charges, and a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison on each of the fourteen money laundering counts.

Mr. BHARARA praised the extraordinary investigative efforts of the DEA's New York Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Strike Force -- which is comprised of agents and officers of the DEA, the New York City Police Department, the United States Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, the Department of Homeland Security United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the New York State Police -- as well as the DEA's Mexico City Country Office and Merida, Mexico, Resident Office, which together led the investigation. Mr. BHARARA also recognized the DEA's Offices in Houston and Pittsburgh, as well as the United States Attorney's Office in Houston, and the Mexican PGR, for their invaluable assistance in the investigation. Mr. BHARARA also thanked the United States Marshals Service and the Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs for their assistance in effectuating the extradition.

This case is being prosecuted by the Office's Terrorism and International Narcotics Trafficking Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys ANIRUDH BANSAL and JOCELYN E. STRAUBER are in charge of the prosecution.

The charges and allegations contained in the Indictment are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until found guilty.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2010/nyc051010.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Parade Magazine

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By BROOKE DONALD (AP) – 4 days ago

SAN FRANCISCO — Even as audio versions of best-sellers fill store shelves and new technology fuels the popularity of digitized books, the number of titles accessible to people who are blind or dyslexic is minuscule.

A new service being announced Thursday by the nonprofit Internet Archive in San Francisco is trying to change that. The group has hired hundreds of people to scan thousands of books into its digital database — more than doubling the titles available to people who aren't able to read a hard copy.

Brewster Kahle, the organization's founder, says the project will initially make 1 million books available to the visually impaired, using money from foundations, libraries, corporations and the government. He's hoping a subsequent book drive will add even more titles to the collection.

"We'll offer current novels, educational books, anything. If somebody then donates a book to the archive, we can digitize it and add it to the collection," he said.

The problems with many of the digitized books sold commercially is that they're expensive, they're often abridged, and they don't come in a format that is easily accessed by the visually impaired.

The collections are also limited to the most popular titles published within the past several years.

The Internet Archive is scanning a variety of books in many languages so they can be read by the software and devices blind people use to convert written pages into speech. The organization has 20 scanning centers in five countries, including one in the Library of Congress.

"Publishers mostly concentrate on their newest, profitable books. We are working to get all books online," Kahle said.

Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind, says getting access to books has been a big challenge for blind people.

"Now, for the first time, we're going to have access to an enormous quantity," he said.

Maurer, who is blind, said that when he was in college, he hired people to read books to him because the Braille and audio libraries were so limited.

"That has been the way most students have gotten through school," he said. "This kind of initiative by the Internet Archive will change that for many people."

Only about 5 percent of published books are available in a digital form that's accessible to the visually impaired, Maurer said, and there are even fewer books produced in Braille.

Ben Foss, a San Francisco man with dyslexia, says having so many more books available is liberating. He compares it to a million more ramps being added throughout a city for a person who uses a wheelchair.

"For me, it's about access. They have provided flexibility and freedom to get books in a format that I use every day," said Foss, 36, who is the director of access technology in the digital health group at Intel Corp.

The digitized books scanned by the Internet Archive will be available for free to visually impaired people through the organization's website. The organization does not run into copyright concerns because the law allows libraries to make books available to people with disabilities, Kahle said.

Jessie Lorenz, an associate director at the Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco who has been blind since birth, said it has been hard to find controversial or edgy titles in a format she can use, and choices are often dictated by institutions or service groups who have selected certain books for scanning.

"For individuals living with print-related disabilities, this is groundbreaking," she said. "This project will enable people like me to choose what we read."

Lorenz, 31, has already decided what she wants: Howard Stern's autobiography "Private Parts," Andrew Weil's "The Natural Mind," and, perhaps most importantly, her grandmother's cookbook.

• The Internet Archive: http://www.archive.org
  
  
• The National Federation of the Blind: http://www.nfb.org
  
  
• Open Library: http://www.openlibrary.org
  
  
  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h2WW-kc7obPqarfv6lyMchWejfywD9FHDCP80

.