Iraq death toll

Sarah Palin

Kenneth P. Vogel 09/23/08 - Politico

NEW YORK – Journalists, displeased with Sarah Palin’s efforts to restrict their access to her, are threatening not to cover her events surrounding the United Nations conference here unless they're allowed more access.

The unfolding boycott is the latest development in a rocky relationship between Palin’s handlers and the press, in which the campaign has sought to tightly control her interactions with the media.

The campaign had originally indicated that the print reporters following her campaign would be among the small group of journalists allowed to attend the so-called “pool sprays” before Palin’s meetings with dignitaries on the sidelines of the U.N. meetings.

The sprays are basically glorified photo opportunities during which journalists can snap photos and film footage and – if they’re lucky – shout a question or two at Palin and her company before she adjourns for private meetings. On Tuesday, those meetings were to include Afghan President Karzai and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

But the imbroglio began developing Tuesday morning when Palin’s handlers informed the small print press contingent covering her campaign that the print reporter designated to cover the events, Elizabeth Holmes of the Wall Street Journal, would not be allowed to cover the sprays.

The campaign’s reasoning was that there were not going to be questions or statements at the sprays, so they were only appropriate for photographers and cameramen.

The campaign also at first moved to bar CNN, the television network designated for pool duty, from sending its editorial producer – basically a hybrid print/video journalist – though the campaign budged when the network threatened to withhold its cameras as well.

With Palin’s first meeting set to begin at noon, that leaves the print reporters on the outs.

UPDATE: After shutting the print pooler, Holmes, out of the spray before Palin’s meeting with Afghan President Karzai—“rudely,” according to Holmes—the campaign relented and agreed to let her cover the sprays before Palin’s next two meetings, with Colombian President Uribe and Kissinger. Updated story forthcoming.

Bankruptcy Law???

By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, Associated Press Writer Mon Sep 22, 4:01 AM ET

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - Mark Poveromo feels ripped off twice over. A judge ordered him to repay money he collected from a builder convicted of stealing from him — and told him to kick in the thief's attorney fees and court costs, too.

Some legal experts say the case, in which a criminal case in Connecticut intersects a bankruptcy judgment filed in St. Louis, shows a need for Congress to revise the nation's bankruptcy laws to better treat people who are awarded money as part of ruling in a criminal case.

"This is an outrageous decision," said Anthony Sabino, a law professor at St. John's University and a bankruptcy expert. "I think it's a miscarriage of justice."

"I can't even begin to fathom it," Poveromo said. "Crime does pay."

The case began in 2006, when Poveromo hired Mark R. Koch of Illinois for an $80,000 project to construct a building for his pet food business in Thomaston, Conn. Poveromo paid $39,500 up front, but Koch never did any work, according to court documents.

Poveromo filed a criminal complaint, and Koch was convicted in Connecticut of first-degree larceny in April 2007 and ordered to pay restitution. Koch paid $25,000 and began monthly payments to Poveromo on the balance, but that's when the law turned on Poveromo.

Two months before his conviction, Koch filed for bankruptcy protection in St. Louis, halting any monetary claims against him. Poveromo says notices of the bankruptcy filing was sent to Poveromo's old business address and he didn't see them.

Koch then filed a complaint to the bankruptcy court accusing Poveromo of intentionally violating the stay on claims by having him arrested to collect on his debt.

Judge Charles Rendlen III agreed with the builder. In a ruling filed in December, and without hearing from Poveromo, Rendlen noted "the highly suspect timing" of Koch's arrest and conviction after filing for bankruptcy.

The judge said Poveromo intentionally violated the bankruptcy stay on claims by causing Koch's arrest to collect on the debt.

"Allowing a creditor to use the threat of incarceration on charges related to a prepetition debt undermines the most fundamental premise of bankruptcy law: the guarantee of equal treatment among creditors pursuant to the bankruptcy code," Rendlen wrote.

Rendlen ordered Poveromo to pay back the restitution Koch had given him as well as attorney's fees and costs.

Poveromo tried to challenge the ruling, but failed to get it overturned. The judge also rejected Poveromo's request to appear by telephone instead of traveling to St. Louis because he cares for his elderly sick parents.

"The inconvenience experienced by the defendant's parents does not outweigh the need of the court to observe the defendant in person as he gives his testimony, to allow the court to best weigh his credibility," Rendlen wrote.

Poveromo said he had to pay for airplane tickets to St. Louis for a hearing on the case and couldn't get a refund after Koch's attorney asked for a delay.

Poveromo said he reluctantly accepted a settlement reached a few weeks ago in which he was able to keep the nearly $28,000 Koch had given him but did not collect on the balance he was owed based on what the Connecticut court had ordered.

His attorney, Jeff Weisman, decried the ruling.

"I think it's an injustice to individuals who are victimized," Weisman said.

Koch's bankruptcy attorney, Robert Eggmann, declined to comment on the settlement and said the bankruptcy ruling speaks for itself.

Rendlen did not return a telephone message seeking comment. Court officials cited a policy that judges do not comment on their decisions.

Jack Williams, resident scholar at the American Bankruptcy Institute, said the case highlights an area of the law that Congress should fix by expanding the exception to the stay of bankruptcy claims in criminal cases so that criminal restitutions can go forward during bankruptcies. He said the ruling is not unusual in finding a violation of the stay, but said other judges may not have sanctioned Poveromo.

Bankruptcy attorney Stuart Hirshfield said he agreed with the ruling because a stay of claims is fundamental to bankruptcy cases and violations are dealt with severely. He also said when a party fails to appear, the judge has to rule on what is known and the judge believed there was adequate notice.

Sabino, the bankruptcy expert from St. John's, said problem lies primarily with the judge's interpretation of the law.

Poveromo said he has since hired another contractor to construct the building for his business. He said he's struggling after spending $10,000 on lawyers while business has slowed amid a weak economy, but is determined to persevere.

"It's tough times," Poveromo said. "I'm not going to let this criminal ruin my business."