New models from Chrysler, Buick, Chevrolet and Ford are at the top of their respective segments in Strategic Vision’s “Best 2013 Total Quality” awards.

The research consultancy annually acknowledges what it considers the best vehicles in 21 categories using a concept called “total quality” and the showing of the Detroit Three may be a surprise for some. Domestic vehicles were judged the best in 12 categories.

The 2013 Dodge Dart was the top quality Small Car; Ford Fusion and Chevy Volt, top Mid-Size Car; Chevrolet Corvette Coupe, top Premium Coupe; Chrysler 200 Convertible, best Convertible; Chevrolet Traverse, best Mid-size Crossover Utility; Dodge Durango, best Midsize Traditional Utility; GMC Yukon, best Large Utility, Buick Enclave, top Near-Luxury Utility; Chevrolet Avalanche, best Full-Size Pickup and Ford F-250/350 best Heavy-Duty Pickup.

“There’s no questioning domestic car makers want to lead,” said Alexander Edwards, President of San Diego-based Strategic Vision. “For the first time in over a decade our comprehensive and complete study of quality resulted in more domestic winners than imports.”

Strategic Vision began the survey in 1995 and measures 155 specific aspects of quality and more than 442 variables based on the opinions of nearly 17,600 buyers who purchased 2013 vehicles from September to November.

“The Dodge Dart’s win in the small car segment is extraordinary when you consider how much focus, design and competitive engineering exists within this important segment. Dart is essentially ‘proof of concept’ that when you mix super exceptional versatility motivating exterior styling, and a strong array of high quality performing components and concepts, customers respond,” Strategic Vision Vice President Christopher Chaney said.

Other Total Quality winners were the Kia Soul, Small Multi-Function vehicles; Honda Accord Crosstour, Mid-Size Multi-Function; Volkswagen CC, Large Car; Hyundai Genesis Sedan and Auto A4 Sedan, near Luxury Car; Lexus LS, Luxury Car; Mini Cooper Hardtop, Specialty Coupe; Porsche Boxster and Chevrolet Corvette Convertible, Premium Convertible/Roadster; Volkswagen Tiguan and Toyota FJ Cruiser, Entry Utility and Porsche Cayenne, Luxury Utility.

Volkswagen was the best brand in overall Total Quality for the eighth straight year, Ford was second and General Motors and Hyundai tied for third. Audi and Lexus tied for best individual brand followed by Mini, Cadillac, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Lincoln, Jaguar, Infiniti and Buick.

www.fossilcenter.com

ROCKFORD, IOWA -A fun-filled camp called “Camp Insectigations” will be offered in Rockford for 1st grade graduates on June 4th.

The camp will be held at Fossil & Prairie Park Preserve in Rockford for 1st Grade graduates and above.  Children can search for clues left by the ancient creatures of the Fossil & Prairie Park, looking for their homes and watching their survival techniques.

The camp includes snacks, crafts and a Peterson’s First Guide to Caterpillars.

On June 5th, another camp is available for 1st grade graduates, called “Wetland Wonders”.

Also held at the Fossil & Prairie Park Preserve, children can wade into the world of the slippery, slimy and wet inhabitants of the Fossil & Prairie Park while discovering what makes their homes unique. This camp also includes snacks, crafts and a Peterson’s First Guide to Reptiles & Amphibians.

Registration forms are available at www.fossilcenter.com or call 641-756-3490. Camps run from 8:30 AM to 3 PM.

Authorities remind those traveling to the preserve to be aware that the bridge within the City of Rockford is closed, and to take the Nora Springs exit from Hwy 18, go south on County Roard S-70 (Zinnia Ave) for 4 miles then east (left) on County Road B47 (215th Street).

It appeared a so-called butt dial landed the pair in jail after Fresno police followed the clues they overheard to the crime scene, ABCNews.com said Sunday.

“I have never heard of something like this,” Police Sgt. Jaime Rios said. “There have been times where the dispatcher hears something like this, but never has a call come in before a crime being committed and staying on all the way to the end.”

Nathan Teklemariam and Carson Reinhart, both 20, allegedly spoke about scoring drugs as they drove around with the 911 dispatcher listening in.

One of the voices on the phone mentioned having a hammer ready. A short time later, the sound of breaking glass was heard and one man reported finding a bottle of prescription medication.

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

Written and directed by J.J. Abrams, the latest entry in the “Star Trek” canon dethroned former No. 1 “Iron Man 3,” which grossed an estimated $35.1 million in its third weekend and ran its domestic gross to $337 million, Box Office Mojo reported.

Paramount, which co-financed “Star Trek Into Darkness” with Skydance Productions, had said it anticipated an opening-weekend gross of about $86 million, the Los Angeles Times reported. Combined with receipts from IMAX screenings Wednesday, the movie has taken in $84 million overall, the Times said.

The Great Gatsby” lost more than 53 percent of its opening weekend total, taking in $23.4 million to finish third, while action specialist Michael Bay’s comedy, “Pain and Gain” grossed $3.1 million in its fourth week in release to finish at No. 4.

The animated feature, “The Croods,” took in $2.75 million in its ninth week, running its overall total to $176.7 million.

“42″ ($2.7 million); “Oblivion” ($2.2 million); “Mud” ($2.16 million); “Tyler Perry Presents Peeples” ($2.15 million); and “The Big Wedding” ($1.1 million) completed the Top 10.

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

North Korea fired the missile Sunday afternoon into the ocean off the country’s east coast, one day after the country fired three short-range missiles into the same body of water, Yonhap News Agency reported.

Kim Hyung-suk, a spokesman for the South Korean unification ministry, said the missiles were provocative and “deplorable” and called on the North to “act responsibly.”

Meanwhile, Kim also blamed North Korea for the closure of a jointly run factory complex in a North Korean border town and called for talks to solve the issue.

Earlier this month, North Korea pulled 53,000 workers from the Kaesong industrial complex and prevented South Korean employees, parts and supplies from entering the area, Yonhap News Agency said.

The North rejected talks proposed by the South last week.

“It’s quite regrettable that North Korea has denigrated our dialogue proposals and distorted facts while shifting the blame for the halted operations to us,” Kim said. “If North Korea is serious about discussions over raw materials, it must respond to our offer for talks.”

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

On the Nomination of
William H Orrick, III, to be United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California
Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Mr. President,
I rise in opposition to Mr. Orrick’s nomination to be a District Judge for the Northern District of California and I’d like to take a few moments to explain to my colleagues why I will be voting “No”.

Before I discuss the nominee, however, I will update my colleagues on where we stand with judicial confirmations. Thus far, the Senate has confirmed187 District and Circuit nominees; we have defeated two. That’s 187 -2; which is a .989 batting average. That is an outstanding record.

So far this year, the Senate has confirmed 16 nominees. Today, if Mr. Orrick is confirmed, we confirm the 17th nominee. At this stage in President Bush’s second term only 4 were confirmed. That’s a record of 17 to 4.

This President is being treated exceptionally fairly.

The President has recently submitted a few new nominations. I know I have been reminding him that we can’t do anything about vacancies without him first sending up nominees.

But again, even with the recent nominations, 61 of 85 nominations still have no nominee. That’s nearly 3 out of 4 vacancies. And for judicial emergencies, only 8 of 35 vacancies have a nominee.

So I just wanted to set the record straight before we vote on this nominee.

Again, I will be voting ‘No’ on Mr. Orrick’s nomination. I was troubled by his intervention in Utah, Arizona, South Carolina and Alabama. In those states he led the effort to strike down the statutes in those states addressing the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws. We are in the middle of marking up a comprehensive immigration bill. It is clear that enforcement is a problem.

I, and some of my colleagues, would like to strengthen enforcement. But Mr. Orrick was out there leading the effort to maintain the weak status quo. I don’t know why that should lead to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.

I was also disappointed by Mr. Orrick’s responses to many of my questions at his hearing and in follow-up questions for the record. At his hearing, I asked him a number of questions that he said he couldn’t answer at the hearing, but that he would familiarize himself with the issues. I offered to submit those questions in writing to provide Mr. Orrick the opportunity to answer them, a courtesy the committee commonly extends to nominees in these circumstances.

After granting Mr. Orrick this courtesy, I was disappointed that he still failed to answer many of my questions. So I extended the courtesy a second time, offering Mr. Orrick the opportunity to provide a responsive answer to my earlier questions. Unfortunately, the “answers” he provided to my second set of questions were as non-responsive as the first.

Now, I understand that it is not unusual for nominees to claim they are unable to answer a particular question. But I must say that the degree of Mr. Orrick’s non-responsiveness rose to a level well above what we typically see from nominees.

Moreover, just because a particular answer might be awkward for the administration, that does not justify refusing to provide that answer.

Now, although there were a host of questions Mr. Orrick would not answer, I will provide you with just one example. In the hearing, I asked Mr. Orrick about a particular Ninth Circuit case and asked if it was controlling. This was in connection with a brief he filed opposing the Defense of Marriage Act. I thought he mischaracterized the precedent and wanted an explanation. At a minimum, I wanted to know if he had a basic knowledge of the precedent and recognized it as current law. He answered, “I will follow controlling precedent wherever it exists.”

That is a clever answer. But of course, it doesn’t answer the question. So, in my written questions, I asked again if the Adams case was controlling precedent.

He responded that he was reluctant to answer because a similar case could come before him. This struck me as odd for two reasons. First, if confirmed, he would likely recuse himself from any case where he crafted a part of the Justice Department’s policy or stance. And second, I wasn’t asking for his personal views on the Adams case. I was trying to assess his legal ability. I want to know whether he will recognize that a particular case is controlling – even if he, or the administration for that matter, may not agree with it.

That is what serving as a district court judge is all about: applying controlling case law, whether or not you agree with the holding.

So, I sent him a second set of Questions for the Record, and asked him again if Adams was controlling precedent. He still wouldn’t answer. The second time, Mr. Orrick agreed that he should recuse myself from such cases, but then reserved the right not to recuse himself. And, I still don’t have an answer to my original question raised in the hearing: does Mr. Orrick recognize Adams as controlling precedent in the Ninth Circuit?

Unfortunately, based on this and other aspects of Mr. Orrick’s record that I find troubling, I cannot support his nomination.

I will submit the rest of my statement for the record:

Following graduation from Boston College Law School in 1979, Mr. Orrick began practicing law in Savannah, Georgia at Georgia Legal Services, a general legal practice representing low-income individuals in litigation. In 1984, Mr. Orrick moved to California to join the law firm of Coblentz, Patch, Duffy, & Bass, LLP. His practice with the firm initially focused on complex commercial litigation. After making partner in 1998, his practice broadened to include employment litigation. His clientele included both individuals and corporations.

During this same period, Mr. Orrick also served the Episcopal Bishop of California, essentially acting as outside general counsel. This included advising the Diocese on interpretation of church canons, the various rights of congregations leaving the Diocese, and clergy’s duties to report child abuse. He received compensation for these services.

In June 2009, Mr. Orrick joined the Department of Justice as a counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division in Washington, D.C. His responsibilities included “matters related to the Freedom of Information Act, tobacco litigation, increasing affirmative consumer litigation brought by the Civil Division, analysis of amendments to the False Claims Act, litigation reports ‘s national security cases, and efforts to increase access to justice, including expansion of the Civil Division’s pro bono efforts.” In September 2009, he started supervising immigration litigation within the Division.

In June 2010, Mr. Orrick was appointed Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division, Department of Justice. In this role, he oversees the Office of Immigration Litigation, which is comprised of over 300 lawyers. This office handles “all federal appellate litigation arising from petitions for review from the immigration courts and roughly 50% of the civil United States District Court immigration matters, primarily class actions, habeas and mandamus petitions, and certain Bivens actions.” He also participates on several coordinating task forces that oversee immigration and national security related issues.

Mr. Orrick reports that throughout his career he has represented private individuals, small businesses, and large corporations in litigation matters before state and federal courts. He estimates that approximately 97% of his practice has been in the area of litigation and has tried 16 cases to verdict, judgment or final decision as either sole or lead counsel.

The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him a Unanimous “Well Qualified” rating.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the President’s nominee for Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez.

Mr. Perez is not unknown to the Senate. His tenure as head of the Civil Rights division has been marked by controversy. And that is putting it mildly.

He was confirmed to his current post by a vote of 72-22. I was among those who supported his nomination to lead the Civil Rights Division. But unfortunately, based on the reasons I will outline today, I have come to regret that vote.

There are a number of issues about Mr. Perez’s record that should give my colleagues pause. But today I want to focus on the investigation I’ve been conducting with my colleagues in the House, Mr. Issa, Chairman of the Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, and Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

I want to share with my colleagues the role Mr. Perez played in a quid pro quo between the City of St. Paul and the Department of Justice, where the Department agreed not to join two False Claims Act cases in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing its case before the Supreme Court in a case called Magner v. Gallagher.

Mr. Perez’s actions in this case are extremely troubling for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, at this point no one disputes the fact that Mr. Perez orchestrated the entire arrangement. He manipulated the Supreme Court docket so that his favored legal theory, called the “disparate impact theory,” would evade review by the high court. In the process, Mr. Perez left a whistleblower twisting in the wind.

Those are the facts, and even Mr. Perez doesn’t dispute them.

The fact that Mr. Perez struck a deal that potentially squandered up to $200 million taxpayer dollars in order to preserve the “disparate impact” theory he favored, is of course extremely troubling in and of itself.

But in addition to the underlying quid pro quo, the evidence uncovered in our investigation revealed Mr. Perez sought to cover-up the fact that the exchange even took place.

And finally – and let me emphasize that this should concern all of my colleagues – when Mr. Perez testified under oath about this case, both to Congressional investigators and during his confirmation hearings, Mr. Perez told a different story.

The simple but unavoidable conclusion is that the story Mr. Perez told is simply not supported by the evidence.

Let me begin by briefly reviewing the underlying quid pro quo.

In the fall of 2011, the Department of Justice was poised to join a False Claims Act lawsuit against the City of St. Paul.

The career lawyers in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota were recommending the Justice Department join the case. The career lawyers in the Civil Division of the Justice Department were recommending the department join the case. The career lawyers at the Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD) were recommending that the Department of Justice join the case.

But this was all before Mr. Perez got involved.

At about that time, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case called Magner v. Gallagher. In Magner, the City of St. Paul was challenging the use of the “disparate impact” theory under the Fair Housing Act. The “disparate impact” theory is the mechanism Mr. Perez and the Civil Rights Division have been using in lawsuits against banks for their lending practices. If that theory were undermined by the Supreme Court, it would likely spell trouble for Mr. Perez’s lawsuits against the banks.

So, Mr. Perez approached the lawyers handling the Magner case, and he cut a deal.

The Justice Department agreed not to join two False Claims Act cases, in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing Magner from the Supreme Court. In early February of 2012, Mr. Perez flew to St. Paul and finalized the deal. The next week, the Department of Justice declined to join the first False Claims Act case, called Newell. The next day, the City of St. Paul withdrew Magner from the Supreme Court.

Now, there are a couple of aspects about this deal that I want to emphasize for my colleagues.

First, as I mentioned, the evidence makes clear that Mr. Perez took steps to cover up the fact that he had bartered away the False Claims Act cases.

On January 10, 2012, Mr. Perez called the line attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s office regarding the declination memo in the Newell case.

Just to remind my colleagues, Newell was the case these same career attorneys were strongly recommending the United States join before Mr. Perez got involved.

By the time of this phone call, in January of 2012, Mr. Perez was well on his way towards orchestrating the quid pro quo.

So Mr. Perez called the line attorney, Mr. Greg Brooker, and instructed him not to discuss the Magner case in the memo that he prepared outlining the reasons for the decision not to join the case. And here is what he said:

Hey, Greg. This is Tom Perez calling you at – excuse me, calling you at 9 o’clock on Tuesday. I got your message. The main thing I wanted to ask you, I spoke to some folks in the Civil Division yesterday and wanted to make sure that the declination memo that you sent to the Civil Division – and I am sure it probably already does this – but it doesn’t make any mention of the Magner case. It is just a memo on the merits of the two cases that are under review in the qui tam context.

Approximately one hour later, Mr. Perez sent Mr. Brooker a follow-up email, writing: “I left you a detailed voicemail. Call me if you can after you have a chance to review [the] voicemail.”

Several hours later Mr. Perez sent another follow-up email, writing: “were you able to listen to my message?”

Now, Mr. Perez’s voicemail was quite clear and obvious. He told Mr. Brooker, “make sure that the declination memo” … “doesn’t make any mention of the Magner case. It is just a memo on the merits of the two cases.”

What could be more clear than that?

In fact, Mr. Perez himself sent an email less than an hour later explaining that he had left a “detailed voicemail” for Mr. Brooker.

Yet, when congressional investigators asked Mr. Perez why he left the voicemail, he told a different story.

Here is what he told investigators.

“What I meant to communicate was, it is time to bring this to closure, and if the only issue that is standing in the way is how you talk about Magner, then don’t talk about it.

Give me a break. This is just plainly not what he said in his voicemail.

He didn’t say anything about being concerned with the delay. He said, ‘Make sure you don’t mention Magner. It is just a memo on the merits.’ His intent was crystal clear.

Mr. Perez also testified that Mr. Brooker called him back the next day and refused to omit a discussion of Magner. According to Perez, he told Mr. Brooker during this call to “follow the normal process.”

But again, this story is just not supported by the evidence. One month later, after Mr. Perez flew to Minnesota to personally seal the deal with the City, a Line Attorney in the civil division emailed his superior to outline the “additional facts” about the deal. Point 6 read:
“USA-MN considers it non-negotiable that its office will include a discussion of the Supreme Court case and the policy issues in its declination memo.”

If Mr. Perez’s story were true and the issue was resolved on January 11th, then why – one month later – would the U.S. Attorney’s office need to emphatically state that it would not hide the fact that the exchange took place?

Now as I just mentioned, Mr. Perez flew to Minneapolis to finalize the deal on February 3rd.

And you would think that a deal of this magnitude would be memorialized in a detailed, written agreement. After all, you can’t even rent a car without signing a detailed agreement.

But was this agreement written down? No, it wasn’t.

After Mr. Perez finalized the deal, the career attorneys asked if there was going to be a written agreement. What was Mr. Perez’s response? He said: “No, just oral discussions; word was your bond.”

Can you believe that?

Here is Mr. Perez. He has just orchestrated a deal where the United States declined to join a case worth up to $200 million to the American taxpayer, in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing a case from the Supreme Court. And when the career lawyers ask if this deal will be written down, he says: Your “No . . . word was your bond.”

Now as everyone knows, the reason you make agreements like this in writing, is so there is no disagreement down the road about what the parties agreed to. And as it turns out, there was in fact a disagreement about the terms of this unwritten deal.

The lawyer for the City, Mr. Lillehaug told Congressional investigators that on January 9, approximately one month before the deal was finalized, Mr. Perez assured him that “HUD would be helpful” if the Newell case proceeded after the Justice Department declined to intervene.
Mr. Lillehaug also told investigators that on February 4, the day after they finalized the deal, Mr. Perez told him that HUD had begun assembling information to assist the City in a motion to dismiss the Newell complaint on “original source” grounds. But, according to Mr. Lillehaug, this assistance disappeared after lawyers in the Civil Division learned of it.

Now, why is this so significant?

Mr. Perez represents the United States. Mr. Newell is bringing a case on behalf of the United States. Mr. Perez is talking to the lawyer on the other side, and he tells him, ‘After the United States declines to join the case, we will give you information to help you defeat Mr. Newell, who is bringing the case on behalf of the United States.’

In effect, Mr. Perez is offering to give the other side information to help defeat his own client.

I recognize this is a significant allegation. And Mr. Perez was asked about it under oath. His response? Mr. Perez said:

“No, I don’t recall ever suggesting that.”

So one the hand is Mr. Lillehaug, who says Perez made this offer – first in January, and then on February 4th – but the assistance disappeared after the lawyers in the Civil Division caught wind of it.

On the other hand is Mr. Perez, who testified under oath, “I don’t recall” ever making such an offer.

Who should we believe? Well, the documents support Mr. Lillehaug’s version of events.

On February 7, a Line Attorney sent an email to the Director of the Civil Fraud section and relayed a conversation the AUSA in Minnesota had with Mr. Lillehaug. According to Mr. Lillehaug, the Line Attorney wrote, there were two additional items that were part of the “deal that is not a deal.” And one of those two items was this:

“HUD will provide material to the City in support of their motion to dismiss on original source grounds.”

Internal emails show that when the career lawyers learned of this promise, they strongly disagreed with it and they conveyed their concerns to Tony West, the head of the Civil Division.

During his transcribed interview Mr. West testified that it would have been “inappropriate” to provide this material outside of the normal discovery channels. Mr. West said:

“I just know that that wasn’t going to happen, and it didn’t happen.”

In other words, when lawyers at the Civil Division learned of this offer, they shut it down.

The documentary evidence shows the events transpired exactly as Mr. Lillihaug said they did. Mr. Perez offered to provide the other side with information that would help them defeat Mr. Newell in his case on behalf of the United States.

In my opinion, that is simply stunning. Mr. Perez represents the United States. Any lawyer would tell you it is highly inappropriate to offer to help the other side defeat your client.
Now, this brings me to my final couple points that I want to highlight for my colleagues.

Even though the Department traded away Mr. Newell’s case, Mr. Perez has defended his actions, in part, by claiming that Mr. Newell still had his “day in court.”

What Mr. Perez omits from his story is that Mr. Newell’s case was dismissed precisely because the United States was not a party.

After the U.S. declined to join the case, the judge dismissed Mr. Newell’s case based on the “public disclosure bar,” finding he was not the “original source” of information to the government.

I’ll remind my colleagues, we amended the False Claims Act several years ago precisely to prevent an outcome like this. Specifically, the amendments made clear that the Justice Department can contest the “original source” dismissal, even if it fails to intervene as it did in this case.

So, the Department didn’t merely decline to intervene – which is bad enough. But, in fact, it affirmatively chose to leave Mr. Newell all alone in his case.

And that was the whole point.

That is why it was so important for the City of St. Paul to make sure that the United States did not join the case.

That is why the City was willing to trade away a strong case before the Supreme Court.

The City knew that if the United States joined the action, the case would almost certainly go forward. Conversely, the City knew if the United States did not join the case, and chose not to contest the original source, it would likely get dismissed.

Now think about that.

The Department trades away a case worth millions of taxpayer dollars. They did it precisely because of the impact the decision would have on the litigation.

They knew that as a result of their decision, the whistleblower would get dismissed based on “original source” grounds, since they didn’t contest it.

And not only that, Mr. Perez went so far as to offer to provide documents to the other side that would help them defeat Mr. Newell in his case on behalf of Mr. Perez’s client, the United States.

And yet, when Congress starts asking questions, they have the guts to say: ‘we didn’t do anything improper because Mr. Newell still had his day in court.’

Now this brings me to my last point, and that has to do with the strength of the case. Throughout our investigation, the Department has tried to defend Mr. Perez’s actions by claiming the case was “marginal” or “weak.”

Once again, however, the documents tell a far different story.

Before Mr. Perez got involved, the career lawyers at the Department wrote a Memo recommending intervention in the case. In that memo, they described St. Paul’s actions as, “a particularly egregious example of false certifications.”

In fact, the career lawyers in Minnesota felt so strongly about the case that they took the unusual step of flying to Washington, D.C. to meet with HUD officials.

And HUD, of course, agreed that the United States should intervene.

But again, that was before Mr. Perez got involved.

The documents make clear that career lawyers considered it a strong case. But, the Department has claimed that Mike Hertz – the Department’s expert on the False Claims Act – considered it a weak case.

In fact, two weeks ago Mr. Perez testified before my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee that Mr. Hertz “had a very immediate and visceral reaction that it was a weak case.”

But the documents tell a much different story. Mr. Hertz knew about the case in November of 2011. Two months later, a Department official took notes of a meeting where the quid pro quo was discussed. That official wrote down Mr. Hertz’s reaction: She wrote:

“Mike – Odd – Looks like buying off St. Paul. Should be whether there are legit reasons to decline as to past practice.”

The next day, that same official emailed the Associate Attorney General, and said:
“Mike Hertz brought up the St. Paul “disparate impact” case in which the SG just filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court. He’s concerned about the recommendation that we decline to intervene in two qui tam cases against St. Paul.”
These documents appear to show that Mr. Hertz’s primary concern was NOT the strength of the case, as Mr. Perez led my Senate colleagues to believe. Mr. Hertz was concerned the quid pro quo Mr. Perez ultimately arranged was improper.

Again, in his words, it “looks like buying off St. Paul.”

And, just last week the Justice Department sent my staff a critical 33 page slide show about the Department’s case against St. Paul. In that document, the career lawyers make their case for intervention. The Department failed to provide this critical document to the committees, and we only learned about it in a recent interview with a HUD employee.

Why do I say it is a critical document? Because this document makes abundantly clear that the career lawyers did not view the case as “marginal.” Nor did they view it as “weak,” as Mr. Perez testified before the HELP committee. Far from it.

Here is how the career lawyers summed up the case in one of the final slides of this document:

“The City Repeatedly and Knowingly Misrepresented its Compliance with Section 3 to Obtain Federal Funds:

“Tentative Conclusions:

-The City has long been aware of its obligations under Section 3;
-The City repeatedly told HUD and others that it was in Compliance with Section 3;
-The City has failed to substantially comply with Section 3.”

Does that sound like career lawyers describing a “marginal” or “weak” case? Of course not.

Yet, that is what Mr. Perez told my colleagues on the HELP Committee.

Mr. President, my colleagues are well aware how I feel about the Whistleblower Protection Act.

And my colleagues know how I feel about protecting whistleblowers who have the courage to step forward, often at great risk to their own careers.

But this is about much more than the whistleblower who was left dangling by Mr. Perez.

This is about the fact that Mr. Perez manipulated the rule of law in order to get a case removed from the Supreme Court’s docket.

But most importantly: this is about the fact that when Congress started asking questions about this case – and when Mr. Perez was called upon to offer his testimony under oath – he chose to tell a different story.

And the unavoidable conclusion is that the story he told is flatly not supported by the facts.

We have to demand more.

We have demand that when individuals are called upon to answer questions before the Senate, they shoot straight, regardless of the consequences.

I do not believe Mr. Perez gave us the straight story when he was called upon to answer questions about this case, and for that reason I will strongly oppose his nomination.

I yield the floor.

The other three service members, who were already identified by the Department of Defense, were:

• Sgt. 1st Class Jeffrey C. Baker, 29, of Hesperia, Calif., assigned to 766th Ordnance Company, 63rd Ordnance Battalion, 52nd Ordnance Group, Fort Stewart, Ga.

• Spc. Mitchell K. Daehling, 24, of Dalton, Mass., and

• Spc. William J. Gilbert, 24, of Hacienda Heights, Calif., both assigned to 3rd Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas.

It is ISAF policy to defer casualty identification procedures to the relevant national authorities.

Read more: http://www.dvidshub.net/news/107201/isaf-casualty#.UZkSnYWfuJQ#ixzz2TlLIPhSV

In an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said Sunday conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status invited scrutiny because they were playing an increasing role in national partisan political strategies.

Menendez said it was wrong for the IRS to single out conservative groups applying for tax-exemptions but he said the uproar in Washington over the tactic opened the door to broader questions about the activities of organizations seeking 501 (c ) (4) tax status.

“There’s a second scandal, and that is that hundreds of millions of dollars had been used in C-4s that are supposed to be used a non-profit social welfare entities, for political purposes,” Menendez said. “It is pretty outrageous that the IRS went after small Tea Party groups when Karl Rove is out there saying he’s using these C-4s to change the outcome of the next election.”

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said on the same program the investigation should focus on what IRS employees did and whether the White House influenced the practice.

“We can talk about whether the laws ought to be changed, and I am for tax reform,” Portman said. “But the question is whether there was an unbiased, even-handed enforcement of the laws.”

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

The 14-year-old victim was on her way home from a birthday party at a neighborhood club when someone on the sidewalk opened fire on the bus at a stop in the Jamaica section of the borough.

The girl, whose name was not released, was struck in the head by at least one of the 10 rounds fired and was pronounced dead at a hospital.

The motive for the shooting was not known, but party guests said there had been no trouble at the party that might explain the violence.

“The cops were just questioning me to see if it was a private event, who was here, and when they left,” a woman outside the bar told the New York Post. “There was no altercation here. It’s not like anything spilled out from here.”

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

Moqor District Gov. Sahib Khan Elham said an unknown number of Taliban militants attacked Afghan police at checkpoints in the district.

The Taliban suffered casualties as well, although an exact number of killed and injured was not reported, Khaama Press said.

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

Dalton Smith, 30, of Hempstead, N.Y., forced his way into the home of Andrea Rebello and her twin sister, Jessica, Friday in an apparent robbery attempt, Nassau County police said.

A person who was in the home at the time of the robbery managed to escape and alerted police to the home invasion, The New York Times reported Saturday.

Believing the home to be empty of all but the intruder, police entered the residence and found Smith attempting to leave out the back door with Andrea Rebello in a headlock. Smith had a gun pointed to the student’s head, then aimed at a police officer, whose name was not reported.

“At that point, the police officer fires several rounds,” Detective Lt. John Azzata said Saturday. “Seven of those rounds struck our subject; one of those rounds struck the victim.”

Andrea Rebello was transported to the hospital where she died of a head wound, The Times said.

Her funeral is set for Wednesday in Tarrytown, N.Y., the newspaper said.

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

White/Apricot colored squirrel seen in the southern rural area of Clear Lake. First it was running through the field and looked completely white, ran down into the ditch and up a telephone pole, where he laid down and fell asleep.  Courtesy of an NIT reader.

]]> http://northiowatoday.com/2013/05/19/photo-of-the-day-sleeping-squirrel/feed/ 2 http://northiowatoday.com/2013/05/19/record-590-5-million-powerball-jackpot-won-by-single-florida-ticket/ http://northiowatoday.com/2013/05/19/record-590-5-million-powerball-jackpot-won-by-single-florida-ticket/#comments Sun, 19 May 2013 17:22:38 +0000 qatdrake91-123 http://northiowatoday.com/?p=69401 ZEPHYRHILLS, Fla., May 19 (UPI) — One ticket has won the largest Powerball jackpot in history — $590.5 million — bought at a Publix supermarket in Zephyrhills, Fla., a lottery official said.

The ticket had the winning numbers of 22, 10, 13, 14, 52 and Powerball number 11, said David Bishop, deputy secretary of Florida Lottery.

Saturday’s jackpot was the largest in Powerball history, surpassing a $587.6 million jackpot split in November by winners in Arizona and Missouri, CNN reported Sunday.

The largest lottery jackpot in U.S. history was the March 2012 Mega Millions game worth $656 million.

Had there been no winner in Saturday’s Powerball game, the jackpot would have skyrocketed to a record $925 million for Wednesday’s drawing, CNN said.

The odds of winning the jackpot were 1 in 175,223,510, which is less likely to happen than hitting two consecutive holes in one.

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

Senator Charles Grassley

Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following comment about the ongoing immigration reform mark-up in the committee.

“Over the last week we’ve had a productive conversation on getting immigration reform right for the long-term. From our national security to our economic well-being, there is a lot at stake. We can’t afford to make the same mistakes as we made in 1986. We have to do it the right way. Some amendments have been adopted that make the bill a little better. But despite the thoughtful debate we’ve had this week, many good amendments, even ones that the majority of members have agreed with, have been voted down. Unfortunately, e-verify won’t be mandatory for probably six years. And, we can’t assure high-skilled Americans that they won’t be shoved aside for a foreign worker on an H-1B visa with less or equal skills. Too often, we advocate for increased visa allocations without understanding the heart of the problem. We need to do a better job of ensuring that the companies who need the visas get them. We need to do a better job of oversight.

“Americans deserve a plan that secures the border, enforces the rule of law, and protects American workers, and we have a responsibility to deliver that as the committee moves forward next week.”

The man, whose name was not reported, was driving a 1997 Cadillac at 20-25 mph when the car veered into the crowd Saturday at the Appalachian Trail Days parade, sending nine people to area hospitals, at least two by helicopter, The Washington Post reported.

Damascus police Chief William H. Nunley said the driver apparently suffered from a medical condition but it was not clear what may have afflicted him. There were reports the driver was elderly, the Post said.

Damascus Town Council member Peg Ayers said she feared initially the injuries from the crash would be “much more serious.”

Pokey Harris, director of emergency management in Washington County, Va., said the injuries ranged from “superficial, bangs and bruises,” to the more serious, the Post reported.

Harris said most people had been discharged from hospitals Saturday night.

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

The Nevada Highway Patrol said an Acura was traveling north in the southbound lanes of Interstate 15 and plowed into an oncoming sport utility vehicle.

Both drivers and a passenger in the SUV were killed. Four others were taken to hospitals in critical condition, investigators told KLAS-TV, Las Vegas.

Traffic around the Las Vegas Motor Speedway was detoured while the scene was cleared.

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

Nicole Muxo, a senior at Archbishop Coleman Carroll High School, had asked Wade to be her prom date for Friday night, but he hadn’t responded, The Miami Herald reported. Muxo, who said Wade is her favorite player and “a positive role model,” had asked Wade in a YouTube video — which took her a week to make — to be her date for the prom.

“My senior prom is coming up and I have everything set for a perfect night except for one thing: a perfect date,” she said in the video.

She followed up Thursday with a Twitter message: “This is the address, this is where I’m going to be, just in case.”

Had the Heat not eliminated the Chicago Bulls from the playoffs Wednesday, Wade would have been otherwise occupied on Muxo’s prom night.

“When I got (her invitation), I said, ‘I won’t be doing anything tomorrow night and I can go and make this a memorable moment for her,’” said Wade, who showed up at the prom at around 9:30.

A few moments before walking into the prom, Wade called Muxo to tell her to have a good night, but he didn’t say he was right outside, the Herald reported.

Muxo’s prom date, Laurent Chaumin, was a good sport, saying, “At least we both know how to dress.”

Wade danced with Muxo and stayed at the prom for around 45 minutes, the Herald said.

“I had a blast at Prom. Never be too scared to ask,” Wade posted on Twitter afterward.

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

www.nbcphiladelphia.com

PHILADELPHIA, May 19 (UPI) — Philadelphia police said a retired officer who sat next to first lady Michelle Obama during the 2009 State of the Union address has been charged with rape.

Richard DeCoatsworth is accused of taking two women from a party to an undisclosed location Thursday and pulling a gun on them, the Philadelphia Police Department said in a statement. The former police officer allegedly forced the women “to engage in the use of narcotics and to engage in sexual acts,” the statement said.

He was charged Saturday with rape, CNN reported Sunday.

DeCoatsworth was invited to sit next to the first lady during President Barack Obama’s 2009 speech to Congress, in recognition of his actions during a 2007 confrontation with four assailants, one of whom shot him in the face. A rookie on the police force, DeCoatsworth followed a group of three men in a car and then on foot.

As he followed, a fourth man got out of the car and shot the officer in the face, momentarily blinding him, a statement from the White House before the 2009 speech said.

“But when his vision returned, he was still standing. Bleeding from the face, DeCoatsworth chased the perpetrator on foot for nearly two blocks. The officer returned fire and put out flash information on the subject during the pursuit, before he finally collapsed,” the statement said.

DeCoatsworth retired from the force in 2011 after he was accused of using excessive force when he shot a motorcyclist in the leg, CNN reported.

A neighbor has taken DeCoatsworth to court, alleging the former police officer threatened him.

Copyright 2013 United Press International, Inc. (UPI).

Normally a white and light tan hue, now a smokey gray, but saved from smoke.

by Jody Spear -

MASON CITY – At 12:50 pm Saturday afternoon, the Mason City Fire Department responded to a fire at 708 North Tyler Avenue.