President George W. Bush will sign off on a bill providing funding for studies on embryos incapable of further development, but will refuse to endorse legislation that would subsidize stem cell research the White House announced Tuesday. The administration said in a formal policy statement sent to Congress that Bush would veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 because the law would "pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos." The White House also said, however, that Bush would support the HOPE Act because it would provide funding for research into pluripotent stem cells that does not entail the destruction of embryos.

In July, Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 saying he refused to provide federal funding for stem cell research because many people consider the destruction of embryos murder. Simultaneously, Bush signed the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, intended to prohibit "fetal farming," the method of creating fetuses for the sole purpose of research, after both the House and Senate passed the bill unanimously.

According to the government complaint, Holcher, a certified public accountant (CPA), helped customers claim improper tax deductions for such non-deductible personal expenses as home maintenance expenses, vacations, and personal vehicle expenses. Holcher allegedly also prepared tax returns for customers falsely reporting employment income as royalties in order to evade Social Security taxes. The permanent injunction order was signed by Judge John Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The court order requires Holcher to mail a copy of the injunction to all persons for whom he has prepared a federal tax return or form since 2002 and to provide the government with a list of his customers' names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers.

Since 2001, the Justice Department's Tax Division has obtained more than 230 injunctions to stop the promotion of tax fraud schemes and the preparation of fraudulent returns. Information about these cases is available on the Justice Department Web site at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2006.htm.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today appointed Melanie Ann Pustay as Director of the Office of Information and Privacy. Pustay is a 24-year career civil servant at OIP, starting in the Department in 1983 as an attorney advisor. She has served as Acting Director since January 2007 and replaces Daniel J. Metcalfe as Director.

Pustay manages the Department's responsibilities related to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which include developing policy guidance and ensuring compliance with the FOIA, responding to initial information requests made to the senior leadership offices, adjudicating all appeals from denials by any Department component under the FOIA, and handling FOIA litigation matters. "Melanie brings more than two decades of highly relevant experience and a record of both accomplishment and leadership to this position," said Attorney General Gonzales. "OIP and the Department of Justice will continue to benefit from her insight, expertise and dedication to public service. I'm pleased she has agreed to serve in this critical role."

During her tenure as Acting Director, OIP updated and completed the Department's March 2007 FOIA Guide, compiled the Department's report on compliance with Executive Order 13,392, and issued guidance for other agencies on proper reporting.

Before becoming Acting Director, Pustay served for eight years as Deputy Director of OIP. In that capacity, she oversaw the handling of responses to initial requests made under the FOIA for records of the senior leadership offices of the Department. Additionally, beginning in 2003 and continuing today, she has worked with government officials in China, Argentina, Chile and other countries to assist in implementing guidance for openness-in-government initiatives.

Pustay has extensive FOIA litigation experience and has argued cases before the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, including handling a case in 1998 involving access to former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's official and confidential files. In 1992, she was responsible for the Department's senior leadership compliance with the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act, which required the federal government to make records of President Kennedy's assassination publicly available.

In 1987, Pustay was given primary responsibility for drafting Executive Order 12,600, which established procedures to provide notice to businesses when their information is sought under the FOIA.

Pustay has received the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award for her role in providing legal advice, guidance and assistance on records disclosure issues. Pustay worked briefly at a Washington-area law firm before coming to the Department in 1983. She graduated from American University's Washington College of Law in 1982, where she served on Law Review. Pustay received her B.A. from George Mason University in 1979, graduating summa cum laude.

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps9890/lps9890/www.usdoj.gov/ag/foia.htm

Cablevision's case has been closely watched in the cable TV industry. If allowed to proceed, the remote-storage DVR could allow companies like Cablevision to dramatically increase the rate at which they introduce digital video recording services to their customers.

DVRs allow cable TV subscribers to record TV programs without the hassles of videotape, letting users pause live TV, do instant replays and begin watching programs even before the recording has finished. Viewers can also skip through commercials, something that worries the TV industry.

Cablevision's system would have allowed any cable subscriber with a digital cable box to have DVR-like service by storing and playing back shows on computer servers maintained by Cablevision.

That could allow Cablevision to offer the service to many more customers without having to install the expensive hard drive-equipped DVR boxes in each home, as is currently the case.

A group of Hollywood studios successfully sued Cablevision, claiming that the remote-storage system would have amounted to an additional broadcast of their programs, something for which they haven't given permission.

Cablevision argued its service was permissible because the control of the recording and playback was in the hands of the consumer. A landmark 1984 Supreme Court case found that Sony Corp. wasn't breaking copyright laws if home viewers used Sony's Betamax videotape recorders to record and play back shows for personal use.

"We continue to believe strongly that remote-storage DVR is permissible under current copyright law and offers significant benefits to consumers, including lower costs and faster deployment of this popular technology to our digital cable customers," Tom Rutledge, Cablevision's chief operating officer, said in a statement.

By a 2-1 panel vote in March, the judges deciding Parker v. District of Columbia relied on the Second Amendment to overturn a 31-year old ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. Mayor Adrian Fenty and the city argued that the panel's interpretation of the Second Amendment is "contrary to of nearly every other federal court of appeals, as well as the highest local court in this jurisdiction." The case is widely expected to end up before the US Supreme Court, regardless of who ultimately wins in the DC Circuit Court.

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman and Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher Join the Governors of Maine, Iowa, and Nevada in Recognizing and Proclaiming April 25th as Parental Alienation Awareness Day

Parental Alienation Awareness Organization (PAAO) is pleased to announce that Nebraska and Kentucky are among the states that recognize the importance of Parental Alienation awareness.

Parental Alienation Awareness Organization is working towards having the behaviors involved in Parental Alienation recognized on a statewide level.

Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting inolve a series of behaviors that can effectively alienate a child from a parent. They are often seen in the context of
high-conflict divorce or custody cases and are done by a third party, such as a parent or extended family. Such behaviors interfere with the bond between a loving parent and child.

These behaviors can include: speaking negatively about a parent to, or in front of, a child; interfering with communication and visitation; moving and leaving no contact
information; and discussing inappropriate information with a child, such as details of the marriage, divorce, or court proceedings.

The most common response of a child exposed to alienating behaviors is extreme resistance to contact with, or fear of, a parent without any justifiable cause.

These behaviors are both painful and destructive and can leave deep and long-lasting emotional scars on a child. Research has shown that children who have been alienated from a parent show a greater percentage of depression, low self-esteem, drug and alcohol problems, and difficulties in their own relationships.

While not everyone agrees on the terminology, mental health professionals, legal professionals, and especially adult children who have experienced such behaviors in childhood acknowledge and agree that alienating behaviors are damaging.

These behaviors, designed to take advantage of a child's suggestibility and dependency, leave a child feeling confused, frightened, and insecure.

They can result in the loss of a relationship with a previously loving, supportive, and nurturing parent and in fact send a message that the half of the child that is that
parent is unworthy. The child has "lost" a parent but is given no permission to grieve.

"We are urging the governors of all of the states to learn more about Parental Alienation," states Sarvy Emo, PAAO co-founder.

"Parental Alienating behaviors, under the term Parental Alienation, must be recognized, understood, and addressed to allow a child to love and be loved by both parents, regardless of the parents' relationship to each other," adds Robin Denison, PAAO co-founder.

PAAO urges governors, the professionals who work with children and families, and the public to learn more about Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting by visiting http://www.parental-alienation-awareness.com - for the sake of all children to be able to give and receive all of the love they deserve.

About PAAO

Parental Alienation Awareness Organization (PAAO) is an organization dedicated to increasing the awareness and education of the public and professionals who work with families and children about the causes and effects of Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting, and suggests guidelines as to how to eliminate or ameliorate the effects of these behaviors.