Thanks to "Google Bombing," or "Google Washing," an attempt to influence the page ranking in search results by clicking on certain articles or Web sites purposely and repeatedly, candidates' supporters can influence the kind of exposure their opponents get in the online world.

Since the 2004 U.S. presidential election, this new campaign tactic has become another major means for election campaigning along with the "old school" television advertisements.

It's the same kind of attack method, but a bit more subtle.

The new method became so popular that the term "Google Bombing" was introduced in the New Oxford American Dictionary in May 2005.

This is how it works: Depending on how many times a link is clicked in Google, its page rank goes up, and when the same words are searched, the search engine automatically generates on top of the list the page that was visited most often.

Taking advantage of this function, "Google Bombers" purposely click away on the same negative articles on candidates their choice is competing against, so that when voters log on to find out more information on candidates, they are met with unpleasant stories.

One famous example is on the U.S. President George W. Bush. You type in "miserable failure" and you are directed to many results linking you to the president.

It is unclear where those words came from but its first public application related to the Bush administration was by Dick Gephardt, who claimed during a discussion, "This president is a miserable failure on foreign policy; and on the economy. And he's got to be replaced."

The mid-term election is not an exception for manipulating Google data.

If you google George Allen, a Republican U.S. senator from Virginia who is running to keep his seat, many negative articles such as "Allen Quip Provokes Outrage, Apology" show up right below the link to his official Web site.

Google, one of the most powerful search engines, has responded that it will not alter the results (or other Google bombed results) because it wished to preserve the integrity of its search engine.

As for the new tactic's effectiveness, Chris Bowers, who is an author of the popular liberal blog MyDD.com and conceived of the Google Bombing project aimed at 70 Republican candidates, cast doubts.

"I think Internet users are very smart and most are aware of what a Google Bomb is," he said in an interview with the New York Times. "And they will be aware that results can be massaged a bit."

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales announced on Monday that the United States signed an Executive Agreement with Eurojust, the judicial cooperation unit of the European Union (E.U.), which will improve transatlantic law enforcement coordination and enhance the ability of the U.S. and the E.U. to fight international crime. The Agreement will foster the exchange of information between law enforcement communities in the U.S. and the E.U. and will strengthen cooperative efforts to prevent and prosecute organized crime, human trafficking, cybercrime and terrorism.

Specifically, the agreement establishes the position of U.S. Liaison Prosecutor to Eurojust. The Liaison Prosecutor will be based at Eurojust headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands, and will facilitate law enforcement cooperation between the U.S. and the E.U. on a day-to-day basis. The Agreement particularly ensures the protection of personal information and individual privacy for both citizens of the U.S. and the E.U.

“This agreement is just one more example of the strong relationship that exists between the United States and the European Union on law enforcement issues,” said Attorney General Gonzales. “It represents an important part of our ongoing efforts to combat transnational crime and international terrorism while protecting the civil liberties of our citizens.”

The Executive Agreement was signed following troika meetings hosted by Attorney General Gonzales at the Department of Justice with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Minister of Justice of Finland Leena Luhtanen, Minister of Interior of Finland Kari Rajamaki and Vice President of the European Commission Franco Frattini.

On Sunday, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging for the murders of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail following the 1982 assassination attempt on him.

After two days of anticipation of the Hussein verdict, civilians have been allowed back out into the capital and two other provinces, but vehicles remain banned until Tuesday morning. Police in Baghdad were allowing people to make essential journeys like going to hospital or buying provisions from shops that had opened. It has been reported that activity was already returning to the streets before the partial lifting of the curfew.

An automatic appeal will be launched against the sentence and is due to be heard by a panel of nine judges. If the sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days of the decision, meaning the hangings could therefore take place within two or three months.

The appeals process for the former Iraqi leader and his six co-defendants is expected to take only a few weeks. Two of the co-defendants were sentenced to death, one to life in prison and three to 15-year jail terms.

Saddam Hussein is due back in court on Tuesday when a separate trial for atrocities committed against Iraqi Kurds resumes, but Iraqi officials say the hanging would not be delayed artificially to allow this to take place. Some legal experts have argued that the Anfal killings trial should be allowed to reach a verdict before Saddam Hussein is executed. According to Saddam Hussein's defence lawyers, they have not received official notification of the death sentence, which they say is required before they launch their appeal. However, that is a technicality, and it shows how ineffectual a lot of the rules and regulations governing the trial process have been.

Breaking Legal News.com
Neal Andrea
Staff Writer

Those who follow Texas politics might call Houston homebuilder Bob Perry a modern day kingmaker. Although Perry skips pomp, circumstance and much of the flashy nonsense associated with kingmakers past and present, he is a formidable force in the Lone Star State and is fast becoming one in state across the union.

He tends to operate behind the scenes, but his money stands tall, front and center, usually showing up in what some call shadowy organizations that pay for negative political advertisements that attack candidates who don't share his staunchly conservative, and pro-business values.

The man who stepped onto the national political "back stage" by funding the Swift Boat Veteran for Truth ads questioning John Kerry's Vietnam War record, has over the years purchased a great deal of political influence in his home state, and there is suggestive evidence that Perry and the interests he supports, might like to export that Texas style influence to states across the nation.

Andrew Wheat is Research Director for the Austin Think Tank and watchdog organization, Texans for Public Justice. He says Bob Perry and President Bush come out of the Texas system of unlimited political donations and the sort of influence that can offer.

"Year after year, Bob Perry is Texas' single largest political donor," said Wheat.

And, at the height of this Congressional and Senate election cycle, Bob Perry has gone national yet again.

In fact, Bob Perry is the largest single political donor in the United States according to Federal Election Records. Perry has spent around $9 million this election cycle to fund electioneering communication groups called 527s, named after a provision in the tax code. Television ads have been paid for by Perry funded groups like Economic Freedom Fund, Americans for Honesty in Issues and in several states, phones have rung, and those on the receiving heard what is called a survey but actually a push poll recording, thousands made, paid for by Perry and carried out by a group called Freeeats.com.

Bob Perry supports President Bush's conservative agenda. This year, he also funded a group called The Free Enterprise Fund, a 527 that is seeking to counter the liberal messages of MoveOn.org.

When it comes to pocketbook issues, homebuilder Perry has strongly supported tort reform and legislation that is especially friendly to homebuilders in Texas. Through campaign donations and the funding of extensive lobbying efforts, the Houston homebuilder played a direct role in overhauling the Texas Civil Courts.

There are organizations and business groups that would like to see similar changes on a national scale. Many pro-business interests subscribe to the theory that the courts are biased and tend to rule in favor of the consumer, even when not warranted. Bob Perry was instrumental in reining in that behavior, what pro-business interests say was an out of control civil court system in Texas.

Now there is a great deal of speculation into why Perry has been so motivated to provide a generous flow of cash into campaigns in places like Iowa, Colorado, Indiana and Tennessee.

Tennessee's Democratic Party Chairman says he thinks that Bob Perry's funding of an especially negative ad attacking Democrat Harold Ford's Armani suits and expensive cigars was motivated purely by power.

"They (Republicans) need to control Congress to prevent investigations into Republican wrongdoing," said Bob Tuke, the state's Democratic Party Chair.

He called the Republican Opponent, Bob Corker, just one of theirs.

Coincidentally, Bob Corker, like Bob Perry, made a great deal of his fortune in the building and real estate industry. Many of Tennessee Republicans' biggest supporters are also from the real estate and building industry.

Like much of the national homebuilder community, Bob Perry may be interested in maintaining an atmosphere in Congress that will seek overhaul of the nation's civil court system and more "right to repair" legislation.

The National Association of Homebuilders said in a 2004 press release that reforming the civil justice system has become, and will continue to be a priority.

That release went on to say that trial lawyers, under the guise of consumer advocacy, are subjecting homebuilders to costly and unfair litigation fees.

Bob Perry's company is no stranger to lawsuits.

According to a 2003 Dallas Morning News article, Perry has been sued 20 times since 1985. The largest suit involved Perry and other developers and was known as the Brio case. The case involved 1,700 plaintiffs whose homes were built over a toxic waste dump outside Houston.

But, pro-business tort reform advocates cite an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits. The American Tort Reform Association calls the American Judicial system the most expensive in the industrialized world, costing $246 billion year.

Critics of the reforms say they could have a chilling effect on lawsuits that seek to bring to light corporate misconduct.

If Bob Perry's latest foray into national politics has roots in the desire for homebuilder friendly judicial overhauls, it may be worth noting what has happened in Texas.

Janet Ahmed recalls a day in 2003 when she and other homeowner activists were at the Texas legislature in Austin promoting a Home-Lemon Law-bill that would protect new homebuyers in much the same way lemon car laws protect new car buyers. Ahmed, the president of The Homeowners for Better Building organization couldn't help but notice the large number of women, mostly elderly, that were dutifully shuffling about the State House. When quizzed by Ahmed, a few of the women said they were in town to talk to legislators about all those "awful frivolous lawsuits" in Texas that were costing consumers so much money.

But Ahmed says she thinks the busloads of elderly lobbyist were in fact brought in, fed breakfast and along the way, educated by pro-business coaches about so-called frivolous lawsuits, in what Ahmed believes was smoke and mirrors politics move that was meant to promote tort reform specifically favorable to home builders and developers.

Ahmed says the Austin tort reform blitz was organized by the group Texas For Lawsuit Reform (TLR), run by Richard Weekly. Richard Weekly is the brother of homebuilder/developer David Weekly. She and others say that Tort reform efforts in Texas were bankrolled directly and through political donations by David Weekly and Houston developer and Republican money man, Bob Perry.

From 1997 through 2002, The Weekly family, the Perry Family and the TLR gave over $5 million to various state races, including judicial races across Texas.

Since the Brio case was resolved, after a $200 million settlement, Perry has made tort reform homebuilder friendly legislation his main focus according to most observers.

Back before George W. Bush became Governor of Texas, the homebuilder lobby won passage of the Residential Construction Liability Act. The RCLA gave builders the "right to repair" a construction defect, before the consumer could take the homebuilder to court.

But, according to a number consumers like Janet Ahmed, the right to repair soon became the right to delay leaving homebuyers at the mercy of the homebuilder. Later legislation made it even tougher for homebuyers to prove damage had been caused during the original construction. And, as reported in a 2004 Los Angeles Times article, the new laws limited how much money could be awarded to the homebuyer.

The Los Angeles Times article reported that at the same time builders were starting to add arbitration clauses to their contracts forcing unhappy homeowners to take complaints before private arbitrators, rather than a judge and jury. The Times said that in 2003, inspectors, chosen by a homebuilder industry dominated panel determined the facts on which the arbitration was decided.

In a nutshell, the binding arbitration clauses have the ability to drive homebuyers out of the public courts where judges, inspectors and lawyers are cheaper than arbitration services.

"Everybody has to go to binding arbitration, even if your roof is leaking or your wall cracking, and sometimes it takes months to resolve," noted Ahmed who said if the homebuyer fixes the problem because its impossible to live with, they then forfeit their warranty.

At Ahmed's organization's Web site HOBB.ORG, there are countless horror stories of the American Dream turned nightmare, stories where individuals and families discover toxic mold or shoddy construction threatening their most important material investment, only to find their legal recourse neutered.

Andrew Wheat has written that groups like Public Citizen, Consumers Union and Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings say arbitration amounts to a Kangaroo court.

A few years ago, Wheat and members of Texans for Public Justice dug and found information that suggested former House Leader Tom Delay's Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee might have been engaged in improper and illegal misuse of corporate campaign money. The work Wheat did, helped lead to Delay's eventual indictment on conspiracy and money laundering charges.

Bob Perry was the largest donor to DeLay's Republican PAC.

Wheat says his organization has followed Bob Perry's long money trail for years.

In Texas he's "motivated by a push to limit damages from homeowner lawsuits"

Regardless of his motives, his impact has been felt throughout Texas politics.

In a recent interview with West Virginia Public Radio, Jake Bernstein, editor of "The Texas Observer," said, "people don't pay enough attention to who's paying for campaigns."

He noted that in Texas, there hasn't been the sort of debate there should have been on the issue of campaign finance reform, especially since so many members of the Republican legislature, the governor and others have all benefited from people like Bob Perry.

Still, theories swirl across the political landscape as to why Bob Perry would spend so much money to effect Congressional and Senate elections across the country.

Janet Ahmed says that Bob Perry led an effort in Texas to regulate the home buying public by creating an agency that hinders homebuyers from getting warranty work done.

Ahmed says this is coming to the rest of the country.

"If the wealthy Texas based homebuilders are able to limit liability in Texas that they are also influencing the political arena in other states to do the same thing," she said.

The conservative widely known Tennessee columnist Frank Cagle wouldn't speculate on Bob Perry's intentions except to say "a Texas developer probably knows Karl Rove."

Delaware Superior Court Judge Jan Jurden ordered a man who twice exposed himself to a 10-year-old girl at his workplace to wear a T-shirt with the words: "I am a registered sex offender" in bold letters, a prosecutor said.

Russell Teeter, 69, who pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent exposure, also was sentenced to 60 days in jail.

Deputy Attorney General Donald Roberts said Teeter had at least 10 prior convictions dating back to 1976 for exposing himself to children and had been diagnosed as a compulsive exhibitionist. Roberts requested the unusual T-shirt punishment because he was concerned about Teeter exposing himself to children at the gardening business he runs with his wife. "This is a unique way to let his customers know that he is a sex offender," Roberts told Reuters.

Teeter, will have to wear the T-shirt at work for 22 months after he gets out of jail. He has 30 days to appeal the sentence. Teeter's attorney could not immediately be reached for comment.

Breaking legal News.com
Robin Sheen
Staff Writer

WASHINGTON - (USDOJ) A former employee of a construction company that has contracts with the U.S. Air Force in Iraq, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan to a one-count criminal information, the Department of Justice announced today.

Samir F. Mahmoud, 56, of Bloomfield, Mich., pleaded guilty to charges of making a false statement stemming from an investigation into possible violations of the Anti-Kickback Act. U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen set a sentencing date for February 2, 2007.

According to the information filed in September 2006, on July 17, 2006, Mahmoud was interviewed by special agents from the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding allegations of illegal payments and gifts offered to company employees in exchange for promised assistance in obtaining, retaining or altering the Air Force contracts and subcontracts associated with the reconstruction of Iraq. During the interview Mahmoud willfully made materially false statements in that he denied providing gifts to other company employees when he had offered and provided things of value to at least one company employee.

The maximum sentence for a charge of making a false statement is up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In October 2006, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty announced the formation of a National Procurement Fraud Task Force designed to promote the early detection, identification, prevention and prosecution of procurement fraud associated with the increase in contracting activity for national security and other governmental programs. The Procurement Fraud Task Force chaired by Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division includes the FBI, the U.S. Inspectors General Community, the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys and others.

The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Nathaniel Edmonds and Stacey Luck of the Criminal Division's Fraud Section.

A report released by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University concludes that the Justice Department increasingly has refused to prosecute FBI cases targeting suspected terrorists over the past five years. TRAC co-director Susan Long said researchers relied on the Justice Department's own numbers to come up with the findngs. The study was based on the most recent data available from the Justice Department's executive office for U.S. attorneys.

The government disputes the findings as inaccurate and "intellectually dishonest."

Prosecutors declined to bring charges in 87 percent, of international terrorist case referrals from the FBI between October 2005 and June 2006, according to the report.

During the 2001 budget year, prosecutors rejected 33 percent of such cases from the FBI. The data "raise troubling questions about the bureau's investigation of criminal matters involving individuals the government has identified as international terrorists," the report said. Also noted in the report, was the fact that while the number of agents and other employees has risen, prosecutions in traditional FBI investigations since 2001 - including drug cases, white collar crimes and organized crimes - have decreased.

The report states, "So with more special agents, many more intelligence analysts, and many fewer prosecutions the question must be asked: What is the FBI doing?"

A Justice Department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse noted that terrorist hoax cases that were quickly dismissed may have been included in the government data, adding also that while some cases are referred to prosecutors to obtain subpoenas or other legal orders in investigations, they ultimately never result in criminal charges. Roehrkasse disputed the findings of TRAC and said that prosecutors rejected 67 percent of FBI international terrorist cases in the nine-month period - not 87 percent.

John Miller, the FBI's assistant director, said about half of the FBI's resources go to detection and information gathering of terrorist networks in cases that do not always result in arrests, reflecting changes in how investigations have been conducted since the Sept. 11, resulting in what appears to be a low number of cases prosecuted. Miller said, "It's not about the numbers and for TRAC to suggest as much is to be intellectually dishonest. The FBI has been very clear about how we have changed the way we do business since 9/11."