After a trial on the merits, for the reasons that follow, notwithstanding the compelling interest of Congress in protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Web, I conclude today that COPA facially violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs because: (1) at least some of the plaintiffs have standing; (2) COPA is not narrowly tailored to Congress’ compelling interest; (3) defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that COPA is the least restrictive, most effective alternative in achieving the compelling interest; and (4) COPA is vague and overbroad. As a result, I will issue a permanent injunction against the enforcement of COPA.

The US Supreme Court in 2004 upheld a temporary injunction against the enforcement of COPA in Ashcroft v. ACLU, holding that COPA would likely violate the First Amendment, and remanded the case back to the District Court. Judge Reed presided over a four-week trial on the merits which concluded in November 2006.

COPA was enacted in 1998 after similar provisions contained in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) were struck down in Reno v. ACLU as unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and because less restrictive alternatives were available. Last year, Google fought a Justice Department subpoena seeking to force the search engine giant to hand over a large amount of user data, including one week's worth of query searches and up to 1 million web addresses as part of a federal effort to rewrite COPA. 

LipidLabs  announced the approval of its corporate governance guidelines for its management and board of directors. The Company has approved a code of conduct and code of ethics, as recommended by the Sarbanes/Oxley Act. In addition, the Company is currently seeking to add independent directors to its Board of directors and audit committee. Board Members serve the interests of the Company and its stockholders as highly qualified candidates with the personal integrity, knowledge, skills, expertise, diversity of experience, ability to make independent analytical inquiries, understanding of the Company’s business environment and willingness to devote adequate time and effort to serve as members of the Board.

"We have initiated a program of corporate compliance intended to create a strong corporate governance function within LipidLabs," stated President Tommy Cloud. "We view corporate governance as an essential protection for our shareholders and as an essential support for the universities from whom we license our new technologies. Each stakeholder needs to know that good corporate governance controls are in place as we develop a culture of transparency at LipidLabs," he added.

"We think some people may have skipped over it on the form – even with the software, in some instances – just completing the return as they did last year. We've been surprised by that," Everson said.

For this year only, most taxpayers can claim a refund of $30 to $60. The amount depends on the size of your family, for taxes the IRS mistakenly collected on long-distance phone services. So far, 30 percent of tax filers are failing to claim the refund, and half of the taxpayers paid preparers to complete their return, Forbes reported.

On the other hand, the IRS received huge telephone refund claims, allegedly fraudulent, for around $10,000 early in the filing season. "That's a lot of phone usage. Even my teenage kids can't generate that much phone usage," Everson joked. A subsequent crackdown on fraud appears to be effective, he said.

Other challenges for the IRS included extensions of tax breaks that did not become final until the end of December. The agency had to hussle to implement the changes in time for filing deadlines, and incorporate the changes into software programs.

A new direct-deposit service was also difficult: Filers can split their refund and have it sent electronically to different financial institutions. Everson said about 55,000 people took advantage of the service, that’s of 74 million returns processed so far, but he expects it to become more popular.

James Paone, a partner at Lomurro, Davison, Eastman and Munoz in Freehold, N.J., said that the firm's insurer -- The Chubb Corp. -- said several weeks ago that it would not add the blog to the existing policy. "We were in the process of beginning to set up a blog, having internal discussions about what areas of law would be the subjects," he said. "We wanted to cover the first base, which is Chubb's coverage. Our insurance carrier said a blog is not a risk they were interested in insuring. The entire discussion stopped."

Paone said his firm contacted Chubb to ask about insurance coverage in case someone tried to sue it over content in the blog. Now, the law firm is in the process of setting up a meeting with Chubb "so we can understand what their rationale is for saying they weren't interested in covering that kind of risk," Paone said.

Chubb did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Two consumer watchdog groups called Thursday for the California stem cell program to put a hold on a $2.6 million cloning grant announced last week for a Los Angeles research enterprise that the groups say is linked to ethical lapses involving a South Korean fertility specialist.

CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute, described as a nonprofit subsidiary of a for-profit South Korean company, CHA Health Systems, was among 29 grant recipients listed last Friday by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

The CHA researchers at the Los Angeles institute intend to make customized nerve cells from patients with Lou Gehrig's disease, using human embryonic stem cell lines and a cloning method known as somatic cell nuclear transfer.

The Los Angeles Times reported last month that Kwang Yul Cha, a well-known South Korean infertility expert who heads CHA Health Systems, may have plagiarized another researcher's work. Cha denies the charge. He also was accused of improperly identifying himself as a medical doctor in California even though he isn't licensed to practice medicine in the state.

A medical director at a CHA-affiliated fertility center in Los Angeles is at the center of a dispute by a patient.

The watchdog groups are also raising issues about the nonprofit status of the CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute. Only nonprofits were allowed to compete for the $76 million worth of stem cell grants approved on Friday.

All these allegations were given fresh circulation Wednesday by an Internet site called the California Stem Cell Report, which tracks the $3 billion state stem cell research program authorized by state voters in 2004 under Proposition 71.

Citing "an array of troubling questions" about the $2.6 billion grant, Marcy Darnovsky, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Oakland, called Thursday for the state Prop. 71 agency to "live up to its oft-stated commitments to transparency and responsibility by freezing this multimillion-dollar award while a thorough investigation is undertaken."

Separately, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica sent a letter to Dr. Zach Hall, president and chief scientific officer of the stem cell agency, also calling for an investigation.

"It's imperative that stem cell research funded by the state of California be conducted only by organizations demonstrating the highest ethical standards," wrote John M. Simpson, stem cell project director at the Santa Monica group. "Based on what is known so far, a thorough examination of the activities of CHA Regenerative Medicine Institute, its affiliates and leadership are in order before any funds are transferred."

Jason Booth, a spokesman in Los Angeles for CHA Health Systems, said the research unit is a bona fide California nonprofit whose status was not at issue, and that its "grant was based on a thorough scientific review that speaks for itself."

A spokesman for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine said any questions about the conduct or credentials of researchers will be investigated as a matter of course during a pending administrative review.

Dale Carlson, communications director for the agency, said neither of the two nonprofit groups "understands how the review process works."

He said the researchers were judged on scientific merit of their proposals, which in the CHA case was deemed to be "nicely developed" but in some respects "overly ambitious" by a panel of experts, who wound up giving the proposal a winning score of 77 out of a possible 100.

Carlson said that matters such as corporate versus nonprofit status, and researcher credentials, will be examined in the staff review built into the process. "Only when that is completed does a notice of grant award go out," he said.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and the San Francisco Giants said Wednesday that they would team up to place the first solar energy system at a major league ballpark.

But storm clouds are gathering over the plan to install nearly 600 solar panels at AT&T Park, the Giants' home field. Consumer advocates contend the project is little more than a publicity stunt and that shareholders, not ratepayers, should be footing the bill.

The panels will generate about 120 kilowatts of energy, enough to power more than 20 homes, utility spokesman Keely Wachs said.

Power from the 590 panels would be transmitted to the general power grid for PG&E to sell to customers around Northern California. The company plans to ask the California Public Utilities Commission for permission to bill those same customers for the purchase, installation and maintenance of the panels.

PG&E, a subsidiary of San Francisco-based PG&E Corp., and the Giants trumpeted the proposal in a news release complete with laudatory comments from executives and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

"PG&E is committed to helping the Giants, the city and county of San Francisco, and all of the communities we serve to increase power generated from solar energy," said Tom King, chief executive of Pacific Gas & Electric.

The Giants noted that energy conservation had been a priority in AT&T Park's design and daily operations, including installation of a new Diamond Vision scoreboard that uses 78% less energy than the ballpark's original scoreboard.

But Jamie Court, president of the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, objected to the planned use of ratepayer funds for the solar project.

"This was an attempt to get a nice PR ploy, and if that's the case, then PG&E shareholders should pick up the tab," Court said.

Although PG&E has helped 15,000 customers connect their solar panels to the grid, representing 110 megawatts, the company currently doesn't own any solar panels.

PG&E has committed to spending more than $7.5 million on solar installations and has been attempting to burnish its image in San Francisco by sponsoring websites and advertisements promoting environmentally friendly energy.

One site, http://www.LetsGreenThisCity.com , lists classes that customers can take to learn about installing solar panels and incentives. Renewable energy accounts for 12% of the power that PG&E provides to its customers.

Vonage uses VoIP, which involves converting the sound of a voice into packets of data and reassembling them into sound at the other end of the call. In 2003, Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission tried to register Vonage as a phone company, which would have subjected it to state tariffs and rate regulations, the report said. A federal judge barred Minnesota from doing so, and a year later at Vonage's request the FCC ruled that the company's services could not be regulated by the states.

Regulatory agencies in a number of states, including Minnesota, appealed that ruling, the report said. In the decision authored by Fargo, N.D.-based 8th Circuit Judge Kermit Bye, the court agreed with the FCC's determination that the nature of VoIP telephone calls allows customers to place "home" phone calls from nearly anywhere, irrespective of state lines, the report added.

When the FCC issued its ruling in 2004, officials with the agency indicated that they believed streamlined regulation was key to the growth of the fledgling industry.

The report further quoted Vonage CEO Mike Snyder as saying that the decision was good news for the company's 2.2 million subscribers.