Sally blog

W. Sahara-Morocco talks remain in deadlock

MANHASSET, New York (AFP) – UN-brokered talks between Morocco and Western Sahara rebels failed to break decades of deadlock on the future of the disputed North African territory, the UN envoy said.

"Each party continues to reject the proposal of the other as a sole basis for future negotiations," said UN special envoy Christopher Ross, who oversaw the third round of talks near New York in the past two months and the ninth since 2007.

The Polisario Front independence group demands a self-determination referendum in the north African territory that was annexed by Morocco after Spain withdrew in 1975. Morocco has only offered greater autonomy.

Polisario negotiator Khatri Addu told reporters "Morocco continues to avoid any real negotiation." He demanded an international commission of inquiry into "repression" in the territory.

Morocco's Foreign Minister Taieb Fassi Fihri said his country was ready "to find a solution to this regional difference on the basis of Morocco's legitimacy in its Sahara."

The two sides did agree to a new round of informal talks in March.

The UN envoy had asked both sides to bring "concrete proposals" to improve prospects for the negotiations which have been dragging on for years. Another round of talks is scheduled in March.

The United Nations brokered a ceasefire in the conflict in 1991. A Security Council-approved plan called for a referendum in Western Sahara on independence or integration with Morocco, but it has never occurred.

Ross said the weekend talks went ahead with "serious engagement, frankness, and mutual respect."

"The parties engaged in extensive discussions on innovative approaches to build a new dynamic for this process on the basis of regular meetings," the envoy added.

"In this regard, both parties presented and discussed in a preliminary manner concrete ideas that will be developed at the next round of informal talks" in March.

Delegations from neighboring Algeria, which supports the Polisario Front, and Mauritania were also at the talks.

Western Saharans living in Algerian refugee camps have been allowed to resume family visits and this was welcomed by all sides at the talks.

A meeting with the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva is scheduled next month in a bid to step up the visits, Ross said.

On the Trail of a Nut Thief: Sleuthing Tabby Tries To Solve the Mystery of the Disappearing Nuts

In the case of F.E. Lyon, the main character in The Great Nut Heist: From the Tales of F.E. Lyon: P.I. by Stephen Brand, the answer proves more entertaining than one could possibly have realized.

Oklahoma City (Vocus/PRWEB) January 26, 2011

People often anthropomorphize their animals, but what really goes on in their heads? What do they do when the humans aren’t looking? In the case of F.E. Lyon, the main character in(published by AuthorHouse) by , the answer proves more entertaining than one could possibly have realized.

F.E. Lyon is a malecat who makes a point of knowing everything that goes on in his neighborhood. He also takes it upon himself to solve problems in the area. In The Great Nut Heist, readers follow F.E. as he searches through his domain to find out who is stealing all of the pecans his owner leaves out on the driveway.

F.E. doesn’t particularly like pecans but is perplexed by the fact that the nuts are being taken so quickly. He combs the neighborhood and communicates with the neighborhood animals. Can F.E. solve theof the The Great Nut Heist?

This charming and cleverly writtenis sure to captivate anyone who loves animals or a good mystery.

About the Author Born in Sweetwater, Texas, Stephen Brand is a former large, medium and small-market news and sports writer that has written over 50 poems, 10 short stories and two screenplays. He is a former sportswriter for the Dallas Morning News which is revered as one of the top three sports sections in the nation. He earned a degree in psychology from Oklahoma State University.

AuthorHouse is the leading provider of self- publishing, marketing, and bookselling services for authors around the globe. For more information, visit .###

Marketing ServicesAuthorHouse8885095121Email Information

New U.S. analysis backs annual breast screening

CHICAGO (Reuters) – A new analysis of evidence used by a U.S. advisory panel to roll back breast cancer screening guidelines suggests it may have ignored evidence that more frequent mammograms save more lives, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday.

Researchers at the University of Colorado and University of Michigan studied some of the same risk models used by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to issue controversial breast screening guidelines in 2009.

Those guidelines recommended against routine mammograms for women in their 40s and said women in their 50s should get mammograms every other year instead of every year.

In the new analysis, the team found that annual mammograms starting at age 40 save 65,000 more women from breast cancer than mammograms done every other year in women 50 and older.

"It is not a small difference," said Dr. Mark Helvie of the University of Michigan Health System, who worked on the study published in the February issue of the American Journal of Roentgenology.

His team calculated that a woman who gets a yearly mammogram starting at age 40 cuts her risk of dying from breast cancer by 71 percent compared to a 23 percent reduction in risk if a woman followed the task force recommendations.

When they were issued, the task force's guidelines contradicted years of messages about the need for routine breast cancer screening starting at age 40, kicking off a fury of protest among breast cancer experts and advocacy groups who argued the recommendation of fewer screenings would confuse women and result in more deaths from breast cancer.

They were meant to spare women some of the worry and expense of extra tests needed to distinguish between cancer and harmless lumps.

But Helvie and colleague Edward Hendrick of the University of Colorado wrote that "the USPSTF chose to ignore the science available to them and overemphasized the potential harms of screening mammography, to the serious detriment of U.S. women who follow their flawed recommendations."

Dr. Carol Lee who chairs the American College of Radiology's Breast Imaging Commission said the new study highlights the risk of setting policy based on the conclusions of one group of scientists.

She said breast mammograms have contributed significantly to reducing deaths from breast cancer, a fact that should not be ignored in favor of mathematical models.

"It's like a weather man using a computer model to see what the weather is rather than looking outside the window," Lee said in a telephone interview.

Many groups, including the American Cancer Society, have stuck by their long-standing recommendations of a yearly breast exam for women starting at age 40, stressing that the breast X-rays have been proven to save lives by spotting tumors early, when they are most easily treated.

Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death among U.S. women, after lung cancer. It kills 500,000 people globally every year and is diagnosed in close to 1.3 million people around the world.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Stern v. Marshall Tests Authority of Bankruptcy Courts

Stern v. Marshall achieved notoriety due to the identity of parties now long dead. When former Playboy Bunny Anna Nicole Smith, a.k.a. Vickie Lynn Marshall, married multimillionaire J. Howard Marshall II, a man 63 years her senior, in 1994, suspicion that Smith was using her sex appeal to gain access to Howard's bank account ran rampant. The wedding story published bydisparagingly began "The bride wore cleavage."And when Marshall died a little more than a year later, tongues wagged anew.

Animosity between Vickie Lynn and Marshall's youngest son, Pierce, ensured that Marshall's will would be contested. The will contest began in a Texas probate court. However, Vickie Lynn's California bankruptcy petition brought that state's courts into the dispute, with dueling court decisions the result.

While the dispute before the Supreme Court concerns technical bankruptcy rules, the practical effect will be to determine whether the Texas probate court's decision or that of the California district court is given effect.

How did this case arise?

The history of this case is long and complicated and involves concurrent litigation in two different states.

Vickie Lynn Marshall sued her stepson Pierce Marshall in guardianship proceedings concerning her ill husband in a Texas probate court, charging that he was interfering in her statutory right to support from her husband. She claimed Pierce had used fraud and undue influence to persuade Howard to make his Living Trust irrevocable.When her husband died, Vickie Lynn asked the court to reject the will and Pierce asked the court to uphold it.

While these claims were pending in the Texas probate court, Vickie Lynn filed a personal bankruptcy case in California, where she resided. In the bankruptcy action, Vickie Lynn was required to list all potential assets including ones she might be entitled to depending on the outcome of the Texas probate proceeding.

Pierce voluntarily came to the bankruptcy court, filing a claim for an undetermined amount to cover any judgment he might receive with respect to claims that Vickie Lynn defamed him by alleging wrongdoing with respect to Howard's Living Trust and will. Once he made this claim, Vickie Lynn was required to file any counterclaims she had resulting from the same underlying events. Her counterclaims included her allegation that Pierce tortiously interfered with her expectation of a gift or inheritance from Howard Marshall in excess of $300 million.

While these claims were pending, Vickie Lynn filed the same tortious interference claim in the Texas probate court after Pierce alleged in that court that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over it.

Ultimately, inconsistent decisions emanated from these courts.

Under principles of full faith and credit, the courts in one state will give effect to another state court's decisions.Which of these courts first decided Vickie Lynn's claim is therefore critical in determining which decision should be upheld.

The California bankruptcy court was nominally the first to rule, with its decision favoring Vickie Lynn on Pierce's defamation complaint and on her tortious interference claim. At this point, Vickie Lynn withdrew her claim from the Texas probate court. However, the California district court later found that the bankruptcy court exceeded its authority in issuing a ruling on the merits.

The federal district court in California said that while a bankruptcy court can issue final judgments on core matters (matters intrinsically related to bankruptcy proceedings), Vickie Lynn's claim was not a core matter. Although they arose from the same transactions, their vastly different magnitude, legal theories and necessary proof resulted in their classification as non-core matters. Because they were non-core, the bankruptcy court was not authorized to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, but was instead required to issue proposed findings and conclusions which would then be decided by the district court. The federal district court issued a ruling itself in favor of Vickie Lynn but by that time the Texas probate court had already ruledthat Vickie Lynn had no interest in Howard's estate and that he did not intend to make her a gift from his Living Trust.

How did this case come before the U.S. Supreme Court?

The case is up before the high court for the second time. The Ninth Circuit originally ruled that it could not hear the case because of a probate exception to its jurisdiction. But the Supreme Court found the probate exception did not apply and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for a decision on the merits.

In its ruling on the merits, thethat Vickie Lynn's claim was compulsory but was a non-core bankruptcy claim.The court reasoned that the claim was non-core because it was not so closely entertwined with Pierce's claim against her that it had to be resolved in order to determined whether his claim should be allowed.

Because it was non-core, the Ninth Circuit said the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction was limited to issuing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court. By the time the case reached the district court, the doctrine of issue preclusion should have kept the court from ruling on the merits, instead giving full faith and credit to the Texas probate court's decision.

What is the issue before the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold the Ninth Circuit's interpretations of bankruptcy law with respect to core proceedings and compulsory counterclaims. In particular, it will consider whether the Ninth Circuit's analysis is consistent with Congressional intent, whether Congress has the authority to authorize core jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims and whether the Ninth Circuit's decision violates existing precedent by holding that Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-bankruptcy judges to enter final judgments on all compulsory counterclaims.

I'd Buy a Halo Combat Evolved Remake, Wouldn't You?

If they remadefor the Xbox 360, would you buy it?

Okay, it depends who 'they' are, right?

How about , the recently formed Microsoft studio behind Halo minis like , and the team carrying the torch for Halo 4 (or whatever the next original Halo game's called) now that Bungie's out of the picture?

If UK monthly GamesMaster , 343 may in fact be prepping a jazzed up remake of the Halo that launched a thousand ships (or a dozen clones) for the game's 10 year anniversary next November. And by 'jazzed up', I mean Halo: Combat Evolved meets theengine.

Why not? After all, it worked forand .

But then I'm less a fan of those games than the Xbox original. In fact I'd call Halo: Combat Evolved the pinnacle installment in Microsoft's "space marines versus shiny pink and blue aliens" series. Halo 2 was all multiplayer and no plot (I know, hail online multiplayer, but campaign mode was a letdown). Halo 3's story careened from curious to improbable to utterly preposterous (a potential disaster, in fact, mitigated by a strong online mode).

Halo 3: ODST played like the Halo 3 expansion it was meant to be, originally, and then Halo: Reach came along to...well...let me get back to you on that, because I'm still having trouble maintaining interest long enough to finish it.

But yes, I'd allow myself a few trifling seconds of fanboy excitement if a Halo: Combat Evolved remake's in the offing, and--I'm only saying possibly here--bound for a November 2011 release to celebrate the original's November 2001 Xbox debut. 10 years. Sure doesn't feel like it's been that long, does it.

Imagine all those console firsts brought forward a decade: Massive outdoor levels riddled with gleaming polyhedral architecture. Point-and-drive ATVs with easy-fire gatling guns. Brilliantly punitive enemies chattering nervously while coordinating sophisticated tactical assaults. A ribbon of land reaching ringlike from horizon to horizon against a cerulean sky streaked with alien clouds.

And best of all: Online multiplayer (remember the original only supported local split-screen play). You know that's a shoe-in, probably with scads of updates and supplementals, if this happens.

Poll time.