Scamraiders is dedicated to fighting scams and corruption, whether in the courthouse or the corner grocery. Couri's video expose is based on his extensive experience fighting corruption in New York courts.

Couri intends to post at least two videos a week on scams, corruption and related issues. Scamraiders has urged members and viewers to stay tuned for more on these issues, which millions of Americans are faced with daily.

Learn more at www.scamraiders.com.

— WebWireID106989 —

On 30 January 2009, the Daily Mail published an article with the headline "Should Kate Winslet win an Oscar for the World's most irritating actress?", The article was published just three weeks before the famous Academy Awards 2009 Oscar evening. The article contained a defamatory and untrue allegation that Miss Winslet had publicly lied about her exercise regime.

In order to protect her reputation and defend her own integrity surrounding body/weight issues Miss Winslet took legal action by issuing libel proceedings against Associated Newspapers, the publishers of the Daily Mail.

In response to those proceedings, the Daily Mail accepted that the allegation it made was completely false and that it had no defence to the subsequent legal proceedings brought by Miss Winslet. In addition to agreeing to print an apology The Daily Mail also agreed to pay substantial damages of £25,000 to Miss Winslet and to pay her legal costs.

In apologising the Daily Mail stated "We accept that Miss Winslet was not being duplicitous in making her comments or seeking to deliberately mislead about her exercise regime. We apologise for any distress caused".

This decision clarifies that in Offer of Amends situations, claimants, in this instance Miss Winslet, have the right to appropriate vindication through the process of a Statement in Open Court.

A spokesperson for Schillings, the lawyers representing Miss Winslet, read out the Statement in Open Court.

Schillings commented: "Miss Winslet has frequently asserted the right of women to accept the way they look and by accusing her of trying to mislead the public, the Daily Mail caused her a great deal of distress. It was simply not true.

"We are pleased we have been able to achieve this result for Miss Winslet, a result which will continue to benefit clients bringing libel proceedings in the future."

Miss Winslet said: "I am delighted that the Mail have apologised for making false allegations about me. I was particularly upset to be accused of lying about my exercise regime and felt that I had a responsibility to request an apology in order to demonstrate my commitment to the views that I have always expressed about body issues, including diet and exercise. I strongly believe that women should be encouraged to accept themselves as they are, so to suggest that I was lying was an unacceptable accusation of hypocrisy."

- END -

Notes to editors
Claim number: HQ09X01191
A copy of the Statement in Open Court is available from the Schillings website

About Schillings, solicitors to Kate Winslet:
Schillings is one of Britain's top law firms dedicated to the reputation protection of international corporations, brands, celebrities and high-profile business people. The firm's track-record in defamation, privacy and copyright cases, as well as commercial dispute resolution is second to none.

Defamation privacy and copyright are at the heart of the firm's work, prompting The Independent newspaper to call Schillings a "spectacularly efficient media law firm."

Schillings clients include the recording artist Madonna, supermodel Naomi Campbell, seven times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, Harry Potter author JK Rowling, pharmaceuticals maker GlaxoSmithKline, steel maker Arcelor Mittal, the Harrods Group and the London Stock Exchange.

For further enquiries please contact:
Rachel Atkins
Schillings
41 Bedford Square
London
WC1B 3HX
Tel: +44(0)20 7034 9000
Fax: +44(0)20 7034 9200

— WebWireID106997 —

Libel proceedings were issued against MGN Limited, the publisher of the People newspaper, following the publication of two articles. The first article, published on 25 May 2008, carried the headline "Chelsea Cheat Michael Essien: I'll Stand by my Love Child". This was followed by another article on 3 May 2009 under the headline "Sex Cheat Star Essien Gets Boot".

The articles claimed that Mr Essien had cheated on his long term partner by having numerous affairs with other women and fathered a child behind his partner's back. As a result, his partner had called off their wedding. These allegations were found to be false and grossly defamatory towards Mr Essien.

The People has accepted that these allegations are untrue, and has paid Mr Essien substantial damages as well as agreeing to pay his legal costs. The People have also undertaken not to repeat the allegations.

In its apology, the People said: "On 25 May 2008 and 3 May 2009 we reported that Michael Essien had cheated on his long term girlfriend Nadia Buari by having numerous affairs behind her back including one in which he fathered a child. On 3 May we reported that as a result of his behaviour Ms Buari called their wedding off. We now accept that these allegations are untrue. We apologise to Mr Essien for any distress or embarrassment caused."

A representative of Schillings who represented Michael Essien said: "There has been a lot of inaccurate reporting concerning Michael and he was not prepared to allow this misreporting to continue."

Schillings also said that, "these allegations were not put to Michael or his representatives prior to publication and had the People done so they would have been informed of their utter falsity."

Caroline McAteer of The Sports PR Company said on behalf of Michael Essien: "Michael is delighted to have won his case and to have set the record straight. He would have preferred not to take action, but had no alternative in this case. Michael is pleased that this matter has now been resolved."

- END -

Notes to Editors:
Case number HQ09X02164

About Schillings:
Schillings is one of Britain's top law firms specialising in reputation management for footballers, their clubs and other sports personalities. They also help protect corporate reputations, brands, celebrities and high-profile business people. The firm's track-record in defamation, privacy law and copyright cases, as well as commercial dispute resolution is second to none.

Defamation privacy and copyright are at the heart of the firm's work, prompting The Independent newspaper to call Schillings a "spectacularly efficient media law firm."

Schillings clients include the recording artist Madonna, supermodel Naomi Campbell, seven times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, Harry Potter author JK Rowling, pharmaceuticals maker GlaxoSmithKline, steel maker Arcelor Mittal, the Harrods Group and the London Stock Exchange.

For further enquiries please:
Christopher Mills
Commercial Director
41 Bedford Square
London
WC1B 3HX
+44(0)20 7034 9000
www.schillings.co.uk

— WebWireID106916 —

NEW YORK – A federal appeals court today announced that it will hear the government's appeal of an earlier ruling that allowed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit to go forward against a Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen DataPlan Inc., for its role in the Bush administration's unlawful "extraordinary rendition" program. The government claims that allowing the case to be heard would endanger national security.

In April, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court dismissal of the lawsuit, brought on behalf of five men who were kidnapped, forcibly disappeared and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were interrogated under torture. The lawsuit charged that Jeppesen knowingly participated by providing critical flight planning and logistical support services to aircraft and crews used by the CIA to forcibly disappear these men to detention and interrogation. The Bush administration had intervened, improperly asserting the "state secrets" privilege to have the case thrown out. The appeals court ruled, as the ACLU has argued, that the government must invoke the "state secrets" privilege with respect to specific evidence, not to dismiss the entire suit. The Obama administration's appeal of that decision will be heard by an "en banc" panel of 11 judges.

The following can be attributed to Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project:

"We are disappointed by the court's decision to re-hear this case, but we hope and expect that the court's historic decision to allow the lawsuit to go forward will stand. The CIA's rendition and torture program simply is not a 'state secret.' In fact, since the court's decision in April, the government's sweeping secrecy claims have only gotten weaker, with the declassification of additional documents describing the CIA's detention and interrogation practices. The Obama administration's embrace of overbroad secrecy claims has denied torture victims their day in court and shielded perpetrators from liability or accountability. We hope that the court will reaffirm the principle that victims of torture deserve a remedy, and that no one is above the law."

— WebWireID106608 —

Buddenhagen, who is certified by the National Association of Certified Legal Nurse Consultants (NACLNC), said she is pleased to join the professional legal nurses of this dynamic AALNC chapter.

The Augusta Chapter has a two fold mission:
• To provide support to the legal nurse consultant community through education, networking and dissemination of information.
• To provide education and information about the role of a legal nurse consultant to the public in the greater Augusta area.

The website can be found at www.aalnc-augusta-ga.com.

Buddenhagen says she will continue to connect with the Atlanta Chapter of the AALNC also.

About the Meeting:

Sierra Gollan, MS, RN, spoke to the group regarding 'Evidence Based Practice and Standards of Care.' Gollan compared the nursing concept of standards of care with the legal concept of the standards of care (SOC):

Nursing: 'Standards of Care are not static because of the generation of new knowledge and rapidly advancing technology that affects nursing practice.' Laduke, 2003.

Legal: 'Term used to designate what is accepted and reasonable. It is that degree of skill, care and judgment used by an ordinary prudent health care provider under similar circumstances.' Iyer, Eds. 2003.

Gollan defined Evidence Based Practice as 'It is a problem solving approach to clinical practice that integrates a systematic search for and critical appraisal of the most relevant evidence to answer a burning clinical question, one's own clinical expertise and patient preferences and values.' Melnjk, 2005.

'Continuing education of the nurse is key in maintaining the standards of care' said Gollan.

About Liz Buddenhagen:

Liz Buddenhagen, registered nurse, is the owner and founder of Buddenhagen & Associates, an Atlanta legal nurse consulting firm. The firm assists Atlanta attorneys with the medical issues of their legal cases by providing reviews, organizing records, creating timelines, researching medical literature, preparing Medicare Set-Asides, working up medical cost projections and locating expert witnesses. For more information view website at www.Legal-Nurse-Consultant-LNC.com, email at Liz@BuddenhagenLNC.com or call 770-725-2997.

— WebWireID106545 —

Couri, a $1 per year consultant to Scamraiders.com, has released a video message on his extensive experience with corruption in the New York Court System. Couri compares these corrupt justices to hit men, as they adversely affect the lives of all of us, stating "these justices have been compromised."

This powerful message is meant as a warning to all those who, as part of their daily lives, enter a courtroom -- to beware and be wary of these charlatans. Couri also cautions about the plethora of corrupt lawyers that feed the cancer of corruption in the court system.

The full video message can be viewed in its entirety on Scamraiders.com or YouTube.com.

Scamraiders is also please to announce a soon-to-be-published book -- "Conspiracy at 60 Centre: A Stacked Deck at the Courthouse." The book will be an expose and reference regarding corruption in New York courts, spanning the last 60 years, a fact-filled manual of how-to and what-to look for in all issues involving corrupt lawyers and the courts they contaminate. This book will be a fascinating expose -- names will be named wherever documentary evidence has been established to expose the wrongdoing by the wrong doers.

Scamraiders is also pleased to announce a weekly Internet radio show, focusing on all types of scams, swindles and corruption. Anyone can call in and interact with Scamraiders, ask questions and hopefully get advice on how to solve some of these problems. More information about Scamraiders on the Radio is coming soon.

— WebWireID106189 —

Whilst judging compensation amounts is entirely dependent on the individual circumstances of each individual's accident, publications such as the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines give some idea of the likely level of compensation a particular injury will attract.

Minor back injury – between £1,000 and £8,000

Minor back injuries can be sustained as a result of a car crash and many other non-fault accidents. For such injuries it is likely a claim will be worth somewhere between £1,000 and £8,000. The vast majority of people who make back injury compensation claims have injuries valued within this range. The precise amount would depend on recovery time from the injury. For injuries taking less than 2 years to fully recover the amount of compensation would usually be under £5,000.

Moderately severe back injuries – in the region of £8,000 to £24,750

Moderately severe back injuries could be worth somewhere in the region of £8,000 to £24,750. These injuries might include crushing fractures of the lumbar vertebrae which could a person at an increased risk of osteoarthritis and constant pain or another injury such as a prolapsed disc or traumatic spondylolisthesis.

Severe back injuries – usually upwards of £24,750.

Severe back injuries would usually receive upwards of £24,750. This figure relates to such back injuries as fractured discs where, despite treatment, the person is still suffering from continuous pain and discomfort as well as impaired movement.

Exceptionally serious cases – between £64,250 and £108,000

The very highest levels of compensation for exceptionally serious cases, between £64,250 and £108,000. This amount would only be awarded for very severe injury. For example, a back injury that has left the victim doubly incontinent or impotent.

— WebWireID105667 —

Using an anonymous questionnaire, the Herriot-Watt researchers asked a sample of motorists about things that distracted them whilst they were driving. At the top of the list, some 52% of people who completed the survey admitted to being distracted by their mobile phone while driving, with around 40% saying they had written a text. Other gadgets such as Sat-Nav systems and MP3 players were cited as major distractions.

Car Accidents Caused by Distractions
Many road accident compensation claims are made for people injured in accidents caused by another motorist becoming distracted. A small lapse in concentration can have very serious consequences whilst driving, as it could lead to loss of control of the vehicle and either colliding with another vehicle or being involved in some other type of road traffic accident.

The message from this study is clear, by minimising the in-car distractions this will lessen the chances of being involved in a potentially catastrophic accident. Simple actions such as switching mobile phones off whilst in the car will leave people free to concentrate on driving.

— WebWireID104829 —

The libel action centred on the book The Billionaire's Vinegar, the subject of which was the provenance of a number of bottles of wine said to have been owned by Thomas Jefferson. The book made allegations which suggested that Mr Broadbent had behaved in an unprofessional manner in the way in which he had auctioned some of these bottles and that his relationship and dealings with Hardy Rodenstock, who discovered the original collection, was suspected of being improper.

In a statement read out in open court, Random House apologised unreservedly for making the allegations and accepted that they were untrue. It has given an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and paid Mr Broadbent undisclosed damages.

Commenting on the settlement Sarah Webb, head of Russell Jones & Walker's Defamation department who acted for Mr Broadbent said:

"The Billionaire's Vinegar made highly damaging claims about my client that seriously compromised both his professional and personal reputation. We are delighted that Random House has today accepted that these allegations are totally without foundation and avoided the need to proceed to a full trial. My client is relieved that the good name he has built up over many years as one of the country's leading wine experts has been fully restored."

Notes to editors
Case number: 606990.1

About Russell Jones & Walker
Russell Jones & Walker is a leading national firm of solicitors dedicated to upholding the legal rights of individuals. From the firms foundation in the 1920s the focus has and continues to be, people and those who represent them.

The firm has grown from its trade union roots into a respected national organisation with nine offices across England and Wales, and an associated office in Scotland. The reputation of Russell Jones & Walker is built on the range of expertise offered by its partners and staff and on the scope of their practical experience.

RJW Solicitors represents clients across a range of areas from personal injury claims work to commercial and criminal litigation, defamation, reputation management, clinical negligence to family law, as well as providing specialties as employment lawyers and fraud lawyers.

For further information contact:
Sarah Webb
Russell Jones & Walker
50-52 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1HL
0207 657 1425
www.rjw.co.uk

— WebWireID105753 —

We have reviewed the complaint and would like to provide some additional relevant information:

Most importantly, Starbucks believes that StarCon more than fulfilled its obligations to Ms. Simon.

Not only were agreed upon marketing and promotional efforts carried out, the album, This Kind of Love, was carried at Starbucks for an additional promotional period in two key markets. Unfortunately, sales continued to lag as the title received tepid response from music consumers. Other retailers faced the same fate with this CD. And it should be pointed out that the promotional activities that StarCon delivered were in line with that of other artists StarCon was marketing during that time.

We would have preferred to work this out with Ms. Simon, but it appears we are headed for litigation.

— WebWireID105670 —

In the current economic environment, all businesses face the risk that customers, whether they are companies or individuals, may go bust still owing them money. Over the last year, we have seen a number of household brands go into liquidation leaving their suppliers or creditors out of pocket. The chances are that once secured creditors such as banks are paid there will be no money left in the pot to pay unsecured creditors.

Clough & Willis has a well established debt recovery department boasting a team of full time specialists who are all experienced in recovering both individual and bulk debts. Working on a national basis, they operate across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Clough & Willis experienced debt recovery specialists work closely with clients by acting as an extension of their finance department. This means that clients are kept constantly informed on the developments of their own case allowing them to focus on running their business.

The team operates with no set up charge, no commission charge, no percentage charge and no hidden extras so collecting unpaid debts could not be easier. In addition, unlike some debt collection agencies, Clough & Willis is a reputable firm of solicitors that was established in 1904. The firm operates in a professional and fair manner, which means clients will not have to risk their reputation of being involved with heavy handed and intimidating debt collection tactics.

An initial 'letter before action' from a solicitor is usually enough to prompt immediate payment but should further action be required this will be discussed, agreed and planned to ensure the best possible outcome.

Tim Gray, a partner at Clough & Willis, commented; 'Some business owners are not aware that they can take action to recover monies owed to them, and some are often afraid that by approaching solicitors it will cost a lot of money. This isn't the case and I urge business owners and finance directors to simply pick up the phone and speak with us rather than struggling on.'

This is one of a number of initiatives that Clough & Willis has launched over the last year, including a series of free seminars and forums on employment law issues, accessing finance for businesses as well as a series of free clinics for individuals needing legal advice and late evening initial appointments for family law advice for working professionals who cannot take time out of their working day.

To find out how our Debt Recovery Department can help you, contact Joanne Singleton on 0800 083 0815

— WebWireID105554 —

All of these actions stem from the lawsuit that Toyota filed in November 2008 against Mr. Biller to stop his inappropriate use of Toyota case studies and other confidential Company information in promotional materials and seminars that he presented as part of his legal education business. Despite the Court's issuance of a restraining order against him in that case, Mr. Biller continued to disclose Toyota's information inappropriately. In addition, the lawsuit Mr. Biller filed in federal court in July disclosed even more confidential information and made inaccurate and misleading claims against Toyota regarding the conduct of product liability cases.

With respect to the California Superior Court's actions, Toyota said:

'We wish to underscore that Mr. Biller's allegations are both misleading and inaccurate, and hope that these rulings will help prevent Mr. Biller from continuing his false accusations against Toyota. We maintain the highest professional and ethical standards in our legal practices and remain confident that we have acted appropriately in product liability cases and in all reporting to federal safety regulators.

'In our view and in the view of the Superior Court of the State of California, Mr. Biller has repeatedly breached his ethical and professional obligations as an attorney and in his commitments to us, by repeatedly and inappropriately disclosing the Company's confidential information.'

Additional Details on the Biller Litigation

Contrary to Mr. Biller's allegations, Toyota vehicles are carefully and rigorously tested, and are all engineered to meet or exceed the high standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is the global leader in motor vehicle safety. Among the many inaccuracies in his lawsuit, Mr. Biller has grossly mischaracterized Toyota's reporting to NHTSA. His accusations that Toyota misled NHTSA regarding roof strength standards are completely false. Contrary to his claims, there has never been any question about the completeness and accuracy of the information we have provided to product safety regulators.

The facts of the NHTSA situation cited by Mr. Biller are as follows. NHTSA has sought public comment on roof strength at various times over the past decade. In August of 2005, NHTSA announced proposed changes to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 216 and requested voluntary comments from interested parties. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed comments with NHTSA on behalf of its carmaker members, which then included General Motors, Ford Motor Company, DaimlerChrysler, BMW Group, Volkswagen, Porsche, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors and Toyota. Several manufacturers also submitted comments individually.

On November 21, 2005, Toyota filed a comment addressing certain aspects of the proposed revision to FMVSS 216. Contrary to Mr. Biller's allegation, it was the Alliance, not Toyota, that hired outside consultants to prepare supporting materials to submit with its comments to NHTSA. Toyota's comments were a realistic assessment of the structural changes and timetable required to comply with the proposed rules, and they were consistent with comments made by other manufacturers, as well as the
Alliance.[1]

In this rulemaking proceeding, as in all rulemaking proceedings, NHTSA ultimately performed its own independent analysis in deciding on the content of new safety standards, including the stringency level and the lead time required for compliance.

Mr. Biller also exaggerates the incidence of roll-over litigation involving Toyota vehicles. In fact, Toyota vehicles have an excellent safety record relative to the millions of its cars on the road. While a roll-over accident can be severe, with 27 million Toyota vehicles currently in operation, roll-overs are a rare event.

Mr. Biller's actions and the timing of his lawsuit do not support his claim that he is motivated by the public interest. Rather, consistent with the view expressed by the California Superior Court, Mr. Biller's actions have been motivated by his own personal
financial interests. Mr. Biller did not resign from Toyota because of ethics concerns. Instead, in making his demand for a severance package, he held open his option to return to work at Toyota as an attorney. He was also personally responsible for managing the cases cited in his lawsuit, and his actions at the time in defending those cases on Toyota's behalf is wholly inconsistent with the allegations he has now brought forward.

Mr. Biller has also sued another of his former employers, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, and some employees of that office for $50 million, contending that his colleagues were conspiring to have him fired. Mr. Biller has also sued the attorney who negotiated his severance package with Toyota for legal malpractice. In court papers related to these suits, Mr. Biller claims he is disabled and has suffered from organic brain disease 'for most of his life.'

Since Toyota's lawsuit against Mr. Biller in the Superior Court in California and its related restraining order predate his misleading claims regarding the conduct of product liability cases, Mr. Biller cannot claim that the reason Toyota sued him was to stop the disclosures he has made in his complaint.

Toyota agreed to a severance package for Mr. Biller in order to avoid the time and expense associated with his unsubstantiated allegations. Severance agreements are not unusual in cases of highly compensated individuals who have had access to confidential and proprietary information. Toyota acted honorably in agreeing to a mutually acceptable separation, but ultimately it was a mistake because Mr. Biller did not honor his obligations under the agreement.

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

[1] NOTE: Toyota's initial comments regarding Mr. Biller's allegations included an incorrect statement regarding Toyota's comments directly to NHTSA. This oversight does not change the essential facts: that Toyota did not mislead NHTSA, did not hire an outside consultant to prepare an engineering report, did not hire a second outside consultant to change a prior engineering report, and that Mr. Biller's allegations are unfounded.

— WebWireID105590 —

On 26 November 2007, The Sun published an article under the headline "Kylie 'still loves' ex Martinez" which contained the defamatory and untrue allegation that Mr Martinez had cheated on Kylie Minogue. In order to vindicate his reputation Mr. Martinez issued libel proceedings against News Group Newspapers Limited in relation to the article.

A representative of Schillings said that: "This false allegation has caused Mr. Martinez considerable embarrassment and distress."

They also said that: "Mr. Martinez is glad that The Sun has accepted that the allegations are false and that the article should never have been published at all".

In the High Court in London The Sun newspaper apologised to Mr. Martinez, agreed to publish an apology in the newspaper and to pay damages and legal costs.

The Sun's lawyer said: "The Defendant sincerely apologises to the Claimant for the distress and embarrassment this article has caused. It accepts that the allegations are untrue and ought never to have been published."

- END -

Notes to editors:
Case number: HQ08X02862

About Schillings, solicitors to Olivier Martinez:
Schillings is one of Britain's top law firms dedicated to safeguarding the reputations of international corporations, brands, celebrities and high-profile business people. The firm's track-record in defamation, privacy and copyright cases, as well as commercial dispute resolution is second to none.

Defamation privacy and copyright are at the heart of the firm's work, prompting The Independent newspaper to call Schillings a "spectacularly efficient media law firm."

Schillings clients include the recording artist Madonna, supermodel Naomi Campbell, seven times Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, Harry Potter author JK Rowling, pharmaceuticals maker GlaxoSmithKline, steel maker Arcelor Mittal, the Harrods Group and the London Stock Exchange.

For further enquiries please contact:
Christopher Mills
Commercial Director
Schillings
41 Bedford Square
London
WC1B 3HX
United Kingdom
+44(0)20 7034 9000

— WebWireID105435 —