Monster energy drinks are sold in 24 ounce cans and contain 7 times the amount of caffeine in 12 ounce colas.  The FDA allows soda to contain 71 miligrams of caffeine per 12 ounces to be safe however, energy drink manufacturer’s are not bound by the FDA caffeine guidelines since their drinks are sold as diet supplements.  Most Significant, the Monster drinks contain a Warning Label which says “NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CHILDREN AND PEOPLE WHO ARE SENSATIVE TO CAFFEINE.”  14 year old Anais Fournier allegedly drank 2 Monster energy drinks in a 24 hour period and died due to “cardiac arrhythmia due to caffeine toxicity.”  The parents have sued Monster and Monster has advised they will vigorously litigate this one.  The FDA is considering putting caffeine limits on makers of energy drinks based on data showing since 2004 there have been 5 deaths and 37 adverse reactions to Monster drinks.   Parents have a loser case here and Monster will prevail.  Parents should have sued the FDA.

Oh to grow up a spoiled asshole with a sense of complete entitlement and Oh how his father would have been humiliated by the conduct of his son.  We all have read stories over the years of babies being stolen from maternity wards.  The aforementioned conduct has lead to strict procedures for the removal of newborns and include child alarm bracelets.  Seems ole Douglas Kennedy (son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President JFK) decided at 7:30 PM he wanted to have a chat with his newborn outside of the hospital, so without seeking permission he removed the alarm bracelet and attempted to take his infant outside of the facility.  During the brief walk his inexperience in handling infants was apparent as witnesses say they saw the infants head bobbing up and down – and this was not a heavy metal concert.  Thankfully, security was alerted and  his mission was thwarted.  During the course of preventing Dougy from taking his infant outside, seems Dougy kicked a nurse and twisted the arm of another nurse.  Of course, the defense suggests it was only after nurses were physically attempting to remove the infant from his arms that he instinctively sought to protect his child and reacted the way he did.   After Kennedy was criminally charged, seems the Kennedy spin machine began attacking the nurses involved and in response, the Nurses told their story to NBC Today Show and hired Civil Personal Injury attorneys.   The defense that the Nurses approved of the removal is completely inconsistent with hospital protocol which mandates a Supervisor sign off and numerous forms being filed, etc.  Westchester County is very conservative and the Kennedy name today is NOT what it used to be.  Make a deal fast Bro.

The School’s goal is to promote health by providing a great workout while students also get a chance to burn calories, improve flexibility, relax and reduce stress.  The mandatory yoga classes meet twice a week for 30 minute sessions.  Can you sit Indian style?  I cannot.  In any event, part of the session involves meditation and breathing aligned with a series of poses designed to increase mental focus, circulation and sweating however, it is precisely the spiritual overtones in yoga which are objected to.  Since Yoga has its formation in eastern mysticism and Hinduism, there is an acknowledged connection with religious and spiritual beliefs and again, this is what the parents are objecting to and threaten with litigation.  “Some” parents claim the program is unconstitutional by using taxpayer funds to promote Ashtanga yoga and Hinduism.  A non-profit foundation named Jois Foundation funded the project with $500K plus and this foundation is also alleged to have a religious mission which seeks the protection and promotion of religious freedom, the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, parental rights and other civil liberties.  2 families have pulled their children from the program and 2 is not significant.  I would not want to be the Superintendant of this school.  Dicey issues at best and we have discussed over the years the separation of church and state especially when public funds are being used – see recent discussion of Jesus Cheerleaders.   Seems if the classes are toned down with any religious rhetoric, the program will survive.

WARRANTLESS CELL PHONE SEARCH

Who would have thought a Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Scalia would lend support to a PRO-privacy argument gearing up in the Fifth Circuit?! In January, Scalia wrote an opinion in a case finding police installation of a GPS device on a car for 28 days violated the Fourth Amendment. Following this ruling, police have had to come up with other ways to track suspects without a warrant and they thought they did so by changing the technology and accessing the location data stored in mobile phones. Not so fast. The government appealed a 2010 decision in which the court ruled against warrantless disclosure of cell data as violative of the Fourth Amendment, resulting in a showdown in the Court of Appeals between the Obama Administration and the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation. The feds claim they should be able to track suspects via phone records for 60 days without a warrant because a cell phone customer “has no privacy interest” in GPS records since the information is “voluntarily conveyed” to the cell phone company. However, the ACLU and EFF argue if tracking a vehicle for 28 days is a search, a 60 day cell phone track clearly falls into the same category. Indeed, tracking one’s whereabouts on a cell phone is even more intrusive than via a car as phones are always with their owner in both public and private spaces. This is not the first time this issue has made its way to the courts. The Sixth Circuit ruled in August warrantless cell phone tracking is legal, but district courts in Pennsylvania and Texas ruled the process unconstitutional. Whatever happens in the Fifth Circuit, privacy concerns and emerging technology are hot button issues ripe for the Supreme Court. Law enforcement obtains an incredible amount of useful information through surveillance and in cases where a warrant must first be obtained, it is not such an onerous process that the investigation would be jeopardized if it had to go through the courts first.  A recent congressional inquiry found major wireless carriers received more than 1.3 MILLION requests for subscriber data from law enforcement alone in 2011! Big Brother is clearly watching and tracking our whereabouts.  How you like that?