Article:

SINGER SCANDAL

 When Jeff Herman sees a child held by their arms and legs it is, as he puts it, “an uncomfortable trigger. I have some vague memories of being very young, and there were two older girls holding me by my arms and legs, and they had cut my pants open.” The lawyer has tried to remember more, but cannot.

 Herman, 54, is mulling my question about whether he has been sexually abused. He doesn’t know for sure, he says. If he sees a child held in such a way now, it gives him “an icky feeling.”

 But there are other memories he will tell me about, as well as revealing that his older sister, who he asks remains unnamed, was sexually abused when a girl by their grandfather. He had known about it, although she had not told him directly until five years ago, when they sat down “with a bottle of Scotch” and talked properly. “I didn’t want to know the details,” Herman says, “shame on me. I didn’t want my image of my grandfather ruined.”

 Herman is one of America’s most high-profile and controversial lawyers of the moment. He is suing “X-Men” director Bryan Singer and three other Hollywood power-players for the alleged sexual assault of two clients. Michael Egan claims he was drugged, threatened and forcibly sodomized as a 15-year-old boy. Over the weekend, The Daily Beast exclusively reported Herman’s second suit: an anonymous British man alleges that as a teenager he was sexually assaulted—among other things—by Singer and Broadway producer Gary Goddard.

 The defendants strenuously deny the allegations, and say Herman is a publicity-courting grandstander, low on actual evidence, and seeking to “shake down” the accused in public. Of the second suit, Herman said: “The allegations highlight the insidious nature of child sexual abuse, which forces victims to suffer in silence. I am proud to give this brave young man a voice.”

 Herman has litigated around 800 cases involving sexual abuse, he told me. He believes in being a “voice for victims,” and he has taken on some powerful institutions: the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts of America, and now Hollywood.

 Last week, he told The Daily Beast that he had uncovered “another sex ring” there, involving agents for child actors. Directors, actors, and other industry players are also implicated, he added. He will file suits in the matter soon. But first he must see the Singer suits to their conclusion.

 ***

 It feels a long way from Herman’s office in Boca Raton, Florida, to Hollywood. Herman Law is a bland office building on the side of a highway, with not much around it. In its spartan reception area are framed articles of Herman in Forbes magazine, another of an early case he won involving an abusive child-day-care worker, and a spread from People magazine about Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash; Herman had represented five men who accused Clash of underage sex abuse. (All but one of the men’s cases has been dismissed.)

 On his office desk is a stress-relieving baseball. On the wall is a fearsomely complicated mind-map, showing how damages’ sums can be calculated, which is really a multi-linked exposition of how abuse can damage a victim.

 There is a “war-room” where Herman crafts cases, the rooms of other investigators researching cases with whiteboards of names I am not allowed to look at, and beside the office’s reception area, a sparsely furnished room with a little sofa with a giant soft toy on it, and alongside that a blackboard, on which is drawn a child-like image of a dinosaur.

 This is the “kid interview room” where Herman Law’s youngest alleged victims tell their stories. It feels airless and a little creepy, which is perhaps inevitable given its purpose: This is where children are supposed to elicit their worse secrets. “I want to empower kids, so when they give their statements, it’s a helpful, healing thing, not a scary thing,” says Herman. He encourages them to draw timelines, and instead of “freaking out” if the child says they have been touched on their genitals, he says you should ask them how they feel and what happened next.

 “You have to handle information in a positive way that’s going to be empowering for a child,” Herman says. “Kids love coming here and kids love coming back here,” he insists, mimicking one, ‘I want to go see my lawyer and tell him what happened, ’cause it feels so good.’”

 Herman is silver-haired, thinning on top, and as brawnily compact as you’d expect from a keen school-age wrestler. He’s got four children, aged 11, 13, 17, and 18—two boys and two girls from two now-ended marriages. He grew up, comfortably and happily he says, in an upper middle-class family, in Ohio. (Well, it seemed happy: he learned of his sister’s sexual abuse later.) He always wanted to be a lawyer. His father owned a steel company, and Herman recalls one summer working in one of the steel mills. “I had to wear a respirator and double-soled boots, or they’d melt.” He smiles. “I did that for summer and thought, ‘OK, I’m going to law school.’”

 Herman says he was “always the protector, always the guy looking out for the underdog,” standing up to a bully who used anti-Semitic insults against his younger brother at school (“I picked that guy up and threw him in the dumpster”), and becoming a friend and guardian to a disabled girl who was picked on. His great-grandmother’s brother was Leon Trotsky, who stayed at the family’s home in the 1920s and left with a Cleveland Indians baseball cap.

 Get The Beast In Your Inbox! Daily Digest Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast. Cheat Sheet A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't). By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy Subscribe Thank You! You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason

 Herman developed his own landscaping business while in high school. At law school he thought about becoming an entertainment lawyer, until he saw some of the profession at work in Los Angeles, which made him realize it didn’t interest him—now, of course, he is set dead-against the Hollywood legal establishment.

 Herman was working as a commercial litigator when, in 1997, he was asked by someone to get involved in the case of a parent whose child had been sexually abused at a school. “I was horrified. It turned out the school had hired a convicted pedophile and didn’t do a background check. It really hit home for me. The families, whose kids were autistic, had nowhere to turn: The pedophile had fled the country. The moms were devastated at not just what had happened to their kids, but that he was now out there abusing other kids.” He clearly builds a close rapport with his clients: They call him at all hours of the day and night, he says.

 Herman did “a lot of learning and forensic training” and now trains investigators himself. “It felt like a life calling,” Herman says, checking himself before adding, “That sounds…whatever…but it was, and it really became so important for me that I felt like I had a responsibility to go out there and protect kids who don’t have a voice.” His practice was built on suing the Archdiocese of Miami in a raft of clergy sex-abuse cases, which reported in 2008 it had paid out $21.3 million in settlements, the majority of the money going to Herman’s clients.

 Yet five years ago, Herman reveals, he had had enough and thought about quitting. “I couldn’t take it any more. I was feeling physically ill, hearing these stories every day. But I have to hear it.” One “really dark” case had affected him, of two toddler-brothers who had been forcibly sodomized and orally raped. “They were so helpless, it really got to me. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I thought, ‘I can’t take this. Maybe I shouldn’t be doing this any more.’ Even though it was rewarding, it became such a heavy burden.”

 ***

 It wasn’t Herman’s only difficult professional period. He was suspended from practice for 18 months in 2009, having been found to have acted “dishonestly” after investing in and ultimately controlling a company that went into business in competition with a client.

 “Herman shall accept no new business until he is reinstated to the practice of law in Florida,” the Florida Supreme Court wrote in its 20-page opinion of the case. Reports from the time show Herman was judged to have violated the Florida Bar’s conflict of interest rules when he started up an aviation company in the late 1990s that directly competed with a client in the same business, without disclosing it.

 The client, Aero Controls of Seattle, sued Herman and his law firm. After a 2005 out-of-court settlement, Aero filed an ethics complaint against Herman with the Florida Bar. ‘'His failure to disclose was dishonest and deceitful,” the judge wrote in his report. The judge recommended a three-month suspension, but the Florida Bar imposed a suspension that was six times longer, and further ordered that Herman pay $11,741 in legal costs.

 The case has been cited by Herman’s legal opponents in the Singer suits. “It’s on the public record, and it’s all fair if they think it's relevant,” Herman says. “To try to attack my credibility, it is what it is, it’s a fact. I never denied I made an investment in a company. I didn’t think I needed a waiver, the Bar said I did. It’s obviously not relevant in court now. The defendants are trying to save their reputations, and they are entitled to do whatever they want. I don’t think it helps them. Every time I hear this pushback from defendants, I hear from more victims.”

 Herman returned to work in 2011 and tackled the sex-abuse cases with renewed zeal. He didn’t always win, most notably in representing the alleged victims of Elmo puppeteer Clash. Five men had claimed they had been sexually abused by Clash when underage, but the cases were dismissed last year because the statute of limitations had run out. One more case is still outstanding.

 At the time, Clash’s attorney said: “As we have maintained all along, our goal has been to put these spurious claims behind him, so that Kevin can go about the business of reclaiming his personal life and his professional standing…The judge’s decision to dismiss and close the three lawsuits is an important step in that direction. Kevin is looking forward to a time in the near future when he can tell his story free of innuendo and false claims.”

 When I mention the failure of the cases, Herman gives an unexpected response. “What do you mean I didn’t win?” he asks. “I give my clients a voice. That was a win for them. I win by filing. It’s about taking back power and control and standing up for yourself as a victim.”

 Herman says this heartily, even if it sounds absurd. Surely if a ruling goes against him, that shows—for whatever reason—that Herman’s case wasn’t strong enough. Herman still holds out hope that one more case, filed in Pennsylvania—which has a longer statute of limitations—rather than Manhattan may go the accuser’s way.

 Unsurprisingly, working in such an emotionally charged field, Herman amasses nemeses. Marty Singer, Bryan Singer’s lawyer, has accused him of “reckless and irresponsible” conduct in the Egan case. He says he still hasn’t been served with a copy of the complaint (Herman Law says this is nothing more than an administrative matter.)

 “Clearly, Mr. Herman doesn’t want to litigate this case,” Singer has said. “He just wants to host press conferences and issue press releases for the media. This is nothing more than an effort to ruin Bryan’s career and reputation, which he has worked so hard to establish. It’s clear that Mr. Herman is using these lawsuits as an opportunity to promote himself and his law firm.”

 Herman’s 2009 suspension, said Singer, indicated his “reputation for honesty as an attorney leaves a lot to be desired.”

 Like Singer, the Catholic Church in Miami also criticized Herman’s parading of accusations in front of the cameras. In 2012, after a press conference in which Herman had named a pastor as the abuser of a 16-year-old boy, Mary Ross Agosta, the archdiocese’s communications director, said: “When the news media cover these Jeff Herman press conferences, they do not come away with the full truth. They are either not asking follow-up questions or Jeff Herman is not revealing any details.” She accused Herman of “manipulating the media.”

 Is Herman a fame whore, grandstanding at these press conferences? “Is there another word for it?” he asks, askance at my use of the term. “I don’t mind it, I don’t get nervous. I make my livelihood doing this. We absolutely have to market ourselves. It’s a win-win for me.” He freely admits to being “opportunistic”; he gives the press conferences so publicly because more publicity means, he hopes, more victims coming forward, and because it brings something more fundamental into the open—the alleged abuse having been carried out in private, and the shame felt by the victim also felt acutely privately.

 But the accusatory pressers put Herman in the position of publicly humiliating someone who has not been convicted—or even arrested—for a crime. There’s no due process to prove these men are predators; just Herman’s say-so. The lawyer doesn’t seem to countenance the possible innocence of some of the accused perpetrators he names in front of cameras. But, he insisted to me, he didn’t make accusations lightly, or to just make headlines. “The last thing I want to do is file a frivolous case,” says Herman. “It’s certainly unfair to accuse a perpetrator and it discredits other victims.”

 Healing, Herman, says, doesn’t begin until a victim has fully disclosed what happened to them; to that end he gently but firmly gets them to break down their movements around any incident, moment by moment. He seems to relish taking on organizations or institutions like the Catholic Church or Hollywood, I say. “The similarity in all the cases is people looking the other way because they’re scared. My message is all about making it safe for adults to protect kids.”

 Hollywood’s silence, Herman says, works brutally simply, because people are scared for their jobs. “If you speak you get crushed.” He says he knows there are PR campaigns being waged against him, and he gets calls suggesting he might be being followed. “I say, ‘Where to?’ To my son’s lacrosse game, or my daughter’s dance recital? I’m not worried about anything.”

 Parenthood is the most important thing to him, Herman says. He is “extraordinarily close” to his children, and tries—despite his day job—-not to be too over-protective. However, he says that that when he goes into a room he can spot a predator. “It’s a little scary sometimes. You see the way people interact with kids, there are these red flags. We all have this innate ability to sense danger.” He tells parents to go with their gut: “If someone makes them feel uncomfortable, take them out of your kid’s life. What’s worse? You insult somebody, but if you don’t you’re wrong and your kid could be abused.”

 Isn’t this approach in danger of seeing abuse where it doesn’t exist? Of encouraging paranoia about adults being around children? Herman shakes his head. “I’m just saying go with your gut, go with caution.” He has even produced an app, which is a quiz for adults and children, aimed at identifying likely abusers. “You should never leave your kids, below a certain age, alone with an adult male. 90 per cent of adult predators are male.” But not all males are predators: again, this sounds uncomfortably blanket and paranoid. Herman also says: “No parent wants to see their child abused,” which surprises me, because some parents do abuse their children and surely he must have seen that.

 ***

 As we eat a sandwich-lunch in his office, Herman again turns to the sexual assault he has experienced more personally.

 “So, I was assaulted when I was in law school in a men’s room, It was the weirdest thing. In a stall.” He pauses. “When I look back and think about why I am motivated about cases, a couple of things hit home for me.”

 Another pause. “I’ve never reflected like this,” he says. He recalls that when he was 10 years old his mother told him a story about a little boy being molested in a bathroom. “He was raped. It scared the crap out of me. It was so horrific. I think she was telling me to be careful. That story stuck with me. I felt so bad for this boy, how helpless he was. And it affected me.”

 He switches back to his own assault. He was in a mall with his mother and sister in Cleveland. It was Hallowe’en. He went to the bathroom, which was crowded. He entered a stall. Suddenly next to him, coming from under the partition, was someone’s hand. First he thought the person might have wanted to borrow some toilet paper. “I was trying to figure out what to do. The hand started to come up towards me, and scared the crap out of me. I stand up and it grabs my leg. Now I’m in shock. So I stand up on the toilet and the guy drops down on the floor and the hand is coming up to me.”

 Herman left the stall and went into the bathroom’s main area. He looked at himself in the mirror, and wondered why he was afraid: “I was a big guy.” He was waiting for the man to exit the neighboring stall, feeling ever more riled, when he decided to kick the door down.

 “The guy was sitting on the toilet with his shirt off, pants down, masturbating. I just went at him. I just beat the crap out of him, really just to teach him a lesson or whatever. I ended up bringing him out in a headlock to find the police. People were screaming because there was blood everywhere, he was begging ‘Let me go,’ and I did and he just ran off.”

 You know that some of the people that go to public bathrooms looking for sex are lonely, withdrawn, I say, thinking about the terror the man must have felt to have been set upon, especially in such humiliating circumstances.

 “Well, he grabbed me,” says Herman. “There was no question I was being assaulted. It shook me up.” I wonder if he thought about the other guy. “The perp [perpetrator]?” Herman says. “Well, not then, but I think about it now, why perps behave in the way they do. It’s sad. This wasn’t two people engaging in consensual sex. He grabbed me.”

 As he beat the man up, Herman says his mind was on “that 10-year-old boy, who that was, I could have been that little boy, what if I was that little boy?” Herman wasn’t fired by the anger of the assault on himself, it seems. “Right, it was what happened to that little boy.” I ask if the ferocity of his violent outburst surprised him and he says yes, it did.

 Herman’s grandfather didn’t just abuse his sister, but other relatives too, Herman tells me; they formed an informal support group to help one another. A difficult conversation was the one Herman had on his sister’s behalf with their mother, whose father was responsible for the abuse.

 “I understand when people are afraid to tell parents,” Herman says. “You don’t know what they know. You’re afraid of what they know, or afraid what you might tell them is hurtful for them. You either have, ‘What do you mean, you knew?’ or ‘I didn’t know, I failed to protect you.’ My only concern was to free my sister, and that happened.”

 As to whether Herman thinks his grandfather may have abused him, he says, “Not in my conscious memory, although I suppose anything is possible when you’re young enough. It’s enough for me that it happened to my sister. I idolized him when I was growing up. He was a bigger-than-life kind of man. When my sister told me what he did it was devastating. I had seen it so much from the outside, I really understood then how hard it was for people to accuse someone who everyone loves and respects. I didn’t want to believe it or hear it.”

 The actual event underpinning his fragmented memory of being held by his arms and legs and having his pants cut still eludes him. “I would like to know [what happened]. I’ve tried, put some effort into trying to remember but I don’t. I think it’s important to know for people.” He has “no idea” if the fullness of the memory will ever materialize.

 ***

 Herman shows me a military-style gold-hued medal he gives to clients: one side says, “Tribute To Survivors From Jeff Herman,” the other “Healing Begins With Empowerment,” with a scales of justice labeled on each side, “Courage,” “Bravery,” and “Justice.” The medal seems a little weird, hokey and over-the-top, but Herman sees it as an affirmation for those who have been abused and their bravery in coming forward.

 His one-issue focus is, from the outside, admirable, but I ask if he ever worries a client is lying, maliciously or not. “The answer is yes. That’s the feeling I operate under when every client walks in.” This is interesting, because as much as he is a zealous advocate for victims, taking their side absolutely and shaming his accused in public, he is a lawyer first. Only a handful of his 800 or so cases have been lies, he tells me. But still: with a subject as toxic as sex abuse, every lie can result in a life poisoned. Sometimes, he says, the victims are so damaged by their experiences their testimonies are undermined.

 Before I head into the cloying Florida heat, as we stand in the unnerving “kid interview room,” Herman tells me of a little girl who had been abused. “The perp would wake her up. She used to see monsters in the mirror, someone coming up at her from behind. Her mother had to put sheets over the mirror.” The case went to trial, the “perp” was successfully prosecuted. “Six months later, the mother told me the little girl didn’t see monsters any more.” ||||| Details of alleged sexual abuse by “X-Men: Days of Future Past” director Bryan Singer and Gary Goddard have emerged in a lawsuit, filed by an anonymous British man.

 Jeff Herman, the same lawyer who has filed four similar suits in the past two weeks, provided specifics and photos of both Singer and Goddard in their alleged efforts to entice the then-teenager into sexual activities — including Singer having sex with him following the 2006 premiere of “Superman Returns” in London, then apologizing the next morning.

 Attorneys for Singer and Goddard have emphatically denied the new allegations, contained in a suit seeking damages and a jury trial that was filed May 3 in federal court in Los Angeles. Both Singer and Goddard — along with Garth Ancier and David Neuman — were sued by Michael Egan last month in actions filed in federal court in Hawaii alleging that Egan had been coerced into underage sex in California and Hawaii in 1998 and 1999.

 In a news conference Monday at the Beverly Hilton Hotel, Herman supplied three photos with the plaintiff’s face redacted — two from the premiere and one in which he was shirtless at the age of 14 along with an email allegedly from Goddard with the subject line “the closest thing that I have to a ‘naughty’ shot of you.”

 Related UPDATE: Producer Gary Goddard Denies Anthony Edwards' Allegation of Molestation USC Students Petition to Remove Director Bryan Singer's Name From Film School

 Herman also supplied a notes allegedly written by Goddard which was sent with a box of Hershey’s chocolates. And he asserted that new client — identified as “John Doe No. 117,” due to his concerns about “further psychological injury” if his name is disclosed — came forward as a direct result of Egan filing his four suits and the subsequent “very aggressive denials.”

 According to Herman, the plaintiff still had the envelope in which his 2006 premiere ticket for “Superman Returns” was enclosed along with souvenirs such as a Superman bracelet.

 Herman also promised that more suits are coming and said specifically that one would involve another “sex ring” operating in Hollywood.

 “I’ve heard from victims about very recent claims of being sexually exploited in Hollywood,” he added.

 Bryan Singer’s lawyer Marty Singer (no relation) has asserted that both of Herman’s suits are based on “fabricated” evidence. Herman responded by asserting that it’s “untypical” for lawyers to be making such denials without any investigation.

 “The pushback I’m getting reminds me of the early days of the clergy sex abuse scandal,” Herman added. “There was complete denial.”

 Goddard’s lawyers responded Monday with an amplied statement to what they had said on Sunday:

 “Garry Goddard vehemently denies the extremely serious, false and defamatory allegations made against him. And it is a sad indictment on society that when spurious claims have been made in one suit – especially where compensation is sought – other similar claims may follow. Despite the extent of uninformed and damaging commentary on the matter in the media, the allegations have not been tested in any way, let alone through the judicial process. We will not dignify these outrageous claims with anything other than a vigorous denial on behalf of our client, and by confirming that they will be fiercely defended at any trial where Mr Goddard is entirely confident that he will be fully vindicated.”

 Herman also said at the news conference that Goddard had reached out through an email to the anonymous plaintiff over the weekend after having stayed out of touch for several years. Herman said the plaintiff didn’t respond.

 Herman also said the plaintiff still had the envelope in which his premiere ticket was enclosed as well as souvenir gifts from the premiere such as a Superman bracelet. ||||| The Florida lawyer who publicly accused "X-Men" director Bryan Singer of molesting underage boys produced photos Monday showing his latest client hanging with Singer shortly before an alleged sexual assault.

 The photos show the unidentified boy — age 17 at the time — standing and sitting next to the famed director following the London premiere of the 2006 flick "Superman Returns."

 The boy's face was blacked out, showing only his green and white striped sweater next to Singer's smiling face.

 One of the photos includes actress Kate Bosworth sitting in Singer's lap.

 Jeff Herman holds up a copy of an email Broadway producer Gary Goddard allegedly sent his client. (Valerie Macon/Getty Images)

 According to a lawsuit filed Saturday in federal court, Singer offered the boy a Quaalude and plied him with alcohol before bringing him back to his London hotel suite with co-defendant Gary Goddard, a producer of theme park rides, for the alleged sexual assault.

 Singer and Goddard have denied the allegations and trashed the lawsuit, including its claims they groped the boy and stood by as a "muscle-bound" man smacked him around.

 The teen willingly partied with the men at first but protested when Singer removed his boxer shorts, the lawsuit states.

 Jeff Herman, attorney for the anonymous victim in the allegation of child sexual abuse by Hollywood executives, arrives to a news conference in Beverly Hills, Calif., on Monday. (KEVORK DJANSEZIAN/REUTERS)

 Singer allegedly didn't listen and ordered the teen to sit on top of him and masturbate, according to the suit.

 Singer also tried to penetrate him anally, the lawsuit, which identifies the teen only as John Doe No. 117, claims.

 "What my client alleges is pretty horrific," lawyer Jeff Herman told the Daily News following a press conference Monday.

 Bryan Singer, director of 'Superman Returns,' poses at the November 2006 launch party for the movie's DVD and video game in Hollywood. (GUS RUELAS/REUTERS)

 "He was scared and felt like he had to comply with what was being demanded of him. It's affected him deeply," Herman said, adding that the client suffers from anxiety attacks and depression.

 Herman said the man, now 25, contacted him after learning that another client, Michael Egan III, recently sued Singer, Goddard and two other media moguls claiming molestation at drug and alcohol-fueled house parties in the late 1990s.

 "Looking back, (John Doe No. 117) now believes he was being groomed to be abused. That's what happens when adults reflect, and the other suits have been a trigger for him," Herman said.

 Gary Goddard (center), who produced Broadway shows such as 'Jesus Christ Superstar,' has been named in a lawsuit alleging sexual assault of a teen. (RW3/Rachel Worth / WENN)

 John Doe No. 117 says he was 14 years old when Goddard, now 59, first contacted him via social media and promised to introduce him to people who could help his acting career.

 The suit claims the boy's relationship with Goddard quickly jumped from online webcam sex to real sex when Goddard traveled to meet him.

 Goddard — who has produced Broadway productions of "Hair", "Jekyll & Hyde" and "Jesus Christ Superstar" — allegedly sent the teen a disturbing email after their meeting. Herman showed the email to reporters Monday, saying it was part of the physical evidence he will use in the case.

 "The closest thing I have to a 'naughty' shot of you," the email said, referring to an attached photo of the teen wearing only a towel around his waist.

 "Haha — its not all that naughty because you wouldn't let me take any of you showing even a bit of your bum," the email, allegedly sent from Goddard's email address, stated.

 Herman also showed a copy of a 2004 handwritten note that Goddard allegedly sent to the teen along with a box of Hershey chocolate. It was signed, "Love, Gary."

 Michael Egan III speaks during a press conference at in Los Angeles on April 17 after announcing the filing of a federal lawsuit accusing Hollywood director Bryan Singer of preying on Egan. (Delgado Carlos/for New York Daily News)

 "He literally sent this boy candy," Herman said Monday.

 Goddard's lawyer blasted the lawsuit on Sunday, suggesting the new plaintiff was trying to profit by jumping on the bandwagon of Egan's "spurious" and "false" claims.

 "The allegations made against Mr. Goddard are vehemently denied and will be vigorously defended at any trial of these matters and Mr. Goddard is entirely confident that he will be fully vindicated," Goddard's lawyer Alan Grodin said in a statement.

 The kind of pushback I'm seeing reminds me of the early days of the clergy sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church.

 Singer, whose new movie "X-Men: Day of Future Past" is scheduled to be released May 23, previously branded Egan's lawsuit a "shakedown" and said he would bow out of any red carpet activities this month to protect his stars.

 Meanwhile, John Doe No. 117 is ready to testify if his case goes to trial, Herman told The News Monday.

 The man is seeking financial damages to be decided by a jury, Herman said.

 He said the man hoped to remain anonymous, at least in the beginning of the lawsuit, to protect himself and his loved ones from a possible smear campaign.

 Herman said he's been contacted by other possible molestation victims connected to Hollywood, and he plans to file more lawsuits in the future — including one related to another alleged sex ring.

 "I think this is a watershed for Hollywood," he told reporters Monday. "The kind of pushback I'm seeing reminds me of the early days of the clergy sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, with the blanket denials," he said. "People didn't want to believe it. They were unprepared."

 ndillon@nydailynews.com

 On a mobile device? Click here to watch video.

 Sign up for BREAKING NEWS Emails privacy policy Thanks for subscribing! |||||
What is a summary?

– Bryan Singer has already been hit with two lawsuits alleging sexual abuse of minors—and the lawyer who filed both of them, plus other suits against Hollywood bigwigs, says more are coming. "I’ve heard from victims about very recent claims of being sexually exploited in Hollywood," Jeff Herman said at a news conference yesterday, according to Variety. He said one coming lawsuit involves another Hollywood "sex ring." Herman also shared photos showing the second alleged victim (with his face redacted) and Singer at the London premiere of Singer's Superman Returns in 2006; John Doe, then 17, says Singer abused him after the premiere, the New York Daily News reports. As for the strenuous denials from all the Hollywood VIPs named in the various suits, Herman said, "The pushback I’m getting reminds me of the early days of the clergy sex abuse scandal." Meanwhile, in an interview with the Daily Beast, Herman says he himself has vague memories of being sexually abused as a child. He says he's worked on some 800 sex abuse cases in his career, notably involving the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts.


Article:

LORAIN, Ohio (AP) — Police say a 3-year-old Ohio girl is in critical condition after being shot in the head by her 4-year-old brother, who found a gun in a dresser.

 The shooting occurred around 10 a.m. Sunday in Lorain, about 30 miles west of Cleveland. Police say the two children were playing alone in a bedroom when the boy found a loaded .40-caliber handgun.

 A police report says the father of the 3-year-old girl was holding her in his arms when officers arrived. The report says the 4-year-old boy was crying and that he repeatedly told an officer he was sorry.

 Lorain police Capt. Roger Watkins says the investigation will be turned over to the Lorain County prosecutor's office to determine if criminal charges will be filed. ||||| LORAIN, Ohio –A 3-year-old girl remains in critical condition after she was shot in the head Sunday morning by her 4-year-old brother, police said.

 Police said the shooting was accidental.

 The girl was flown to Rainbow Babies Children's Hospital and was listed in critical condition as of Monday morning, the Lorain Police Department said.

 Officers were called about 10 a.m. to a home on the 1300 block of West 28th Street and found a man holding his daughter, who was shot in the head.

 Responding police officers learned that the boy and girl were playing by in a room by themselves when the boy got his hands on the gun. The boy accidentally pulled the trigger and shot his sister, police said.

 Investigators interviewed three other people who were in the house during the shooting and police recovered the gun at the scene, a report said.

 The Lorain County Prosecutor is reviewing the incident to determine if charges will be filed. |||||
What is a summary?

– What started out as fun playtime between a 4-year-old Ohio boy and his 3-year-old sister ended horrifically after the boy accidentally shot his sister with a gun, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports. The children were playing in a room by themselves in a Lorain home yesterday morning when the boy found the .40-caliber handgun in a dresser and accidentally pulled the trigger, shooting his sister in the head, according to cops. When police arrived at the house, they found the father of the kids cradling his daughter; the 4-year-old was crying and told police multiple times that he was sorry, the AP reports. Three other people in the home at the time of the shooting were interviewed by police and the gun was recovered. The injured girl is reported to be in critical condition at Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital. (A 5-year-old Kentucky boy accidentally killed his 2-year-old sister with his "My First Rifle" last year.)


Article:

Mandela: the three syllables not only refer to the legendary anti-apartheid leader and former President of South Africa, but serve as a modern synonym for equality, freedom and revolution. Nelson Mandela's legacy continues to endure in hearts and history books, and his ideals will continue to serve as inspiration in popular music.

 Mandela's Death: Artists React on Twitter | Bono Pens Moving Essay

 Today (Dec. 5), the iconic figure died at 95 in his Johannesburg home with his family at his side. From Public Enemy to Youssou N'Dour to Santana to U2, some of music's biggest stars have tipped their caps to the revered statesman in their songs, albums and even poems. Check out these 10 particularly memorable musician tributes to Nelson Mandela:

 U2, "Ordinary Love"

 U2 made this heartfelt song for the newly released film "Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom," a biopic on the man himself. When "Ordinary Love" dropped weeks ago, it was first new material from the rock band since 2010's "Soon," premiered on the "U2 360 at the Rose Bowl" soundtrack. With lyrics like, "We cannot reach any higher/ If we can't feel ordinary love," Bono tried to embody what Mandela stood for.

 Hugh Masekela, "Mandela (Bring Him Back Home)"

 Masekela, a Grammy-nominated jazz musician from South Africa, recorded this track in 1987, and sings that he "wants to see him (Mandela) walking down the streets of South Africa tomorrow."

 The Special A.K.A., "Free Nelson Mandela"

 Unlike most protest songs, "Free Nelson Mandela" moves to a celebratory beat and a cheerful chorus -- but the message is still a plea for the imprisoned Mandela to be released. "His body abused, but his mind still free" is sung of Mandela, who had been serving 21 years in prison at the time the song was written. Produced by Elvis Costello, the single was performed on the "Top of the Pops" in 1984.

 Youssou N'Dour, "Nelson Mandela"

 N'Dour is one of Senegal's most famous cultural icons, and his genre-bending repertoire has found him collaborating with Peter Gabriel, Bruce Springsteen, and Wyclef Jean. In 1986, N'Dour released an album entitled "Nelson Mandela," as a tribute to the future President of South Africa.

 Public Enemy, "Prophets of Rage"

 One of the most influential hip-hop groups in history, Public Enemy was never short on righteous political messages -- and it should be no surprise that one of their most iconic tracks name-checked Mandela. In "Prophets of Rage," Chuck D raps "We have a reason why to debate the hate," while Mandela is mentioned in the company of other prominent leaders in the anti-segregation movement.

 Santana, "Mandela"

 Unlike most tribute songs in pop, this1988 Carlos Santana cut was written as an instrumental, and was also performed at Mandela's 70th Birthday Celebration. The song obviously does not nod to Mandela explicitly, the unmistakable guitar tone and Latin percussion act as an enduring paean from the multi-platinum musician.

 Simple Minds, "Mandela Day"

 Simple Minds is best remembered for its 1985 hit "Don't You (Forget About Me)," which became a classic after it was used in the "Brat Pack" favorite "The Breakfast Club." Three years later, the group performed this tribute track at Mandela's 70th Birthday Celebration at Wembley Stadium. The song served as a banner of hope as the band sang, "The tears are flowing wipe them from your face I can feel his heartbeat moving deep inside."

 2pac, "Just a Breath of Freedom (4 Nelson Mandela)"

 Tupac Shakur's poem acts as a letter of praise to Mandela for his decades of struggle in the name of equal rights. "Held captive 4 your politics/ They wanted 2 break your soul/ They ordered the extermination of all minds they couldn't control," Pac writes about Mandela's journey.

 Tracy Chapman, "Freedom Now"

 Soon after Tracy Chapman rose to fame for her No. 1 self-titled album in 1988, she found herself writing and performing this Mandela protest song at his 70th Birthday Celebration. A constant spokeswoman for social change, Chapman's song speaks against a society that kills and destroys that which it doesn't understand. The most memorable verse from the track reads, "Soon must come the day/ When the righteous have their way/ Unjustly tried are free/And people live in peace I say/ Give the man release/ Go on and set your conscience free/ Right the wrongs you made/ Even a fool can have his day."

 Johnny Clegg, "Asimbonanga"

 Written as a mix of Zulu and English, the title of this Mandela freedom track is Zulu for "We have not seen him"; at that point, no one had seen Mandela outside of prison for more than two decades. Hailing from South Africa, Clegg stirred up controversy for not only writing this protest hit, but for also having bandmates of different races during the days of Apartheid. In 1999, the band was joined onstage by Mandela during a performance of "Asimbonanga." ||||| President Barack Obama Thursday eulogized Nelson Mandela as “a man who took history in his hands and bent the arc of the moral universe toward justice.”

 Obama, speaking shortly after South African President Jacob Zuma announced Mandela’s death, called the man for so long known as Prisoner 46664 as “one of the most influential, courageous and profoundly good human beings that any of us will share time with on this earth.”

 Text Size -

 +

 reset Breaking news roundup

 “We will not likely see the likes of Nelson Mandela again — so it falls to us as best we can to forward the example that he set: to make decisions guided not by hate, but by love, to never discount the difference that one person can make, to strive for a future that is worthy of his sacrifice.”

 (VIDEO: Nelson Mandela, a look back)

 The president is expected to travel to South Africa for the state funeral, which has not yet been scheduled. National security staff told Obama in the Oval Office of Mandela’s death shortly before 5 p.m. EST, White House officials said.

 Obama ordered American flags lowered to half staff through Monday in recognition that “the United States has lost a close friend, South Africa has lost an incomparable liberator, and the world has lost an inspiration for freedom, justice, and human dignity.”

 He reiterated these sentiments to Zuma in a phone call Thursday evening, offering his condolences on behalf of the nation, and speaking of “how profoundly Mandela’s extraordinary example of moral courage, kindness, and humility influenced his own life” and of the deep relationship between the United States and South Africa, the White House said.

 (PHOTOS: Nelson Mandela’s life and career)

 Mandela is the father of modern South Africa, and Obama addressed part of his remarks to the people of that nation as well, praising them for being an example to the world of “renewal and reconciliation and resilience.”

 Beginning his statement at the White House by reading a quote from Mandela, the president spoke for just a few minutes, reflecting on Mandela’s impact on the world — and on him personally. Obama spoke of how reading Mandela shaped his thinking about who he was and who would want to be, recalling that his own entry into politics was a speech at an anti-apartheid, South African divestment rally.

 “I am one of the countless millions who drew inspirations from Nelson Mandela’s life,” Obama said. “I cannot fully imagine my own life without the example that Nelson Mandela set. So long as I live, I will do what I can to learn from him.”

 The two met just once, and briefly — in Washington in 2005, when the just-elected Senator Obama pushed for a meeting with the former president, and was initially rebuffed — but did produce a well-known photo of Obama leaning over a seated Mandela, holding his hand, one in the shadow, one in the light.

 Obama did not meet with him when he traveled to South Africa a year later, but Mandela sent Obama a letter after his election calling it a measure of what was possible in the world, and the two spoke occasionally over the phone in the years since.

 A Mandela health scare halted plans for a possible meeting when Obama returned to South Africa this past summer. But Obama visited Mandela’s old cell at Robben Island and met with Mandela’s family, and in a speech while in the country, praised the leader for showing “us that one man’s courage can move the world.”

 Carrie Budoff Brown contributed. ||||| Counting himself among the millions influenced by Nelson Mandela, President Barack Obama on Thursday mourned the death of the anti-apartheid icon with whom he shares the distinction of being his nation's first black president.

 "He no longer belongs to us. He belongs to the ages," Obama said in a somber appearance at the White House.

 "I am one of the countless millions who drew inspiration from Nelson Mandela's life," he continued. "And like so many around the globe, I cannot fully imagine my own life without the example that Nelson Mandela set."

 Mandela died earlier Thursday at 95. He had spent much of the year in and out of the hospital, and his illness prevented a meeting with Obama when the U.S. president visited South Africa this summer.

 However, the former South African president's legacy hung over Obama's trip. The U.S. president made an emotional visit with his wife, Michelle, and two young daughters to the prison at Robben Island, where Mandela was in captivity. The Obamas also met privately with members of Mandela's family. |||||
What is a summary?

– President Obama today paid homage to Nelson Mandela shortly after the former South African leader's death was announced, reports Politico and AP. "He no longer belongs to us," said Obama. "He belongs to the ages." Some other highlights: Mandela was “a man who took history in his hands and bent the arc of the moral universe toward justice.” “We will not likely see the likes of Nelson Mandela again—so it falls to us as best we can to forward the example that he set: to make decisions guided not by hate, but by love, to never discount the difference that one person can make, to strive for a future that is worthy of his sacrifice." “I cannot fully imagine my own life without the example that Nelson Mandela set. So long as I live, I will do what I can to learn from him.” Other tributes: Music: Billboard rounds up 10 musical salutes to Mandela, from Bono to Public Enemy. Jimmy Carter: "His passion for freedom and justice created new hope for generations of oppressed people worldwide, and because of him, South Africa is today one of the world's leading democracies." Tony Blair: "Through his dignity, grace, and the quality of his forgiveness, he made racism everywhere not just immoral but stupid." UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon: "Only because of such a great man like Nelson Mandela is it possible that particular people in Africa and elsewhere are able to enjoy freedom and human dignity."


Write a summary based on this article:

Editor's Note: The News & Record will provide updates of the trial on its Twitter (@newsandrecord) and Facebook (facebook.com/newsandrecord) feeds.

 — Andrew Young answered his cellphone.

 It was Rielle Hunter. She was distraught and said she needed to get in touch with John Edwards, who was then in the thick of running for president.

 Young, a longtime aide to Edwards, was with his family and didn’t feel like dealing with her.

 “Somebody better be pregnant or dying,” he said to Hunter half-jokingly.

 Hunter told him nobody was dying.

 On Tuesday, Young testified about how in 2007 he found out Edwards’ lover was pregnant. He also revealed details about living with Hunter, the money that was used to cover up her relationship with the former U.S. senator from North Carolina and a special “bat phone” that Edwards used for talking to her.

 Edwards, 58, is on trial for violating campaign finance laws. At issue is nearly $1 million in contributions from heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon and Texas trial lawyer Fred Baron that went to conceal his affair with Hunter, a campaign videographer.

 Edwards initially brushed off allegations he was the father of Hunter’s baby.

 “He said she was a crazy slut, and there was a 1-in-3 chance it was his child,” Young said.

 Wearing a dark suit, light blue shirt and green tie, he avoided looking at Edwards as he took the stand for his second day of testimony.

 Edwards sat with an occasional smile, calmly looking at Young.

 He told prosecutors that in 2006, after Edwards had come home from a long trip, Hunter had called Edwards’ cellphone, only to get his wife, Elizabeth.

 Hunter, thinking it was Edwards, began making suggestive comments.

 Elizabeth, furious, forced her husband to call Hunter back and break off the affair.

 From that point on, Edwards used another phone to contact Hunter. Young would hang onto it when Edwards was at home.

 “Did you give it a special name?” prosecutor David Harbach asked, referring to the phone.

 Young provoked snickers in the courtroom when he answered, “the bat phone.”

 Prosecutors entered into evidence a handwritten letter from Mellon. The letter, which she wrote after news broke of Edwards’ $400 haircuts, mentioned that the campaign should send her the bills for any future haircuts.

 Young said he and Edwards thought she also might be amenable to covering other expenses they wanted to keep secret.

 After Elizabeth Edwards found out about the affair, Hunter was let go from the campaign. Needing to support Hunter (and fend off threats to expose the affair), they decided to ask Mellon for money, after rejecting the option of seeking money from other sources.

 Though they did not tell her why they needed the money, Young said, Mellon wrote about $750,000 worth of checks. They were made out to interior decorator Bryan Huffman. Young’s wife, Cheri, would deposit them in a personal account.

 Edwards has denied knowing about the checks from Mellon.

 For about three weeks beginning in September 2007, Hunter stayed with the Youngs in Chapel Hill.

 In his testimony, Young described Hunter as a difficult houseguest who refused to buy her own groceries, saying that she might be recognized, but who had no problem shopping at places like Neiman Marcus.

 One night in December, Young discovered reporters outside his house who were trying to dig up information on Hunter’s pregnancy.

 The next day, Edwards called him and launched into what Young described as a “campaign stump speech.”

 “He talked about how this was bigger than all of us, how the election started in a couple of weeks,” Young said. “He talked about poverty, about ending the war in Iraq. ... And he said, 'They don’t give a s--- about you. They want me.’”

 He wanted Young to claim paternity of Hunter’s baby.

 A few days later, Young, his family and Hunter went into hiding. They stayed at luxury hotels in Hollywood, Fla.; San Diego and Santa Barbara, Calif.; and Baron’s mansion in Aspen, Colo.

 Harbach asked Young why he went along with the scheme.

 He and his family were in “really deep,” he said, having already taken in Hunter.

 But he also had loftier reasons.

 “We believed in the causes. ... I wanted to help my friend be president,” Young said.

 “And being friends with the most powerful person on Earth, there’s a lot of benefits that go along with that, for you and your family.”

 Young’s testimony will continue today.

 Contact Robert C. Lopez at 691-5091 or robert.lopez@news-record.com. |||||

 Former U.S. Senator John Edwards leaves the federal court house in Greensboro, North Carolina April 23, 2012. Edwards, 58, is accused of secretly soliciting more than $900,000 in illegal campaign funds from two wealthy donors to hide his pregnant mistress during his failed bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. (CHRIS KEANE/REUTERS)

 As star witnesses go, Young was none too shiny; he repeatedly got flustered, annoyed the judge by mumbling, and raced through those answers that were at variance with his tell-all book. He so often made the prosecutor repeat his question that I lost track of how many times the government lawyer had to admonish his own witness: “Sir, that’s not what I asked you.’’

 Still, two crucial things Young said under oath Tuesday did ring true:

 His detailed description of how Edwards persuaded him to claim paternity for the child the candidate himself had fathered with Rielle Hunter was credible.

 And when Young said his motivation for agreeing to do such a thing was completely opportunistic – “I wanted my friend to become president because a lot of benefits go along with that’’ — he was at his most convincing.

 Prosecutors say Edwards knowingly broke the law by using illegal campaign donations to keep his mistress quiet and his ‘08 presidential chances alive.

 But the defense maintains that it was Young’s idea to claim paternity, and that Young was freelancing when he solicited money from Edwards supporter Bunny Mellon. Edwards says Young bilked her -- not on his behalf, and not even for Hunter’s benefit, but to pay for the $1.5 million home Young was building. Young did not, however, come off as a likely mastermind.

 There he was, he said, buying a turtle aquarium for his kids, when Edwards called on his cell and went right into stump speech mode, telling him that he needed him to claim paternity not for his own sake, but for the sake of something that was bigger than all of them, because it would allow Edwards to become president, vice president, or attorney general.

 Edwards also told him that his wife Elizabeth was dying, Young said, and that he didn’t want headlines about a messy, career-ending affair to dominate the final months of her life.

 But by his own account, Young did not agree out of either loyalty or sympathy for Mrs. Edwards, but because he was still hoping to cash in – though he no longer thought it likely that his one-time dream of working in embassies around the world under President Edwards was going to come true.

 There were a slew of internal inconsistencies in Young’s testimony; at one point, for instance, he said Edwards didn’t want to know any of the details about the various schemes for paying off Hunter, so that if he became attorney general later, he wouldn’t have to lie.

 At a number of other points, Young said Edwards had detailed knowledge of what was happening, and indeed was directing him. Of course, life is full of inconsistencies, especially amid a drama this over-the-top.

 The defendant showed emotion only twice on Tuesday; when Young said Edwards wanted to keep his hands clean so he could become AG, the former senator raised his eyebrows in either astonishment or mock astonishment, and shook his head.

 And when Young made a mistake in his timeline and said Hunter was pregnant before that was the case, Edwards looked triumphant, shared looks with his defense team and whispered to them.

 Though Edwards made his fortune as a trial attorney juries just loved, he wisely made no attempt to charm them from the defense table, and took notes instead of angling for eye contact.

 Again today, the former candidate’s parents and grown daughter Cate were seated behind him in the courtroom, and to those who’ve asked me if Cate looks like she’s there under duress: absolutely not. A lawyer herself, she’s in constant, animated conversation with her father during breaks, and with worry written all over her face, twists and tugs on her hair during testimony. Though she bears a physical resemblance to both of her parents, she’s like Elizabeth in being so obviously all in on behalf of John Edwards.

 Some of Young’s stumbling statements were inadvertently helpful to his old boss: He testified that Edwards told him the money being funneled from Mellon to her decorator, to Young’s wife and then to Hunter was perfectly legal because it was a private gift, not campaign cash.

 One of the most horrifying stories Young told on the stand, in terms of the risks Edwards took while running for president, concerned the very night he announced his ’08 run. After Young picked him and Hunter up for the kick-off event, the former aide said, they passed a bottle of wine back and forth between them en route.

 The candidate was feeling so fearless, in fact, Young said, that he dared to bring Hunter right into the rally, where his wife and the mistress all but literally collided while one was going into the ladies’ room and the other coming out.

 Years ago, Edwards told me the secret to convincing a jury. The trick, he said, is to tell them all the weaknesses in your case right up front, so that they’ll think gosh, you’re honest, and will then believe the rest of what you’re selling.

 You mean, I asked, that it’s sort of like the saleswoman who tells you that Dress A does not really maximize your charms, so that when she later tells you Dress B is stunning, you believe her? Ex-actly, he said.

 If that’s true, the prosecution must have scored big points with the jury on Tuesday, because they certainly led off with the weakness in their case, Andrew Young. But judging by how flummoxed he was by the lawyer for his own side, he stands a very good chance of being ripped apart by the defense.

 Melinda Henneberger is Post political writer and anchors ‘She the People.’ Follow her on Twitter at @MelindaDC. ||||| Andrew Young, former aide to former U.S. Sen. and presidential candidate John Edwards, leaves federal court with attorney David Geneson, right, in Greensboro, N.C., Monday, April 23, 2012. Prosecutors... (Associated Press)

 John Edwards' first reaction when he learned his mistress may be pregnant was to downplay the chances he was the father, calling the woman a "crazy slut," his former close campaign aide testified Tuesday.

 It was the summer of 2007 and Edwards was in the midst of a presidential campaign. Andrew Young testified the former North Carolina senator hatched a plan to funnel money from rich friends to provide the woman a monthly allowance, even though Young said he doubted it was legal.

 Months later, as word of the candidate's affair began to leak in the run-up to the crucial Iowa caucuses, Young said Edwards asked the aide to falsely claim paternity of the baby.

 Young has been the lone witness during the first two days of Edwards' criminal trial. The 58-year-old Edwards has pleaded not guilty to six counts related to campaign finance violations involving nearly $1 million in secret payments provided by two wealthy donors as he sought the White House in 2008.

 Young said Rielle Hunter told Edwards she was pregnant in June 2007, weeks later than the aide originally claimed in a tell-all book published in 2010. Young said Edwards, told him to "take care of it," meaning the pregnancy.

 "He said she was a crazy slut and there was a 1-in-3 chance that it (the child) was his," Young testified.

 Edwards directed Young to start giving money to Hunter in May 2007, after she threatened to go to the media and expose the affair, the aide said. Edwards suggested asking elderly heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, who had already given generously to the campaign.

 Prosecutors showed the jury cancelled checks from Mellon written to her interior designer, who would then endorse them and send them to Andrew and his wife, Cheri. Starting in June 2007, Mellon would eventually provide checks totaling $750,000.

 Without telling Mellon what the money would be used for beyond that it was a "non-campaign" expense, Young said she offered to provide $1.2 million over time to help pay for the candidate's personal needs. Under federal law, donors are limited to giving a maximum of $2,300 per election cycle.

 "We were scared," Young said. "It was a truckload of money, more money than had ever flowed through our accounts. ... It was crazy."

 Young said he expressed concern to Edwards, a former trial lawyer, that they might be violating federal campaign finance laws.

 "He told me he had talked to several campaign finance experts and that it was legal," Young testified. "It felt and smelled wrong. But he knew more about the law than we did. We believed him."

 Young said Edwards also directed him to use the money from Mellon to provide a monthly allowance to Hunter of between $5,000 and $12,000. The money would allow her to travel and continue to meet up with the married candidate while he was away from his home and now deceased wife, Elizabeth, who had grown suspicious of the affair.

 Young will retake the witness stand Wednesday, when the defense is expected to have their first opportunity to cross-examine him.

 The baby Edwards fathered, Frances Quinn Hunter, was born in February 2008, right after he suspended his campaign after a series of primary losses. After years of adamant public denials, Edwards eventually acknowledged paternity in 2010. The girl, now 4, lives with her mother in Charlotte.

 Prosecutors had phone records showing dozens of calls between Young and Edwards. The candidate often used the phones of campaign staffers to call his trusted aide and mistress to avoid his wife seeing the other woman's number on his bill. Edwards also obtained an extra cellphone his wife didn't know about that they and Hunter called the "Bat Phone," Young said.

 In later testimony, Young said in December 2007, Edwards had the idea of Young claiming paternity. It came after reporters from a tabloid tracked Hunter down in the parking lot of a North Carolina grocery store. By that time, non-tabloid media had also started to pick up the trail as the campaign was preparing for the early 2008 primaries.

 Edwards said they needed to "give the press something they would understand, an affair between two staffers," Young testified. Hunter had produced several videos documenting life on the campaign trail for Edwards.

 Young said Edwards "talked about how this was bigger than all of us," and reaffirmed to the aide he wanted to help the country by getting troops out of Iraq and remaking health care. He also said he didn't want his cancer-stricken wife to have to deal with a scandal before she died.

 The Youngs agreed to get the mistress, who was then living in a $2,700-a-month rental home near Chapel Hill, out of North Carolina. They began a cross-country odyssey of travel on private jets and stays in luxury hotels. While they were on the run, the federal indictment alleges that more than $183,000 in bills related to Hunter's care was paid by Fred Baron, a wealthy Texas lawyer who served as Edwards' campaign finance director. Baron has since died.

 Young testified that Edwards put him in touch with Baron's people to arrange the details, which included stays at Baron's palatial vacation home in Aspen. As prosecutors highlighted the group's movements, photos of the blue-water resorts and mountain mansion were shown on video monitors around the courtroom.

 Baron also sent Young overnight packages stuffed with cash. On included a handwritten note from the wealthy lawyer: "A- Old Chinese saying, use cash, not credit cards!"

 When asked why he agreed to claim paternity and care for Hunter, Young said power was the lure.

 "I wanted my friend to be president," Young said. "Being friends with the most powerful person on earth, there are benefits to that."

 Edwards has denied knowing about the money provided by Mellon. In opening statements on Monday, his defense lawyer Alison Van Laningham said the Youngs siphoned off the bulk of the money to pay for the construction of their $1.5 million house near Chapel Hill.

 The indictment filed by the U.S. Justice Department last year recounts more than $933,000 in unreported payments from the two campaign donors who had already given the maximum contributions allowed by law.

 Defense attorneys say even if Edwards knew about the secret payments from Mellon and Baron, they don't fit the legal definition of political contributions because they were not meant to influence the election. Instead, they say, the payments were gifts meant to hide Edwards' affair from his wife, not voters.

 If convicted on all six counts, Edwards faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and as much as $1.5 million in fines.

 Edwards sat silently in the courtroom Tuesday as prosecutors played several voicemails he and Baron had left on Young's cellphone in December 2007 and January 2008. At that time, Edwards was in the heat of the presidential primaries and was constantly in the public eye.

 Though none of the voicemails played for the jury contained evidence that was in itself damning, it illustrated that Edwards was in frequent contact with Young and Hunter while they were on the run. Young said Edwards expressly told him not to inform him of their exact location, because the candidate "didn't want to have to lie if he was asked about it."

 Asked by a prosecutor why he began keeping the voicemail and notes now being used as evidence against his former boss, Young replied: "If I didn't have these, nobody would have believed me."

 ___

 Follow AP writer Michael Biesecker at twitter.com/mbieseck |||||

– Andrew Young, who also once pretended to be the father of Rielle Hunter's baby to cover for former boss John Edwards, took the stand at Edwards' campaign finance trial yesterday—and he was a mess. He got flustered, gave conflicting (and at least once, wrong) answers, and constantly asked for questions to be repeated—and this was while being questioned by his own side, the prosecution. After a performance like that, the Washington Post's Melinda Henneberger predicts that "he stands a very good chance of being ripped apart by the defense" during cross-examination today. Highlights from his testimony, via the Post, the AP, and the News-Record: The night Edwards announced his 2008 campaign, he, Young, and Hunter passed around a bottle of wine in the car as Young drove to the kick-off event, Young said. When Edwards first learned of Hunter's pregnancy, "he said she was a crazy slut and there was a 1-in-3 chance that it was his," Young said. When heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon started funneling money to Hunter—the central issue of the trial—"we were scared," Young said. "It was a truckload of money, more money than had ever flowed through our accounts. ... It was crazy." In order to phone Hunter without his wife finding out, Edwards often used staffers' phones … as well as a secret cell phone he, Young, and Hunter referred to as "the bat phone," Young said. When Edwards came up with the idea of using Young as a cover, he gave Young what the aide referred to as a "campaign stump speech" explaining that the issue "was bigger than all of us," and that voters "don’t give a s--- about you. They want me." Why did Young agree to it? "I wanted my friend to be president," he admitted. "Being friends with the most powerful person on Earth, there are benefits to that."


Write an article based on this summary:

– The Federal Communications Commission will vote on net neutrality today, after lengthy debate. Though the topic seems destined for the courts, the FCC's decision "is going to be a benchmark," a researcher tells USA Today. The board is expected to approve chairman Tom Wheeler's guidelines to regulate the Internet like a utility, as President Obama suggested. His proposal also labels broadband providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which means the FCC could prohibit paid prioritization for "fast lanes," NBC News reports. What does that mean for you? "All this ruling means is that there will be FCC jurisdiction to examine practices and hear complaints," a legal professor explains. He bats down claims that this is "an all-or-nothing decision that will transform the Internet," suggesting much is still to be determined. "Your broadband will still cost the same amount as it did before." Essentially Wheeler's rules would mean Internet service providers must treat all traffic equally, which is why Netflix—which claims almost 35% of peak traffic in the US—supports the move. It can't be charged more for the bandwidth it uses. Companies like Etsy, Kickstarter, Tumblr, and Vimeo support rules similar to Wheeler's. In the past, so did Google. But nearly a decade after Google and Facebook first pushed for new rules, the search giant has urged the FCC to draft rules boosting investment in broadband Internet networks, as have net neutrality opponents AT&T and Comcast, the Wall Street Journal reports. An expert predicts the "public utility-style regulations" will "create a tremendous amount of chaos" for cable and Internet companies, particularly when it comes to addressing congestion. They would have to ensure their practices of freeing up bandwidth are "reasonable," NPR reports. The rules also include what's called "zero-rating," which is when an app or group of apps—for example T-Mobile's Music Freedom plan—isn't counted against a user's data cap. Sounds like a bonus, right? "That distorts competition," says one expert. Republicans generally consider Wheeler's rules a government power grab. Congress could respond with legislation that undercuts Wheeler's guidelines, but Obama would likely veto.

On the eve of the FCC's expected net neutrality vote, former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell explains how far the agency is willing to go to regulate broadband providers. Photo: Getty

 WASHINGTON—Soon after President Barack Obama announced his support for strong net neutrality rules late last year, Google Inc.’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt told a top White House official the president was making a mistake.

 The criticism was unexpected—the company for years had been the driving force behind the tech industry’s push for strong rules to prevent broadband Internet providers from blocking, slowing down or speeding up certain types of Internet traffic.

 ... ||||| Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler speaks during a new conference in Washington, on Oct. 8, 2014. (Photo: Jose Luis Magana, AP)

 After nearly a year-long process, the Federal Communications Commission casts its all-important vote Thursday on the divisive issue of net neutrality.

 The five-member board is expected to approve FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's new rules that aim to preserve an open Internet and prevent Internet service providers from discriminating against content makers. But regardless what happens Thursday, the agency's action won't be the last word.

 "It is a defining moment, but it will be redefined by the courts, Congress and other entities including the marketplace going forward," said Gary Arlen, a Bethesda, Md., research analyst. "But whatever they decide is going to be a benchmark."

 Net neutrality has become a politicized and polarizing issue in the roughly 10 months since the commission began crafting new rules. The agency's previous regulations were tossed out by a federal court in January 2014.

 More than 4 million comments on the subject were filed with the FCC — the largest number ever for a rule proposal — from Internet service providers such as AT&T and Verizon to organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union.

 In general, Republicans share the ISPs' concerns that Wheeler's plan to regulate them as a utility — like traditional telephone service — under Title II of The Communications Act is overkill. The rules "may not ultimately provide net neutrality protections for American consumers ... (and) may raise rates for the American Internet users and could stymie Internet adoption, innovation and investment," Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., said Wednesday.

 Walden, who chaired a hearing about the future of the Net in the House Commerce Communications and Technology subcommittee, has proposed open Internet legislation that would override the FCC's rules. Rather than rely on Title II, the plan would make it illegal for ISPs to block or deliberately slow content and would ban companies from charging to provide faster service.

 "Uncertainty is what we hope to stave off," he said.

 Democrats at the hearing would have none of that. Wheeler's proposal "is the only path the FCC can take to protect the open Internet," said Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif.

 That's been the clarion call of strong net neutrality proponents, who want the FCC to have enough clout to prevent Net providers from curtailing access, services or content. In addition to Amazon and Netflix, supporters include civil rights groups and musicians including the members of R.E.M. and Aerosmith's Joe Perry.

 "The Internet, which was once a luxury, is now a necessity, and it has given people the ability to be heard in our democracy and have more opportunity in our economy," said Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color for Change. "It has been a tool for the little guy to get ahead."

 The clamor crescendoed beyond Capitol Hill. On Twitter, Netflix fired a shot across the bow of Comcast and other ISPs with a tweet suggesting that net providers would slow traffic if they weren't regulated.

 What

 if

 the

 Internet

 was

 so

 slow

 it

 loaded

 one

 word

 at

 a

 time?

 Don't

 let

 Comcast

 win.http://t.co/OCoIdQiIN3 — Netflix US (@netflix) February 25, 2015

 But interested parties are talking past each other, said Hunter Newby, CEO of net company Allied Fiber. The FCC chief's proposal could affect the entire Internet, when the agency should only be worried about consumers, he said.

 "There is so much confusion and mass hysteria that it has led to Title II," Newby said. "It is polluting something that is working fine."

 But some action is needed to prevent the kind of consolidation that has engulfed the cable industry, said Alper Turgut, CEO of Anvato, a streaming video tech company. "If we have net neutrality, everybody is on equal footing so they compete on the app experience, the user experience and the content rather than on how fast (content is delivered)," he said.

 Former congressman Rick Boucher, who previously chaired the committee and is now honorary chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance, said that Wheeler's proposal, if approved by the FCC will be challenged in court. "We can predict the court decision would be years in the future," he said.

 The draft legislation that Walden supports "moves in the right direction," he said and observed that Republicans and Democrats have moved closer on the issue. "It is a major development that everyone is talking about the best way to preserve net neutrality," Boucher said.

 The public will remain engaged whatever the outcome, Robinson said. "We have fundamentally changed the conversation around the future of the Internet and that puts us in a much better position as we begin to … deal with the details to ensure that it's actually a strong, enforceable rule without loopholes."

 Follow Mike Snider on Twitter: @MikeSnider

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1ERHZXo ||||| What Net Neutrality Rules Could Mean For Your Wireless Carrier

 i itoggle caption Ted S. Warren/AP Ted S. Warren/AP

 After a decade of debate, the federal government is poised to change how it regulates Internet access, to make it more like telephone service and other public utilities.

 The Federal Communications Commission is set to vote Thursday on broad new rules to enforce the principle of net neutrality — the idea that Internet providers should treat all traffic on their networks equally.

 For the first time, the rules would apply fully to wireless broadband as well — and some big wireless companies are pushing back.

 Net neutrality advocates argue that there's only one Internet, so the same set of rules should apply whether you're getting online at home, on your phone or any other mobile device you want.

 FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler agrees. Earlier this month, he told NPR that "it is very important that these rules cover wireless, if for no other reason than 55 percent of Internet traffic today goes over wireless devices. And that's only going to go up."

 The FCC is taking a very different approach from the last time it tried to enforce net neutrality, back in 2010. Those rules — later overturned in court — would have allowed wireless carriers to discriminate against websites or applications in order to prevent congestion on their networks.

 Brent Skorup, a research fellow in technology policy at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, says that's "a recognition that wireless is different" from the wires that carry data into homes and businesses.

 He says wireless bandwidth is scarce, and wireless companies have to make sure that no one is hogging that bandwidth. Skorup says the new rules would force those companies to prove to the FCC that their management practices are "reasonable."

 "It puts them through this gantlet of approval, whereas previously, a wireless carrier could just put out a new service," Skorup says. "And now it'll be, 'Does this comply with these half-dozen principles?' or whatever the rules say."

 Big wireless companies agree the new rules would make it harder to manage congestion on their networks, but not all wireless carriers are on the same page here. Sprint and T-Mobile have publicly said they're not opposed to the new rules. And public interest groups say that's proof that wireless is really not so different from the rest of the Internet.

 "If there are indeed reasons that wireless needs to be treated differently, then they can make the case for that," says Craig Aaron, president of the D.C.-based nonprofit Free Press. "But in most cases, it shouldn't be up to your Internet service provider to pick and choose for you which websites are going to work, which apps are going to work."

 But there's something net neutrality advocates dislike about the proposed rules, too — and it's related to what policy wonks call "zero-rating." Basically, that means your wireless provider promises not to count one app or group of apps against your monthly data cap.

 T-Mobile's "Music Freedom" plan, which lets subscribers stream all the music they want without data charges, is one example. That may sound like a good deal for consumers — who doesn't like free data? But critics say there's a problem.

 "I think zero-rating is the next big threat to innovation and free speech online," says Barbara van Schewick, a professor at Stanford Law School. She says the problem with some zero-rating plans is that they create an un-level playing field — where wireless companies can favor their own video services, for example, or strike business deals that favor other big companies.

 "That distorts competition, interferes with user choice," she says. "And that's exactly what network neutrality is designed to protect."

 Van Schewick wants the FCC to take a hard line and ban some forms of zero-rating, but FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai says the commission shouldn't take a stand on zero-rating at all. He says consumers should get to choose any kind of wireless plans they want.

 "My bottom line: If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan," Pai says. "The FCC shouldn't take it away from you."

 That's not what the commission plans to do. FCC officials say they'll decide what kind of zero-rating is allowed on a case-by-case basis. This may sound like a bureaucratic detail, but it's a big deal for wireless companies. In court filings, Verizon said it's one reason why the company sued to block the FCC's last set of net neutrality rules.

 It's a good bet the wireless industry will be taking the commission to court over its new rules, as well. Last month, the president of the industry trade group told Congress that wireless providers "will have no choice but to look to the courts" if the FCC moves ahead with its proposed rules. ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

 / Updated

 The battle over net neutrality is expected to reach a crucial milestone on Thursday as the FCC votes on whether the Internet should be regulated like a public utility.

 The proposal unveiled earlier this month by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler is expected to pass. It treats broadband providers as "common carriers" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, like gas or electricity companies, instead of "information services," like Google or Facebook. The common carrier designation would give the FCC the authority to regulate Internet service providers (ISPs) to prohibit "fast lanes" that would grant faster access to companies that pay for the privilege.

 It's a win for open Internet activists, but for the average consumer, it's not clear exactly what will change.

 "The day after the FCC order, your broadband will still cost the same amount as it did before," said Kevin Werbach, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

 "Since 2010, there has been a set of rules, but it was unclear if those rules were enforceable," he said. "All this ruling means is that there will be FCC jurisdiction to examine practices and hear complaints."

 Who will come out on top?

 The debate over net neutrality has often been cast as pitting ISPs like Verizon against Web companies like Google and Netflix. (Comcast, another major Internet service provider, is the parent company of NBCUniversal and NBC News.)

 In reality, it's not easy to divide companies into winners and losers, since it's not clear exactly what actions the FCC will take.

 John Mayo, executive director of Georgetown University's Center for Business and Public Policy, thinks that "public utility-style regulations" could make life harder for cable and Internet companies.

 "If you're a provider of the Internet infrastructure, this measure is going to create a tremendous amount of chaos," he told NBC News. "The natural response of companies faced with legal and regulatory uncertainties is to pull in and reduce risk-taking."

 Meanwhile, Netflix, which campaigned hard for net neutrality rules, should feel reassured that it won't be charged more for the bandwidth it takes up. (Last year, research firm Sandvine estimated that Netflix streaming was responsible for nearly 35 percent of peak Internet traffic in the United States).

 Net neutrality rules likes the ones expected to pass on Thursday have been supported in the past by Google, Facebook and Amazon, as well as smaller companies like Etsy and Reddit.

 The FCC received 3.7 million comments from the public on net neutrality. At one point, 99 percent of them were in favor of regulations like the ones that are expected to pass, according to a study from the Sunlight Foundation, an open government advocacy organization.

 The road ahead

 Some Republicans in Congress have remained defiant, characterizing the proposal as government overreach.

 It's possible that the Republican-controlled Congress could pass legislation that undermines the expected FCC ruling, but it's not clear that such a law could avoid President Barack Obama's veto pen.

 In November, Obama pushed the FCC to institute stronger net neutrality rules, saying that Internet service providers shouldn't be able to "pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas."

 Regardless of legislative action, broadband providers could fight back with their lawyers.

 "This set of rules will undoubtedly be challenged," Werbach said.

 In the end, the new FCC rules mostly affect what could happen, not what is happening now, Werbach said, meaning that broadband providers and Web companies could see very little change in how they do business in the short term.

 "Both sides in this debate tend to exaggerate this as an all-or-nothing decision that will transform the Internet." |||||


Article:

Mexico's violent northeastern corner near the U.S. border will get a boost in troops and federal police as the government tries to wrest back control of an area that has become a battleground for two rival drug cartels.

 In this photo taken Nov. 19, 2010 Mexican army soldiers patrol the streets in Ciudad Mier, Tamaulipas State, Mexico. Mexico will send more troops and federal police in an operation called "Coordinated... (Associated Press)

 In this Nov. 19, 2010 Mexican Navy marines stand next to a wall painted with portraits of Mexican Revolution heroes Emiliano Zapata, right, and Francisco I. Madero at the entrance to the city of Ciudad... (Associated Press)

 Nuevo Leon Governor Rodrigo Medina de la Cruz, left, talks to Mexico's Interior Secretary Jose Francisco Blake during a press conference in Mexico City, Wednesday, Nov. 24, 2010. Mexico will send more... (Associated Press)

 The new mission, "Coordinated Operation Northeast," aims to reinforce government authority in Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon _ the two states under the heaviest attack since the formerly allied Gulf and Zetas gangs split.

 The government also wants to keep the cartels from regrouping after the loss of key leaders, federal police spokesman Alejandro Poire said Wednesday.

 But Poire gave no details on the operation, saying only that there will be a "significant" increase in forces. He answered no questions at a media briefing with Mexico security officials and the two state governors, and the government later said it would not provide numbers for its forces now in the area or the level after the reinforcements because of security reasons.

 Intense cartel violence has gripped Nuevo Leon in and around the industrial, high-tech hub of Monterrey, once one of Mexico's safest large cities. Bloodshed also is high across all of Tamaulipas, which shares a 560-mile (900-kilometer) border with Texas and some of the busiest border crossings in the world opposite the U.S cities of Laredo, McAllen and Brownsville.

 "These are geographic factors that have made the area a coveted route for organized crime in the trafficking of drugs and people and in receiving illegal money and arms coming into Mexico," Poire said.

 Since the falling out between the Gulf cartel and the Zetas, its former arm of assassins, Nuevo Leon has seen regular gang roadblocks on city streets, assassinations of local politicians and shootouts and grenade attacks that have killed innocent civilians.

 In Tamaulipas, where mayors and a gubernatorial candidate have also been killed, gang violence has closed schools, made roads unsafe for travel and blocked some government oil workers from reaching installations.

 Earlier this month, residents fleeing gunbattles in the state's once-picturesque town of Ciudad Mier ended up in Mexico's first drug-war refugee shelter. In another part of Tamaulipas, 72 migrants trying to reach the United States were found slaughtered earlier in the year.

 Residents have accused the federal and state government of being conspicuously absent, leaving them in the crossfire of military-strength weaponry wielded by drug gunmen.

 Local media has been intimidated or co-opted out of covering the drug war, leaving Tamaulipas cities such as Reynosa to warn residents during outbreaks of violence via Twitter and Facebook.

 Poire said government forces are present and touted recent military and police blows against the two cartels: the killing earlier this month of Gulf cartel leader Antonio "Tony Tormenta" Cardenas Guillen, the 2008 capture of a founding member of the Zetas, Jaime "The Hummer" Gonzalez Duran, and the arrest of eight presumed Zeta members in the killing of the migrants.

 Katherine Cesinger, spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry, praised the buildup.

 "We are encouraged by these reports that Mexico is increasing the patrol presence along their border in an effort to shutdown the ruthless drug cartels," she said. "We share the common goal of keeping our communities safe."

 The Mexican government has similar operations in other parts of country, including Chihuahua state, where the border city of Ciudad Juarez across from El Paso, Texas, is considered one of the most violent cities in the world. Such efforts so far have failed to quell drug violence, which has killed 28,000 people since President Felipe Calderon launched his offensive on organized crime in late 2006.

 An opinion poll released this week said 49 percent of Mexicans believe the government's drug war has been a failure, compared to 33 percent who said it has been a success.

 ___

 Associated Press writer Terry Wallace contributed to this report from Dallas, Texas. ||||| Reporting from Mexico City — Mexican authorities Wednesday announced they had arrested the new leader of the drug gang formerly run by suspected kingpin Edgar "La Barbie" Valdez Villarreal.

 The arrest late Tuesday of Carlos Montemayor marked a fresh blow against the remnants of the once-formidable Beltran Leyva gang, battered by arrests, deaths and vicious internal fighting.

 Mexican federal police said Montemayor took over the faction once led by Valdez, a U.S. citizen arrested in August. The in-fighting has stoked months of killings and beheadings across the states of Morelos and Guerrero, home to the resort city of Acapulco.

 Ramon Eduardo Pequeno, head of the anti-drug division of the federal police, told reporters that Montemayor had said that 20 Mexican men who disappeared in Acapulco in late September were seized and killed in a case of mistaken identity. |||||
What is a summary?

– Mexico says it is deploying extra troops and federal police to reassert its authority in two states bordering the US. Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon have become a battleground for the Gulf and Zetas cartels, and cities like Monterrey, once considered relatively safe, have seen a huge surge in violence. The government says the mission, Coordinated Operation Northeast, will also seek to prevent cartels from regrouping after the arrest of leaders, the AP reports. One cartel boss, Carlos Montemayor, has been arrested in Mexico City. Montemayor took control of the Beltran Leyva cartel after the arrest of US citizen Edgar "La Barbie" Valdez Villarreal. Police say he has told them that men under his command were responsible for the murder of 20 tourists near Acapulco last month, the Los Angeles Times reports. The men had been mistaken for members of the rival La Familia cartel.