Balletta and one of her daughter, Marina, were taken out the bedroom windows by authorities, but the police could not get to the other child, Talia Balletta. The victim had second- and third-degree burns over half her body and died several weeks later.

A Providence County Grand Jury indicted Balletta on eight counts, including one count each of murder, first degree arson and assault with the intent to commit murder, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon and two counts of resisting arrest.

Prosecutors said Balletta assaulted two State Police troopers and a Providence Police officer as she resisted arrest, waving a knife at two and a broken shard of glass at the other.

Balletta showed signs of mental illness for at least a year before the fire, and "was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her behavior" because of her mental illness, psychiatrist Dr. Joseph V. Penn told the court during the trial.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Sunday in an op-ed published in the Sunday Times that the country has chosen to protect the civil liberties of foreign nationals over national security and therefore could not blame the government for last week's reported disappearance of three terror suspects. Pointing to a series of court rulings favoring foreign suspects, he wrote:

Over the past five or six years, we have decided as a country that except in the most limited of ways, the threat to our public safety does not justify changing radically the legal basis on which we confront this extremism.

Their right to traditional civil liberties comes first. I believe this is a dangerous misjudgment. This extremism, operating the world over, is not like anything we have faced before. It needs to be confronted with every means at our disposal. Tougher laws in themselves help, but just as crucial is the signal they send out: that Britain is an inhospitable place to practise this extremism.

The three terror suspects who disappeared had been subject to control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and are believed to have been planning attacks on British or US troops. UK Home Secretary John Reid said judges and critics of the government were responsible for the lack of tougher rules to prevent disappearances and said he would introduce new anti-terror measures before he steps down from his post in June.

The injured client typically knows how prepared his lawyer is in handling his accident case. Does the lawyer know who he is when a client calls about his accident case? Does the lawyer come to a deposition having already interviewed the witnesses and with a written list of questions or topics to be covered? Has the injury attorney consulted with the expert witnesses such as doctors before trial? The answers to these sorts of questions show the person who is hurt in an automobile accident case that the lawyer representing him is prepared.

If you are not satisfied with the way your lawyer is preparing your injury case, you should ask for a sit down conference with them to figure out if they are the right person for the job. You always have an absolute right to change attorneys. The worst thing that could happen if you change attorneys is that the first attorney may ask for some compensation for his time spent on the matter. However, in Virginia (VA) the fired attorney is not entitled to ask for his percentage fee in the contract, under our Virginia (VA) ethics rules. Although I do not recommend changing attorneys unless absolutely necessary, if you get the sense that your attorney is not prepared or is not communicating appropriately with you about your lawsuit, then you should feel free to contact other injury attorneys to discuss the matter. If you call me about your desire to change lawyers, I will usually first recommend that you try to get straight with the old lawyer. However, if you do want to change I usually suggest that do so as soon as possible before your injury case has been moved forward in a way that may be hard for a better lawyer to undo.

The case looked much milder at the end than it did 15 months ago, when it appeared it might inflict a serious blow to a sport that was struggling to regain fans after a season-long lockout the year before. But the worst suspicions were not substantiated. There didn't seem to be mob ties or betting on hockey. No other hockey figures are being charged or will have to testify in a criminal trial.

"I'm sure everyone recalls the manner in which the case was initially announced and described," said Kevin Marino, the defense lawyer for Tocchet. "I think (Friday's) proceeding speaks for itself." It was two days after the 2006 Super Bowl when State Police Col. Rick Fuentes announced the charges against Tocchet, Trooper James Harney and a third man, James Ulmer.

Fuentes said that during a 40-day stretch that had just ended, they had handled bets totaling $1.7 million from a list of gamblers that included a movie star and other hockey figures.

Quickly, the prospect developed of a trial featuring a cavalcade of hockey players as witnesses. Even Gretzky, hockey's greatest player and a friend of Tocchet's, was caught on an investigative wiretap discussing how his wife could avoid being implicated.

It turned out Jones didn't have much to worry about. Authorities didn't charge her, or any other bettors, because placing bets - even with a bookmaker - is not illegal in New Jersey.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that Heiko Kai Schultz has joined the Los Angeles office as of counsel. Previously a partner with Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Schultz practices commercial litigation.

Schultz's practice covers a wide range of disputes, including commercial, intellectual property, bankruptcy, securities, accounting malpractice and environmental litigation. He has experience representing companies and individuals in the medical, financial, accounting, aircraft and electronic industries.

Recent matters include his representation of the debtors in 1,600 adversarial cases arising out of the In re Fleming Companies bankruptcy; a surgeon and inventor in a patent and contract dispute case with a medical device firm; and Arthur Andersen in an accounting malpractice case brought by Frederick's of Hollywood.

Schultz received his law degree from the University of Virginia in 1997 and a degree in history from the University of California in 1994.

The ultimate aim is to make Google so personal that it can target people known to be interested in certain products or services just from their Google activities. It is expected that one day users could ask a computer 'What should I do today?' or 'Which job should I take?' and it will tell them the answer.
In theory there should be no problem. In fact, the new database could make life easier - perhaps even better. For example if you want to buy a particular book from a certain site, Google could locate other sites selling the same book at a cheaper price or it could recommend other books by the same author.

Also if you want to buy a television or a holiday then the search engine could bring up the best buy. In establishing this database Google says it is giving customers what they want and that any information collated will be volunteered. Users will only be identified by name if they sign up to one of the log-on services such as G-mail or Frugal.

Also under the Data Protection Act information must only be used for the purposes it was given and Google has said it plans to impose a limit on the period it keeps personal information. In fairness, Google has proved itself to be the best of its kind and has in the past resisted US government court applications to hand over personal information it holds on some users.

We already live in a closely monitored world. Store loyalty cards have been keeping track of our shopping habits for years while CCTV cameras watch us on the streets and some banks pass our details on to marketing companies. There are also internet sites like Bebo and Myspace where people can easily access detailed personal information. Critics fear the database is the next step towards an Orwellian Big Brother state. They see the declaration as an infringement of civil liberties by stealth by a company that wants to turn the personal database into a lucrative marketing tool. Like all businesses Google is driven to make money which it does through multi-million pound advertising sponsorship. This means consumers have no idea whether or not the information being given is impartial or whether something is being recommended of a big money deal. In reality people would not tolerate being followed around town by someone taking notes of everything they buy, the reasons behind their purchase and steering them towards certain shops.

So why should we put up with it in the virtual world?

Attempting to profile people through the sites they access may not give an accurate portrayal. Some people, for example journalists, have to surf a variety of sites which they would never consider entering outside of the office. And privacy protection campaigners fear that in certain circumstances law enforcement agents could force internet search engines to surrender personal information. Google has bought the targeted advertising company Doubleclick which monitors users on a wide range of websites, and deploys "cookies" - small bits of software - on people's computers to keep track of what they are looking at. And it has also invested £2m in genetics company 23andMe - a move which sceptics of the database see as worrying. However, the precise type and size of the database problem has yet to be determined. It will change as Google's business changes. The best advice is, as in real life, if you are concerned about privacy, don't give personal information unless you are sure you know what it is going be used for both now and in the future.