J.A.I.L. hereby imposes a National J.A.I.L. semi-annual financial support of ten ($10) dollars on each and every JAILer payable during the months of March and September of each year. Such support shall be made payable to "J.A.I.L." and sent to:

P.O. Box 207, No. Hollywood, Ca. 91603. *

* Comments:

            Thomas Paine said in 1777, "Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." Should we expect to achieve Victory in America without supporting it, we seek something that has never been, nor ever shall be. From the Founder's personal viewpoint, J.A.I.L. is a cause certainly worthy of at least 5% of their gain to which God has entrusted them. Notwithstanding this fact, it is hoped that this miniscule amount of ten dollars will inspire all JAILers to donate more than the minimum $10 according as they have been blessed by J.A.I.L.'s outreach. J.A.I.L. is the hope of the future of this nation, and certainly worthy of your financial support!

God sees all. J.A.I.L. has passed in God's sight as in Noah's days.

Dear Brian Lyons, it is interesting that you have broached this issue in the manner you have done. Inasmuch as all things are open unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do, when God sees a nation setting itself up for judgment, He raises up a man to apprise that nation of such pending judgment. Amos 3:7 "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

Noah was such a man to the world that then was, as was Jonah to Nineveh. etc. God has promised,  "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." I Corinthians 10:13.  God in His faithfulness and mercy always offers the people a true means of escape before He releases His judgment.

God never teases regarding His offer of escape. It is always a genuine remedy. However, He merely offers a door of escape, not a compulsion, in which the people may chose to avail themselves of such door. God, having provided a warning to those facing judgment, shows Himself to be just, "for then how shall God judge the world?" Romans 3:6.

Just so, God in His faithfulness, offers to this nation through a man of His choosing, a genuine means of escape, if they will receive it. Of such a man this nation does well to give heed, for "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." John 13:20

Now how do we know that God will send us a "Noah" before His judgment. We know it because God said so. Luke 17:26 "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all."  The point made here is not as to this nation's particular sins, but as to it's specific sin of materialism. "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all." Luke 17:28, 29. There is nothing inherently wrong with eating, drinking, marrying, buying, selling, planting, and building. These things we all do, but judgment was brought upon them because of their devotion to "Things," i.e., not putting God first in their lives. "But seek ye fist the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these THINGS shall be added unto you." Matthew 6:33.

California's top judge pleads for judiciary funds

By Crystal Carreon - ccarreon@...

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/812334.html

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

As California struggles with a multibillion-dollar deficit, the lead judge of the nation's largest state court system pleaded his case at the Capitol on Tuesday for funds to pay for new courthouses, improved security and more judges.

Less than a month old, RateMyCop.com has gotten 100,000 hits a day, with users leaving comments - good and bad - about their interactions with cops, founder Gino Sesto said.

He runs the site out of his two-bedroom home and said he thinks it's a fair way to hold law enforcement accountable.

"If you are doing a good job, what do you care?" he said. "I would shut it down tomorrow if they had a way to digitize complaints and put them online. We can get the voting records of our senators, we can get a copy of the 1040 for George Bush. This has the ID of officers and the name. So what is the problem?"

But police organizations across the country have denounced the site, arguing that it endangers officers' safety and is ripe for misuse.

"Law enforcement should never be trivialized, and this appears to do just that," said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department spokesman Steve Whitmore.

"The concern is for the safety of law enforcement personnel. If that can be compromised in any way, this shouldn't be done."

The site appears to be perfectly legal. Even the Los Angeles Police Department's union, which two weeks ago sent a note to its 9,600 sworn members in response to concerns about the names of officers being posted, admits that ratemycop.com has the right to obtain the information.

So far, Sesto has posted more than 500 agencies on the site, from Los Angeles to Miami to Dallas. But he doesn't pretend to be a champion of free speech or a cop-hater. Instead, he just wanted to build a site that would attract tons of people - and maybe make a few bucks.

In addition to running the site, Sesto, 37, is a flight instructor on weekends and works full time in advertising. RateMyCop.com was merely a side venture to keep him busy. The idea came to him over dinner with a friend when they were swapping ticket stories.

"I thought, `Wow, why not have it so people can give feedback on police officers?' Everyone has the conversation."

So he and his girlfriend began sending out request letters to 1,000 agencies, asking for officer names. He posted them on a searchable site where users provide ratings based on fairness, satisfaction and authority.

Some posts are malicious, like this one about a North Carolina highway patrolman:

"... bald redneck chewing tobacco. making a quota on the 28th day of the month, he says i wasn't wearing my seat belt. SO WHAT!! we are so fortunate in Salisbury NC that there is no real crime."

But others praise officers like Sgt. Wayne Guillary of the LAPD's Northwest Division: "Proud to be a citizen of Los Angeles with a police force like officer Guillary."

Guillary had been tasked with crowd control at a Scientology protest when somebody caught him on video giving instructions and posted it on YouTube.com.

The 20-second video - in which he tells protesters it's their right to be out there and encourages them to stay on the sidewalk - prompted more than 25,000 hits to his name on RateMyCop.com.

"I was a little surprised because that is just me every day," Guillary said. "But people are always going to be able to look at you and access you. We live in a technological society."

His motto is to always be professional. That way there is nothing to worry about.

"People see you doing a good thing, it's positive," he said, noting he has no objection to RateMyCop.com. "And it brings a positive note to the agency."

But others believe it could ultimately put law enforcement in danger, making it easier for some to find out information about families.

"The California Police Chiefs Association is totally opposed to the Web site RateMyCop.com," Jerry Dyer, president of the association, said in a statement, adding that he is working on legislation to block it.

"The CPCA's first and biggest concern is the safety of our officers: publishing the names of officers and their agency could allow anyone to access personal information, via the Internet, about that officer and/or their family, without their knowledge, placing the officer or their family in grave danger. Secondly, officers who are rated face unfair maligning without any opportunity to defend themselves."

When RateMyTeacher.com was launched in August 2001, it immediately caused controversy among teachers who thought it was unfair.

Since then, more than 11million users worldwide have rated about 1.4million teachers at nearly 54,000 schools, according to the Web site.

A similar site launched in France called note2be.com was banned this month by the country's court system after the educators union filed a grievance, saying it was "an incitement to public disorder."

Thomas Griffith, a USC law professor who specializes in police issues, said while other sites that rate teachers and restaurants are fine, one for police officers is different.

Unlike restaurants and college professors, people can't choose their officers. And because there are separate complaint issues, it provides no accountability.

"A mechanism with unconfirmed reports that can be over-praising or condemning is not the best way to ensure accountability," he said.

Sesto said he hasn't been filtering comments before they go online but plans to. And he has pulled some comments.

But as it is now, to leave a comment, users have to sign in to the site, leaving their name and e-mail address.

He estimates that at least half of the site's users are officers and that a few might even be posting nasty comments about their colleagues. But at least one officer inquired about getting business cards from the site that he can hand out while giving tickets.

"Really," Sesto said, "I don't know why people are so taken aback."

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING

Following are comments on individual LAPD officers sent to RateMyCop.com. The Daily News has withheld their names.

GOOD COPS

"(Officer) was extremely professional and it was his calm demeanor that defused a potentially dangerous situation."

"I liked him from the instant that he drove up to my home after a car crashed through the fence and into my yard about 15 years ago. Even my mom met him. Her only comment was: `If I was only forty years younger.' She was 81 at the time."

"I was traveling down the road with my student driving and he did not make a full stop... This officer was so nice and explained the reason for full stops and answered questions from my student. He did not give us a ticket and he was so awesome!"

BAD COPS

"(Officer) needs more training. I train the young deputies at the Men's Central Jail and I want to tell you, he wouldn't last with the Sheriff's Department."

"This so called `gang' officer routinely harasses the young citizens of this fine city for no good reason."

"(Officer) is a sick man who has a habit of putting false info in his written reports ... He has also singled out African American officers for retribution and humiliation. (Officer) is a real cancer to the LAPD!"

Copyright ©2008 Los Angeles Newspaper group

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/04/09/judicial-selection-does-any-method-work.aspx

Judicial Selection: Does Any Method Work?

Posted on NO_SSN@yahoogroups.com

Judicial elections are an imperfect, best option

As someone who teaches and loves the law, judicial elections make me cringe. I know that complicated issues will be misrepresented and that campaign ads will be saturated with nonsense. There are times when I wonder whether we would be better off appointing, rather than electing, judges.

But then I think of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) at Senate confirmation hearings. Whenever someone is nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court (or, increasingly, for lower federal courts), misrepresentation and nonsense are on the hoof. Elections aren't perfect, but the proposed "solutions" are no better.

Our recent election for the state Supreme Court was nasty. Two men who, the last time I saw them, seemed to be reasonable lawyers with deep philosophical differences, were portrayed as corrupt bobble heads and sepia-toned champions of sexual predators. In this, I am afraid, judicial elections don't differ much from every other election in the overwrought, angry politics of our day.

There is a serious academic debate about the compatibility of electoral politics and the judicial function. In brief, the argument is that judges are charged to apply the law without regard to whether the outcome is popular. Indeed, some legal principles - for example, the constitutional rights of criminal defendants and of freedom of speech - are intentionally countermajoritarian. They cannot be denied because those who claim them are unpopular.

To what extent are judges influenced by fear of the electoral consequences of an unpopular decision? In a study focusing on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, my Marquette University colleague, Jason Czarnezki, found that, for the most part, justices are not more likely to rule against criminal defendants as they near re-election or after a closely contested race. But the data did suggest that justices who are initially appointed to vacancies are less likely to vote in favor of criminal defendants after facing the voters and that justices who are generally more favorably disposed to the claims of defendants are less likely to rule in favor of criminal defendants as they near re-election. The results of studies in other states have been mixed.

The possibility is troubling. Unlike legislators, judges aren't supposed to consider popular opinion when rendering their decisions. Although the impact of an approaching election may be limited, any departure from impartiality is cause for concern.

Some scholars argue that appointed judges are more likely to adopt expansive notions of the role of the judiciary. Judges who need not answer to the voters may be more likely to adopt approaches to the law that expand the discretion and authority of the judges to pursue their own policy goals.

The poster case for this approach is, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade. Perhaps almost all abortions ought to be legal. But more than one legal academic has driven herself to the brink of insanity trying to find a constitutional mandate for that view that doesn't leave judges free to create whatever rights they want.

Appointment may serve impartiality, but at the expense of accountability. This lack of accountability - if it contributes to an "imperial" judiciary - is just as problematic as electoral threats to impartiality, threatening to impinge upon the prerogatives of the executive and legislative branches.

And it attracts political attention. When judges believe that they can read the law in light of their political predilections, it is only natural to expect that people will come to care passionately about the ideologies of judges.

This is, in large part, responsible for the way in which battles over the confirmation of judges have turned into little Armageddons. Appointment doesn't drive out politics; it just moves it from the campaign trail to the hearing room and, of course, the back room.

Although appointment for life may eliminate political concerns once a judge assumes the bench (at least if the judge doesn't aspire to higher office), that impartiality comes at the price of a lack of accountability. Nor is greater impartiality ensured. More than one commentator has remarked upon the tendency of appointed judges to migrate toward approaches favored by what Justice Antonin Scalia called the "law profession culture."

If appointment turns out to present its own problems, a common fallback position of those disturbed by the tone of judicial elections is to embrace severe restrictions on campaign finance (generally a combination of public financing with severe limitations on third party spending) or a construction of the Judicial Code that severely restricts what candidates for judicial office may say.

There are constitutional problems with these approaches. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects both robust debate in judicial elections and the right of groups concerned about issues to be heard at the time of an election.

In any event, these approaches amount to a desire that judicial candidates shut up about philosophical differences for fear that they will not discuss them responsibly or that the public will not be able to understand them. The result, as with most campaign finance "reform," is incumbent protection.

I, too, am tired of being told that I should call Michael Gableman or Louis Butler and tell them that their mothers regret the day that they were born. But I hope (and actually suspect) that, through all the drama, voters did get some sense of the legitimate difference between the candidates.

The proposed cures are worse than the disease.

Rick Esenberg is an assistant law professor at Marquette University and author of the blog www.sharkandshepherd.blogspot.com

Turning the Tables

Citizen Issues Parking Ticket to Cop

BY MATT DAVIS

A CITIZEN who watched a cop illegally park, then walk into a Chinese restaurant to wait for his food, has issued the officer a series of citizen-initiated parking violations.

Eric Bryant says he was sitting in the SanSai Japanese Grill on NW 21st and Hoyt on March 7 when he witnessed Officer Chad Stensgaard pull up and park his patrol car illegally, next to a "No Parking" sign.

Stensgaard walked into the restaurant wearing his police uniform, but did not make any arrests or citations. Instead, he turned his attention to the basketball game on television, according to Bryant. When Bryant asked Stensgaard about his vehicle, Stensgaard allegedly acknowledged being in a no-parking zone but asked Bryant, "If someone broke into your house, would you rather have the police be able to park in front of your house or have to park three blocks away and walk there?"

Bryant returned to his seat, and says shortly afterward he watched a restaurant employee hand the officer a plastic bag before he left. Unfortunately for Officer Stensgaard, Bryant had recently passed the Oregon bar exam, and decided to pursue the matter further.

"If he had acknowledged and corrected his error, we could have avoided this whole thing," says Bryant. "But instead, he kept watching basketball and told me he wasn't doing anything wrong."

 Now, using ORS 153.058, Bryant—as a private citizen—has initiated violation proceedings against Officer Stensgaard. Bryant alleges Stensgaard was in violation of state statutes on illegal parking, illegal stopping, obeying parking restrictions on state highways, and illegal operation of an emergency vehicle or ambulance—the violations carry fines totaling $540.

Officer Stensgaard has received a Multnomah County summons to appear in traffic court on May 23. Meanwhile Bryant denies he is just stirring up trouble.

"Citizens should be concerned that he used his status as an officer of the law as justification for breaking the law," he says.

Stensgaard declined comment through the cops' office of public information.

*   *   *

Please Remember

Felony cases tossed due lack of judges in Riverside County

FLORIDA J.A.I.L. 4 JUDGES, etc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE FLORIDA BAR, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon three motions: (1) Plaintiff, Florida J.A.I.L. 4

Judges’ (“J.A.I.L. 4 Judges[’]”) Motion for Temporary Injunction and Expedited Limited Discovery

[D.E. 3], filed on February 29, 2008; (2) Defendant, The Florida Bar’s Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 13],

filed on April 9, 2008; and (3) Defendants, The Florida Supreme Court, Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis,

Justice Charles T. Wells, Justice Harry Lee Anstead, Justice Barbara J. Pariente, Justice Peggy A.

Quince, Justice Raoul G. Cantero, and Justice Kenneth B. Bell’s (collectively the “Florida Supreme

Court Defendants[’]”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue [D.E. 5], filed on filed on March 26,

2008. The Court has carefully considered the parties’ written submissions, pertinent portions of the

record, and applicable law.

J.A.I.L. 4 Judges is a political action committee “dedicated to re-instating the accountability

of the Florida judiciary.” (Compl. [D.E. 1] at ¶ 3). The organization is currently advocating the

amendment of Article V of the Florida Constitution with “provisions known as ‘The Judicial

Accountability Law.’” (Id. at ¶ 7). The proposed amendments are aimed at creating new procedures

to investigate complaints against judges through “special grand juries,” who “would have the power

subjecting [judges] to criminal proceedings before special trial juries.” (Id. at ¶ 8).

the science of jurisprudence.” Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 494 So. 2d 977, 979 (Fla. 1986).

The Bar publishes The Florida Bar News and The Florida Bar Journal, which it regularly distributes

to its members. (See Compl. at ¶ 9).

activities.” (Id. at ¶¶ 13, 16). J.A.I.L. 4 Judges also alleges the Bar’s activities in opposition to

the Florida Bar News, former Florida Supreme Court Justice Major Harding was quoted stating the

at risk freedoms and liberties we have been so blessed to have.” (See Compl. Exh. A). Another

Florida Bar News article published the same day entitled “Independence panel concerned by threats,”

our eyes open on this and be as informed as we can be.” (See Compl. Exh. B). On January 15, 2007,

an article appeared in the Florida Bar News in which the executive director of the State Bar of South

proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution. (See Compl. Exh. C).

Law. (See Compl. at ¶ 14). J.A.I.L. 4 Judges moved for disqualification of the Justices of the Florida

Supreme Court. (See id.). The Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. (See id.).

facts pleaded as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Quality Foods

de Centro America, S.A. v. Latin American Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A., 711 F.2d 989, 994-95

of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests . . . .’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Nevertheless,

not do . . . .” Id. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). “[A] complaint’s ‘[f]actual allegations must be

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’” Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 974 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1965). “When the

proved, would warrant the relief sought, it is proper to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Davidson

v. Georgia, 622 F.2d 895, 897 (11th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted).

A. “Usurping political power”

and the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. (See Compl. at ¶¶ 22-

[under the Florida Constitution] of regulating attorney admission and discipline . . . .” (Id. at ¶ 22).

. . ,” including Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-23). Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Bar and Supreme

directing Defendants to abide by constitutional restraints. (See id. at ¶ 23).

plaintiff has shown constitutional standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000).

in the federal courts.” ASARCO, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 616 (1989). Furthermore, “‘the injury

interest in the subject.’” Koziara v. City of Casselberry, 392 F.3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2004)

(quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 563).

political power.” (Compl. at ¶ 23). The claim cites the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the

lobbying activities do not appear to be improper. In its Motion, the Bar asserts that in Gibson v. The

Florida Bar, the Eleventh Circuit found that the Bar is constitutionally permitted to engage in certain

political activities. 798 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir. 1986). In Gibson, the plaintiff sued contending “the Bar

to espouse political and ideological positions.” Id. at 1565. The court’s opinion, which only

using the compulsory dues of dissenting members.” Id. at 1569-70. The Bar further cites the Florida

Supreme Court’s decision in The Florida Bar re Schwarz to support its argument. 552 So. 2d 1094

(Fla. 1989). In Schwarz, the Court considered the scope of the Bar’s permissible lobbying, approving

efficacy and efficiency” among other areas. Id. at 1095.

dues. J.A.I.L. 4 Judges contends that this fact distinguishes Gibson entirely. However, Gibson

speak “on any issue.” Moreover, Schwarz pointed to “improvement of the functioning of the courts”

B. The right to petition for redress

“using compulsory dues to endorse or advance a political objective.” (Compl. at ¶¶ 26-28). While

will’ through direct petitions to the legislature and government officials.” McDonald v. Smith, 472

to petition. (See Compl. at ¶ 27). Members of the Bar, however, are not the government, and even

certain political purposes. See Gibson, 798 F.2d at 1564. Plaintiff has failed to identify dissenting

C. Florida Statute Section 106.03

(See Compl. at ¶¶ 37-38). This section requires every political committee as defined by Section

Florida Division of Elections Opinion 87-01. The Bar further notes“‘[t]he construction put on a

statute by the agency charged with administering it is entitled to deference by the courts.’” National

Ass’n of State Utility Consumer Advocates v. F.C.C., 457 F.3d 1238, 1253 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting

S.E.C. v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103, 118 (1978)).

Plaintiff does not seek leave to amend in the event the Motion 1 to Dismiss is granted.

for purposes of venue. (See Response to Florida Supreme Court Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

(1) The Florida Bar’s Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 13] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion

for Temporary Injunction [D.E. 3] is DENIED as to The Florida Bar. All claims against The Florida

Bar are dismissed without prejudice.1

(2) The Florida Supreme Court Defendants’ Motion [D.E. 5] is GRANTED. The Clerk

of Court is hereby directed to TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of May, 2008.

Teach about judiciary, O'Connor urges

Retired justice says public is becoming cynical about courts

By GEORGIA PABST
gpabst@...

Posted: May 7, 2008

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor urged more than 700 members of the legal and business community Wednesday afternoon to help educate the public about the need for an accountable and independent judiciary.

"They're what french fries are to nutrition - fattening, but not helpful," she said. "It's important that the judiciary be completely independent. Unfortunately, three-fourths of Americans are not familiar with this concept."

As a result, the public has become more cynical about the courts and is less likely to believe in a judiciary that's fair and impartial, she said. "Accountability and independence are two sides of the same coin, and judges have to avoid pressures and uphold the law."

She said the judiciary faces attack, such as in South Dakota, where voters considered a "Jail4Judges" measure in which an unsuccessful litigant could file a complaint and judges could be fined or jailed because of their rulings. The measure failed, she said.

A recent survey showed that two-thirds of Americans could name at least one judge on the Fox television show "American Idol," while less than one-tenth could identify the chief justice of the Supreme Court, she said.

To try to build a better understanding of the court system, she said, she's working with Arizona State University and Georgetown University on an interactive program that would show how courts work, who judges are, what they do and why they matter. Students would get to play the role of a judge and be given cases to consider based on the law and Constitution to build understanding and knowledge of the courts and their important roles, she said.

O'Connor lives in Arizona but said she spends July 4 holidays in Wisconsin, fishing near Cable.

She was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1981 by President Reagan and served on the court for 24 years before retiring in 2006.

She was often a decisive swing vote on major legal issues such as abortion and the death penalty.

The review of lawmakers' 2006 financial disclosure statements, by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, suggests that members' holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending. Several members who earned the most from defense contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry, independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million (€2.3 million) in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500 (€372,000).

Overall, 151 members hold investments worth $78.7 million (€50.6 million) to $195.5 million (€125.9 million) in companies that receive defense contracts that are worth at least $5 million (€3.2 million). These investments earned them anywhere between $15.8 million (€10.1 million) and $62 million (€39.9 million) between 2004 and 2006, the center concludes.

It is unclear how many members still hold these investments and exactly how much money has been made. Disclosure reports for 2007 are not due until this May. Also, members are required to report only a general range of their holdings.