The general counsel for Overstock.com, Inc. testified today in Washington, D.C. at a hearing titled Patent Reform: Protecting American Innovators and Job Creators from Abusive Patent Litigation. Congressman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, invited Mark Griffin, senior vice president and general counsel of Overstock.com, to make a statement before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, today.
The list of counties included in the governor’s declaration are: Caddo, Canadian, Carter, Cleveland, Comanche, Creek, Garvin, Grady, Lincoln, Logan, Love, McClain, Murray, Oklahoma, Osage, Pawnee, Payne, Pontotoc, Rogers, Seminole, Stephens, Tulsa, Wagoner, Washington and Washita.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – At a press conference this morning, Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) will unveil the #CutRedTape Initiative, a new way for families and businesses to communicate with the Senate about how federal regulations impact them.
As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, Lankford and Heitkamp will use this initiative to hear firsthand from families, businesses owners, and workers about the daily impact of federal regulations, and help determine what can be done to make them more effective and efficient.
A former Department of Justice prosecutor, now heading a public-interest watchdog group, filed a RICO-related civil lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton and their lucrative family foundation. The lawsuit filed on March 24 before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleges that the Clintons and their foundation committed criminal violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Opinion: At the inaugural Let’s Talk Tulsa event, during a discussion about homeschooling, one member of the audience revealed that in a Tulsa County public school, their child was given an assignment to try to pick a side on the question of abortion and/or gay marriage, and argue for it without using morality. At the time, I was quite struck and confounded – how would someone even possibly begin to answer such questions without morality.
Usually, though, when someone says, “let’s not talk about morality” or “let’s not include religion in this” or “let’s leave philosophy out,” what it usually means is quite the opposite. It usually means that they have already given you the morality, religion, or philosophy, but you are not allowed to question it. In this case, since the student is supposed to argue for a particular side, they have to have some basis for their claims. That means that they are being restricted to arguing based on the material status of the one party. Focusing on the material status of the acting party isn’t amoral, it is instead substituting a new morality for an old one.