The defender signed a new six-year contract in 2017, but has been sent on loan to the Toffees, though he is not giving up

Kurt Zouma is confident his Chelsea career is not over despite being sent on another season-long loan to Everton.

The French defender, 23, signed for Chelsea in 2014 and had established himself as a regular in their team before suffering a serious knee injury in 2016.

Click Here: new zealand rugby team jerseys

He made just three Premier League starts in the following campaign and spent all of last season on loan with Stoke City before agreeing to join Everton for this term.

Zouma only signed a new six-year deal with his parent club in 2017 and is determined to force his way back into the Chelsea first team when he returns to Stamford Bridge.

“I will go back, yes,” he told reporters.

“I have always believed in myself since I started playing football at 16. I have always wanted to show myself at Chelsea since I have been there.

“I know my injuries stopped me in the way I wanted to play but injuries are part of football and I want to show people I can come back and play there. That’s why I need some game time at Everton here because they are a good team.”

Zouma also revealed he was the one who had asked Chelsea boss Maurizio Sarri for another loan spell away because he expected to have limited opportunities.

“The manager arrived late and we didn’t know what was the plan of the club,” he added.

“At Chelsea there were a lot of defenders. I knew I needed to play regularly so I didn’t want to stay on the bench and wait for my chance after two or three months, so that’s why I wanted to go.

“I spoke with the manager and he agreed with me. I knew at Chelsea they had five central defenders already. He plays with four at the back, so there are only two who play. I didn’t want to wait and he completely agreed.”

The Arsenal star played alongside the Juventus forward at Real Madrid, with the pair striking up a productive partnership at the Santiago Bernabeu

Mesut Ozil admits he has “never seen a person like” Cristiano Ronaldo, with the Arsenal star crediting his former Real Madrid team-mate with making him a better player.

The pair spent three years together at the Santiago Bernabeu, with La Liga and Copa del Rey glory savoured during their period.

Click Here: Cheap Chiefs Rugby Jersey 2019

Ozil proved to be a regular source of assists for Ronaldo, with a standing secured as one of the finest playmakers in world football before the German headed for England in 2013.

The 29-year-old is now a World Cup winner, while his former colleague is a five-time Ballon d’Or winner embarking on a new challenge at Serie A champions Juventus.

Ozil still considers Ronaldo to be the finest player on the planet, telling Arsenal’s official website of his time working with a modern day icon: “Another thing people always ask me about is what it was like to play with Cristiano Ronaldo and all I can say is that I’ve never seen a person like him.

“He works really hard and is the first guy to get into the training ground, then the last one to leave.

“He’s very professional and always wants to win, even in the training games. Of course I was looking at what he was doing, even something as simple as just looking at his shooting technique. 

“I really enjoyed playing with him because he made me better on the pitch and he’s a great guy off it, too. I gave him loads of assists and he doesn’t need me to remind him of that!

“It was easy to play with him because you didn’t need to create a lot of chances. Even if I just gave him two passes, he would score two goals and that’s why he’s one of the greatest footballers who’s ever lived.”

Ronaldo was reported to have been left “angry” by Real’s decision to part with Ozil, telling Portuguese colleagues that the German was “the player who best knew my moves in front of goal”.

He fared admirably enough without a regular source of assists in Madrid, but could do with someone to help him out in Turin as he continues to wait on his first goal for Juventus.

Another opportunity to break that duck is set to present itself on Sunday against Sassuolo.

NEWS MEDIA UPDATE · NINTH CIRCUIT · Confidentiality/Privilege · Jan. 25, 2007

---

Attorneys for jailed blogger file motion for his release

Click Here: All Blacks Rugby Jersey

Video blogger Josh Wolf’s attorneys argued in a new motion this week that Wolf should be released from federal prison since there is “no substantial likelihood” that the confinement will influence him to testify before a grand jury.

Jan. 25, 2007 · Attorneys for Josh Wolf, the California video blogger and self-proclaimed anarchist who has spent more than 150 days in federal prison for contempt of court, have filed a new motion for his release at the trial court level.

The motion asserts that Wolf, who was held in contempt of court last year for refusing to respond to federal grand jury subpoena, should no longer be held in prison since “further incarceration will not compel him to comply with the subpoena.”

Wolf was first jailed for contempt of court Aug. 1 after refusing to testify and declining to turn over a videotape federal officials think might contain footage of crimes committed at a July 2005 anarchist rally. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Wolf.

Wolf’s lawyers appealed the order of contempt and he was granted bail Aug. 31 pending a decision by a panel of appeals court judges. The panel affirmed the contempt order Sept. 8, and Wolf returned to prison later that month. A motion for a hearing in front of the full appeals court was denied.

If Wolf remains behind bars until Feb. 6, he will have spent more time in prison for contempt of court than Vanessa Leggett, the author/journalist who currently holds the dubious record of being the longest-jailed journalist for contempt of court in recent years.

“Despite his tenure in jail, his resolve is stronger than ever,” his attorneys wrote in this most recent motion. “Wolf continues to believe, just as he did six months ago, and indeed a year and a half ago, that journalists should not serve as investigative tools for criminal investigations.”

Since Wolf has refused to testify after more than five months in prison, his attorneys argue, it is clear that further confinement will not convince him to do otherwise.

In the filing, the attorneys also emphasize that all since all underlying criminal charges relating to the rally in question have been dismissed, “the need for Wolf’s testimony has diminished.”

According to James Wheaton, one of Wolf’s attorneys and senior counsel at the First Amendment Project, U.S. District Judge William Alsup could choose to release Wolf based only on these filings. However, Wolf’s attorneys have requested an evidentiary hearing and an oral argument on the issues as well.

Although it is unclear when any hearing might take place, Wheaton said that Alsup has “issued an order requesting any response to our motions be filed by the government by Monday,” he said. “We take this as a sign that judge is viewing this seriously.”

(In re Grand Jury Subpoena; Media Counsel: Martin Garbus, Davis & Gilbert, New York; Amicus Counsel: Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles) — ES

Related stories:

Freelancer Wolf could be jailed until July (11/20/2006)

Video blogger headed back to jail (09/19/2006)

Other links:

Wolf’s motion for release

---

© 2007 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press · Return to: RCFP Home; News Page

· Story link

The United States fell into a four-way tie for 53rd place on a world press freedom index compiled by Reporters Without Borders. The U.S. ranked 17th when the index was first compiled in 2002 but the steady deterioration of media relations with the Bush Administration and the refusal of the federal courts to recognize a reporter’s right to source confidentiality caused a drop in the rating. (10/31/06)

Click Here: Crystal Palace Shop

The editor of a northern California weekly newspaper spent 13 days in jail after he first refused to turn over a letter to the editor and an accompanying envelope to the Mendocino County Superior Court in Ukiah, and later turned over a letter that the judge decided was not the original.

Bruce Anderson, editor of the Anderson Valley Advertiser, was released in early June after his wife and a reporter testified that the letter he surrendered was the original letter to the editor he had received from accused murderer Eugene “Bear” Lincoln.

Anderson attempted to turn over the letter following his first week of incarceration, but Judge James Luther decided the letter was not the original because it was typewritten and Lincoln did not have access to a typewriter in jail.

The judge ordered Anderson to produce the letter in late May after ruling that it was relevant evidence in Lincoln’s murder trial and that only the original could be used as evidence. The judge held that the California shield law did protect Anderson because the letter to the editor already had been published.

The Court of Appeal in San Francisco refused to hear Anderson’s appeal. In late May, the California Supreme Court denied the appeal over the dissent of a single justice.

In an interview after his release, Anderson said he believed that the district attorney wanted to discover his source — the person who had provided him with the letter. Anderson will not reveal how or when he received the letter.

Lincoln is accused of killing a sheriff’s deputy in a shootout on an Indian reservation in April 1995. Lincoln’s trial is scheduled to begin in late August. (People v. Lincoln; Media Counsel: Carl Schapiro, Ukiah)

News Media Update GEORGIA Confidentiality/Privilege

Newspaper wins confidentiality battle over most claims in Jewell suit

A superior court judge in Georgia found that statements published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about former Olympic Park security guard Richard Jewell were not libelous.

June 2, 2004 — All but one of the statements published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about former Olympic Park security guard Richard Jewell are not libelous, a superior court judge in Georgia ruled yesterday, negating the need for the newspaper to disclose its confidential sources.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge John R. Mather held that the newspaper would not be compelled to reveal the sources reporters used for articles about an FBI investigation connecting Jewell with the 1996 bombing during the Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta. Jewell, who has been subsequently cleared of any involvement in the bombing, claimed that the source of the information was necessary to prove his libel case against the newspaper.

The case has a long and tortured history. Jewell sued the Journal-Constitution in 1997 after it reported that he sought publicity for saving lives during the bombing, and that investigators thought he fit the profile of a lone terrorist. Federal authorities have since arrested and charged Eric Robert Rudolph with planting the bomb, which killed one person and wounded 111 others. Rudolph is currently awaiting trial.

In October 2001, the Georgia Court of Appeals dissolved a contempt order issued by Mather in 1999 after two Journal-Constitution reporters failed to reveal the identities of those who informed them that Jewell was a suspect in the bombing. The appeals court held that Mather had failed to properly balance Jewell’s need for the identities of the informants against the newspaper’s interest in protecting the confidentiality of its sources.

“To properly perform this balancing test in a libel case, the trial court must require the plaintiff to specifically identify each and every purported statement he asserts was libelous, determine whether the plaintiff can prove the statements were untrue, taking into account all the other available evidentiary sources, including the plaintiff’s own admissions, and determine whether the statements can be proven false through the use of other evidence, thus eliminating the plaintiff’s necessity for the requested discovery,” the appeals court instructed in its 2001 opinion.

The appellate court also held that Jewell was a public figure who must prove actual malice, defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth of a statement.

Mather will next decide whether to grant the Journal-Constitution ‘s motion to dismiss Jewell’s libel case entirely. Jewell’s remaining libel claim involves a published statement that law enforcement authorities once believed Jewell made a 911 call warning of the bomb.

“We are pleased that the judge has resolved his concerns about the confidential sources issue so that he can now turn to our summary judgment motion, which has been pending since December 1998,” said Peter Canfield, attorney for the Journal-Constitution .

(Jewell v. Cox Enterprises; Media Counsel: Peter Canfield, Atlanta) — KM

Related stories:

Cleared Olympics bombing suspect again seeks journalists’ sources (8/7/2003)
Court reverses contempt charge over source on Jewell allegation (10/11/2001)

---

© 2004 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Return to: RCFP Home; News Page

Click Here: pandora Bracelets

Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the ranking officials on the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Monday promised Congressional hearings to seek more information about the FBI’s improper efforts to access reporters’ phone records.

FBI head Robert Mueller called top editors atThe New York Times and The Washington Post on Friday to apologize for obtaining four reporters’ toll phone records using “exigent circumstances letters” in 2004.All four were stationed in Indonesia and researching Islamic terrorism at the time.

The records listed all calls made and received from the reporters’ phone lines, but did not offer any insight into the content of the phone conversation.

Using the letters allowed the Bureau to bypass grand jury review in emergency cases. The FBI has sincestopping using the letters.

The Bureau has refused to identify the nature or subject of their investigation when the records were requested.Late last week, The Washington Post reported that the letters were accompanied by assurances from FBI agents that they would follow up with subpoenas from a U.S. attorney, but no subpoena was ever issued for the phone records.

Internal Justice Department guidelines demand that requests for news media records involve special rules usually requiring the approval of high-ranking Justice Department officials.Bureau officials said that those procedures were not followed in seeking the reporters’ records.

In a letter to Mueller, the Senators noted that the Free Flow of Information Act of 2008 (S. 2035) includes provisions that would limit the government’s ability to collect the telephone records of reporters.The measure would preclude unilateral use of tactics similar to the “exigent circumstances letters” by requiring judicial review of such requests.

Click Here: Germany Football Shop

· Story link

A U.S. district judge rejected a Justice Department request to subpoena a Jackson Clarion-Ledger reporter in a Mississippi trial of a reputed Ku Klux Klansman for the 1964 attacks on two black youths. The reporter has interviewed the defendant, James Ford Seale, in January, 2000. (6/12/07)

Click Here: cheap nrl jerseys

A New Jersey appeals courton Thursday affirmed a lower court’s ruling that said a libel defendant could not use the reporter’s shield law because not all bloggers are journalists, and the defendant was not engaged in journalism.

The plaintiff, Too Much Media, sued Shellee Hale in New Jersey after she posted comments stating that the company, which works with websites in the adult entertainment industry, was profiting from a security breach in its program.

Like the lower court, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court found that although Hale kept a blog, she was not engaged in newsgathering and dissemination at the time she made the postings — and therefore not protected by the shield law. New Jersey courts have frequently said that not all disseminators are newsgatherers and that although some electronic-only information qualifies as news reporting, not all of it does.

Click Here: kenzo online españa

“Simply put, new media should not be confused with news media. There is, of necessity, a distinction between, on the one hand, personal diaries, opinions, impressions and expressive writing and, on the other hand, news reporting,” the opinion read.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a friend-of-the-court brief with several Maine news organizations in U.S. District Court in Maine, seeking a reaffirmation of a journalist’s right to protect his confidential sources in reporting on the Duke lacrosse case.
In the brief filed in McFadyen& Carrington v. Duke University, the Reporters Committee, Main Press Association, Maine Today Media Inc., Bangor Publishing Co. and Maine Association of Broadcasters argue that a subpoena seeking the notes and correspondence of blogger and author Robert David Johnson be quashed. Johnson has written extensively about the sexual assault allegations against members of the Duke lacrosse team.
Duke is defending itself in North Carolina against claims brought by former lacrosse players, but served the subpoena in Maine, where Johnson lives. A U.S. Magistrate judge upheld Duke’s subpoenas for Johnson’s materials, which included any correspondence with Duke lacrosse player, Duke employee or alumnus; documents related to payments made to Duke lacrosse players and their attorneys; and policies and contractual agreements related to Dr. Johnson’s blog.
“Allowing this decision to stand will have an unsettling impact well beyond this particular discovery dispute,” the brief argued. “It treats the issue of a reporter’s privilege — and therefore the fundamental First Amendment rights of journalists — as an ordinary discovery dispute without consideration of the public’s interest in free and robust reporting of current events.”
“The magistrate’s narrow interpretation of the law and the decision to uphold the subpoena misapplied the precedent for the reporters’ privilege in the First Circuit,” said Gregg P. Leslie, Reporters Committee legal defense director. “Beyond the importance of ensuring that journalists are free to work independently of the judicial process, upholding these subpoenas would have a very real chilling effect on reporting about important controversies.”
The friend-of-the-court brief is posted on the Reporters Committee website.
About the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Founded in 1970, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press offers free legal support to thousands of working journalists and media lawyers each year. It is a leader in the fight against persistent efforts by government officials to impede the release of public information, whether by withholding documents or threatening reporters with jail. In addition to its 24/7 Legal Defense Hotline, the Reporters Committee conducts cutting-edge legal research, publishes handbooks and guides on media law issues, files frequent friend-of-the-court legal briefs and offers challenging fellowships and internships for young lawyers and journalists. For more information, go to www.rcfp.org, or follow us on Twitter @rcfp.