Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Oz London, No.33, back cover advertising "A Gala Benefit for the Oz Obscenity Trial" After being turned down by several leading lawyers, Dennis and Anderson secured the services of barrister and writer John Mortimer , QC (creator of the Rumpole of the Bailey series) who was assisted by his Australian-born junior counsel Geoffrey Robertson ...
Schoolkids Oz, which prompted the Oz obscenity trial. In 1971 the editors of Oz were tried for publishing obscene materials, specifically the Schoolkids Oz issue. Oz was an underground magazine with a circulation of 40,000 which aimed to challenge the "older generation's outdated beliefs and standards of behaviour and morality". For its 28th ...
Oz No. 28: the Schoolkids issue. Schoolkids Oz was No. 28 of Oz magazine. The issue was, on a special occasion, edited by 5th- and 6th-form children. It was the subject of a high-profile obscenity case in the United Kingdom from June 1971 to 5 August 1971, [1] the longest trial under the 1959 Obscene Publications Act.
A 55-year-old Prineville woman was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay millions of dollars in restitution for Medicaid and tax fraud.
Oz, who has been criticized for promoting false and misleading claims about health and science, is Trump's pick to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Trump picks TV's 'Dr. Oz' to ...
What changes could Medicare and Medicaid see if Dr. Oz is confirmed to run two of the most ... Medicare Advantage plans have consistently overbilled Medicare and denied routine care for patients
A cartoon of Rupert superimposed on a Robert Crumb drawing, showing the bear in a sexual situation, was a notable part of the notorious edition of the British underground magazine Oz guest-edited by schoolkids. Subsequently, the adult editors and publishers of the magazine were prosecuted in a high-profile obscenity trial at the Old Bailey in ...
Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2009) [2] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.