On March 1, 2008, Colombian military forces launched a cross-border airstrike and ground operation into Ecuador to attack a jungle encampment occupied by high ranking members of the Colombian guerrilla army known as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The specific target of the air attack was Luis Edgar Devia Silva, aka Raul Reyes, the FARC’s number two in command and one of Latin America’s longest enduring guerrilla leaders. Reyes and several cohorts were killed. The Colombian forces retrieved Reyes’ body and forensic evidence, including his laptop computer, and retreated back across the frontier, leaving the Ecuadorian military to deal with the aftermath and attend to a lone survivor.

The raid sparked a regional crisis that resulted in Ecuadorian and Venezuelan military mobilizations along their borders with Colombia. Colombia’s President, Alvaro Uribe, justified the incursion into Ecuadorian territory as an operation of "hot pursuit," an international legal doctrine that allows a nation to give chase across an international frontier in order to capture a rebel force attempting to escape to safe haven in a neighboring country. The justification quickly unraveled, however, when evidence of the actual attack indicated that those in the FARC camp were in bed sleeping at the time of the airstrike on the site, and that the force that went into Colombia on the ground was a clean-up operation rather than an offensive operation.

Although the crisis was resolved two weeks later at a Latin American summit, issues remain over international law doctrines such as hot pursuit, preemptive and anticipatory self defense, and use of the Bush Doctrine by other nations for purposes of crossing into another country’s territory to pursue combatants involved in an internal armed conflict. This article examines the international law issues surrounding Colombia’s actions and its justifications in the face of harsh international reactions.

The rule of law in Latin America is under great stress due to ongoing internal armed conflict, the proliferation of criminal gangs and international crime organizations, the presence of international terrorist cells in the region, government corruption, citizens’ loss of faith in their governments, and other social and political factors all conspire to cast the Latin American world into a region of transborder conflict, lawlessness, and long term political and social instability.

This article examines the impact on the rule of law in Latin America from internal armed conflict and its attendant terrorism and human rights violations committed by state and non-state actors, and what steps must be undertaken to stabilize the region, reform vital government and legal institutions, and reaffirm that protection of human rights and respect for the rule of law are paramount to long-term development and regional security.

Colombia has been among the Latin American states to have an accusatory criminal justice system imposed upon its judiciary by the United States. But the exportation of the Anglo-American accusatory system to supplant the centuries-old inquisitorial system has not achieved the intended results, such that now a confusing and disorganized hybrid system is in place that creates far more problems than the transition was meant to resolve. This article presents a critical look at the reform agenda Colombia was forced into accepting and explains why the Colombian judiciary and criminal justice system remain inefficient and in significant disarray.

Currently, a vital debate has the country split in two - a debate that tears at the very fabric of America's tradition and culture: how should the IRS tax the catcher of a record-setting baseball? This question has raised the ire of Congress, confounded the IRS, and riled up tax geeks across the country. There are two prevalent conflicting views on the proper tax treatment when someone catches a record-setting baseball and does not immediately return it. The view that comports with the tax code requires the taxpayer to recognize gain on the record-setting ball, for its fair market value, in the year the taxpayer acquires undisputed possession. The taxpayer-friendly view is to allow the taxpayer to defer tax on the record-setting ball until (and only if) the taxpayer sells it.

Aside from the fact that this issue involves taxing America's pastime, taxing record-setting baseballs is important for two reasons. First, the principles behind taxing record-setting baseballs apply to all found property. Second, taxing record-setting baseballs is highly publicized, perhaps more than any other taxation issue. This issue reaches mainstream America and is largely on a level that the average taxpayer can comprehend. Thus, taxing record-setting baseballs is incredibly important for the IRS to maintain and manage taxpayer morale.

This Article begins in Part I with an overview of relevant income taxation fundamentals, focusing primarily on accession to wealth and realization of income. Part II discusses the potential tax consequences of catching a record-setting baseball. The discussion begins with the comparatively straightforward scenario whereby the person who catches the record-setting ball (the "catcher") returns it to the club or batter. The discussion then turns to the two primary taxation theories implicated when the catcher does not immediately return the ball: ignore the treasure trove regulation and tax only upon sale, or tax immediately because the ball is an accession to wealth and thus realized income. Additionally, this part will conclude by looking at several variations that could have significantly different tax consequences. Part III discusses the tax implications of destroying a record-setting ball. Part IV concludes with a proposed solution: tax the catcher of the record-setting ball immediately on the retail price of the baseball, then treat the increase in value as unrealized gain, and tax the catcher on that gain if the catcher sells the ball.

The U.S. child welfare and foster care systems have both received considerable criticism. These criticisms include, for example, that 'if a child survives foster care, it's not because of the system, it's despite the system and if the nation had deliberately designed a system that would... abandon the children who depend on it, it could not have done a better job than the present child welfare system.

This article argues that Florida's ban on lesbi-gay adoption is inconsistent with ASFA (Adoption and Safe Families Act). Excluding lesbian and gay individuals from eligibility to adopt children directly conflicts with ASFA's mandate to quickly find safe, permanent homes for children in foster care. Repealing the law that bans lesbi-gay adoption would help Florida meet ASFA's goal by increasing the number of potential adoptive parents and, therefore, the likelihood of finding permanent homes for children. Following this Introduction, Part II give a cursory overview of the history and development of foster care and adoption in the United States and Florida, and then briefly highlights the history, policies, and rationales behind AFSA. Part III argues that repealing the ban on lesbi-gay adoption is consistent with ASFA. Part III then addresses the validity of arguments against repealing the adoption ban. Finally, Part IV recommends that Florida repeal its statute banning gays and lesbians from adopting children and discusses why alternatives other than repealing the ban will not work.

United States immigration and deportation policy is broken with regard to the removal of violent youth gang members from the United States to their nations of origin. The result is that Central America is quickly becoming a lawless region of our hemisphere as gangs known as Mara Salvatrucha (collectively mareros) struggle among themselves and against weak and failing governments to gain control of vast territory and resources in which to carry out criminal conspiracies and terrorist activities that threaten the national and regional security throughout the Americas.

This article examines the origins of marero gangs, the policies in the United States and Central American states to cope with the growth of the mareros, and the implications of what may realistically occur if the gangs are allowed to continue growing and spreading lawlessness throughout regions of the Americas critical to United States interests in the hemisphere.

In "'Love Don't Live Here Anymore': Economic Incentives for a More Equitable Model of Urban Redevelopment", I explore the legal and practical avenues through which equitable urban redevelopment plans can be constructed and interest convergence achieved. In this process, I continue to explore what a redefinition of public purpose would mean for the implementation of urban renewal plans and judges' review of conflicts arising in these contexts. In addition, I argue that intangible contributions made by pre-redevelopment community residents to the redeveloped communities must be preserved and computed in the type of just compensation awarded to homeowners, as well in the type of amenities provided for low-income renters in the post-renewal community. The computation of intangible contributions of poor community members to the redeveloped communities would adequately acknowledge the role that the pre-redevelopment residents' social capital plays in increasing the value of the community. The role of social capital in increasing the value of communities is discussed in this article when discussing the proposed redefinition of public purpose. Furthermore, I borrow from international law's recognition of indigenous populations' right to return to their homeland, as well as the now established standards of environmental justice, to further support the basis for expanding the definition of public purpose to prevent the displacement of poor residents.

Part I of the article discusses conventional notions of public purpose and explores incentives that local governments have traditionally offered to attract private developers. In Part I, I also propose a redefinition of public purpose that takes into account the intangible contributions and value of the residents/indigenous people of pre-redeveloped communities. Part II investigates the possibilities of a more egalitarian model of urban redevelopment by applying the Interest Convergence Theory to urban renewal plans. Part III proposes such an egalitarian redevelopment model using redevelopment plans in New Orleans post-Hurricane Katrina as well as other cities as promising examples.