Russia reduces charges against Greenpeace activists over Arctic protest

1 of 3. Greenpeace International activist Dimitri Litvinov, one of the ''Arctic 30'' detained on piracy charges, attends his bail hearing at the Regional Court of Murmansk October 23, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Igor Podgorny/Greenpeace/Handout via Reuters

By Steve Gutterman

MOSCOW | Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:39pm EDT

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia on Wednesday dropped piracy charges against 30 people involved in a Greenpeace protest against Arctic oil drilling, replacing them with lesser offences and cutting the maximum jail sentence they face to seven years from 15.

The charges against activists who protested at a Gazprom oil platform off Russia's northern coast last month have been changed from piracy to hooliganism, the federal Investigative Committee said in a statement.

Greenpeace said the new charges were still "wildly disproportionate" and promised to contest them.

All 30 people who were aboard the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise during the September 18 protest, in which activists tried to scale the Prirazlomnaya platform, are being held in detention in the northern Murmansk region until at least late November.

The Investigative Committee said it had begun the procedure of pressing the new charges, which carry a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. The piracy charges were punishable by 10 to 15 years.

Greenpeace called the hooliganism charge "nothing less than an assault on the very principle of peaceful protest".

"This is still a wildly disproportionate charge that carries up to seven years in jail," Vladimir Chuprov of Greenpeace Russia said in a statement.

"We will contest the trumped up charge of hooliganism as strongly as we contested the piracy allegations. They are both fantasy charges that bear no relation to reality," he said. "The (activists) are no more hooligans than they were pirates."

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the activists were clearly not pirates but that they violated international law.

MORE CHARGES POSSIBLE

The Investigative Committee dismissed Greenpeace's claim that the protest was peaceful, saying "anyone who illegally and premeditatedly seizes ... a stationary platform is committing a crime, no matter what their motive".

The committee said the investigation was continuing and reiterated an earlier statement that it could still bring additional severe charges against some of the activists, including the use of force against representatives of the state.

Courts in the Russian city of Murmansk have denied bail to the people of 18 different nationalities who were detained - 28 activists, including the crew of the Arctic Sunrise, and two freelance journalists who were documenting the protests.

Greenpeace has said the arrests and charges are meant to frighten off campaigners protesting against drilling in the Arctic, a region Putin describes as crucial to Russia's economic future and its security.

Moscow says the environmental protesters violated a security zone around Prirazlomnaya, which is Russia's first offshore oil platform in the Arctic and is scheduled to begin production by the end of the year after delays.

The United States believes "the purpose and nature of the actions taken by the defendants in attempting a peaceful protest should be fully taken into account as the Russian investigation proceeds," U.S. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said.

"We are going to continue monitoring it closely," she said at a daily briefing. The captain of the Dutch-registered Arctic Sunrise and another activist are American, and Harf said U.S. diplomats had visited both of them since their detention.

Earlier on Wednesday, Russia said it would not take part in a case filed with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in which the Dutch government is seeking the release of the activists pending trial.

(Additional reporting by Lesley Wroughton in Washington; Writing by Steve Gutterman; Editing by Alison Williams and Tom Pfeiffer)

View the original article here

Humorous docu-vid makes strong case against 'artificially' low speed limits

Road safety is not to be taken lightly. Each year, thousands die on American roads, with driver error as a leading cause. Throughout motorized history, one of the prime ways used to curb deaths has been through speed limits. But are today's speed limits too low? We see both sides of the argument, even though we yearn to live in a world where we can go as fast we want (we hear that place is called "Germany"). More importantly, are speed limits set intentionally low so that – *gasp* – municipalities can make money off of ticket revenue?

This video, by Six 7 Films, doesn't advocate for a world without speed limits. Rather, the Vancouver-based film takes a hard look at what it calls artificially low speed limits that exist for no other reason than to line the pockets of insurance companies, governments and fuel media hand-wringers. It also suggests that roads might actually be safer if people were moving a bit more quickly. The spot isn't all doom-and-gloom seriousness, though, as it features a few entertaining pop culture references from Super Troopers, Back To The Future and The Simpsons. Even the inimitable George Carlin makes an appearance. Take a look below at the video, and the let us know what you think about the state of speed limits in Comments.

View the original article here

Michael Vick says he’s fine after late injury against Chiefs

Posted by Curtis Crabtree on September 20, 2013, 1:13 AM EDT

Getty Images

Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick looked to suffer an injury on the final offensive play of the game against the Kansas City Chiefs Thursday night.

Vick was sacked by Chiefs’ linebacker Justin Houston and fumbled to give possession back to the Chiefs so they could run out the clock. Vick was also shaken up late in last week’s loss to the San Diego Chargers but returned to finish that game as well.

According to Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Vick said after the game he was OK and didn’t appear to be limping in the locker room. Vick said he rolled both of his ankles, via Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post.

Vick struggled against the Chiefs as the Eagles’ offense strains to find consistency. Vick did run for 95 yards in the game but he completed just 13 of 30 passes and threw two interceptions. He was also sacked five times, 4.5 sacks coming at the hands of Houston.

Tweet Email

View the original article here

Humorous docu-vid makes strong case against 'artificially' low speed limits

Road safety is not to be taken lightly. Each year, thousands die on American roads, with driver error as a leading cause. Throughout motorized history, one of the prime ways used to curb deaths has been through speed limits. But are today's speed limits too low? We see both sides of the argument, even though we yearn to live in a world where we can go as fast we want (we hear that place is called "Germany"). More importantly, are speed limits set intentionally low so that – *gasp* – municipalities can make money off of ticket revenue?

This video, by Six 7 Films, doesn't advocate for a world without speed limits. Rather, the Vancouver-based film takes a hard look at what it calls artificially low speed limits that exist for no other reason than to line the pockets of insurance companies, governments and fuel media hand-wringers. It also suggests that roads might actually be safer if people were moving a bit more quickly. The spot isn't all doom-and-gloom seriousness, though, as it features a few entertaining pop culture references from Super Troopers, Back To The Future and The Simpsons. Even the inimitable George Carlin makes an appearance. Take a look below at the video, and the let us know what you think about the state of speed limits in Comments.

View the original article here

Claims Against Lawyer Proceed in Long Fight Over Film Rights

Redirecting. Click Here to view the article

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Circuit Finds Blogger Issued 'True Threat' Against Judges

Redirecting. Click Here to view the article

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Trial Opens in Suit Against Electronic Arts Over 'Madden NFL' Royalties

Redirecting. Click Here to view the article

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Whistleblower Suit Against Novartis Proceeds

Redirecting. Click Here to view the article

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Google's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against Apple

Google's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against AppleGet the lowest prices anywhere on Macs and iPads with exclusive coupons: Apple Price Guide updated May 25th. (Get the lowest prices anywhere) HomeReviewsBackpagePrice GuidesNew MacsMacs with AppleCarePrevious MacsiPadsApple Wireless DevicesBid on New & Used Apple ProductsFollow UsTwitterFacebookGoogle+RSS Feeds & QriusiPhone AppTip UsSend us a tiptip us anonymouslyContact us by e-mailForumsAAPL: 445.15 ( +3.01 )Never miss an update Follow AppleInsiderFollow @AppleInsider –A+
Friday, May 24, 2013, 07:08 pm

Google's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against AppleBy Mikey Campbell

Motorola has given notice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it will be contesting the International Trade Commission's dismissal of a case against Apple, the second time the now Google-owned company has filed an appeal tied to that investigation.


The appeals notice, uncovered by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller after recently being made public, is in regard to an ITC decision to throw out a case against Apple after finding six Motorola patents-in-suit invalid.

In its dismissal, which was filed a month ago, the trade body found Motorola's last standing patent, a property for an infrared proximity sensor, invalid. The company was asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 for a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device," which covers a system that ignores errant screen touches during a phone call.

As noted by Mueller, Google's latest appeal is the second such action for the ITC investigation. The first came in November 2012, which questioned a decision that cleared Apple of infringing on three patents. The contention from Google resulted in a review of the findings, and that appeal has yet to be resolved.

Mueller pointed out that Apple may want to combine the two appeals, thus saving court resources, but the tactic is likely to fail due to the long span between Google's filings.

Motorola's Second Appeal of ITC Dismissal by Mikey Campbell

Tags:patentsMotorolaGoogleJump to comments (17)Categories:General(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));Tweet!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); On Topic: patentsGoogle's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against AppleApple granted patents on push-to-talk, double-sided touch panelApple invention adjusts audio based on a display's orientation, user positioningApple investigating advanced AirPlay system with device-specific UIsSamsung Galaxy S4 & Google Now accused of violating Apple patents for SiriToday's' HeadlinesNo news headlines yet todayRelated ArticlesITC throws out Motorola patent suit against AppleITC to review decision that cleared Apple of infringing on Motorola patentsApple cleared of infringing Motorola patents, avoids U.S. import banApple cleared of infringing on Motorola patent in ITC caseGoogle cites quote from Steve Jobs biography in attempt to win iPhone import banPrevious Comments View Alljohn.b2013/05/24 07:39pm

Clearly, holding a phone against the side of your face was a new and unique idea that had never been thought of prior to this patent...

?

?

Though I'm not really sure why Apple would want to combine Motogoogle's appeals.

frood2013/05/24 08:23pm

Hooray!?? Seeing?more or less trivial patents invalidated never gets old.? The new digital age is less about inventions and more about obstruction.?? Only 939488583738292 more patents related to 'touching' 'shaping' 'looking at' and 'methods for performing "an operation" on a list' to go and maybe our court system can start working on legitimate stuff

ericthehalfbee2013/05/24 08:29pm

Waiting for GG to claim Google never initiates anything.

starbird732013/05/24 08:46pm

Court to Google/Motorola: You lose.

?

Google/Motorola: But, no, we don't.

?

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, you do.

?

Google/Motorola: But, but, no, we don't.

?

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, yes you do.

jungmark2013/05/25 12:51am

Do no evil, google.

applesauce0072013/05/25 07:04am

Three strikes and they're out...

suddenly newton2013/05/25 11:09am

LOL More reporting of court paperwork as 'news.'

ankleskater2013/05/25 11:17am

Quote:Originally Posted by starbird73?

Court to Google/Motorola: You lose.

?

Google/Motorola: But, no, we don't.

?

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, you do.

?

Google/Motorola: But, but, no, we don't.

?

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, yes you do.

How is that different from what virtually every company does? Appealing is a legal option and most companies, including those you worship, employ that option liberally, frequently and almost automatically. It's absurd, ridiculous, ignorant, hypocritical and unintelligent to mock any company for appealing.

?

Quote:Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee?

Waiting for GG to claim Google never initiates anything.

This is a fair comment (about Google, not about GG - that part I couldn't care less about). Motorola is part of Google now, and Google did once declare a non-aggression policy on patents. Whether one agrees with Apple's legal actions, their objective is quite clear. This is not true of Google.

ankleskater2013/05/25 11:19am

Quote:Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton?

LOL More reporting of court paperwork as 'news.'

?LOL. More people reading and mocking it. Yet the joke is clearly, squarely on the mocking reader.

jessi2013/05/25 11:25am

I'm glad to see that Patent Troll Google has lost again, but let's not assume that this is a trivial patent simply because the people describing it do so in simple terms.

Multi-touch is a very sophisticated technology, never seen before (despite the claims from idiots who don't know how it works and who always bring up systems working on a different method, such as pushing two wires tougher as if they were "prior art".) ... and deserves to be protected.

Most of these "trivial" patents are not actually trivial. And getting them tried in court IS the way the patent system was designed.

The idea that there's a problem here is asinine-- the only problem is that innovators like Apple can't get timely resolution to these violations, while companies like google skate by.

But it's embarrassing that people would claim that patents stifle innovation-- patents ARE innovation, and the people being "stifled" weren't being innovative, they were being copycats.

If these patents really are trivial they don't stand up in court.

View all commentsLogin to Comment

Have an opinion? Sign Up to share it.

Latest Apple HeadlinesEditorial: Apple's iOS 7 needs exclusive, distinctive features, not just a flat UI~21 hours agoiPad shipments could see first ever year-on-year decline in Q2, analyst says~2 days agoGoogle's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against Apple~2 days agoiPhone urinalysis app draws scrutiny from FDA~2 days agoSouth Australia's first Apple Store draws line hours ahead of opening [update: photos and video]~2 days agomore...

Want to write for AppleInsider? Submit your application now! Lowest Prices Anywhere!ModelPriceYou Save Core i5 MacBook Pros w/ Retina 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/128GB $1,406.48 $292.52 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/256GB $1,479.99 $519.01 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/512GB $1,699.99 $799.01 Core i7 MacBook Pros w/ Retina 13" 2.9GHz/8GB/256GB $1,599.99 $599.01 13" 2.9GHz/8GB/512GB $1,799.99 $899.01 15" 2.3GHz/8GB/256GB $1,899.99 $299.01 15" 2.6GHz/8GB/512GB $2,299.99 $568.01 15" 2.7GHz/16GB/768GB $2,699.99 $499.01 More configurations
Active Forum Topics

76

iPad shipments could see first ever year-on-year decline in Q2, analyst says

38

Editorial: Apple's iOS 7 needs exclusive, distinctive features, not just a flat UI

20

Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decades

20

Haswell chips could bring 50% more battery life to Apple's next-gen MacBooks

14

iPhone urinalysis app draws scrutiny from FDAmore... Model WhiteBlack iPad mini (WiFi only) 16GB WiFi $329.99$329.99 32GB WiFi $429.99 $429.99 64GB WiFi $529.99 $529.99 iPad mini (WiFi + 4G)   16GB 4G White $459.99 $459.99 $459.99 32GB 4G White $559.99 $559.99 $559.99 64GB 4G White $659.99 $659.99 $659.99 16GB 4G Black $459.99 $459.99 $459.99 32GB 4G Black $559.99 $559.99 $559.99 64GB 4G Black $659.99 $659.99 $659.99 See more iPad models in our Price GuidesReviewsHot TopicsGeneralGoogleiPhoneTaxesiOSiPadpatentsappsTim CookApp StoreAndroidMapsApple StoreYahooSamsung
Top of pageCopyright ? 2013, AppleInsider.com, Contact UsPrivacy PolicyAdvertise on AppleInsiderDesign: gesamtbild

View the original article here

Cyber security poses ongoing threat to Canadians: CGI clients leverage local and global security expertise to protect against escalating risk

CGI Group Inc. (TSX: GIB.A) (NYSE: GIB), a leading provider of information technology and business process services, today announced the consolidation of its security expertise and offerings in response to the rapidly increasing risk security threats pose to Canadian business by establishing a Security Centre of Excellence, located in Ottawa, Ontario. The Security Centre of Excellence comprises over 200 security professionals, a 24/7/365 Security Operations Centre and one of three accredited security evaluation test centres in Canada.

Working closely with CGI’s UK and US security experts, this move unifies CGI’s security practice in Canada, creating a focal point for all of CGI’s national and local security services. The centre will provide CGI’s private and public sector clients with full access to all of CGI’s security capabilities and deep expertise no matter where they are in Canada. The centre also creates a unified point for CGI’s multi-national security teams to support Canadian companies and Canadian interests, in Canada and abroad.

“Our clients are well supported locally, while being confident that CGI has the international expertise to stay ahead of the global nature of cyber threats,” said Dominique Gagnon, Vice-President, Security Services, CGI. “With over 200 security experts in Canada, many with the highest level security clearance, it’s our view that well executed security practices are a business enabler for our clients. There is no doubt that our ability to anticipate and combat cyber threats is closely linked to peace of mind and profitability for our clients.”

"CGI has been a trusted partner to the Canadian Payments Association for over 20 years and we value the knowledge and expertise that CGI's security team provides,” said Nora Cox Director, Corporate Risk and Security at Canadian Payments Association. “Millions of financial transactions are made by Canadians every day and they rely on the CPA to ensure that the over $170 billion dollars a day that are cleared through our systems do so safely and securely so Canada can do business.”

“The number, frequency and sophistication of these cyber incidents are truly staggering, and they are unquestionably on the rise,” said John Proctor, Director, Cyber Security, CGI. “For example, CGI’s Security Operations Centre, at the heart of the Centre of Excellence, protects some of Canada’s largest corporations and deals with roughly 45 million potential cyber events per week, every week.”

With the cost of cyber attacks growing to $1.4B in 2012 in Canada, clients are facing unprecedented risk not only to their bottom line, but also to their reputation. As part of the Security Centre of Excellence, CGI will continue to provide Security services, testing, managed services and training for clients.

About CGI
Founded in 1976, CGI Group Inc. is the fifth largest independent information technology and business process services firm in the world. With approximately 71,000 members located in offices and global delivery centers in the Americas, Europe and Asia Pacific, CGI offers a comprehensive portfolio of services including high-end business and IT consulting, systems integration, application development and maintenance, infrastructure management as well as a wide range of proprietary solutions. Further to the recent acquisition of Logica, CGI’s annualized revenue is in excess of C$10 billion, with an estimated order backlog of approximately C$18.3 billion; its shares are listed on the TSX (GIB.A) and the NYSE (GIB) and are included in the FTSE4Good Index. Website: www.cgi.com.

Investors
Lorne Gorber
Senior Vice-President, Global Communications and Investor Relations
lorne.gorber@cgi.com 
514 841-3355

Media
Carolyn Rouse
Director, Communications>
carolyn.rouse@cgi.com>
416 304-7323

View the original article here

Kenyan Panel Warns Against Nullifying Election

Kenya’s Supreme Court, which was recently overhauled through the passage of a new Constitution, has been asked to play referee in the disputed election, in which Uhuru Kenyatta, son of Kenya’s first president, was declared the winner this month. Mr. Kenyatta beat Prime Minister Raila Odinga in the first round of voting and averted a runoff, clearing the majority threshold by a wafer-thin margin of less than one-tenth of a percent.

On Thursday, Ahmednasir Abdullahi, a lawyer for Kenya’s election chairman, told the court that “in every election, votes get stolen.”

He then played down video images that appeared to show vote rigging, saying they were fraudulent, produced in a notorious, crime-ridden neighborhood of Nairobi. And he warned the Supreme Court that “there would be an enormous constitutional crisis” if the justices deemed the election invalid and called for a new one.

All eyes in Kenya are on the five men and one woman who sit on the Supreme Court, which is now widely considered one of the most professional and trusted public institutions in a country with a long history of corruption.

But that did not stop Mr. Kenyatta, the president-elect, from making a disparaging remark about the justices. On Wednesday, he was filmed at a meeting with political allies, offhandedly saying he was ready to start his job “once some six people decide something or other.”

On Thursday, he apologized via a Facebook message, saying, “My informality may be interpreted as disrespect for the court, and that is not the case.”

Kenyan voters streamed to the polls on March 4 in the first presidential election since 2007. In that contest, Mr. Odinga asserted that the presidency had been stolen from him through electoral fraud, stirring longstanding ethnic grievances and leading to clashes that killed more than 1,000 people.

Since then, Kenya has overhauled some of its public institutions — including the Supreme Court and the election commission — but ethnic identity remains a stubborn undercurrent of political life. Ethnicity has even come up in the choice of lawyers in this landmark election case, as lamented by letters to the editor on Thursday in the newspaper Daily Nation.

Mr. Odinga, the second-place finisher in the election, chose a lawyer from his Luo ethnic group; Mr. Kenyatta put his case in the hands of a lawyer from his Kikuyu ethnic group; William Ruto, Mr. Kenyatta’s running mate, picked a Kalenjin lawyer from his ethnic group; and even the election chairman, Isaack Hassan, selected a fellow Somali-Kenyan to represent him.

“We may need the intervention of psychologists,” said the first letter to the editor.

“It’s a big shame and a pity,” said another.

Mr. Odinga’s lawyers and several nonprofit groups have claimed that there was a conspiracy to pad the vote for Mr. Kenyatta, whose ethnic group has dominated much of politics and economics since Kenya’s independence in 1963. On Wednesday, they presented videotaped evidence that appeared to show that election results certified by the election commission differed from those announced at local tallying centers, giving Mr. Kenyatta an extra edge of several thousand votes, just enough to clear the 50 percent bar and be declared the winner.

“It would be a sad day if these grave irregularities can be ignored,” said George Oraro, Mr. Odinga’s lawyer.

But the election commission then presented a multifanged defense, citing case law from Uganda to India — even mentioning Bush v. Gore from the 2000 election in the United States — and urging the Supreme Court to consider the consequences of nullifying the results.

“Don’t crucify our nascent institutions,” said Lucy Kambuni, a lawyer for the election commission. “I ask you to be consequentialists.”

The Supreme Court basically has three options: uphold Mr. Kenyatta’s win; call for a runoff between Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Odinga; or call for a whole new election.

Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, a former human rights lawyer who presides from the bench with an iPad, has said that the court will decide by Saturday.

View the original article here

Kenyan Panel Warns Against Nullifying Election

Kenya’s Supreme Court, which was recently overhauled through the passage of a new Constitution, has been asked to play referee in the disputed election, in which Uhuru Kenyatta, son of Kenya’s first president, was declared the winner this month. Mr. Kenyatta beat Prime Minister Raila Odinga in the first round of voting and averted a runoff, clearing the majority threshold by a wafer-thin margin of less than one-tenth of a percent.

On Thursday, Ahmednasir Abdullahi, a lawyer for Kenya’s election chairman, told the court that “in every election, votes get stolen.”

He then played down video images that appeared to show vote rigging, saying they were fraudulent, produced in a notorious, crime-ridden neighborhood of Nairobi. And he warned the Supreme Court that “there would be an enormous constitutional crisis” if the justices deemed the election invalid and called for a new one.

All eyes in Kenya are on the five men and one woman who sit on the Supreme Court, which is now widely considered one of the most professional and trusted public institutions in a country with a long history of corruption.

But that did not stop Mr. Kenyatta, the president-elect, from making a disparaging remark about the justices. On Wednesday, he was filmed at a meeting with political allies, offhandedly saying he was ready to start his job “once some six people decide something or other.”

On Thursday, he apologized via a Facebook message, saying, “My informality may be interpreted as disrespect for the court, and that is not the case.”

Kenyan voters streamed to the polls on March 4 in the first presidential election since 2007. In that contest, Mr. Odinga asserted that the presidency had been stolen from him through electoral fraud, stirring longstanding ethnic grievances and leading to clashes that killed more than 1,000 people.

Since then, Kenya has overhauled some of its public institutions — including the Supreme Court and the election commission — but ethnic identity remains a stubborn undercurrent of political life. Ethnicity has even come up in the choice of lawyers in this landmark election case, as lamented by letters to the editor on Thursday in the newspaper Daily Nation.

Mr. Odinga, the second-place finisher in the election, chose a lawyer from his Luo ethnic group; Mr. Kenyatta put his case in the hands of a lawyer from his Kikuyu ethnic group; William Ruto, Mr. Kenyatta’s running mate, picked a Kalenjin lawyer from his ethnic group; and even the election chairman, Isaack Hassan, selected a fellow Somali-Kenyan to represent him.

“We may need the intervention of psychologists,” said the first letter to the editor.

“It’s a big shame and a pity,” said another.

Mr. Odinga’s lawyers and several nonprofit groups have claimed that there was a conspiracy to pad the vote for Mr. Kenyatta, whose ethnic group has dominated much of politics and economics since Kenya’s independence in 1963. On Wednesday, they presented videotaped evidence that appeared to show that election results certified by the election commission differed from those announced at local tallying centers, giving Mr. Kenyatta an extra edge of several thousand votes, just enough to clear the 50 percent bar and be declared the winner.

“It would be a sad day if these grave irregularities can be ignored,” said George Oraro, Mr. Odinga’s lawyer.

But the election commission then presented a multifanged defense, citing case law from Uganda to India — even mentioning Bush v. Gore from the 2000 election in the United States — and urging the Supreme Court to consider the consequences of nullifying the results.

“Don’t crucify our nascent institutions,” said Lucy Kambuni, a lawyer for the election commission. “I ask you to be consequentialists.”

The Supreme Court basically has three options: uphold Mr. Kenyatta’s win; call for a runoff between Mr. Kenyatta and Mr. Odinga; or call for a whole new election.

Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, a former human rights lawyer who presides from the bench with an iPad, has said that the court will decide by Saturday.

View the original article here