When Walter Samaszko Jr. died at his home in Carson City, Nev., he had $200 in a bank account. But as officials later discovered, Samaszko had about $7 million stored neatly around his home, the Nevada Appeal reported.

In late June, neighbors called authorities because of a smell emanating from Samaszko’s home. He was a recluse who had told them he hated the government and feared getting shots, but still, it had been a while since they had seen him, according to the Appeal.

According to the coroner, Samaszko, 69, had been dead for at least a month. He died of heart problems, the Las Vegas Sun reported.

In came the cleanup crews, which discovered boxes of gold in the garage.

“At that point, we took the house apart,” said Carson City clerk-recorder Alan Glover.

They found gold coins and bullion, tiny dos-pesos, $20 gold pieces, Austrian ducats, Kruggerrands and English Sovereigns dating  to the 1840s – enough gold to fill two wheelbarrows.

Samaszko and his mother had lived in the three-bedroom home since the 1970s, which is around the time they started collecting gold. Glover told the Appeal that the two kept detailed records of the gold they had purchased.


As for who can lay claim to the riches -- Glover said the Internal Revenue Service will take a sizable amount in taxes -- about $750,000 -- and that the rest will likely go to a first cousin, a substitute teacher in San Rafael, Calif., who is Samaszko's only relative as far as authorities can tell.

The Las Vegas Sun reported that Glover's office found her using a list of people who had attended Samaszko's mother's funeral.

Jeffrey Toobin's latest book portrays Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as increasingly cranky and partisan — and infuriated with Chief Justice John Roberts over the court's recent decisions on healthcare and immigration.

Toobin, who writes for The New Yorker and also covers the court for CNN, credits Scalia for a sea change in how both sides of the political spectrum think about the law. But he says the justice's bombast has become off-putting to more even-tempered colleagues.

Toobin's latest book, "The Oath," chronicling the Roberts court and the Obama presidency, is being released today. Here are 5 key takeaways:

Scalia 'furious' over healthcare and immigration

The book confirms previous reports that Roberts changed his vote in the landmark case over President Obama's healthcare law after initially siding with the conservative justices. But Toobin reports — as others have implied — that what pushed Roberts away was the conservative justices' insistence on striking down the entire health law.

"Scalia's view of the justices as gladiators against the president unnerved Roberts," Toobin writes.

The book describes Scalia as "furious" and "enraged" at Roberts — contradicting Scalia's public statements brushing aside any tensions.

Toobin's book says Scalia has become fixated more on politics — and particularly on Obama — than on legal scholarship, saying frustration over the healthcare ruling helped fuel his acerbic statement dissenting from the court's decision on Arizona's immigration law.

"Scalia was indeed unhappy with the immigration decision, but the splenetic excess of his Arizona opinion owed far more to his failure (as yet unknown to the public) in the health care case," the book says.

White House didn't consider State of the Union fallout

Republicans criticized President Obama for disagreeing with the Citizens United ruling in his 2010 State of the Union address. But no one in the White House had even considered the risk of publicly disagreeing with the court.

"During the discussions in Emanuel's office, as well as the president's own prep sessions, the propriety of challenging the Supreme Court had never come up," Toobin writes. "The group was so focused on pushing Obama's agenda that the issue of the justices' presence seems not to have occurred to anyone. The administration's anger about Citizens United was such that (even though no one said this specifically) the Obama team simply regarded the Supreme Court majority as another group of Republicans, deserving no greater deference than GOP senators or congressmen."

In the media this week were several pairs of breasts belonging to the famous and the now infamous-- Adrienne, Kate, Rihanna, Kris-- as if each set was as important as all other critical breaking news on the globe. Apparently in the triage deadline discussions of newsworthiness, these functional, admirable assets of the female physiology trumped all and became suddenly noteworthy when bared, utilized, tattooed or discussed.

It seems the editors across the globe proclaimed, "Go with the boobs!"

In many cases editors decided these women's breasts deserved more coverage -- OK, pun intended -- than the fallout from an irresponsible video leading to widespread violence in Libya and beyond, the upcoming election fight or the Federal Reserve's new economic stimulus plans.

Get a grip. Or, more importantly, let's loosen the grip on our cultural breast obsession. Enough with the boobs.

Adrienne Pine of American University, stirred controversy by soothing a sick toddler during an anthropology lecture by breastfeeding in class. I reserve judgment since I believe mother on mother conflict is a reprehensible habit and one that creates a war on mothers, between mothers and about mothers.

But to the point, I am a university assistant professor and single mother as well. And though I began teaching at Northwestern University when my sons were seven, five, and two (past my personal breastfeeding limits of six to nine months of age per child), I understand completely the panic of a sick child, a canceled babysitter and a classroom of eager students expecting you to teach.

You do the best you can in the circumstances. You make snap decisions in emergencies. And you can't please all parties. I am more modest than Ms. Pine and when circumstance forced me to breastfeed in inconvenient situations -- on an airplane, in a restaurant or a bathroom stall - -I took the blanket approach and completely shrouded half my body and most all of my child's no matter what. But that was also more than 20 years ago and none of us were so liberated.

So if I was in her position, I would have offered my child a bottle or a pacifier. If that didn't work, I likely would have handed out the syllabus, lectured on key points and apologized for having to take a 10-minute break. During that break I would have offered a brief assignment -- write down your key questions or goals for the course in my absence -- and returned to a discussion.

Certainly, I applaud her transparency, candor and humanity. And in her defense, her audience is not small children; they are college students who are most likely all 18 and older, who can vote, smoke cigarettes and go to war. They also have likely watched more bare breasts in television, movies, Girls Gone Wild videos, or real-life spring breaks than could ever be offered from a harried single mother professor at the podium. And I get it that Professor Pine recoiled at the notion of the campus newspaper trying to make her predicament salacious news. On that point, I emailed her my support.

I understand her dilemma -- because as a working mother you are constantly weighing the need to be a good mother and a good professional -- juggling not just plates in the air, but butcher knives in flames.

Her breasts do not need to make news.

In a new book reviewed this week, Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History, author and historian Florence Williams takes an environmental, scientific, historic and cultural view of breasts. Her book is a decidedly more intelligent, insightful and meaningful look at the female body than Naomi Wolf dares in her tell-all orgasm tome, Vagina: A New Biography. Williams writes, "Perhaps not surprisingly, breasts have often eluded clearheaded thinking."

Jeffrey MacDonald, a clean-cut Green Beret and doctor convicted of killing of his pregnant wife and their two daughters, is getting another chance to try proving his innocence -- more than four decades after the nation was gripped by his tales of Charles Manson-like hippies doped up on acid slaughtering his family.

The case now hinges on something that wasn't available when he was first put on trial: DNA evidence. A federal judge planned to hold a hearing Monday to consider new DNA evidence and witness testimony that MacDonald and his supporters say will finally clear him of a crime that became the basis of Joe McGinniss' best-selling book "Fatal Vision" and a made-for-TV drama.

It's the latest twist in a case that has been the subject of military and civilian courts, intense legal wrangling and shifting alliances.

"This is Jeff's opportunity to be back in court almost 33 years to the day of his conviction," said Kathryn MacDonald, who married him a decade ago while he has been in prison.

MacDonald, now 68 and not eligible for parole until 2020, has never wavered from his claim that he didn't kill his pregnant wife, Colette, and their two daughters, 5-year-old Kimberley and 2-year-old Kristen. He has maintained that he awoke on their sofa in their home at Fort Bragg in the early morning hours of Feb. 17, 1970, as they were being attacked by three men and a woman.

In an October 2000 letter MacDonald wrote to Kathryn MacDonald, provided by her to The Associated Press, he wrote: "It would be a dishonor to their memory to compromise the truth and `admit' to something I didn't do -- no matter how long it takes."

The gruesome stabbing and beating deaths came just three months after the Manson Family slayings in California were revealed. The pregnant wife and MacDonald's description of the woman attacker chanting "acid is groovy, kill the pigs" all fed into fears that Manson-type killers were on the loose in North Carolina. The word "pig" was written in blood on a headboard -- the same word that was written on the door of pregnant Manson victim Sharon Tate's house in Los Angeles.

The Army charged the Ivy League-educated MacDonald with murder, then dropped the charges months later after an Article 32 hearing. By December 1970, MacDonald was not just a free man but also had received an honorable discharge.

But his father-in-law, Alfred Kassab, who initially believed in his innocence, changed his mind and eventually persuaded prosecutors to pursue the case in civilian court. In 1979, MacDonald was charged, convicted and sentenced to life in prison, a sentence he now serves at the federal prison in Cumberland, Md.

MacDonald has stood by his innocence claim so strongly that he refused to apply for parole for years, and when he did, he refused to acknowledge any guilt and was rejected. MacDonald and his supporters have continued to pursue legal avenues over the years to try to clear his name.

U.S. District Court Judge James Fox will consider two types of evidence: three hairs that don't match the family's DNA and a statement from Jimmy Britt, a deputy U.S. marshal when the case was tried. Britt, who has since died, gave a statement to defense attorneys in 2005 that he heard prosecutor Jim Blackburn threaten Helena Stoeckley, a troubled local woman whom MacDonald had identified as one of the attackers.

A previous MacDonald attorney has said Stoeckley was prepared to testify she was in the MacDonald home the night of the murders until Blackburn threatened to charge her with the slayings. She later testified she couldn't remember where she was that night.

A real-life exorcist in Colombia has boasted that demand is so high for his services that he performs ten services a week.

 It could be the melodramatic staging offered by Hermes Cifuentes, a Catholic priest, that is creating such demand.

Those claiming to be possessed by the Devil are smeared in dirt and surrounded by fire, limes and eggs. Dressed in white, they lie on the ground blindfolded surrounded by crucifixes and a ring of fire. For good measure their skin is smeared with mud.

They lie between strips of green and white ribbon as Father Hermes chases the spirits away.

The white-robed Father Hemes, 51, said he now performs ten a week in La Cumbre and has carried out a total of 35,000 over the past two decades.

Jennifer Lopez stopped by "Katie" on Friday to chat about her recent divorce and 25-year-old boyfriend, Casper Smart.

Lopez, 43, dished on her and Smart's 18-year age difference with host Katie Couric, who also famously dated a much younger man -- Brooks Perlin, who is 17 years Couric's junior.

"It’s hard for me to think of my age," Lopez said. "I feel very youthful. And I feel very comfortable in my own skin. And it’s funny, until somebody brings it up, I don’t think we really think about it."

The former "American Idol" judge revealed that she feels "lucky" that Smart -- who is also her backup dancer and choreographer -- came into her life.

"We’re enjoying each other’s company and he’s a great support system and he’s great at what he does," she said.

Rumors of their relationship surfaced in November 2011 when Smart was spotted leaving Lopez's New York City hotel. The pair broke their silence about the relationship in a July 2012 interview on "Good Morning America."

Lopez also opened up to Couric about her divorce from estranged husband Marc Anthony, whom she split from in July 2011.

"It was really tough decision to make, and one that in your heart, is always just going to affect you," she said. "You never want to break up a family. That wasn’t my dream. My dream was for us to always be together. But things don’t work out and you feel like it’s the better choice. If I didn’t feel it was the better choice then I wouldn’t have done it. But we’re doing good with it."

Despite Lopez's three failed attempts at marriage, the songstress has said that she would walk down the aisle again. She's not the only celeb to still believe in love, having experienced divorce. Click through the slideshow below for six others:

 Camels were first introduced to Australia during the 19th century and used as transport for exploration and to assist construction of rail and telegraph lines.

Tens of thousands were released in the 1930s when vehicle transport became more common and the wild population had soared to an estimated half a million by 2004.

"Over 100,000 feral camels have been removed from the Australian landscape through the project and the current rate of feral camel removal is around 75,000 per year, which is reducing the overall population and lowering their density around priority environmental sites," said Jan Ferguson, who is managing the project.

The Australian feral camel is capable of covering 70km in a day. In 2009, the damage and control costs of feral camels was estimated at over A$10 million ($10.45 million) a year.

Some landowners have raised concerns over the cull, in which the animals have been shot. They said the camels were suffering unnecessarily and bemoaned the waste of the meat, much of which is left to rot.

Ferguson said that the project did not intend to eradicate feral camels completely from outback Australia.

"Our aim is to commence managing their population to acceptable levels – and we are on track to achieve this goal," she added.

Source: agencies

President Obama and his re-election team marked the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks and events related to the killing of four Americans abroad that day with a slate of official and somber events. But they also took to Twitter for some campaign business on both days.

"The election is in eight weeks. Sign up to volunteer," reads the first tweet, on Wednesday, the 11th anniversary of the deadly attacks, from @BarackObama.

The tweet went out at 7:07 a.m. President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama then appeared on the White House South Lawn and bowed their heads at 8:46 a.m. --  the exact time the first hijacked plane struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The event was followed by the president and first lady laying a wreath at the Pentagon, where the third plane struck.

The Obama campaign declined to comment Saturday for this story.

The second tweet, about a sale of Obama apparel, was posted Friday, about 30 minutes before Obama arrived at Andrews Air Force Base to welcome home the bodies of the four Americans – including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens -- killed at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

"You would expect nothing less from a president whose priorities have been misplaced ever since he came to office," Paul Lindsay, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Saturday.

The second tweet read: "Winter is coming, but these sweatshirts are perfect for fall."

Do people no longer have the right to a private life once they become famous? Fans and detractors alike apparently have a limitless appetite for dirt on any kind of celebrity from movie stars to "real" housewives to presidents. But that doesn't mean the incessant buzz of paparazzi hovering over their every move, like flies on a wounded animal, is ethical.

On Friday, the French magazine Closer released topless pictures of Kate Middleton and both the royal family and 10 Downing Street (the office of the prime minister) are accusing the media of "having crossed a red line." Moreover, they have pointed out, the incident is doubly painful because of the late Princess Diana's tortured relationship with the press, which ended in her death in a high-speed car crash while being chased by photographers. "The incident is reminiscent of the worst excesses of the press and paparazzi during the life of Diana, Princess of Wales," reads the official statement out of St. James Palace, "and all the more upsetting to The Duke and Duchess for being so." The statement also called the publication of the photos "grotesque" and "unjustifiable."


The images were taken while Prince William and Kate were sunbathing on vacation in France at a chateau owned by Lord Linley, the Queen's nephew.

When Lady Diana Spencer became engaged to Prince Charles in 1981, she was a shy 20-year-old kindergarten teacher. Immediately thrust into the spotlight, she later said that dealing with the press was the greatest challenge of being a part of the royal family. "The most daunting aspect was the media attention, because my husband and I, we were told when we got engaged that the media would go quietly, and it didn't," she told BBC reporter Martin Bashir in 1995, "and then when we were married they said it would go quietly and it didn't; and then it started to focus very much on me, and I seemed to be on the front of a newspaper every single day, which is an isolating experience, and the higher the media put you, place you, is the bigger the drop." In the same interview, she suggests that the constant scrutiny, especially after she suffered from a bout of post-natal depression and was labeled "unstable," battered her self-esteem. Her confidence low, she admits she resorted to self-harm (which she calls "hurting my arms and legs") and bulimia as an escape.

The Independent UK reports the Royal Highnesses reacted to the publication of the revealing Kate photos with "anger and disbelief" and were "hugely saddened." Still, they proceeded with their duties on an official tour of Southeast Asia. In stark contrast to the photo fracas, Middleton donned a modest pearl grey dress and veil when she attended a public ceremony at a mosque in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and comported herself with mind boggling poise given the controversy. According to Sky News, the future Queen of England chatted with her husband and warmly greeted the gathered crowds.