Dog "The Bounty Hunter" Chapman will have more time on his hands to catch criminals, because his show on A&E is being canceled ... TMZ has learned. Multiple sources connected with the show tell us ... Dog's people and A&E have been negotiating, but the network has now decided to pull the plug and not do season 9. One source connected with Dog tells us the cancellation is based on "creative differences."  But here's the reality ... saying "creative differences" is like breaking up with a girl and saying, "It's not you, it's me."

The 63-year-old singer, who had hits including Hot Stuff, Love to Love You, Baby and I Feel Love, died in Florida on Thursday morning. She had largely kept her battle with lung cancer out of the public eye. But the website TMZ reported that the singer had told friends she believed her illness was the result of inhaling toxic dust from the collapsed Twin Towers. On Thursday night tributes were paid to the singer, considered by many to be the voice of the 1970s. A statement released on behalf of her family — husband Bruce Sudano, their daughters Brooklyn and Amanda, her daughter, Mimi from a previous marriage and four grandchildren — read: “Early this morning, surrounded by family, we lost Donna Summer Sudano, a woman of many gifts, the greatest being her faith. "While we grieve her passing, we are at peace celebrating her extraordinary life and her continued legacy.

The trading losses suffered by JPMorgan Chase have surged in recent days, surpassing the bank’s initial $2 billion estimate by at least $1 billion, according to people with knowledge of the losses. When Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, announced the losses last Thursday, he indicated they could double within the next few quarters. But that process has been compressed into four trading days as hedge funds and other investors take advantage of JPMorgan’s distress, fueling faster deterioration in the underlying credit market positions held by the bank. A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment, although Mr. Dimon has said the total paper trading losses will be volatile depending on day-to-day market fluctuations. The Federal Reserve is examining the scope of the growing losses and the original bet, along with whether JPMorgan’s chief investment office took risks that were inappropriate for a federally insured depository institution, according to several people with knowledge of the examination. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way. The overall health of the bank remains strong, even with the additional losses, and JPMorgan has been able to increase its stock dividend faster than its rivals because of stronger earnings and a more solid capital buffer. Still, the huge trading losses rocked Wall Street and reignited the debate over how tightly giant financial institutions should be regulated. Bank analysts say that while the bank’s stability is not threatened, if the losses continue to mount, the outlook for the bank’s dividend will grow uncertain. The bank’s leadership has discussed the impact of the losses on future earnings, although a dividend cut remains highly unlikely for now. In March, the company raised the quarterly dividend by 5 cents, to 30 cents, which will cost the bank about $190 million more this quarter. A spokeswoman for the bank said a dividend cut has not been discussed internally. At the bank’s annual meeting in Tampa, Fla., on Tuesday, Mr. Dimon did not definitively rule out cutting the dividend, although he said that he “hoped” it would not be cut. John Lackey, a shareholder from Richmond, Va., who attended the meeting precisely to ask about the dividend, was not reassured. “That wasn’t a very clear answer,” he said of Mr. Dimon’s response. “I expect that shareholders are going to suffer because of this.” Analysts expect the bank to earn $4 billion in the second quarter, factoring in the original estimated loss of $2 billion. Even if the additional trading losses were to double, the bank could still earn a profit of $2 billion. And many analysts and investors remain optimistic about the bank’s long-term prospects. Glenn Schorr, a widely followed analyst with Nomura, reiterated on Wednesday his buy rating on JPMorgan shares, which are down more than 10 percent since the trading loss became public last week. What’s more, the chief investment office earned more than $5 billion in the last three years, which leaves it ahead over all, even given the added red ink. But the underlying problem is that while these sharp swings are expected at a big hedge fund, they should not be occurring at a bank whose deposits are government-backed and which has access to ultralow cost capital from the Federal Reserve, experts said. “JPMorgan Chase has a big hedge fund inside a commercial bank,” said Mark Williams, a professor of finance at Boston University, who also served as a Federal Reserve bank examiner. “They should be taking in deposits and making loans, not taking large speculative bets.” Not long after Mr. Dimon’s announcement of a dividend increase in March, the notorious bet by JPMorgan’s chief investment office began to fall apart. Traders at the unit’s London desk and elsewhere are now frantically trying to defuse the huge bet that was built up over years, but started generating erratic returns in late March. After a brief pause, the losses began to mount again in late April, prompting Mr. Dimon’s announcement on May 10. Beginning on Friday, the same trends that had been causing the losses for six weeks accelerated, since traders on the opposite side of the bet knew the bank was under pressure to unwind the losing trade and could not double down in any way. Another issue is that the trader who executed the complex wager, Bruno Iksil, is no longer on the trading desk. Nicknamed the London Whale, Mr. Iksil had a firm grasp on the trade — knowledge that is hard to replace, even though his anticipated departure is seen as sign of the bank’s taking responsibility for the debacle. “They were caught short,” said one experienced credit trader who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the situation is still fluid. The market player, who does not stand to gain from JPMorgan’s losses and is not involved in the trade, added, “this is a very hard trade to get out of because it’s so big.” He estimated that the initial loss of just over $2 billion was caused by a move of a quarter percentage point, or 25 basis points, on a portfolio with a notional value of $150 billion to $200 billion — in other words, the total value of the contracts traded, not JPMorgan’s exposure. In the four trading days since Mr. Dimon’s disclosure, the market has moved at least 15 to 20 basis points more against JPMorgan, he said. The overall losses are not directly proportional to the move in basis points because of the complexity of the trade. Many of the positions are highly illiquid, making them difficult to value for regulators and the bank itself. In its simplest form, traders said, the complex position assembled by the bank included a bullish bet on an index of investment-grade corporate debt, later paired with a bearish bet on high-yield securities, achieved by selling insurance contracts known as credit-default swaps. A big move in the interest rate spread between the investment grade securities and risk-free government bonds in recent months hurt the first part of the bet, and was not offset by equally large moves in the price of the insurance on the high yield bonds. As the credit yield curve steepened, the losses piled up on the corporate grade index, overwhelming gains elsewhere on the trades. Making matters worse, there was a mismatch between the expiration of different instruments within the trade, increasing losses. The additional losses represent a worsening of what is already the most embarrassing misstep for JPMorgan since Mr. Dimon became chief executive in 2005. No one has blamed Mr. Dimon for the trade, which was under the oversight of the head of the chief investment office, Ina Drew, but he has repeatedly apologized, calling it “stupid” and “sloppy.” Ms. Drew resigned Monday and more departures are anticipated.

The US treasury department has put two sons of Mexico's most wanted man Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman on its drugs kingpin blacklist. The move bars all people in the US from doing business with Ivan Archivaldo Guzman Salazar and Ovidio Guzman Lopez, and freezes any US assets they have. Joaquin Guzman, on the list since 2001, runs the powerful Sinaloa drug cartel. Mexico has seen an explosion of violence in recent years as gangs fight for control of trafficking routes. The US administration "will aggressively target those individuals who facilitate Chapo Guzman's drug trafficking operations, including family members," said Adam Szubin, director of the department's Office of Foreign Assets Control . "With the Mexican government, we are firm in our resolve to dismantle Chapo Guzman's drug trafficking organisation." Ovidio Guzman plays a significant role in his father's drug-trafficking activities, the treasury department said. Ivan Archivaldo Guzman was arrested in 2005 in Mexico on money-laundering charges but subsequently released. As well as the Guzman brothers, two other alleged key cartel members, Noel Salgueiro Nevarez and Ovidio Limon Sanchez, were listed under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. They were both arrested in Mexico in 2011 and are still in custody. Under the Kingpin Act, US firms, banks and individuals are prevented from doing business with them and any assets the men may have under US jurisdiction are frozen. More than 1,000 companies and individuals linked to 94 drug kingpins have been placed on the blacklist since 2000. Penalties for violating the act range include up to 30 years in prison and fines up to $10m (£6m). The US has offered a reward of up to $5m a for information leading to the arrest of Joaquin Guzman, who escaped from a Mexican prison in 2001.

Eduardo Ravelo, born on October 13, 1968 was added as the 493rd fugitive to the FBI 10 most wanted list on October 20, 2009. He is originally from Mexico, however he holds permanent residency status in the United States which gives him free movement across the border. An FBI informant and former lieutenant in the Barrio Azteca, a prison gang active in the U.S. and Mexico, testified that Ravelo told him to help find fellow gang members who had stolen from the cartel. In March 2008, he became the leader of the gang shortly after betraying his predecessor, stabbing him several times and shooting him in the neck. (Eduardo Ravelo: Wikipedia) Eduardo Ravelo was indicted in Texas in 2008 for his involvement in racketeering activities, conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, and conspiracy to possess heroin, cocaine and marijuana with the intent to distribute. His alleged criminal activities began in 2003. He is believed to be living in an area of Cuidad Juarez controlled by the Barrio Ravelo, with his wife and children just across the border from El Paso, Texas. He is also said to have bodyguards and armored vehicles to protect him from rival gangs as well as rival cartels.

The unexpected death of conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart just got a whole lot more mysterious. Only two months after Breitbart’s passing, the coroner that investigated the cause of death may have succumbed to arsenic poisoning. Michael Cormier, 61, passed away on April 20, the Los Angeles Times reports this week. Although Cormier’s death is only being publicized now, the timing of actual passing actually came within hours of the release of the preliminary autopsy report of Breitbart. Commenting to the Times on the latest news, Lt. Alan Hamilton of the Los Angeles Police Department says that investigators have not ruled out foul play in the death of Cormier. Authorities have yet to confirm how they believe arsenic entered his system — or if the coroner was deliberately poisoned — but Cormier passed away after being admitted to a hospital in Burbank, California last month after displaying symptoms typical with the illness. Now as investigators consider how Cormier’s life came to an end, others are still probing the untimely passing of Breitbart, an event which spawned conspiracy theories within minutes. As some have spent the last several weeks considering the pieces of the puzzle involving the journalist’s death, an unusual twist has been added to the mix. Hours after the death of Breitbart was confirmed in early March, skeptics were quick to question what role his passing may have had in relation to a public address he delivered earlier in 2012. Speaking to the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. only weeks earlier, Breitbart claimed he had videos that would end the political career of US President Barack Obama. “I have videos, this election we’re going to vet him,” Breitbart said back in February “We are going to vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008.” Although investigators would go on to call Breitbart’s March 1 death the result of heart failure, even some of his personal friends put forth the notion that it was an inside job. “He told me RECENTLY he had big dirt on Obama… MANY believe it's murder!” radio host and pal Mancow Muller tweeted after his death, adding in a similar micro message that he had his doubts about the initial reports of natural causes. Speaking to reporters at Los Angeles’s KABC News, investigators with the LA Police Department say that doctors at the hospital that Cormier died at have raised suspicions over the coroner’s death.

Federal agents announced on Tuesday that they successfully thwarted plans to blow up a bridge in Cleveland, Ohio. What was left out of most reports, however, was that the FBI was instrumental in plotting the potential attack. As is the case with most terrorist attacks revealed by the FBI, from the very beginning of the alleged crime until this week’s arrests, the charges introduced by federal agents were orchestrated by undercover agent provocateurs. Five men were arrested in the Cleveland area on Monday for charges of conspiracy and the use of explosive materials. According to the criminal complaint released this week by the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, prosecutors link Brandon Baxter, 20; Anthony Hayne, 35; and Douglas Wright, 26, to an anti-government plot that involved bringing a large bridge in the region crashing down with the aid of at least two accomplices. "The individuals charged in this plot were intent on using violence to express their ideological views,” explains Special Agent Stephen D. Anthony of the Cleveland Division of the FBI this week. Taking a closer look at the federal complaint against the five men reveals that although the suspects are believed to have expressed anti-government sentiments and disdain for major financial corporations, the impetus in the would-be bombing was the urging of undercover agents that had infiltrated a group of friends and encouraged them to consider acts of terrorism. Although the incident is still developing, federal authorities have submitted statements and recordings stemming from conversations their contacts had with the alleged terrorists, and unsurprisingly the mainstream media is largely ignoring one key problem with the federal probe: the FBI provoked members of an Occupy Wall Street off-shoot to embrace terrorist-like crimes despite voicing from the start that they were opposed to such. The criminal complaint considers the entire operation to have started from an Occupy Wall Street style protest in Cleveland on October 21, 2011. There the FBI dispatched an unnamed confidential human source — referred to as CHS in the criminal complaint — who had been recruited by the agency to work undercover earlier in the year. The FBI describes the CHS as a felon that had been convicted of at least six charges dating back to the 1990s, including cocaine possession and robbery, yet entrusted the source to attend the OWS meeting in order to investigate reports “of potential criminal activity and threats involving anarchists who would be attending” the protest. Once there, the CHS singled out participants who “acted differently than the other people in attendance,” including the aforementioned accused, Douglas Wright. The CHS then forged a relationship with Wright that lasted until this week. Although it seems straight out of a spy novel, it is commonplace within domestic intelligence agencies. An exposé put together last year by Mother Jones and the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkley reveals that the FBI currently has as many as 15,000 undercover agents working within their ranks, with some making as much as $100,000 per assignment from Uncle Sam. What’s more is that the FBI regularly dabbles in entrapment in order to encourage and create crime. The same study shows that of around 500 prosecutions in recent years relating to terrorism charges, the FBI used informants for about half of them. Of 158 of prosecutions that ended in convictions, around one-third acted on plots perpetrated by federal agent provocateurs. According to the criminal complaint, Wright and fellow self-described anarchists had been considering options “in order to send a message to corporations and the United States government,” that had at that point consisted of nothing more than knocking the signs off of banks in downtown Cleveland while concurrently detonating smoke grenades to distract law enforcement. Wright is also said to have suggested the group use items such as stink bombs or paint guns, objects available to children, in order to make a statement. When Wright told the CHS that C4 explosives may be out of the question due to the cost, the undercover agent asked how much money it would take. “I’m not sure, I haven’t really read too much into it,” said Wright in reference to instructions he found in a digital copy of the Anarchists Cookbook. “Well, you gotta get with me,” pleaded the CHS. “If we gonna be trying to do something in a month you need to get with me as soon as possible on how much money we gonna need.” That conversation is reported by the FBI to have occurred on March 22. In another encounter on March 28, both Wright and his cohort Brandon Baxter said that they did not want people to think that they are terrorists. On that same day, along with the undercover informant, the group drove over Valley View Bridge and the conversation turned to bringing a similar structure to the ground. “I could show you,” said the informant, who then urged the group to exit the highway and investigate the bridge. The CHS then asked if they would be interested in purchasing blocks of C4 explosives, suggested to them that they need two, and then offered to put them in touch with another FBI agent, this time a 15-year veteran with a decade off the radar. On a March 28 meeting, Wright refused an offer to purchase “heavy stuff” from the agent. Later in the week, the officer asked them to consider purchasing a larger quantity of C4 at a discounted rate. Days later, the CHS insisted that Wright and Baxter act quick because they were “on the hook” for the explosives. In the weeks leading up to the alleged attack, the FBI says that Baxter at one point said that the group had never agreed to blow up a bridge and that he personally feared that, if caught committing a large-scale crime, the anarchists would be sent to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. The CHS attempted to ease those concerns by offering the group decoy license plates and provided them with ways to establish an alibi should they follow through. On Tuesday this week, law enforcement announced that five men had been arrested in conjunction with the terrorist plot and now both Baxter and Wright face hefty sentences if convicted. For engaging in a conspiracy to commit offense they can each suffer up to five years in prison and a fine of a quarter of a million dollars; for the use of explosive materials, they could spend another decade behind bars. And for engaging in hostilities against the United States while working for a terrorist organization? Well, it’s a long-shot, but if the government really wants to invoke the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, then Wright and Baxter could end up at Gitmo until the end of time. "The problem with the cases we're talking about is that defendants would not have done anything if not kicked in the ass by government agents," attorney Martin Stolar tells Mother Jones. Although Stolar is not working with this case currently, the lawyer previously represented the suspect the linked to a New York City bombing plot that was set-up by FBI agents. "They're creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror." For their part, the FBI says this method is a plan for "preemption," "prevention" and "disruption." There is a happy ending for someone, at least: The convicted robber and hard-drug user turned FBI informant will probably just be sent to infiltrate more OWS protests, though.