OJ Simpson to Walk From Prison in October

After nine years in prison, Nevada’s most infamous inmate is about to walk free. OJ Simpson is making plans for his October, 2017 release. He’s serving time for armed robbery in connection with storming a casino in order to collect sports memorabilia. Simpson claimed that he had a legal right to the items.

Authorities say that they plan to release Simpson on or near October 1. They say that they’ll transport Simpson to one of a number of facilities in order to complete the release process. From there, Simpson has to make arrangements for travel.

Simpson has to complete a plan for his parole. The plan includes declaring a place to live. Simpson says that he doesn’t plan to live with his children. Instead, he plans to stay with friends. He says that he’s on good terms with his children, but he doesn’t want to call attention to them because of his presence.

Simpson is now 70 years old. He’s been in prison since 2008. The taxpayers have paid the bill for Simpson’s upkeep in prison. Authorities say that the cost to house Simpson is $58.31 per day. That’s a total of approximately $200,000 for Simpson’s prison stay.

Earlier this year, Simpson’s parole hearing captivated audiences across America. The panel heard testimony and arguments about whether to parole Simpson after serving the minimum nine years of a 30-year sentence. The July, 2017 parole hearing needed extra security. Taxpayers footed the bill for the extra $22,000 in security for the hearing.

Parole officers say that their decision to parole Simpson came because he meets the criteria for release. They say that they’re basing their decision on Simpson’s conviction and sentence rather than on accusations that he murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. A jury acquitted Simpson of the murders, while a second jury held him civilly liable.

Corrections officers say that they do their best to treat Simpson like any other inmate. They say that they keep Simpson in his own cell and near their watch station for his own safety. Simpson says that he leads an athletic league within the prison. Authorities report that he doesn’t cause any problems.

Simpson says that he plans to play golf when he’s released. Simpson says that he plans to live off of his NFL pension. Reports say the pension is worth $25,000 a month. Simpson also has a retirement fund through the Screen Actors Guild.

Two High School Principals Suspended Over Spirit Rock

Two Northern Michigan high-school principals are fighting discipline for breaking the law over burying a spirit rock. Traverse City Area Public Schools Superintendent Paul Soma handed down a five-day suspension for Joe Esper and a two-day unpaid suspension for Charles Kolbusz. The suspensions are without pay.

Both men are principals at Traverse City West Senior High School. Traverse City West Senior High School Principal Joe Esper received a five-day suspension and Assistant Principal Charles Kolbusz got a two-day suspension. They plan to take legal action fight the decision.

The spirit rock is a large rock that sat on school property. Students decorated the rock and used it to write messages. Although many of the messages were innocuous, some of the artwork contained profanity and vulgarities. The trouble comes as Esper and Kolbusz created a plan to bury the Traverse City West Senior High School spirit rock. They say the action was necessary in order to put an end to misuse of the rock.

Esper and Kolbusz used a backhoe to bury the rock. They didn’t get permission from Superintendent Soma. They also didn’t call Miss Dig to verify locations of underground utilities which may be a violation of Michigan law. Soma says that this is only part of the problem. Soma says that when confronted, the two men lied about their actions.

Although Soma claims that the pair violated Michigan law without verifying the locations of utilities with Miss Dig before their misadventure, there are exceptions in the law for government entities. There are potential civil penalties but no criminal penalties, so the men can’t face criminal charges. Even so, Soma justifies his suspension of the pair by citing the dangers that the men created by undertaking the dig. He also feels the two deserve discipline for evading the truth when others started asking what happened to the rock.

The principals say it’s their school and their problem to solve. They also say that they were careful to avoid dangers while they were digging. They claim that the benefits of getting rid of the rock outweigh the dangers that might have resulted from their methods. If they had waited to get permission to move the rock, they say, there would have been months of committees, public hearings and questions. Taking action themselves allowed them to dispose of the rock before it had a chance to become a problem in the new school year. Instead, it’s the legal proceedings surrounding the pair’s discipline that may drag on.

Gymnastics Coach Associated With Larry Nassar Still Coaching in Michigan Gym

Michigan State University parted ways with their longtime women’s gymnastics coach Kathie Klages after the inquiry into her response to sexual abuse by gymnastics trainer Larry Nassar. However, despite the dismissal, one Lansing gym owner seems to think Klages still belongs in the gym. Klages has been filling in at Twistars Gymnastics Club. John Geddert owns the gym. Though some say Klages is only with Twistars temporarily, the move to bring Klages in contact with gymnasts is raising eyebrows as some say she didn’t do enough to respond to warning signs and complaints about Nassar’s abuse of gymnasts.

Geddert admitted that Klages worked at the gym. He claims it was only “filling in” for a “a couple days.” Klages says that she’s not an employee of the gym. Gym owners said that they asked Klages to fill in because of a staffing shortage.

Klages resigned her position as the head gymnastics coach at Michigan State University in February, 2017. Accusers say that Klages downplayed accusations of misconduct against Nassar. Accusers say that Klages told victims that Nassar’s abuse was medical treatment. They say that Klages also told a victim not to file a formal complaint. The victim was a teenager.

Under Klages’ supervision, Nassar worked for the Michigan State University gymnastics team as the team doctor. Nassar also worked as the team doctor for the U.S. national gymnastics team. 2012 Olympian Jordyn Wieber trained at Twistars under Geddert’s coaching.

Legal fees for Michigan State University because of Nassar’s actions have now topped $2 million. MSU President Lou Anna Simon believes that the charges are necessary. Both criminal charges and civil litigation remain pending in the courts. Simon says that the university isn’t tapping their endowment to fund the defense. Individual attorneys on the case charge as much as $990 per hour.

Nassar’s accusers at Michigan State University were collegiate athletes from a variety of sports. The victims claim that when they voiced their concerns to trainers and other school representatives, they told the victims that Nassar’s actions were legitimate medical treatment. One victim even said that MSU employees told her that she should be grateful to work with Nassar.

In total, victims name MSU in nine different lawsuits in federal courts. More than 140 victims total have come forward against Nassar. They claim that abuse occurred at MSU, at the U.S. national gymnastics training center near Houston, Texas and at other locations. Because of the allegations, former president of USA Gymnastics Steve Penny resigned his position.

 

 

What is the Future of U.S. Immigrants?

The future of 800,000 young immigrants turned out to be uncertain on Thursday as senior law makers, officials from White House, and President Donald Trump seemed not to agree on whether there was a deal made to protect them.
Speaker Paul Ryan backed with other senior house members reiterated that no deal had been reached to protect immigrants who came to America as little children and were currently living there illegally. However, the No. 2 member of the senate Republican said that there had been a deal to strike a deal.

Trump’s Take On the Issue

Trump said he was in the process of finalizing an agreement that would protect the “Dreamers” and reinforce border security provided his promise of a wall with Mexico was implemented. Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi who were reported to have dined with Trump on Wednesday night stated that there had been a discussion and an agreement on laws that would provide citizenship to these young immigrants.
The DREAM Act, according to Schumer, would allow immigrant who went to the U.S. as immigrants and who were in the U.S. unlawfully to become citizens in a period of five years if they satisfied certain requirements.

However, a source who knew about the meeting denounced claims that the president had consented to the DREAM Act. Instead, they said that the president had agreed to a narrow piece of legislation that was an improvement of Barack Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program.

Is the Dream Act a Path To Citizenship

The bottom line is that the outcome for the young immigrants is still subject to further negotiation and debate. While the DREAM Act seems like a path towards citizenship, Trump has stated that the legislation was more about amnesty. According to Trump, their main concern is to put up a wall.

Despite Trump’s interpretation of the Act, two people who participated in the Wednesday meeting stated that citizenship was brought up when the issue of the Dream Act was mentioned. On the other hand, Mick Mulvaney, Budget Director, confirmed Trump’s statements that the deal did not involve a means to citizenship.

Trump made a promise to end DACA when he came into office but has since then struggled with the dilemma of the thousands of sympathetic young immigrants. Many immigrants have been alarmed by Trump’s announcement last week that DACA would be withdrawn. The program has granted temporary deportation relief and work permits to many immigrants who went to the U.S. as minors. Trump gave Congress 6 months to come up with a solution before the protections offered by DACA expire.

Anthony Weiner Makes His Case to Avoid Prison

As Anthony Weiner awaits sentencing for the sexting scandal that derailed his political campaign, new court filings appear to indicate that he blames his 15-year-old victim for much of what went on in the sexting scandal. But Weiner’s lawyers say that he’s not the instigator. They say that the victim initiated the contact in an attempt to influence the U.S. Presidential election.

Despite his attempts to blame the victim, Weiner’s attorneys admit that the former mayoral candidate self destructed. They say his actions came from “deep sickness.” Weiner’s attorneys also say that Weiner’s case is not as serious as other cases that prosecutors chose to pursue suggesting that Weiner feels prosecutors are targeting him for reasons other than his guilt. In fact, lawyers for the former politician say that the investigation into Weiner is politically motivated and that it may have affected the results of the election. They say the fact that he didn’t seek out victims on the internet mitigates his guilt compared to other sex offenders. He says the victim wanted to exchange sexual messages and not the other way around.

Weiner and wife Huma Abedin appeared cordial during divorce proceedings in court in early September. Abedin aided Hillary Clinton in her failed bid to become the first female President of the United States. Weiner’s sentencing filings included a letter from Abedin. In her letter to the court, Abedin writes that Weiner’s actions “devastated” her. She writes that she never could have imagined the circumstances that resulted from Weiner’s behavior. She says that she understands the court must impose consequences.

Weiner says that the teenage victim initiated contact in order to pursue a book deal. They accuse her of “shopping to publishers” with the material that she worked to “generate” through her contacts with Weiner. Weiner’s attorneys say that the girl saved copies of her interactions with Weiner, and that she made $30,000 for selling her story to a British media outlet. Weiner’s attorneys say that these actions amount to proof of the victim’s ulterior motives.

Despite pointing blame at the victim, Weiner says that he regrets committing the crime. He admits that his behavior was against the welfare of a minor. He says that his actions destroyed his marriage and hurt his wife’s professional ambitions. Clinton blames her loss in the Presidential election in part on the investigation into her email server as it related to Weiner’s actions.

Weiner awaits his sentence to find out whether he’ll serve time in prison. As part of his plea offer, he can’t appeal a prison sentence if it’s less than 27 months. Weiner says he’s in treatment and that he has mentors to help him with behavior modification. He describes his current life as “quiet.”

 

The 9th Circuit Clears California’s Foie Gras Ban

In January of 2015 a federal district court invalidated a California state law that sought to ban the sale of foie gras. Specifically, California’s law prohibited the sale of the delicacy if it was produced from forced-fed birds. Birds were being excessively fed in order to fatten their livers; this produced a much more savory dish for luxury diners.

California’s ban was originally issued in 2004. However, it did not go into effect until 2012. In 2015, several duck and geese producers (as well as Hot’s Restaurant Group) got their day in court to challenge what they viewed as an unconstitutional statute. A federal judge, the Hon. Stephen Wilson, of the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles agreed with them. He ruled that the state law was preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act. Recently, the 9th Circuit disagreed.

The Pasadena branch of the 9th Circuit issued a 3-0 decision last Friday which supports the legality of California’s law. The court held that the Poultry Products Inspection Act did not seek to prevent a state’s ability to ban certain poultry products. The court added that California had the right to prohibit a practice that it deemed uncompassionate and cruel. In the end, the court did not find a conflict between the state statute and existing federal law.

Although the 9th Circuit’s decision is being hailed as a victory for state legislators and animal rights activists many in the culinary world are dismayed. Many chefs view the regulation as an excessive restraint on their ability to practice their trade. The expensive delicacy is a favorite of high-end patrons and chefs across the state enjoy preparing the dish.

California’s foie gras supporters are now contemplating taking further legal action. The plaintiffs/appellees may request that the case be heard by a full panel of the 9th Circuit. If the decision is affirmed, the appellees may need to look towards the Supreme Court.

Grand Rapids Releases Audio Recording of Prosecutor Crash Investigation

After months of legal wrangling to try and keep the information out of public hands, Grand Rapids has finally released phone calls of its law enforcement officers investigating a then prosecutor for drunk driving. Although the officers thought the conversation was on an unrecorded police line, settings in place in the Grand Rapids Police Department triggered a recording of the call. In the recording, officers are heard scheming to allow the prosecutor to get away with drunk driving.

The call came in the early hours of November, 2016 after police responded to reports of a crash downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan. A driver hit another vehicle and a pedestrian as the pedestrian existed the vehicle. The driver turned out to be former assistant prosecutor Josh Kuiper.

When officers arrive at the scene of the crash, they realize that the responsible driver is a prosecutor. That’s when phone calls start between police officers as they discuss how to give Kuiper a “pass” for his unlawful behavior, despite Kuiper being “visibly intox” according to the officer. Prosecutors eventually charged Kuiper with reckless driving causing serious injury. Officers on the scene gave Kuiper field sobriety tests but admitted that they didn’t honestly report his poor performance on the tests.

Kuiper has since left his position with the Kent County Prosecutor’s Office. The crash occurred after Kuiper was downtown with coworkers celebrating the retirement of another prosecutor. The victim in the lawsuit filed a civil case against Kuiper. That case is on hold as the criminal case slowly makes its way through the courts. At the time, Kuiper had 13 years of experience in the prosecutor’s office. He earned $94,857 a year.

In the newly released audio recording, officers discuss Kuiper’s state of intoxication. They say that he’s “hammered” and probably won’t do well on field sobriety tests. The officers talk about how many witnesses are present downtown to testify about what really happened. They aren’t sure of the extent of the victim’s injuries when they make the decision not to conduct a drunk driving investigation.

The City of Grand Rapids went to great lengths to try and keep the audio recording from becoming public. They went through several rounds of appeals claiming that they shouldn’t have to release the video because they recorded it accidentally. Media outlet MLive headed the legal campaign for release of the documents. The case even went to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Kuiper’s attorney says that the victim’s injuries aren’t severe enough to warrant his client facing a felony charge.

Attorney Faces New Discipline Charges in Second State

In 2005, attorney Sean M. Liles gave up his Nevada bar license. In exchange, Liles avoid discipline proceedings from the State Bar of Nevada. Officials alleged that Liles took part in a scheme to commit insurance fraud by submitting false claims relating to construction lawsuits.

Now, Liles is facing fresh ethics charges. These charges come from the State Bar of Michigan. Officials allege that Liles misused his client trust fund account. They say that he used his client trust fund account to pay his personal home mortgage. Allegedly, Liles transferred funds from his personal account to his IOLTA client trust fund account and then used the funds to pay the mortgage on his home. In Michigan, attorneys must hold client funds in a separate IOLTA account that’s completely separate from their personal accounts. The attorney may remove the money only when it’s earned in attorney fees, spent on court costs or returned to the client.

When Liles submitted his resignation to the State Bar of Nevada, he was already in West Bloomfield, Michigan. From there, he set up a practice in Traverse City, Michigan where he focuses on family law, criminal and bankruptcy matters. The Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission filed the formal complaint against Liles on July 11, 2017. Officials say they first learned of the discrepancies when the bank tipped them off to the unusual transfers.

In his reply to the State Bar of Michigan’s inquiry, Liles claimed that the mortgage payments from the IOLTA account were a mistake. He said, “I did not realize I had accidentally input the Chase IOLTA Account instead of my personal account,” and “I have since corrected the problem.” Liles also tried to excuse the error by saying that “I was/am an idiot with mobile ap[p]s.)” Liles didn’t offer a motive for his behavior.

The Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission isn’t buying it. They say it’s implausible that Liles transferred funds accidentally for several months. Officials say that his conduct involves dishonesty and deceit, and that lawyers have to keep client funds completely separate from personal money. They also say that Liles misrepresented the facts when they asked him to explain his behavior.

There’s no word on what discipline the State Bar of Michigan hopes to pursue in Liles’ case. While the grievance asks for discipline that’s “warranted,” this could range from an informal reprimand to a complete disbarment. Officials may reach a consent agreement with Liles, or they may take the case to a hearing where a commission determines a penalty.

Source: http://www.agcmi.org/formal_disciplinary_proceedings/docs/Grievance%20Administrator%20v%20Sean%20Liles,%20P55377.pdf

Psychic Arrested As She Tries to Flee the Country

One psychic sees a jail cell in her future after the police arrested her on her way out of the country. Police arrested the woman at Miami International Airport. She has open grand theft charges in the State of Maryland.

A private investigator tracked psychic Gina Marie Marks to the Miami International Airport. She was only moments away from boarding a plane to Barcelona. The psychic is 44 years old. Police say that she also goes by Regina Melbourne and Natalie Miller. The private investigator works on behalf of the victim.

Law enforcement officials plan to extradite Marks to Maryland. She says that she doesn’t agree to head back to Maryland to face the charges. That means Florida officials have to win the extradition proceedings before they can try to prove the charges against her. At her bond hearing, Marks told judge Mindy Glazer that she wants to fight the return to Florida, even if that means waiting in a jail cell. State attorneys say that she’s a flight risk.

Because she’s fighting the extradition, the State of Florida can hold marks for up to 90 days. They must follow a procedure to get a governor’s warrant. That order allows them to move her back to Maryland. Judge Glazer says she’s fine with letting Marks sit in a jail cell.

State officials say that it’s not the first time that the law has caught up with the scheming psychic. They say that she has run her scams across the country, and that only she can predict where she’s going to find her next victim. In 2009, Marks landed herself a felony rap after pleading guilty to grand theft. In that case, she cheated five victims out of approximately $65,000.

That conviction wasn’t enough to deter Marks’ efforts. In 2012, she received a conviction for scheming three more victims. She took them for more than half a million dollars. She spent more than a year in prison, and the court ordered her to pay restitution.

In the most recent case, Marks has three victims. She stole more than $82,000 from them by running a scheme that related to fortune telling. She faces charges of grand theft in the State of Maryland. Officials say these are felony charges that could bring a long stint in prison if a jury convicts her of the charges against her.

A private investigator followed Marks’ trail all across the United States. At the airport, he alerted officials to her outstanding warrant. They pulled her aside and prevented her from skipping town. For now, a Florida jail cell is in Marks’ future.

 

 

New York City Cracks Down on Airbnb

One New York landlord has some fines to pay after getting slapped with $11,000 in fines for running an illegal Airbnb in New York City. Not only did the landlord rent the nine-bedroom apartment on the home sharing website, but they stuffed as many as 34 guests into the property at any one time. The Bushwick apartment owner charged guests as much as $115 a night for a bunk bed in a room with other guests.

The health department put a vacate order on the door of the property. New York City’s mayor has an Office of Special Enforcement that’s cracking down on the home-sharing website. New York City’s laws prohibit most rentals of less than thirty days. In addition to banning the short term rentals, New York City’s laws prohibit advertising an illegal rental.

Airbnb is worth billions of dollars. However, they resist law enforcement’s efforts to collect information about property owners who rent their properties in violation of local ordinances. They say that they’re just a marketing service. The company generally avoids liability by saying that they don’t give legal advice, and that each owner has to affirm that they’re renting in compliance with local laws and regulations.

Even so, more and more local communities are debating the future of home sharing services such as Airbnb. Supporters say that the service is a great way for renters and homeowners alike to make ends meet and make a few extra bucks. They say that homeowners should be allowed to make their own decisions about how to use their property. They say travelers can find lower pries and more options for an authentic travel experience by using home sharing instead of traditional hotels.

Opponents of the service say that it’s not so simple. They say that the service doesn’t come with the same regulations and protections that hotels have to follow. From fire safety to security, critics say that there are real risks associated with the service that hosts and travelers alike may not realize. Neighbors complain about their homes lying in the wake of noisy travelers who come ready for a good time.

State and local officials around the United States are currently struggling with how to balance these different points of view. San Francisco has increased regulation of home sharing units. The State of Michigan is considering banning regulation of the rentals on the local level. In the meantime, one landlord in New York City has $11,000 in fines to pay while this debate continues to rage around the United States.

Irma Victims Could Be Arrested At Shelters If They Have Outstanding Warrants

Floridians who are in Hurricane Irma’s path could face a double disaster if they have outstanding warrants. Evacuations are being ordered in many places across the state as residents brace for what could be one of history’s strongest hurricanes. Part of the evacuation plan is setting up shelters, which are monitored by local law enforcement agencies. One sheriff used Twitter to warn residents that they would be arrested if they showed up at a shelter with an outstanding warrant.

Why Arrests Will Take Place

According to a recent story from the ABA Journal about the topic, a sheriff defended the controversial tweets by saying that law enforcement officials have a duty to act on warrants. When people enter shelters, they are asked to present photo identification. A driver’s license or a state identification card will be required. Law enforcement officials can search the identification card’s number and instantly see if there are outstanding warrants.

What Will Happen To People Who Need Shelter

Law enforcement officials assured residents that they would still be sheltered if they were in harm’s way. However, they will be transported to a local jail for shelter until they can see a judge. Since failure to appear for tickets or other minor infractions can lead to a warrant, law enforcement officials encouraged Floridians to be sure that they do not have any outstanding infractions that have not been addressed. People who are avoiding criminal charges will likely face longer jail stays.

When the department that issued the controversial warning tweets was contacted, one sheriff said that their main concern was with violent or sexual offenders. He elaborated with an example saying that allowing a child predator who has a warrant for an offense to stay at a shelter where small children are also housed would be irresponsible and would put other law-abiding residents at risk. Officers who check identification cards will only see if a person has a warrant. They will not know the nature of the warrant or if it is for a felony or a misdemeanor. Legal experts in Florida said that people facing misdemeanor charges should turn themselves in before going to a shelter to be released on bond or on their own recognizance. Obeying evacuation orders is a must for everyone. Failing to obey them because of a warrant or for any reason can result in jail time.

The Constitutional Dilemma Revolving Around Physician Assisted Suicide

New York’s court of appeal recently ruled against physician assisted suicide. The claim was made against the Attorney General by three chronically ill patients. The court defined physician assisted suicide as the right of a terminally ill and mentally competent person to acquire a prescription for a deadly medication from a doctor, to be taken for the purpose of causing death. The plaintiff’s argument was that physician assisted suicide was a constitutional right. The court held that there is no right to suicide; however, there is the right to cease relying on life-sustaining treatment. The court’s ruling, based on a rational standard of review, was that the act of criminalizing physician promoted suicide was meant to prevent suicide and protect patients from abuse.

A Background on Physician Assisted Suicide Laws

For a long time, U.S. law enforcement agencies have struggled with the right to die. In 2016, a “Death with Dignity” bill was approved by the District of Columbia Council. The bill was passed by an 11-2 vote. The bill permitted patients with terminal illnesses to end their lives without a physician’s help. According to the bill, a patient who is terminally ill, at least 18 years of age, a resident of Washington DC, and capable of making their health care decisions, is eligible to make a request to end their life. The bill does not permit physicians to agree with a patient’s requests. It further prohibits physicians from giving patients medication if they are suffering from mental disorders or depression.

The bill is similar to another passed in 1997, the “Oregon Death with Dignity Act”. In 2006, the Oregon statute was upheld by the Supreme Court. In 2008, the First Judicial District of Montana passed a ruling protecting physicians from prosecution for providing terminally ill patients with lethal drugs. Washington and Vermont followed suit by approving similar initiatives in 2008 and 2013 respectively.

The California Superior Court recently went on record for rejecting a challenge to the state’s aid in dying law. Colorado also approved a proposition to grant terminally ill patients the right to administer lethal medication after the approval of two physicians.

In February 2017, the “Death with Dignity” bill was blocked by the House. During the same time, Montana introduced a bill that would see doctors involved in physician assisted suicide charged with homicide. In May, physician assisted dying was approved by the Nevada Senate.

The Mystery Killings of Women in Uganda

Uganda parliament has suspended its sittings due to a wave of crime that has swept through the country. Members of Uganda’s legislative body have put the government on notice due to a series of murders that are still unsolved. The parliamentarians vowed not to convene any meetings until a government report was issued on the matter. Many fear that these murders are being committed by a serial killer.

A parliamentary session that was conducted on Tuesday decided to delay its meetings for an indefinite period after government officials declined to give an explanation for the murder of women in the capital, Kampala.

Who is Killing Women in Uganda?

According to reports by the police, since June, 20 women have been murdered mysteriously. These killings have caused unrest in this peaceful East African nation. In a statement to the press, the police spokesman, Asan Kasingye dismissed claims that the killings were related. He reiterated that the authorities had no evidence pointing to the work of a serial killer. He implored Ugandan citizens to remain calm and to rest assured that investigations were still underway and that the perpetrators of these crimes would be brought to justice.

Reports by local media have told how a majority of the deceased women were assaulted sexually before being murdered. Many of these women died through strangulation.

The recent murder occurred on Monday. The killing was that of a young woman whose body was found near a car washing bay near Kampala town. This murder brings to 20 the number of women who have been murdered so far. On Tuesday, the police announced they had one suspect in custody. The suspect was found concealing himself at a healer’s shrine.

When the ministers charged with internal affairs and security failed to issue a report on the murders, an opposition parliamentarian raised a motion of suspending parliamentary sessions for an indefinite period. The lawmaker, Mr. Odonga Otto, is reported to have said that lawmakers had no business to conduct in the house up until they were appraised on the reason women were being murdered.

Sam Dalton Passes Away At The Age Of 90

Sam Dalton was a lawyer who recently passed away at the age of 90. He practiced law for six decades. He was known for adamantly opposing the death penalty. He was also known for representing people who could not afford to hire an attorney. Moon Landrieu is the mayor of New Orleans. He is a graduate of Loyola University Law School. He stated that Sam was a good lawyer. He also stated that Sam was also a good person.

Moon also talked about his favorite memories of Sam. He stated that he remembers when Sam would come into the courtroom with lunch stains on his suit. He was totally committed to helping people. In 1992, Sam was given the Benjamin Smith Award. Mary Howell is another attorney who practices in New Orleans. He stated that Sam was the attorney who fought for the little guy.

Sam was known for challenging the 2 percent handling charge. This is a fee that is added to the cost of bail bonds. Sam was opposed to the fee because he stated that it victimized poor people. He has handled over 300 capital cases.

Walter Koon is one of the people that was spared from the death penalty because of Sam. He faced the death penalty after he killed his estranged wife. Sam stated that did not receive the proper counsel at the trial court level. Walter was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of the parole.

Sam stated that he never wanted to portray Walter as the model sinner. However, he still felt that the death penalty was inhumane. Sam was married with children. When he was not working, he was spending time with his family. Sam’s funeral arrangements will be handled by Garden of Memories Funeral Home. A date has not been set yet.

Lawsuits Against President Trump Ban on Transgender People

Two groups of Human rights filed two different lawsuits against President Trump and other administrations on the ban of the transgender rule in the military. Human rights claim that the ban is unconstitutional and will not be accepted. Plaintiff is among the transgender individuals who are now serving in the military, but they are not currently able to serve because of the transgender ban rule.

Sarah McBride is the secretary of Human Rights Campaign National Press. She issued a statement and said that it is an unconstitutional and unconscionable breach of trust for President Trump and his administration to single out the service of transgender people in the military. President Trump announced this ban on a series of the statement in July. He stated that the US Government would not allow or accept transgender people to serve in any capacity or position in the military of the USA.

President Trump appealed the recent administration of Obama that lifted the ban on transgender people. President Trump signed a memo on Friday indicating the implementation of the change of policy that deters transgender individuals from being enlisted. He did not report what would happen to the current transgender people who are still serving in the Department of Defense.

The first law suit was filed in a federal court in Seattle on Monday. The lawsuit was filed by Lambda Legal and OutServe, SLDN. He acts on behalf of two people. These include a transgender individual who needs to be enlisted but cannot because of the ban and another transgender woman who has served in the military for 12 years. The second lawsuit was also filed by ACLU in Maryland on behalf of the transgender individuals who wished to be enlisted but failed due to the ban.

Both lawsuits argue the same thing. They claim that this is a violation of human rights. It is also a practice of unequal protection among the members of the society. They also indicate that it is the violation of free speech protection. The lawsuits highlighted what transgender people have contributed in the US military. One of the numerous commendation of transgender service in the military was the Petty Officer. This is a plaintiff who has served the military for 11 years and was among the officers who had been deployed to Afghanistan. The two lawsuits want the ban to be abolished by the federal court.