Supreme Court Opens Path for States to Collect Sales Tax From Internet Retailers

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of South Dakota v. Wayfair on Thursday in favor of South Dakota. The ruling allows states to collect sales tax from Internet retailers when they ship products to customers in the state. In a 5-4 decision, Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the three most conservative judges on the court.

The decision overturns a previous precedent established in 1992 in the case of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which established that the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution prevents states from collecting sales tax in states where they don’t have a physical brick-and-mortar presence. Justice Kennedy wrote that the previous ruling was “unsound and incorrect” and added that the Internet revolution makes it even more necessary to reverse the previous decision.

Kennedy also added that when Quill was handed down, only two percent of Americans had access to the Internet, compared to now when an astounding 89 percent of individuals have online access. The court also said that when the Quill decision was handed down, they didn’t anticipate that the world’s largest retailer, Amazon, would dominate the market so much. E-commerce sales stood at 453.5 billion last year, while in 1992 they only made up $180 billion.

The primary issue in the case was whether the South Dakota law requiring out-of-state retailers to pay sales tax on purchases if they have at least $100,000 or 200 total sales was constitutional. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented with the majority opinion along with Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayer.

The opinion says that the decision in Quill was wrong, but opposed eliminating the physical presence requirement because the Internet economy relies on current rules and regulations to function. Altering the rules could create upheaval in the industry, which is critical to the current economy.

Roberts also emphasized the complexity of implementing taxes on e-commerce sales since there are over 10,000 jurisdictions that collect sales tax with each having different rules and rates, making implementation cumbersome.

He noted that this was the third time the Supreme Court has heard about the issue of whether businesses without a physical presence in a state can collect sales tax on residents. The notion that “third time’s a charm” is a poor notion to use for decisions the Supreme Court makes.

Read More: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-sales-taxes-internet-merchants.html

The Trump Foundation in Legal Woes

A New York Senator has filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, his three sons, and The Trump Foundation. The lawsuit was filed last week where recommendations were to the Federal Election Commission and the IRS. Such claims could instigate investigations on separate counts. They were accused of illegal conduct exceeding a decade. It seeks a compensation fee of 2.8 million dollars plus additional fines and penalties. Further drastic measures include shutting down of Trumps’ charity known as the Trump Foundation.

The senator appealed that during Trump’s campaign in 2016, the organisation practiced some illegal coordination. Also, the organisation made unlawful multiple self-dealing transactions to benefit the President and his business interests. Barbara Underwood, the senator, filed the lawsuit against the mega-billionaire. Her press secretary, Amy Spitalnick said that they did not have any criminal jurisdiction over nonprofit entities. This is the main reason why the lawsuit is under the IRS and the Federal Election Commission.

The investigation carried out came to find out that the foundation raised more than 2.8 million dollars. It was meant to influence the election on Trump’s favour and senior authorities in the campaign. In January 2016, an event held by Trump to fundraise for the veterans in Iowa town, who participated in the Fox News primary debate, went sour. Corey Lewandoski, the senior chief campaigner, was accused of directly involving himself in the payouts to nonprofit organizations. Such acts are complete violations of state and federal law.

Business Insider tried to shed light on the matter through the Twitter handle belonging to Lewandoski, only for him not to respond. Other watchdogs like the ethics in Washington and Common Cause also complained about the inappropriate misconduct of the Trump Foundation. Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause told the Business Insider that the coordination violates the soft money ban. He continued to say that the Iowa event was for goodwill but coincided with Trump’s campaign. The event sort of earned Trump some points for his presidential campaign.

The wrongful use of the Foundation to aid his campaign was deliberate. According to CNN, the standard campaign-finance violation, it would be termed as a criminal matter. The director and general counsel at Campaign Legal Centre, Larry Noble, said he saw likely legal problems especially with the finance law and the Internal Revenue Code. He added that should the campaign be assisted by the charity’s contributions, then that would be a violation of campaign-finance law. It instigates the funding of political campaign by corporates.

The Legal Aspect Of Separating Children From Their Parents At The Border Is Condoned By The Bible According To Jeff Session

People might think a Methodist Sunday school teacher would know how to interpret some of the information in the Bible. But Attorney Jeff Sessions proved that he was not one of those Sunday school teachers. Mr. Sessions claims the bible confirms the Trump’s administration’s plan to separate kids from their parents when parents illegally cross the border into the United States with their kids. The Bible says a lot of things about children. But there is never any mention of putting children through the kind of child abuse that Sessions and Trump, as well as the Trump administration, are instigating. Taking children away from their parents because they cross the border illegally is not a reason to separate families, according to legal experts and people who can read between the lines.

The real reason Trump is pulling this inexcusable trick out of his bag of unsavory tricks is to get his “Wall built.” He wants to force Congress to make a move on the immigration issue. He is blaming the Democrats for keeping kids in cages while he does his typical pass the buck act in front of the public. Trump says court rulings are the reason children are taken away from their parents, but that’s not true.

The Department of Justice can’t prosecute children for coming into the United States illegally. So Trump’s new zero-tolerance rule is separating more than 2,000 children from their parents. And the really bad news is those parents don’t know where Homeland Security will take them once all the phony paperwork is in order.

According to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, the Trump administration doesn’t have a separation policy in motion, but that’s another Trumpian lie. Nielsen, in her best rendition of a dictatorial lemming, said the Trump administration is within the law in this situation. But once again, her definition and Trump’s definition of the law is more subjective than objective. In other words, they want to create this kind of legal turmoil to get what they want from Congress.

Lawsuits follow Donald Trump like a doe follows her mother. He thinks he is above the law as well as a legal expert who is willing to challenge the laws he thinks are useless. And that is the definition of a dangerous leader. The border debacle is sure to create a plethora of lawsuits and Trump welcomes them. He wants to milk his position for all its worth before his nose stops growing, and he ends up back at Trump Tower with a “Do Not Disturb” sign on his front door.

Bill Cosby Casts Aside his Defense Team in Sentencing Preparation

Just last week, it was uncertain what influenced Cosby to make alterations to his legal team. His judgment for sexual assault against Andrea Constand is set for September. Tom Mesereau, head of his legal team is a high profile lawyer who successfully defended Michael Jackson. Despite this achievement, he was unable to do the same for Cosby. Consequentially, seven weeks later after conviction of sexual assault, Cosby lets his team go. The confirmation was met on Thursday by Cosby’s publicist in a mail. The mail highlighted that the entire legal defense team for the former TV star has been replaced. No further explanation was given by Cosby as to why the action was taken.

Joseph P. Green is Cosby’s new attorney. This report was given by Mr. Wyatt. He is based in West Chester and deals with personal injury cases and criminal defense. Attempts of getting any comment from Green in a phone call were not fruitful. Mr. Tom on the other hand just wished good luck on Bill Cosby and his new defense team. Mr. Tom gave no further additional information. In April, Cosby was convicted with three counts of sexual indecency. The 80-year-old is looking at 30 years behind bars for these accusations. His first trial was in 2017. However, the jury could not come to a final judgment. In April, during the rehearing, he was found guilty of drugging and molesting Andrea Constand. This incident on the former Templer University basketball official happened outside his home in Philadelphia. Brian J. McMonagle was the head of his defense team at the first trial at Philadelphia. He also did not comment when Cosby changed his legal team afterward.

This action was met with a lot of criticism from a lawyer of the same locality, William J. Brennan. He said that McMonagle was able to instill vital questions on the court that they were unable to give a judgment. “If he had a brain in his head, he would go back to McMonagle,” commented Brennan. During the filing of an appeal, it is customary for the accused to hire new lawyers. Philadelphia- area defense attorneys support this claim. Mr. Mesereau announced in April that it was only after the sentencing that a legal appeal would be filed. It was, however, unclear to Alan Tauber why Cosby changed Mr. Mesereau’s team. Ms. Constand faced accusations of lying at the first trial to get a payout.

Read More: https://wreg.com/2018/06/15/bill-cosby-replaces-his-defense-team/

Upward Trend in Associate Salaries Shows No Sign of Abating

The news earlier this month of increased associate salaries at multiple top-tier law firms has sparked curiosity among observers as to whether this trend is likely to spread to other players in the industry. As reported in the New York Law Journal, it appears that boutique firms are among those making the leap, something which comes as a bit of a surprise.

Several boutiques in the litigation realm have announced that they plan to match the $190,000 starting salary salvo launched by Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCoy. Among them are Chicago’s Barack Ferrazzano, Kirschbaum & Nagelberg and Hueston Hennigan of Southern California. Rumors of Susman Godfrey moving associate pay beyond the already eye-watering $190,000 level have also begun to take root.

The smaller firms in question tend to hire a comparatively limited group of associates every year, with those candidates possessing stellar qualifications from elite schools. However, it is the simplified leadership hierarchies of these firms that enable them to meet market trends swiftly, absorb expenses more effectively and remain competitive when it comes to attracting top talent.

Smaller, boutique firms are well aware of the massive amounts of student loan debt so many new recruits have at the start of their careers. As such, managing partners are seeking to ensure that pay is not among the primary reasons a prized candidate decides to go elsewhere.

Many boutique enterprises have been able to raise associate pay levels without instituting a concomitant, and likely unpopular increase in client rates. Several such firms have explained that associate raises were essentially baked into their overall financial strategy, something which incorporates a fair amount of budgetary flexibility and far fewer bureaucratic hoops than larger firm structures.

In the end, because of the need to attract the best and brightest young legal minds and to foster an atmosphere in which long-term employee retention is assumed, it appears likely that firms in this category will do whatever it takes to keep pace with the giants.

 

Lawsuit Claims Harvard Biased Against Asian-Americans

Harvard University has one of the best academic reputations in the world. Students from all walks of life compete to be admitted to this prestigious institution. However, some don’t think that Harvard is treating everyone the same during its admission process.

Students For Fair Admissions is claiming that Harvard is biased when it comes to admitting Asian-Americans to the school. According to a CNN news report, the group is contending that Harvard admits fewer Asian-American students than it should because the school gives this group of students low marks when considering the admissions criteria of personality and likability.

No one on either side of the lawsuit contends that if academic achievement were the sole criteria for Harvard admission that Asian-Americans would have a higher level of representation within the student body. One study has shown that if academics were the sole criteria, 43 percent of students at Harvard would be Asian-Americans.

When a student’s extracurricular activities and their personal ratings were added into the admissions criteria mix, the number of Asian-American students would be 26 percent of the student body. Harvard uses an additional criteria that they call demographic that lowers the number of Asian-American students the plaintiffs in the lawsuit contend.

For the upcoming academic year, 22 percent of the student body will be Asian-American. This is half the number that would be admitted if academics were given a higher rating in the admissions process.

Harvard University is aggressively defending itself against the plaintiff’s contention that the institution shows bias in any way toward any group of students. Harvard representatives have stated that the plaintiffs are misleading people by their selective use of statistics. Harvard contends the plaintiffs are not considering data from in person interviews and the essays that students submit as part of the admissions material.

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit is stating that Harvard is violating federal laws. They contend that their Title VI Civil Rights Act rights are being violated by Harvard’s admissions policy. According to that act, an institution that receives any type of federal funding is barred from any type of discrimination against people of different races or ethnic groups.

The judge is the case is currently looking at data presented to him by the plaintiffs in the case. The judge will determine later in the year if the case has merit and will proceed to trial.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions Is Getting Heat From Trump So He Is Defending The Firing Of James Comey

Jeff Sessions is an Alabama lawyer who loves to hate immigrants, gays, and pot smokers. Sessions always wanted to be the top law enforcement official in the United States, and he got the chance when he hooked up with Trump during the 2016 campaign. Trump likes Mr. Sessions because he thinks like Sessions thinks, when it comes to keeping people out of the country and keeping racist and narrow-minded thinking alive in Washington.

Session is a passive aggressive Attorney General who knows when to speak and when to keep quiet. When he recused himself from the Russian investigation, he did slip up in terms of doing Trump’s dirty work. But he is making amends by saying the Department of Justice may fire more people because of the shoddy way the Clinton email investigation went down. Sessions also said Trump was right when he fired Mr. Comey. Sessions took his sweet, southern time making that statement. But he had to do something to appease Trump. After all, Sessions is a member of the Trump “cult” that Senator Bob Corker said is alive and active in the Senate.

Mr. Sessions said Comey is guilty of a serious breach of discipline, and Comey is not the only member of the FBI to breach that discipline. The Justice Department’s inspector general is ready to release a report that could lead to more firings in the DOJ, according to Mr. Sessions. It sounds like Session already knows the report is going to show more discipline breaches and he’s happy to insinuate he will weed out those “bad guys” in the name of what’s right and just.

But it doesn’t take a political analyst to know Sessions is trying to get on Trump’s good side again. Trump isn’t happy with Sessions for a number of reasons, but Trump needs Sessions. Trump wants Sessions to be the point man that closes America’s borders. And he wants Sessions to be the crusader who gives more drug users longer jail sentences. Mr. Sessions is quietly doing Trump’s dirty work, and while does, the country is shaking its head in confusion and disbelief.

Jeff Sessions may be a “Good Ole Alabama Boy’ but that identity is changing. Most Washington insiders call him a Trump errand boy who wants to go down in history as the Attorney General who tried to rule the DOJ with ancient ideas and ridiculous statements.

Woman Sues NASA Over Moon Dust

A Tennessee woman who claims to be the legal owner of a vial of moon dust that she says was given to her by Neil Armstrong has sued NASA. The woman says that when she was 10, her mother gave her a glass vial with the typical orange rubber stopper containing a greyish dust along with one of her father’s business cards. On the back of the card, a message was written that says “To Laura Ann Murray – Best of Luck – Neil Armstrong Apollo 11.” Although she kept the message from Armstrong in her bedroom, that was the last time that Cicco saw the vial until she found it after her parents died five years ago. Now, she’s suing to keep NASA from getting it back.

After leaving NASA, Armstrong taught at the University of Cincinnati. She claims that her father, who was a pilot, and Armstrong became friends in Cincinnati, and that’s where her father received Armstrong’s gift for her.

Laura Ann Murry is now Laura Ann Cicco, and she’s adamant that the vial contains a moon surface sample from Armstrong, who in 1969, was the first person to set foot on the moon. An expert in autograph documentation has authenticated Armstrong’s signature on Cicco’s behalf. Another expert has examined the dust itself. He concluded that it may well be of lunar origin. Cicco, maintains that she is the lawful owner of the vial and it’s contents, and she’s seeking a judgment against NASA that declares her to be the true and lawful owner. NASA has yet to make a claim to the moon dust, but it apparently has a history of making claims against private individuals who are in possession of lunar materials.

According to Fortune, there is no statutory or regulatory authority that gives NASA ownership of all things lunar, regardless of the fact that NASA claims otherwise. Cicco’s lawsuit is preemptive in nature. In 2011, NASA was involved in a sting operation with a 74 year-old woman who was trying to sell a paperweight with a tiny amount of the dust inside of it. She also sued NASA, and the parties entered into a six figure settlement. NASA has yet to respond to the Cicco lawsuit, but it is expected to answer or otherwise plead shortly.

Another State Legalizes Sports Gambling

Just a few weeks after a decision by the US Supreme Court that may allow other states to pass legislation to legalize sports betting, gamblers are now on their toes. They have been given the go-ahead to place thousands of dollars in sports bets miles away from the Sin City. The Governor of New York, Phil Murphy, signed a law that would allow sports betting in the state on Monday. The race tracks and Casinos in New Jersey are expected to begin accepting betting in games later in the week. It is also anticipated that the Monmouth Park track will open legal betting as early as Thursday this week at 10:30 a.m. The Park track is located just a one and a half hour drive from Philadelphia and New York.

This was according to a report that was released by NJ.com. Lawmakers had enacted draft legislation that gave authorization to sports betting in the state of New Jersey a week ago. However, the bill did not take effect immediately as the state governor had to sign it for it become law. In the meantime, a chance to become the first state apart from Nevada to legalize sports gambling was missed by New Jersey. On Tuesday of last week, the state of Delaware started accepting sports bets on single competitions in their casinos. The activities in Delaware include sports betting in Delaware Park and Dover Downs. Other joints that offer legal sports betting in Delaware include Harrington Casino and Raceway, Murphy’s Race and Sports Book, the Casino at Delaware Park and the Dover Downs Hotel and Casino.

There are other colleges and professional sports where bets are being accepted. They include soccer, hockey, golf, boxing/MMA, basketball, baseball and auto racing. Sports betting will be legal for most collegiate and professional sporting events in the state of New Jersey. However, wagers cannot be included in sporting events that involve high school students. Sports betting will also not be allowed in athletic games involving teams from New Jersey and the ones taking place in the state. This means that you are allowed to bet on a Georgia or Alabama game that was being played in stadiums inside New Jersey. However, you can never put a bet on Rutgers regardless of where their game is being played. The question of when sports gambling will be readily available in New Jersey remains unclear. Sports betting will also be prohibited in the Atlantic City casino.

Drug Lord “La Barbie” Sentenced to Nearly 50 Years

An American citizen who was born in the United States was extradited from Mexico and sentenced to nearly 50 years in prison on drug and money laundering charges by a federal judge in Atlanta. Edgar Valdez Villarreal was known as “La Barbie” due to his light complexion and light eyes. He was also fined a staggering $192 million. Prosecutors remarked that $192 million was a conservative estimate of the value of the cocaine that was transported to the United States by Villarreal. He would then ship payment for the cocaine back to Mexico. Villarreal had pled guilty early in 2016 to conspiracy to import cocaine, conspiracy to distribute the drug and conspiracy to launder money. Each charge carried a minimum 10 year prison sentence. Presently 44-years-old, the man will likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

The former linebacker for his high school football team in Laredo, Texas, viciously ascended the ranks to get the top of one of Mexico’s most powerful drug organizations. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Atlanta, he started out by trafficking large shipments of marijuana between New Orleans and Memphis. He then developed a network through which he regularly delivered 150 to 180 kilos of cocaine to different cities on tractor-trailers.

“La Barbie’s” organization later began using speedboats to carry cocaine out of Colombia and other countries in South America into Mexico where it would later be transported to the United States. CNN reports that he worked his way up the organization as a hitman during a turf war for smuggling routes in and around Laredo. Upon his arrest, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration seized 100 kilos of cocaine and $4 million.

The man had been in custody in the United States since 2016, but he didn’t enter a plea until the middle of 2018. His family members, including his sister who is a Texas state prosecutor, pled with the presiding judge for a lesser sentence

“La Barbie’s” lawyer maintained that his client deserved credit for telling authorities 10 years ago that Mexican drug organizations had learned the identities of undercover law enforcement agents in the area. He argued that the information probably saved the lives of the agents. In response, the judge argued that even after “La Barbie” disclosed that information, he continued to deliver large shipments of cocaine to the United States. He remarked, “I’ve never seen a case like this.”

Future Lawyer Overcomes Difficult Past

Tarra Simmons will be graduating with a law degree. The road to becoming a lawyer was anything but easy. Five years ago, Tarra was addicted to meth. She also served 20 months in prison for meth possession.

After Tarra got out of prison, she struggled to get custody of her children. She also faced bankruptcy and foreclosure. However, Tarra still enrolled in law school. She will graduate with a 3.7 GPA. She has also received numerous accolades including the Skadden Fellowship. This is an award that is given to people who plan to practice in public interest law.

Tarra stated that there are a lot of things that she is not good at. However, she stated that she is good at academia. Even though Tarra has done everything that she was supposed to do to earn her degree, there are some people who believe that she should not.

The Washington State Board Association recommended that Tarra not receive her law license. The case went before the Washington State Supreme Court. Shon Hopwood is a professor of Georgetown Law School who supports Tarra. He is also a former bank robber. He stated that it is possible for people to be redeemed.

Shon stated that a person’s character is not static. The judges met for four hours and ultimately decided that Tarra could take the bar exam. She passed the bar exam and will be sworn in as an attorney on June 16. She has the support of her husband, son and stepdaughter. She met her husband while she was in drug addiction recovery.

Tarra stated that her husband has stepped up and helped her in many ways. She is $300,000 in debt from student loans. Fortunately, she will work for a non-profit organization for 10 years, and the debt will be forgiven.

Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/life/lifestyle/character-is-not-static-a-soon-to-be-lawyer-turns-rough-past-into-bright-future/

Parents Who Said God Spoke to Them Through Toy Stuffed Lian Has Child Taken From Them

In an unusual British Columbia case, a couple who was unrepresented by counsel lost custody of their two-year-old child after they were declared unfit parents. They relied on a toy stuffed lion that they said God was speaking from to give them legal advice. The ruling was pursuant to an appeal from November of 2017 when a lower court declared them unfit. The parents claimed that the lower court ruling violated their Christian values. Prosecutors alleged that the parents’ extreme Christian beliefs interfered with their relationships with others in their community. They argued that the couple promised to “purge churches of evil influences.” According to Fox News, several churches had already told the couple that they were no longer allowed in their congregations and had to call police on them.

It was also alleged that the parents tried to “cleanse demonic influences” from their baby when she was born. One court justice stated that “It appears that, due to their strong religious beliefs, they are intolerant of those who do not espouse identical views. This includes other Christians.” The case became increasingly strange after the wife allegedly told a social worker that her husband was raised in a cult. She disclosed that he believes sexual relations between children should be encouraged and that they should “role-play” sins where the girl plays the victim and the boy plays the perpetrator.

The parents also opted to refuse legal aid. In court, they used the stuffed lion to speak to God in tongues. In their cross examination, they allegedly maintained that Jesus was asking questions through them. The lower court justice found that the parents lacked credibility, and the child was placed in protective custody. An appellate court justice stated that placing the child in protective care was not based on religious grounds. Concerns were also raised about the mother’s mental health. In its decision, the appellate court wrote that “The parents obviously love their child and wish to raise her in their home with their Christian values.” It then remarked that there was clear and sufficient evidence to allow the lower court judge to affirm that a continuing custody order was warranted under the circumstances.

Justice Department Tells Federal Court That ACA is Unconstitutional

Last year, President Trump made the decision in the new tax bill that individuals who decided not to have health insurance coverage would not have to pay a tax penalty starting in 2019. Technically, the tax penalty was eliminated and not the individual mandate.

Several attorneys general have sued in federal court stating that the entire individual mandate must now be ruled unconstitutional since the tax penalty has been eliminated. When the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, it based its ruling in part on the fact that the Congress has the power to tax. The attorneys general contend that since the tax is off the table, the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

The Justice Department has told the federal court hearing the case that they will not be arguing in favor of keeping the individual mandate in tact. The Justice Department is agreeing that the mandate is unconstitutional, reports The New York Times. The Justice Department, the Trump administration and many Republicans believe that if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the entire Affordable Care Act will be finished.

What many people may not realize is that that the individual mandate is linked with insurance companies having to accept everyone regardless of whether or not they have a pre-existing condition. Under the current low, insurers must accept all people, and they are not allowed to charge an additional premium for those who have certain medical conditions.

The Trump administration has made the case in recent months that some plans should be allowed to be sold that would allow insurers to bar people with pre-existing conditions. Those with pre-existing conditions would also be able to be charged more for insurance.

It will be many months before this case makes its way through the federal courts. The issue may end up back with the Supreme Court. Critics believe that if the courts eventually side with the Justice Department, the ACA will be finished, and many people will lose their healthcare coverage as a result.

All Eyes on Ottawa as Canada Becomes the First G7 Nation to Legalize Marijuana

When the first cannabis factory was opened by Canopy Growth four years ago near an old chocolate plant in the Canadian capital, everyone thought of a bright future in the industry. Medical marijuana was by then legal in Canada, and the company expected that the next move by the government was to pass legislation for recreational use of the product. However, the company had not predicted the sudden influx of visitors from a foreign land. Law enforcement agencies and politicians from Australia, Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and Jamaica have all visited the country. Medical practitioners and other healthcare professionals from Chile, Brazil, and New Zealand have also paid a visit to Canada.

Canopy Growth has also hosted groups of corporate bankers and investors. The number of corporate visitors has been so high that the company has sometimes been forced to split up the group members according to their months of birth. Jordan Sinclair, who serves as the company spokesperson, said that the company had predicted that it would give a lot of tours and explain to the world exactly what they did. Sinclair added that they put windows in all the doors to be able to accommodate everyone. Canada is now in the spotlight at the international stage due to its decision to have legal recreational marijuana. This is especially after the Senate vote on Thursday.

The Guardian says this will make Canada the first nation in the G-20 to have passed legislation to legalize recreational cannabis. One of the experts of substance use in the most prominent psychiatric hospital in Toronto, Benedikt Fischer, said that the move to legalize pot would give Canadian citizens an experience that feels like a little bit of science fiction. Fischer added that the experience would be one of a kind in the globe. He said that Canada would be the first wealthy nation to legalize the use of recreational marijuana. Fischer also noted that the Canadian experience would be far much more different to what is happening in the United States.

In the US, recreational pot is only legal in some states and illegal in others. However, under US federal law, cannabis possession and sale remains a felony. Recreational cannabis is also legal in Uruguay. However, the world seems to ignore the country since it does not have a significant influence in global affairs. Therefore, the world will have eyes on Ottawa and see how legalization works for them.

Stormy Daniels Files Third Lawsuit Against President Trump

Stormy Daniels recently filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and her former lawyer responsible for representing her in a non-disclosure agreement in 2016. Daniels, a pornographic film actress, has claimed that she had an affair with current President Donald Trump.

The New York Times reported that the suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court against Daniel’s former lawyer, Keith M. Davidson, and President Trump’s personal lawyer. The claim states that the lawyers acted with malice and breached fiduciary duty along with aided and abetted breach of fiduciary duty. The Times reported that Daniels’ is seeking $200,000 for damages and an unspecified amount of punitive damages.

Michael Avenatti, Daniels’ current lawyer, has now filed three lawsuits related to the non-disclosure agreement and Trump. The lawsuit alleges that Cohen and Daniels discussed if Daniels would make an appearance on the Sean Hannity show to debunk the accuracy of an article from InTouch magazine regarding her and the current President.

The exhibit includes texts between the two regarding a possible January appearance for Daniels. Cohen wanted her to appear on the show to debunk the rumors, and Davidson replied that Daniels was unavailable. Cohen later texted that Clifford shouldn’t do an interview because the story’s popularity was dwindling. Davidson also agreed to Cohen’s terms not to do an interview or statement unless it was through the lawyer.

The suit also alleges that Davidson warned Cohen beforehand about her possibly filing a lawsuit against the president and hiring different counsel. Cohen then proceeded to attempt to silence Daniels by attempting to get a restraining order against the actress.

The exhibit shows texts between Cohen and Davidson on March 2nd. The texts state that Davidson informed Cohen about Daniels filing a lawsuit. He never got Clifford’s permission to discuss the matter or give information to Cohen.

The complaint also says that Clifford has requested her complete client file at least five times, and Davidson has yet to return it to her. It also alleges that he was involved in trying to create a fake story for the Wall Street Journal saying Daniels wasn’t cooperative with investigators currently working on the Cohen investigation in the Southern District of New York.