Just days before the judiciary committee is set to vote to advance the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh ,some rather embarrassing allegations of sexual assault against him emerge. Christine Blasey Ford, the alleged victim claims that Kavanaugh attacked her 35 years ago during a high school bash. In a letter written to a senior law maker of the Democratic Party, she gave a detailed account of how the incident happened.
These allegations have, however, raised a lot of questions by the republicans, wondering why the young professor at Palo Alto University had decided to stay mute for all these years, only to resurface on the eve of the vote. Kanavaugh, who claimed not to know the accuser until she identified herself, has since refuted the allegations by categorically denying the allegations, saying that he did not do that sort of thing in high school or at any time. Kavanaugh has served as a judge in the court of appeals in the US for the District of Columbia since 2006. He was later nominated for a spot on the U.S Supreme Court by President Donald Trump as a replacement to the outgoing justice Anthony Kennedy, in July 2018. Kavanaugh went to the renown Yale law school and has worked in the White House for President George W bush as a counsel and staff secretary, making him very a great intellect and most qualified for the impending advancement.
Brett Kavanaugh has had a smooth running and successful career. He was about to make his next big step through the Supreme Court nomination, when the accusations came knocking. Although the allegations could pose as a major hitch to his political career, Senator John Kennedy on Sunday stated that the vote would proceed as planned, on Thursday. He also talked of how embarrassed he had been by the whole process, saying that the hearings have had been marred by constant interruptions by protesters.
Despite Senator Kennedy’s sentiments, many feel that Kavanaugh should be worried of losing the nomination, given the nature of the accusations .Both the accused and the accuser are set to testify under oath before the judiciary committee of the US Senate. Dough Jones, a democrat elected to the senate calls for a pause on the nominations but even if they resume business, whether the vote will be in favor of or against Kavanaugh will highly depend on the direction that the sexual misconduct allegations will take.
In the United States, elections are won or lost more often by differences in voter turnout among various demographics than in how all the eligible voters in a particular jurisdiction actually view a particular candidate or issue. This is because voter turnout in the United States is far lower than in most other established democracies around the world, which leaves the outcome of elections up to those who actually vote. Understanding the complexities of why Americans don’t vote is critical to putting NGP VAN software to the best use. It is also critical in using NGP VAN software to win elections.
Let’s look at the overarching stats. In the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, voter turnout hovered around forty percent. This means that the majority of Americans who were eligible to vote, around sixty percent, did not vote! Sadly, this means that tens of millions of potential American voters did not vote for senators, representatives, county supervisors, mayors, city council members, sheriffs, school board members, bond initiatives, or in many other elections that truly matter. Of course, this also include candidates for state houses where members determine the enactment of important state laws and how a state’s money will be spent.
The only positive that could be said about low voter turnout in America is the fact there is a lot of upside available to candidates and issues where the entire pool of eligible voters would prefer change. The use of NGP VAN software can certainly help turn out more voters that don’t normally vote in midterm elections. Consider this stat too for those individuals already thinking ahead to the 2020 presidential election. On average, only about sixty percent of all eligible Americans vote in presidential elections. If you start planning now, NGP VAN software can be a very potent tool, a not so secret “secret weapon” if you will, to turning out some of the forty percent of voters who haven’t voted in the past during presidential elections.
By contrast to voter turnout in America, most other democracies turn out on average, 70-90 percent of all eligible voters, even during “off year” elections. For example, Germany has about a 76 percent voter turnout. Denmark and Sweden both have about an 86 percent voter turnout. This is based on data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), which is considered one of the most trusted sources for this type of data. While America may not be ready yet for voter turnout quite this high, the good news is that all indications suggest that voters are more engaged going into the 2018 midterms than they have been in decades. NGP VAN software can help tap into that swell of interest and turn it into actual votes!
In some democracies, adults can actually lose the legal right to vote for an extended period of time, if they fail to vote. For example, in Belgium if a voter doesn’t vote in four consecutive elections, they lose the legal right to vote for ten years. According to the IDEA, voter turnout in Belgium is about 89 percent so this type of “compulsory voting” does seem to work. Similar penalties exist in Australia where voter turnout is a whopping 91 percent. In most democracies, there is also a certain amount of public shaming and other serious consequences to those who don’t vote, such as the inability to get a public job.
Americans cherish their freedoms so it stands to reason that compulsory voting would likely not be popular in the United States. However, U.S. citizens do take pride in encouraging each other to vote, engaging with one another, and having a spirited debate on the candidates and the issues. When an election is all said and done, however, if this spirited discussion does not convert into votes, then what’s the purpose from a practical standpoint? NGP VAN software can help turn what Americans actually care about into real life votes that can turn elections in favor of your candidate or issue.
Think about this. Just a small increase in voter turnout, among certain demographics, can easily change the outcome of elections. This is true for local elections, state elections, and national elections. Activists and campaigns have come to depend on NGP VAN software to help them turn out voters who support their candidate or issue. Let’s look at some of the details about why eligible voters don’t vote and how you can use NGP VAN software to increase voter turnout for your candidate or issue.
What Can Be Learned From the Pew Research Center?
On June 1, 2017, Gustavo Lopez and Antonio Flores of the Pew Research Center released a report on why the registered voters who did not vote in 2016 didn’t vote. Here is the breakdown, by percentage, that they found in their extensive survey:
– Didn’t like candidates or campaign issues: 25 percent
– Not interested, felt vote wouldn’t make a difference: 15 percent
– Too busy or conflicting schedule: 14 percent
– Illness or disability: 12 percent
– Other: 11 percent
– Out of town or away from home: 8 percent
– Registration problems: 4 percent
– Forgot to vote: 3 percent
– Transportation problems: 3 percent
– Inconvenient hours or polling places: 2 percent
First, while it may be tempting to direct most of the energy of a campaign into addressing the most most common reasons Americans don’t vote, it may actually serve your candidate or cause better to step back and determine what issues are the “lowest hanging fruit” in terms of how easily solved these issues are. In looking at the list above of reasons people don’t vote, the most common one, while incredibly important, is probably the hardest to address. On the other hand, the bottom three issues, accounting for a total of 8 percent of those surveyed, seem much easier to tackle, especially with the help of NGP VAN software. Since many elections are won or lost by a small difference in voter turnout, these less common voter turnout issues could be absolutely pivotal in winning! Let’s take them one at at time.
People who work for or volunteer for political campaigns sometimes exist in a bit of a bubble, at least when it comes to what how important voting is to most people. The act of voting is so paramount to them, they don’t fully realize that to other people, voting may not rank as high on the priority list. So yes, believe it or not, some people in every election, simply forget to vote. If your team uses NGP VAN software to track who supports your candidate or issue when phone banking and canvassing, you can very easily generate lists of people to courteously remind to vote. In fact, you can ask your phone bankers and canvassers to actually ask people if they’d like to have email reminders, text message reminders, or phone reminders about when and where to vote. Many voters actually appreciate this very much. You can then have that entered into the NGP VAN voter database you create and follow through diligently on these reminders.
It looks like three percent of the voters surveyed in the Pew Research Poll cited transportation problems as the reason they did not vote. Remember, this three percent is an average. Transportation could be an even bigger issue in your particular district. So, you can create a higher voter turnout for your candidate or issue by simply adding a place in your NGP VAN voter database to ask people if they need a ride to the polls. If a voter says yes, you can have volunteers give them a ride. You can also create lists from your NGP VAN voter database of those who need a ride to the polls and have your phone bankers call these people a few days beforehand and check in with them to remind them that you are providing them with transportation to the polls and to make the specific arrangements.
Two percent of those polled said their reason for not voting had to do with inconvenience, either in the hours established in their precinct or with some problem with the polling places. For example, starting in the 2016 primary, Arizona closed hundreds of polling places. This made it much more difficult for many voters to get to their polls. Lines were much longer than they had been in previous elections and and the wait time to vote increased substantially as a result. Some people waited for hours to vote and suffer heat stroke and other serious medical conditions. Ambulance rescue was hailed. Other voters got frustrated and left. Some parents HAD to leave because they needed to pick up their kids.
The above situation can be ameliorated by using NGP VAN software to first identify voters who support your candidate or issue and then train volunteers to make these voters are aware that Arizona does allow for “no excuse” early voting. This means a voter can vote early, absentee, without having to provide any specific excuse. The same is true in many other states, although voters don’t often know this. Once your team has identified voters with this potential problem within your NGP VAN voter database, you can then institute an outreach program to find workarounds. So in Arizona, for example, you could have your volunteers help educate people on how to vote absentee. You could even put more emphasis on elderly voters, parents, and others who may be more affected by long lines at the polls.
It should be noted that the Pew Research Center self identifies as a “nonpartisan fact tank,” but perhaps more importantly, their data is one of the most trusted sources for general voter turnout data. They conduct scientifically valid opinion polling and demographic research that is used by political strategists of all political persuasions. Further, their social science methodology is well respected among academics. If you use this data as your guide to brainstorm with your campaign organizers, you can put the NGP VAN software to good use in implementing a winning strategy. You could use the same tactic for voters who may be very busy or potentially have a conflict in their schedule.
What Can Be Learned From National Public Radio (NPR)?
Last week, NPR broadcast a special series of stories they called, “On The Sidelines Of Democracy.” They sent three reporters out into the field to explore the reasons Americans don’t vote. They talked with actual voters, went out with voting advocacy groups, and talked to experts about their data. Information gleaned from this NPR series can be used to make better use of the NGP VAN software.
Leila Fadel headed to El Paso Texas, a place where voter turnout is lower than average, even by American standards. El Paso is a poor community, with about half of the citizens living below the poverty line. Most don’t have health insurance either. Leila spoke to a working mom picking up cookies for her daughter at a local bakery. After admitting she didn’t even really know who’s running, she states this about voting, “I don’t really think about it. It’s kind of sad to say but I don’t really think about what can be better in my life… I do what I can do to make my life better and I don’t depend on them to change things for me.” By “them,” the working mom is referring to politicians.
This woman’s sentiment about voting is quite common. Many non-voters don’t really make the connection between voting and improving their life or even the life of their family. Using NGP VAN software makes it much easier to keep track of what concerns voters have. For example, phone bankers can ask questions like, “If you could change one or two things in your life, what would you change?” Depending on their answers, various lists can be made within NGP VAN and given to volunteers who can then explain during followups why their particular candidate or issue would address their biggest issues. In this way, NGP VAN can help you allow non-voters to target themselves with the issues they care most about.
Asma Khalid headed to Georgia where she interviewed non-voters who were quite discouraged about voting. One woman in Houston County told her, “It doesn’t matter whether I’m registered to vote or whether I go vote because I don’t see anything changing. We’re still being profiled. We’re still being gunned down. We’re still being, nothing is changing.”
A man in a Georgia barbershop explained his reason for not voting in the following way, “The reason I don’t vote on a national level around here, it’s a red state,in other words, I’m pretty sure I could do my own mathematics and figure out what’s going on but I know this vote is not really going to really matter for president.”
There are many real and perceived barriers to voting that Americans face. NPG VAN software can help you help your candidate or issue by creating a highly customized voter database that identifies the key voting hurdles in your specific area. Does a large swathe of your potential voters feel their vote doesn’t count for some reason? Do they feel nothing changes even if they do vote? Do they stay home on election day because they think the outcome is predetermined? Once you identify these voting barriers in the NGP VAN voter database your team creates, you can use it to strategize on messaging. You can also modify and tailor your messaging for specific areas depending on the barriers that potential voters in those areas express.
Asma also went to Nevada to talk with non-voters and voting activists and came back with more invaluable insights. For Nevadians aged 18-29, Las Vegas has one of the worst voter turnouts in the country. Asma interviewed a non-voting mom in this age bracket living with her parents and siblings, “It’s not easy, you know, being a mom and then being wife, having to cook and just still trying to keep up with work and school… One of the main reasons why I haven’t voted is because I feel that I’m always too busy.” Remember too, the Pew Research Center found that 14 percent of non-voters polled said they were too busy and or had a conflict in their schedule.
NGP VAN software can help you help potential voters overcome the issue of being too busy to vote in a number of ways. First, your team can develop lists of registered voters that don’t vote very often from the shared pre-existing voter data found in the NGP VAN system. Second, you can incorporate questions that will help identify this potential problem and incorporate this into the script canvassers use. This is now made exceptionally easy with the MiniVAN Touch smartphone app.
Depending on how a potential voter answers a question such as, “Does your schedule allow you to vote?” the app can prompt the next question or response depending on what they said. For example, if the potential voter says they want to vote but they usually don’t have time to vote, your canvassers can talk with them about alternative ways to vote other than actually standing in lines at the polls. Third, you can use the NGP VAN personalized voter database you create to have your canvassers follow up with this voter to ensure they successfully accomplished the alternative form of voting and determine if they may need some help in setting that up or maybe just some additional encouragement to stop procrastinating.
Asma also encountered a community activist that explains that politicians sometimes pay more attention to issues that seniors care about, such as social security, than issues like student loan debt that younger voters care about. While this may be a rather pessimistic view for younger people, there was also good news from this activist. He showed Asma an example of a young voter who was contacted by canvassers in 2016 FOUR times. The persistence paid off because she did vote on election day! NGP VAN software can help your team keep track of every contact with every voter so that your team can build on each interaction so that each contact improves your odds that you will get the person to vote.
Good luck on your campaigns and be sure to use NGP VAN software to improve your success!
According to Forbes magazine report of June 2017, Washington DC was ranked third among the US tech cities, and a leading knowledge hub and innovation hotspot. Due to its skilled workforce, according to the US Bureau of labor and statistics, the metro DC area is ranked number one in high tech, with employment in the sector being 2.5 times more concentrated there than in the rest of the united states.
A controversial debate has been initiated in Washington as calls have been made to the federal government to regulate the giants in the technology industry, citing misinformation and political bias. The giant tech companies namely Google and Facebook have been on the spot for quite some time now, with several accusations being made against them. Google, for instance, has allegedly been promoting information that is either untrue, or distorted with utmost right-wing bias on subjects like spreading fake news to build support for conservative political leaders. Facebook on the other hand has received its fair share of accusations, one of them being that they sell users personal information to political consulting firms and suppress conservative news stories from trending news.
Among these reasons, the legislative and administrative organs in Washington feels that these giants have had a lot of power and influence in the industry and on people’s online activities. Capitol Hill says that big tech is to an extent of sabotaging other online advertising companies that have been struggling to establish themselves on the digital platform as they experience slowing revenue. According to LUMA partners, a leading investment bank that does analysis on digital media and marketing, there has been a fall in the number of independent ad tech companies since 2013 by 21 per cent to 185 in the second quarter of 2018. A wide spread of online advertising continues to rise to more than $88 million in 2017. However, more than 90 percent of that growth went to Google and Facebook as reported by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade group in New York.
In the broader picture, we cannot deny that the giant tech companies have become increasingly attractive as more users come on board. As a result, it is going to be almost impossible for other companies to compete and for any government to challenge them. Washington is only the latest state to show its frustrations on these internet firms. France and Germany are already implementing fines on them for not following the rules governing the industry.
A 45 year-old-California man has been charged with at least 10 felony cases and accused of 16 dining-and-dashing cases. He’s now looking nearly 17 years of prison food. The man personally met at least 13 women on a number of online dating websites, and now, he’s accused of running out on over $1,000 of dinner tabs. Needing to use the washroom or retrieving an item from his car were some of his excuses. After excusing himself for a minute, he’d never come back. His dates were left with the check. Since he never returned to the dinner table with his accusers, the prosecution convinced the presiding judge that he might not return to court either. Accordingly, the judge set bail at $315,000. The man remained behind bars until he could post bail.
The accused dine-and-dasher dater in this case is reportedly charged with 16 counts of extortion, two counts of attempted extortion and one count of grand theft. His scamming allegedly spanned a period of just under two years across southern California. In California, extortion involves obtaining property from somebody else by force or fear. At this point in time, it hasn’t been disclosed on how the prosecution intends on proving extortion. Both lawyers and non-lawyers perceive of extortion as being connected with blackmail. If that’s the case, the man’s defense options might be limited, especially if he left threats on the internet after dining and dashing.
One woman questioned why the man would want to date a woman who looked like her. Another said that he knew all of the right things to say at the right time. In yet another case, he’s accused of leaving an expensive hair salon without paying. Upon dashing on one woman after an expensive dinner, she said she waited for about 10 minutes until such time as she realized what had happened. The restaurant manager realized that both the restaurant and the woman were scammed by the dine-and-dash dater. The restaurant picked up the tab. Another woman said that he didn’t look at all like his pictures that were posted on dating sites.
Apparently the man is unable to pay for an attorney too. He is represented by an assistant public defender who he has already asked to have removed from the case. His request was denied, and he’s now considering acting as his own attorney.
The United States Justice Department reported that they had pressed charges on an unproven North Korean infiltrator for assisting to commit cyber-hackings in contradiction of the National Health Service. After the hacking transpired, the NHS canceled its operations, patient records were made unavailable, and all ambulances were diverted to other hospitals. The 2017 Worldwide hack was reported to have affected over 150 computers in more than 150 countries. The South Korean who is aged 34 years, was involved in a cyber-attack on Sony Corporation back in 2014. He was also a mastermind in the $81 million theft from the bank of Bangladesh back in 2016. On Thursday a complaint was released regarding Park Jin Hyok. It wasn’t certain whether North Korean authorities noted the operation on behalf during the Wannacry cyberattack. The United States law enforcement wanted Park available for judgment.
Park was believed to have been operating in China. However, the prosecutors later reported that they think that Park had changed his location and that he was currently in North Korea. United States officials thought that the hacker hit in retribution for the Interview. This is the Hollywood spoof movie that had lampooned the isolated nation to a level that its Nation’s media cautioned if it would wage hard-hearted retaliation. The 2017 cyber-attack, which was the largest ever, did hit the National Health Service. It hit their computers that were operational at the hospital and those that were used to undertake surgeries in over 48 National Health Service Trusts. Over 6,900 NHS appointments were canceled, which caused 19,000 patients to be affected. The staff was left with one option than to use their pens and papers to operate as they were locked from their computerized systems.
A succeeding government report discovered that NHS trusts were left vulnerable to more attacks because the basic cybersecurity references were not trailed. None of the 88 of the 236 Trusts that were evaluated by NHS numerical before the hack transpired were discovered to have met the essential cybersecurity standards. It was reported that approximately all NHS trusts were using an outdated version of Windows for which Microsoft firm had halted providing security informs three years ago. It was also recommended that NHS’s 90% of Trusts were operational under Windows XP and 15 year ancient systems. In the intermediate aftermath of the cyber-attack, the then Home secretary Amber Rudd was not in the position to confirm whether the patient’s credentials had previously been backed up.
Kim Kardashian visited President Donal Trump at the Oval Office again. This time, it was on behalf of Chris Young, a convicted drug dealer who was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment by former U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Sharp. Sharp also attended the Oval Office meeting. Both are seeking clemency for Young.
According to channel24.co.za, at the ages of 18 and 19, Young had been convicted in state court of possessing small amounts of marijuana and cocaine. Both convictions resulted in probation with no prison time, but for federal purposes, he was a convicted felon. When he was 22, Young was rounded up with about 30 other people who were involved in the buying and selling of small amounts of cocaine and crack cocaine. As per Judge Sharp, the arrests involved “several low level folks handling small quantities.” Young was one of those people. He was described by the judge as being “barely on the totem pole.” He later rejected several harsh plea offers and went to trial. He was convicted of conspiracy with intent to possess and distribute 500 grams of cocaine, intent to distribute cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, possession of a firearm as a felon and knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Prosecutors asked for an enhanced sentence, and Young was sentenced to life in prison.
Judge Sharp didn’t want to sentence Young to life in prison, but the law required him to do so. According to the Washington Examiner, at Young’s sentencing hearing, Sharp described the sentence as being “way out of whack” compared to what other co-conspirators’ sentences. He said that since he was the judge who heard Young’s case, “Nobody probably knows the case better than I do.” He resigned from his lifetime appointment as a federal judge last year, and he’s now aligned with Kardashian on the Young case. Before this meeting with the president, Kardashian was in the Oval Office in June of 2018 on behalf of drug convict Alice Johnson. Her life sentence for a first-time drug offense was commuted by Trump. To date, he has been far more generous on clemency issues than other presidents before him.
Choosing a justice to serve on the United States Supreme Court is one of the most important decisions that any President of the United States will undertake. A Supreme Court justice is allowed to serve on the bench for life, so a justice could be on the court shaping legal opinion for decades.
Each time that there is a hearing to confirm a new justice, there are a number of individuals and groups that provide their opinion as to the fitness of a justice nominee to serve on the court. The American Bar Association is one of the most important legal bodies in the United States. This organization rates each judicial nominee based on a number of different criteria.
Among the criteria that are used to rate a Supreme Court nominee are the individual’s ethical integrity and legal competency. The individual’s legal experience is also taken into account.
Brett Kavanaugh has just received the American Bar Association’s top rating of well-qualified. Mr. Kavanaugh was chosen by President Donald Trump to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Justice Kennedy was seen to be a so called “swing-vote” on the court coming down on the liberal or conservative side of an issue depending on the case before the court.
Mr. Kavanaugh is seen by many as a much more conservative judge than Kennedy. Many on the political left are opposing his nomination to the nation’s highest court in spite of the high rating given to Kavanaugh by the American Bar Association.
Mr. Kavanaugh currently serves as an associate justice on the Federal Court of Appeals from the District of Columbia Circuit. Before becoming a federal judge, Mr. Kavanaugh served as a counsel to President George W. Bush. He also worked for Ken Starr when Mr. Starr was investigating the conduct of President Bill Clinton.
The hearings in the Senate to confirm Mr. Kavanaugh started on September 4. Mr. Kavanaugh is expected to be confirmed along party lines by a very small margin.
A foundation named in honor of United States President Donald Trump has requested that a judge in New York move to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it. The lawsuit was filed by the state’s Attorney General in response to activities of the non-profit. Both Trump and the foundation have characterized the lawsuit as a politically motivated attack.
A lawyer for Donald Trump said that the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Barbara Underwood was no more than an effort on the part of her office to lead a charge against the president. The lawyer claims that the resistance operates by attacking him whenever possible and filing lawsuits when agreements could be reached.
Underwood is a Democrat that inherited the results of a 21-month probe by former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Attorney General Underwood said when speaking in June that the investigation into Trump Foundation affairs alerted her office to numerous unlawful actions that were committed with the attempt to benefit Donald Trump.
Alan Futerfas, a lawyer employed by the Trump Foundation, says that funds collected by the Foundation have been completely accounted for and that ‘nearly every penny’ was spent to benefit individuals that were in need. Futerfas went on to say that no one involved with the Foundation committed any illegal acts. This includes three adult children of Trump that are affiliated with the Foundation in various capacities.
Futerfas has also openly questioned the failure of Underwood and the AG’s office to pay any attention to the many allegations of wrongdoings that have been lodged against a foundation associated with former President of the United States Bill Clinton.
A spokeswoman for Underwood, Amy Spitalnick, added to the fray via Twitter by saying that Attorney General Underwood has no intention of backing down in her efforts to assure that Trump and his associates are held accountable for improper practices taking place in the state of New York.
Spitalnick explained that the Trump Foundation in New York amounted to nothing more than the then-presidential candidate’s ‘personal piggy bank’ and was used to further both the political and business interests of President Trump.
The lawsuit by the Attorney General was filed in a Manhattan state court of New York. The lawsuit is asking that the court recoup $2.8 million dollars from the Foundation and force its dissolution. The lawsuit also asks that the three Trump children involved with the Foundation be banned from associating again with a charity in the state of New York.
Donald Trump likes legal battles. According to a CNBC article, Mr. Trump and lawsuits are close friends. Records show he took part in more than 3,500 lawsuits before he won the 2016 campaign election. But even though that number of legal skirmishes is unprecedented for someone seeking public office, the legal battles facing Mr. Trump now might make that number look like a warm-up round for the legal Olympics, according to some legal experts.
A new Manhattan legal battle could make Trump look for another group of legal eagles to save him. The word is the Manhattan District Attorney’s office may bring criminal charges against the Trump Organization. Two senior Trump officials are in the eye of this brewing legal storm, according to a New York Times article. If the Manhattan District Attorney follows through and wins the case, Trump can’t use a presidential pardon as a get out of jail free card.
Mr. Trump has a history of responding to legal disputes with a lot of legal force. And if the Manhattan District Attorney does files charges, Trump will try to use his money and influence to win, according to people close to Trump. Trump seems to thrive on legal battles. His older sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, is an attorney as well as a former United States Circuit Judge. Mr. Trump feels comfortable battling the legal system. He thinks he knows how to win based on his relationship with his sister.
Manhattan prosecutors are trying to determine if the organization used phony business records. And if that’s the case, the Trump group did commit a low-level felony. The last time District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. had his sights set on members of the Trump Organization for misleading buyers, he didn’t pursue the case. But according to some people in the DA’s office, he won’t make that kind of mistake again.
According to statistics, the level of wages has stagnated for several years now. The high cost of housing has therefore led to a high eviction rate in the country as most tenants are unable to cater to their rent. This worrying trend is evident all over the country. According to a book written by Mathew Desmond, most low-income earners spend a significant amount of their monthly income on rent. The author estimated the rent and the electricity bill payable by most low-income earners to be over 70% of their income. Even though a majority of the evictions are not done according to the law, most tenants do not seek legal help.
Statistics show that barely 20% of the evicted tenants go to the courts. As a result, some innovators have been developing a program for the tenants to find justice after unlawful evictions. Two innovators from Brigham Young University and the University of Arizona are the brains behind the idea. After the completion of the program, the number of evictions is expected to go down significantly and also the facilitating the acquiring of the appropriate attorneys in cases of unlawful evictions. According to the Dean of the Brigham Young University, Gordon Smith, there was a need for collaborations with other stakeholders in the legal field to develop an appropriate solution for the tenants across the country.
The dean revealed that some of their students carried out a study and discovered that most residents find a hard time when faced with legal battles in areas such as debt collections, evictions, and divorces. Some of the target areas include Arizona and Utah. However, the developers expect to come up with a solution for the whole country soon. The number of daily evictions recorded in 2016 from Utah was estimated at 7.61 while Pima County in Arizona had about 22. The statistics were compiled by the Eviction Lab.
Some citizens find it hard to use the current civil legal system. The innovation is expected to encourage more law students to help in minimizing the number of evictions by helping the tenants to understand their constitutional rights. One of the main challenges to the developers of the program is the variations in the legal guidelines regarding the evictions. Different states have different legislation on the issue. Most eviction laws favor the owners of the residential buildings. In some states, the tenant is issued with an eviction notice and expected to respond in a very short period.
The tension caused by Trump’s refusal to sit down with Robert Mueller’s team of investigators is creating an assortment of what-if scenarios in the legal community. When the Mueller investigation got started over a year ago, Mr. Trump said he would sit down with Mueller because he has nothing to hide. But as the investigation drags on, and more people are facing prosecution for their ties with Russia, and the alleged interference in the 2016 election, Trump is changing his tune. Trump’s lawyers now say he will talk to Mueller, but Mueller can only ask the president softball questions. Talk of collusion and obstruction of justice are off the table if Trump sits down with Mueller.
Rudy Giuliani, the no-holds-barred former New York prosecutor, and mayor of New York City is the legal front man in this comedy of legal maneuvering. Giuliani sent Mueller a message last week, and Mueller didn’t reply. In Rudy’s legal mind that means Mueller is going to subpoena the president. And Rudy and the other members of Trump legal team are ready to do what they do best. They are going to fight like Manny Pacquiao fought when he got hammered by Floyd Mayweather in 2015. Manny had a shoulder injury so his performance was not up to par. Trump has another type of injury that could predict the outcome of this pending legal battle. That injury is his inability to tell the truth.
But truth doesn’t always matter when legal battles enter the courts. Perception takes the place of truth in some courtrooms. And Giuliani and Trump are master perception manipulators, according to people close to the legal titans who are preparing for this legal showdown. Mr. Giuliani and the Trump’s legal team are ready to take the fight to the Supreme Court. But some legal analysts say the fight won’t last that long. Other analysts say a subpoena battle could last several months.
The midterm elections are approaching, and Trump is playing a major role in those elections. More legal dirt throwing could mean the Republicans will lose their majority in the House and possibly in the Senate. But Trump is willing to take that risk to protect his position. Some legal experts say Giuliani and Trump are waiting for a verdict in the Manafort trial before they do anything. If the verdict is an acquittal, Trump will use that to his advantage, according to Giuliani.
On September 27, 2017, Thomas Ray drove his car on Silver Pines Road at 7:30 in the evening. He says that there was a mixture of twilight and wet roads that made it difficult to see. Ray struck and killed cyclist David Owen Williamson. Ray struck Williamson from behind. A second driver hit Williamson after the initial impact.
Ray was emotional at the favorable verdict. He waited almost a year for the case to go to trial. He said that he still thinks of the victim and their family, but that he doesn’t believe that he is legally liable for what happened.
Cooney stated that he was disappointed with the jury’s verdict. Cooney seemed to think that simply because a crash occurred and someone got hurt, Ray must have committed a moving violation. Cooney said that he spent more than a month investigating the case to determine whether to file charges. However, the jury believed that the accident was just an accident and they declined to hold Ray criminally responsible for the crash.
The charge that Ray faced is a violation of a Michigan state law. The law is committing a moving violation that causes death. The law says that a person who commits a traffic violation that results in the death of someone else is guilty of a misdemeanor. The offender can spend up to one year in jail for their offense. The crime doesn’t require the offender to act intentionally or even with negligence. Just committing a moving violation can be enough to be liable for the offense.
The law is an amendment of an earlier Michigan law called negligent homicide. The law required prosecutors to show that an offender acted negligently in a way that caused the death of another person. The offense was punishable by up to two years incarceration that could include state prison. The law was amended because juries returned verdicts of not guilty in many cases. Although jurors see traffic deaths as tragic, they often see them as just terrible accidents that do not warrant jail and other penalties for the responsible driver. It isn’t clear what motivated jurors to return a verdict of not guilty in Ray’s case.
A United States District Court judge gave an order on Thursday for a mother and daughter that were in the process of being deported to El Salvador to be returned immediately to America. The order was issued once the judge was made aware that the pair had been already boarded onto a flight.
Judge Sullivan ordered the return of the pair and then informed all that were present that the action that was taken against the woman and her child could result in a contempt of court charge being filed against United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesman said that the department is willing to cooperate fully with the order of the court. The spokesman also reported that once the plane had landed, the mother and her daughter were immediately placed on a second plane that would return them to America.
Judge Sullivan also took the action at the hearing to issue temporary stays of deportation for all nine of the women and three children that are being represented in the lawsuit by the ACLU.
The lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia on Tuesday and is in response to what the ACLU characterizes as an unjust tightening of standards for individuals seeking asylum in America. The ACLU maintains that these new policies pose a danger to people attempting to flee violence and persecution against them in their homeland by causing it to be more difficult for them to be approved to stay in the United States.
Attorney General Sessions has been the point man for the Trump Administration’s mission to limit illegal immigration into the country. The Administration has endured much criticism in recent months as a result of the hardline stances that are being taken by them including the separation of immigrant children from their parents.
The Administration relented to the public outcry regarding family separations and ended the policy in June. However, it does not seem the Administration is willing to relent on many other stances it has taken as parties on both sides of the issue are preparing for a long legal battle.
A United States Border Patrol agent that was acquitted by a criminal court in the shooting death of a Mexican teenager learned that he was not exempt from facing civil litigation in the matter. The shooting took place while the teenager and agent were on opposite sides of the U.S.- Mexican border in Arizona.
The ruling originated from the 9th United State Circuit Court of Appeals and the dissenting judge in the 2-1 decision expressed his belief that his colleagues were ignoring all legal precedent with the decision.
The decision has paved the way for the legal allowance of Araceli Rodriguez, to file for civil damages against Border Patrol agent Lonnie Schwartz in response to the 2012 shooting of her son Jose Rodriquez.
The boy was reportedly walking along the street in Nogales, Mexico when Schwartz, while working in an official capacity with the U.S. Border Patrol, fired at Rodriquez while standing on an embankment located on the U.S. side of the border. Rodriquez was shot ten times and died as a result of the injuries.
Schwartz said his actions were in self-defense from a group of individuals that hurled rocks at him from the Mexican side of the border. Araceli Rodriquez maintains that her son was walking peacefully along his way when he was killed.
Schwartz was acquitted on charges of second-degree murder by a federal court in Tuscon, Arizona that was also unable to come to an agreement on lesser included charges of manslaughter. The case is set for retrial on October 23.
A lower court judge rejected a claim by Schwartz in the civil proceedings that he should be extended the status of qualified immunity and ruled that Rodriquez could seek civil redress for the loss of her son through the violation of his constitutional rights.
Judge Andrew Kleinfeld penned the majority decision and expressed that it was ‘inconceivable’ that any officer would take the action that Schwartz took against Rodriquez. He went on to say that Schwartz was on American soil when he fired his gun and that he is, therefore, subject to the laws of the United States. Judge Kleinfeld ended by characterizing the action taken by Schwartz as “shocking.”
A lawyer acting on behalf of Schwartz, Sean Chapman, did not provide the media with a comment. The Justice Department, who had also advised Schwartz on this matter, also gave no response to any requests for comments.
A U.S. Court decided on Monday that the administration of President Donald Trump will not be allowed to enforce s policy that would ban some transgendered individuals from serving in the United States military. The ruling is the second of its kind by an American court since the policy was introduced by the administration in March.
The announcement was made by President Trump on March 23 that he would support a plan proposed by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis that would disallow military service of transgendered individuals that are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This distinction replaces a previous ban to all transgendered people that was announced by the president via Twitter and said to be due to increased medical costs and reduced military focus that result from their service.
A similar ruling occurred in Seattle last April when another federal judged refused to allow the president’s ban to go into effect. The administration has appealed this ban to the Court of Appeals in the 9th District.
The argument made by Trump and his administration is that the updated ban no longer constitutes a categorical ban on all transgendered individuals wishing to serve the nation’s military.
Kollar-Kotelly expressed her disagreement with this assertion in her opinion in which she says the president’s ban does effectively amount to a categorical ban by making proxies of the transgendered status its focal point. The judge also singled out an aspect of the president’s policy that seeks to have all individuals serving the military to serve in the capacity of their ‘biological sex.’
Gender dysphoria is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as ‘clinically significant distress’ resulting from an individual’s conflict with their gender identity and their birth sex. The association holds the view that not all transgendered people are suffering from gender dysphoria.
The ruling on Monday stems from a lawsuit filed on behalf of several current members of the armed forces as well as aspiring service members. Kollar-Kotelly ruled in the original proceedings that the ban violates the Constitutional provision that all citizens are to be guaranteed equal protection under the law.
A trio of other judges has also demonstrated their disagreement with the ban which has forced the U.S. military to allow openly transgendered personnel within its ranks.