China’s Legal Retaliation

China responded to the United States trade rules by disapproving Washington’s move to the supremacists of its foreign investment supervisory body. The Chinese administration expresses fears that this move means that the US will use general security apprehensions unlawfully to confine Chinese investments. Chinese Tech industries investing in the US are the targets of the new investment rules. The recent trending trade wars have sparked retaliation in imports and exports between China and the US. The levies are valued at $34 billion.

The Trump administration imposed tariffs on its allies a month ago which, has brought heat-ups in trade. All Washington’s trade associates vowed to retaliate in case president Trump refused to evoke the new rules. Following Trump’s declination, countries in the European Union and China began strike backs on certain US commodities. These trade wars have affected the Forex platform with investors avoiding risks given the deteriorating value of currencies against the greenback.

The US President Donald Trump whispered his support on the legislation that would magnify the influences of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS). CFIUS exists as an inter-agency group that inspects the state security and effects of trade deals resulting in foreign proprietorship of US firms. The president has the mandate to cease agreements if recommended by the body. However, in run-through, a lousy CFIUS outcome only is so often sufficient to halt a deal. In a statement, Mr Trump hailed the move claiming that it was combat for the predatory venture practices menacing the US tech industry, and future economic fortune.

Deals that would pose a threat to the US tech prosperity can be halted by the stretched out role of CFIUS legislation. The critical striking point in the US and China trade tensions revolves around intellectual property. For long the US has been accusing China of stealing the country’s tech. The legislation is highly opposed by China with Gao Feng, saying China will monitor it to evaluate its potential impact on Chinese firms. Gao is the Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesman. According to BBC, China is the primary investor in the US which should exempt it from harsher foreign investment legislation.
China has been focusing on its initiative, Made in China 2025, that focuses on tech progress. Since the election of Trump, Chinese investment depreciated with values from the Rhodium Group showing a more than 90% fall in 2017. China’s investment in the US totaled $24.2 billion in 2017 according to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Will the Anti Trump Faction want an Investigation into the Retirement of Justice Kennedy?

The District of Columbia can be a crazy place at times. While the battle for power before the election of Donald Trump has typically been between the Democrats and the Republicans, the climate of Washington today is such that the paradigm is possibly overlapping. An example of this merging of what were once opponents is the call from a former Bush Administration official for an investigation into what spurred Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire abruptly, as though another investigation will expose a morsel of another something regarding Trump that appears underhanded.

When the announcement was made at the end of this court session it also included the actual date of July 31 as Kennedy’s last day as a member of the Supreme Court, meaning President Trump will now have an opportunity to impact the court for many years to come. This is also a transition that segveral on both sides of the aisle may not want to see, not to mention all of the left who want to attack Donald Trump for even eating Russian dressing.

University professor Richard Painter, who was once an official in the Bush Administration, claims the facts surrounding Justice Kennedy’s decision to step down must be investigated before Trump even gets an opportunity to name a nominee, citing Trump’s personal relationship with Kennedy’s son who works at Deutsche Bank. What many people do not realize is that Trump’s business bankruptcies impacted his personal credit rating as well after his companies went into bankruptcy, but Kennedy’s son found a way to influence the bank into re-establishing Trump’s credit status. According to a story published in the New Republic, Trump and Kennedy have been friends for many years with Kennedy’s son being a very trusted financier for the Trump brand.

Of course, the real problem for many who do not want to see the court transition is the potential revisiting of Roe vs. Wade, which is the decision that made abortion a fundamental right instead of just a medical option for women seeking the procedure. And, that is not to mention the direction the SCOTUS will take on future rulings. Trump has vowed to make a decision on a nominee in very short order with a potential vote coming before the fall, a vote the Democrats are already gearing up to avoid or stall. Critics of the “shady” relationship between Trump and Kennedy are even claiming Kennedy is “too young” to consider retiring from the bench that is a constitutionally protected lifetime appointment.

The fact that Kennedy is 81 years of age and may want to spend his remaining years in retirement is not an acceptable notion for many, as many justices stay on the court until death. But, one thing is for certain in this court appointment situation. The jury is still out.

Superior Court Rules against the California Crisis Pregnancy Facility Law

The justice court terminated a California bill that requires anti-abortion disaster pregnancy to issue content on matters like the termination of a pregnancy. The ruling also cast doubts on similar bills in Illinois and Hawaii. The California law was reported to have taken action in the year 2016. It required the health centers that were licensed to inform clients about the availability of various services like abortion, contraception and prenatal care that are at no cost. All the centers that were not licensed were required to put up a sign that said so. However, the Supreme Court struck down the law. The health centers reported that they were forced to deliver the information on which most of them had disagreed. The state of California reported that it wanted all the poor women living in the State to understand their options clearly.

In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the health centers are more likely to prosper in their constitutional protest. Justice Clarence went on to reveal that even as the law is currently on the papers, the petitioners can still go back to court and receive an order that will halt the enforcement. The attorney for the challengers reported that they expect whatever Justice Clarence had ruled with immediate effect. However, the state of California had not been enforcing the law. Thomas wrote for himself and others like Justices Samuel Alito, Kennedy Anthony, Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts, that California can’t co-option the licensed health facilities to deliver the message that they intended. He termed the requirement by the State of California to the unlicensed centers as rude, burdensome and unjustified.

Justice Breyer reported that among the reasons that the California law should be upheld is because the Supreme Court had already upheld the laws. It required the doctors working in these facilities to inform all women who came seeking an abortion to tell them about other services offered like adoption. Beyer stated in a dissenting opinion that the law should be evenhanded. All anti-abortion groups and the US Attorney General Jeff Session were among the people that were singing and celebrating when the law was upheld by the court. President Donald Trump’s administration reported that the State of California was violating the rights of all the health centres that were licensed but had no objection to the directive that was issued. The Trump’s administration went on to say that speakers shouldn’t be forced by their governments to report things that they disagree.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-voids-part-of-crisis-pregnancy-center-law/2018/06/26/cba2e0c6-794a-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.21c6b58c4ce3

How US Politics, though Illegal, are affecting the US Market

Trade tensions have been rising every passing day which is affecting the forex trading platform. The effect has been felt everywhere in the market since the threats turned to reality. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump’s administration announced imposing tariffs on aluminum and steel. Target countries included the European Union (EU) markets and China that are prominent producers of steel worldwide. The notice came by surprise to many of the United States trade allies as well as some politicians in America.

Investors have been shunning away from risk in the forex trade as currencies continue to lose value in the market. Forecasters warn of greater impacts and effects should this continue, risking business and the economy. Recently, German received an increased levy on their cars just when the Merkel government is struggling with immigration issues. However, the tensions are favorable to some currencies such as the Japanese Yen that continues to rise against the greenback significantly.

Today, the forex platform was all about trade tensions with the increasing threats and protective measures from Washington. These continue to intensify weighing on the upper betas generally while a slowdown of the increased trade plays out. The US trade allies in response to the tariffs by Trump warned of raising taxes on specific US commodities. The EU announced targeting particular products such as motorbikes among others in retaliation. Trump, having imposed the levies, forced his allies to pose trade barriers in retaliation to the tariffs. In retaliation, President Donald Trump has again threatened China and the EU to withdraw these barriers, failure to which there will be severe consequences.

Among the new threats, the administration will add tariffs to Chinese tech firms. According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration plans to stop Chinese tech industries from investing in American tech corporations. Additionally, Beijing’s tech exports will be blocked. Currencies continue to deteriorate in value against the USD in the Forex space recording a significant fall with the Euro in New York closing at 1.1703. Ahead of the EU Summit, GBP/USD was stable then uneven to the top closing at 1.3280. On the NY session at +0.13% within the N. American range of 1.3289 to 1.3251.

Oil was lower besides copper that in the June rout was nose-diving. For the first time since late last year, gold recorded a close beneath the 200-D SMA. The Aussie nosedived to 0.7397 from 0.7440 ranking it as one of the most underperforming commodities. However, Kiwi hiked from 0.6901 to 0.6890 in the equity market.

The Netherlands Hopes To Eliminate Sexism In Muslim Culture Within Its Borders

Islam is the second-most popular religion on planet Earth behind Christianity with about 1.8 billion followers of the spiritual belief system around the world. Without writing a novel to explain the differences between Christianity and Islam, Muslims – followers of the religion of Islam – believe that Muhammed is the last prophet to spread the word of Allah – or the one, true God. Whereas Christians believe Jesus spread the proper word, Muslims believe that Muhammed’s version of religion is the only true interpretation of such prophecies.

Another major difference between the two religions is that the Qur’an – the holy book of Islam – is considerably more conservative than the Holy Bible. For example, Muslim women are required by religion, culture, and even law to wear garments like the hijab whenever they’re out in public or otherwise exposed to men outside of their respective families.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia’s province of Aceh all require women to dress in hijab when outside of their homes. Men aren’t required to abide by the same rules and can essentially wear whatever they want. Women in the three aforementioned places also have far fewer rights than men, though the three countries’ respective laws regarding women are different; even those women who do want to challenge their respective governments’ laws aren’t able to successfully influence them.

Unfortunately for women hoping to live with the same rights as men – whether those rights are dictated by Saudi Arabian law or simply by Muslim culture both inside and outside of Saudi Arabia and other countries throughout the Middle East – not all governments around the world attempt to level the proverbial playing field between Muslim males and females.

The Netherlands is now striving to bring greater equality to Muslim women in respect to men

In an effort to eliminate the gap between men and women who follow the spiritual reasoning of Islam, the Netherlands recently announced that its federal government had successfully passed a law that outlaws women – the bill effectively only targets Muslim women, though it applies to all females – from wearing garments that cover their faces when worn in public, including government facilities like hospitals, schools, universities, and on modes of public transportation like trains, buses, and trolleys.

The Netherlands outlawed both the niqab, a face-covering veil, and the burqa, a full-body veil, on Tuesday, June 26, 2018. Read full report on vox.com.

Legal Medication vs. Ethics

There have been changes in the US since the election of President Donald Trump. Ranging from immigration to transgender conflicts among other factors, things are becoming even harder. They might not be directly linked to Trump personally, but widely encouraged by his administration. According to hellogiggles, life has been harder for the American woman. The Trump administration has been enacting rules and laws that the public is up against. This includes former ex-first ladies and notable figures of the country.

A post has gone viral on both Instagram and Facebook about a woman’s experience from Arizona. Nicole Arteaga, a school teacher, shared how a pharmacist from Walgreen denied her legitimate medication. According to a statement given by Nicole to BuzzFeed News, she was nine months pregnant when her doctor said that her baby had ceased to grow. In fact, they couldn’t feel the baby’s heartbeat. Nicole opted for medication instead of surgery to terminate the pregnancy. Even with the doctor’s prescription, the pharmacist at Walgreen refused to sell it to her based on ethics.

Every discipline has ethics, and some, such as the medical institutions, have strict rules and repercussions for failure to comply. The (American Medical Association) AMA Code of Medical Ethics instructs doctors to meet the moral challenges of medical practice. The Principles of Medical Ethics requests a physician to respect the law. Additionally, to identify an obligation to pursue alterations in those necessities that are dissimilar to the paramount benefits of the patient.

According to Hello Giggles, reproductive rights are a long-term battle that women have been fighting against. The doctor prescribed the medication given the pregnancy wasn’t fully functional, and that the baby would die in the long-run. It wasn’t Arteaga’s wish to end the pregnancy. However, situations forced her to go ahead with the procedure. Nicole continues to express her feelings on the pride that comes with carrying a healthy baby. The miscarriage was the last thing Arteaga wanted, but given the situation, it was the last choice she had.

There is strictness in some countries when it comes to moral and religious beliefs. Pharmacists in Arizona are lawfully allowed not to fill prescription contrary to moral beliefs. This law extends to six other states as well where the Code of Medical Ethics is strictly observed. However, people feel the need for changes in these rules saying they are unfit for women. The opinion expressed by the contributor terms it unacceptable for physicians to deny patients prescriptions based on their beliefs.

Men Accused of Ending the Life of a Missing Woodland Teen Pleads not Guilty

Three men that were accused of killing two woodland teenagers that disappeared in the year 2016 pleaded not guilty before the court. On Friday, the three men were arraigned in Yolo Superior court. Jonathan Froste 21 years and Chandale Shannon 21 years were earlier arrested this month and were charged with murder. Jonathan’s elder brother David Froste whose aged 27 years was much older in prison serving a sentence of an unrelated case. On Friday, David Froste was charged with murder after the hearing. During the trial, all the three gentlemen pleaded not guilty. There was a fourth defendant that was aged 18 years. His name was Jesus Campos. Jesus had previously been arraigned in a juvenile court.

The four men were accused of killing Elijah Moore and Enrique Rios. The two teenagers were students at Cesar Chavez Community School that is based in Woodland. Moore was 17 years while Rios was just 16 years. The two were reported to have disappeared few weeks apart. Yolo County Sherriff’s partnered with Woodland authorities and the FBI to investigate the disappearance of these two teenagers. Elijah’s mother, Alicia Moore, revealed that the not-guilty pleas that were said by the three men were ridiculous and never made sense at all. Alicia went on to say that the men seemed arrogant about the issue. They were cocky and never took the issue as severe as it would have been.

Alicia continued to say that they appeared as if they had something that they were hiding. She added that what they were hiding had seemed to be so powerful and that it was going to free them. Alicia started getting emotional, saying that they ended the life of her baby and another baby. It was so evil of them and that the law was going to serve them right. After the suspects pleaded not guilty, the three attorneys representing the three parties spent most of the time arguing on when the preliminary hearing will take place. David Froste’s public defender, Martha Sequeira, suggested that the hearing takes place after ten court days.

Martha Sequeira revealed that the allegations against David Froste were not new to her. She continued to say that Froste was so eager and ready to proceed with the hearing. The other two private attorneys representing the rest of the defendants reported that they were issued with more than 500 pages of possible evidence from the prosecution a night before. They were pleading to be given more time so that they could go through the book and prepare for the next hearing.

Sacramento City Abides by the Newly Launched Program

Sacramento City Unified was facing a $24.3 million deficit. However, the unified board had earlier sat and unveiled $555.3 million budget that included eliminating a recently introduced summer program and dipped further into reserve funds. The budget was approved on Thursday night. It included $4 million in cuts to the existing programs. These included slashing a new Expanded Learning Summer Program. The program started on Monday in various Sacramento schools. The summer program was thoughtfully designed to deliver to more than 4,300 Sacramento K-12 students grade –level. The program aimed to offer assistance and other academic related advancement opportunities.

The cutbacks of the program were necessary. Recently, Gov. Jerry Brown had signed a budget that expanded the state’s education spending by $3.9 billion. According to Sac Bee’s report, this is an increase of 5%. This is the seventh year in a row that the Governor has been able to expand school funding. According to the chief communications officer for SCUSD, Alex Barrios, teachers and students did not feel if there was any difference that Jerry Brown was making. The added school funds were intended to be used in the rising health costs and the elevated mandatory state pension contributions. The budget had decreased from $567 million from the previous year to $555 million. Gov. Brown Jerry also warned of a possible recession. The district said in a press release that Sacramento, like other vast urban centers, it had prepared and make cuts for the upcoming budgets. This was in preparation for a potential slowdown.

The remainder is up to $24.3 million from $15.3 million. The amount is likely to project and reach $34.4 million in the coming years 2019-20120. In a press release that was held on Friday, Jorge Aguilar revealed that after a year, it has been crystal clear that the district had frequently faced significant fiscal difficulties. He continued to say that the district will start to address the challenges by developing central office cuts. They should oversee a hiring freeze and also see that other administrative cuts will not be a significant concern in the classroom.

Aguilar had great hopes that partnering with the board would likely expand some of the minimal investments that they had started. All the investments that they had done in the previous months would have assisted and promoted equity, social justice and access to the students. He regretted when he said that it was so unfortunate that the investments he was anticipating would no longer increase.

 

The Overwhelming Copyright Bill has been approved.

A committee that was comprised of officials of the MEPs voted to welcome the significant changes to the European Copyright Bill. Experts said that it could permanently change how we use the internet. The controversial article 13 was voted for has had many critics say that it could terminate remixes, memes, and other privately created content. Article 11 that was approved required online platforms to impose a fee to publishers if they happen to link content to their information. One company opposed the whole process terming it the dawn of the dark days. The European committee responsible for the legal matters voted by 15 votes against 10 accepting Article 13. They also cast 13 votes to 12 votes to accept article 11.

The bill was then planned to be handed to the Wider European parliament on July so that they can also cast their votes on the issue. The past week, 70 most prolific technology leaders that comprised Tim Berners-lee and Vint Cerf signed a document that opposed Article 13. The leaders termed the Article as an imminent threat to the future face of the internet. They went on to say that the Article emphasized more on websites to pay fees and enforce copyright. This just meant that every single platform that permitted users to post images, texts, sounds or codes would need some form of information-recognition system that could review the content that the users uploaded.

Cory Doctorow, who is an activist, termed Article 13 as foolish and a very terrible idea. He wrote this on a news website known as the BoingBoing. The activist could not imagine of any filter that existed that could adequately describe the bill. He went on to say that most of the closest equivalents were owned and managed by American organizations. This meant that most giant tech firms in the US would spy on everything that the Europeans posted. After spying, they would then decide on what content to be censored and what would be passed for viewing.

Opponents of the Article 11 have termed the bill as a ‘link tax.’ They said that it was designed to limit the powers that technology giants like Google and Facebook had. The Article required all online platforms to pay a fee to publish their content if they happen to link any content on their news information. The whole theory behind this is that the Article would support all smaller news publishers and drive readers to their homepages instead of directly getting news from the primary news holders.

Vermont Passes Law To Protect Pregnant Women

A team of agencies in Vermont are working together to come up with additional protections for pregnant women. There was a law passed in January that required workplaces to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant women.

Cary Brown is the executive director of the Vermont Commission on Women. He stated that they are working hard to ensure that pregnant women are not mistreated in the workplace. He also stated that pregnant women need to know that they have a right to not be discriminated against in the workplace.

Many pregnant women are forced to stop working because their workplace does not make the necessary accommodations. Making one small change can help pregnant women stay in the workplace. According to an article published by the “New York Times”, pregnancy discrimination is a widespread problem.

Cary stated that he has not done a lot of research on pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. However, he stated Vermont is ahead of a lot of other places because of the law that was passed a few months ago. Cary said that he has heard a lot of stories of women who did not have any accommodations made for them while they were pregnant. He has also heard stories from women who were discriminated against because they were pregnant. In fact, some women have been fired just because they were pregnant.

There are several ways that you can employers can make accommodations for employees. For example, they can give a stool to a pregnant woman. They can also allow a pregnant woman to take extra breaks. Employers and employees can work together to come up with accommodations that are reasonable.

Washington D.C. and 22 other states have laws that require workplaces to make accommodations for pregnant women. Pregnancy discrimination is one of the most common forms of workplace discrimination in the United States.

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.