Articles Of Impeachment Against President Expected Soon

Democratic lawmakers in the United States House of Representatives are expected to deliver two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump now that the impeachment proceedings against the 45th president of the United States are complete.

The news of the impeachment articles was delivered by a senior aide to the Democratic party and the stage is now set for a vote in Congress on the issue later this week. The aide did not wish to go on record with the comments and did not reveal further details.

Abuse of power and obstruction of justice are the two charges expected to be highlighted in the articles of impeachment against Trump.

Committee leaders for the Democrats met with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi Monday evening after the final session of the impeachment hearing was complete.

A spokesperson for Pelosi’s office informed the media that a Tuesday press conference would be used to inform the public of the next steps in the impeachment process.

The controversy stems from accusations that President Trump pressured the Ukrainian government to initiate an investigation against presidential hopeful Joe Biden. The president is then accused of obstructing efforts of Congress to investigate the matter.

The nine-hour impeachment hearing session was brought to an end on Monday with a searing condemnation of Trump’s actions by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler.

Lawmakers for the Democrats have characterized the behavior of Trump as a threat both to the national security of the United States and an attempt to circumvent the nation’s political process.

Nadler said the facts of the case, as well as, the danger to the democracy of the United States caused by Trump’s actions are both clear. The Committee Chairman also said it is clear what should be done in response to the president’s behavior.

The upcoming vote by the judiciary committee will determine whether or not the full House of Representatives will vote on the articles of impeachment expected to be lodged against Trump.

If the vote from the House is affirmative, the Senate will then be required to try the president and decide whether or not to remove him from office. Most analysts do not expect the Republican-controlled Senate to convict Trump of the allegations expected to be outlined in the impeachment articles.

The contentious hearing session held on Monday included accusations of unfair treatment of the president by Republicans on hand for the hearings.

President Trump has maintained his innocence and has used his Twitter account frequently to voice his disdain for the entire process.

United States Supreme Court Upholds Block On Executions

There hasn’t been an execution of a death row inmate since 2003 in the United States federal system, and the Trump administration is trying to change that. However, the U.S. Supreme Court at least temporarily blocked a number of execution orders from Attorney General William Barr and the Justice Department. The Supreme Court was essentially confirming an earlier block by a federal judge lower in the system, and the decision on whether to proceed with the executions now goes to an appeals court.

A call to act with dispatch

Three conservative judges on the Supreme Court wrote their own statement encouraging the lower court to reach a decision within sixty days. Frustrated in its efforts to proceed on a number of executions, the Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to rule on the case in early December.

Advocacy groups against the death penalty have expressed cautious optimism about the Supreme Court ruling and say that they are glad that there are legal roadblocks to the Trump administration getting what it wants in these particular cases. On the other side of the argument, pro-death penalty groups note that many of the crimes of the individuals in question on death row were committed decades ago, and the families of their victims need to get justice and closure. All the inmates in these particular cases were convicted on federal charges of murder.

Over the past 16 years, all the executions in the United States have been carried out by state governments. Inmates on death row in the federal system have not been executed largely because of arguments that current methods of execution by lethal injection are not humane. For years, there has been extensive litigation regarding the federal government’s execution protocol and procedures.

Most federal death row inmates today are housed at a facility in Terra Haute, Indiana. The inmate first on the list to be executed is convicted murderer Daniel Lewis Lee who is a white supremacist and who killed a family of three in the 1990’s.

Next on the list is convicted murderer Wesley Purkey who, in separate incidents during the 1990’s in Kansas, murdered a 16-year-old teenager and an 80-year-old woman. Purkey developed Alzheimer’s Disease in prison, and his lawyers are arguing that his execution should not proceed because of his illness. Purkey also has a long history of mental illness, and some say this is relevant.

Read more:

Barr Tries To Defend Trump By Bashing The Horowitz Report

Joe Biden finally got a little payback when four leaders at the Buckingham Palace dinner made fun of Trump for spending a lot of time talking to the foreign press. Mr. Trump wanted to let the world know he didn’t screw Zelensky. He told the press Zelensky was up for the screwing, so the July 25th phone conversation was perfect.

Mr. Biden’s new ad claims the world keeps laughing at the Trumpster every time he opens his mouth. Trudeau’s comments about the president’s quest to claim his innocence gave summit leaders a chance to relieve some stress Trump likes to bring to the surface when he attends NATO meetings.

Mr. Trump didn’t disappoint the other members when he continued to throw shadow at NATO members for not paying enough security dues. Mr. Trump brought up the same issue at the last NATO summit even though NATO members dropped the amount of money the U.S. pays NATO by six percent.

Indiana Congressman Jim Banks wants Lindsey Graham to subpoena Adam Schiff’s phone records. But Lindsey said he’s not going to make his lame Senate investigation of Joe Biden turn into a circus. Graham told the press he would investigate his pal Joe Biden even though Biden did nothing wrong. Banks wanted to show the Trumpster he is all in after the president said he wants Pelosi, Schiff, and the Biden’s to testify at his Senate trial. Mr. Trump wants to take the attention off his butt and put the blame on Joe and Hunter Biden.

Rudy Giuliani is in Ukraine talking to one of Ukraine’s sketchy politicians. Giuliani still wants to show the world Joe Biden broke U.S. laws when his son went to work for a Ukraine gas company. Now that Zelensky won’t open an investigation, Rudy wants a corrupt Ukrainian to bring Biden down.

Nancy Pelosi made Trump’s impeachment official when she told Americans Trump wants to turn America’s democracy into a monarchy. One reporter asked Nancy if she hates Trump. Pelosi told the reporter she doesn’t hate, but she does want to defend the constitution that Mr. Trump likes to ignore.

Bill Barr doesn’t like the report Mike Horowitz will reveal next week. Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that the FBI or the CIA spied on the Trump campaign. So Bill opened a criminal investigation to show members of his intelligence community broke the law in 2016 by spying on Trump. John Durham’s report should help Trump’s conspiracy theory about the FBI. That seems to be Bill Barr’s job these days. He is Trump’s legal protector, not the Attorney General of the United States.

A Pence Aide Throws The Trumpster An Impeachment Curveball

Nancy Pelosi thinks the Trumpster should testify instead of sending those nasty tweets. Pelosi told the press Trump could answer questions in writing if that worked for him. But it’s doubtful Trump will testify.

Gordon Sondland has a lot of explaining to do when he returns to Capitol Hill. His first and second meeting with the impeachment panel didn’t reveal what he knew about Trump’s plan to bribe Zelensky. Sondland sat in a Kiev restaurant and talked to the president on an unsecured phone line., A witness in the restaurant heard Trump say he cared more about screwing Biden than curbing corruption in Ukraine.

Trump set the stage for a Ukraine meltdown when he talked about how corrupt Ukraine was in 2016. Mr. Trump thinks Ukraine helped Clinton in 2016. Mr. Trump claims the Clinton email server is in Ukraine and finding it would prove Ukraine, not Russia interfered with the election that put him in the White House. Bob Mueller found proof Russia and Trump worked together in 2016, but Mueller’s team stopped short of calling that relationship collusion.

Mueller’s team didn’t claim Trump colluded with Russia because the Department of Justice made sure they covered-up the facts that show several Trump campaign officials worked with the Russians. Don Jr., Paul Manafort, and Mike Flynn all had interaction with Russian operatives in 2016, according to the Mueller report. But Bill Barr left those facts out when he told the country Trump didn’t obstruct or collude in 2016.

Roger Stone, Trump’s conspiracy pal, is on his way to an orange jumpsuit fitting for lying to Congress about his role in Trump’s campaign. Stone was the go-between Trump and WikiLeaks. Stone made sure WikiLeaks released the Clinton emails the Russians hacked when Trump wanted them released. Mr. Stone also committed six other crimes in his quest to protect the Trumpster. Stone could get 20 years if Judge Berman decides she wants revenge for Stone’s nasty Internet depiction of her.

Pence aide Jennifer Williams told Congress she listened to the Trump-Zelensky call. Williams thought the call was unusual as well as inappropriate. Trump called her a Never Trumper for telling Congress the truth. Mr. Pence claims he didn’t know what Trump wanted to do to Zelensky. But Mike was neck-deep in the plan to screw Biden, according to several news reports. Mike denies he knew about the bribery plan, but he refuses to say that under oath.


The Republicans Let Jacket-Less Jim Jordan Defend The Trumpster

Federal Reserve Chairman Powell let investors know interest rate cuts are over this year. Mr. Powell told a group of financial gurus the U.S. economy is in good shape. He said low unemployment and a less than two percent inflation rate proves the economy is still strong.

But Wall Street economists say the economy is not that great. Gross Domestic Product growth in the third quarter dropped below two percent. Economic growth was 3.2 percent in January. Plus, consumers have a mountain load of debt. Americans have mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and other financial obligations that amount to $14 trillion. That number is 25 percent higher than it was after the 2008 meltdown.

High consumer debt is just one of the flies in America’s economic ointment. Productivity continues to drop as the manufacturing sector of the economy tries to adjust to Trump’s trade war. Trump’s trade wars with China and Europe continue to cost Americans millions in tariff taxes.

Consumer confidence is not what it was at the beginning of the year. According to several news reports, Americans will pay $2,000 more in taxes in 2020 unless Trump drops the tariffs. And the budget deficit continues to grow thanks to Trump’s spending addiction.

Wall Street economists say those factors along with a weak global economy and other issues like Brexit and Trump’s sanctions will contribute to a U.S. recession in 2020. Europe’s Central Bank claims Germany is now in recession mode, and the U.K. could fall into the same mode before the end of the year.

But the issue most investors worry about is Trump’s impeachment. Mr. Trump’s Twitter addiction makes the stock market jump or fall depending on the substance of the Trumpster’s tweets. Even though most of Trump’s tweets aren’t facts they still have an impact on financial markets.

Mr. Trump claims the public impeachment process is another witch hunt. But the first day wasn’t a good day for the Trumpster. Two credible career diplomats told Congress Rudy and Trump tried to keep them out of the Zelensky debacle. Trump even fired Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch because she tried to stop Giuliani from acting like a State Department official.

The Republicans decided to give Ohio Rep Jim Jordan a chance to make an ass of himself on national TV. Jacket-less Jordan looks like a Trump voter, so Trump’s fan base connects with the former assistant wrestling coach. Jordan keeps asking when the whistleblower will testify. He also claims all the facts Bill Taylor and George Kent revealed during the public impeachment hearing were just hearsay, so both men weren’t credible witnesses.

Should Politics of blocking be a matter of discussion?

The block button is a significant instrument that enables ladies and other helpless individuals to have some semblance to a similar Twitter experience that the normal white man may free from consistent provocation. Most have utilized the block button throughout the years to overwhelm terrible ads hominems, ocean lions, and sexual harassment. Twitter was not the hellfire site that we know today. Numerous early clients discovered professional advancement and enduring friendships in 140-character missives. However, as the social media platform expanded, so did its potential for abuse. For Instance, politicians use the platform to create a false populist discourse in the United States.

By 2014, two years short of its tenth commemoration, Twitter had turned out to be vital to the GamerGate controversy. Apparently, a debate had started about issues of sexism and progressivism in gaming. Twitter became the platform where women were harassed by sexists online without any repercussions. The harassment was extreme to the point that it drove a few women off the platform permanently.

Out of GamerGate, better devices for blocking were born. Tools like BlockTogether enable individual clients to share a list of individuals they have blocked. The thought behind these tools is that harassers are probably going to have various targets, so why not make it simpler for potential targets of provocation to be blocked at the same time? In any case, BlockTogether and other comparable tools are not without blemishes. When you’re on a block list, it tends to be challenging to get your name erased. In the event that you end up on the block list created by a well-known client, you may find yourself blocked by individuals you are not aware of. In other people’s opinions, they might regard this as a sensible collateral blow-back.

Various media personalities and others have extended complain after finding themselves on a block list after a conflict with a person who uses the blocking tools. Users are requesting for the platform to have a button for purposes of asking and getting an explanation as to why they were blocked. Regardless, ladies or different minorities who have encountered provocation for utilizing the block button cannot be blamed. Blocking somebody doesn’t involve the question of free speech, except if the blocker being referred to be a chosen authority. More importantly blocking someone is a matter of saving one’s sanity. The blocking button, together with block lists, are helpful instruments for ensuring one’s space is free from social media bullies.

Read More:

Saudi Arabia’s Financial Regulatory Body Approves Aramco’s Application For Its Initial Public Offering

Companies primarily drum up money to operate by selling goods and services. Another way that businesses get funding to advance the scale or scope of their operations is through offering shares of ownership of their formal, government-recognized charters to investors that offer to fork over funding in exchange. Companies typically offer up such shares of ownership in the form of public stock through stock exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq, the two largest such financial instrument exchanges on the planet that are each found on New York City’s world-famous Wall Street. Together, these two exchanges oversee the trading of common stock for more than 2,000 public companies based within the United States.

The United States federal government’s Securities and Exchange Commission, better known as the SEC, oversees anything and everything related to these public companies’ selling of shares of ownership on the NYSE and the Nasdaq. They require these companies to adhere to countless strict rules related to the compilation of financial reports and their publication. One of these rules is that, before public companies can trade their stock on such financial exchanges, they must hold 20-day-long initial public offerings, or IPOs for short, in which consumers are able to purchase shares of stock at – in general – lower prices than what they’d ultimately sell for once they hit the market following such periods.

All countries’ financial market regulators require companies that want to sell their stock on financial instrument exchanges to undergo initial public offering proceedings, which includes Saudi Arabia. Earlier today, on Sunday, Nov. 3, 2019, Aramco opened up its initial public offering, as the Capital Market Authority (CMA) of Saudi Arabia, the country’s very own regulatory body of its financial industry, approved Aramco’s application for its IPO.

Although the CMA hasn’t indicated exactly how many shares of ownership in Aramco’s charter will be sold, nor how long the initial public offering period will offer up first dibs to the public on its shares of public stock, experts familiar with Aramco believe that it will sell anywhere between one to two percent of its total ownership as part of its IPO. Collectively, the sale of this small portion of shares could drum up as much as $20 to $40 billion in funding, an objectively large dollar amount of funding for any modern company seeking to become a public company.

Aramco’s IPO is part of Saudi Arabia’s attempts at economic reform, as the country seeks to diversify its investments and economic holdings from its current portfolio consisting almost entirely of oil-related businesses and oil-related investments.

How Artificial Intelligence Aids Prisons and Jails

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is spreading like wildfire. The newest use of AI is in prisons and jails.

Because AI relies on block chain computer technology, speech recognition and semantic analytical programming features, law enforcement is benefiting by allowing nefarious conversations between inmates and those with whom they communicate through prison and jail phone systems to be monitored to prevent crime.


AI Sensitizes Speech and Slang to Prevent Crime
By collecting data on inmates’ use of slang and certain phrases common to criminal activity, data is stored in databases that link the prison’s location to the external location of the inmate’s sources with whom they communicate.

To protect inmates constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment, inmates are forewarned all of their phone conversations are recorded. Apparently, inmates frequently choose to ignore the warning.


Another use of AI is to prevent inmate recidivism. AI helps law enforcement predict the potential of certain inmates to continue to commit crimes after they are released from prison or jail.

AI Algorithm for Law Enforcement
In addition, AI provides an algorithm to determine sentencing for law enforcement as well as for internal monitoring of inmates activities when coupled with closed circuit television (CCTV.)

AI relies on its collected data to coordinate certain inmate behavioral patterns for monitoring.

Law is predicated upon the basis of algorithms in the form of codified instructions that include legal references and guidance to resolve legal matters. Codified instructions proscribed such as ifs and when, dos and don’ts fit within the design of a protracted algorithm.

However with today’s legal cases, the complexities facing lawyers in determining justice is not straight-forward codification. It is not known if AI can resolve problems that include:
. Overburdened public defenders
. Backlogged court cases and courts
. The broad range of defendants accused disproportionately of crime

How Lawyers Use AI in Law Practices
Lawyers find they can dispense with the need for paralegals and law clerks who provide legal research by using AI. This proves to be cost-effective for many law practices.

In addition, lawyers are implementing AI for billing clients, due diligence and to conduct research. The amount of time and cost save related to the use of AI for lawyers is certain to increase AI as a necessary function of legal practice.


In cohesion with prisons and jails, public defenders, lawyers, courts and judges, AI’s ability to reduce potential crime and expedite adjudication has the potential to create a state-of-the-art penal and judicial system.


California’s New Tenant Protection Act Is Inspired By Today’s Housing Crisis

Landlords and tenants of rental properties throughout California are paying attention to new legislation that could directly affect them in different ways. A current article on the National Law Review website shines a light on the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019, which was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in early October.

Whether it’s an individual landlord who owns one building, or a corporation that owns an assortment of properties, the new tenant protection legislation will affect all types of landlords in California.

While the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 goes into effect in 2020, it does require that any rental rates that were increased after March 2019 be analyzed. Under the new rules, yearly rent increases cannot exceed five percent of the gross rental cost, along with cost of living changes. The combined total may not exceed ten percent of the gross rental cost.

Another major component of the act requires that a just cause be in place when tenants who have occupied a property for one year or longer are being terminated.

Extensive political debate preceded the signing of the new tenant protection law, and it still contains several types of exemptions. For instance, most privately-owned, single-family units, and duplexes that are partially owner-occupied are exempt from the changes.

The just cause requirement in the new law contains both “At-fault” and No-fault” sections, and each case is reviewed for categorization. Examples of “At-fault just cause” include criminal threats or criminal activities on-site and failure to pay rent.

Among the reasons why termination of a tenant can be termed “No-fault just cause” are; plans to largely remodel or demolish the property, and intending to have members of the owner’s family move into the unit.

The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 also contains a declaration stating that the bill is designed to apply to California’s ongoing housing crisis, and would remain in force until the end of 2029.

A Bunch Of Republicans Have The Shaky Leg Syndrome Now That The Trumpster’s Impeachment Toast

Mr. Trump doesn’t support Washington D.C. much unless that means going to his hotel and dining. But the president decided to take a few of his royal ass-kissers like Lindsey Graham and Mark Meadows to a World Series game. The fans gave the Trumpster a dose of what he might expect in 2020 when they booed and screamed: “lock him up.”

Mr. Trump thought he would get a standing ovation for taking the credit for the Al-Baghdadi takedown. According to, Pentagon officials kept shouting under their breath for Trump to shut the front door as they watched him spew details the public didn’t need to know. The Trumpster put his special spin on the mission. Trump studied every detail, so he couldn’t wait to take some attention off his pending impeachment.

The Federal Reserve might cut interest rates again to help stimulate Trump’s sinking economy. But not all Fed members want to cut rates again. Japan cut rates to the bone and then some, but it didn’t solve the economic issues caused by Trump’s tariff wars. Japan needs help and Trump offered to help if President Abe bought American soybeans Japan didn’t need.

Trump’s trade war with China turned the global economy into a recession-bound mess, according to the head of the European Central bank, Christine Lagarde. Global manufacturing is down, and that creates a business and consumer negative ripple effect that’s hard to stop. Fed Chair Powell wants Trump to stop his tariff fixation, so the Feds can agree on how to stop his economic erosion.

The budget deficit is on its way to $1 trillion in 2019. Trump got Congress to increase spending, and that move will create a $1 trillion budget deficit for the next ten years, according to MarketWatch. Mr. Trump promised to balance the budget, but the opposite happened. A similar ending is in store for the people who thought Trump’s tariffs would solve their import-export issues. Steelworkers now know steel tariffs are a super bad idea. Steel factories aren’t busy, prices dropped, and some factories closed due to Trump’s tariff addiction.

The Republicans don’t know how to defend the Trumpster. Most Republican senators will have to choose between Trump and the constitution if Congress impeaches the president. Republicans have to stay together, but the Trumpian threads that keep them together are in a vat of impeachment swamp water, and it’s deeper than they expected.

The Trumpster Started An Impeachment War With Congress

Rudy Giuliani is the confused, but cunning former 911 hero and mayor of New York. Rudy turned in all his good deeds when Trump asked him to be his legal double-talker while he chokes the constitution with his mobster moves, according to the New York Times.

Mayor Rudy is now some sort of comic legal hero who likes to talk about legal issues, but he never seems to hit any legal nails on the head. Rudy claims he was constitutional law standout in law school and that’s why he’s able to defend the Trumpster as the president chaotically drills holes in the foundation of America’s democracy. Trump’s democracy is the rule of one with yes man carrying his McDonald’s bag while he cheats at golf.

Trump’s democracy is a nationalistic con game that spits tariff snake oil over America’s allies and makes deals with dictators who live by their own quid pro quo. Sanctions and tariffs are Trump’s weapons of war, and they take no prisoners.

Americans financially support Trump’s tariff war with China and the upcoming tariff war with the European Union. Trump’s democracy punishes the people while he makes business deals around the world, according to the Washington Post.

Mr. Giuliani, Mike Pompeo, Bill Barr, and Mike Pence approve of Trump’s democracy. Mike Pompeo’s neck is in a legal noose. Pompeo told Schiff to go fish instead of turning over Ukraine documents and allowing state department officials to testify. Mike might have an impeachment inquiry in his future unless he gets the Trump snake oil out of his system.

Attorney General Bill Barr is in Italy chasing the ghosts Trump invented to dispute the Mueller investigation. Bill is also blocking information Schiff and other committee chairman need for the inquiry. Several Department of Justice officials claim Bill is a cranky old Trump-lover who hates Democrats, the government, and telling the truth, according to the New York Times.

Mr. Trump declared an impeachment war with Pelosi, Schiff, and the people of America. That means important legislation will sit in the partisan swamp until after the 2020 election, according to political analysts.

Bill Barr plans to defend Trump’s democracy instead of America’s democracy during the war. And Pompeo, and Pence, as well as other Trumpians, will continue to beat his snake oil drum.

America’s system of government is on trial. The Trumpster thinks he’ll win that battle now that most supreme court judges are Trumpians.

Courts Rule Against Some Trump Immigration Policies.

Over the course of the last few months, the Trump administration has enacted a number of policies that would allow the government to rapidly deport some immigrants and to indefinitely hold in detention some others. These proposals have been quite controversial in some quarters, and the Trump administration policies have been challenged in the court system.

This week, two of the Trump administration’s immigration policies have been put on hold. In the first of the decisions, a group called WeCount! asked the federal court to place a hold on a Trump administration proposal that would have allowed the government to deport undocumented immigrants without first seeking court approval unless the immigrants could prove that they have resided in the United States for two years or more.

Judge Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia placed a temporary halt to the Trump administration policy. As a result of this ruling, the Department of Homeland Security will not be allowed to conduct expedited deportations until a full set of hearings can be conducted in federal court.

Trump administration officials reacted angrily to the judge’s decision. The Justice Department stated that it believed that the judge had exceeded her constitutional authority in the matter.

This isn’t the only setback that the Trump Administration’s immigration policy faced last week. A federal judge in the state of California made a ruling on a case. That judge called a halt to a policy that proposed keeping immigrant families in continuous detention. In that case, the judge said that keeping families in indefinite detention was in violation of a legal settlement that took place many years ago. In that settlement, US officials were forbidden to hold immigrant children in custody for an extended period of time.

The two rulings by these judges is not the end of the matter. Both of these cases will continue to make their way through the court system. Ultimately, both will most likely be decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Appeals Court Rules On Medication-Induced Suicide

Those who have taken out a life insurance policy know that there are exclusions in the policy that will allow the insurance company to withhold payment to the beneficiary upon the death of the insured. One of the these exclusions is if the insured commits suicide. This past week, the Third District Court of Appeals ruled on a case involving what the plaintiff referred to as medication-induced suicide.

A woman purchased two life insurance policies. These policies both stated that the company would only refund the premium to the beneficiary if the insured died by suicide within the first two years that the policies were in force.

The woman who purchased these policies was feeling slightly depressed. She went to her physician seeking assistance for the problem, and she was prescribed some medication. Over the course of a few weeks, the woman was prescribed higher doses of antidepressants. About two months after the higher doses of antidepressants were prescribed, the woman who bought the policies committed suicide.

The beneficiary of the policies took the insurance company to court when the company refused to pay out the full amount of the policies. The insurance company stated that they were within their rights not to pay out because the insured committed suicide.

The beneficiary made the case to the court that there should be an exemption to the suicide exclusion in this case because the policyholder took her life due to being placed on certain medications. The beneficiary claimed that the insured had not truly intended to commit suicide.

The case was heard in federal district court at the insurer’s request. The district court ruled in favor of the insurance company.

The beneficiary appealed to the Third District Court of Appeals. The justices on the court ruled that the policyholder’s actions leading up to her taking her own life proved that she was knowledgeable about the action she was choosing. She was not acting in a way that was out of her control. The Third District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the insurance company dismissing the medication-induced suicide argument.

There is no word yet on if the plaintiff will appeal to a higher court.

Read More:

Department Of Justice Launches Antitrust Investigation Against California and Quartet Of Automakers

An investigation is underway by the United States Department of Justice to determine if an agreement between California and four automakers to implement state standards for emissions is a violation of federal antitrust laws.

Makan Delrahim, the chief of the anti-trust division mailed letters to each of the lawmakers in question on August 28 that explained their agreement with California was being reviewed for possible violations. The companies were also informed that no decision had yet been made in the matter.

The announcement comes at a time when the Trump administration has doubled down on attempts to eliminate controls the previous administration established for emissions standards. According to CNBC, the current investigation by the DOJ is also seen as a precursor to the prolonged legal battle with California over the state’s role in setting its own emissions standards.

The companies in question, Volkswagon AG, BMW AG, Honda Motor Co., and Ford Motor Co. reported the deal they struck with California allowed them to adopt lower standards than were necessary under the rules established by Obama. However, these standards were higher than what is mandated by the Trump administration.

The automakers were acting in direct defiance of an attempt by Trump and his administration to take away the right of California to set their own emissions standards to fight climate change. The automakers fear the effects of a longterm legal battle over the matter and want to avoid a patchwork of requirements that differ from state to state.

The Department of Justice offered no comment on Friday. It is expected that officials with the DOJ will soon meet with the four automakers at the center of the conflict to gather more information about their agreement with California.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker for the House of Representatives, characterized the investigation as a sham on the part of the Justice Department and urged the department to turn their attention to enforcing antitrust laws where violations actually exist.

One government official who is in favor of the DOJ actions says that California has enlisted the help of a group of irresponsible automakers to help the state push failed initiatives on the rest of America.

It is expected that the final approval necessary to roll back the standards set by the Obama administration will take place in the coming weeks. This will also eliminate the ability of states like California to set their own emissions standards unless a court later decides otherwise.

Man Can Face Jail Time For Pretending To Be A Lawyer

Kenneth Frank has pretended to be a lawyer for the past three years. He has helped people with real estate cases, eviction cases and foreclosure cases. Kenneth, who is 56-years-old, is now facing 16 felony charges. He can spend up to 11 years in prison.

In a report by Miami Herald, court documents showed that Kenneth brought in $20,000 from July 5, 2012 to January 2, 2015. Investigators stated that he pretended to be a lawyer even though he was not licensed by the Florida Bar Association. He also helped a client file a $1 million lien against someone. Additionally, he helped another person file a retaliatory claim.

This is not the first time that Kenneth has had a run-in with the law. He was charged with insurance fraud in 1996. In 2003, he was charged with grand larceny. He spent 18 months in prison as the result of this. He also had drug charges in 2004.

Kenneth has a lawyer named David Wheeler. David stated that his client never said that he was a lawyer. He also said that Kenneth was acting as a business person. Additionally, he stated that clients were aware of the fact that Kenneth was not a lawyer. News reporters have reached out to David, but he has not returned phone calls. David stated that he wants the court to order Kenneth to pay fines instead of sentencing him to prison.

Michael Satz is an attorney who works in Broward County. He stated that this is an example of white collar crime. He also has some advice that will help keep people from being scammed. He stated that if you need an attorney, then it is a good idea to make sure that they are licensed. You should also make that the attorney is in good standing with the Bar Association in your area.