California Supreme Court Rules Yelp Isn’t Required to Remove Negative Review of Law Firm

The Supreme Court of California made a decision by overturning a ruling made by San Francisco Superior Court, stating that Yelp Inc. does not have to delete negative consumer reviews from its website.

According to, the case dates back to 2012, when Ava Bird went to Yelp to leave a negative review about the law firm that represented her in a personal injury case. Hassell Law Group attempted to sue her after discovering the review.

Managing partner of California law firm Haight Brown and Bonesteel, David Evans, stated that the court was divided on the matter in spite of the final ruling, which took place on July 2, 2018. He explained that three judges believed Yelp should win the case, while another three disagreed.

Bird and the law firm had reached an agreement. However, there were emails back and forth between Dawn Hassell, the owner of Hassell Law Group, and Ms. Bird that resulted in the revelation that Bird was dissatisfied with the way the firm was handling her case. As a result of the exchanges, the law firm withdrew its representation.

Subsequently, the law firm discovered a review on Yelp from someone who had rated it one out of five stars. According to the Supreme Court, that review was posted by a user called “Birdzeye B” and that the individual said in the review that the law firm is not even worthy of one star and urged others to avoid it.

According to the opinion, Hassell believed that Bird was the person who posted that review. She then sent her an email and accused her of slander and trying to intentionally damage the reputation of the business.

This was not the only one-star review the law firm received on Yelp. In early February 2013, there was one from a user called “J.D.” from Alameda.

Two months later, the plaintiff Hassell filed a lawsuit against Bird in San Francisco Superior Court, claiming that she authored both negative reviews and that she was being libelous. Dawn Hassell also claimed emotional distress. Yelp was not named as a defendant in the case.

The opinion stated that, in the event that the plaintiffs later decided to add Yelp as a defendant, Yelp could claim immunity under section 230. Section 230 exists for the purpose of promoting free exchange of ideas or information on the Internet.

Evans stated that protecting websites like Yelp is a priority, but that the other side should also be considered. He said Yelp doesn’t want to be sued every time a user posts a negative review about a company and that was why section 230 was enacted.

Governor Jerry Brown is reported to head to the Supreme Court where he expects his pension law case to be heard.

Before Jerry Brown exits his seat as the California boss, he wants the Supreme Court in the state to determine a lawsuit that could permit his successor to decrease or modify pension welfare for California public workers. Governor Jerry Brown’s office asked Chief Justice Tani Cantil- Sakauye to hurry up the state Supreme Court’s contemplation of a lawsuit that was filed. It challenged a Marquee law that was signed six years ago. The law restricted pension benefits for all the public workers that were hired from 2013. Precisely, the lawsuit is pushing for a change on a tiny part. If the lawsuit is heard and altered according to how Jerry Brown wants, it will have restored a pension benefit that the law had canceled which permitted public workers to buy extra years of service that was previously credited to their pensions.

However, both sides, the Governor’s office, and the Supreme Court have argued that the stakes at hand were excellent. According to Sac Bee, a win by Governor Jerry Brown would see a massive dent in the California Rules. Technically, the rule restricts agencies from decreasing pension benefits for all the current workers and retirees except if they deliver additional reimbursement to counterbalance the loss income. Governor Jerry Brown is so eager to erase the precedent. The rule generally blocks public agencies and cities from making even little alterations to pension strategies even as the workers spending on retirement plans elevate. Jerry Brown argued that crucial city services were at high risk. This included the capacity to fund fire protection and the police. In October last year, Jerry Brown’s office took a major step to release Attorney General Xavier Becerra off his duties so that the law against the trial from the union that signifies California Fire workers would be pushed for hearing.

An attorney in Brown’s office, Rei Onishi wrote to the Chief Justice a note saying that the move was considerably energetic in large section by Governor Jerry Brown’s profound concern for the economic honesty and creditworthiness of public pension systems in the entire state of California. The letter went on to state that, as the term for Governor Jerry Brown neared to end, the Governor’s office humbly commended the Supreme Court for considering the issue for argument as soon as possible. The Supreme Court had not yet responded to the request that was sent. Governor Brown’s office said that it would continue to stress on the matter till things were changed.

Judge Makes Ruling in Child Reunification Effort

Starting earlier this year, the Trump administration began what it called a zero-tolerance policy regarding those who were crossing into the United States illegally. When parents crossed over the border with their children, the children and the parents were separated with the adults being taken to detention centers while the children were placed in separate facilities designated for their care. After an outcry against this policy of child separation, President Trump reversed the child separation policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed numerous lawsuits in federal court seeking to have the children reunited with their parents as quickly as possible. One federal judge ruled that the children under five years old had to be reunited with their parents by July 10. Children over the age of five are required to be reunited with their parent by July 26.

The reunification of children with their parents has hit a snag, and the ACLU was back in court this week challenging another policy by the Trump administration. In some cases, parents who were seeking to be reunited with their children where being asked to pay the reunification costs before the children would be returned. In one case that was documented, this would have been approximately a $1900 fee to the parents.

On Friday, US District Judge Dana Sabraw ruled that the parents of separated children will not have to pay anything to be reunited with their children. She is the same judge the ruled on when the children must be reunited with their parents.

Representatives of the Trump administration argued that it was too much to ask for the government to have to pay the fees for 2,000 or more children that must be reunited. The judge simple said that it will happen.

The Trump administration is also balking over the speed at which the judge ordered reunifications to take place. The Trump administration argues that they do not have the time to make sure that children are being reunited with the correct people.

The judge has of yet not reversed or extended the timelines that she has imposed. The ACLU has stated that it will take further legal actions regarding this matter should circumstances warrant.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Phone Privacy Advocates

Telephones were the last thing on the mind of the Founders when the U.S. Constitution was written, as no one of that time had any idea that technology would become what it is today. Personal privacy was actually such a non-issue that that it was not even directly addressed when the document was being written, as books and newspapers were the only form of societal communication. In addition, crime had a completely different dynamic as well, with most criminal cases involving physical attack, gun fights, or various forms of theft. But, in today’s world, there are myriad ways in which a crime can be committed, commonly involving the use of a personal phone that leaves a wide array of information available for police authorities when attempting to solve crimes. The question today is one of priority, along with the view of the Supreme Court that people have at least a “reasonable expectation” of privacy in certain areas of their life. Today that area includes personal cell phone records.

The high court decided this issue in an appeal from a convicted individual who was accused of orchestrating several coordinated robberies of electronics stores while using the his personal cell phone to connect with other ring members. At issue was the concept of “reasonable means” of obtaining the information police used to solve the case. They used cell phone tower information that was accessed without a warrant and covered a time frame of over four months. According to the court, this extended swath of information gleaned from cell phone tower records was excessive.

The significance of this decision has much more impact than many people realize, as it will govern all investigations from now on when officers want to access phone records. The concept of “being secure in personal papers” is now extended to cell phone use as well, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion that the need for a personal cell phone is a fundamental necessity to function in modern society. Not only can phone information reveal individual private facts about the owner, but information extracted from phone records over a four-month period gives police officials much more personal information than needed to prove the charge.

The court ruled that because the requested records were not specific concerning what the police needed, this case was an example of governmental overreach that should be protected by a reasonable right to privacy concerning aspects of the defendant’s life that do not pertain to the case. Privacy rights advocates surely consider this decision a victory for the common person, even when being accused of a crime that can be proven they committed. And of course, police departments across the nation are saying it impedes their ability to do their job, but the U.S. Constitution has historically been pesky in that regard as well.


Will California’s Public Workers’ Unions Frustrate United States Supreme court’s decision?

Diana Corral, a soft-spoken young lady who is aged 36 years, doesn’t even look fit to be a County social worker. She even hardly fits into the typical pedigree of being a county boss. She is reported to love her job so much because she enjoys helping people. She is considered a helper who likes guiding the poor, the homeless and the disabled. She assists them in securing food stamps, cash assistance, medical care and insurance. Diana Corral is among the army that is on the warpath in California to stand against the effects of Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision. The protestors were trying to overturn the decision that was passed by the Supreme Court that seemed not be in their favor. They intended to outlaw the so-called fair share that was being taxed by the government unions.

The levies that are paid by employees that later decline to join the government unions have offset the collective bargaining costs. Unions are involuntary asked to represent the ‘free riders’. Experts have foreseen the extensive issues of dues-paying members. This has, in turn, crippled the labor movement. However, in California, there are 1.5 million union-protected public workers and also a labor-friendly council. That supposition might be incorrect. Corral reported that the Janus case had sparkled an issue in the workers. The employees have been sitting seeing the inequity, the rich continuing to be rich while the poor have grown to be poorer. Corral revealed that it was the moment for the working class American citizens to stand up and fight for the little that they have left.

According to her tone, Corral seemed more renewed and with energy. She meant a new action team for all the fourteen work sites. She asked all her colleagues to sign commitment cards. She reported that the cards had been approved by over 90% of her work members. She intended to legally re-enrol them for another year. If they were re-enrolled, it meant that they had to bargain their contracts. The cards were more significant as they represented the statewide representation of the worker’s plea. They were to push for a change after the Supreme Court passed a law that seemed not to favour them. She urged her work members to open their eyes and see what was happening. The court’s decisions was a wakeup call for them. It was a signal to the entire labour movement that had to fight for their rights so that the court can prioritize their demands.

Read Full Report:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to step down

Much of the media coverage surrounding U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement has focused on how and when his soon-to-be-vacant seat should be filled, but the 81-year-old jurist’s announcement that he would be stepping down after three decades on the court also raises a number of thorny legal questions. Justice Kennedy was widely viewed as a reliable conservative when President Ronald Reagan nominated him to replace Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. in 1988, but he has provided a crucial liberal vote in a number of important recent Supreme Court decisions.

This has progressive groups worried as President Trump has said that Justice Kennedy’s successor will be selected from a list of 25 names vetted and approved by a group of conservative legal activists. Pro-life and pro-choice organizations were especially vocal in the days following Justice Kennedy’s announcement as several cases dealing with abortion rights, and laws that have been passed in several states to restrict them, are likely to be argued before the Supreme Court in the years ahead.

However, advocacy groups both liberal and conservative may be wise to remember that the voting records of Supreme Court justices rarely follow strict ideological lines. While Justice Kennedy provided a key vote to protect abortion rights in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he also voted to restrict these rights in cases including Hodgson v. Minnesota and Gonzales v. Carhart.

Justice Kennedy has long been admired by the LGBT community for his stance on gay rights, and he became one of their heroes in 2015 when he penned the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which was the case that gave same-sex couples the right to marry. However, his voting record on other liberal hot-button issues is not quite as progressive. He voted to strike down a Washington, D.C. handgun ban in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, and he wrote the majority opinion in the 2009 case Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, which allowed an Alaskan mining company to use a technique that environmentalists said would flood a large area with contaminated water.

Some Americans see lifetime appointments and the power to make law as unusual in a democracy, but the judicial branch has provided a robust defense against government overreach. The Supreme Court has been dominated by either conservatives or liberals many times during its 229 year history, but the nation has never fallen victim to the extreme versions of these ideologies as a result.


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.

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

Justice Department Tells Federal Court That ACA is Unconstitutional

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

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

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

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

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

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