A Federal Judge in Texas Blocks a New Abortion Law

A federal judge in the state of Texas has issued a ruling stating that the state’s new abortion law is unconstitutional. The law in question involved the right of women to carry out the second-trimester abortion which is very common in America. He said that the current law adds on women an undue burden. The decision was referred to as a complete victory by a lawyer representing the plaintiffs. However, officials in the state issued a statement saying that they would not hesitate in filing an appeal. Should this happen, it means that the case is likely to appear before the Justices of the United States Supreme Court. The law has been referred to as the Senate eight bill, and it was passed at the beginning of spring.

According to the details of the bill, state doctors were required to ensure that the heart of the fetus is stopped before they can carry out the dilation-and-evacuation abortion. The only exception would be a medical emergency. For starters, these abortions are commonly abbreviated as D&E abortions. The doctor begins by dilating the cervix of the patient. This is then followed by removing the fetus, which in most cases comes out in pieces. Medical professions argue that this is the safest form of abortion in this state. However, critics often argue that the abortion is barbaric. The SB8 law was permanently blocked by Judge Lee Yeakel. He had earlier issued a temporary injunction preventing the law from going into effect during its trial period. The judge said that he followed the precedent of the Supreme Court in making the decision. He said that the Supreme Court had earlier stated that there is no way that a state can add a medical procedure to this type of abortion.

The procedure can only be added if it’s necessary. He said that if the state implements the law, it will be interfering with the rights of the woman. The plaintiffs were represented by Alex Lawrence. Some of the plaintiffs were Planned Parenthood and Whole Woman’s Health. However, the victory didn’t last an hour before the attorney general’s office in Texas issued a statement saying that it would go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to try and overturn the verdict. Ken Paxton is Texas attorney general. He said that they had demonstrated to the court using expert witness testimony as well as extraordinary evidence that the new bill was lawful.

Ratko Mladic Convicted Over Massive Killing

Early Wednesday, the war tribunal constituted by the United Nations found the former Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic guilty of having perpetrated genocide, war crimes as well as crimes against humanity. He is accused of executing the killing of Bosnian Muslims in the Yugoslavia breakup. The tribunal found out that Mr. Mladic was the one organizing for the campaigns to take out Croats, Muslims as well as all other people who were not Serbs out of their land between the year 1992 and 1995. By driving off the individuals, he would have managed to split the area for the Bosnia Serbs. Like the Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic who was also found guilty of the same charges, Mr. Mladic is said to have called for a campaign that was popularized as ethnic cleansing that resulted in massive deaths in the nation that has a population of 4.5 million people only.

1992 went down in history as the deadliest campaign year where over 45,000 people died. Bodies were found on the streets, in their homes or even in camps. Some other people were killed in a siege in the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo that lasted for more than four years. A mass execution was organized for Muslim men and boys. More than 8,000 people were killed. By the end of the war, over 2.6 million people were internally displaced. Many of those who survived refer to Mr. Mladic as the Butcher of Bosnia. While defending his client, Mr. Mladic’s lawyer claimed that his client was only following the orders he received from his political seniors. The prosecutors asked Mr. Mladic to be sentenced for life, a plea that was accepted by Alphonso Orie, the presiding judge.

Mr. Mladic surprised many people when he appeared in court on Wednesday dressed in dark suit and a red tie, as the ruling was put down. He remained sitting for over 45 minutes after the address by the judge. His lawyer asked to be given a five minutes break which was granted. Mladic did not come back for about an hour. The public gallery of The Hague was filled with survivors, mostly widows. The verdict did not come as a surprise to many, given that lots of evidence had been presented in the trial that began in the year 2012. Some sessions were postponed citing the poor health of Mr. Mladic. The suit was extended after more graves mass graves were discovered.

Mandalay Bay Shooting Lawsuits Being Filed

Lawsuits are now being filed against MGM and Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino alleging that they should be held liable for the shooting deaths of 58 people and injuries to hundreds more that were caused by Stephen Paddock. The plaintiffs are alleging that the attack might have been thwarted had MGM and Mandalay Bay spotted warning signs about Paddock. The shooter is alleged to have taken at least 10 suitcase filled with guns and ammunition to his room in the resort. He is said to have also set up a security system both inside and outside of his room to warn him if security or law enforcement personnel were coming to his room.

There is some precedent for the inadequate security allegations. According to  NPR.org, as recently as last month, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that MGM could be found liable in connection with an assault at one of its properties in 2010. Those victims were able to show that there were other violent attacks at the hotel that made the attacks on them foreseeable.

In the law of personal injury, claiming that an event wasn’t foreseeable is a viable defense. The MGM and Mandalay Bay lawyers are likely to raise the foreseeability issue, but the fact that mass shootings have taken place at other entertainment venues in the recent past might make the Mandalay Bay within the realm of foreseeability.

There is no uniform standard of care for security in the hotel industry, and the general rule is that a hotel isn’t a guarantor of a person’s safety when they’re injured or killed off of the hotel premises by a third party. A duty might arise for a hotel to be accountable for the behavior of its own guests though. Given the damages caused by Stephen Paddock in the Mandalay Bay case, it’s expected that no matter how the trial court rules, appeals will be taken. Ultimately, these cases could set a new general rule on the issue of adequacy of hotel security. Lawsuits are also being filed against the shooter’s estate.

 

Justice Department Goes to Court over Anti-trust Issues

The Justice Department has made it clear that it will not allow Time Warner to be bought by AT&T for $85.4 billion. As a result, the department of justice has filed a lawsuit to block the acquisition. This has proven to be among the first big acquisition to face the current administration. At the same time, this is a move that shows that the justice department is willing to cut the corporate power especially when it comes to the media industry which is fast changing. This means that the decision to oppose the acquisition is quite different compared to the path taken by the past administration. For instance, six years ago, the justice department had its say in a deal that involved NBCUniversal and Comcast. While the deal went through, it had to meet many conditions that had been imposed by the Justice Department. The department is perhaps worried by the creation of a telecommunication as well as a media giant. AT&T has managed to develop through such acquisitions. At the moment, the company provides telephone and internet services, and it’s one of the biggest companies in the US. In the past, it has acquired companies such as DirecTV in its quest for dominance. As a matter of fact, the company became a mammoth in TV distribution when the deal involving DirecTV was concluded.

The Justice Department is worried that the deal would create an unrivaled empire. This is because Time Warner already owns big businesses such as HBO. At the moment, HBO is very popular for producing Games of Thrones. Warner Bros is also a part of Time Warner. Warner Bros is currently producing the hit Wonder Woman. It’s also the entity that has successfully adopted the Harry Potter. Finally, Turner Broadcasting is another part of Time Warner. This is the part that includes the likes of TNT network and CNN. The lead antitrust regulator with the justice department Makan Delrahim told the court that the merger would not be good for customers. The merger would play a huge role in weakening competition according to Mr. Delrahim. As for AT&T, it didn’t hide its frustration and said that it would challenge the decision in court. At the moment, AT&T says that the two are not in the same niche meaning they don’t compete directly. The Justice Department, on the other hand, said in an interview that it was willing to listen to an offer between the two companies.

NYT Reporter Has Been Reported

Glenn Thrush works for the New York Times, and he is stationed in Washington, D.C. When Glenn Thrush began with the times, he was an office worker in New York City. He worked his way up to the White House. Glenn Thrush has worked with the former President of The United States and the current President of The United States. Glenn Thrush loves his job, and many people have considered him one of the best reporters in Washington, D.C.

Glenn Thrush is not in Washington, D.C. today because the New York Times has suspended him. Several female journalists have made allegations that Glenn Thrush sexually assaulted them between 2015 and 2017. These female journalists are making claims of Glenn Thrush kissing and touching them when they did not consent to it. These female journalists are also accusing Glenn Thrush of getting them drunk and then trying to engage in sexual activity with them.

What made matters worse was when the White House spoke out on behalf of the female journalists. A White House representative stated that Glenn Thrush had acted foolishly around women. In fact, the White House was thinking of reporting him to the New York Times, but they never went through with the process.

The New York Times put out a statement today declaring that their organization and its affiliates have high standards. They also stated that they do not condone a single act of sexual misconduct, and they desire to hear from the female journalists personally. The New York Times went on to say that they are going to investigate this situation thoroughly. Though Glenn Thrush is suspended, it is possible that he may lose his job if these allegations are found to be true. Further details are expected to be given later in the week.

The people of America have heard from Glenn Thrush himself today. Glenn Thrush gave a personal statement to the press where he apologized to the female journalists and any other woman that felt uncomfortable in his presence. Glenn also stated that he has not consumed a drop of alcohol in over a year, and he is currently in counseling to deal with his issues.

Allegedly Drunk Florida Man Arrested on Riding Lawn Mower

A 56-year-old Florida man was taken into custody on a charge of driving under the influence by Port Saint Lucie Police after driving his Snapper riding lawn mower erratically down U.S. Highway 1 two weeks ago. Riding on the lawn mower with him was a case of Budweiser beer. The arresting officer noted that he clearly smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the man. Upon submitting to breath testing at the station, police confirmed the man’s intoxication. In fact, his blood alcohol content was at least three times more than the amount of Florida’s .08 legal limit.

The Florida man wasn’t the first person who was arrested for driving a lawn mower while intoxicated. In 2015, a 25-year-old Pennsylvania man with three prior drunk driving convictions in the last 10 years was arrested for driving his Cub Cadet riding lawn mower down a highway. He was transporting a case of beer on his lawn mower too. Before that, a 51-year-old Maine man was arrested after making an unsuccessful beer run on a riding mower, the make and model of which was unspecified. A liquor store employee turned the obviously intoxicated man away and called police. He was stopped shortly after that.

The Florida case appears to turn on whether the Snapper riding mower is a motor vehicle under Florida law. That’s an issue for a judge to decide. Florida Statutes section 320.01(1)(a) defines a motor vehicle as an “automobile, motorcycle, truck, trailer, semitrailer, truck tractor, and semitrailer combination, or any other vehicle operated on the roads of this state, used to transport persons or property, and propelled by power other than muscular power.”

About 10 days after the Florida man was arrested, a Florida woman was detained for suspected driving under the influence when riding a horse on a roadway. Whether a horse is a motor vehicle under Florida law might be a question for another judge to decide. With simple dumb luck, the woman might have picked a winner.

Judge Throws Out 15 Convictions In A Single Day

Judges do not typically throw out convictions. It is standard practice to follow the lead of the courts and juries that have heard a case in the past. If that court and that jury believed that the defendant was guilty, then a subsequent judge is likely to uphold that ruling. There are rare cases in which there was some obvious misconduct or obstruction of justice in a case in which a judge will take a longer look at it. In those rare cases, a judge may decide to overturn a conviction. Given the uncommon nature of this action, the headline that a judge in Chicago overturned fifteen convictions in a single day is truly shocking.

The judge in question is Judge Leroy Martin and his ruling comes as what defense lawyers are praising as the first “mass exoneration of innocent defendants” says NPR. The decision comes after consideration of the events that unfolded in the case. Basically, the judge was concerned that these fifteen defendants were framed by Chicago Police Sargent Ronald Watts and those officers that work for him.

Some of the now released defendants in this case say that Watts would demand money and/or drugs from them when he first made contact with them. If they did not provide either of these things, he would arrest them on the spot. This behavior was largely confirmed when the Sargent himself got in trouble for trying to purchase drugs from an individual who turned out to be an FBI informant. Given this, the judge stated that he did not have confident in the testimony given by the police and others who worked for Watts in the trial. He simply could not allow the convictions to stand based on what he deemed to be unreliable testimony.

The defendants had all spent different amounts of time in prison based on their convictions. For the most part, all of these fifteen defendants had spent at least a few years behind bars for crimes they may not even have committed. Given the behavior of the former Police Sargent, it is difficult to tell which cases were legitimate prosecutions, and which were based on false testimony. The judge was careful to release only those he believed did not have enough true evidence pressed against them. Now, there are fifteen freed defendants who probably have quite the story to tell. It is a victory for their defense lawyers, and some say for the justice system as a whole.

More St. Louis Protesters Are Set To Take A Stand

This past week was exceptional for protesters in St. Louis. They believe the court system finally understands why they protest and the rights that go along with it. A judge in St. Louis made a ruling that all protesting is okay unless it becomes violent. This new law means residents of St. Louis can have a peaceful protest in the middle of the street or on government grounds, and it is within the guidelines of the law. A violent protest would mean people fighting with each other, people throwing items, or people protesting with deadly weapons in their hands.

The law put into effect also states that police officers cannot arrest people for protesting unless they are becoming violent. Police will have to give at least four warnings to people before arresting them. In addition to this, police officers will be able to use tear gas or rubber bullets unless it is necessary. Police officers must also give timely notice regarding the disbursement of either tear gas or rubber bullets. The whole idea behind this is not to hurt protesters who are not being violent.

The St. Louis judge who put these laws into effect believes that these laws are going to make St. Louis a safer place to live. In an interview, the judge talked about how people have always protested in every state. It is only now that protests are getting national attention because of arrests, and these demonstrations are usually due to alleged cases of police brutality.

Recently, several individuals from the community spoke up about how happy they are about a judging siding with the people. These individuals explained in detail some of the horrific scenes they’ve witnessed where police officers treated peaceful protesters poorly.

Members of the ACLU St. Louis branch also spoke up regarding this issue, and they are delighted with the results. In fact, it was the ACLU, along with several other St. Louis activists groups, who helped get this proposed law on the judge’s desk. An ACLU representative stated that the ACLU is going to try to do even more for peaceful protesters, especially when it comes to a protest for alleged police brutality. The ACLU is also urging protesters to adhere to the law and not get violent in any way. The ACLU believes this will help protesters continue to fight for their beliefs and change.

 

A&E Makes Big Investment In Live Trial Website

There is a market for the drama of the courtroom. As it turns out, there may even be viewers interested in viewing live trials as they unfold. That was the bet that Dan Abrams was making when he created a website for this exact type of content. He made that website and grew the audience for it. Now, a big television network (A&E) is interesting in getting a piece of the action on that.

Abrams has been interested in resurrecting the concept of Court TV that existed in years past. That was part of his goal in creating the website that he did. However, he could not try to take this all on by himself. As such, the partnership with A&E is a huge step forward on his journey. He hopes that having the network take a stake in what he has created will help to bring his vision to a larger audience.

The Wall Street Journal says that neither Abrams nor A&E has made a public comment about the value of the deal. However, a source who was close to the situation says that the deal values the website at $15 million.

The website has been riding high on the success and interest in programs such as “Making a Murderer” to promote its content. It does show live trial footage from all around the country, but there are also original documentaries that one may stream on the site. Now, with the A&E deal going through, the availability of that content is probably about to skyrocket. They plan on incorporating it into the content that they already produce, and they hope to stream that content out to a bigger audience view television as well as connected devices like smartphones and tablets.

There are always trials of interest going on throughout the country at any point. Things like the OJ Simpson parole hearing, a “suicide text” trial, and others capture the attention of the broad public in general. When the trials are going on, people want to see what will happen to the heroes and villains of these stories. Real lives are literally at stake in some cases, and that is exactly what keeps so many of us interested for long periods of time.

It is great to know that this content will be available to more people via the deal with A&E. A greater variety of content available to a larger audience is always a good thing for the growth of knowledge and experiences in the general public.

Gawker May Be Worth Something Based On Potential Legal Claims Still Outstanding

The saga of Gawker as a company is something that is hard to detail quickly and easily. It is something that has literally had a documentary made about it. To keep it short, the basic gist of things is that the company now has to sell itself to pay legal bills after being sued for a huge amount of money by none other than Hulk Hogan.

Peter Thiel, a billionaire and early investor in Facebook, was one of the people behind the lawsuit. It appears as though he helped to fund the lawsuit and encourage Hogan to bring that suit. The reasons behind this move are complex, but mostly they boil down to the fact that Thiel was unhappy with the fact that Gawker had published information about his sexuality without his consent. In other words, they outed him for being gay. He was upset by this, and therefore decided to take out his revenge on the company for having done this.

Now, it turns out that the person in charge of trying to sell Gawker has taken steps to market the potential legal claims that the company may have against Thiel or others. This could help to add value to the company for anyone who might be interested in making the purchase.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that the addition of legal claims against Thiel has helped to increase the interest of various parties that may bid on the company.

Some interested groups include a Hollywood film company which may adapt the site to cover more Hollywood-related news. They may also even look into creating a film about the story of Gawker. Even though there is a documentary out about the company, this has not quenched the thirst of those interested in learning more about the story. It is just such an interesting story to some many people, and they are still wanting to know more. It seems likely that there is a market out there for creating yet another movie on this topic.

There is no clear frontrunner for who may actually end up bidding on this company. There are interested parties, but for the moment that is all that they are. There is still a lot of work to be done to determine who will ultimately end up with this company in their possession. Since August of 2016 the company has not produced anything at all. Starting over again will take some work and effort, but it can be done.

Missouri Investigates Google in Antitrust Case

The attorney general of Missouri has issued an investigative subpoena against Google, alleging that the company has violated the state’s antitrust laws.

Google is owned by Alphabet Inc. and is one of the leading technological companies in the world, most known for its search engine, as well as mobile software and online advertising.

Josh Hawley made the announcement at a press conference on Monday, November 13, 2017. Among his stated concerns about the popular tech giant are questions about the accuracy of its privacy policy, as well as claims that it has illegally copied content from its rivals and that it purposefully buries their websites in its search results.

Andrea Faville, a spokeswoman for Google, said in a statement that they have not yet received the subpoena, but that “we have strong privacy protections in place for our users and continue to operate in a highly competitive and dynamic environment.”

These accusations are similar to other claims made against Google, both within and outside of the United States.

In 2013, Google reached a $7 billion settlement with the attorneys general of 37 states because it was using its Street View feature, meant to show users a panoramic of various streets around the world, to collect wi-fi data in an authorized manner. That same year, the Federal Trade Commission also prompted the company to provide more flexible terms to patent licensees and advertisers.

In June of this year, Google was also fined $2.7 billion by the European Union, on the grounds that it was illegally promoting links to its own shopping site over those of other online companies. Google is currently appealing that decision, but Hawley said that he is concerned that they may be doing the same thing within the United States.

Yelp Inc., a rival of Google that runs a business review site, has also accused Google of making unauthorized copies of its images, despite an agreement with American antitrust officials.

Yelp, along with Microsoft Corp., has pushed for Google to face antitrust charges in the past. Attorneys general in Ohio, Mississippi and Texas have tried to pursue inquiries but had little success.

At the press conference, Hawley, a Republican, denied claims that opening this case has to do with his bid to replace Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in next year’s election, saying that he is acting on his currently role “to get to the truth” about these issues.

The Supreme Court Set to Rule on a Gun Ownership Case

Its five years now since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting happened. While the shooting resulted in the death of 20 children, one name stood out. Benjamin was a six-year-old kid who was killed in the process. His parents have been relentless in fightng for justice for their son. His father who has been identified as David Wheeler has on a number of occasions pleaded with the state legislatures. He has testified and has also asked members of the Congress to look into the gun laws. At the same time, he has supported his wife as she made a speech during addresses that had been organized by former President Barrack Obama. They all want the lawmakers to rethink about gun ownership laws.

However, the family will have their day at the United States Supreme Court this week as they listen to their lawyers argue about their case. The lawyers want to convince the United States Supreme Court that the companies that produced the military-style rifle that was used to kill the 26 victims including 20 children are responsible for the deaths. The families and the lawyers are employing a novel strategy with the aim of piercing the shield that protects these companies from litigation. The law was passed by the federal government and has prevented thousands of cases for companies whose weapons have been used to commit crimes.

There are fears that should the case be allowed to go through by the Supreme Court, it will open a jury trial. This will result in resurfacing of cases where relatives of victims and survivors will come out asking for accountability. Mr. Wheeler said in a recent interview that it doesn’t make any sense that these companies are free from liability. He further complained that the playing field was not level. He further said that he felt that the practice was not right. This has degenerated to a high profile case that has gained traction from both sides of the gun debate. For the past few days, the United States Supreme Court has listened to amicus briefs from doctors who treated victims and gun control advocates. One gun-rights group that had a day at the Supreme Court is the National Rifle Association. The group argued that should the case go forward, it would threaten the “eviscerate” of companies that make guns. Some experts argue that the case will be dismissed because federal protections were designed for such cases.

Church Money in Politics? Not On End Citizen United’s Watch

If there’s one thing that most people understand about the United States, it’s that it was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. It has been this way since the dawn of this country, but now it’s at serious risk of being stripped away. At this very moment, conservative members of Congress are working feverishly to slip through a rider that will effectively strip the Johnson Amendment of its powers. This law is the one that specifically forbids tax-exempt non-profit organizations, including churches, from actively campaigning for political candidates. End Citizens United recently issued a press release urging Congress not to allow this to happen.

Few people were even aware of the Johnson Amendment until the 2016 presidential campaign season got into full swing. Republican candidate Donald Trump made repealing the amendment one of his top campaign promises. This promise went over many people’s heads, as they were unaware of the significance. However, those for whom Trump truly works–the wealthiest people in the country–were well aware, and it was music to their ears. Should the Johnson Amendment be repealed, there will be no stopping people from donating indiscriminately to religious organizations–and those religious organizations can then turn around and funnel the money wherever they’d like it to go.

Why is End Citizens United front and center in this battle? The grassroots organization, which was founded to fight back against the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2010, sees this move as an attempt to further solidify the power of corporations and the extremely wealthy. In its press release, Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United, stated, “The House Republican’s tax plan includes the terrible decision to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which can turn churches into tools for secret campaign spending.”

To understand why the repeal of the Johnson Amendment would be a true disaster for democracy in America, it helps to understand how much money is at stake. In the year 2015 alone, Americans donated more than $119 billion to religious organizations. To put that into perspective, the total cost of the 2016 election–the most expensive in history–was around $6.5 billion. The implication here is that should the amendment be gutted, a significant chunk of that $119 billion could find its way into the campaign coffers of conservative candidates–candidates who have been bought and paid for by the powers that be.

Although the Johnson Amendment has been in conservatives’ crosshairs for some time, it caused no controversy whatsoever when it was enacted in the mid-1950s. The amendment was proposed by then U.S. Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. He was inspired to champion the law after being attacked and accused of being a communist by non-profit religious groups. Noting that these 501(c)(3) organizations, as they are known, enjoy tax-free status, Johnson believed that they had an unfair advantage. Given that the country was founded on the concept of the separation of church and state, it seemed logical to enact this kind of law.

The Johnson Amendment has historically been more of a preventative measure than a punitive one. The mere existence of the law–and the threat of being stripped of tax-exempt status by the IRS–ensured that most toed the line. Still, some have deliberately flouted the law through the years, stating that it restricted pastors’ and others’ right to free speech. In fact, a movement called Pulpit Freedom Sounding, which is organized by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, encourages churches and other groups to actively thumb their nose at the law. Even so, very few organizations have actually faced penalties because of it.

How exactly are Republicans working to do away with the Johnson Amendment? Not surprisingly, they are being pretty sneaky about it. Rather than blatantly attempt to repeal the law, they have attached it to various other pieces of legislation in the hopes of getting it passed without too much oversight. Language stripping the law of much of its power was included in the House Financial Services appropriations bill earlier this fall. More recently, a rider was added to the huge tax bill. It forbids the IRS from using funds to investigate violations of the Johnson Amendment, which means that the law is basically useless.

If the general public really understood what was at stake with the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, there would surely be a lot more fuss being made. However, public sentiment regarding the separation of church and state is surprisingly muddled. According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2016, 66 percent of Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of religion in politics. That’s a comfortable majority, of course, but it suggests that a large percentage of people are fine with it–and that is a problem.

Despite the perception that all religious organizations are welcoming the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, the reality is that plenty of them oppose this move too. In fact, more than 100 such organizations have joined End Citizens United in its efforts to prevent the repeal of this incredibly important law. The repeal of this 63-year-old law would undoubtedly open the floodgates, allowing organizations to funnel tax-free contributions to political campaigns. As if that’s not alarming enough, those who made donations in this way would conceivably enjoy tax breaks, as such donations are typically deductible. In this way, the very wealthy will be double-dipping and enjoying yet a22851977_1131203693680779_2957189258061179696_nother unfair advantage over the public at large.

As dire as things seem at this time, groups like End Citizens United are closely monitoring the situation and mobilizing to fight back. Ideally, of course, the Republicans will fail in their objective. Should they prevail, ECU and other groups will have to work even harder to get their candidates elected. This will mean a lot more work, of course, since it will mean undoing a lot of damage. Although President Trump signed an executive order back in May, the battle is far from over. By supporting End Citizens United, citizens can help to take their country back.

 

Pennsylvania Doctors Approved For Medical Marijuana

It has been approximately 12 months since the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Bill was signed by Governor Tom Wolf. Since that time, hundreds of regions in Pennsylvania have been planning for this bill to take full effect. Many abandoned buildings were purchased, and these buildings are going to become dispensaries for medical marijuana. Additionally, there have been several different job fairs as the Medical Marijuana Bill becomes real.

The bill, allowing Pennsylvania residents with certain conditions to partake in medical marijuana, just became more serious. Over 100 doctors were recently permitted to give out prescriptions for medical marijuana. This comes out to one to two doctors in each county with permission to write a prescription. The good news is that people needing medical marijuana do not have to see one of these doctors on a family basis. All they have to do is get a letter from their current doctor and take that letter to a doctor authorized to give a prescription for medical marijuana.

Before a patient gets a prescription for medical marijuana, they have to apply for a medical marijuana card. The state has a special website for people to visit. There is a small application fee involved in the process. Once the application is submitted, the state will ask for medical proof that the applicant suffers from one of the sicknesses listed in the Medical Marijuana Bill. Once all this is done, the medical marijuana card will be mailed out in less than 7 business days.

The marijuana card will be similar to a state identification card, and it will even be able to be used as a state-issued identification card. A person’s picture will be on this card, and he/she will have to sign the back of the card, similar to a credit card.

The entire Medical Marijuana Bill is expected to be fully active by February 2018. Once this happens, medical marijuana will be offered in pill, drink, and vape form. Pennsylvania residents are so happy this bill was passed, especially since Pennsylvania has the most cancer patients and patients suffering from severe depression.

Over the next several months, the Pennsylvania medical marijuana committee is expected to meet with several medical marijuana specialists and law specialists. The state of Pennsylvania wants to make it possible for medical marijuana patients to obtain a prescription from their local family doctor. However, there are many politicians and even doctors fighting this.

Source: https://www.marijuanadoctors.com/medical-marijuana-doctors/PA

Louis CK and Sexual Misconduct Allegations

Whenever the name Louis CK comes to mind, many people are more likely to remember all the controversies surrounding the comedian instead of any of his rib cracking jokes. CK has a long history of sexual misconduct and indecent exposure. It is alleged that CK has on many occasions exposed himself to female comedians he was working with. It is also claimed that on some occasions, he went as far as to masturbate in the presence of his colleagues without their consent.

The authorities in Hollywood have come to the realization that sexual misconduct is a problem that has existed in the industry for a long time. Many celebrities have come under a lot of heat for their involvement in sexual misconduct. This is not only affecting the reputation of Hollywood but it is also tainting the names of the other artists who do not engage in such conduct.

The Law on Indecent Exposure

According to the law, the allegations against CK may subject him to criminal charges. Indecent exposure laws make it a criminal offense to intentionally display one’s genitals, causing others to be offended or alarmed. If a person indecently exposes themselves for sexual gratification, they can be charged with sexual misconduct or sexual assault.

If CK is convicted of sexual misconduct or indecent exposure, he may be facing jail time. Although a first offense for indecent exposure is a misdemeanor, there are aggravating circumstances, like the use of force or threats, which could elevate it to a felony. If convicted of a felony, CK may be incarcerated for a few years and be required to register themselves as a sex offender. Apart from facing criminal charges, CK will have difficulties with his public life. Recently, a movie he had written and financed was cancelled because of these allegations. Additionally, a news broadcasting station cancelled his appearance on a late night broadcast.

.