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.

.

Freedom Debt Relief Reports: How FinTech Will Affect Your Financial Future

If you’ve spent any time banking or investing this year, you’ve probably already noticed that financial technology (FinTech) is beginning to consume more and more of the financial industry. Once isolated to high-tech cities like San Francisco and New York, FinTech has begun expanding across the United States and into our daily life. You’re probably already using it- ATMs and mobile banking apps, completely unknown to the public just ten years ago, are now virtually ubiquitous to every consumer and country in the world. And this trend is expected to continue expanding in the coming decades; according to research by Freedom Debt Relief, a report by PWC found that 59% of senior financial services executives anticipated that they would be expanding their FinTech to encompass more consumer needs, and about 52% of consumers stated that they would be using some form of FinTech “in the next few days-” a number up over 20% from just last year.

 

While it would be plausible to assume that the increase in the prevalence of FinTech would naturally come along with an increase in financial understand, data unfortunately does not support this conclusion. Current research supports the idea that, though consumers and businesses are more likely to use and more receptive to the idea of FinTech, they are basing their preferences upon a financial system that they themselves do not completely understand. Freedom Debt Relief has found that surprisingly, as FinTech continues to grow, financial literacy still remains in the dark; a new National Capability Study by the FINRA Foundation found that only two out of every three Americans cannot pass a basic financial literacy test rated for high school students. Globally, these numbers are even more depressing- about 35% of men and 30% of women are considered financially literate throughout the world.

 

Taking the time to inform yourself on the FinTech you will likely see in the coming years is crucial to maintaining a healthy financial future. Freedom Debt Relief has researched the financial technologies that we are most likely to see in the coming years- be sure to keep yourself educated both on new developments in FinTech and the basic core principles of finance will help you and your family to enjoy better credit and more opportunities. Here are a few of the new advancements in FinTech that you may see within the coming years and how they can benefit your financial health.

 

Digital lending is one of the first advancements beyond credit card payment apps that we are beginning to see, and it is expected to expand across the United States within the next few years. As banks move more and more of their activities online, they have created a huge amount of data related to which types of customer attributes(including annual household income, age, credit score, cash flow analysis, and many other factors) make up the ideal recipient of a loan. Using this data, banks have employed programmers to write algorithms that allow consumers to apply for a loan online and be approved or rejected within minutes. This allows banks to issue more loans by reducing the number of employees needed to physically analyze lending data, as well as helping consumers receive the loans they need without ever having to set foot in their bank. Digital lending also has the advantage of online reach, meaning that smaller banks and credit unions can now compete with larger banks who have more physical locations.

 

Another advancement that will be seen in the coming years is the use of biometric data to ensure that customer accounts are secure. Currently, accounts are largely secured with passwords that the user is able to set when they create their account. The problem with password security is that in order to be usable, the user needs to be able to remember the password. In an ideal world, users would create a difficult-to-guess password consisting of a string of random numbers and symbols, and write their password down in an area that only they can access it, pulling it out of hiding whenever they need to access their accounts. However, the reality is that users more likely use information that they can immediately pull from memory as their password- the names of favorite pets, children, and birthdays are often used as passwords. Freedom Debt Relief also reports that 73% of users use the same password for multiple accounts. This information can quickly and easily be accessed by criminals via social media, allowing them to hack into users accounts without their knowledge. Biometric measure has the potential to shift account access from being contingent upon what someone knows (their password or PIN number) to what someone is- selfies, thumbprints, and iris scans may be seen as early as one to two years from now as an extra security measure.

 

One of the most promising trends in upcoming FinTech is the use of customer data to synchronize activities. As it currently stands, customer data often exists in a vacuum; consumers may have multiple accounts that do not interact with one another, making it difficult for banks to access information that will help the consumer manage their finance. Personal finance management tools are being developed that will allow banks to synchronize consumer activity across a number of accounts. This is a win-win for both the consumer and the bank; the consumer gains information on their spending habits in order to form a better budget and curb spending, and banks can gain access that better serves customers. For example, banks that see a consumer saving for a car loan can offer a custom loan that fits a rate that the consumer can afford.

 

Freedom Debt Reliefl urges consumers to be vigilant not only in regards to keeping up with FinTech advancements, but also their basic financial literacy. Freedom Debt Relief has helped countless consumers work their way out of debt, build wealth, and make better financial decisions. If you would like to learn more about how to improve your financial health, Freedom Debt Relief may be able to help.

Possible Violations Of The Federal Advisory Committee Act

Fighting For FACA Compliance
Recently, The New York Times did an article about presidents trump’s Voter Fraud Commission. This is a Commission that was made to investigate any fraud in voting. Mathew Dunlap is the Secretary of State of Maine in the United States District Court. Dunlap currently serves in Washington, D.C., and he is the individual who is filing the suit. Dunlap alleges that the commission is in violation of the law because it refuses to hand over required documentation to certain members. Dunlap had requested these documents, and he alleges that the committee is not in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

About The Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Federal Advisory Committee Act is a law that came into effect in 1972. It is an act that defines how federal advisory committees have to operate. This act gives rules about reporting and public involvement. The law governs the behavior of members of the committee. This act has the purpose of regulating database that have federal access. These are databases that are managed by governmental advisory committees. This is an act that gives emphasis to public involvement through open reporting and open meetings. All of the meetings that are carried out by these committees must be open to the public, and they must be announced on the Federal Register. All of the documents and reports that are prepared for and by the committee must always be available to the public.

What Does The American Oversight Want?
Matthew Dunlap has the goal of bringing the commission in to full compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act rules and regulations. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the American Oversight which is a watchdog group. The Federal Advisory Voter Fraud Commission has faced much criticism since it was established, and Dunlap hopes to hold the commission accountable for its actions.

Read more: https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/federal-advisory-committee-management/legislation-and-regulations/the-federal-advisory-committee-act

The United States Supreme Court Allows the Execution of a Man who can’t remember his Crime

The United States Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the execution of an Alabama man who cannot remember his crime should go ahead. He has been on death row since 1985 for first-degree murder. The Supreme Court issued a statement later saying that the decision was unanimous. This was an indication that there were no noted dissents. However, the three judges of the Supreme Court who are known for their liberal opinions released a statement saying that the case brought before the court a good legal question. They further said that it was their opinion that the matter should be brought to the court at a later date. The inmate, in this case, has been identified as Vernon Madison. The Times learned that he has been on death row since he was convicted for killing Julius Schulte. The Supreme Court case was based on a request that Mr. Madison made in 2016 on a trial court in Alabama. He asked the court to suspend the decision to execute him because he could not remember why he was being punished. This is an opinion that Justice Stephen G. Breyer agreed on. He later described the condition of the inmate. He described Mr. Madison as legally blind.

At the same time, Justice Stephen G.Breyer said that the inmate could neither walk independently nor talk like a normal person as his speech was slurred. The inmate was inconsistent. The Justice said that the current condition of Mr. Madison means that he didn’t have a memory of the capital offense. Two court-appointed psychologists agreed that the inmate understood that he knew about what he had been accused off. At the same time, he knew of the measures that the state planned on using to punish him. One psychologist had been appointed by the court while the other was appointed by Mr. Madison. Before the case made its way to the United States Supreme Court, a state trial judge ruled that the execution should take place. When the case proceeded to a federal court, the judges agreed with the state judges. However, the United States Court of Appeals would not agree with the previous judges. The court determined that executing a person who would not remember his crime would be violating the United States Constitution. At the same time, the court argued that the United States Supreme Court had ruled that a person who has no rational understanding should not be executed.

The Civil Rights Act does not protect transgender People

The justice department received an order from the Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructing it to take a position that the transgender people are not protected by any civil right against discrimination regarding their gender, in case a lawsuit is brought to them. This is indeed the most recent move for the President Donald Trump’s administration to contradict the civil right enforcement that were put in place by the Obama administration. In the year 2014, the then attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. told the Justice Department to look at sex as gender identity that includes protection to the transgender people. The directive was however halted by Mr. Session in a memo that was only two pages, stating that the word sex means biologically male or female. Mr. Sessions went on to say that the Department of Justice will take up this position in all the matters that it will be presented with be they pending or future. The only exception will be in cases that are dictated otherwise by the lower-court.

The change in policy comes in as the Justice Department is faced with a discriminatory employment suit in Oklahoma. A transgender plaintiff filed the case. A previous ruling by a judge who had been appointed by President George W. Bush stated that the Civil Rights Act provided cover to gender identity, therefore agreeing with the interpretation of the department during President Barack Obama’s incumbency. The federal appeals courts have had different views regarding the ban of sexual discrimination to gender identity by the Civil Rights Act.

The instructions of Attorney General Jeff Sessions means that at no particular time will the justice Department side with the transgender plaintiffs in lawsuits about discrimination at the workplace, imploring the Civil Right Act. The department is expected to either remain on the sideline or tell courts that the law ought not to be interpreted as banning discrimination on accounts of gender. The position taken by the Attorney General does reverse not only the point of view of the Obama’s incumbency but also puts the Justice Department between a rock and a hard place with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. About three months prior Mr. Sessions move, the Justice Department had taken the position that the Civil Rights Act’s ban does not provide for sexual orientation. The Supreme Court is yet to resolve the burning question on what sex denotes, be it gender identity or sexual orientation