The FCC Is About to Hang Up On Prison Phone Call Reform

It can cost as much as $14 per minute to make a phone call from prison. Even though the FCC recently made efforts to lower the costs, new leadership at the FCC might mean that those plans are about to be abandoned. That’s because new FCC leaders aren’t willing to carry over the rules made by the prior administration. It’s going to keep the costs high for the 2.3 million people in prison in the United States and their loved ones who depend on phone calls to keep in touch.

In addition to high phone call costs, inmates also pay fees virtually unheard of in the outside world. From fees to put money in an account to high prices for commissary purchases, inmate dollars don’t go very far. An inmate can spend several day’s pay just to talk for a minute on the phone.

Most government contracts come down to who charges the least for services. If your business can do the work for 50 cents less, you’re likely to get the government contract. But that’s not how prison phone call service contract bidding works. Instead, the government awards the contract to the company that’s willing to give the government the greatest kickbacks. Agree to pay the government more money than the next guy, and you can charge prisoners whatever you like. While wireless customers throughout the country talk on the phone 24/7 without incurring additional charges, inmates are at the mercy of the company that agrees to give the government the most.

The FCC banned the practice of charging connection fees for inmates making outgoing calls. However, that wasn’t going to stop the companies who just renamed the fees to call them first-minute charges. Legal efforts to enforce measures to lower the costs have failed. The FCC’s past administration voted to cap the cost of phone calls between 11 cents and 22 cents per minute depending on the specific institution involved.

There are some things that make the prison phone system more expensive than phone calls on the outside. For example, prisoners can’t call judges or 900 numbers. Most calls are also recorded.

Studies show that kids who stay in touch with their incarcerated parents do better in school. In addition, prisoners who are able to connect with loved ones have a smoother reentry to society and lower recidivism rates. Some families with an incarcerated loved one say that they spend more money on phone calls than they spend on food.

Dealing with Hate Crimes in America

A murder trial from the state of Iowa that had attracted the attention of Attorney General Jess Sessions has concluded with a guilty verdict. The trial involved the murder of a popular teenager from the state. The defendant had been accused of first-degree murder. Jorge Sanders-Galvez was found guilty of killing Kedarie Johnson. This is a teenager who was described by his mother as gender fluid as he even dressed in women’s clothing. The trial began two weeks ago, and it helped revive the debate of what should be considered as a hate crime. According to the mother of the deceased, he believed that his son’s case was as a result of a hate crime. Public prosecutors in Keokuk, Iowa said that the defendants, alongside another man, pursued the deceased as they believed that he was a girl. The teenager was 16 years at that time. When they discovered that he was a boy during the sex act, the two men were enraged. However, the two cases have been based on murder and not hate crime. The trial for the second man is yet to begin. It’s worth to note that the statute of hate crimes in Iowa have no provision for gender identity. Efforts to add this provision was thwarted last year by the state’s legislature.

The Iowa hate crime, however, saw the intervention of the Justice Department under the request of the attorney general. Seen as a highly unusual step, the justice department sent an experienced hate crimes prosecutor in the state. He was supposed to work with the state’s prosecutors to show that the death was caused by hate crime. The decision was quite stunning for people who advocate for transgender people and gay. The attorney general has been known as a conservative who has distanced himself from transgender people. He even advocated doing away with policies that encourage the issue in schools such as bathrooms. As for Sander-Galvez, he will possibly receive a life sentence, and the Justice Department will most likely not file hate crime charges after the verdict. Earlier on, the Justice Department decided to file hate crime charges against Dylann S. Roof, the man who killed nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. The federal government wants to send a message that it will not tolerate these crimes. The body of Mr. Kederie was discovered on 2nd March 2016. He was a liked kid in school, and people respected his decision.

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes

THE UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDING INSIDER TRADING IN THE UNITED STATES

Insider Trading, refers to the act of trading in a company’s stock by individuals with access to non-public information that pertains to the entity. The insider breaching policy and offering non-public information to external parties is known as a tipper. The outsider benefiting from privileged information is called the tippee. However, not all inside trading activity is illegal. Insider trading activity that is documented with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in advance is permissible.
The SEC is an entity charged with regulation of stock exchange in the US— by ensuring transparency among all stakeholders. In 2000, the SEC enacted Rule 105b-1 which explained illegal insider trading activity. The rationale behind the criminalization of insider trading was that it breached the transparency of the US Stock markets— a tenet the markets were built upon. Despite being expounded by the SEC, insider trading has never formally been defined in any Statute in the US. Owing to this, a cloud of uncertainty has always engulfed stakeholders in US Stock markets.
Over the years, judicial decisions from the U.S Supreme Court and Circuit Courts have only thrown the public into further disarray, regarding what constitutes illegal insider trading. An example is the grey area cast in the 1984 landmark case of Dirks v. SEC. In its ruling, the Supreme Court interpreted a breach of Stock markets’ transparency as when “a tipper stands to benefit from disclosing non-public information to unwarranted parties personally.” Unfortunately, the Court did not clarify the scope of the term ‘personal benefit.’ For years, stakeholders in US Stock markets were bound by the decision in Dirks v. SEC where insider trading was concerned.
The public was thrown into disarray in 2014 when the Second Circuit Court issued a different interpretation of the term ‘personal benefit’ in United States v. Newman. The Court interpreted that the personal benefit doctrine was also applicable where the tipper and tippee have a close relationship and that such benefit does not necessarily have to be financial. In Salman v U.S, the Supreme Court upheld this decision.
Tumult grew in August 2017 when the personal benefit doctrine was applied to include a tippee who had invested after receiving confidential information from a doctor, in U.S v. Martoma. The doctor was neither related to the defendant, nor had he received any ‘benefit’ from sharing the information.

LINK
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2017/09/06/letter-on-insider-trading-from-a-confused-wall-streeter/#75e46101119f

CATALONIA’S QUEST FOR INDEPENDENCE FROM SPAIN

Catalonia is one of the self-governing regions in the Kingdom of Spain. The Spanish Constitution of 1978 permitted these regions to govern themselves on condition that they would submit to the overall supremacy of the Monarch and the Central Government. Thriving from this semi-independence, Catalonia experienced a rapid socio-economic boom. Catalonian residents were even allowed to use their native language as the official language- a privilege that had been revoked during the Francoist era. The region gradually established itself as a separate political, economic, and cultural hub. The growing diversity from the rest of the Spanish communities fuelled the notion of Catalan independence over the years.
However, it wasn’t until the dawn of the 21st Century that the first signs of Catalonian agitation for independence were seen. In 2006, the autonomous region held a referendum which approved the passing of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. The Statute had been passed by Catalan legislators, and it enshrined articles that granted the region’s independence from Spain. In addition, the Statute’s preamble referred to Catalonia as a ‘nation.’ The Statute was immediately opposed and declared defiant to the Spanish Constitution by one of Spain’s leading political parties- the Popular Party. The pressure was mounted onto the Constitutional Court of Spain by various Spanish institutions, and they were requested to intervene. After four years of deliberation, the Court outlawed over a dozen articles in the Statute and cited their unconstitutionality. Among the eradicated articles was a provision that sought to elevate the status of Catalan language at the expense of Spanish language in the locality.
The court ruling fuelled the region’s demand for independence even further; much to the chagrin of the Spanish Government. In 2014, Catalonia held a referendum with the objective of discerning how many voters in the region favored secession from Spain. Unsurprisingly, the notion of secession received overwhelming support from the voters. Despite being outlawed by Spain, Catalan legislators scheduled an independence referendum in October 2017. On October 1, 2017, more than 90% of the votes cast supported the notion of secession. The Spanish government deployed police officers to the region tasked to impede the voting process. The Catalans have since been involved in a series of tussles with the Spanish government. The latter are keen to enforce Article 155 of the Constitution, which provides for direct governance of Catalonia by Spain.

LINK
http://news.findlaw.com/apnews/9ea9fcc00c6b43218f9ae564a96998db

 

Arrested Nurse Settles for $500,000

The Utah nurse at the center of a firestorm over an unlawful arrest at a hospital has reached a settlement without even having to bring a lawsuit. Alex Wubbels is the university nurse who prevented law enforcement officials from taking blood from an unconscious patient. Law enforcement officers did not have a warrant.

Wubbels tried to show law enforcement paperwork from the hospital that talked about an agreement that law enforcement reached with the hospital about drawing blood. The officer was unmoved. Wubbels also told the officer that she was just doing her job. She said that she was just the messenger, and that the officer should talk about the case with hospital officials.

The officer moved in to arrest the nurse. He forcibly put Wubbels in handcuffs. Wubbels screamed and asked for help. The officer held her in a police cruiser before later letting her go.

The police union says that it’s not the cop who was corrupt. Instead, they’re calling the police chief and the mayor corrupt. They say the problem isn’t the officer’s actions but instead that the police made the video of the arrest public.

Even though the police union is defending the officer’s actions, Salt Lake City officials agreed to the $500,000 settlement. They say the settlement closes the case.

Wubbels said that she wants to use her settlement to help others get copies of police camera footage when they suspect police wrongdoing. She says that the camera footage is the only thing that drew the appropriate attention to the case. She says that telling her story didn’t draw the attention that the cameras did. Wubbels says that police cameras are important for keeping police officers accountable for their actions.

Wubbels also wants to use her settlement money to help nurses. She says that nurse abuse is an ongoing issue. She says she’ll make a donation to the Utah Nurse’s Association.

The unconscious individual at the subject of the officer’s request was never under arrest. He was in a crash during a police chase. Despite having no evidence of wrongdoing, law enforcement wanted the man’s blood in order to see if he was under the influence at the time of the crash. Despite officers saying they wanted the blood for the man’s own protection, some speculate they were on a fishing expedition to try to help the police avoid liability for the crash that occurred during a police chase.

Karl Heideck Explains Philadelphia’s Newest Employment Law

Workers’ rights advocates were happy the day that Mayor Kenney signed a new law that halts the practice of asking new employees to list their work histories. This means that Philadelphia is the first city in the country to enact this type of law in the private sector.

As may have been expected, not everyone was in favor of the changes. The law was set to be enforced, but the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia took the matter to court because of the laws’ supposed unconstitutionality.

What Is in the Law?

The Society for Human Resource Management explained what is required by the law. According to the Society, legislators wrote the law as they did to close the gap between what men and women are paid. For example, the law states that employers must not consider job salary data acquired from an independent source without the job candidate’s permission.

Furthermore, employers may not directly ask potential employees how much money they were paid on previous jobs. They are also prohibited from requiring a candidate to inform them of his or her past salary history before an offer of employment will be made. Lastly, they are not allowed to punish an individual who does not provide them with his or her salary history.

Who Is Affected by this Law?

Some people have stated that employers whose headquarters exist outside of Philadelphia will be affected by this law. Every business owner in Philadelphia is subject to the law even if third parties are the ones who are performing the prohibited actions. Anyone who violates the ordinance will receive a fine of $2,000 per occurrence.

What Are the Setbacks?

Of course, voices rose up in opposition before the law was even passed. One company that suggested it would file a lawsuit against the city was Comcast Communications. This company stated that the law violated its First Amendment rights, and other companies have said that complying with the ordinance would be too burdensome.

The Chamber of Commerce also weighed in on this subject, and it filed a district court motion that sought a preliminary injunction. Since this occurred a little less than two months before the law was to go into effect, it was unclear whether or not the law would be enacted on time.

Because of the Chamber of Commerce’s filing, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania court made a determination to stay the law. Those in favor of the law thought that this ruling meant that employees’ rights would suffer in future disputes. In fact, this ruling was considered to be a catastrophic blow.

In June, Philadelphia filed a motion in court to dismiss the lawsuit because it did not state how business owners would be injured because of the law. Since the original complaint did not specify how the Chamber of Commerce’s members would be injured by the law, the district court agreed with the city.

Why this Ruling Made Sense

The Chamber of Commerce created a situation where the court could not respond to its filing because it did not identify any businesses that would be impacted negatively by the law. It doesn’t matter at this point whether the identifications would have led to an alteration of the law. The fact that the city was willing to listen to the concerns of the other side by agreeing to delay the ordinance may have helped the court decide on this matter.

It’s possible that there could be future challenges to this law. The court did allow the Chamber of Commerce to alter the complaint.

The Future for the Law

The Chamber of Commerce may never modify its complaint, but some business owners might decide to defy the ordinance. For example, the tools that real estate websites use to determine the prices of properties are extremely accurate these days. Because of this, employers can estimate how much a candidate must earn based on the area in which the person lives. Employers will not be able to ask ex-employers how much he or she paid a candidate, but Human Resources could compile monetary data garnered from public sources. Anyone who does these types of things may find new legislation on the books or even have penalties levied against them.

Every employer is not fighting this law tooth and nail. Some people are in favor of wage equity between males and females that the law wants to encourage, and they will support it. These employers will need to find new ways to comply with the law, and one way of doing this would be to modify their onboard training, interviewer scripts and job application forms.

Philadelphia is unique because it is the first to put a wage equity law on the books, but it will not be the last to do so. Employers are already starting to forgo asking about a candidate’s salary history, and states such as California, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. are writing wage equity legislation now. Companies that have questions about the various state and federal employment laws need to consult with a compliance specialist to ensure that they are following all of the rules.

Like Karl Heideck on Facebook.

About Karl Heideck

Karl Heideck became a contract attorney for Hire Counsel in 2015. Before he joined Hire Counsel, he gained experience practicing law in the Greater Philadelphia area. During that time, he was a project attorney and spent the years filing complaints and responding to them as well. Currently, Karl Heideck offers compliance consulting and risk advisement services. He is also involved in employment proceedings, product liability and corporate law.

Karl Heideck graduated from Swarthmore College in 2003 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in English and Literature. In 2009, he received his Juris Doctor with honors from Temple University’s James E. Beasley School of Law.

Keep Reading:   Career Spotlight: Litigation with Karl Heideck

The Transgender Ban in the Military Overturned

The transgender ban on the US military by the Trump administration will have to wait a little bit longer to be implemented after it was temporarily blocked yesterday. The decision was made by a US federal judge known as Colleen Kolla-Kotelly. She serves at the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. The ban was expected to begin in March 2018. During her ruling, the judge determined that the ban was unconstitutional. She further directed the military to stick to the current policy. In a 76-page ruling, the judge determined that there was no way being transgender could negatively affect the servicemen. She further said that research has shown that discharging these people on the grounds of being transgender would result in such negative feelings. She, however, warned that the White House had touched on issues that concerned equal protection clause of the American Constitution. She gave a number of factors that led to the decision to do away with the ban. First, she said that the circumstances under which the announcement was made were unusual. She further noted that there were no facts for the ban by the president. In one way or the other, she said that if the ban was implemented, the military service people would not be protected by the Fifth Amendment.

This decision is seen as a victory by the people who support the issue. For instance, current transgender troops will not be discharged. At the same time, the current troops under this category would be allowed to re-enlist. Finally, it will be possible to permit transgender recruits to join the army come January. A lawyer who deals with military law at the National Center for Lesbian Rights said that the judge just wiped the slate clean. The lawyer is known as Shannon Minter. Mrs. Minter has represented a number of plaintiffs in such cases. She, however, noted that she was confident that the ruling could be appealed. She said that she believed that be ban violated the constitution. The Justice Department released a statement saying that that it didn’t agree with the ruling. The Justice Department spokesman said that they were evaluating their steps and they would appeal the ruling. Late in July this year, Donald Trump wrote on Twitter that the government couldn’t afford the medical costs associated with transgender people in the army. He later issued a presidential memorandum in August declaring that the government would no longer allow transgender troops to serve.

LuLaRoe Accused of Being a Pyramid Scheme

One of the best ways to increase your income in life is to run your own business. There are many females who want to become successful business owners. However, few of them have the capital to start a business in an area they are passionate about. One of the most common ways to own a business is to work with a company like LuLaRoe. This is a company that sells products to consultants who sign up with the company. At first, it looked like LuLaRoe was one of the best companies in the nation to work with.

However, there are reports of major issues within the company. Some former consultants are actually suing the company and accusing it of being a pyramid scheme.

Declining Quality

LuLaRoe is known for the leggings that the company sells. Although the company sells other types of clothing, the leggings are unique and comfortable. This is the primary reason that the company grew so quickly. One of the biggest issues that consultants have with LuLaRoe is that the patterns have declined in quality over the years. Not only are the styles unattractive, but the leggings are tearing and becoming thinner.

For consultants who purchased thousands of dollars in inventory, this is a terrible situation to be in. As demand for LuLaRoe products continues to decrease, consultants are now stuck with inventory that will not sell.

To make matters worse, many consultants are having major sales on their products. This is diluting the market and hurting consultants who are trying to sell their products at the recommended retail price.

Cost of Business

Another complaint against LuLaRoe is the total cost of doing business with the company. For most companies like LuLaRoe, the total cost to get started is less than $1,000. However, LuLaRoe made the cost to start over $5,000 for new consultants. In addition, the company encouraged people to take out a loan to pay for the initial costs. This is a major issue that is causing financial harm to families across the country.

Some people have gone deeply into debt to purchase new inventory. LuLaRoe says that it is up to consultants to run a business the right way. In addition, LuLaRoe recently said that consultants are to blame if they are not selling enough inventory. With the latest lawsuit against LuLaRoe, it will be interesting to see if anything changes with this company.

Trump Presidential Campaign Adviser George Papadopoulos Pleads Guilty to Lying to Feds in Russian Collusion Investigation

With legal scholars, the media, and the public alike focusing their attention on the indictment of former Donald Trump presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the real story on October 30, 2017, was the announcement of the guilty plea of a man named George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos was the energy and foreign policy adviser to the Trump presidential campaign, according to The Guardian.

After releasing the details of the indictment against Manafort and one other Trump campaign aide, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced that his office had entered into a cooperation agreement with Papadopoulos. As part of the agreement, Papadopoulos secretly pleaded guilty in early October 2017 to lying to federal agents about his contacts with Russians connected with the Kremlin in his role as an adviser to the Trump campaign.

In pleading guilty, Papadopoulos admitted that his conduct impeded the “FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”

Papadopoulos was involved in brokering meetings between the Trump campaign and Russians associated with the Kremlin. In making the announcement of the guilty plea, the Special Counsel provided little information as to what did or not result from these efforts undertaken, and then lied about, by Papadopoulos.

Papadopoulos was arrested in July. He was not incarcerated after his arrest. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he appeared before a federal judge during the first week of October and pleaded guilty.

The Special Counsel’s office stated that it would advise the sentencing judge of Papadopoulos’s cooperation with the investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian officials. The one caveat noted by the Special Counsel’s office is that in order for that recommendation to be made, Papadopoulos needs to continue to cooperate with the investigation.

The indictment in Papadopoulos’s case indicate that he was striving to set up a meeting between Russian officials, who claimed they had negative information about Hillary Clinton, directly with Donald Trump. An email back to Papadopoulos about scheduling a meeting with Trump stated that such a session needed to be with someone removed from Trump so not to raise any red flags.

As of the time the Special Counsel’s office released information on Papadopoulos, no date has been disclosed for his sentencing. Papadopoulos remains free, likely on his own recognizance.

Criminal Law: Federal Grand Just Hands Down Indictment in Investigation by Special Counsel

A highly controversial move, the U.S. Department of Justice appointed a Special Counsel, James Mueller, to investigate whether any crimes occurred during the 2016 presidential election campaign. The Special Counsel’s charge specifically focuses allegations of meddling in the U.S. election by Russia.

Late Friday, October 27, 2018, news broke that the Special Counsel had obtained an indictment or indictments from a grand jury empaneled to hear evidence associated with Mueller’s investigation. The grand jury indictment was sealed leaving the identity of the individual or individuals yet unknown.

Speculation is that an arrest or arrests associated with the indictment or indictments will be made between the time of the grand jury’s formal determination and sometime Monday, October 30, 2018. Oftentimes, in cases of this nature, an indicted person is provided an opportunity to surrender to the U.S. Marshal Service rather than being arrested.

After being arrested, or self-surrendering, a person indicted in this investigation will be brought before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. A decision regarding bail and release will be made at this juncture.

A great deal of speculation swirled about regarding who has been indicted. The trio of leading contenders are Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Carter Page. Manafort was the chairman of the Trump presidential campaign. Flynn is a career serviceman, who worked on the Trump campaign. Finally, Page is a Trump-connected consultant.

Two other people who are speculated to be possible targets of the grand jury are Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law, and Donald Trump, Jr., the President’s son. Both men worked on the Trump presidential campaign. Kushner works at the White House and the President’s son works for the Trump Organization.

As late as Friday, the day the indictment evidently was issued, the White House was speculating that the investigation had reached an end and concluded that nothing improver had occurred. The White House, through the Press Secretary, provided no factual support for that determination.

In the past, President Trump has made statements about the possibility of directing the Department of Justice to fire the Special Counsel. The law prevents the President from personally firing the Special Counsel. Many constitutional and legal analysts have suggested that Trump firing the Special Counsel would precipitate a constitutional crisis of the kind last associated with Watergate and President Nixon.

The President, and the White House more broadly, had issued no statement in response to the apparent indictments. This includes the President’s Twitter account, which has been silent on the subject thus far.

Federal Judge Blocks Alabama’s Abortion Laws

On Thursday, US District Judge Myron Thompson nullified two abortion laws in the Middle District of Alabama. The two laws SB 205 and SB 363 required all clinics within 2,000 feet from K-8 public schools be shut down and ban doctors from performing the fetal-demise (dilation and evacuation) abortion procedure from the second trimester. In 2016, the same court had provisionally blocked both laws through a preliminary injunction and the appeal verdict was pending under the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. ACLU Alabama had appealed for the two laws on behalf of two women’s clinics in Alabama claiming that abortion providers were being subjected to strict legal requirements.

The judge claimed the two laws were undemocratic and bade the state from enacting the procedures, which had been signed into law in 2016 by former Republican an Alabama Governor Robert Bentley. In his ruling, Thompson claimed that the school vicinity law, which was only of a kind in the United States, and the fetal-demise law placed a superfluous gratuitous burden on a woman’s ability to opt for an abortion. He added that it would lead to a closure of two of the five abortion clinics in Huntsville and Tuscaloosa where 72% of the state’s abortions are conducted. This would create long trips for women seeking abortion services and devastate the low-income earners.

The decision adds to other 41 abortion restriction laws enacted by the state legislatures in the US in the first half of 2017. Last year, the Supreme Court also annulled a law in Texas requiring clinics to meet hospital-like standards and clinic doctors to have admission rights at nearby hospitals.

However, the ruling was a huge blow to pro-life activists in Alabama and conservatives in other states. They claimed the verdict undermined the US Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the case of Wade vs Roe 1973. The American Civil Aviation Liberties Union in Alabama supported the judgment claiming that the laws would have imposed a climate of hostility.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alabama-abortion/federal-judge-strikes-down-two-abortion-restrictions-in-alabama-idUSKBN1CV3NO

Use of Computer Algorithms in Courts

4 years ago in the state of Wyoming, a young man was arrested by the state police for what they described as using a vehicle that had been used in a recent shooting. The man went by the name Eric Loomis. He didn’t object to the fact that he tried to avoid arrest. At the same time, he didn’t object to driving a car without the permission of the owner. On a normal day, he would be hit with a minor fine as few people had been jailed for such crimes. Nonetheless, the judge had other ideas. He cited that his behavior posed a high risk of what he referred to as recidivism. It was further revealed that the decision to sentence him was generated by a computer program known as COMPAS. This is a risk assessment algorithm that has been in use in the state of Wyoming for quite a while now. While the judge refused to offer the man probation, he ordered the man to serve six years in prison and another five years in extended supervision. In total, the man was jailed for 11 years. At the moment, no particular person knows how the COMPAS algorithm works. In fact, the manufacturer of the program has refused to disclose the proprietary on a number of occasions despite pleas from the affected.

Later on, when Mr. Loomis challenged the sentencing, the Wisconsin Supreme Court threw out his case. He had challenged the use of the algorithm in his sentencing as it interfered with his right of being sentenced individually. This meant that other considerations were put in place such as his gender. Three months ago, the United States Supreme Court said that it would not hear the case. However, the use of the algorithm will have far-reaching consequences. The question that many people still ask themselves is why these judges are relying on a computer program which, as far as people understand, these judges don’t even know how it works. This results to a bias system where the judges have the higher hand in taking advantage of the unchecked power which involves looking into issues that are not related to the case. This makes the case look serious than it is. Some states such as Colorado argue that having a computer system I place will result in judgments that are not biased. However, some experts in law argue that while it might seem like the computers do away with bias, they compound and delegate it further.

A Mother Loses a Child and Her Citizenship In a Single Event

The UK’s Ministry of Justice has expressed its deep apologies to Liliya Breha, the mother of a boy who was murdered by her former partner. Probation services did not warn Breha that her partner was involved in a series of convictions for violent behavior against children and women. To make matters worse, Liliya Breha now faces deportation because she has no family ties in the UK.

Events That Led to The Murder

Alex Malcolm, the 5 year old boy, was beaten to death by Maryyn Iheanacho, Breha’s partner. The beating was related to the boy losing his trainers in a park. The court found Iheanacho guilty of murder. During the sentencing, Breha, who is 30 years old, was horrified by Iheanacho’s previous crimes against children and women.

The Ministry of Justice suspended two officials who were charged with supervising Iheanacho. In a statement, a spokesman of the ministry stated that they had put in place measures to prevent a repeat of tragic events like this.

The terms of Iheanacho’s license stated that he was forbidden from having unsupervised access to children who were below 16 years and that probation officers were required to monitor any new relationships he had with women.

Iheanacho’s Criminal Record

Iheanacho’s previous crimes include spanking a former girlfriend with a belt, breaking the jaw of a former partner, and attempting to strangle a 13 year old boy. Before the day of the attack, Breha was not aware of her partner’s predisposition to violence.

It was after the incident that she learnt that the probation service, which was keeping an eye on Iheanacho, should have informed her about her husband’s criminal record. Breha knew that her husband was fresh out of prison but she knew nothing about the licensing terms related to children and women. In fact, Iheanacho occasionally used Breha’s phone to communicate with his probation officer and Breha also spoke to the officer a few times.

Breha’s Immigration Status

Shortly after the incident, Breha learnt that she may not be able to live in the UK after she updates her immigration status in June. This is because she no longer has a child; therefore, she has no family ties in the UK. Breha arrived in the UK 10 years ago. She came on an exchange programme while studying at the “National University of Water Management and Nature Resources Use” in Ukraine.

Johnny Depp Sues His Attorneys For Malpractice

Early this year, Johnny Depp, the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star, made headlines when he took his former management company to court. Depp held that the employees of this company were mismanaging his finances and failing to provide most of the basic services. This week, Depp went to court again suing his former legal counsel for engaging in self dealing and pursuing interests that would only benefit them. Depp wants at least 30 million in damages from Bloom Hergott Diemer Rosenthal LaViolette Feldman Schenkman & Goodman. This recent lawsuit comes to show that Depp has been dealing with professionals who are slowly bleeding him dry.

Misleading Advice Cost Mr Depp Millions

Like many movie stars who rely on the advice of professionals, Depp claims that he depended on his attorneys to deal with his legal affairs ethically and competently. However, instead of protecting the interests of their client, the lawyers violated the basic tenets of attorney-client privilege and engaged in misconduct all to the financial detriment of Mr. Depp.

The lawsuit refers to a loan that is cutting into the actor’s income from six films and providing his lawyer and business manager with millions of dollars in contingency fees. The loan was secured even before Mr. Depp started making money.

According to Depp, TMG and Bloom’s law firm are to blame for the mismanagement of his fortune. The U.S. Department of Justice, SEC, and IRS are looking into possible money laundering, mismanagement, and fraud at TMG.

TMG’s Response to The Law Suit

According to TMZ, Depp disregarded warnings about his lavish $2 million per month lifestyle and his over the top purchases which include several islands in the Bahamas, a 150 foot luxury yacht, 70 collectible guitars, and art works by Gustav Klimt and Andy Warhol. TMG claims that Depp is partly liable for his financial woes.

 

Sexual Allegations against Bill O’Reilly

It has emerged that Bill O’Reilly settled a sexual harassment case back in January for $32 million. This came six months after he was ejected as an employee of Fox News. Details about the settlement were to light by people close to the investigation who sought for anonymity as they didn’t want to jeopardize their careers. This is the first time that these claims are being made public. Nonetheless, 21st Century Fox, the sister company of Fox News said that it had been notified about the claims of the woman. While the allegations included sending of pornography materials to the woman, others included nonconsensual sexual relationship, use of explicit material when with the woman and repeated harassment. The people who briefed the New York Times about the issue confirmed that this is the sixth time that defendant has settled this case. The defendant includes Mr. O’Reilly or his company. However, the latest settlement is the largest so far. With the 21st Century Fox fully aware of Mr. O’Reilly record, the company went ahead and negotiated a contract with him last February. Eventually, he was awarded a 25 million contract that would run for four years. According to the sources, it was revealed that the company unsuccessfully tried to stop the second wave of accusations against Mr. O’Reilly. These allegations were filed last summer, and once they emerged to the public, the former chairman Rodger Ailes was fired.

However, it has been reported that Rupert Murdoch together with his sons unanimously agreed to stand with Mr. O’Reilly in what was referred to as a calculated business stand. Together with his sons James and Lachlan, it has been revealed that they were aware of the sexual harassment accusations made against the executive. It was reported that the decision to stand by Mr. O’ Reilly was an effort to prove to the board, employees and the public in general that they had transformed the workplace culture of the company. The decision to hold onto him might have been inspired by his worth to the company after Megyn Kelly left the company for greener pastures. However, the Murdoch family decided to fire the executive in April when the allegations became public. This meant that the executive posed a great threat to their executive. It has emerged that federal prosecutors looking into the sexual harassment allegations against the former Fox employee have asked for documents related to the case.