Retrospecting Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision to Disqualify Trump as Presidential Candidate

The highest court in the state of Colorado came out with a ruling that barred Donald Trump from running as Republican presidential candidate in the 2024 election. Through a majority vote of 4 out of 7 Colorado Supreme Court justices, the decision to exclude Trump in the GOP’s line up of 2024 primary candidates, prevailed.

supreme courtThe 4 justices who voted to disqualify the ex-president cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. This law specifically states that under no circumstances that a person shall be allowed to hold civil or military office as a State Representative in Congress or as a Senator; or even be considered as a primary elector or nominee particularly for the position of President or Vice President of the federal government’s Executive Branch.

The Colorado Supreme Court’s disqualification ruling is based on the former U.S. president’s role in instigating the siege that took place at the Capitol on January 06, 2021. The violent attack was set off after Trump came out of the White House and spoke to his supporters in the morning before the rioters went to Capitol Hill.

Icapitol hill riot Jan 06, 2021n claiming that the 2020 presidential election was rigged, he roused his MAGA supporters to prevent Congress, especially his Vice President Mike Pence, from certifying the election results.

The Second Impeachment Against Trump Left the Doors Open for a Trump Reelection Bid

Many contend that Trump’s disqualification was a legal matter that should have been settled by way of the second impeachment proceeding that Congress passed after the violent Jan. 06 Capitol riot. Trump was impeached by the majority of the House of Representatives for blatantly inciting his supporters to rebel against the results of the 2020 Presidential Elections.

The US Senate however, led by Kentucky Senator and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, voted to acquit Trump of his seditious acts on the grounds that the latter was already voted out of office at the time of the impeachment. The acquittal therefore left the doors open for Trump to vie for reelection as US president.

The decision to disqualify Trump in the Republican primary election varies from state to state particularly in the so-called “swing states.” Trump, though, vows to file for an appeal with the federal Supreme Court, where majority of the justices are Trump appointees.

When is a Crime a Misdemeanor; When Is It a Felony?

The terms felony and misdemeanor seem synonymous, yet a prosecutor considers a lot of factors when filing charges against a person accused of breaking the law.

Generally, criminal acts fall into categories and classes that determine the punishments. The categories and relatesd punishments also depend on how each state defines the crime committed. State legislations also prescribe guidelines on how criminals will be punished accordingly. Oftentimes, the differences in state definitions of felony and misdemeanor are crystal clear when the crime pertains to violations of drug laws.

Felony is More Serious than Misdemeanor 

Compared to misdemeanor, felony especially if involving robbery and murder are regarded as serious offenses. Such crimes bring on heavier penalties and longer jail terms or sentences. Misdemeanors on the other hand, are usually non-violent minor offenses like vandalism and shoplifting that bring on lighter penalties and jail terms.

Repercussions of Criminal Convictions

Having a criminal record of either felony or misdemeanor once you’re of legal age can leave a negative mark on one’s resume or biographical data. In most cases, a criminal record can affect various aspects of life, particularly employment opportunities. Even if a charge against a person has been dropped, the related criminal records alone can still create a negative impact. More so if a person has been convicted of the crime that he or she was accused of committing.

Law Studies : Akin to Brewing a Career Out of a French Press Coffee Maker

Nowadays brewing your own coffee is a relevant aspect of studying , which makes it important to buy the right coffee grinder for french press amazon sells online. Yes you read it right, a french press coffee maker is a perfect choice if you’re a law student who needs to drink coffee to perk up your energy level.

It’s quite understandable that there are instances when the drudgery of studying law can pull you down. An aromatic cup of perfectly coffee brewed can give you the energy boost you need. Yet for young adults like you who are looking to make a career out of studying different kinds of laws and relevant case studies, you also need to understand the art and science of coffee brewing. Otherwise, your future career as a coffee-drinking lawyer can be thwarted by potential stomach disorders like poor digestion, flatulence or at worst, ulcers or gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Although we staunchly recommend the use of a French press coffee brewer, we also have to emphasize that using the right coffee grinder is equally important. Mainly because a French presser a.k.a. coffee plunger extracts coffee flavors and essential oils by way of direct immersion method. Since only a metal screen keeps the immersed coffee grind from getting into the water, the coffee grinder must produce coffee grinds with a coarse consistency and without “fines.” The latter refers to minute particles that can pass through the wire mesh and give the brew a silty quality. The wire mesh filters out only the coffee grnds; but not the essential oils and flavor molecules that give the Freench press brewed coffee an enlivening and aromatic taste.

Anyway, brewed French press coffee is essential not just for those engaged in serious studies but also for everyone who wants to boost their energy when starting their day. It’s just that our focus on law studies as an example is based on a widespread belief that the subject matter has great propensity to become boring,

What Then Makes a Career in Law Interesting and Appealing?

Just like a French pressed brewed coffee, becoming a lawyer requires direct immersion. Learning mist be aided by a strong reliable filter, usually probono practices that allow students to extract the best knowledge and skills in becoming a a lawyer in the field he chooses. That is regardless of whether you want a lawyering career in the corporate arena, or as a private practitioner available to anyone who needs legal help.

Studying law and eventually engaging in lawyering as a profession can also be described as a grind. You can have either the coarse consistency that can make you a staunch and unwavering public prosecutor or defender, who has the right blend of practical knowhow and skills; or be a sophisticated lawyer of a private law firm that represents corporate entities not only in litigation matters but in critical financial transactions as well.

An aspect of lawyering that makes the profession interesting and less dreary is that work isn’t likely to be repetitive. It’s a career that offers constant exposure to different cases and realities of life. Knowledge of actual legal cases that serve as precedents is critical to the fate of a client who rely on your services as a legal representative in court.

Still, as a lawyer, your commitment is to staunchly defend, or to justly prosecute people based on impartial and equitable laws, and not on the overall potential remuneration you stand to gain whether judicially or extra-judicially (out-of-court settlements.)

Abuse of Authority Lawsuit vs Indiana AG : Investigating Abortion on 10-YO Ohio Rape Victim

Dr. Caitlin Bernard, the Indiana doctor who helped a 10-year old Ohio rape victim have an abortion, is now suing Indiana’s Atty. General for abuse of authority. The lawsuit filed by Dr. Bernard also seeks to end Indiana AG Todd Rokita’s continuing investigations and issuance of subpoenas. According to the lawsuit, AG Rokita merely based investigations on superficial allegations coming from third parties who have no connection to the Ohio rape victim’s abortion case.

Legal Info Related to Dr. Bernard’s Lawsuit vs. Indiana AG

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling last June, a 10 year old, Ohio rape victim was referred to Dr. Bernard for abortion.

The Roe vs Wade ruling, had for 50 years, previously frozen the stern anti-abortion laws in Ohio and in several other American states. Dr. Bernard’s performance of abortion on the 10-year old Ohio rape victim grabbed national attention as it was an example of why state abortion laws must recognize certain exceptions in making abortion unlawful for female citizens.

After news broke out about Dr. Bernard’s celebrated involvement in the abortion procedure   AG Rokita announced conducting investigations related to the matter. The Indiana Attorney General together with an associate named Scott Barnhart, have been actively investigating Dr. Bernard’s compliance with indiana’s abortion laws; including compliance with the required reporting of all abortion cases.

About Dr. Bernard’s Lawsuit Vs. AG Rokita

Public records show that Dr. Bernard complied with all state law regulations in connection with the abortion performed on the Ohio rape victim. Yet AG Rokita and Barnhart, continued to abuse authority by conducting sham investigations and by issuing subpoenas based on complaints coming from individuals who have no direct involvement.

Dr. Bernard’s lawsuit specifically focused on the Indiana AG’s abuse of authority by violating the following investigation requirements:

  • Keep the investigation specifically and narrowly focused
  • Base the investigation on the merits of the case as potential violations.
  • Keep confidential all information regarding investigations.

Democrats Vow to Push for a National Law Legalizing Abortion

Senate Democrats vow to immediately push for legislation that will make abortion legal nationally throughout the country to ensure the protection of women. Following the news about a leaked draft indicating that majority of the Supreme Court members have voted in favor of reversing the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, Senate Majority Leader Schumer announced with urgency that the Senate House will vote to pass a pro-abortion bill. As it is, several states in the US have a set of so-called “trigger laws,” which will take effect once the high court’s Roe versus Wade judgment is rescinded.

The Democrats still have to work hard to garner votes coming from at least 10 Republicans in order to pass a bill protecting the rights of women to access abortion. Such a right has been available to them for nearly 50 years now, ever since the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decision on the Roe v Wade abortion case of 1973.

Republicans on the other hand, are poised to end all exceptions cited as acceptable reasons in states that do not support abortion. Rape, health of the fetus, health of the mother, and incest are examples of reasons considered as exceptions in at least 22 states that banned abortion prior to the Roe v Wade ruling.

What Exactly are the So-Called Anti-Abortion “Trigger Laws”?

Inasmuch as some states still have laws that prohibit abortion per se, said laws are still in place. At present, the laws could not be enforced in light of the Supreme Court 1973 ruling that upheld Roe’s right to abortion. Nevertheless, many conservatives have for years tried to get the Roe v Wade judgment reversed to make abortion illegal in their jurisdiction.

In the event that the ruling is overturned, as what the leaked draft revealed, the abortion ban “trigger laws” will automatically take effect. The unofficial report is that the Supreme Court will release the ruling either in June or July, which as a result, will trigger the anti-abortion laws that require rape victims and women whose life is endangered by a pregnant condition, to carry on with their respective pregnancy up to the full term.

Jury Finds Theranos Founder Guilty of Investment Fraud

Elizabeth Holmes, who at the age of 19 convinced investors to infuse money in her blood testing company Theranos, was found guilty of defrauding investors. Prosecutors said on Monday that ib 2010 to 2015, she swindled private investors by making them believe that the Theranos blood-testing could run a wide range of tests on just a single drop of blood.

Based on investors testimonies, Holmes made numerous misleading claims about her blood-testing machine. One example of such claim is that their Theranos machines are being utilized by the U.S military. According to prosecutors, if Holmes had been honest to investors, Holmes’ Theranos technology would not have received the critical funding she sought.

What the Jurors Found as Fraudulent in the Theranos Case

State prosecutors were able to prove that Theranos failed in its bid to revolutionise lab testing. Instead, the company secretly relied on traditional Siemens testing machines in running tests for patients. During the trial, which started in September in San Jose, California, members of the panel of jurors listened to testimonies of former Theranos employees who provided details about the problems demonstrated by the Theranos blood-testing technology.

Holmes stands to face 80 years in prison but many expect that U.S. District Judge Edward Davila will decide on a shorter sentence.

DOJ Filed Lawsuit to Stop Texas from Criminalizing Abortion Procedures

Last week, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Texas’ new abortion law which bans the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy. AG Garland added that the law was clearly unconstitutional and beneath a precedent Supreme Court ruling.

The legal action was filed after the Supreme Court denied the request of Texas-based abortion service providers’to block the law. The DOJ lawsuit named Texas as the defendant, whilst seeking to have the state’s anti-abortion law be declared void, null, and invalid. Specifically, the lawsuit is also petitioning for a ruling that prohibits the state and other private parties from enforcing the provisions of Texas Senate Bill 8.

When is Abortion Legal in the U.S.?

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitutions protects the right of pregnant women to choose abortion as an option and the right to privacy, for as long as the procedure is not in violation of  other laws. Yet the  new law under SB 8 violates the aforementioned federal law by making it a criminal act to assist a pregnant woman who seeks or needs to abort her pregnancy within the bounds of what is recognized as legal. .

The “heartbeat” law bans abortion once there is a heartbeat detected from the fetus, which usually happens during the 6th week of pregnancy when a woman is still unaware of her pregnancy.

Texas Court Upholds Right of Employer to Impose Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination on Employees

Last June 12, a Texas federal District Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by hospital employees, terminated for defying a mandatory employee-vaccination policy. The Court upheld the compulsory vaccination policy as lawful, whilst recognizing the right of the complainants to reject or accept a COVID-19 vaccination but not without suffering the consequences if mandated as an employment requirement.

The District Court ruled that in every place of employment, there are limits to the extent of allowed employee behavior, especially if it will affect the service they provide in exchange for compensation. In the case of the hospital employees who refused to be vaccinated, it is proper for them to find work somewhere else, where vaccination is not deemed by employers as important to the performance of services.

The case decision sets a precedent, being the first court ruling that determines the capability of employers to make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory among employees. While the dismissed employees claim that the mandatory vaccination policy violates the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act FDCA), the ruling of the Texas District Court challenged the argument citing the FCDA.

The court’s decision also cited the Equal Employment Opportunity guidance, which declares that private employers can require their employees to be vaccinated. The guidance obligates employers to furnish reasonable arrangements for employees who have legitimate religious reasons or medical conditions that bar them from getting vaccinated. .

Short Background on the Filed Lawsuit

The lawsuit was initiated by 117 employees of the Houston Methodist Hospital after the institution imposed preliminary punishments before terminating them for violating the hospital’s mandatory vaccination policy. Those who refused to be vaccinated until the deadline will be suspended for two weeks without pay to let them reconsider the consequences of not abiding with the hospital’s vaccination policy. Since the employees still refused to receive vaccination despite the two-week suspension, the complainants were terminated in accordance with the stipulations set by the vaccination policy.

The plaintiffs cited the following arguments in the filing of their lawsuit:

1.  The employees who were terminated by the policy were wrongfully terminated.

2.  The vaccine mandate violated the Texas’ public policy and;
It also violated the federal FDCA concerning human subjects, which referenced the Nuremberg Code.

3.  The District Court also rejected the third argument concerning the Nuremberg Code as it does not apply to private employers. Furthermore, they explained that the coronavirus vaccination mandate is not the same as the human medical experimentation forced on the victims of the Nazi’s Holocaust movement.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal to rebut the District Court’s dismissal of their lawsuit, at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last June 14.

When and How Will They End? Mass Shootings and Debates on Gun Control Laws

Families are once again mourning, while usual debates over gun control laws have again resurfaced, only to die down later once news of mass shootings subside. However the news is not about to die down as CNN points out that in just a span of 7 days, 7 mass shootings have taken place across U.S. states. The 7th occurred last Monday at a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado, less than a week after a mass shooting in Atlanta, took the lives of eight people.

As expected, the shooting incidents sparked debate on the gun control legislation since deaths by firearms have unfortunately become common in the country. Democratic lawmakers have been calling out for stricter limits on firearms ownership and license issuance. Now that they have the majority number, they say they are determined to fulfill that goal. That is, if they are able to eliminate or at least reform the filibuster rule that requires 60 votes in order to pass legislation.

As it is, the Senate House is so polarized, the Republicans will simply vote against any bill proposed by Democrats.

Political Expert Say that Political Polarization Made Gun Control Law a Culture War

According to Professor Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health. polls actually show consistent and strong support for measures like universal background checks. However, the policies being debated about gun control laws only got buried by the political polarization of the two parties; making the fight over gun control, a culture war.

Unless, the filibuster rule is removed, the legalization of any gun control legislation will depend on whether Democrats can amass 10 votes from Republican lawmakers to remove the legislative filibuster,

President Biden Calls on Congress to Address Reform of Gun Control Laws

Last Tuesday, President Biden called on Senators to pass the two House bills that would close the loopholes that are making the country’s gun control laws ineffective. The president’s statement referred to the House bill proposing the need to require a background check to anyone acquiring or obtaining a firearms license. The second bill, the President was referring to is a ban on the issuance of assault weapons, to which President Biden himself help introduce during the 90s.

Hopefully, with unified control in both White House and Congress, Democratic lawmakers will be able to push for gun control laws that require tougher screening. Stricter screenings will be required when selling weapons to individuals, to ensure that they have no history of mental illness, no record of abusive behaviors, and without criminal records whatsoever.

Republicans Would Rather Work Toward Widening Access to Firearms

Republican lawmakers however are doing the contrary, as Republican-led states are widening access to firearms. Republican state lawmakers insist that due to rising incidents, permitless carrying of firearms can better protect and ensure public safety of individuals.

Senator Rand Paul Attempts to Block Impeachment Action vs. Trump

Republican Senator Rand Paul made a move to block the forthcoming impeachment trial of ex-president Trump, but failed. Although his motion to stop the trial on the basis of being unconstitutional garnered only 45 votes as against the 55 votes that assert the constitutionality of the impeachment, Senator Paul was still happy with the results.

As it was, only five Republican senators voted with the Democrats. That means the Democratic Party will find it difficult to muster ⅔ majority votes in gunning for Trump’s conviction. Smugly, the Republican senator told reporters that “Forty-five votes in support of blocking the impeachment means the trial is already dead on arrival.”

The Republicans are also questioning the legality of designating Democratic Senator Pro Tempore Patrick Leahy instead of naming Chief Justice John Roberts as presiding authority in the impeachment trial. According to Paul, it already denotes bias in favor of the Democrats.

However, the Senator’s assessment that the impeachment trial is already dead is still not certain. When asked if they will also vote for Trump’s conviction in relation to his actions of inciting sedition during the January 6 DC riots, some Senators said their vote did not mean they do not intend to hold Trump accountable.

Republican Senator Rob Portman specifically told reporters that the matter of holding Trump accountable for the riot is an issue that is a whole lot different.

What Law Experts Say About the Constitutionality of Trump’s Second Impeachment

According to most scholars, presidents who participate in wrongdoings during the last days or hours of their administration should not be exempted from being held liable.

Several “late-impeachment” experts are saying it is constitutional as a way to disqualify the erring former president from running and winning a government position any time in the future. In response to the arguments against Democratic senate president pro tempore Senator Leahy, impeachment experts explained that the Supreme Court Chief Justice is called upon to preside over impeachment trials only if the person being impeached is the sitting president.

Understanding the Section 230 Provision that Trump Wants Congress to Repeal

Aside from the $2k stimulus check amount, Trump’s additional condition to his signing of the 2021 Appropriations Bill was the repeal of Sec.230 of CDA. Also known as the Communications Decency Act, its Section 230 provision gives protection against legal liabilities that may arise from any content posted by users of a media platform.

The recent attack on Section 230 is a totally different issue from an earlier Twitter feud relate to the platform’s ban on political campaigns. Trump is currently claiming that social media sites are allowing the Democrats to steal the election.

Actually, at a time when social media sites banned the posting of political campaigns in their platform, what the Democrats were able to accomplish in using Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and instagram, was to convince people to exercise their right to vote. Trump of course did not want this to happen, since the main reason he won the 2016 elections is that many Democratic voters did not participate in the election process.

Not to stray from the main topic, the greater interest is knowing what exactly does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, provide as protection to communication networks like social media platforms.

What Exactly is Section 230 and How Does it Affect Users of Social Media Platforms?

Section 230 was created and introduced in 1996 by Rep. Chris Cox (R-California) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) so that owners of websites can freely moderate content and without worry of any legal responsibilities. This particular law gives websites protection against lawsuits, if ever a user posts topics that become subjects of lawsuits. The privilege afforded by Section 230 though, does not exempt websites from carrying content that violate federal criminal laws, phornographic works, and copyright violations.

Still, the Act encompasses a lot of services, including allowing audience and users to post and exchange comments. The liability-free status makes Section 230 very important for social media networks since they don’t have control over comments and other post interactions linked to their users’ posts; or tweets as in the case of Twitter.

Experts insist that the wide protection the law provides, allows dominant companies to overlook the potential real harm posed by users of their platforms. Lawmakers on the other hand had put forward incorrect arguments; illogically claiming that the section only safeguards the interest of those who support neither left wing or right wing advocates or those in neutral platforms.

Additionally, a lot of people connect Section 230 to the First Amendment that prohibits governments from imposing limits on various forms of speech. Section 230 eased the pressure on tech companies to observe rules that require them to regulate and limit content based on a specific political standpoint or ideology. Such a requirement would have been unlawful because it violates the First Amendment.

Legal experts contend that if ever Section 230 is removed, social media platforms would be forced to change the way they operate and manage their platforms.

Companies on the other hand, who benefit from the cost-efficient approach in marketing their brands, would have to evaluate every content their marketers’ or influencers’ present as creative content, before posting and sharing them in social media platforms, if only to ensure that non-controversial topics will be posted.

In today’s marketing strategies, brand promoters and influencers are capable of curating their content in Instagram by using an analytics tool. The tool is useful in generating Instagram stats related to their posts, giving them insights on those that are working as far as achievement of their goals are concerned.

If social media companies impose limitations on what they can create as content, Instagram users will not be able to reach a broader set of audience.

Understanding the Eligibility of Wheelchairs for Medicare Coverage

When buying a wheelchair for an elderly or a handicapped person eligible for medicare coverage, there are certain CMS requirements to take into account. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) undertakes to cover 80% of wheelchair cost if it meets the agency’s definition of Durable Medical Equipment (DME).

First off, under CMS policies, wheelchairs covered as DMEs must serve a medical purpose. Generally, doctors prescribe a lightweight manual wheelchair if the patient cannot use a walker, but has sufficient upper body strength to manually operate the mobility device; or has someone in attendance to provide assistance.

The CMS recommends that before actually buying a manual wheelchair, it would be best to rent first to find the right Lightweight Wheelchairs. That way, deciding on a brand or model of wheelchair as the best fit will be based on actual use of the elderly or person with disability. .

CMS Approval for Wheelchair Claim Based on Performance and Safety of DME for User Need

As the title Durable Medical Equipment implies, a wheelchair is covered only if it is sturdy enough to withstand repeated and prolonged use for at least three years.

The CMS wants to make sure that the DME is durable and has backup features in case of failures. A manual wheelchair is the most recommended mobility device for regular use when moving about inside or outside of the home because it is much lighter than the electric type. However, whether manual or electrically driven, the CMS also looks into performance and safety tests. That way, frequent purchases for a replacement can be avoided, while risks of injury can be mitigated.

Qualifications for an Electric Wheelchair

Electric wheelchairs are prescribed by doctors only if the patient does not have enough body strength to operate a manual wheelchair; allowing for mobility on one’s own inside and outside the home. However, the guidelines for electric wheelchair claims are more rigid as the CMS requires submission of a certification issued by the physician giving medical care to the wheelchair user.

The certification must include a statement attesting that the elderly or the disabled person for whom the wheelchair was prescribed has been in face-to-face consultation with the certifying doctor. Mainly because the doctor’s certification must include a statement that in prescribing the DME, the needs as well as the ability of the patient to operate an electric wheelchair have been carefully assessed.

Appeals Court Rules Against Trump ; Appropriation of Military Funds Illegal

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th District decreed that Trump’s use of the $3.6 billion military funds for the US-Mexico border wall is illegal. That being the case, Trump’s plans on furthering the construction of certain sections of the border wall has been ordered to stop immediately.

Atty. Dror Ladin, a senior staff lawyer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) National Security Project said the Court of Appeals ruling only confirms that Trump‘s use of National Emergency powers was unconstitutional; using border communities and immigrants as reasons for the emergency purpose. Atty. Ladin said it’s high time for Trump to desist from using government funds for his needless and illicit projects

Why Trump’s Border Wall Expansion Project was Judged Illegal

Under the constitutionally recognized structure of government, only Congress has the power to allocate government funds as annual budgets of different government departments. Not satisfied with the $1.4 billion allocated by Congress to fund his border wall expansions project, Trump ordered the transfer of $3.6 billion military allocation as additional funds. Notwithstanding that Congress appropriated those funds for military construction purposes.

 

On the other hand, an incumbent U.S. president can use National Emergency powers only when the security of the entire country is at stake.

Claiming that he can do anything he wants as president of the United States, Trump cited the heavy flow of immigrants passing through Mexico borders toward U.S. soil, as threats to national security. Despite the flimsiness of the reason, Donald Trump gave orders to the Department of Homeland Security to proceed with the U.S.-Mexico border wall expansion and construction.

Legal Complaint Filed by Teacher Unions vs Florida Governor

A legal complaint filed by teacher unions aims to bar the Florida governor from issuing an order for schools to hold in-person classes this coming August.

The complaint was filed by the national union known as The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and its Florida affiliate, the Florida Education Association (FEA), in a proactive effort to obtain an injunction that would block Florida governor Rod DeSantis from issuing a statewide mandate for schools to hold in-person classes.

The legal complaint was filed at the Miami state court last Monday, the same day that the Florida State Health officials released a report that for the sixth day in a row, over 10,000 additional COVID-19 cases has been added to Florida’s rapidly increasing number of people infected by the disease. The additional number brings the average daily number of new cases to roughly about 11,000 per day. In addition, the Monday status report indicated that so far, there has been 5,000 coronavirus-deaths in Florida.

Fedrick Ingram President of FEA said that governor DeSantis needs to accept the reality that the coronavirus is surging out of control in Florida. Mr. Ingram explained that

”If schools are to reopen, it should not start with in-person teaching where students, teachers and school employees will face an explosion of infection cases and sickness; which will eventually force a return to distance learning. —Florida’s Constitution makes safety a critical standard for public schools, which is the same standard being demanded by Florida’s parents and teachers.”

Florida Dept. of Education Says Schools were Merely Given Guidelines

Although the Florida Department of Education accuses the FEA of not fully reading or comprehending the guidelines sent by the department to schools; assering that they were not directives for in-person classes. The emails they sent merely laid out new innovative options in helping parents decide on what works best for the health and safety of their children and family.

 

However, it was clear from Governor DeSantis’ announcements earlier this month that his mandate for school reopening is for in-person schooling since he stated that “online learning is just not the same.”

The Legality of Loot Boxes : Countries Vary in Views

Questions about the legality of loot boxes have been answered by regulators of different countries, to which varying views and actions have been taken.

Countries like the UK and the U.S. generally allow video game developers to offer loot boxes, for as long as their mechanics do not go into the boundaries of gambling laws, In China, Belgium and the Netherlands, loot boxes have been constituted as falling in the same structure as online gambling. As a result, said countries have outlawed their inclusion as reward features of video games. In Japan, loot boxes are allowed but subject to certain restrictions.
.
The differences of opinion though, stirred confusion among gamers. Loot-box supporters opine that they are structured under the same framework of the “surprise toys” so loved by children. The problem though is that some game developers went beyond the mechanics of offering mystery prizes by way of loot boxes. The offering began to draw criticisms when their acquisitions involved payment of real money, described as similar to staking of wagers in exchange for an unknown game enhancement or rare feature.

Some others oppose the addition of loot boxes in games because they perceive loot rewards as predatory tactics. Parents raised concerns that even if offered as in-game rewards, the prospect of winning a mystery prize encourages minors to play non-stop, and could lead to game addiction if not closely supervised.

Understanding the Aspects that Determine the Legality of Loot Boxes

Countries that arrived at a decision to allow loot boxes made references to online gambling laws. That is regardless of whether a loot box was randomly won as a prize, or acquired as in-app purchase. Three elements were considered and compared to what statutes specify as critical elements that define an activity as online gambling.

First is “value”, the second is “chance” and the third is “valuable prize.” If a loot box is randomly awarded as a game prize, there is no value involved, which makes the chance of winning a valuable prize, free of cost. If a loot box is acquired by way of real-money purchase, and even though all elements of gambling are present, it still does not necessarily constitute online gambling.

Prizes that are valuable to gamers may come in the form of customization features, such as characters or avatars, skins, weapons, armors, which they would otherwise have to pay for if they so wish to acquire. These virtual objects are not considered things of monetary value in the real world, and therefore cannot be monetized by the gamers who won them via loot boxes.

Things would be different if the mystery prizes being awarded come in the form of gaming hardware and accessories, which gamers could monetize by selling them even at a bargain price, If that is the case, regulators may have decided that the elements of value, chance and prize constitute fall in the same category as online gambling.

In mentioning gaming equipment and hardware, we suggest that when looking to buy a laptop, be in the know that there are laptop models that are also suitable for gaming. Most of them are affordably priced at $1,000 because they have better features than ordinary laptops. To learn more about them, specifically type must-have best gaming laptops for $1000 as search words.

Legal Requirements of Electric Collars as Components of Containment Systems

In legal parlance, a containment system refers to a method of safely securing workers, animals or an environment within a managed buffer zone. The purpose of which to separate them and provide protection against hazardous or contaminated materials. Some containment systems though use electric collars to prevent pets from accidents or from accidentally destroying certain areas of a property.

Are electric collars legal?

Although the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act 2008, recognizes electric animal collars as acceptable parts of containment systems, certain requirements and conditions must be met.

Legal Requirements to Follow and Observe When Placing an Electric Collar on an Animal

First off, it should be clear that an electric collar or e-collar is a device, which when worn by an animal, is capable of relaying a message by way of a mild electric jolt.

The following are legal requirements that see to the regulated use of e-collars; all aimed to prevent the potential use of the device in inflicting harm on animals,

1. Use of electric collars are authorized only if a component of a containment system for dogs or cats.

2. The dog or cat must be more than six (6) months old.
It is important that a veterinarian has examined the dog or cat, in order to ascertain the animal’s physical well-being and temperament. Doing so is a means of obtaining professional assessment on whether the use of an authorized e-collar is suitable.

3. The design of the electronic gadget must be one that is able to limit the power to 100 milliamps single pulse, or 15 milliamps root mean square, at a maximum duration of 3 milliamps per second. The e-collar therefore must be outfitted with an automatic safety cut-out feature and controls for varying levels of static stimulation;

4. Additional specifications for an authorized electric collar include making the collar contact points safe and rounded. Moreover, pet owners or animal trainers must ensure that the distance between the contact points of the collar do not exceed 60 millimetres.

 

5. The placing of an electric collar on a dog or cat should be in accordance with training programs that follow the guidelines of the “Code of Practice for Training Dogs and Cats to Wear Electronic Collars,” as stated under the PCA Act of 986.1

6. Electronic collars even if authorized should not be worn by an animal for more that 12 hours within a 24-hour duration.
Pet parents or animal carers, including trainers, should always follow the instructions provided by the manufacturer of the electronic collar. .

Using Wireless Electrical Fence as a Containment System

An e-collar is only a component of a dog containment system, and used when training the animal to stay within a specific boundary or in preventing entry to a restricted area of a property. Some containment systems make use of an in-ground boundary wire and a transmitter that sends radio signal to a receiver placed in the electronic collar with by the dog.

A dog being trained to avoid a specific area will receive a static jolt if the animal crosses the invisible wireless fence. Training therefore must be carried out in the manner prescribed by the animal protection laws.

Nowadays, most dog owners prefer to use the wireless type of dog fence as a containment system. Mainly because they are portable and easier to install. Nonetheless, whether with in-ground boundary wire or wireless, it is important to make sure that the use and features of the electric collar component is compliant with the guidelines prescribed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations Act of 2008.

Disregard of Public Safety, a Public Health Crime?

When it seems that reopening of economies has furthered the increase in active COVID-19 cases and deaths, can Trump be charged with public health crime?

Trump and Republican senators had pushed for the reopening of economies, and have encouraged some state governors and anti-lockdown protesters to defy safe-distancing orders, all against the advice of public health officials. Since such actions put public health at greater risks, there are now calls to hold Trump and all those government officials responsible and accountable, for continuously putting the health and safety of the American public in grave danger.

Trump’s Deliberate Failures in Handling the COVID-19 Crisis, Cases of Public Health Crimes?

Legal experts are now focusing on laws that mandate government officials to put public health ahead of all other agendas in their decision making.

Constitutionally, public officials are responsible for ensuring that there is adequate public health infrastructure in every locality. First and foremost, the aspect of preventing the spread of communicable disease has been their primary public health responsibility from the moment the COVID-19 became a global health crisis.

 

In addition, and while the threats of the novel coronavirus disease remain as public health concerns, government and other public officials are responsible for ensuring that communities are prepared in responding to emergencies, and at the same time, have assurance of adequate health services.

Those defying government orders to shelter-in-place, to wear masks and/or to practice safe-distancing measures during a pandemic, can be lawfully charged for committing a public health crime. That being the case, Trump, other government leaders, lawmakers and public officials who disregarded their public health responsibilities should also be charged for public health crimes.

After all, despite the science-based warnings and advice of the government health officials tasked to monitor and assess the prevailing conditions of the ongoing public health crisis, the actions taken by Trump and by many others, all clearly indicated that they put greater weight on economic health over public health.

The American Public Should Have Awareness of Their Right to Public Safety

Ironically, the threats posed by COVID-19 has reached the White House, which has put Trump in greater danger of contracting the disease. This clearly indicates that in allowing the transmission and spread of the novel coronavirus, it has come to a point that even the most heavily guarded location in the U.S. cannot provide assurances of safety.

In our opinion, American consumers and workers should be aware of their rights to public safety. More so now that even the country’s number one leader is facing greater risks of being counted as a potential new coronavirus case.

Rather than expose themselves to greater health risks, it would be best for consumers to just continue with the current norm of limiting outdoor activities. There is now a proliferation of e-commerce stores that can deliver both essential and nonessential products.

Besides, local retail outlets that have transitioned as e-commerce or web-based stores are able to stay focused in providing fast and safe methods of providing customers their needs. They have instituted public safety measures recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Authority (FDA) and public health authorities.

Additionally, e-commerces entrepreneurs have also tapped the services of local call center outsourcing companies like 31West, (https://www.31west.net), as a means of ensuring that all customer concerns and issues can be properly and immediately addressed.

Powers of UK Police Under Lockdown Orders

The UK’s Prime Minister recently announced stricter rules in imposing “The Health Protection Coronavirus, Restrictions and Regulations enacted by the Parliament. The restriction, which took effect last March 26, 2020, saw the UK government ordering the closing down of pubs, restaurants, schools, and a host of businesses engaged in non-essential trade or services.

 

In addition, PM Boris Johnson reiterated orders for people to stay home and to go out only when buying basic necessities, including medical needs. Outdoor exercise is also allowed but only occasionally, either alone or with members of one’s household. Travelling to report for work if employed by an essential business and where working from home is not possible or doable, are permitted.

Providing care or helping vulnerable persons travel for such purposes is also allowed. Attending public gatherings is strictly not allowed, whilst family celebrations must include and be confined only to members of the same household

According to the British Prime Minister, the police force has been given additional powers in imposing the lockdown measures, primarily intended to prevent the coronavirus from spreading farther. That way, increases of new coronavirus cases will slow down, toward the goal of flattening the coronavirus curve. IThe latter, being the term used to indicate that the rate by which new cases of infections emerge, no longer overwhelms the country’s health care systems.

Although Britons understand the purpose of the lockdown and social distancing measures, many are still confused on what additional powers have been given to the police force. Local police authorities have recently been the target of criticisms, for allegedly overstepping the mark, in policing citizens under the lockdown mandate.

 

Still, it is worth mentioning that many police officers have carried out their tasks by practically begging residents to “walk in our steps” as their manner of enforcing measures aimed at saving lives.

What Kind of Police Behaviors Indicate “Overstepping the Mark”

Lord Sumption, a former High Court judge warned that in allowing law enforcers to overstep the mark, the country is running the risk of turning the UK into a “police state.” He cited using drones to monitor movement of people going out to take walks as an example of going overboard with police powers.

In an interview in the “World at One” program of Radio Four, Lord Sumption said that in some parts, police forces have been stopping people from travelling to the open country to have their exercise. The former judge opines that preference to exercise in the open country is not contrary to regulations. The former High Court judge said that law enforcers do not have the power to impose measures based simply on the supposed preferences of ministers.

Chris Daw QC, who is a barrister and who also writes for The Guardian on criminal justice topics, also gave his opinion of actions regarded as overstepping the mark. According to Barrister Daw, a guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs Council made it clear that the police do not have authority to set up roadblocks or to stop private vehicles at their own discretion.

Moreover, law enforcers are not empowered to insist on inspecting shopping bags just to check if a citizen had actually purchased basic necessities or medical supplies.

Juiceland.co.uk, the sponsor of this guest post, hopes that the information provided above, have in some ways cleared issues about the legality of the UK’s mandatory lockdown orders, and the powers of local authorities in enforcing the related measures.

Coronavirus Bill as Negotiated by Democrats

The U.S. Senate finally passed the Coronavirus Relief Bill put forward by Republicans, which Democrats had to modify with restrictions.

 

The bill saw days of negotiations as many of the Democratic Senators fought long and hard to ensure that the federal government would release funds mainly for purposes of helping America’s workers and for bailing out qualified companies.

Whereas before, the language of the bill did not have much to offer as protection for American workers, healthcare providers and families. The original bill proposed by Republicans, did not impose transparency and adequate restrictions; nor required appropriate oversight on how and to whom federal funds will be doled out as bailout money.

Touted as the largest stimulus package to have been legislated in the annals of U.S. Congress, the original trillion-dollar stimulus fund proposed by Republican Senators doubled to 2 trillion. Mainly because the Democratic Senators also introduced a $750-billion emergency plan that would see to the payment of employees’ family leave, unemployment insurance and pick sick leave.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (Dem-NY) had strongly pointed out that the proposed bill has the traits of a legislation mainly intended as “bailout money” for certain industries. Senator Schumer explained the Democrats’ position in opposing the original bill, saying

”It is not because we want those industries to go under; what we do not want is for companies to receive dollars that will go mostly to shareholders and corporate executives.” “What we want is to impose restrictions on stock buybacks, to make sure that bailout money will go to workers first.”…”Also, companies that lay off employees should be barred from receiving government aid.”

In responding to the arguments of Democratic Senators, Republicans accused them of engaging in politics in a time of crisis. Surprisingly, other Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Senator Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Senator Jim Lankford (Okla.) were one with the Democrats; albeit carefully wording their opposition to the proposals put forward by their fellow Republicans.

Senator Lankford told reporters

“I have a lot of questions on how this (bailout money) works, who gets it and who does not.”

Key Takeaways of the Approved Coronavirus Bill

Although language to the approved Coronavirus Bill has yet to be finalized, the key takeaways of the bipartisan deal include the following:

1) Direct payment of up to $1,200 and $500 financial assistance to eligible unemployed American adults and children, respectively.

2) $150 billion will be distributed as stimulus funds for state and local governments,

3) $130 billion will go to U.S. hospitals to bolster unemployment insurance

4) A $367 billion program to be made available to small businesses. The purpose of which is to give business owners capability to pay employees who have been ordered to shelter-in-place.

5) $500 billion to fund the loan and guarantee program that the Treasury Department will administer, which is broken down as follows:

  • $425 billion for U.S. states, cities and businesses;
  • $50 billion for distressed passenger airlines;
  • $17 billion for firms engaged in products and services essential to national security, and
  • $8 billion to cargo airlines.

6) The appointment of an independent Inspector General and creation of an oversight board to closely examine and inspect the Treasury Department’s lending decisions. This aspect became of particular importance, as Trump had previously told reporters that under the Republican proposal, he will be the “oversight.”

Understanding the Context of Impeachable Offenses in the U.S. Constitution

When four constitutional experts testified as part of the House Judiciary Committee’s deliberation of Donald Trump’s impeachable offenses, three of them agreed there was misconduct by the president in carrying out his sworn duty to protect the integrity of the constitution.

The three legal scholars invited by the Democrats, namely Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, Noah Feldman of Harvard University, and Pamela Karlan of Stanford University, all continued to give emphasis on the grounds with which impeachment proceedings were founded

Although the fourth scholar in the person of Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, who was invited by the Republicans, agreed with the others’ statements about impeachable offense, he criticized the procedural aspect of the hearing as being conducted in haste. As if doing so will lessen the seriousness of the testimonies and evidence presented as proofs of Trump’s misconduct.

Professor Gerhadt remarked that

“Nothing else is impeachable, if what is being discussed is not impeachable.”

What Does the Constitution Say about Impeachable Offenses and What are the Remedies?

The framers of the U.S. constitution made it clear that when a man is elected as President of the United States (POTUS), he cannot act like a king or behave like a dictator. He is the highest political leader of the land but with limited powers to use in defending the sanctity of the constitution and in protecting the interest of the country.

If more actions are needed, he then turns to Congress to seek legislation that will support additional actions deemed necessary in carrying out his duties as POTUS.

As a matter of procedure, the oath taking or the swearing in ceremony is not just a rite. It basically seals the contract between the elected POTUS and the American people; to which his undertaking is to act in accordance with the powers given to him by the Constitution. Otherwise, Congress, which holds the power to impeach a misbehaving president, has the duty to use that power when necessary.

Carrying out a constitutionally prescribed duty is different from exercising a privilege granted by the Constitution. A duty, regardless of partisan, personal belief, or creed must be performed when the laws of the land are being challenged and disregarded.

In House Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler’s opening statement, he mentioned that there is enough damning evidence that made Donald Trump’s impeachment necessary. Trump committed acts meeting three conditions that make a president’s action as impeachable:

  • Betrayal of national interest,
  • Abuse of power, and
  • Interference in the conduct of elections.

Understanding the Impeachment Proceeding that is about to Transpire in the U.S. Congress

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced last Tuesday (September 25, 2019) that the House of Representatives is set to move forward with an impeachment inquiry.

Speaker Pelosi stated that she made the decision to endorse the inquiry after conferring with key members of the Lower House, about the facts and events that led to Donald Trump’s admission that he asked the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and son. Such events included Trump’s suppression of a related whistleblower complaint filed by an intelligence officer.

What Does an Impeachment Inquiry Denote?

First off, the term impeachment does not necessarily mean that the subject of an impeachment inquiry will be removed from office once evidence of wrongdoing leads to a formal inquiry or investigation.

The results of the “impeachment inquiry” provides the basis on which the House of Representative will exercise the power to file formal charges against a president, vice president or civil official currently holding office, found in violation of his oath to perform duties by abusing the authority afforded by his position.

After the “impeachment inquiry” has been completed, the so-called “articles of impeachment” will be drafted.

What do the “Articles of Impeachment” Signify?

Once the House of Representative wraps up the inquiry procedure, all evidence of wrongdoings of the elected official under impeachment inquiry, will be used to draft a set of charges known as the “Articles of Impeachment.”

The term articles basically refer to the reasons why the official being impeached will undergo trial and thereafter receive judgment on whether he shall be removed from office or not; or if necessary, be convicted for unlawful acts committed.

What kind of charges will the “articles of impeachment” include?

The standard charges for which a President, Vice President or a civil official of the U.S. government can be impeached are generally termed as acts of “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

All three types of charges denote actions that have been carried out through abuse of authority and misuse of office for reasons that may include financial gain, personal advancement or benefit, or any other act that is not compatible with sworn duties related to protecting the interests and national security of the country.

The draft of the “Articles of Impeachment” must first be voted upon by a majority of the members of the House Representatives. Once ratified by the lower house, a final set of charges or the official “Articles of Impeachment” will be passed on to the Congressional chamber of the U.S. Senators.

The Impeachment Trial Conducted in the Senate Chamber

After the “Articles of Impeachment” goes to the Senate Chamber, an impeachment trial will take place. The trial is the final process of the impeachment proceeding, to which appointed members of the House of Representatives will act as prosecutors during trial.

The office holder under impeachment is permitted to present his own defense against the charges through his own set of defense lawyers. Both the designated House of Representatives members and the impeachment defense panel, can present evidence, as well as call on witnesses to prove or disprove the charges, as the case may be.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides during the trial, to act accordingly in the manner prescribed by law regarding judicial hearings. The members of the U.S. Senate has no other role but to decide on whether the charges brought against the impeached person will require immediate removal from office, disqualification from holding another government position, and/or conviction.

The Senate will deliberate on such decisions by way of a closed-door session. After which, the final judgment will be voted upon by the full Senate body in an open-session. In the event that the Senate presents a judgment that includes conviction, at least two-thirds of the members of the Senate Chamber must have openly concurred with such judgment.

In the annals of American history, only U.S. presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton underwent impeachment trial. In both cases, the Senate had cast votes not to remove them from office or to convict them. Although President Richard Nixon underwent impeachment inquiry, he resigned from his position before the charges against him were addressed in an impeachment trial.

History of Consumerism and Consumer Laws in India

There was once a time when consumerism was unheard of India. Citizens as consumers had no voice, due to lack of awareness about consumer laws that could protect them.

Back then, and fresh from gaining their newly found independence from British colonial rule, Indian leaders were busy building a democratic government. The concept of consumerism was hardly a matter that required immediate addressing.

Buyers merely had to follow the rule of caveat emptor or “buyer beware” when making purchases. Often times, they were treated to unfair merchant practices that included selling of items with inferior quality, of adulterated food, fake drugs, exorbitant prices, poor services and even hazardous products. Consumers who dared complain only got into arguments, as vendors merely responded with rudeness regardless of the legitimacy of reasons.

Still, the great Mahatma Gandhi, prime mover of Indian independence, who despite not accepting any government position, called the attention of other leaders to the plight of the “poor consumers.” He urged them to focus their attention on consumers whom he described as the most important visitor in all premises. Gandhi stressed that consumers are not dependent on what establishments had to offer, nor be treated as an interruption to their work. Instead, they must be regarded as the main purpose of their endeavors.

Yet Mahatma Gandhi’s words fell on deaf ears. It remained for a long time that consumers had to take responsibility for themselves when buying commodities. If one was not satisfied with a product brand, or with the food or services provided by a shop, it is up to the buyer to avoid or to stop buying the brand or in patronizing an establishment.

It took many years and adverse conditions before movements came about to advance the welfare of consumers. In the 1960s, unfair trade practices led to hoarding, causing widespread food shortages across Indian states, which also spawned black marketing. At first consumer movements involved mostly trading exhibits and of writing editorials, but hardly resulted to government actions in addressing consumerism.

Nonetheless, civic organizations formed during the 70s took bolder steps in carrying out missions of protecting consumers against unfair and unethical trade practices. Since there was no legal system in place, the years thereon saw an upsurge of consumer groups that took it upon themselves to address rampant exploitations in the marketplace. The groups became a social force that came to affect business operations. Organized efforts had created pressures that constrained sellers and business firms to pay attention to calls for cessation of malpractices.

Finally, by the 1980s, the movement to protect consumers throughout the nation succeeded in instilling the importance of consumerism to all. Lawmakers in different levels were finally taking action, and eventually, the federal government of India enacted the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.

How Globalization Helped Boost Consumerism in India

The advent of globalization helped boost consumerism in India. Local businesses now have to face worldwide competition, as eCommerce became a force with which they have to contend. Options for consumer purchases were no longer confined to what local manufacturers had to offer, as many Indian citizens discovered the benefits of shopping online.

However, caution must still be observed since not all online sellers are governed by the Distance Selling Regulations imposed by the country in which online sellers are registered. One of the most popular online stores that offer the widest variety of consumer products is the Amazon online store. This online establishment obviously caters to a large sector of the Indian population, since it annually holds the Amazon Great Indian Sale, an event much awaited by Amazon’s registered Indian members.

It may have taken a long time for consumerism to fully evolve in India, but what is important is that it did and that related legal systems</strong are now in place.

Legal Experts Confirm that a U.S. President Can Still be Indicted When No Longer In Office

A U.S. president currently holding office becomes an ordinary citizen once he or she steps down from said government position. Once out of the Oval Office, an ex-president can be indicted if further investigations of any purported wrongdoings during his tenure as president of the United States, draw further evidence that he or she is guilty of having committed related criminal acts.

This legal matter cropped up last July 24, 2019, after former FBI head Robert Mueller testified in a 7-hour long Congressional hearing.  To queries raised by lawmakers regarding the culpability of Trump, former Special Counsel Mueller testified that Donald Trump could be charged once he is no longer in office.

Key Points to Consider about Mueller’s Testimony

The former FBI head made it clear that:

Trump could be indicted to face charges after he leaves office, which is quite different from the Democrats’ general analysis that the Mueller Report provides basis for filing impeachment charges against Donald Trump.

Even before he answered questions, the former FBI head had made it clear that in the Mueller Report, which read as ”we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,” did not mean exoneration of any misdeeds that seemingly involved Donald Trump.

Robert Mueller testified that according to the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)) of the Department of Justice, a prosecutor cannot file charges against a sitting president. The main reasons for this ruling include deference for impeachment proceedings, and the need to keep the head of the government, free from distractions while performing important duties.

Still, the ruling also states that the prosecutor can continue the investigation to determine if other persons, including the president, might be involved in an established conspiracy; such as the proven case of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections.

Legal Experts Confirm Mueller’s Testimony

The website Punditfact referred the aforesaid matter to legal experts who gave the following opinion:

Mark Osler, a Law Professor at the University of St. Thomas.agreed with Mueller, saying that

Once a president is out of office, both deference to impeachment and the need to avoid distraction from his or her important duties as chief executive, evaporate as primary reasons to avoid prosecution.”

Josh Chafetz, a Law Professor at Cornell University likewise agreed with Mueller; stating that

”Arguments based on the supposed position of the president at the top of the prosecutorial hierarchy, also lose force for former presidents

.

Diane Marie Amann, a Law Professor at the University of Georgia voiced the same opinion; pointing out the line in the Justice Department ruling that says the prohibition to indict a sitting president fades, when he or she leaves office.

Statute of Limitations Applicable to the Ruling on Indictment of Ex-Presidents

If continuing investigations into alleged criminal acts provide basis for indicting a former president, any charges filed against that ex-president must be made within five (5) years. This is in line with the Statute of Limitations applicable to federal charges of obstruction of justice filed by a government administration against a former U.S. president.

However, the statutes have exceptions to which Congress can in theory, extend the time limit to prosecute the former chief executive. Still, if the present administration of the government chooses not to file charges within 5 years, then that former head of state becomes exempt from prosecution.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Poised to Legally Block Trump’s New Mexico Importation Tariffs

On the same day (May 30, 2019) when the U.S. – China Trade War negotiations broke down, U.S. president Donald Trump announced that starting June 10, 2019, he will be imposing a five percent (5%) tariff on Mexico importations. The said tariff will increase by another five percent (5%) every month up to October, 2019 until it reaches a max of twenty-five percent (25%).

The uproar against the new tariff imposition is so resounding that no less than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC) intends to sue Donald Trump. John Murphy, USCC Senior Vice President Of International affairs came out with an announcement that his group is constrained to make a move against the new Trump tariff.

As it is, leading business organizations are already discussing filing a lawsuit against the White House, to which actions on how they will go about it will be decided this Monday (June 03, 2019.) Mr. Murphy commented,

“Imposing tariffs on goods purchased from Mexico is exactly the wrong move… American families and businesses will be paying the tariffs, without solving the very real problems at the U.S. – Mexico border.”

Trump said that imposing tariffs on Mexico is his administration’s way of pressuring Mexico President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to step up with the blocking of Central American migrants to prevent groups from crossing into the U.S border. Trump intends to impose the Mexico tariff until such time the issue concerning the surge of illegal immigrants passing through Mexico, has been resolved.

USCC Analysis of the New Tariff Impact on U.S. States that Import Goods from Mexico

In 2018, imported goods from Mexico totaled $346.5 billion. Should the Trump administration go ahead with the five percent (5%) tariff on Mexico importations, the USCC estimates that American consumers and businesses will be confronted with as much as $17 billion in tax increases.

Yet that is only the initial onus that taxpayers have to shoulder. Since the planned tariff is set to gradually increase at five percent (5%) each succeeding month to reach 25% by October, 2019, the potential tax burden could soar to $86 billion. Trump intends to impose the 25% tariff until Mexico does something to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. border.

Businesses in the U.S. states of Texas, Michigan, California, Illinois, Ohio and Arizona regard Mexico as a top trading partner, as importing goods coming from the country has contributed to their economic growth and job opportunities. These states will be the hardest hit, if businesses and consumer will be constrained to pay additional taxes on the goods they import from Mexico.

U.S. Code § 6103: Law Permitting Disclosure of Tax Returns and Related Tax Information to Committees of Congress

Under the Internal Revenue Code, income tax returns and other information related to tax returns can be kept confidential. That is the general rule; but with certain exceptions which Congress passed into law in 1924 under U.S. Code § 6103.

The provision listed exceptions to the confidentiality rule; permitting disclosure of tax returns or related information upon request of certain individuals or examining authority. It was noted that disclosure of tax returns to Committees of Congress, is among the long list of exceptions to the tax information confidentiality rule.

This particular provision is highly relevant to President Trump’s continuing refusal to submit copies of his personal tax returns. Richard Neal, D-Mass of the House Ways and Means, in his capacity as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, had sent a letter to the IRS of the Treasury Department last April 03, 2019. Compliance to the House Committee’s request is expected on or before April 10, 2019.

However, through a new set of lawyers hired by Donald Trump, the president stayed firm on his refusal to furnish Congress with documents and information related to his personal and business tax returns. Trump’s new attorney, William Consovoy sent a 4-page letter seeking to weaken the validity of the reason for which the confidentiality exemption is being invoked.

Trump’s Refusal will Likely Lead to Another Court Battle

Even before House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Neal sent the request, he already anticipated that Trump will do everything possible to keep his personal and business tax information confidential. If necessary, the House Ways and Means Committee intends to bring this matter to court.

Consovoy’s letter is seen as a mere ploy to delay the Treasury Department’s release of the requested documents, whilst awaiting the Justice Department’s position regarding the matter. Not a few regard U.S. Code § 6103 as an obscure provision that requires clarification, as its legislation was an offshoot of the Teapot Dome scandal that involved certain cabinet members of President Harding’s administration.

Cohen’s Latest Testimony Could Boost Trump’s Unprecedented Number of Lawsuits

Michael Cohen’s testimony at the hearing conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Reforms last February 27, 2019, opened a can of worms so to speak. Albeit being discredited for his own conviction mainly as a tax cheat, a perjurer, and a falsifier of documents, Michael Cohen produced documents that serve as starting points from which other related documents will be scrutinized.

As a result, Democrats serving as committee members of the House Judiciary Committee, have sent out 81 requests for documents to different Trump Administration members, as well as to family and associates linked to the Trump Organization and electoral campaign. Through the requested documents, the investigating panel aims to establish whether or not, Michael Cohen’s latest testimony is credible, or just another thread of lies to bring down Donald Trump.

According to House Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA), the results of their investigation will either absolve or implicate Trump and members of his family, staff, advisers, campaign supporters and all others linked to Cohen’s testimony of Trump’s wrongdoings.

House Judiciary Committee’s Probe to Compound Trump’s Political Problems

When asked last Monday if he and every recipient of the document request, intends to cooperate, President Trump signified that he will, as he does all the time and with everybody. However, Trump could not resist adding that the House Judiciary Committee investigation, is a “political hoax.” Furthermore, he suggested that the absence of collusion will render the outcome of the investigation as mertiless.

That is Trump’s view; but not for NY Democrat and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerrold Nadler. The latter believes that if there is anything that Trump is guilty of, it is that of obstructing justice. Rep. Nadler cited Trump’s public attacks and criticisms on investigators probing his associates and business transactions, as a form of intimidation intended to obstruct justice.

 

House Committee Chairman Nadler explicitly stated,

Over the last several years, President Trump has evaded accountability for his near-daily attacks on our basic legal, ethical, and constitutional rules and norms,”…Investigating these threats to the rule of law is an obligation.

Lawsuits a Norm for Trump

In June 2016, USA Today published a list of legal cases filed in US Federal Courts and in common law courts, totalling about 3500. Trump and his businesses were named either as plaintiffs, defendants or as third party to bankruptcy proceedings. In those cases, 500 claims against Trump were dismissed, while of those with clear resolution, 451 were ruled in Trump’s favor, with only 38 cases ruled otherwise.

At least 100 cases reached extrajudicial settlements that paid out hundreds of thousands; the highest known settlement was in the range of tens of millions.

Lawsuits continued to pour in, even during Trump’s presidency, including one involving a mauling incident ordered by Trump against protesters in Louisville, Kentucky. The numbers continue to rise, with the most recent being the lawsuits filed by political watchdogs, and 16 U.S.states against Trump’s national emergency declaration.

In this aspect, Donald Trump surpasses the record of even the most challenged individual to ever assume office as president of the United States, for having faced and about to face an unprecedented number of lawsuits.

Donald Trump and His National Emergency Declaration to Face Several Lawsuits

Time and again, US President Donald Trump warned Congress that if his request for a $5.7 billion funding for US- Mexico Border Wall project is not granted, he will use his executive power to declare a state of national emergency. Now that Trump finally made good on his threat, the incumbent president is about to have his day or days in court to officially explain the legality of his use of an executive power reserved for emergency situations. This time, his justifications for his executive action must be fully supported by solid evidences and credible testimonials coming from reliable witnesses and experts.

Right after Trump announced his declaration of placing the South Border under a state of national emergency, several legal entities acting as defenders of constitutional rights, human rights, and other rights that have been trampled upon by Trump’s recent action, have either filed a federal lawsuit or announced their intention to do so, in order to challenge Donald Trump in court.

Legal Entities with Federal Lawsuit Already Filed in Court

One of the firsts to file a federal lawsuit is the Public Citizen, a non-profit consumer organization founded as far back as 1971. Comprised by more than 400,000 members, it has been instrumental in carrying out movements, and if necessary, seek court rulings in order to ensure that the present government is working for the benefit of its people.

Aside from the federal lawsuit filed by the Public Citizen against Trump, three Texas landowners have also pitched in their complaint that Trump’s national emergency declaration includes imminent sequestration of their property to make way for the extension of the South Border Wall.

Should the court declare Trump’s use of the National Emergency Act illegal, then it strips the government of the right to seize privately-owned properties with or without compensation.

Another federal lawsuit already filed in Washington D.C. is by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Instead of targeting Trump as main respondent, the lawsuit faults the Justice Department. The Justice Department failed to uphold the Freedom of Information Act in relation to making public the information on which Trump’s emergency declaration is based.

Other legal entities that have announced their intention to challenge the legality of the emergency order, include the U.S. Congress, the State of California, El Paso County and the American Civil Liberties Union, just to mention a few.

Who is a Legal Person?

A legal person is one born to a country of domicile, whilst naturally earning the rights and privileges to exist and participate as a citizen of that territory. In which case, a legal person is a natural being who must also assume responsibilities and obligations due to the territory that has given him or her benefits gained from such rights and privileges.

As a natural person, he or she is a human being entitled to assert ethical and justifiable rights to be free for harm, claim protection or act in accordance with the dictates of moral conscience. In asserting such rights, a natural person has a moral obligation to interact harmoniously with other natural persons; mainly by respecting everyone’s legal and moral rights. In doing so, he or she must coexist with other natural beings without bias, or adherence to any form of discrimination.

Can a Legal Person Become Illegal?

Basically, a legal person does not become an illegal person on whatever basis by which the legality of his or her freedom to reside, or coexist with others, is being questioned. Even if he or she is a convicted felon, some important legal rights may be taken away but not all. A convict is still a legal person, who retains the right to receive care, protection and rehabilitation so that he or she can later rejoin society as a reformed felon.

Legal persons found residing in another country without proper documentation for their immigration are called illegal immigrants. When proven guilty, they receive punishment for committing a civil infraction and will be sent back to their respective home country as part of their punishment. Upon return return to their sovereign country, they are still entitled to receive the same rights and privileges afforded to them as natural-born citizens . Not unless they left their homeland in order to avoid criminal conviction.

Can an Institution or Organization Become a Legal Person?

An institution, organization or association composed of several individuals, may apply for special legal rights in order to protect every shareholder or member from unjust or unwarranted liabilities. However, the special rights and protection is only as far as their involvement as shareholder or membership is concerned. In such cases, the institution or organization that receives approval for specific rights, assumes a legal personality and will be recognized as a legal entity.

𐌢