Today in Law

In the newest article in her Instruction Series, Immigration Lawyer Magdalena Cuprys reviews the Deportation Defense known as Withholding of Removal

Cuprys & Associates (N/A:N/A)

MIAMI, FLORIDA, UNITED STATES, November 16, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ — In the most recently published article, a continuation of a series, Immigration Attorney Magdalena Ewa Cuprys examines a Deportation Defense Remedy. The complete article will be published on the Blog of Ms. Cuprys at https://magdalenacuprysblog.blogspot.com/

Magdalena Cuprys explains that Relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) is the third form of relief an individual fearing persecution may seek. As per another remedy, withholding of removal, Deferral of Removal may only be granted by an Immigration Judge (IJ), and not by an Asylum Officer. The individual applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that it is more likely than not that they will be tortured if removed to their country of origin.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has found that torture “must be an extreme form of cruel and inhuman punishment” … that “must cause severe pain or suffering.”

There are no bars to eligibility (i.e. criminal violations, etc.) for relief under CAT. The major advantage of CAT is that there are no bars to eligibility under this defense to deportation. Therefore, since the treaty itself does not contain any bars to its mandate of non-return, even those convicted of an aggravated felony may still make claims for relief if they do in fact fear torture upon their forced removal from the United States to their country of origin.

Additionally, as mandated by asylum laws, applicants seeking Deferral of Removal are not required to establish that their fear of torture is based upon an enumerated ground, i.e. on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

Immigration regulations create two separate types of protection under CAT.

The first type of protection is another form of withholding of removal under CAT. Withholding of removal under CAT prohibits the return of an individual to their home country. This status can only be terminated if the individual’s case is reopened and if the DHS (Department of Homeland Security) establishes that they are no longer likely to be tortured in their home country.

The second type of protection is known as “Deferral of Removal under CAT.” Deferral of removal under CAT is a more temporary form of relief. Deferral of removal under CAT is appropriate for individuals who would likely be subjected to torture, but who are ineligible for withholding of removal, such as persecutors, terrorists, and certain criminals. This status can be terminated more quickly and easily than withholding of removal if the individual is no longer likely to be tortured if forced to return to their home country. Additionally, an individual granted deferral of removal under CAT may be detained by the DHS if they are deemed to be a threat to the community.

Like regular withholding of removal, the benefits to both forms of CAT relief are limited. An individual who is successful under a CAT claim cannot be removed from the United States to the country from which they fled persecution, but they can be removed to a third country if one is available. Further, an individual granted CAT cannot adjust their status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident, however, they may apply to obtain employment authorization.

The standard of proof under the CAT is higher than the standard for asylum. The applicant must prove that it is “more likely than not” that they would be tortured if forced to return to their country. The evidentiary proof for torture is very similar to the proof for asylum or withholding claims.

Individuals seeking relief under the CAT must bring their claims before an IJ. The procedure for filing a claim under CAT will differ depending on certain factors, including the status of an individual’s case. If the applicant is filing for asylum, they should request relief under withholding of removal and CAT in their Form I-589 and should include the following information:

1. The type of torture they are likely to experience if forced to return to his/her country;
2. Any past instances of torture that they have experienced;
3. Any past instances of torture experienced by close family members and associates; and
4. Documentary support showing related human rights abuses by the government of their country, such as: the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Country Reports, Amnesty International Reports, Human Rights Watch reports, and reports from other human rights monitoring groups, etc.

If the applicant has already filed for asylum, but did not mention withholding of removal and CAT, they should supplement the application with the above information.

Remember that relief under CAT is not as beneficial as asylum or withholding. It is generally used primarily by those applicants with serious criminal convictions who may benefit from CAT relief. Thus, while most applicants file for asylum, withholding and CAT in the alternative, unless the applicant is statutorily ineligible for asylum or withholding, it is unlikely that the CAT claim will be a principal component of their case.

The complete article will be published on the Blog of Ms. Cuprys at https://magdalenacuprysblog.blogspot.com/

About Magdalena Ewa Cuprys

Magdalena Cuprys is the principal of Serving Immigrants, a full-service immigration law firm offering a complete range of immigration services to both businesses and individuals. The law firm is uniquely qualified to manage the most contentious and unusual immigration needs. Located in Miami and Clewiston, the firm’s offices provide corporate and individual clients of foreign nationality with temporary work permits for the U.S., green card petitions, criminal waivers and representation in removal proceedings cases.

Website: http://www.servingimmigrants.com
Website: http://tuabogadadice.com/
Blog: https://magdalenacuprysblog.blogspot.com/
Attorney Profile: https://solomonlawguild.com/magdalena-e-cuprys%2C-esq
News: https://hype.news/magdalena-ewa-cuprys-immigration-attorney/

Tiffany Ramirez
Cuprys and Associates, Serving Immigrants
+ +1 305-924-1133
email us here
Visit us on social media:
Facebook
LinkedIn

Fox News Channel: Immigration arrests up, deportations down under Trump

Source: EIN Presswire

Among a host of concerns in FL, AG Pam Bondi’s Office cancels meeting when request includes an on-the-record conference with a reporter and attorney request

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, November 16, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ — SubscriberWise, the nation’s largest issuing CRA for the communications industry and the leading protector of children victimized by identity fraud, announced today allegations and concerns of a civil and criminal cover-up in the state of Florida.

According to SubscriberWise, the evidence is remarkable in scope and substantial in detail. The facts implicate with certainty corporate criminal fraud and state statuary violations including felony perjury, but also indicate what appears an attempt to cover the illicit behavior by local and state government officials who have consistently declined to respond to questions that include responses to critical evidence now missing from a Lee Port Authority Police public record, as one example.

Related: FL AG Bondi’s offices refuses to proceed with on-the-record conference call and offers no legal explanation for not proceeding: https://www.docdroid.net/sn9sg3V/fl-ag-on-the-record-denied.pdf .

Additionally, based on prior conversations with an attorney at the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority — as well as documentation from the same office regarding written acknowledgement of improperly charged fees that may involve many other Florida residents and visitors (https://www.docdroid.net/ZDx6dT1/goaa-original-message.pdf) — the main component of the cover-up appears to involve significant money for the state through various fees paid directly to government agencies (i.e. airport concession fees improperly charged for travelers not arriving to the state by air).

“I can now finally see the forest through the trees,” said David Howe, SubscriberWise founder and child identity protector. “And it’s truly remarkable when one examines the totality of evidence that I have obtained from official public sources. To be sure, the evidence that I’m referring involves sworn official records in the state of Florida, among other items that I believe the federal government will be interested to examine. I also have a much clearer picture of why elements of a criminal investigation were purposely not cited in the official police investigation; I would appreciate the DOJ to weigh-in on the evidence and concerns that I have related to the criminal investigation as well.

“To be more specific, it’s my strong position today that the documentation of fraud that I now have from these official records in the state of Florida, it’s so undeniable and overwhelming that those with a sworn duty to uphold the law have zero contrary evidence to refute the criminal activity that was alleged and documented from the beginning. And it appears from my perspective, involving years of criminal identity fraud investigations involving the US credit system as experience with crime and cover-up, that this evidence is being viewed an economic threat to a number of organizations that benefit from concealing the truth and facts.

“In other words, the economic interests are certainly high and pursuing due process simply doesn’t align with the financial incentives in a state where tourism, in particular, is so critical.

“Yes, it all seems remarkable and the allegations that I’m making are serious I certainly understand,” Howe added.

“But the profound and uncontroverted evidence simply can’t be denied; and that’s why I now believe there has been no engagement from state officials; that's why I'm going on the record with these serious allegations. Again, from my perspective, for many involved and aware of the evidence acknowledging the truth becomes a powerful indictment and that may explain what’s behind the duty-neglect happening today in Florida.

“Therefore, I’m respectfully urging a meeting with the US DOJ – and President Donald Trump who also happens to consider the state of Florida his home as do I for part of every year. Simply put, I have unequivocal and undeniable proof to substantiate every last detail of what I’m alleging and I want the opportunity to present it. And, whether or not I’m successful obtaining a meeting, I’ll continue this effort,” Howe confirmed. “I’ll never be daunted because I am armed with overwhelming proof — including audio, video, and photographic evidence — of unethical and illegal criminal activity that I argue is systematically being ignored by various Florida state agencies that otherwise have beached their sworn duty to act.

“For the record, I would welcome the Honorable Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to participate in any meeting, assuming the United States Department of Justice will take my allegations – and incredible mountain of evidence – seriously,” continued Howe. “However, I will respectfully continue to insist that any meeting be public and on-the-record since I have nothing to hide and everything critical to expose.

“The public must have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – so help me God,” Howe concluded.

Media Relations
SubscriberWise
+1 330-880-4848
email us here

Source: EIN Presswire

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, UNITED STATES, November 16, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ — +

Here Are The Top 8 Content Marketing Trends You Should Follow

Content marketing is a strategic marketing approach focused on creating and distributing valuable, relevant, and consistent content.

It aims to attract and retain a defined audience and ultimately, to drive profitable customer action.

Digital strategies for a law firm have evolved significantly. Here are some content marketing trends which are most important for law firms that you could follow:

Analytics Marketing

Digital marketing for law firms is no more a tool; it has become a part of life. It allows prospects and clients to find the information they seek quickly. Email and social media enable law firms to connect and engage directly with their targeted audience without relying on intermediaries.

Law firms can now collect information on digital interactions with their prospects and clients to glean actionable insights into which marketing and business development strategies are providing a high return on investment.

SEO plays a major role in who and how fast people can view your content. Law firms that have content that follow the best SEO practices will results in a higher spot on the search engine listings, resulting in more clicks than if your site was stuck on the 10th page.

Paid Media

'Paid media' or 'social advertising' is becoming a very effective tool for law firms. Social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn provide law firms a platform to promote their page to their targeted audience. Facebook, for instance, allows law firms to upload a list of email addresses of current and prospective clients, then creates a list of similar people based on various factors. It is called Facebook custom audience. To know more about this click: https://www.facebook.com/business/a/custom-audiences . LinkedIn also has come out with a feature that has similar functionality.

Integrated Campaigns

Rather than market an entire law firm or even a practice area, these firms are creating campaigns around "hot topics" that they know their clients and prospects are interested in. In many instances, firms create microsites(or blogs) to provide focus and thought leadership to their target audiences.

These businesses are also developing a content strategy around each campaign to determine the type of content they will use for it. Once the content and platform are ready, firms can create a plan to promote the site and its content and make sure that they measure the results carefully.

Leverage Automation

Automate every task imaginable, including functions related to creating, publishing and promoting content. Let’s say someone visits your legal-blog and signs up for regular updates; automatically they could receive a personalized response from the managing partner or a lawyer in a specific department.

Depending on the client’s response, a series of automated ‘if-this-then-that’ (IFTT) follow-up can be triggered. Automation is slowly becoming an integral part of law firm marketing.

Dynamic Content

Dynamic content is content that you create once, but it changes according to the audience viewing it. The dynamic material in the form of images, text or offers can be replaced as per consumer with the help of a variable element inserted in the content. It helps save time and money.

It is an easy and affordable solution which can be very useful for smaller law firms. For example, company templates are automatically personalized with individual employee details to ensure consistent and accurate information. Some of the tools used are Clio, Templafy, etc.

Update and Refresh Old Content

Re-writing or updating old articles or content is a simpler process. It takes less time than creating new content from scratch. Try and find old material which can be re-written or tweaked a little to give it a fresh look and make in evergreen.

Go Deeper with In-Depth White Papers

Sometimes legal topics need more than 600 words to be accurately and helpfully covered. For these heavier-duty issues, you would want to set aside the blog and look at creating a white paper- up to 1,500 words.

Deep dive into a topic, such as Totten trusts. You could explore complex issues and incorporate insightful data and statistics, giving your readers a bit more to chew on than a blog post and showing the real depth of your knowledge in that particular area.

Future-Proof Your Content

Most companies publish some time-sensitive content, which trends for a few weeks or months or is applicable only for a short duration. They get old and lose interest very fast. Try and post most of your content which is evergreen, meaning it should stand the test of time.

For this, ask yourself, " Will this content be relevant after a year from now?"

Call Us Today

The team at Advisory Concept Evolvers knows all the tricks of the trade when it comes to content marketing for law firms. Make sure your content is clear, factual and comprehensive.

Keep it simple and to the point. If you are looking to follow the latest content marketing trends to make your law firm search engine optimized, contact one of our digital marketing experts at 215-510-2167.

About ACE

Advisory Concept Evolvers (ACE) has more than 25 years' experience consulting in the Philadelphia legal community. Our passion lies in developing strong relationships with customized solutions that deliver high-impact outcomes for our firms. Over the years, we have become a trusted business and marketing advisor for law firms, leading them into digital pathways.

Our focus has always been helping firms achieve their goals while generating revenue that results in either new clients or cost-saving solutions. We are the go-to advisor for many law firms, helping them manage their digital footprint, in-house marketing, medical record retrieval, legal research contracts and the entire litigation lifecycle from early case assessment to courtroom presentation.

This release was drafted by Results Driven Marketing, LLC: a full-service digital marketing, public relations, advertising and content marketing firm located in Philadelphia, PA.

Related Materials:
Law Firm Marketing Guide
https://www.lawfirmmarketingcompany.com/law-firm-marketing-the-complete-guide-on-marketing-your-law-firm

Why is Listing Management Important for Law Firms?
https://www.lawfirmmarketingcompany.com/why-is-listing-management-important-for-law-firms

Marketing to Law Firms: How to Boost Conversions On Your Website
https://www.lawfirmmarketingcompany.com/marketing-to-law-firms-how-to-boost-conversions-on-your-website

Mary Ann Fasanella, CEO
Advisory Concept Evolvers
+1 215-510-2167
email us here
Visit us on social media:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Source: EIN Presswire

One of the most-important forms of relief from removal/deportation that a non-citizen can get from an immigration judge is known as withholding of removal.

Law Office of Godfrey Y. Muwonge, LLC (N/A:N/A)

MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, UNITED STATES, November 16, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ — In his continuation of the Instruction Series on various forms of “Relief from Removal,” Immigration Attorney Godfrey Muwonge examines the Deportation Defense known as Withholding of Removal available in US Immigration Court Removal Proceedings. The complete article will be published on his blog at https://GodfreyMuwonge.blogspot.com/

One of the most-important forms of relief from removal/deportation that a non-citizen (a respondent in removal proceedings) can get from an immigration judge is known as withholding of removal. It is a product of Article 33 of the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. Under it, contracting states such as the United States agree not to refouler or return an individual to a country where his or her life would be threatened. The respondent in removal proceedings may apply for this form of relief by demonstrating that it is more likely than not that he or she faces persecution on account of race, nationality, religion, membership in a particular social group, or religion. The standard “more likely than not” has been characterized as 51% by some courts, but one imagines that anything over 50% is more likely than not to happen.

Withholding is a stiffer standard than its counterpart, asylum. For asylum, courts have held that demonstrating a 10% chance that persecution will occur and is sufficient to qualify an applicant for the relief. This “10%” formulation comes out of a 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court known as INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca. In that case, the court did not say “10%” chance, it said that even a one in ten chance of an event occurring does not preclude the event’s occurring. The court was distinguishing the standards for asylum and the one for withholding which the Immigration Service was insisting had to be imposed upon applicants for asylum instead of the lower standard. The court held that the lower standard for asylum to be imposed was “a well-founded fear of persecution” which translated to “a reasonable likelihood” that persecution will occur, which is not the “more likely than not” or 50%—plus standard.
At any rate, withholding is clearly more difficult to get but, unlike asylum which is discretionary—that is the Immigration Judge grants it as a matter of grace—it is mandatory, once the respondent shows that persecution on one of the protected grounds is more likely than not. In addition, while asylum requires that its applicant prove that he or she filed his or her application within a year of arrival (with a couple of exceptions), withholding has no time limit as to filing an application for it.

Withholding only prevents the Government from returning the respondent to his or her home country or to the country where his or her life would be threatened. This means, although this commenter has not experienced it, that if the Government can find a third country willing to take the respondent it can remove the respondent to that third country. In addition, while asylum affords the asylee who is successful in obtaining it to become a lawful permanent resident (LPR) or get a green card and eventually become a naturalized citizen, and bring family to the United States or, if family is here already, to extend the benefit to immediate family members (spouse and children under 21), withholding affords the grantee no such benefits. The respondent granted the benefit gets to apply for and receive a work permit but that is about it.

If, however, the respondent with withholding as relief qualifies for a green card through other means—family, work and so on—that respondent can approach the Office of Chief Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and request that that office join in a motion to reopen removal proceedings and to vacate the removal order and terminate proceedings to permit the respondent to either adjust status to permanent resident here in the United States, or to proceed overseas to an American consulate for green card processing. Mr. Muwonge concludes that we shall see the difference of those two categories of processing in a future instructional comment in this series.

Withholding of removal is NOT available to a respondent:

1. Who has persecuted others; or
2. Who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime.
A particularly serious crime includes aggravated felonies, especially those that carry a sentence of five years or longer, and it is irrelevant whether the sentence was imposed, stayed or suspended. The definition of “aggravated felony” that Congress provided as of September 30, 1996 has 21 subdivisions. To understand what they are, one should consult an experienced immigration attorney regarding the meaning of and “particularly serious crime,” within the context of withholding.

This is a comment on immigration law and it is not legal advice. One seeking legal advice should consult an immigration lawyer that is versed in the particular matter about which legal advice is sought.

About Godfrey Y. Muwonge

Godfrey Muwonge is an immigration attorney in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Author of “Immigration Reform: We Can Do It, If We Apply Our Founders' True Ideals, Revised Edition” (Univ. Press of America, 2010), which was selected as one of top-10 Books that Drive the Debate (2009) by U.S. Chamber of Commerce's National Chamber Foundation. See https://www.amazon.com/Immigration-Reform-Apply-Founders-Ideals-ebook/dp/B00D79W838

References

https://www.linkedin.com/in/godfrey-muwonge-785a519
https://GodfreyMuwonge.blogspot.com
https://hype.news/godfrey-muwonge-attorney-in-wisconsin-usa/
https://solomonlawguild.com/godfrey-muwonge

Godfrey Y. Muwonge
Law Office of Godfrey Y. Muwonge, LLC
+1 4143953230
email us here
Visit us on social media:
LinkedIn

CBS News: Deported immigrants may face dangerous situations

Source: EIN Presswire

WeSaySold.com, a real estate sales and investment company announced that it has been sold to women entrepreneur and real estate investor Sue Borrelli.

MELBOURNE, FLORIDA, 32901, November 16, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ — WeSaySold.com, a Melbourne, Florida technology-focused real estate sales and investment company announced that it has been sold to women entrepreneur and real estate investor Sue Borrelli.

Founder, James Timothy White says, “I love starting businesses, building them and then selling them to entrepreneurs who can nurture and grow them, it's not about the money, it's all about the art of building a business and seeing what you knew was possible become reality.”

Buyer, Sue Borrelli said, “I’m excited to buy an already-established brokerage. My passion for serving people will transfer nicely to the real estate business. I believe a local presence is also key to best accommodate customers and agents alike. Our entrepreneurial-minded agents are ready to control their own destiny.”

About WeSaySold.com

WeSaySold.com is a full-service real estate company that provides buyers, sellers, and investors real estate brokerage services across central Florida including, Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville the beach and Orlando, Florida.

About James Timothy White

James White is a serial entrepreneur he has founded, managed and sold countless small business in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Today, James' primary focus is being a passionate entrepreneur helping himself and others build, grow and then exit small businesses.

About Sue Borrelli

Sue Borrelli is a Florida Real Estate Broker, real estate investor, and member of the local Real Estate Investors Association (REIA.) Before moving to Florida, she managed charity organizations in Wisconsin for many years. She has purchased and sold more than $7 Million in real estate in the past 4 years and has navigated a variety of unique real estate investment challenges.

Sue Borrelli
WeSaySold.com
+1 321-396-6955
email us here
Visit us on social media:
Facebook
Twitter

Source: EIN Presswire

NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA, November 16, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ — The New Mexico Mesothelioma Center says, "We are urging a power plant worker or energy worker with mesothelioma in New Mexico to call us anytime at 800-714-0303 to ensure they have direct access to some of the nation's top mesothelioma attorneys. A delay in beginning the mesothelioma compensation process could result in the diagnosed person in New Mexico receiving less compensation. We are talking about what could be the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars or more because skilled lawyers did not get involved soon enough."http://NewMexico.MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

If a person in New Mexico has just received news of a confirmed mesothelioma diagnosis, please call the New Mexico Mesothelioma Victims Center anytime at 800-714-0303 so they can explain how the mesothelioma compensation process works.

As the group frequently says, "Please don't shortchange yourself when it comes to mesothelioma compensation because you didn't ask for help or waited too long-especially if you are a power plant or any type energy worker in New Mexico. If you, or your family member has mesothelioma and any of this sounds familiar, please call us at 800-714-0303 and we will try to walk you through your concerns or questions. Our top priority for a person with mesothelioma in New Mexico is that they get properly compensated." http://NewMexico.MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

High risk work groups for exposure to asbestos in New Mexico include US Navy Veterans, power plant workers, oil refinery workers, civilian employees of the Defense Department, manufacturing, or industrial workers, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, machinists, miners, or construction workers. Typically, the exposure to asbestos occurred in the 1960’s, 1970’s, or 1980’s.

The New Mexico Mesothelioma Victims Center would like to emphasize theirs is a statewide initiative available to a diagnosed victim anywhere in New Mexico including communities such as Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Taos, Rio Rancho, Las Cruces, Roswell, or Farmington. http://NewMexico.MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

For the best possible treatment options in New Mexico we strongly recommend the following heath care facility with the offer to help a diagnosed victim or their family get to the right physicians at the hospital we have indicated:
* The University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico: http://cancer.unm.edu/cancer/cancer-info/types-of-cancer/mesothelioma

The states indicated with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana, Washington, and Oregon. However, mesothelioma does happen in New Mexico.

For more information about mesothelioma please refer to the National Institutes of Health’s web site related to this rare form of cancer: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mesothelioma.html

Michael Thomas
New Mexico Mesothelioma Victims Center
+1 800-714-0303
email us here

Source: EIN Presswire

Money Metals Exchange has teamed up with the Sound Money Defense League to offer the first gold-backed scholarship of the modern era.

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, USA, November 15, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ — For the third straight year, Money Metals Exchange, a national precious metals dealer recently ranked “Best in the USA,” has teamed up with the Sound Money Defense League to offer the first gold-backed scholarship of the modern era. These groups have set aside 100 ounces of physical gold to reward outstanding students who display a thorough understanding of the economics, monetary policy, and sound money.

The Money Metals Exchange & Sound Money Defense League 2018 gold-backed scholarship was a success and the winners are as follows:

Undergraduate Winners:

First place: Nikhil Sridhar, Duke University

Second place: Nathan Barlow, Columbia University

Graduate Winners:

First place: Joakim Book, University of Oxford

Second place: Christopher Calton, University of Florida

Upon the selection of the four winners, the People’s Choice Award portion of the contest begins. The People’s Choice Award goes to the student whose essay attracts the most page views and most interest on social media (shares, likes, retweets, etc. on Facebook and Twitter).

We would like to thank our blue ribbon panel of judges:

Dr. Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans

Dr. William Luther, Sound Money Project

Cliff Maloney, Young Americans For Liberty

Dr. Jonathan Newman, Bryan College

Finally, we would like to thank all of the applicants. Over the last three years we have had hundreds of applicants representing almost 200 different high schools, colleges, institutes, and universities, more than 40 states, 5 countries, and 3 continents. Students everywhere are waking up to the ongoing devaluation of the Federal Reserve Note — commonly referred to as the “dollar” – that jeopardizes their saving power, and furthermore, their future.

Jp Cortez, Policy Director of the Sound Money Defense League, said “Our scholarship gives students the opportunity to display their understanding of economics while lessening the burden of the significantly inflated costs associated with attending college.” Cortez continued, “We’re excited to unveil next year’s group of blue ribbon judges. We’ve had excellent turnout the last three years and we expect that trend to continue.”

The deadline for applications is September 30th, 2019. For more information, visit moneymetals.com/scholarship or email scholarship@moneymetals.com.

Jp Cortez
Sound Money Defense League
208-577-2225
email us here

Source: EIN Presswire

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, UNITED STATES, November 15, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ — Cohen & Grigsby is pleased to announce that Chad A. Wissinger has joined the firm as a director of the commercial and complex litigation group, effective immediately.

Mr. Wissinger focuses his practice on construction litigation, environmental matters, regulatory matters, and complex contract negotiations. To date, Mr. Wissinger has taken in excess of $50M in construction claims to verdict. In addition, he counsels clients on all aspects of regulatory compliance, including preparing for and reacting to incidents and inspections involving OSHA, DEP, EPA, and other regulatory agencies.

Prior to joining Cohen & Grigsby, Mr. Wissinger was an equity member at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Coggin, and served as the General Counsel for two large companies headquartered in Western Pennsylvania.

Mr. Wissinger graduated with both a B.A. in policy studies and a certificate in environmental studies from Dickinson College in 1995. He received his J.D. from the Boston University School of Law in 1998. He currently serves as an advisor to the Sewickley Valley YMCA Youth & Government Program, where he has received such honors as statewide Advisor of the Year, Bock Award for outstanding community service, and Strickler Award for lifetime dedication to YMCA programs.

For more information about Cohen & Grigsby, please visit cohenlaw.com.

ABOUT COHEN & GRIGSBY
Since 1981, Cohen & Grigsby, P.C. and its attorneys have provided sound legal advice and solutions to clients that seek to maximize their potential in a constantly changing global marketplace. Comprised of more than 140 lawyers, Cohen & Grigsby maintains offices in Pittsburgh, PA and Naples, Fla. The firm’s practice areas include Business Services, Labor & Employment, Immigration/International Business, Intellectual Property, Real Estate & Public Finance, Litigation, Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation, Estates & Trusts, Bankruptcy & Creditors Rights, and Public Affairs. Cohen & Grigsby represents private and publicly held businesses, nonprofits, multinational corporations, individuals and emerging businesses across a full spectrum of industries. Our lawyers maintain an unwavering commitment to customer service that ensures a productive partnership. For more information, visit cohenlaw.com.

Christine A. Mazza
Cohen & Grigsby, P.C.
+1 412-297-4900
email us here

Source: EIN Presswire

At issue is whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on prices set by third parties.

Wallace Meyaski Law Firm (N/A:N/A)

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, UNITED STATES, November 15, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ — In the most recent analysis published on his blog, antitrust attorney K Todd Wallaces addresses the Case of Apple Inc. v. Pepper, currently pending in the United States Supreme Court. At issue is whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense. Oral argument is set in this case for November 26, 2018. The case centers on Apple Inc.'s App Store, and whether consumers of apps offered through the store have Article III standing under federal antitrust laws to bring a class-action against Apple for alleged improper regulation of its App Store. The case centers on the applicability of the ‘Illinois Brick doctrine’ established by the Supreme Court in 1977 in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which determined that indirect consumers of products lack Article III standing to bring antitrust charges against producers of those products.

The Solicitor General has already weighed in favor of the Supreme Court granting cert, arguing that the Ninth Circuit decision was wrongly decided. Specifically, Solicitor General’s brief argued that the Ninth Circuit misapplied Supreme Court’s precedent in Illinois Brick by focusing on Apple’s functional role. The central issue, according to the Solicitor General, should have been whether the plaintiffs are pursuing a “pass-on theory”, that is “that the defendant unlawfully overcharged a third party and that the third party passed on all or part of the overcharge to the plaintiff.” Such claims are barred by Illinois Brick, the Solicitor General argued. Unsurprisingly, the Solicitor General has filed a brief arguing for reversal and the motion to participate in oral argument has been granted.

Presenting a different perspective, thirty-one states have joined in filing an amicus brief in support of the purchasers. Drawing support from states across the political spectrum, the amicus brief argues that Illinois Brick should be overturned, a position advocated by a number of antitrust commentators since the 1980’s. The amicus brief argued that Illinois Brick was based on policy concerns, not legislative text. “The [Illinois Brick] Court relied on a policy concern that the extent of passing-on is ‘virtually unascertainable,’ making proof of that injury unreliable and burdensome to courts and to potential plaintiffs. The Court also reasoned that a serious risk of duplicative liability for the same conduct justified allowing direct purchasers to recover 100% of the violator’s overcharges, even if passed on, and disallowing any recovery by indirect purchasers for their injury. Finally, the Court believed that allowing all victims to recover for their actual injuries (trebled, plus attorney’s fees) would insufficiently encourage private suit, as compared to Illinois Brick’s rule allowing only a subset of victims to recover for a larger but presumed injury.” The brief goes on to note that states have since overwhelmingly refused to apply the Illinois Brick rule in state antitrust law. “As a result, state courts (and federal courts hearing state-law antitrust claims) now have decades of experience assessing proof that indirect-purchaser consumers were injured by illegal overcharges that distributors passed on from manufacturers. Illinois Brick’s predictions and policy judgments have not withstood that test of time.”

The amicus brief further notes that “[s]ince Illinois Brick, economists serving as experts in indirect-purchaser cases have reliably used previously unavailable tools and methodologies to assess that harm.” “Second, courts have shown themselves capable of applying gatekeeping rules of evidence to this type of expert analysis.” The brief goes on to note that there has been no reported case of multiple liability and that excluding indirect purchasers can actually serve to disincentivize private suit because aggregation of claims can serve as an incentive to private suit. Therefore, the states argue Illinois Brick should be overturned. Mr. Wallace notes that in what is building up to be a seminal case on antitrust standing, the federal government and majority of states have taken up opposing positions on the appropriate outcome.

The docket of the case Apple Inc. v. Pepper is at http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/apple-v-pepper/

About K Todd Wallace

Kenneth Todd Wallace is an attorney and founding partner of the law firm Wallace Meyaski LLC. He has nearly 20 years of experience in the legal and business professions with established excellence in trial advocacy, negotiation, strategic and initiative planning, employment law compliance, government relations, mergers and acquisitions, and team building.
References

Law Firm Website: http://www.walmey.com/our-attorneys/k-todd-wallace/
Facebook page of the Law Firm: https://www.facebook.com/WallaceMeyaski/
Facebook page of Kenneth Todd Wallace, Attorney at Law:
https://www.facebook.com/kennethtodd.wallace.3
LinkedIn Profile of Kenneth Todd Wallace: https://www.linkedin.com/in/k-todd-wallace-03895358/
Lawyer Profile at: http://lawyers.lawyerlegion.com/louisiana/kenneth-todd-wallace-18001529
Attorney Profile: https://www.lawyers.com/new-orleans/louisiana/kenneth-todd-wallace-604175-a/
Lawyer Profile: http://www.lawyerdb.org/LawFirm/Wallace-Meyaski-LLC-New-Orleans/
http://www.lawyerdb.org/LawFirm/Wallace-Meyaski-LLC-New-Orleans-Lawyer/
Twitter: www.twitter.com – Todd Wallace@tarheeltodd94
News: https://hype.news/k-todd-wallace-attorney-in-new-orleans-louisiana-usa/
News: https://attorneygazette.com/kenneth-todd-wallace
Blog at: https://ktoddwallaceblog.blogspot.com/

K. Todd Wallace, Attorney at Law
Wallace Meyaski Law Firm
+1 504-644-2011
email us here
Visit us on social media:
Facebook
LinkedIn

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – 14-15000 Robert Pepper v. Apple, Inc.

Source: EIN Presswire

What are the ramifications of the Cuevas and Corenbaum decisions as to the evidence a jury may consider in determination of cost of future medical care?

MODESTO, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES, November 15, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ — Plaintiff and Defense attorneys in personal injury cases in California are trying to understand the ramifications of the Cuevas decision and Corenbaum decision as to what evidence the jury will be allowed to consider in their determination of the cost of future medical care.

The basic tenant of damages in the tort system will not be circumvented by legal decisions into the future in that an injured plaintiff will be compensate for their losses and payment for these losses will be paid by the party responsible. The admissibility of the evidence that is allowed to assist the jury in determination the actual cost of the damages is in flux.

The Cuevas Court in a medical malpractice case allowed for evidence of discounted future medical costs based on medical rates under the Affordable Care Act to the benefit of Defendant medical providers and to the detriment of the injured Plaintiff. The Sanchez Court would preclude this testimony as the cost of services would be derived from the fee schedule under the Affordable Care Act and this evidence might be considered hearsay. The Howell Court ruled that the cost of past medical damages is not admissible evidence as it relates to future medical care as past medical bills were ‘often too inflated to be meaningful’. This is in contrast to the Corenbaum Court decision that allowed for billed amounts of previous medical care to be admissible as evidence of cost of future care.

The above decisions leave uncertainty for both Defense and Plaintiff Attorneys who desire certainty in cases that are destined for trial. Academic Physician Life Care Planning, LLC utilizes experts in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Orthopedic Surgeons, Interventional Pain Physicians, and Neurosurgeons who independently from the skill, knowledge, experience, and training are qualified under the Daubert standard to testify as to ‘reasonableness of cost of previous care’ and the ‘cost of future care’ because they do so on a daily basis in their own practice and through their ownership of facilities that provide such services.

Greg Vigna, MD, JD, a Certified Life Care Planner, and owner of Academic Physician Life Care Planning, LLC, understands the conflicting legal arguments and recommends attorneys to focus on the selection of the testifying experts the above conflicting decisions will have no effect on admissibility of opinion testimony as to the cost of necessity and appropriate care to the patient’s life expectancy from a physician who provides such care as part of their private practice. Academic Physician Life Care Planning, LLC provides these opinions from physicians when necessary from multiple specialties in its life care plans for no additional cost to Defendant and Plaintiff attorneys.

Greg Vigna
Academic Physician Life Care Planning
+1 800-761-9206
email us here

Source: EIN Presswire