If for whatever reason you have been lucky enough to avoid the news over the past few days, then let me be the first to welcome you to the “fear of an imminent nuclear war”-phase of Trump’s presidency.

President Donald Trump warned North Korea on Tuesday against making any more threats against the United States and announced his own threat of “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” This came in response to a report in the Washington Post that said the country is now capable of creating missile-ready nuclear weapons, according to a U.S. intelligence assessment.

While he did use rather apocalyptic terms, Trump’s threat is not anything new. In fact, threats against North Korea are almost a presidential tradition. In keeping with the tradition, the country decided to call the president’s bluff within hours of his statement. Pyongyang announced on Wednesday that it is “carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam.”

The Trump Administration issued its latest threat from the president’s Twitter account that said, “Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!”

But playing with Guam’s fate is not unusual for the United States. The United States’ historic treatment of Guam–and the fact that many people searched Google for Guam for the first time after this story broke–shows that the government does not really appear to care what happens to the island territory or its people.

What is Guam?

Guam is a U.S. island territory located in the Pacific Ocean–about three-quarters of the way from Hawaii to the Philippines. The U.S. seized the island from Spain in 1898 to provide a fueling station for the U.S. fleet in the western Pacific and has been used as a base for military operations since. Navy and Air Force bases make up approximately 27 percent of the island’s mass.

Guam as it stands governs itself but its foreign policy–like who it trades with and goes to war with–is determined by the federal government, and its citizens pay many–if not, all–of the same taxes that Americans pay. However, they can’t officially vote in the presidential election–despite having a high voter turnout in a straw poll the territory’s government holds–and they don’t have a voting representative in Congress. If any of those traits sound oddly familiar, it’s because they’re very similar to what the 13 original colonies went through before the Revolutionary War. Remember colonialism, that thing we fought England over because we hated it so much? Turns out we have our own version!

That’s an over-exaggeration. Surely Guam’s status as a military hub means something?

The truth is it really doesn’t. According to Guam’s office of veteran affairs, at least one in eight adult Guamanians is a veteran–one of the highest rates in the country. This speaks volumes about their dedication to the country’s armed forces considering they don’t get a vote in choosing a commander-in-chief. The territory also ranked dead last in medical care spending per veteran in 2012. In many cases, the closest veteran care facilities are in Hawaii–just over 3,000 miles away.

Also the colonial comparison is not far-fetched. Just three years after Guam was taken from Spain and cemented as a U.S. territory–not a great start–the Supreme Court wrote a series of opinions. They became known as the Insular Cases and were focused on the territories gained after the Spanish-American War. They decided that even though the territories–Guam included–belonged to the United States, all the laws and rights of the U.S. did not apply because they were inhabited by “alien races” who wouldn’t be able to understand “Anglo-Saxon principles” and laws. In fact, the decisions were authored by the same justice who wrote Plessy v. Ferguson.

Ok that’s not great. But is cynicism the only thing you have to offer?

No. The most important fact about Guam is that it is home to 163,000 American citizens. While the reality of whether or not North Korea could actually pose a threat to the U.S. is debated on the mainland, concern for an attack is apparently growing on the island according to Mayor Paul McDonald.

“Especially with our elders who have experienced the Second World War, when the Japanese force came and invaded Guam — you know, my mom, she’s 91 years old and I was over at the office all day today,” McDonald said to NPR. “She’d call me every 10 minutes to update her. We are really taking it seriously, a lot of the people in Guam.”

Even citizens who have been ignoring threats for years are suddenly feeling a little bit concerned about how the tone in Washington has changed. One example is Todd Thompson, a lawyer who lives on Guam, who said he laughed off past threats because he “figured cooler heads in Washington would prevail, and it was just an idle threat.”

“But I have to say, I’m not laughing now,” Thompson said to the Associated Press. “My concern is that things have changed in Washington, and who knows what’s going to happen?”

When you combine the long history of mistreatment the territory has received from the federal government and the ego-stroking threats the president feels almost compelled to make toward an unstable leader, it’s hard not to be worried.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guam: From Historical Mistreatment to North Korean Threats appeared first on Law Street.

Amid what seems like constant chaos in the White House, it appears as though the next source of trouble for the Trump administration may come from celestial bodies–namely the upcoming solar eclipse–according to astrologers.

On August 21, a solar eclipse will occur that is expected to cast a 70-mile-wide shadow diagonally across the entire United States. Solar eclipses occur approximately once every 18 months, but this will be the first time since 1918 that the shadow will stretch across what is known as “the path of totality.”

While Americans are making plans to see this particularly rare event, astrologers have been analyzing the cosmic events surrounding it to discover what it means for the future. Even in present day, eclipses still hold a lot of power in astrology, according to Wade Caves, an astrological consultant who earlier in July published a 29-page analysis of the coming eclipse.

“What we’re talking about is the ability of the sun to be able to give light and life-generating heat, and all these things being momentarily taken away,” Caves told Newsweek. “So there’s this symbolism that’s built in with eclipses about…things coming to a close, and in often a very dramatic fashion.”

Astrologers are not so much intrigued by how rare this eclipse is, but rather how well the astrological activity surrounding it lines up with Trump’s chart.

Bad Omen for Trump

The eclipse falls just before the end of the Leo sun sign, which is in a “rising” stage on Trump’s astrological chart–meaning that the president is exuding personality traits very similar to that of a typical Leo. The personality of the  average Leo tends to fall somewhere between egotistical and confident, so Trump’s zodiac sign shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Leo is also symbolized as a lion, which is commonly used to represent rulers and kings.

As a result, Caves believes that the timing of the eclipse is a bad omen for Trump.

“It seems to me very possible that by this time next year, we’re looking at the reality of Trump not being in office,” he said.

Caves is not the only astrologer with this belief. Debra DeLeo-Moolenaar, a British astrology blogger, interprets eclipses to be “a big burst of energy” that spreads across the sign chart of a nation or person, “giving energy and power into something that’s already in play.”

She believes that growing frustrations throughout the nation may be “set off” by the solar eclipse, and that the moon symbolizes “the common people” blocking their leader–the sun.

In February, DeLeo-Moolenaar wrote that astrological charts showed Uranus, which is apparently known for being disruptive, approaching Trump’s astrological “birth planet,” Mars, during the eclipse. This, she said, indicates a potential “crisis of some sort” for the president.

Is War Written in the Stars?

Eugene Johnson, another astrologer, wrote an analysis in April of the eclipse that expanded to Jupiter, Pluto, and Neptune, and suggested that the United States should be prepared for some significant event just short of war.

“[The eclipse will] mark important developments on the world stage because of the high preponderance of outer planets involved,” Johnson added.

Astrologer Marjorie Orr noted last November that the eclipse is a part of what is known as the Saros series–which has included eclipses in 1909, 1927, 1945, 1963, 1981 and 1999. Coincidentally, significant political events occurred during each of those years, including the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

“Certainly this eclipse presages violence in one form or another,” Orr wrote.

Pseudoscience or Nah?

While it may be easy to dismiss these astrologers’ conclusions as pseudoscience nonsense, it’s worth noting that there has been speculation over the use of astrology in the White House before.

Not only did Ronald Reagan experience an assassination attempt in 1981–one of the Saros series years–but he had a deep interest in astrology himself. He is said to have scheduled important meetings, presidential debates, cancer surgery, State of the Union addresses, and his 1967 inauguration as governor of California based on astrological information.

First Lady Nancy Reagan was even said to be in constant contact with an astrologer named Joan Quigley, who died in 2014 and wrote a book about her time in the White House. Considering how highly Trump regards Reagan, and some of the similarities between their presidencies, it’s possible that the eclipse is on the president’s radar.

But even so, there are those in the scientific community who come out against such predictions. Duncan Steel, an American scientist and author of “Eclipse: The Celestial Phenomenon that Changed the Course of History,” called them foolish.

“Way back, when people had little ability to predict when eclipses would occur apart from recognizing that there are distinct cycles, perhaps it is understandable that doom-mongering based on eclipses occurred,” he said in an email to Newsweek. “But for people nowadays to imagine that they are portents of doom is just daft…. If people believe that the forthcoming solar eclipse ‘means’ anything for the U.S., for Trump, for the world, then they are deluded.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Astrologers Believe Solar Eclipse Could Signal the End of Trump appeared first on Law Street.

There is no such thing as a perfect immigration policy. Even ones that have received praise from leaders of other countries have their cracks. Australia recently took note of a flaw in its system when an automated computer program determined that an Irish vet’s oral English fluency was not up to the standards of Australia’s immigration department, putting her residency in the country at risk.

Louise Kennedy has been working as an horse veterinarian on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland for the past two years. She is a native English speaker and has two university degrees in history and politics–both obtained in English. As her skilled workers visa was coming to an end, Kennedy decided to apply for permanent residency on the grounds that there is a shortage of her profession in the country.

Part of the process of applying for an Australian residency visa is a mandatory English proficiency test–administered by Pearson–with both a written and spoken portion. Kennedy got through the writing and reading portions rather easily, but it was during the oral portion that her troubles began.

The test utilizes an automated question system that asks applicants a series of questions on a monitor and records their vocal responses. The recordings are then analyzed by a system and a score is generated. Despite the fact that Kennedy has been speaking English her whole life, she scored a 74 on the oral section when the Australian government requires a 79 or higher to pass. Needless to say, she was shocked.

“There’s obviously a flaw in their computer software, when a person with perfect oral fluency cannot get enough points,” she said to The Guardian.

Anyone who has had their frustrations using voice-operated “intelligent assistants”–like Siri, Cortana, or Alexa–knows that there are still limits to what voice-analyzing technologies can do, especially when someone’s accent differs from the majority of the population. However, Pearson representatives stood by their programs saying the real problem was that the immigration department set the bar very high for people seeking permanent residency, according to Sasha Hampton, head of English for Pearson Asia Pacific.

Even with the Pearson test being as supposedly good as it is, Kennedy was given the opportunity to retake the test because there appeared to be construction noises that were audible in the background of her recording. Unfortunately, time became a bit of an issue. Her current visa would have expired in the timeframe it would take for all of the paperwork to be completed, even if she was recognized as a fluent English speaker by the testing company. Kennedy now has to resort to applying for a more expensive spouse visa.

“Because I’m married to an Aussie I luckily have a back-up visa to go to but there is a $3,000 cost over the skilled immigrant visa which we weren’t banking on 12 weeks before having our first baby,” she told the Ireland Independent.

This comes within days of Donald Trump announcing a move toward re-hauling the current immigration system into a skills and merits-based one. Though Australia’s system has been criticized for its inability to accurately determine the country’s employment needs, and is getting revamped to meet the demands of far-right politicians who want to ban Muslims from entering the country, Trump Administration officials have offered nothing but praise for the model and hope to enact a similar version in the U.S.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Computer-Based Oral English Test Fails Irish Vet in Australia appeared first on Law Street.

With all that is going on in the world today, it’s easy to forget that an alien life force could come and wipe out all of civilization as we know it at any moment. Thankfully, NASA has an entire office dedicated to keeping up with the dangers that lurk above our atmosphere. Now, the agency is looking for someone to lead the Office of Planetary Protection.

The application to be NASA’s “planetary protection officer” opened last month. The primary job description: to prevent alien contamination during NASA space missions, and to keep alien microorganisms from reaching Earth, according to the federal government’s official employment site. The job will reportedly pay between $124,406 to $187,000 a year, plus benefits.

The United States is not the only country to have this position. Other international space programs usually have it as a shared or part-time role. However, the U.S. is one of two places where one can be a planetary protection officer full-time–the other being the European Space Agency, according to Catharine Conley, NASA’s current planetary protection officer.

While the position may sound like one where a person would be in charge of directing forces during an intergalactic invasion, it appears to be more tame than that. Conley told Scientific American in 2014 that her job mostly involves making sure that the U.S. is complying with a 50-year-old international treaty that set space-based biological contamination standards for all space missions. According to the treaty, any space mission must have a less than 1-in-10,000 chance of contaminating an alien world–a risk assessed by the planetary officer.

In missions to Mars, for example, Conley would be in charge of equipment, protocols, and procedures to reduce the risk of contamination in samples taken from the red planet. She is also in charge of making sure that missions from Earth don’t contaminate other planets. As a result, Conley travels to various space stations around the world to make sure other countries’ planet-bound devices don’t contaminate new worlds through a crash-landing or other methods.

Even though Conley has described the job as having a “a moderate level” of difficulty, the qualifications for it are anything but that. Applicants must have at least one year of experience as a top-level civilian government employee, plus have “advanced knowledge” of planetary protection and all it entails. You will also need an advanced degree in physical science, engineering, or mathematics, as well as “experience planning, executing, or overseeing elements of space programs of national significance.”

Applicants still have time to get their resumes in order–NASA will be accepting applications for the position until August 14. You can apply for the job here.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NASA’s New Job Offer: Planetary Protection Officer appeared first on Law Street.

Prolonged border delays, expanded truck parking, and increased customs staffing could cost the U.K. 1 billion pounds per year after it leaves the European Union, according to a report by Oxera, an economic consultancy.

Andrew Meaney–head of transport at Oxera–wrote this analysis to see what effects Brexit will have on British ports. Using World Trade Organization statistics for trading across borders, Meaney estimated the related costs based on the assumption that Britain would try to create a new customs system that will be as close as possible to the current system. The most likely result would be a “low regulation, high enforcement” policy, he concluded.

“Enforcement is either undertaken at the ports, or on a random checks basis,” the report states. “However, the number of staff involved increases substantially, and many consignments are subject to lengthy checks.”

Meaney described the 10-figure annual cost as “extremely conservative” because it does not take into account the economic costs of uncertainty involved, extra staff, traffic congestion, and land on which to conduct the checks, which led him to conclude, “The full cost is likely to be much higher.”

Even if the billion-pound increase is something that diehard Brexit supporters want, news of the projected increase could not come at a more inconvenient time for the U.K., as the island nation scrambles to figure out how to replace funding from the European Union.

One example of this came up last week when the Local Government Association (LGA) called on Britain’s Treasury to help replace funds that would be used in smaller towns and regions near the coast–known as regeneration funds. Local authorities estimate that nearly 8.4 billion pounds were allocated through the European structural and investment funds between 2014-2020, which means that once Brexit happens, that total would fall on the British government.

“Since the referendum, one of the biggest concerns for councils has been the future of vital E.U. regeneration funding,” said Kevin Bentley, an executive member of the LGA. “Councils have used E.U. funds to help new businesses start up, create thousands of new jobs, roll out broadband, and build new roads and bridges.”

The Treasury’s commitment to these funds would likely mean an increase in domestic taxes for British citizens to maintain existing funding levels. This becomes a bit problematic when wealthier parts of the country–such as London, where a majority voted Remain–will be paying to support the regions inhabited by the people who voted Leave, and much of the tax-paying immigrant base might leave because of Brexit. In fact, Remain voters would be paying double for the government’s decisions–a National Audit Office report in 2016 found that British investments in infrastructure were not doing too well.

Ever since Britain elected to exit the European Union in June 2016, Brexit supporters have seen many troubling revelations about the withdrawal they voted for. From Prime Minister Theresa May confirming that the 350 million pounds a week promised to the NHS after the Brexit vote was a lie, to the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michael Barnier, ruling earlier this month that the government’s hope of securing “frictionless” trade once outside the E.U. was not possible, Brexit proponents have had little to hang their hats on. A projected spike in border spending only adds to the problem.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Border Costs are Predicted to Surge After Brexit appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump tweeted on Wednesday that transgender people will no longer be allowed “to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military” because the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” would become a burden and distract armed services from “decisive and overwhelming victory.”

The announcement will reverse the Pentagon’s 2016 decision to lift the long-standing ban that had prevented transgender individuals from serving openly in the military. It also falls in line with other measures and decisions the administration has made concerning the transgender community, including removing the LGBT rights page from the White House’s official site, rescinding a rule that allowed transgender students to use their preferred bathroom in public schools, and dropping the federal lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s “bathroom bill.”

Given that track record, it makes sense that Trump decided to discuss the decision with unnamed “Generals and military experts,” rather than with the Pentagon–which has commissioned studies that identify almost no downside to lifting the transgender ban. In fact, the Department of Defense was so out of the loop in the recent decision that reporters who asked Pentagon officials about Trump’s tweets were told to call the White House instead.

This is an obvious leap backward for the rights of transgender people in the United States. The ban will only enhance the existing problems that this country has when dealing with gender identity and the military.

A Financially Dubious Decision

In 2016, the Rand Corporation published a report titled “Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly,” which the Department of Defense commissioned. The report concluded that annual active-component health care costs would increase by anywhere from $2.4 million to $8.4 million–yielding a 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in health care expenditures. In total, those costs would amount to about a thousandth of a percent of the military’s annual budget. Some have said that their biggest concern is the use of taxpayer funding for expensive gender reassignment surgeries, which may not allow transgender soldiers to fight on the front lines. But according to the Rand report, “less than 0.1 percent of the total force would seek transition-related care that could disrupt their ability to deploy.” The report’s authors recommended developing an explicit written policy on for the gender transition process to avoid any disruptions to service member and unit readiness.

Even if you choose to ignore the percent increase in costs and only focus on the total cost of military health care, it’s worth noting that U.S. military spending is high relative to the rest of the world. The United States spends more money on its military than the following eight countries with the highest defense spending combined–an approximate $611 billion–and the House recently passed a bill that would increase military spending by nearly $30 billion next year. The military spends about $50 billion on health care, which includes a few interesting expenses. For example, a Washington Post analysis found the military spends five times as much on Viagra as it would on transgender troops’ medical care. But some in the House were still looking to remove gender reassignment surgery coverage from the military budget nonetheless, although that effort failed. In a way, proponents of such a change got what they were looking for and continued their crusade against denying health care to Americans.

Significant Consequences

Prior to the Pentagon’s 2016 decision, military service members who revealed their transgender identity could be kicked out or denied reenlistment solely on that basis. This meant they would be denied the benefits previously provided for them by the military, including health care and severance pay, due to being considered “unfit to serve.” Trump’s announcement leaves much to the imagination as to what will happen to anywhere from 1,300 to over 15,000 transgender service members currently enlisted, but a return to the old discharge format seems likely.

Current statistics show that 16 percent of transgender and gender nonconforming people have lost their jobs due to their gender identity–according to a 2015 survey of over 27,000 transgender people conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). But Trump still wants to strip the military of its status as the largest employer of transgender workers in the United States for “cost effectiveness.” It is also worth noting that this would cut necessary income and health care from a group that faces significant challenges. According to the same NCTE survey, transgender and gender nonconforming people have an unemployment rate that is three times that of the national average, report having experienced psychological distress in the last month at a rate that is 34 percentage points higher than the U.S. population, and one-third say they have been homeless at some point in their life.

America’s Relationship With its Military

There are two prongs to this topic. The first looks at the general issue of trans-erasure. The cynic will argue that it’s a good thing that transgender people no longer have to participate in a “murderous imperial institution.” But that’s not the only way to look at this issue. The act of excluding a group of people from public institutions–particularly those that are (excessively) associated with social responsibility like the military–devalues that group of people in society because of that lack of exposure and erases their importance. Eventually, the perception will grow that the transgender community is full of people who don’t serve their country, and only take from it instead of giving back. This, of course, would be a stark contrast to our wonderful president–who dodged the draft a total of five times, once arguing he couldn’t serve in the U.S. military because of bone spurs in his heels.

Regardless, both Democrats and Republicans have expressed their concerns with Trump’s decision because many understand that–at its core–the ban is more focused on discriminating against transgender people than cutting costs. A bipartisan stand against discrimination is hard to have a problem with, but I’m going to try anyway. Unfortunately, this bipartisan position comes from the country’s obsession with the military and all of the glory that comes with it, and that’s the second prong.

Whether politicians want to admit it or not, there are transgender people who live in their states and districts. There is a responsibility to show that the lives their constituents–especially those in underrepresented groups–matter to them.

But, unfortunately, they don’t in this country. Trans women face a 4.3 times higher risk of being murdered compared to cis women in the U.S., and at least 87 percent of the trans people murdered between 2013 to 2015 were people of color, according to a study done by the Human Rights Campaign. According to the NCTE, 40 percent of transgender people have attempted suicide at one point in their life. So for a brief moment on Wednesday, it was a nice change of pace to see Democrats and Republicans come forward against the ban and in support of the lives of transgender people. So what changed?

It’s simple. It took challenging transgender Americans’ ability to serve in the military for many politicians to finally stand up for their rights. For many members of Congress, this is the first time they made that kind of statement, which meant that trans rights only began to matter when trans people could no longer die for their country. The transgender community deserves better than that.

The lives of underrepresented, and outright oppressed, citizens should not depend on whether or not they are willing to fight for their country, especially when that country does nothing to fight for them. The optimist will hope that this opens the door for more trans support from politicians, but unless it can score them political points, that probably won’t happen.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problems with Trump’s Trans Military Announcement appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump has continued to establish a precedent that loyalty to his administration will be rewarded, and anything else will be met with a harsh response on social media. Both of Alaska’s senators were recently on the receiving end of that ire.

Trump decided to publicly and privately express his displeasure with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski for her “no” vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act. Early Wednesday, Trump took to Twitter to specifically call out Murkowski for her decision.

Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

But Trump’s team did not leave it at that. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke called Murkowski and fellow Republican Senator Dan Sullivan yesterday to warn them that opposing the bill could lead to repercussions for Alaskans, according to Alaska Dispatch News. Sullivan told the Alaskan publication that the message was “troubling.”

“I’m not going to go into the details, but I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs, and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop,” Sullivan said.

Some of the key regulatory issues that have been priorities for Murkowski and Sullivan include nominations of Alaskans to Department of Interior posts, an effort to build a road out of King Cove through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, future opportunities to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and expanding drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. All of these could hypothetically be in jeopardy.

However, as is the case with many of the decisions this administration has made, it appears that this may have been a poorly thought out move. First off, Trump has decided to hit back at a senator who is quite popular with Alaskans. In 2010, Murkowski became the first senator in over 50 years to win an election with a write-in campaign over Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. The campaign gave out temporary tattoos to voters so they could remember how to spell her name on the ballot.

Murkowski is the chairwoman of the Interior-Environment Subcommittee, which is tasked with confirming any nominees to the Department of the Interior that Secretary Zinke may put forward. She also helps control the money that goes into the department as a member of the Senate Appropriations committee. It’s been theorized that Murkowski may be hitting back against Zinke. A hearing to confirm a series of nominees to the Interior has already been delayed, according to NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Kasie Hunt.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the Trump Administration’s threat is its inadvertent support for the environment. The road through King Cove is supposed to cut through a wildlife refuge. The plans for oil expansion include drilling in protected lands. So, Zinke could end up continuing the Obama Administration’s tradition of prioritizing environmental protection over exploiting federal lands.

Murkowski might still be paying attention to these threats. Oil is one of the largest contributors to Alaska’s economy so any damage to that would be severely damaging to the jobs of her constituents. But it seems that the senator is confident that she made the right decision with her health care vote. “I base my votes on what I believe is in Alaska’s best interest,” she said Tuesday. “So I know that there are those who wish that I would be more in line with following the party platform, but I don’t think it should come as any surprise that there have been occasions that I have not followed the lead of the party.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Threats Against Alaska May Be Misguided appeared first on Law Street.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on Monday that state law enforcement cannot hold undocumented immigrants just to buy time for federal authorities to take them into custody.

The ruling–seen as a victory for immigration advocates–is believed to be the first court decision in the country to forbid local authorities from enforcing federal immigration laws. The court ruled that such enforcement would result in a second detainment that state law does not authorize.

“Massachusetts law provides no authority for Massachusetts court officers to arrest and hold an individual solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer, beyond the time that the individual would otherwise be entitled to be released from state custody,” the court wrote in its decision.

A “federal civil immigration detainer” is a written request from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) to a local jail or law enforcement agency to hold an arrested undocumented immigrant for up to 48 hours, until federal agents can retrieve the detainee. Police departments and court officers are usually given guidance by state officials on how to respond to these requests. Some end up complying. In Massachusetts, for example, state police have held 27 people on detainers as of June 2016.

Other departments, on the other hand, will ignore these requests and release undocumented immigrants before ICE can detain them. Some localities–commonly known as “sanctuary cities”–have faced scrutiny from the Trump Administration, which has threatened to block federal funding. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has claimed sanctuary cities make the country less safe. But now sanctuary cities have a legal basis for their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials, as a result of this ruling.

The Massachusetts case revolved around Sreynuon Lunn, an immigrant from Cambodia. Boston Police arrested Lunn last year on larceny charges, and detained him until his trial. The case was dismissed in February after prosecutors were unable to get the alleged victim to come to court.

Lunn should have been freed, but was held for hours after his case was dismissed because of an ICE detainer issued against him. He was taken into custody by immigration authorities, but has since been released without being deported. Though Monday’s decision does not directly affect Lunn, the case persisted because prosecutors and the court knew it would set guidelines for similar situations in the future.

“This court decision sets an important precedent that we are a country that upholds the Constitution and the rule of law,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. “At a time when the Trump Administration is pushing aggressive and discriminatory enforcement policies, Massachusetts is leading nationwide efforts by limiting how state and local law enforcement assist with federal immigration enforcement.”

Naturally, ICE was quick to speak out against the court’s decision. “While ICE is currently reviewing this decision to determine next steps, this ruling weakens local law enforcement agencies’ ability to protect their communities,” C.M. Cronen, the field office director for ICE in Boston, said in a statement.

Massachusetts is not the first state court system to rule on ICE detainers. Both California and Connecticut have statewide laws that limit who can be held at ICE’s request. Those laws also state that detainer requests are not binding for state and local officials. Boston and Cambridge each have similar citywide laws as well.

However, the state legislature could still undo this ruling if they choose to pass a law allowing Massachusetts state police to honor ICE detainers. Sheriff Thomas Hodgson of Bristol County–an outspoken critic of undocumented immigrants–is currently working on legislation with three Republican state lawmakers.

“It will make the Commonwealth safer if we can get this bill passed by the legislature, which authorizes court officers and law enforcement officers to honor ICE detainers,” Sheriff Hodgson said.

As comments on immigration policy begin to focus on safety, it should be worth noting the Cato Institute found in 2015 that immigrants as a whole–both legal and undocumented–commit less crimes than native-born Americans. Additionally, a University of California analysis of federal data found that sanctuary cities are often safer than non-sanctuary cities.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massachusetts Court Rules State Police Can’t Honor ICE Detainers appeared first on Law Street.

As a politician, there is a base expectation that–at one point or another–you will have to pick a side on a variety of different issues. Are you pro-choice or pro-life? What do you think about single-payer healthcare? Should recreational marijuana use be legalized? Yet even with this understanding, Utah state Representative Craig Hall must have been surprised when he had to step forward as an active proponent of sunscreen use.

Hall has four red-headed school-aged children and currently lives in the state with the highest rate of melanoma in the United States. He has even said that he buys sunscreen “in the Costco size,” so his seemingly-peculiar stance should not be a shock to anyone. But Hall cemented himself into this position earlier this year when he introduced legislation this year to allow kids to bring sunscreen to school.

“My colleagues’ first reaction to this bill was mostly, ‘Seriously? We need a bill for this?'” he told PBS Stateline.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies sunscreen as an over-the-counter drug product–right alongside ibuprofen or cough syrup–which means that students from kindergarten to 12th grade cannot bring it to school without a doctor’s note. Even with a note, it must be applied under the supervision of a school nurse.

Under this new sunscreen bill, students would be allowed to bring and self-apply their own sunscreen, without a parent or physician’s authorization. If need be, someone working at the school could help apply sunscreen on the student if a parent or legal guardian provides a signed consent form saying so. It was officially signed into law back in March and started a trend among other states to amend their sunscreen-in-school laws.

Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, and Washington have all enacted measures that followed Utah’s example within the last four months. They joined California, New York, Oregon and Texas, which already have lifted the ban on sunscreen in school. Terry Cronin, a Melbourne, Florida, dermatologist and head of the advocacy working group for the dermatologic surgery society, attributes the quick results to how easy the issue is to get behind.

“It’s an issue that doesn’t seem to be politically divisive at all,” said Cronin. “Everybody sees that kids need to be protected from skin cancer and they should be protected with sunscreen.”

But sunscreen bills still face some roadblocks in legislatures across the country. One such bill in Mississippi cleared the Senate but died in a House committee, and a bill introduced in Georgia has stalled. In Rhode Island–where outdoor recess is mandated state-wide–a sunscreen bill was held up because the state’s association of school nurses cited concerns of potential allergies among students.

Some of the bills have continued to face challenges, even after they have become law. While many California school districts updated their sunscreen policies as a result of Billy’s Bill for Sun Safety–the nation’s first sunscreen bill enacted by the state in 2002–surveys have discovered that “many schools had not changed their practices even though the district had changed its policy,” said Jeff Ashley, a Burbank, California, dermatologist. Ashley believes this is because schools don’t want to become babysitters.

Even so, states such as Illinois, Ohio, and Massachusetts are still pushing for change. Dr. Henry Lim, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, said that the risk of developing melanoma in adulthood is strongly related to a history of sunburns as a child and teen.

“Children’s skin is much thinner, so the ability for the sun to penetrate the skin is significantly higher as compared to adults,” he said. “Having availability for kids to be able to use sunscreen saves them from a lot of sun damage and saves them from the development of skin cancer.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post States Push to Allow Kids to Use Sunscreen in Schools appeared first on Law Street.

Despite the fact that over a month has passed since Amazon announced that it would be purchasing Whole Foods for $13.4 billion, lawmakers are still worried about the changes this potential move could bring.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) has requested a subcomittee hearing on the purchase in the U.S. House of Representative due to concerns over depressed wages and stifled innovation.

“Amazon’s proposed purchase of Whole Foods could impact neighborhood grocery stores and hardworking consumers across America,” Cicilline, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel, said in a statement released Friday. “Congress has a responsibility to fully scrutinize this merger before it goes ahead.”

Cicilline basically cites Amazon’s movement toward automation as to why this merger may be dangerous. He adds that the markets indicated initial fears that Whole Foods would run away with all of the market share in the U.S. grocery market. The day the purchase was announced, Target shares dropped by 9 percent, WalMart dropped 5 percent, and Kroger dropped 13 percent. It is worth noting, however, that Whole Foods only controls 1.7 percent of the current market.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is currently reviewing the proposed merger, meaning there still is time for the deal to fall apart–or for Washington officials to step in and stop it. But precedent indicates that that may not be likely.

Lina Khan, an associate research scholar with Yale Law School, published a lengthy analysis of Amazon’s business practices and how it has avoided antitrust issues. One of her key arguments is that since the Reagan Administration, antitrust enforcement has focused on the final price of goods for consumers. Before that, regulators would analyze the structure of a market a merger was entering into and check to see how possible it was for new competitors to enter. Since Amazon is quite good at providing lower prices to its customers, the FTC has turned a blind eye to the company’s growth.

This may lead some to believe that the Amazon-Whole Foods merger will become another example of this trend, as both companies have presented evidence that price increases are unlikely. However, Cicilline is working to change what he believes is the increasingly narrow mentality of the subcommittee. He said in his statement:

Although the role of employment and inequality in antitrust enforcement has declined in recent decades, the Subcommittee should have an active oversight role in determining whether this trend serves the public interest, is faithful to the legislative intent of the antitrust laws, or whether additional enforcement is warranted to reverse the harmful effects of consolidation on workers and labor inequality.

Cicilline is not the first lawmaker to raise concerns with the merger. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) called on the Department of Justice and FTC to review the merger–which he said could impact jobs and wages–the day the merger was announced.

“We need to reorient antitrust policy to factor in the harm that economic concentration causes for American workers,” he told Vice News. “We also need to be mindful that concentrated industries stifle innovation.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Concerns Continue to Grow Over Amazon’s Whole Foods Purchase appeared first on Law Street.

Throughout the western world, indigenous cultures have been fetishized by the ancestors of their past colonizers for their costumes and fashion. As a result, some groups have decided to take legal action to protect their life’s work from corporate mass-production–or at least find a way to earn profits stolen from them. The most recent development has come from Guatemala, where Maya women have made significant strides in their attempt to receive trademark protection for their textile designs–known as huipiles–so that they are not undercut by government-supported industrial fabric production meant to increase the country’s tourism appeal.

The fight began in May 2016 when the Asociación Femenina para el Desarrollo de Sacatépquez (AFEDES)–an indigenous grassroots organization that supports Guatemalan women and their families–brought a motion to the Constitutional Court asking for constitutional protection for their indigenous textiles. Under Guatemala’s constitution, the government guarantees it will “recognize, respect, and promote [indigenous] forms of life, customs, traditions.” AFEDES also cited the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169–which says that governments and companies must consult indigenous people prior to any projects that impact their culture or territory.

“Although from a Western perspective the act of producing our own clothes … is synonymous to backwardness or poverty, for us it constitutes the road to free self-determination of our communities,” said Angelina Aspuac, an AFEDES organizer, during a Constitutional Court hearing.

Prior to the lawsuit, not much had been done to uphold that portion of the country’s governing document. Guatemalan designers had been getting away with utilizing indigenous designs and clothing in their catalogs for years. In 2011, the traditional clothing of the male spiritual leaders of the K’iche’ Maya highland town of Chichicastenango was used for Miss Guatemala in the Miss Universe beauty pageant.

“We are appalled and outraged, because of the misuse of our cultural possessions that follow and are sacred and bequeathed by our ancestors, therefore they are not objects for display and contamination,” wrote representatives of indigenous authorities in a statement.

María’s Bags–a high-end designer handbag company–currently uses indigenous weavings in its products sold for hundreds of dollars in the United States, Europe, and Guatemala. To add insult to the appropriation, María is a commonly-used derogatory word to refer to all Mayan women, though the name was created before the bag designs were approved.

Even with all of this supporting evidence, AFEDES members began to wonder if they would receive the support they so desperately needed in court. They decided that the best course of action would be to make changes to the laws in place. In November 2016, the grassroots organization proposed legislation that would recognize the notion of collective intellectual property and acknowledge indigenous peoples as collective authors of their cultural heritage. If passed, the law would protect Maya weavers from plagiarism and allow them to receive royalties for the commercial use of their designs. The bill was officially accepted for debate on July 3 and currently awaits Congress’ consideration

The progress this legislation has made is unprecedented because history has shown that treatment of indigenous populations domestically–and internationally–has ranged anywhere from purposefully ignorant to downright horrific. In Guatemala, the country has refused to recognize collective intellectual property, even though an estimated 51 percent of the country’s population belongs to the Maya group. The Mayan population also suffered the most during the country’s civil war when over 80 percent of the 200,000 people killed were indigenous.

Around the world, indigenous communities have organized to challenge the use of sacred designs for the sake of fashion. In 2011, for example, the Navajo Nation sued Urban Outfitters for millions of dollars for the appropriation of its name for a clothing line. The tribe lost the two lawsuits, with the court claiming that the tribe’s trademark was used as a style description, and not as a reference to the tribe. In 2016, Canadian design collective Dsquared2 released a line of stereotypical aboriginal outfits called #Dsquaw–a name based on the term “squaw” which is used as a derogatory word toward indigenous women. While the company did issue an apology, it was still awarded with the Team Canada Rio 2016 clothing contract.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maya Women Fight to Protect Indigenous Textiles from Appropriation appeared first on Law Street.

Despite being separated by an over 5,000 mile-long border, the United States and Canada share a few commonalities, including an opioid crisis that is growing at an alarming rate. But how the U.S. and Canada have responded to the crisis shows a difference in how both countries approach a drug epidemic.

There were more than 2,400 opioid deaths in Canada last year, and the province of British Columbia alone is on pace for over 1,400 deaths this year. To tackle this issue, the Canadian government decided to create more safe places for addicts to shoot up. Health Canada, the country’s department of public health, announced in June that it would add three more “safe injection sites”–bringing the national total to seven–with the intention of building scores more in the future.

These sites give addicts clean syringes, medical supervision, and freedom from arrest. Addicts don’t get help in kicking their habit unless they ask for it, but the program dramatically reduces the chance of a fatal overdose or the transmission of blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis or HIV. Last year alone, Canada’s first injection site–built in 2003 and located in Vancouver–saw 214,898 visits by 8,040 individuals, with nurses intervening in 1,781 overdoses. The site says it has never had an overdose death. Health Minister Jane Philpott swears by the safe sites.

“They are absolutely known to save lives and reduce infections,” she said. “We have a very significant public health issue in our country.”

Professionally-staffed injection sites first began in the Netherlands in the early 1970s as “alternative youth service” for members of St. Paul’s church in Rotterdam. The government officially sanctioned these sites in 1996–despite years of receiving support from law enforcement and local officials–and countries like Switzerland, Germany, Spain, and Australia soon followed suit.

In the U.S., more than 59,000 people died from an opioid overdose last year, according to a study done by The New York Times. Drug overdoses became the leading cause of death among Americans under 50 in 2008, a CNN study found. In addition, heroin-related deaths increased 439 percent from 1999 to 2014, the study found.

While most of the western world saw the potential in safe injection sites, the U.S. has relied on state-level measures with varying results. Forty states, for example, have passed Good Samaritan overdose laws. But in states like Washington, only 33 percent of opioid users–and 16 percent of police officers–were aware of the policy. Only seven percent of officers could describe who the law protects.

Police have also decided to try and take this issue into their own hands. In New York City, nearly 40 percent of patients trying to get a daily dose of methadone said they’d been stopped and frisked by police outside of clinics.

One would think that with all of these methods in place, a safe injection site would be a natural evolution. But states and the federal government have fought against such sites. California Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman, a Democrat, introduced a bill in April 2016 that would make it legal for local and state health departments to allow the use of controlled substances in clinics. The bill did not pass.

President Donald Trump recently proposed a 95 percent cut to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, despite campaigning on a promise to help fix the opioid crisis.

There might still be hope, however, for public health advocates. Last week, the Trump Administration nominated Indiana state health commissioner Jerome Adams to be the next U.S. Surgeon General. Adams has received praise from addiction specialists for prioritizing the opioid crisis during his tenure in Indiana. He persuaded then-Governor Mike Pence to implement syringe exchange programs, despite Pence’s initial reservations, which caused the number of HIV cases in the state to drop 30 percent.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canada Could Provide a Treatment Blueprint for U.S. Opioid Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

France’s new environment minister just announced the Macron Administration’s first series of new environmental measures, which aim to make the country carbon-neutral by 2050. These measures were also created with the intention of maintaining the country’s leadership in fulfilling the commitments created by the Paris Agreement.

One of the more ambitious portions of this plan was the announcement that France plans to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040. This would inevitably force the country’s car owners to switch to electric and hybrid cars–which Volvo announced Wednesday it would start exclusively producing in 2019. Part of the plan includes providing lower income households with aid so they can swap their polluting vehicles for cleaner alternatives.

Ecology Minister Nicolas Hulot called the move a “veritable revolution” and “a way to fight against air pollution” as a question of public health policy. He added that while it might seem like a difficult objective for France’s car manufacturers to accomplish, they have the resources and plans in place to do so successfully. Automotive experts have agreed with Hulot’s statements.

“The timescale involved here is sufficiently long term to be taken seriously,” said Professor David Bailey, an automotive industry expert at Aston University. “If enacted it would send a very clear signal to manufacturers and consumers of the direction of travel and may accelerate a transition to electric cars.”

With these new measures, France has joined the Netherlands, Norway, Germany, and India as countries that plan on eliminating internal combustion engine-powered cars to some degree before 2030. It also coincides with a Bloomberg News Energy Finance report that predicts electric cars will make up 54 percent of all light-duty vehicles by 2040, up 19 percent from what was previously thought.

Other French environmental plans include eventually ending the importation of products that contribute to deforestation around the world–particularly in the Amazon rainforest, Congo, and South-East Asia–such as palm oil and unsustainably grown soya. Hulot stated that deforestation represents 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and added that it would be “schizophrenic” to encourage the continued production of these items. France has also pledged to reduce nuclear energy from 75 per cent to 50 per cent of the country’s energy mix by 2025.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post France Reveals Series of New Environmental Measures appeared first on Law Street.

The French government announced on Tuesday that parents will be legally obligated to vaccinate their children starting in 2018.

Currently, French law makes vaccines for three diseases mandatory–diphtheria, tetanus, and polio–while the rest, including vaccines for hepatitis and whooping cough, are only recommended. This change will make all 11 vaccines that are universally recommended by health authorities compulsory.

France has fallen victim to a measles outbreak that the World Health Organization has warned will sweep across Europe. There were 79 cases of measles reported in January and February alone, mostly due to an outbreak of 50 cases in the north-eastern Lorraine region, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. From 2008 to 2016, more than 24,000 cases of measles were found in France, according to the country’s public health authority. Approximately 1,500 of those cases involved serious complications and 10 people died.

Other European countries have enacted compulsory vaccination measures to combat declining immunization rates. Italy–where cases of measles rose more than five-fold in April relative to the same month last year–recently made 12 vaccines mandatory for children attending school up to age 16 and banned all non-vaccinated children from attending state schools. Beatrice Lorenzin, the Italian health minister, said the legislation was in response to “an emergency generated by fake news.”

The “fake news” that Lorenzin refers to is misinformation about vaccinations. Italy’s populist Five Star Movement was recently blamed for the outbreak of measles cases in the country because of its outspoken opposition to vaccines. Even as recently as 2012, a court in Rimini awarded damages to a family claiming its son had become autistic because of vaccines, though the decision was eventually overturned on appeal. A recent survey even found that more than three in 10 French citizens don’t trust vaccines, and only 52 percent of those vaccinated said the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.

Fears surrounding vaccines are typically linked to a discredited study by disgraced former doctor Andrew Wakefield, who claimed to show a link between the inoculation and autism. In the United States, for example, these fears still persist. A 2015 Gallup poll found that 6 percent of Americans believe vaccines cause autism and that the number of people who believe it is “extremely important” to vaccinate their kids has gone down 10 percentage points over the last 14 years.

Recent attempts to put compulsory vaccination into law are the latest developments in what has been a longstanding campaign. In the 20th century, many countries enacted such measures as the first few vaccines became available to the public. In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that states could compel vaccination for the “common good.” At the same time, Brazil attempted to enforce compulsory vaccination laws that allowed government workers to force vaccination on citizens in lower income areas of Rio de Janeiro, which ultimately led to the Vaccine Revolt.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post France to Make 11 Vaccines Mandatory for All Children in 2018 appeared first on Law Street.

For most major sports in the United States, the offseason can feel like a dull stretch of time that leaves fans yearning for the next season. The NBA, however, is somehow able to turn its league into the most exciting thing on television without a single game playing.

Every year, a new story emerges about players changing the fortunes of a franchise with the stroke of a pen, getting traded multiple times in one day, or potentially kidnapping a teammate to get him to re-sign with a team. This year, already, All-Star Jimmy Butler gave out his phone number at a press conference encouraging critics to contact him directly with any problems.

Now, it seems like politicians are getting in on the action too. Tanner Ainge, a Republican candidate running in Utah’s 3rd Congressional District, used Twitter to try and curry favor with All-Star forward Gordon Hayward–who became a free agent Thursday after spending his first seven seasons with the Utah Jazz. One of Hayward’s rumored destinations is the Boston Celtics. As a friendly reminder to the Hayward, Ainge decided to tweet at him a link to a news story about how Massachusetts is considering a “millionaire tax” that would increase the tax burden for high-earners.

@gordonhayward: something to consider over next few days… #takenote https://t.co/bqyEtXvnKO

— Tanner Ainge (@tannerainge) June 29, 2017

This story has a little more twist to it than just a politician attempting to gain voters through relevant sports commentary. Tanner Ainge’s father is the president of basketball operations for the Boston Celtics–or, the man responsible for trying to bring Gordon Hayward to Boston this summer–Danny Ainge. The Celtics do have a tempting proposition for Hayward: make as much as $127 million over four years–per ESPN–and join a team that could possibly win the Eastern Conference. However, a new state tax could actually affect his decision.

Let’s break it down. The Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday passed a constitutional amendment to raise the tax rate by 4 percent on income over $1 million. Massachusetts currently has a flat tax, which means everyone pays 5.1 percent tax rate on their income. Pending a referendum vote in the next state election, the constitutional amendment would mean if someone earned $1.3 million, they would pay 5.1 percent on the first million and 9.1 percent on the remaining $300,000. As a result, that person’s state income taxes would grow from $66,300 to $78,300. The state’s department of revenue estimates this will help raise $1.9 billion for the state in 2019.

If, hypothetically, Boston and Utah were to both come to Hayward with the exact same contract–$127 million over the course of four years–the all-star would see an annual difference of over $2 million in taxes paid. If he signs with Boston, Hayward would likely pay about $11,400,000 over the course of the four years, as opposed to about $6,350,000 in Utah–which has a 5 percent state income tax–during that same period. No matter what your tax bracket is, $5 million is a lot of money.

But this is just a hypothetical and does not account for a few things. On the one hand, the current NBA collective bargaining agreement allows Utah to offer Hayward more money for a contract over a longer term. On the other hand, a dark horse candidate for Hayward from a state that has no income tax–like the Miami Heat, for instance–could swoop in and complicate the decision even further. It’s also worth noting that money isn’t always everything for some players, as many value the potential to win as much as their checks, which Tanner Ainge understands.

“Unfortunately, I’m not sure I have a lot of influence there,” Ainge told Deseret News on Thursday. “Ultimately, Gordon is going to make the decision. I hope he stays.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could a “Millionaire Tax” Affect Boston’s Ability to Attract NBA Stars? appeared first on Law Street.

More than 28 years have passed since the worst tragedy in British sports history occurred at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England. Poor logistical planning and police negligence led to an overcrowded supporters’ section that killed 96 Liverpool supporters–including 37 teenagers–and injured over 700 fans. Friends and families of the victims received the bittersweet news on Wednesday that British prosecutors have finally charged six people for the tragedy, following years of media scrutiny and victim blaming. It comes as a surprise to many that an event that supposedly rocked the world of soccer took over a quarter century to resolve. So how did we get from that terrible tragedy of the Hillsborough disaster to the prosecution today?

What Happened in Hillsborough?

English soccer in the 1980s was marked by frequent hooliganism and alcoholism. In order to try to curb incidents–the key word here is “try”–the English Football Association (the FA) called for strong police presence at every match, segregated fan bases, and high steel fencing between the fans and the pitch. All of these factors came into play with this disaster.

The 1989 F.A. Cup semifinal match between Nottingham Forest and Liverpool was one of the most anticipated matches of that season. The FA selected Hillsborough Stadium as a neutral location in which to host it. One week after the host stadium was chosen, the Police Chief Superintendent–who had supervised this type of match the year before–was transferred from his division for a lack of institutional control over hazing. He was replaced by newly promoted Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield who had no experience overseeing a sold out soccer match and reportedly mispronounced one of the team names repeatedly during his pre-match press conference.

The day of the match began as any other and the opposing supporters were segregated into their own respective sides of the stadium. Despite having a larger projected attendance, Liverpool supporters were given the side with less capacity and thus were relegated to a smaller entrance, less turnstiles, and fewer gate options once inside the stadium. As the size of the crowd grew, Duckenfield decided to open an exit gate to relieve pressure–and prevent a potential crush, ironically–from the turnstiles. Thousands of supporters began to spill into the stadium and into the nearest entrance which was a tunnel that led to an already overcrowded pair of sections. As a result, a bottleneck effect was created and those coming into the stadium began to crush those already in the stands against the steel fence, but they did not realize it.

Police officers showed their lack of guidance and experience from the very beginning of the match. A BBC report found that officers were not in the right locations to direct fans away from overcrowded seating areas. They also initially tried to prevent trapped fans from escaping through the fence–fearing pitch invaders. Once the match was stopped to help people escape the crush, officers began to focus more on keeping the peace than keeping people alive. They reportedly chose to not give CPR to potential crush victims and left that job to the fans so “they would not take out their frustration on the police.”

Worst of all were the actions toward the victims once emergency services began to arrive at the stadium. Forty-four ambulances arrived and police only allowed one into the stadium. Supporters took it upon themselves to bring those who needed assistance out to the vehicles, but they were only allowed to leave through the Liverpool side as officers never communicated the situation to Nottingham Forest supporters and blocked their exits from being used.

The Aftermath

As news began to spread about the tragedy that had occurred, and families began to wonder if their loved ones who left for the game would ever come home, the police–along with many media outlets–thought it would be best to immediately finding a group to blame for the incident at hand. Officials agreed that this disaster was the fault of the Liverpool fans attending the match, and disseminated that story to the press. The Daily Star, Daily Mail, Daily Express, and the Evening Standard all perpetuated the story published by The Sun’s Kelvin Mackenzie that the “unruly” Liverpool fans robbed corpses, urinated on police officers, and beat up those attempting to give CPR to victims. Duckenfield also blamed the tragedy on the fans for “forcing the gate open” that eventually led to the crush, and then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s press secretary Bernard Ingham attributed the tragedy to a “tanked-up mob of Liverpool supporters.”

This image of drunk and rowdy fans causing their own deaths seemed to affect how the coroners dealt with the bodies. In an unprecedented move, the coroner in charge decided to test the blood-alcohol level of every victim, even the underage ones, to pinpoint alcohol as the cause. They even ruled the times of death at nine minutes after the match had ended because that was when the crush had supposedly stopped, which ruled out the idea that any of the 96 could have possibly been saved. The findings that all deaths were accidental were upheld by a Divisional Court ruling.

In 1989, a report of an inquiry which was overseen by Lord Justice Taylor–known as the Taylor Inquiry–which investigated the disaster, blamed a “failure of police control” and found that the police had wrongly tried to shift blame onto the fans. But a subsequent investigation in 1997–conducted by Labour party officials–supported the conclusion that the deaths were accidental, and no criminal charges were filed.

Grieving families  left with no justice and few answers chose to respond. In 1998 they filed a civil lawsuit against the South Yorkshire Police. While the case eventually led to a deadlocked jury, it was enough to inspire those involved in the lawsuits to create a Hillsborough Family Support Group, led by a man who lost two teenage daughters in the tragedy.

Review and Justice Today

After years of fighting, the families of the 96 victims of Hillsborough received their first bit of justice in 2009–the 20th anniversary of the disaster–when the British government created a committee known as the Hillsborough Independent Panel to look into what had happened on that fateful April afternoon. In 2012, the group published its findings.

The report was rather damning. It claimed that many of the victims who were declared dead not even 20 minutes after the crushing might have survived if they had received swift medical attention. Autopsy findings showed there were 41 victims who did not have the traumatic asphyxia that caused most of the deaths, and Dr. Bill Kirkup, a physician on the panel, said they might have survived if they been taken to a hospital quickly enough.

The report also found that the police had amended 116 witness statements “to remove or alter comments unfavorable to the police,” and that officers conducted background checks on those who had died–even the children–in an attempt “to impugn the reputations of the deceased.” In addition, the report said the blood-alcohol levels that the coroner controversially measured were “unremarkable and not exceptional for a social or leisure occasion.”

These findings led to the British High Court reversing the accidental death ruling for the victims in 2012, setting the stage for a new investigation and possible criminal charges that came in 2014. In April 2016, the jury involved in the case determined that the 96 fans were unlawfully killed due to decisions made by police officers and “gross negligence” from Chief Duckenfield.

Following the April 2016 inquest, prosecutors were given the opportunity to decide whether to file criminal charges, and on Wednesday, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would.

Among those charged are David Duckenfield, who will face manslaughter by gross negligence charges; Graham Henry Mackrell, the secretary and safety officer for club that played in Hillsborough at the time, who faces charges of failing to carry out health and safety duties; Peter Metcalf, the lawyer acting for South Yorkshire Police, who is charged with perverting justice relating to changes made to witness statements; and three other former high-ranking police officers: Norman Bettison, Donald Denton, and Alan Foster.

The victims’ families expressed relief at the decision. Barry Devonside, whose 18-year-old son Christopher died, told Sky News that the families had applauded when they learned that “the most senior police officer on that particular day will have charges presented to him.”

“I was frightened, absolutely frightened, that we were going to be let down again,” he added.

The defendants, with the exception of Duckenfield, will appear at Warrington magistrates court on August 9, according to The Guardian.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down the Hillsborough Disaster Prosecution appeared first on Law Street.

It has been nearly 10 years since then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin could not name a single newspaper that she read to stay informed in an interview with Katie Couric. But it appears that she has learned to occasionally peruse national publications since then, as the former Alaska governor filed a defamation lawsuit Tuesday against the New York Times in response to an editorial that linked her to the 2011 shooting of Democratic Representative Gabby Giffords.

Palin’s lawyers claim that the connection was published “knowingly, intentionally, willfully, wantonly and maliciously, with the intent to harm Mrs. Palin, or in blatant disregard of the substantial likelihood of causing her harm.” They also added that by keeping the editorial up, the Times “violated the law and its own policies.”

The editorial in question–titled “America’s Lethal Politics”–drew a parallel between the June 14 shooting that injured Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) and several others at a baseball field in Alexandria, and the 2011 shooting in Arizona. The piece said that both attacks were incited by political rhetoric which has become a “sickeningly familiar pattern.”

“Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs,” it read at one point. It also went on to draw connections between that advertisement and the shooter’s motivation to attack Giffords, despite a Times article from earlier this year that rejected that notion. The Times’ opinion section corrected these concerns the next day and later tweeted out an apology.

The $75,000 defamation suit claims the newspaper’s correction and subsequent apology were “devoid of any reference to Mrs. Palin” and were “woefully insufficient.”

Essentially Palin is arguing that the editorial published by the Times was libelous. Because the defamation in question was published as a written work, the suit would have to follow the legal standards of a libel case. Palin is a “public figure”–specifically an “all-purpose public figure”–meaning she is someone whose fame or position regularly puts them in the public eye. The courts decided in the 70s–ironically through a case that also involved the Times–that public figures have to prove “actual malice”–meaning the statements about the person were published with reckless disregard for whether they were false or true. In other words, Palin’s lawyers need to show that the alleged false statements in the editorial were published intentionally, or with total disregard for the truth.

If it seems like this is a high standard that is tough to prove, it’s because it is. Especially given this situation. Most statements made in editorials are defended as opinion. Even if the court does not consider the statements to be opinions, it might be even more difficult to prove her reputation was damaged. When Sarah Palin’s contract with Fox News ended in 2015, FiveThirtyEight found that her favorability rating was at an all time low, even among Republicans. It is difficult to defame the character of someone who is already not viewed too highly, especially when the average Times reader is left-leaning. Some might even argue that this situation has made Palin more sympathetic. While it was expected that conservatives would cheer the lawsuit, even the Washington Post was quick to call out the Times for its mistake.

There is a chance, as there always is, that she could win this case. Palin’s legal team includes one of the lawyers from the famous case in which Hulk Hogan sued Gawker into oblivion for publishing his sex tape. The Columbia Journalism Review referenced this case–among others–as “evidence that the growing unpopularity of media may translate into less-sympathetic jury pools.”

Regardless of how this case turns out, the Times publishing a debunked talking point is far from a good look for the publication. At best, the editorial board lazily tried to remind readers that Sarah Palin did put out an ad with crosshairs of a gun sight over districts with Democrats that voted for the Affordable Care Act with the phrase “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”, and the next day vandals happened to smash in her office’s windows. At worst, the board committed libel against a woman who promoted birtherism and claimed that former president Barack Obama spent $2 million to hide his real birth certificate.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Sarah Palin’s Defamation Suit Against the New York Times Succeed? appeared first on Law Street.

In 2010, the 22-member FIFA Executive Committee awarded Russia and Qatar the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, respectively. These decisions stirred up major controversy among media commentators and government officials all over the world. As a result, allegations that the two countries bought their way into hosting the international soccer tournament during the 2009 bidding process began to spring up.

Though the accusations were serious, they were not exactly unfounded. Before the committee voted on which country to award the World Cups, two of its members were suspended due to allegations of vote corruption from their respective soccer confederation regions–Oceania and Nigeria. FIFA also branded Qatar as a “high operational risk” for hosting the tournament due to its average summer temperatures of 115 degrees Fahrenheit and challenges linked to stadium locations. Russia was the only other bid to not have a “low risk” rating.

The controversy has only grown since then. Since the 2010 vote, most members of the committee at the time have been banned for unethical conduct, indicted on corruption charges by the U.S. Department of Justice, or remain under scrutiny by federal prosecutors in Switzerland–where FIFA headquarters are located–who have 25 ongoing investigations involving more than 170 bank transactions suspected as money laundering.

On Monday, a new development occurred. A German newspaper published a portion of a leaked 2014 report–which FIFA commissioned–once expected to be the explosive holy grail for FIFA critics who thought the votes that gave the World Cups to Russia and Qatar could be rerun.

According to the report in Bild, three FIFA executive members were flown to a party in Rio in a private jet belonging to the Qatari federation just before the vote for 2018 and 2022 hosting rights, and Aspire Academy–an independent Qatari government-funded agency that provides “sports training and education to students with sporting potential”–was implicated “in a decisive manner” in “the manipulation of FIFA members who had the right to vote.” It also mentioned a $2m sum allegedly paid to the 10-year-old daughter of another FIFA official just before the vote.

The report was supposed to be released in 2014 under the authorship of American lawyer Michael Garcia–known for prosecuting the men who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and investigating former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. FIFA hired Garcia in 2012 to investigate the World Cup bidding process. FIFA decided to release a 42-page summary that “cleared” Russia and Qatar of corruption. Garcia called the edited report “incomplete and erroneous” and subsequently resigned in protest citing “lack of leadership” at the organization, which led many to believe that the public would never see the full, unedited version.

Other critics of the redacted report include Simon Johnson, who led England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup. “Now that I have seen Mr Garcia’s statement, I am absolutely convinced that the report is a politically motivated whitewash,” he told the BBC. While Qatar and Russia were vindicated by the report, England’s Football Association was accused of flouting bidding rules.

As a response to the initial leak, FIFA–in a rare sighting of transparency–released the full Garcia report on Tuesday. The message generally remained the same: there was no “evidence of any improper activity by [Qatar].” Peter Rossberg–the journalist who claims to have obtained the report–said in a Facebook post that the full report does not provide outright proof of corruption during 2018 and 2022 bidding, but more findings could arise when everything is put together “like a puzzle.”

The full report still brought other findings to light about the relationship between FIFA executives and entities connected to Qatar. South American FIFA voting member, Julio Grondona, failed to disclose meetings to the investigators as well as a discussion about Qatar potentially paying for flights before his death in 2014. An adviser to Thailand’s soccer federation, whose leader was a FIFA voter, was involved in talks between a Thai gas company and Qatar over an energy deal with Doha. Garcia referred to both of these incidents as troubling and suggested that further inquiry be made.

The report also found that the Qatari heat was never discussed in the executive committee meeting before the vote, not even by the voter who also served as FIFA medical chief, Michel D’Hooghe, who was “compromised by his actions” over Qatar, according to Garcia. D’Hooghe’s son was later employed by a Doha hospital linked to the Aspire sports academy  and the bid team was also arranging a business opportunity for a friend’s son ahead of the vote.

Whether or not this will actually result in any sort of sanctions levied against Qatar, or even an outright abdication of its position as World Cup hosts, remains to be seen. The only existing precedent of the tournament getting moved was when Colombia was supposed to host the 1986 World Cup. In that instance, a continent-wide economic collapse had inhibited the country’s ability to afford it. Colombia backed out in 1983, which gave the new host, Mexico, nearly three years to prepare.

As to what it would take for FIFA to remove Qatar as hosts, in 2015, then-FIFA president Sepp Blatter said that only an “earthquake, extremely important new elements,” could change the organization’s decision to hold the 2022 tournament in the Gulf state. At this point, any movement seems unlikely.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post German Newspaper Publishes “Suppressed” FIFA Corruption Report appeared first on Law Street.

Spanish surrealist artist Salvador Dalí died at the age of 85 in 1989 without having children with his longtime muse and wife, Gala Dalí. But on Monday, a Spanish judge ordered the body of Salvador Dalí to be exhumed in order to obtain samples for a paternity suit launched by a 61-year-old woman claiming to be the daughter of the late artist.

Pilar Abel, a Madrid-based tarot card reader, has been trying to prove that Dalí is her father for years. In an interview with Spanish newspaper El Mundo in 2015, she said, “the only thing I’m missing is a mustache.” But Abel has thought Dalí was her father for nearly her entire life. Her grandmother was the first to tell her about her alleged father one day when she was 8 years old. Her mother verified the claim but did not make a big deal about it because “she didn’t want to throw stones on her own grave,” according to The New York Times.

In 2015, Abel filed a lawsuit in Madrid in which she claims that her mother had a friendship that developed into a “clandestine love affair” with Dalí. Abel claims it happened when her mother worked as a maid in the Port Lligat home of a family who often vacationed in the Spanish fishing village. Dalí also had a house there.

The alleged affair occurred when Dalí was married to his muse Gala, born Elena Ivanovna Diakonova. The couple had an unconventional relationship and never had children.

This isn’t Abel’s first attempt to verify her paternity claim. According to the court decision, she sought two paternity tests in 2007. One of which was executed by American toxicologist Michael Rieders using gastric tubes that had been used to feed Dalí during a 1984 hospitalization. Dalí’s former assistant and biographer Robert Descharnes helped Abel carry out the test. The results were inconclusive, which Rieders attributed to the “secondary” nature of the DNA. For conclusive evidence, he suggested, Abel would need direct access to Dalí’s remains.

However, Abel claimed she never received the results of the DNA test. Her paternity suit in Madrid in 2015 was meant to obtain the results or have additional testing conducted. Descharnes’ son, Nicolas, disputed Abel’s claim in 2008, claiming that the doctor had told Abel that the test was negative.

If the court finds evidence to confirm that Abel is Dalí’s daughter, she could use his surname and may be entitled to part of his estate. She told The New York Times that she hopes the lawsuit delivers recognition of her father’s true identity, and “after that, whatever corresponds to me.” Abel is most likely referring to Dalí’s $325 million estate that was given to the Spanish Kingdom following his death, which is why her lawsuit is against the Spanish state–the legal owner of the estate.

Abel’s lawyer said a date has not yet been set for the exhumation, but that it could happen as soon as July. The Dalí Foundation, which manages his estate, has said it will appeal the decision in the coming days.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Salvador Dalí’s Body to be Exhumed in Paternity Suit appeared first on Law Street.

The House Armed Services Committee drafted bipartisan legislation on Tuesday to create a “Space Corps” within the Air Force by January 1, 2019.

The strategic forces subcommittee–which is in charge of space military matters–added the legislation to the National Defense Authorization Act. The Space Corps would act “as a separate military service within the Department of the Air Force and under the civilian leadership of the Secretary of the Air Force,” according to a joint statement from the subcommittee’s top legislators Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN).

The Space Corps would have its own chief, who would sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a six-year term, a position equal to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. The position would answer to the Secretary of the Air Force, according to the legislation.

If you were excited about the prospect of Congress growing the military to be more prepared for space battles against invading aliens, then get ready to be disappointed. Lawmakers believe this legislation would be a proactive measure against the country’s current inability to defend from a space attack from our international enemies.

“There is bipartisan acknowledgement that the strategic advantages we derive from our national security space systems are eroding,” Rogers and Cooper said in a prepared statement. “We are convinced that the Department of Defense is unable to take the measures necessary to address these challenges effectively and decisively, or even recognize the nature and scale of its problems.”

As space infrastructure from countries around the world begin to populate the planet’s immediate orbit, U.S. leaders worry that an adversary–like China or Russia–could gain a strategic edge over the U.S. By establishing military capability in space first, U.S. adversaries could cripple satellites that help with communications and surveillance systems the military depends on.

It wouldn’t be a military space bill without some underlying fear of the Russians.

A surprising critic of this bill has been the current Air Force leadership. Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May and said that the bill would distract from the current goals of the service.

“I don’t support it at this time,” the general said. “Right now, to get focused on a large organizational change would actually slow us down…Whether there’s a time in our future where we want to take a look at this again, I would say that we keep that dialogue open, but right now I think it would actually move us backwards.”

The introduction of the Space Corps provision is only the beginning. The entire House Armed Services Committee will need to vote on the bill before it can be debated on the House floor, which is not expected to vote on the NDAA until after July 4. The Senate is working on its own version of a similar bill. If the Space Corps legislation in the NDAA garners enough votes from the House and Senate, then it will finally be sent to the White House to be signed into law.

Regardless of what happens to this legislation, government and military officials will continue to discuss the best way to provide for defense in orbit and beyond. It’s the way of the future that might eventually lead to the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Committee Wants to Include a Space Corps in New Defense Bill appeared first on Law Street.

As the star players of two of the largest clubs and fiercest rivals in European soccer, Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi are constantly pitted against one another in arguments all over the world to determine who the greater player is. Ronaldo supporters will point to his sheer power and athleticism, combined with his knack for scoring goals. Messi supporters will counter with the Argentinian’s technical abilities and unmatched eye for the game.

But the two have decided to challenge one another in a new competitive realm. On Tuesday, Ronaldo was called to appear in court on July 31 to testify in a case in which he is accused of evading taxes. The announcement came less than one year after rival Messi was found guilty of three counts of tax fraud by a Barcelona court.

Just as no two players are created equal, no two tax fraud cases are either. In order to settle the debate of who truly is the best player, we need to find out who had the better tax-related scandal. Each case will be analyzed using five different criteria: total taxes missing, the player’s excuse, their alleged reactions to the accusation, the locations where the money was hidden, and the potential prison sentence.

Total Taxes Missing

Earlier this month, the Spanish daily sports newspaper Marca reported that Ronaldo is accused of evading 14.75 million euros ($16 million) in taxes between 2011 and 2014, totaling around 3.7 million euros ($4 million) a year. Of course, that total was not reached in such a nice-and-easy manner. Spanish authorities say that the amount of taxes evaded grew over time, with 1.39 million euros in 2011, 1.66 million euros in 2012, 3.2 million euros in 2013, and 8.5 million euros in 2014.

Messi, on the other hand, was convicted of tax evasion for his unpaid dues between 2007 and 2009. Much like his Champions League campaign with Barcelona this year, Messi’s efforts to keep up with Ronaldo simply were not enough. The Argentinian forward totaled only 4 million euros in unpaid taxes (roughly $5.3 million), according to Forbes. Even on a year-by-year average, he doesn’t come close to Ronaldo, averaging only 1.3 million euros a year.

Winner: Ronaldo. Numbers don’t lie.

Excuses

Jamaican-American reggae fusion singer Shaggy said it best when he simply replied, “it wasn’t me” to admittedly legitimate accusations of adultery back in 2000. Messi decided that this was the best course of action as well.

During his trial, he admitted that he had not read many of the documents that he signed during that time period and claimed that he had no idea how the tax system operated in Spain. This tactic worked at first, as Spanish tax authorities decided to accept the superstar’s reasoning in 2013 and initially only charged Messi’s father. But in 2014, a Spanish prosecutor decided to expand charges to Messi, saying, “even 10-year-old children” know taxes must be paid.

Ronaldo’s defense focused on the technical details of the charges, as well as intent. His legal team argued that the Spanish government is overstepping their bounds by taxing income that he earned abroad. They’ve also said that he paid tax to the Spanish treasury on 20 percent of his total image rights when, in fact, more than 90 percent of these are generated outside Spain. “There is no tax evasion scheme… There has never been any hiding nor any intention to hide anything,” Ronaldo’s representatives said.

Winner: Ronaldo. His legal team basically said, “it’s not his fault he’s so popular.” That’s bold.

Initial Reactions

It seemed like the story of the summer for many. After the accusations against Ronaldo came to light, numerous media outlets–including the BBC–reported that the Portuguese superstar wanted to leave Spain to get away from the legal mess. Naturally, Manchester United, the club where he grew to international fame, was one of the first listed as a likely destination, exciting fans everywhere.

But at the time of the initial accusations against him, it seemed like Messi was keeping calm, cool, and collected. However, it was reported that he also wanted out of Spain to join his former Barcelona manager Pep Guardiola at Manchester City after the 21-month jail sentence was handed down to him and his father.

Winner: Messi. Ronaldo’s tantrum was reported by all major European news outlets. The most reputable source for Messi’s was the Daily Mail.

Where they Stashed the Money

Messi’s money was reportedly embezzled through offshore accounts in the U.K., Switzerland, Uruguay, and Belize. Ronaldo’s only made it to a shell company in the British Virgin Islands.

Winner: Messi. He clearly tried harder.

Prison Sentences

Spain has an unwritten rule that any sentence less than two years does not actually have to be served in prison and can be substituted with probation. Messi made it just under that bar with his 21-month sentence, though at one point it could have been as high as five years along with millions in fines.

Ronaldo’s situation might be a bit more difficult to overcome. The BBC reported that three of the four accusations of tax fraud are considered by prosecutors to be “aggravated,” which means they carry a minimum sentence of two years each, and if all four are met with guilty verdicts, he could face up to seven years. In order to slip under the two-year maximum, Ronaldo would have to admit guilt and pay taxes and fines in advance to get his sentence suspended.

Winner: Messi. Sentenced to less than two years and not actually having to serve them.

The debate over who is the best on the pitch will rage on well after both have retired, but the question of who is better at defrauding the Spanish government of taxes has well been decided.

Overall Winner: Messi 3/5

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ronaldo Versus Messi: Spanish Tax Fraud Edition appeared first on Law Street.

As incidents of police-related violence have become more widely publicized over the past several years, the public’s interest in police accountability has increased alongside it. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognized this trend on Tuesday and ruled that the public should have access to police dashcam video unless the footage is proven to be related to an ongoing investigation.

A 5-2 majority in the state’s highest court pointed out that there is no blanket rule against these recordings being released. Instead, release decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis where the videos are each analyzed to determine their relationship with any ongoing investigation. However, police have the burden to show why a video is exempt from release.

The case revolved around Michelle Grove, a Pennsylvania woman who requested a copy of a police report as well as any video or audio recordings pertaining to a 2014 car accident she was involved in. She believed at the time that she would receive these documents because of the state’s Right-to-Know Law, which states that commonwealth agencies must provide copies of all public records upon request. Instead, she was denied.

Prior to this ruling, Pennsylvania police officers were denying public access requests that asked for dashcam footage, arguing that anything captured on those cameras were criminal investigative records, which made them exempt under the Right-to-Know Law and the Criminal History Information and Records Act. But the court found in favor of Grove because the video in question only showed state troopers investigating the scene and talking to the drivers and witnesses.

“[Pennsylvania State Police] simply does not explain how the video portion of the [recordings] captured any criminal investigation,” Justice Kevin Dougherty wrote in his majority opinion.

The court did give some leeway to the state police. While the video was released to the public, the court agreed that the audio from the police interviews with the drivers and witnesses did contain investigative information. As a result, the court ruled that any audio of interviews had to be edited out.

Grove’s lawyer, Helen Stolinas, told the AP that the decision is “a decisive victory for the citizens of Pennsylvania and the press to remain aware of the activities of state and local officials and be able to scrutinize how public servants are performing their duties.”

But the ruling comes at the same time that state lawmakers are planning to vote on a bill that creates a blanket exemption from the Right-to-Know Law for police video and audio recordings. Senate Bill 560 passed the state House on Tuesday and now only needs to have its changes approved by the Senate before it is passed to Governor Tom Wolf who believes it is “a step in the right direction,” according to a spokesman. The bill would require anyone who was denied access to police recordings to petition the court for a hearing to appeal to the police directly. The move would cost $125 to initiate and a judge would then have to determine if the requested video’s release outweighed the nondisclosure interest of an individual, law enforcement, or the Commonwealth.

This bill has been met with pushback from the American Civil Liberties Union. Reggie Shuford, director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said the legislation would hide police camera footage from the public, effectively making it just a tool for surveillance.

“If the public cannot obtain video produced by police cameras, they shouldn’t be used at all,” Shuford said in a press release. “While body cameras may be valuable to officers in carrying out their daily duties, the idea of using these cameras came to prominence because people were demanding that police operate with transparency, fairness, and accountability.”

Lawmakers expect SB 560 to be put to vote sometime next week, according to the AP.

Pennsylvania’s relationship with releasing documents from public servants has been complicated, to say the least. Prior to its rewrite in 2009, the state’s Right-to-Know Law had ranked among the worst public information law in the country when it came to giving people access to government records and information because it presumed government records were not public, unless someone who wanted the record could establish otherwise.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pennsylvania’s Confusing Struggle Over Police Dashcam Footage appeared first on Law Street.

Minnesota authorities released thousands of documents as well as dashcam footage related to the traffic stop during which a police officer shot Philando Castile seven times in front of his girlfriend and her five-year-old daughter. The aftermath of the shooting was famously captured through Facebook Live last summer.

The files and other data related to the investigation were released on Friday following the acquittal of Officer Jeronimo Yanez on second-degree manslaughter. This was the first time in Minnesota history that an officer was charged in an on-duty fatal shooting, according to the New York Times, and the result seemingly set a chilling precedent that a black man must move his hands toward his legally-obtained firearm in a specific way that does not scare the police officer in order to avoid being shot.

While the newly-released dashcam footage raised its own questions about why Castile was shot at a traffic stop during which he was supposedly believed to be a suspect in a robbery, new concerns have come up after a photograph of Officer Yanez after the incident was released.

Officer Jeronimo Yanez pictured wearing “Police Lives Matter” bracelet, Philando Castile’s bloodied insurance card still in his pocket. pic.twitter.com/FrjfYjVXMU

— Tony Webster (@webster) June 20, 2017

“Police Lives Matter” of course is a bastardization of “Black Lives Matter,” the phrase based on the idea that black lives in the United States have been disregarded to the point where society as a whole needs to be reminded that they do indeed matter. The phrase, similar to “Blue Lives Matter,” rests on the idea that the lives of police officers are not valued enough in this country and is often used as a counter-argument to “Black Lives Matter.”

If anything, that movement has been arguably more successful than BLM. In addition to Officer Yanez’s acquittal–which was celebrated by a “Blue Lives Matter” Twitter account–state legislatures have passed, or attempted to pass, laws that would make murdering police officers a hate crime. Texas signed a “Blue Lives Matter” bill into law earlier this month, citing growing concerns from police officers of feeling less safe in the line of duty, despite a decades-long decline in the number of line of duty deaths, with only a third as a result of murder. States like Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia, most of which are led by Republicans, have also enacted similar laws providing more protection for police officers.

The number of people killed by police, on the other hand, reached a two-decade high in 2013 and has continued to increase since.

The photo also shows the possibility that the death of Philando Castile could have been avoided. On the left side of Officer Yanez’s belt sits a taser, an instrument that has been authorized by many police departments. While some may argue that the taser is either ineffective or not used often enough, it’s worth pointing out that complaints from tasered civilians seem common enough to warrant a page on a Minnesotan Civil Rights Lawyers’ site.

And activists and politicians alike have already reacted to the dashcam video that shows Yanez firing into Castile’s car less than one minute after the traffic stop with varying conclusions.

State Rep. Nick Zerwas (R-Elk River) called the video tough to watch, but added that the footage only reinforced how Yanez had a difficult split-second situation to make and explained the jury’s decision.

“It’s these very short but very clear verbal commands to not reach for it. And once you start down that path and the officer interprets noncompliance, it’s going to play out very, very quickly,” said Zerwas, who was named 2017 Legislator of the Year by the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. “Looking at that video in context of all the information, you can see how the jury could reach that conclusion and understand why deliberations went on for all those days.”

“No, no, no,” said Tyrone Terrill, president of the state’s African-American Leadership Council, minutes after viewing the video. “You don’t have to remain calm on this one. You have a right to be outraged. You have a right to be angry. And I would be disappointed if you weren’t outraged, if you weren’t angry. It raises the question — how will you ever get a guilty verdict?”

What exactly happened inside Castile’s car after Officer Yanez arrived at the window will probably never be known. But what many are left with is the image of a police officer–whose actions eventually left another man dead–posing with paraphernalia supporting a belief that a person in his line of duty is not valued enough in society.

Editor’s Note: This article was updated on 6/22 to correct where Officer Yanez is from. 

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Officer Shot Philando Castile While Wearing “Police Lives Matter” Bracelet appeared first on Law Street.

After essentially defeating Theresa May’s attempted Brexit referendum disguised as a special election, British Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn has decided to bask in the glory of his newfound popularity by joining the demographic that most supported his movement–the youth. He chose a place in which you’re most likely to find them in the summer: a music festival.

No, Corbyn won’t be performing alongside headliners Radiohead, Foo Fighters, and Ed Sheeran. Instead, he will be introducing American rap group Run the Jewels (RTJ), known for their lyrics about social issues and left wing politics, onto the main stage. This was a welcome surprise to Killer Mike, the MC of RTJ, who seemed to find out about the announcement just this morning.

Having a Wow moment: https://t.co/lZYRhW3CGe ✊✊✊✊✊

— Killer Mike (@KillerMike) June 16, 2017

During the American election season and Democratic primaries, Killer Mike put his support behind Bernie Sanders, who he considers a close friend and famously interviewed in a barbershop in Atlanta. The use of his platform for political advocacy has now gone beyond the borders of the United States. At London’s Field Day festival earlier this month, the MC encouraged the crowd to vote Labour in support of Jeremy Corbyn.

This should come as no surprise to those who have followed Corbyn’s campaigning closely. Before the election, he received support from UK grime MCs Stormzy, Novelist, and JME, was pictured on the cover of Kerrang! alongside British bands Creeper and Architects, and made an appearance on stage during Reverend and the Makers’ set at Wirral Live music festival.

Corbyn was scheduled to appear at the festival last year, but the vote for Brexit unfortunately derailed that cameo. To commemorate his return, Michael Eavis, the 81-year-old founder of Glastonbury Festival, will be joining the leader of Labour on stage. Eavis is a strong supporter of Corbyn’s stances on nuclear disarmament and anti-austerity, and is just a fan of the man in general.

“We’re Corbyn fans, that’s the thing,” Eavis told the Guardian. “He’s got something new and precious, and people are excited about it. He really is the hero of the hour.”

Even though they will be the ones actually performing, Run the Jewels might have a tough time following the support the Labour leader will probably receive on stage, according to exit polls. NBC News’ British partner, ITV News, estimated youth turnout was at 72 percent, well above the 43 percent that showed up to vote in 2015. Online polling site YouGov found that approximately 64 percent of those surveyed between 18-29 voted for Labour, as opposed to 36 percent in 2015.

Corbyn’s campaign might have even inspired more young people to vote for the first time. Just before the deadline for voter registration in 2015, 137,400 signed up, while 246,487 did so this year. Many of those attending the festival will be looking forward to cheering on their candidate of choice after an election that was referred to by some as “the revenge of the young on the old.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jeremy Corbyn to Introduce Run the Jewels at Glastonbury appeared first on Law Street.

The recent history of Croatian soccer has forced its supporters to go from dreams of glory to heads hung in shame. Between its creation in 1991 to its third place World Cup finish in 1998, the country experienced the most extreme jump in FIFA rankings history–going from 125th in the world to third. In the following years, the country produced top level talent that has shined for some of the largest clubs in Europe, like Barcelona and Juventus, and showcased their abilities for the national team. But the underlying corruption that has plagued the country’s soccer scene on an international and domestic level has prevented Croatia from reaching the heights it did in the late nineties, and has allowed for homegrown players to only find real success in other countries.

It appeared as though one of the heads of Croatia’s corruption problems was about to be cut off when national team captain Luka Modrić appeared as the key witness at the corruption trial of a former director of one of the Croatian clubs, Dinamo Zagreb. The former director, Zdravko Mamić, is accused of embezzlement and tax evasion. When prosecutors presented, and repeated, a statement Modrić had made to them earlier in the court proceedings that would have closed the case, he nervously distanced himself from his words.

“That… That I’ve never said… that it… that… that it was drawn up afterwards,” he told prosecutors. “I told you then that I couldn’t remember when it had been done.”

Just 10 days earlier, Modrić was celebrating Real Madrid’s 12th Champions League title in Cardiff following a 4-1 victory over Juventus. The moment should have been a source of pride for his home country as one of their most successful exports had ascended to the summit of European soccer for a third time. Yet, within hours of his testimony, he was greeted with chants of “Luka Modrić, you little sh*t” from Croatian soccer supporters. The hotel where his family lived when they were war refugees in the 1990s was even defaced with graffiti that translates to “Luka, you’ll remember this one day,” and other murals dedicated to him had also been vandalized.

Mural for Luka Modric in Mostar defaced after he changed his testimony in favour of Zdravko Mamic at the latter’s corruption trial. pic.twitter.com/xTbRRygzYP

— Rusty Woodger (@rustywoodger) June 14, 2017

In order to explain why the weight of Modrić’s comments resulted in such a vulgar backlash, it is important to understand who Zdravko Mamić is, what he means to Croatian soccer, and how he relates back to Luka Modrić.

Zdravko Mamić: A Rise and Pending Fall

Zdravko Mamić is the former executive director and a current adviser to Dinamo Zagreb, the winningest team in Croatia this century. Since his friendship with a former manager got him a job with Dinamo back in 1980, Mamić has had a range of influence over the club. As an adviser to the club’s board in the early 2000s, he was able to dictate which players the club should sign. Over time, Mamić grew to become the executive president of Dinamo and first vice-president of the Croatian Football Federation (CFF), the governing body of all soccer-related activities in the country, ensuring his influence would be as strong as it could possibly be.

As his power grew, however, the number of controversies he became involved with increased as well. Mamić’s history includes abusing reporters, general homophobia, and inciting violence following racist remarks he made toward a Serbian official. He also financially controls two of the 10 clubs in the Croatian first division and has been accused of forcing the national team to showcase players from Dinamo so he can sell them for exorbitant amounts of money to larger European clubs.

This history has led to various protests coming Dinamo fans, fans of other Croatian clubs, and even fans of other European clubs.

Mamić and five other people were arrested in 2015 for embezzling the equivalent of $17.3 million of the club’s money since 2008 and not paying $1.8 million in state taxes. Prosecutors claim that this was done through illegal contracts made with some of Dinamo’s most famous former players including Modrić and Mario Mandžukić, a striker for the Italian team Juventus.

Method to the Madness

Here’s how Mamić was able to supposedly get away with this money: unlike in most American professional sports, players are not usually swapped for one another in trades if they are still under contract to a team. FIFA rules state that a club interested in a player has to buy out that player’s contract from the club they currently play on with a “transfer fee.” Once the transfer fee is agreed upon by both clubs, the buying club can enter contract negotiations with the player, and the selling club keeps the transfer fee as revenue.

What Mamić was allegedly doing was taking the transfer fees that were supposed to go to investing in the club and its players, and funneling them into his own bank account. Dinamo has earned nearly €150 million from transfers in the past 10 years. Much of it has disappeared into concealed channels, although the exact number is not known. Additionally, players abroad were required to pay some of their wages back to Mamić as a sign of goodwill for the “good” he had done for them.

The Modrić Connection

One of Mamić’s biggest cash machines was Modrić, who was sold to the Tottenham Hotspurs in 2008 for €21 million, a club record for the English side at the time. Half of that transfer fee went to Modrić. Further investigation, and testimony by Modrić, showed that he would go to a bank accompanied by Mamić’s son or brother, withdraw funds from his personal account and hand the cash to either of the two men. Of the €10.5 million, Modrić kept €1.7 million and the rest went to the Mamić family.

The defense argues that this was  an expected relationship between the two groups because Mamić was a benefactor to Modrić during the midfielder’s youth career and helped him reach his full potential as a professional. The agreement was one of many that Mamić created with promising young players that obliged them to pay him back with their future earnings.

What is currently being disputed, and why Modrić has been such a key witness in this case, involves the date of the contract that allowed the midfielder to keep 50 percent of his transfer fee. Prosecutors argue that that portion of the contract was signed and backdated after the player had already been sold, making the transfer illegal. Modrić supposedly confirmed this in questioning last year, but denied it in court on Tuesday, claiming he was confused.

“When speaking about that, I was talking about a personal contract between Mamic and me, which regulated the split of the transfer fee,” he said in his testimony. But as if that were not enough, Modrić also forgot key portions of his playing career that ended up helping the defense’s case, including the year when he debuted for the national team.

Before his comments in court, Modrić was seen as the victim in this scenario. He was the poor kid from Zadar whose ignorance and naivety was exploited by the “big bad wolf”–Mamić. After his testimony, however, it will be hard to shake his association with someone often referred to as the number one enemy of soccer in the country.

No one is quite sure why Modrić changed his testimony. One theory is that he was scared of crossing such a powerful individual. Mamić’s political influence is so wide,  that the location of this trial had to be moved from the capital Zagreb to Osijek–nearly 175 miles away–because of his close ties with some of the Zagreb judges.

What Comes Next?

Whatever the reason, prosecutors will have some time to sit on this new revelation as Mamić made a big scene in the courtroom on Wednesday morning, and fired his whole legal team before saying he’ll defend himself. The judge ordered a recess until further notice.

Despite the self-sabotaging move, a seemingly-unavoidable Mamić conviction would not even result in much change happening, according to fervent Croatian soccer critic Anthony Zoric.

“Zdravko Mamić cannot simply be replaced,” Zoric said. “For things to improve at the current federation the entire HNS board must resign. The system has been manipulated to serve the interests of Mamić and his friends.”

But a change on that scale could be unrealistic and generally unattainable. Outside pressure from corruption trials might be the closest opportunity Croatian fans will get to relieve some of the issues and turn a new chapter in the soccer history of their country.  The national team has been marked by controversy while the domestic league, filled with its own set of talented players, is making more news for corruption than soccer itself. Any change might be welcome at this point.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does a Corruption Trial Have the Possibility to Transform Croatian Soccer? appeared first on Law Street.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill into law on Thursday that would fine state law enforcement agencies up to $1,000 a day for not reporting officer-involved shootings in a timely manner.

The law, which will officially be enacted in September, was created with the intention of strengthening a current Texas law–passed in 2015–that requires departments to report to the attorney general’s office any time an officer firing their gun results in injury or death.

Gathering data on police shootings has been an issue for the state, whether it’s been through misrepresentation or refusal to comply. A Texas Tribune investigation was only able to gather data on police shootings between 2010 and 2015 from 36 cities that had 100,000 or more residents, totaling less than half of the state’s population. While some precincts were more than willing to put the information on their website, others fought public information requests, gave heavily redacted records, or said they did not keep track of police shootings. Corpus Christi and Pasadena, for example, did not specifically track officer-involved shootings.

Even after the 2015 law was enacted, some departments decided to take their time in filing their reports and reported their data to the state months after the incident had actually occurred. The late responders typically only filed their reports after state publications pointed out that which departments had been slacking.

State Rep. Eric Johnson, the author of the new bill, said that this law will help curtail the inconsistent reporting and provide the state with the data it needs to analyze the issue of police shootings.

“I’m glad that he signed the bill, and I believe that we’re well on our way to leading the nation in getting to the bottom of what causes these fatal encounters between police and citizens, because we’re going to have the data,” Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, said Thursday to the Texas Tribune.

The new law gives departments a 30-day window to file a report after the shooting. Once that window has closed, the attorney general’s office can investigate and notify the department it has seven days to clear up any unreported shootings. After that, the state will be able to fine departments $1,000 a day. All of the money collected from these fines will be going to Texas’ Crime Victims’ Compensation Fund.

The bill did not contain everything that the authors originally wanted. State Sen. John Whitmire, a Houston Democrat, was unable to add a requirement for the attorney general’s office to build and maintain an online portal that would collect and analyze police shooting reports to the bill. The addition was struck down on the Senate floor.

Texas legislators might want to revisit that provision at some point. As of this article’s publication, 37 people have been shot and killed by Texas police officers this year, which is on pace to eventually match the total number police killed in the state last year.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Texas Law Will Fine Police for Not Reporting Shootings appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration rejected Obama-era proposals on Monday that would limit the number of endangered whales, dolphins, and sea turtles that can be killed or injured by sword-fishing nets on the West Coast.

This announcement came through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fisheries division and cited studies showing how the number of marine mammals and turtles trapped in long, drifting gill nets–fishing nets that are hung vertically so that fish get trapped in them by their gills–have decreased over the years. A spokesman added that the restriction “would have imposed a cost on the industry to solve a problem that has already been addressed.”

The Pacific Fishery Management Council, which manages fisheries in California, Oregon, and Washington introduced the cap in 2015 and it received support from both the fishing industry and environmental groups. Unsurprisingly, those who supported the bill back then were critical of the decision to reject the rules now.

“The Trump Administration has declared war on whales, dolphins and turtles off the coast of California,” Todd Steiner, director of the Turtle Island Restoration Network, told the Los Angeles Times. “This determination will only lead to more potential litigation and legislation involving this fishery. It’s not a good sign.”

Had these proposals been enacted, gill net fisheries could be closed for up to two years if too many animals belonging to nine groups of whales, sea turtles, or dolphins got caught in the nets. The rule would have applied to fewer than 20 fishing vessels.

But the NOAA Fisheries referenced its own analysis that found that the cost of enacting these protections outweighed the benefits, and the fishing industry had implemented measures that greatly reduced the deaths and injuries of protected marine mammals. These measures included better training for skippers of fishing boats, sound warnings–or pingers–attached to fishing nets to reduce the risk of by-catch, and wider openings at the top of nets that gave whales, dolphins, and turtles a better chance to escape. Also referenced was the declining number of protected animal deaths. Deaths and injuries to protected whales dropped from over 50 in 1992 to about one or two a year through 2015. Dolphin deaths and injuries went from almost 400 annually to only a few per year in that same timespan. Pacific leatherback turtles dropped from 17 in 1993 to no more than one a year by 2015.

What NOAA numbers also show, however, is that the number of overall sword-fish net vessels dropped from a high of 129 in 1994 to 20 in 2016. Steiner attributed the drop in animal deaths to this statistic, as opposed to fishermen choosing to abide by these standards.

“The numbers caught per set have not gone down,” Steiner said. “The California gill-net fishery kills more marine mammals than all other West Coast fisheries combined.”

Katherine Kilduff, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, told the AP that even if by-catch numbers are decreasing, gill nets continue to kill and injure many rare species, such as leatherback turtles, humpback whales, and sperm whales. For some species, their numbers are so few that if even one or two are caught by gill nets, the overall effect can be devastating. Because of that, these restrictions are necessary additions to existing policy, she added.

This is the second recent move by the Trump Administration to roll back Obama-era protections on endangered species. Just last week, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said that his department would review a conservation plan for the greater sage grouse with the intention of opening up more of the declining bird’s habitat to oil and gas development.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Axes Proposed Rules Meant to Protect Endangered Marine Life appeared first on Law Street.

The Congressional Budget Office announced in March that the American Health Care Act, the measure created to dismantle the Affordable Care Act that Senate Republicans worked to fast track their own version of on Thursday, will cause the number of uninsured Americans to increase by 14 million in 2018, nearly doubling the figure from 2015. While we don’t know yet what the Senate version will look like, it’s likely that millions will lose their insurance. Among those that have been preparing for the drop since then are crowdfunding platforms such as GoFundMe and YouCaring.

“Whether it’s Obamacare or Trumpcare, the weight of health-care costs on consumers will only increase,” Dan Saper, chief executive officer of YouCaring, told Bloomberg. “It will drive more people to try and figure out how to pay health-care needs, and crowdfunding is in its early days as a way to help those people.”

Sites have seen increases in the number of medical-related fundraisers and donations over the past few years, to the point where that category makes up a significant portion of both sites. In 2015, GiveForward, which was recently acquired by YouCaring, reported that almost 70 percent of all its fundraising campaigns were medical, averaging a fundraising goal of $7,500 per campaign.  Since 2010, GoFundMe has raised over $2 billion on its site and $930 million went to medical campaigns.

While some may find the American reliance on crowdfunding to pay off medical expenses to be troubling, GoFundMe CEO Rob Solomon finds it industry-defining. He has said that medical fundraising “helped define and put GoFundMe on the map” and helped accomplish the goal of becoming a “digital safety net.”

That safety net might need to grow wider because of the AHCA’s Medicaid plans. Preliminary results of a study done through the University of Washington/Bothell found that most personal medical fundraisers done through GoFundMe came from people living in states that chose not to expand Medicaid under the ACA, like Texas. The Huffington Post reported that even moderate Republicans are backing provisions that would eventually cut off federal matching funds for the law’s Medicaid expansion, which 31 states have taken advantage of.

This applies to more than just those who receive insurance through Medicaid, however. According to an NPR, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study, 26 percent of adults in the U.S. said they have serious financial problems due to health care costs, with 44 percent of them having to set up a payment plan with their provider. Additionally, the Kaiser Foundation found one in five of all working-age Americans with insurance reported having problems paying medical bills.

Saper believes in the potential of this safety net. He stated that medical crowdfunding is “highly, highly scalable and has a ton of runway. The growth rate of the industry is showing that this can absolutely be an impactful safety net for a lot of individuals and communities to help each other.”

But the current crowdfunding model has repeatedly proven that it is far from equipped to handle the campaigns of every person who could use one. Just over one in 10 health-related online campaigns reached their goal, according to a study at NerdWallet, and the study done at Bothell found that 90 percent of the campaigns they followed failed to reach their goal, only reaching 40 percent of what they asked for on average.

Dr. Edward Weisbart, who chairs the Missouri chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program, mentioned that a lot of these missed goals can be attributed to a sort of fatigue donors feel over time as they receive more and more requests to donate.

“When you get your first request, you probably give a high amount. But as you get besieged and realize how common these requests are, donations will go down. We can’t keep on giving to everyone who asks,” she said to Bloomberg.

Even when people do give, they’re more likely to give to the campaigns with stories that touch our hearts or are just outright extraordinary, according to the creator of GoFraudMe, a website that exposes fraudulent campaigns on GoFundMe, Adrienne Gonzalez. For example, two of the “most active” campaigns on Generosity.com are one raising money for a woman who was struck by lightning, and one for a woman hoping to cover “co-pays, travel expenses, food, lodging, essentials” as she takes care of her 19-year-old daughter who is awaiting a kidney transplant.

What this could create is droves of uninsured individuals all vying for donations toward their medical expenses, hoping that their story wins in a competition of moral equivalency in the minds of donors. As dystopian as this sounds, this would not necessarily be the worst scenario for crowdfunding sites. GoFundMe receives 7.9 percent for donation and processing fees, plus 30 cents per donation, according to its website, meaning it has received $158 million in revenue from its total donations, and just under $75 million from medical campaigns alone.

Saper is well aware of these figures and seemingly sees that there’s profit in helping people raise money for their medical expenses.

“We rely on voluntary contributions from donors [to run the company], so our big thrust now is how do we get the word out about it,” he said. YouCaring has ramped up its marketing and operations teams in preparation for a new wave of customers that will use that site as a platform to broadcast their need for help paying medical bills because the system in place will soon abandon them, if it hasn’t already.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crowdfunding Sites Could Benefit Immensely from the AHCA appeared first on Law Street.

While testifying before the Senate on Thursday, Former FBI Director James Comey faced questions seeking to determine whether or not President Donald Trump’s actions amount to obstruction of justice.

The debate first began on Wednesday when Comey’s prepared opening statement was released to the public. The statement recounts conversations with the president in which he pressed for Comey’s loyalty, distanced himself from an unconfirmed dossier, and assured the director that former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was a “good guy” that “has been through a lot.”

But the standout moment came later on in a conversation between Comey and President Trump. Comey noted in his statement:

[Trump] then said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’ I replied only that ‘he is a good guy.’ I did not say I would ‘let this go.’

While many speculated on the subject, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided it would be best to ask Comey himself. Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) was the first to ask if the president obstructed justice, but the former FBI director would not weigh in on the subject, only noting that he found Trump’s comments to be “disturbing.”

“There was an open FBI criminal investigation of his statements in connection with the Russian contacts and the contacts themselves,” Comey said. “And so that was my assessment at the time. I don’t think it’s for me to say whether the conversation I had with the president was an effort to obstruct.”

Senator James Risch (R-ID) expanded on the chairman’s questions and asked whether Trump had explicitly “ordered” or “directed” Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. Comey responded that he understood the president’s statement to be an order, but that Trump had used the words, “I hope.”

The senator continued to probe about the semantics.

“He said, ‘I hope.’ You don’t know of anyone who’s ever been charged [with obstruction of justice] for hoping something. Is that a fair statement?” asked Risch. “I don’t as I sit here,” replied Comey with a shrug.

Sen. James Risch asks Comey about obstruction of justice

Watch live here: https://t.co/THlNhXekzk pic.twitter.com/REs7GfdKNY

— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 8, 2017

Senator Risch is a strong supporter of the Trump Administration. He is on the record saying that the president was right, and even entitled, to share classified information with Russian officials in the Oval Office. He also agrees with the president that the ongoing leaks to the news media are a cause for concern. It’s likely that he saw Comey’s responses to his line of questioning as a victory and proof that Trump did not obstruct justice.

However, Senator Risch’s questioning implies that an obstruction of justice charge requires an explicit order from the accused, which may not be the case given the fairly broad federal statutes in place. There are several relevant statutes to this situation, which may implicate anyone who “corruptly […] endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law.” So asking Comey to drop part of an investigation, and later firing him, could meet these requirements, particularly when you consider the power dynamic between an FBI director and president.

Samuel Buell, a criminal law professor at Duke University and former federal prosecutor who led the Justice Department’s Enron task force, told the New York Times that the case against Trump has only grown over time.

“The evidence of improper purpose has gotten much stronger since the day of Comey’s firing,” Buell said. “Trump has made admissions about that. And we now have evidence that he may have indicated an improper purpose previously in his communications with Comey about the Russia investigation.”

Of course, Trump did have the legal authority to fire Comey. In fact, the former director even noted in his testimony that he was aware that he could be fired at any moment for any reason at all when he first took the job. But courts have ruled that acts generally considered lawful can be illegal if they are meant to obstruct justice.

Even so, this testimony might not mean much for the immediate future. The process of impeachment is hardly swift and involves both quasi-judicial and quasi-political proceedings. Not only does the president have to have committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” but a majority in the House and two-thirds of the Senate need to agree in order to impeach and remove a president from office. Also, the events surrounding this testimony, and subsequent accusations, are largely unprecedented, creating more than its fair share of uncertainty.

It should be noted, however, that two most recent American presidents subjected to impeachment proceedings–Bill Clinton in 1998, and Richard Nixon in 1974, although he resigned before the House could vote–were accused of obstruction of justice.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comey Hearing Recap: Defining Obstruction of Justice appeared first on Law Street.

Prime Minister Theresa May addressed activists on Tuesday about where human rights fall on her priorities following Saturday’s attack in London and the Manchester bombing in late May. “And if our human rights laws stop us from [tackling extremism and terrorism], we’ll change the law so we can do it.” she said to a crowd in Berkshire, England.

This statement follows her speech on Sunday in which she presented a four-point plan toward combatting terrorism, and comes only 36 hours before polls open for Britain’s snap election this coming Thursday. Polls show her lead continuously shrinking. May also added that she wants to make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and monitor the movement of those suspects when there is a fear that they pose a threat but there’s not enough evidence to prosecute them.

While many are familiar with the human rights atrocities Britain has committed in its various roles as a colonial power, violations within its borders may come as a slight surprise to some. But May’s statements become less surprising with some context:

What “human rights laws” currently govern Britain?

There are two sets of laws that Britain currently abides by: the European Convention of Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act. The former was ratified in 1953 by the then-newly-formed Council of Europe after World War II to prevent anything like Nazi Germany from happening again, protect human rights, and defend “the fundamental freedoms in Europe.” The latter was created so that the rights contained in the ECHR would be incorporated into British law, and human rights breaches could be challenged in domestic courts without having to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

Wait, back up. Why do we care about the European Convention of Human Rights? Isn’t Britain leaving the EU?

The ECHR is separate from the EU so Britain doesn’t have to leave if it doesn’t want to. For the time being–it seems like the Conservatives, the current party in power, want to remain in it, according to their manifesto. The decision will be revisited after the next parliament’s term ends. Oddly enough, Conservatives are more concerned with replacing or amending the domestic Human Rights Act as they begin their Brexit.

Makes sense. But if there are two sets of human rights laws, wouldn’t that make it difficult to enact any change?

Despite May’s comments, precedent in the United Kingdom shows that the current “human rights laws” might not even need to be changed in order to accomplish the counter-terrorism policies she laid out (but we’ll get to that later).

Wait, so the UK can violate human rights?

Technically. Britain is allowed to “derogate”–or temporarily ignore–parts of the European Convention of Human Rights in a “time of emergency” that is “threatening the life of the nation” under Article 15 of the agreement. Their particular cup of tea is the suspension of habeas corpus. In 1979, for example, the European Court of Human Rights allowed them to use preventative detention without trial of PIRA terror suspects in Northern Ireland after a string of attacks killed British soldiers.

Today, terror suspects can be held for 14 days without a trial, a decision that was implemented with the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. May has stated that she is looking to revisit that number and seek derogation to extend that period to 28 days, a move that was attempted in 2011 when she was Home Secretary, the UK’s equivalent of a Director of Homeland Security, and when Conservative David Cameron was Prime Minister.

“When we reduced it to 14 days, we actually allowed for legislation to enable it to be at 28 days,” she said in an interview with The Sun. “We said there may be circumstances where it is necessary to do this. I will listen to what they think is necessary for us to do.”

Even doubling the figure seems tame compared to previous attempts to extend the length of uncharged detention. In 2005, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to lengthen the period to 90 days following the July 7 attack on London. That time, however, civil rights groups stepped in out of protest and that provision was subsequently dropped.

And even with all of this wiggle room, May wants to change the laws?

Yes. As previously stated, Conservatives don’t really view the Human Rights Act too favorably. Not necessarily in a maniacal way, more in a “we want to make a better version” way. They have wanted to replace the law with a British Bill of Rights for a few years now, and this year is no exception.

May’s comments about changing human rights laws most likely also comes from her suggested plans to expand terrorism prevention and investigation measures, a two-year designation given to terrorism suspects considered to be enough of a threat. The measures currently include overnight curfews of up to 10 hours, electronic tagging, reporting regularly to the police, exclusion from certain zones, enforced relocation, and some limitations on use of mobile phones and the internet.

When you bundle expanding all of that with her Sunday promise to “make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need,” it’s clear why she wants to remove as many legal roadblocks as possible.

What are other people saying about this?

Former director of public prosecutions and Labour shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, believes that the laws should stay in place as they are because they have not gotten in the way of combatting terrorism and extremism before.

“If we start throwing away our adherence to human rights… we are throwing away the very values at the heart of our democracy,” he said in a BBC Radio 4 Today interview.

Current Labour leader, and the closest political opponent to May in the election, Jeremy Corbyn, lambasted the Prime Minister’s comments and accused her of trying to “protect the public on the cheap,” referencing that fact that she cut nearly 20,000 police officers during her time as Home Secretary.

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron took the accusation a step further and said May’s speech about being tough on terror was just a facade.

“In her years as home secretary she was willing to offer up the police for cut after cut,” he said. “We have been here before – a kind of nuclear arms race in terror laws might give the appearance of action, but what the security services lack is not more power, but more resources. And responsibility for that lies squarely with Theresa May.”

Whether or not the British public believes May’s words will be tested in Thursday’s election. Polls show that Conservatives are still leading Labour by about six points, down from almost a double digit vote lead when both campaigns started.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Theresa May’s Challenge of Human Rights Laws is Unsurprising appeared first on Law Street.

Major internet companies are joining a day of action to protest the Federal Communication Commission and its planned decision to eliminate Obama-era net neutrality regulations.

Amazon, Etsy, and Kickstarter are just some of the 52 companies and organizations that are participating in this internet-wide event on July 12. It’s being hosted by advocacy groups Fight for the Future, Freepress Action Fund, and Demand Progress. Other notable participants include Vimeo, Reddit, and Mozilla, creator of the Firefox Web Browser.

Not much information is available on what will exactly happen on the day of the protest on the event’s site, only that more details will be sent out to participants who join the mailing list as the day approaches. However, the website does promise to “make it easy for your followers / visitors to take action” in the protest.

Net neutrality is the idea that internet providers should treat all online traffic equally. Current FCC policy (Title II of the Telecommunications Act) regulates broadband providers to ensure that indiscriminate services are being provided to the public at large. In other words, the FCC is currently making sure that your Netflix streams are not being slowed down because your provider has a deal with Hulu.

President Donald Trump’s newly appointed FCC chair, Ajit Pai, promised last year to take a “weed whacker” to the internet regulations set up during Obama Administration. Pai, along with the rest of the FCC’s Republican majority, said in the agency’s open meeting that the current rules stifle creativity and prevent internet providers from trying innovative ways to make money in a digital world.

Member companies of the Internet and Television Association have stated that they support the idea of net neutrality, but would  prefer the federal government not be the body that enforces it. But companies that are actually based online have a much different opinion on the matter.

“Net neutrality made it possible for Vimeo, along with countless other startups, to innovate and thrive,” said Michael Cheah, general counsel of Vimeo, in a statement. “The FCC’s proposed rollback of the 2015 open internet rules threatens to impede that innovation and allow a handful of incumbent ISPs to determine winners and losers.”

This is not the first time internet companies have chosen to stand up to threats against net neutrality. Google, Netflix, and Twitter protested in similar fashion back in 2014 in support of reclassifying broadband services under Title II regulations. Since then, the rules have faced many challenges in court but have yet to be overturned.

As for Pai, this will be the second large-scale act of protest his commission will face this year. Comedian, and host of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver encouraged his viewers in May to comment on the FCC proposal that would dismantle Title II regulations. The resulting traffic crashed the commission’s site.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amazon, Etsy, and Kickstarter Headline Net Neutrality Protest appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump announced Thursday his intention to pull the United States out of the Paris climate deal, an international environmental agreement dedicated to curbing the rise in global temperatures, adopting greener energy sources, and cutting down on carbon emissions. This decision drew criticism from foreign leaders, business executives, and even the mayor of Pittsburgh.

The announcement, given in the Rose Garden of the White House, was filled with the usual “America First” rhetoric that focused on a fear of being laughed at.

“We want fair treatment,” Trump said. “We don’t want other countries and other leaders to laugh at us anymore.”

To his credit, Trump defended his decision with evidence from the scientific community in between the comments focused on American exceptionalism. He mentioned that even if the agreement was followed all the way through by every country that signed it, the planet would see its global temperature drop two-tenths of one degree Celsius by 2100. A “tiny, tiny amount,” he said.

The good news is that the claim stems from a 2016 study by MIT titled “How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?” and is technically true. The not-so-good news is that Trump left out a key finding in that study. Researchers say that if nothing were to be done, global temperatures could rise over 5 degrees Celsius which one scientist said would be “catastrophic.”

Whether or not the president is aware of this fact is unclear. However, Trump’s track record on issues related to the scientific community does not provide much optimism for his understanding. His views on climate change, for example, leave a lot to be desired. On Nov. 6, 2012, he infamously tweeted:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

Trump later downplayed the tweet as a “joke” in 2016 when Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) attacked his views on climate change in a Democratic Primary debate. But that was not the only time he has tweeted about global warming. Vox compiled all 115 of Trump’s tweets that mention his climate change skepticism including the following:

Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2014

Despite the president’s old tweets, NASA’s climate change website states that at least 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends are a result of human activity.

It’s not just climate change that the president has some questionable views on. Earlier this spring, the Washington Post reported Trump’s beliefs on how the human body works. According to the New Yorker piece the article references, Trump stopped engaging in athletic activities after college because he “believed the human body was like a battery, with a finite amount of energy, which exercise only depleted.”

This is not true. The American Council on Exercise states that exercise improves the delivery of oxygen and nutrients to muscle tissue, allowing muscles to produce more energy for the body. The Department of Health and Human Services recommends at least 150 minutes of intense aerobic exercise per week. And the Mayo Clinic says that exercise improves muscle and heart health which gives people more endurance, and more energy.

But the most fascinating scientific belief that our commander-in-chief holds is his support for the use of asbestos. Trump believes that the movement to phase out asbestos in the nineties was a conspiracy set up by the mob. In his 1997 book, “The Art of the Comeback,” he says the following:

I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented. Millions of truckloads of this incredible fire-proofing material were taken to special ‘dump sites’ and asbestos was replaced by materials that were supposedly safe but couldn’t hold a candle to asbestos in limiting the ravages of fire.

Later in the book he calls an anti-asbestos law “stupid” and claimed that it is “also 100 percent safe, once applied.”

This belief continued well into the 21st century. In 2005, he credited the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 to its lack of asbestos and doubled down on this in 2012.

.@dubephnx If we didn’t remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn’t (cont) http://t.co/d10u18dh

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012

 Prior to its collapse, the World Trade Center had upwards of 400 tons of asbestos used in its insulation, fireproofing materials, steel, and drywall. Nearly 410,000 people were exposed to the deadly carcinogen that kills 10,000 Americans a year, according to the World Trade Center Health Registry.

The connection between asbestos and mesothelioma, a cancer developed through asbestos exposure, has been known since the early 20th century but only recently been acted upon due to a decades long cover-up.

The irony in all this comes from a standout quote from Trump’s speech last week: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” he said. Between 1999-2013, Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh resides, had 1,616 people die from asbestos-related deaths, the highest in the state, and the asbestos-related death rate was nearly 80 percent higher than the national average.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump’s Interesting Relationship with Science appeared first on Law Street.

California State University at Fresno cancelled its search for an assistant professor in Middle Eastern studies last week citing procedural issues involving the election, approval of the search committee, and the influence of an “unauthorized party” in the search efforts.

This came as a response to faculty claims that the school was actively participating in academic censorship that was being influenced by Israel advocacy groups. Vida Samaiin, the longtime dean of Fresno State’s College of Arts and Humanities, even resigned in protest:

I have decided to resign in objection to the unethical and discriminatory cancellation of the Edward Said Professorship… The administration carried out the vicious and discriminatory attacks launched by Israel advocacy groups against the search committee and the four finalists who were of Middle Eastern and Palestinian ethnicity.

Edward Said was a Palestinian-American public intellectual who is credited with helping found postcolonial studies and was a prominent advocate for the Palestinian people. The position advertised that preferred candidates had “active scholarship in the candidate’s area of expertise with a special focus on Edward Said’s intellectual legacy,” according to the job posting.

Lynette Zelezny, the school’s provost and vice president for academic affairs, said in a statement that those who made the decision to cancel the search had not heard from, nor had been pressured by, any sort of individual or group throughout the process. While she did express regret that the process got this far when the decision was made, Zelezny referenced faculty affairs policy adopted by the Academic Senate when defending it.

“We were way too slow in recognizing that we had an improper search committee in terms of no election and other factors,” Zelezny said. “We’ve learned from this. … This is very unusual — typically we don’t see these kinds of issues in our searches.”

A Fresno State spokesman did not add any details on how the search strayed from the school’s policy. The “unauthorized party” was not specifically identified either.

Activists believe that this is just the latest in a line of attempts to actively suppress speech and activism on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in student and academic spheres. Some have drawn comparisons to the decision of other schools to shut down academic programs, ban Palestinian student groups, and even criminally prosecute students for protesting events held by Israeli government officials.

Jewish Voice for Peace, a left-wing activist organization focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have created a petition that calls on the school to reinstate the search for a candidate. Hundreds of academics from the United States and Europe have signed it, but the school has shown little indication that it is willing to change its mind.

Fresno State will reopen its applicant search in the spring of 2018, when officials feel a fair procedure will have been followed.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversy Sparked By Cancelled Professor Search at Fresno State appeared first on Law Street.

Harvard affirmed the long-standing belief that topics like the Holocaust, sexual assault, and the deaths of children should probably not be joked about. At least ten students lost their acceptances to the Ivy League school in mid-April after university officials discovered that members of the incoming freshman class were posting memes related to these topics in a Facebook messaging group titled, at one point, “Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens,” according to the Harvard Crimson.

The chat originated from members of the official Harvard Class of 2021 Facebook group in December who all shared the common interest of sharing memes with one another. While the 100-member group chat started out as “lighthearted,” according to one student, some members felt that the content did not meet the standards of humor they were accustomed to.

As a result, a “dark” meme chat was formed. Of course, not just any student could join. The founders of the new chat required that prospective members post provocative memes in the larger messaging group before they could be allowed in, according to Cassandra Luca, a member of the original meme group.

“They were like, ‘Oh, you have to send a meme to the original group to prove that you could get into the new one,'” Luca said. “This was a just-because-we-got-into-Harvard-doesn’t-mean-we-can’t-have-fun kind of thing.”

The “fun” included racist and sexist memes and messages that joked about child abuse and rape. One group of messages joked that abusing children was sexually arousing, while another referred to the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child as “piñata time.”

Depending on your moral compass, the supposed “fun” thankfully, or unfortunately, came to an abrupt halt mid-April when employees in Harvard’s admissions office emailed those suspected of posting offensive memes to disclose their involvement. A copy of the Admissions Office’s email, obtained by the Crimson, reads:

The Admissions Committee was disappointed to learn that several students in a private group chat for the Class of 2021 were sending messages that contained offensive messages and graphics…As we understand you were among the members contributing such material to this chat, we are asking that you submit a statement by tomorrow at noon to explain your contributions and actions for discussion with the Admissions Committee.

Administrators told the students who received the email that their admissions status was being reviewed and were also told not to attend Visitas, a weekend event for incoming freshman Harvard holds annually at the end of April. About a week later, at least ten members of the group chat were told that they were no longer going to attend Harvard.

Harvard has the right to rescind applications of any incoming student who “engages in behavior that brings into question his or her honesty, maturity, or moral character.”

This is the second consecutive year that Harvard has dealt with incoming freshman exchanging offensive messages online. Members of the class of 2020 sent racially-charged messages to one another in an unofficial class GroupMe. However, these students were not disciplined by the university because they were “not matriculated students at this point,” according to then-Interim Dean of Student Life Thomas A. Dingman.

Many will inevitably claim that the students’ right to free speech was violated in the school’s decision, but even fellow members of the incoming freshman class agree it was the right call.

“I appreciate humor, but there are so many topics that just should not be joked about,” said Jessica Zhang, a member of the class of 2021. “I respect the decision of the admissions officers to rescind the offers because those actions really spoke about the students’ true characters.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Students Lose Harvard Acceptances for Obscene Memes appeared first on Law Street.