Tag: Law

How Trump lost the law and order debate

For months, in the midst of protests against racial injustice and a worsening global pandemic, President Trump has sought to portray his Democratic rivals as lawless rioters bent on mob rule.



a group of people standing around a fire: On The Trail: How Trump lost the law and order debate


© Getty
On The Trail: How Trump lost the law and order debate

His presidency, Trump has insisted, is the only thing standing between a wave of crime and chaos. Speakers at the Republican National Convention this year – including a St. Louis couple who was charged last week with felony counts after they waved weapons at protesters – repeatedly invoked the threat of violence looming over American cities.

Loading...

Load Error

But Americans think otherwise. In poll after poll, a plurality – and in many cases a majority – say Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden would be better equipped than Trump to handle law and order or crime and violence.

A CNN survey released last week asked respondents which presidential candidate would be better at handling crime and safety issues. Fifty-five percent chose Biden, while 43 percent chose Trump.

Pollsters for NBC and The Wall Street Journal asked who would be better at dealing with crime and violence. Biden led again, 45 percent to 41 percent. Meanwhile, 52 percent told Monmouth pollsters they were very or somewhat confident Biden could maintain law and order if he were elected; 48 percent said the same of Trump.

In a Pew poll released this week, 49 percent of respondents said they were very or somewhat confident Biden could effectively handle law enforcement and criminal justice issues; 44 percent were confident in Trump’s ability to do so.

But perhaps most damningly, 58 percent of Americans surveyed by Fox News said they thought the way Trump talks about racial inequality and the police was actually leading to an increase in acts of violence. Just 38 percent said the same of the former vice president.

Biden, in short, is beating Trump on one of the key issues on which Trump wanted to base his reelection campaign.

Both Democratic and Republican strategists said Trump’s failure to use protests that turned violent in cities like Seattle and Portland against Biden illustrates the most significant challenge Trump now faces: Unlike four years ago, Trump is not the outsider coming to disrupt the system. He is the incumbent, presiding over a deeply divided country.

“Sometimes, reality wins. It’s hard for President Trump to argue that lawless Democrats are responsible for a surge of violence that has occurred during his administration,” said Michael Steel, a Republican strategist who was the top spokesman for former Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Trump has been obsessed with law and order since the 1980s, when he paid for an advertisement calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, five Black and Hispanic teenagers who were wrongly convicted of rape. He used his inaugural address in 2017 to call for an end of “American carnage,” even though statistics released by the FBI show crime rates have steadily declined for decades.

Today, law and

Continue reading

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Continues Its Investigation of Loop Industries, Inc. (LOOP) on Behalf of Investors

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz continues its investigation of Loop Industries, Inc. (“Loop” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: LOOP) on behalf of investors concerning the Company’s possible violations of federal securities laws.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate.

On October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging, among other things, that “[a] former Loop employee told us that Loop’s scientists, under pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to lie about the results of the company’s process internally. We have obtained internal documents and photographs to support their claims.” The report also stated that “Loop’s previous claims of breaking PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100% were ‘technically and industrially impossible,’” according to a former employee. Moreover, the report alleged that “Executives from a division of key partner Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a ‘global alliance agreement’ with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on ‘indefinite’ hold and that Loop ‘underestimated’ both costs and complexities of its process.”

On this news, Loop’s stock price fell as much as 33% during intraday trading on October 13, 2020.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.

If you purchased Loop securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to [email protected], or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201013006158/en/

Contacts

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
[email protected]
www.frankcruzlaw.com

Source Article

Continue reading

Sunak Urged to Use English Law to Protect Indebted Poor Nations

(Bloomberg) — U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak could free the poorest nations to fight the coronavirus pandemic by protecting them from “unscrupulous” private creditors, the opposition Labour Party said.

With English law governing a significant share of the sovereign debt issued by developing nations, Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds called for legislation to protect those countries from being sued for debt recovery by private lenders. It’s time, she said, for the government to show leadership on debt forgiveness in the way successive U.K. governments did a decade ago following the financial crisis.



a man wearing a suit and tie: U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Sunak Presents 'Winter Economy Plan'


© Bloomberg
U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Sunak Presents ‘Winter Economy Plan’

Rishi Sunak

Loading...

Load Error

Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

“A global debt crisis would not just undermine the fight against the virus, but drive up poverty, increase political instability and hamper efforts to address climate change,” Dodds wrote in a letter to Sunak ahead of a meeting of Group of 20 finance ministers on Wednesday.

The Treasury didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some 73 of the world’s poorest nations could potentially benefit from $11.5 billion of savings under a program called the Debt Service Suspension Initiative agreed by G-20 nations in April, according to World Bank estimates. The program runs through the end of the year, and the U.K. is among nations that support extending it beyond then.

Showing Leadership

But the plan is only voluntary for private creditors. Eligible countries can ask them for the same freeze, but only a handful have done so out of fear they could fall into default and be locked out of debt markets for years.

Labour, citing International Monetary Fund data, said English law governs 46% of the total outstanding stock of international sovereign bonds. That proportion rises to 90% of debt issued by the nations benefiting from the forgiveness program, according to the Jubilee Debt Campaign.

“A powerful show of leadership would be for the U.K. to bring forward legislation that amends English law, temporarily limiting the ability of private creditors to sue for debt recovery for the 73 countries covered by the DSSI,” Dodds said.

She pointed to existing laws introduced by Labour and passed by the Conservative-led government that succeeded it in 2010, covering the debt of 45 nations issued before 2004.

“Similar legislation for the current crisis, brought forward after consultation, would provide a lifeline for some of the world’s poorest countries and prevent so-called ‘vulture funds’ profiteering from the economic distress caused by the pandemic,” Dodds said.

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

Continue Reading

Source Article

Continue reading

‘It’s not the law of Amy’: SCOTUS nominee Barrett faces Dem skepticism on Day 2 of hearings

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett batted away Democrats’ skeptical questions Tuesday on abortion, health care and a possible disputed-election fight over transferring presidential power, insisting in a long and lively confirmation hearing she would bring no personal agenda to the court but decide cases “as they come.”

The 48-year-old appellate court judge declared her conservative views with often colloquial language, but refused many specifics. She declined to say whether she would recuse herself from any election-related cases involving President Donald Trump, who nominated her to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and is pressing to have her confirmed before the the Nov. 3 election.

“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world,” Barrett told the Senate Judiciary Committee during its second day of hearings.

“It’s not the law of Amy,” she said. “It’s the law of the American people.”

Barrett returned to a Capitol Hill mostly locked down with COVID-19 protocols, the mood quickly shifting to a more confrontational tone from opening day. She was grilled by Democrats strongly opposed to Trump’s nominee yet unable to stop her. Excited by the prospect of a judge aligned with the late Antonin Scalia, Trump’s Republican allies are rushing ahead to install a 6-3 conservative court majority for years to come.

The president seemed pleased with her performance. “I think Amy’s doing incredibly well,” he said at the White House departing for a campaign rally.

Trump has said he wants a justice seated for any disputes arising from his heated election with Democrat Joe Biden, but Barret testified she has not spoken to Trump or his team about election cases. Pressed by panel Democrats, she skipped past questions about ensuring the date of the election or preventing voter intimidation, both set in federal law, and the peaceful transfer of presidential power. She declined to commit to recusing herself from any post-election cases without first consulting the other justices.

“I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting that entire process,” she said.

A frustrated Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the panel, all but implored the nominee to be more specific about how she would handle landmark abortion cases, including Roe v. Wade and the follow-up Pennsylvania case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which confirmed it in large part.

“It’s distressing not to get a good answer,” Feinstein told the judge.

Barrett was unmoved. “I don’t have an agenda to try to overrule Casey,” she said. “I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.”

She later declined to characterize the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion as a “super-precedent” that must not be overturned.

Democrats had no such reticence.

Let’s not make any mistake about it,” said California Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic

Continue reading

Twitter to pay $100,000 for violating Washington campaign disclosure law

Twitter will pay $100,000 for failing to retain required records about political ads from Washington candidates that ran over a seven-year period before the social media platform banned all political advertising.

Twitter agreed to pay the fine, which is about half the amount the company received from Washington candidates’ political advertising from 2012 to 2019, to Washington’s Public Disclosure Transparency Account, Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced Tuesday. The fine comes after Ferguson announced his intention over the summer to sue the company over campaign finance violations

Under Washington’s campaign finance law, commercial advertisers must keep certain information, such as candidates’ names, the cost of the ad and who paid for it and on what date, and the name and address of the ad sponsor. According to the attorney general’s office, at least 38 Washington candidates and committees paid $194,550 for advertising on Twitter, and the company didn’t maintain the required information.

In an emailed statement, Twitter said the resolution is “reflective of our commitment to transparency and accountability. The company ended all political advertising on its platform in November 2019, which was a decision “in line with our belief that the reach of political speech should be earned and not bought.”

In the judgment, Twitter agreed to pay the fine but didn’t waive its ability to contend in the future that its exempt from public transparency laws.

The actions from the Attorney General’s office were prompted by research from Tallman Trask, a University of Washington law student and political activist who requested information from Twitter about a dozen local campaigns. After Twitter failed to provide the requested information, he filed a complaint to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission on Oct. 30, 2019 — the same day Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced the platform would stop political advertising.

Trask called the announcement great news for Washington voters.

“It’s particularly good news for fairness in election advertising in our state,” Trask said in an interview. “It’s a question of whether or not companies are following the laws that the people want in place, and that other companies have followed for decades. It’s more about ensuring fairness than ensuring fines.”

The judgment is part of a series of lawsuits filed by the Attorney General’s office against tech companies related to political advertising. Facebook and Google paid more than $450,000 to settle twin lawsuits in 2018, when Ferguson’s office asserted that the tech giants violated campaign transparency laws.

Facebook and Google announced after the 2018 settlement that each company would stop selling political ads, but continued to do so. Ferguson filed another lawsuit in April against Facebook, saying the company has “repeatedly and openly” violated state laws.

In contrast with Facebook,

Continue reading

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Investigation of Homology Medicines, Inc. (FIXX) on Behalf of Investors

BENSALEM, Pa.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Oct 13, 2020–

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces an investigation on behalf of Homology Medicines, Inc. (“Homology” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: FIXX ) investors concerning the Company’s possible violations of federal securities laws.

In June 2019, the Company launched a dose-escalation Phase 1/2 clinical trial for HMI-102, its lead product candidate for the treatment of phenylketonuria. Homology “reported encouraging safety and efficacy data from the dose-escalation portion of the trial” and claimed that the data showed HMI-102 “produced a sustained reduction in phenylalanine (Phe).”

Then, on July 21, 2020, Mariner Research published a report, alleging that the Company’s comments “conveniently ignor[ed] the implications to efficacy and the business.” Citing data from a mouse study, the Phase 1/2 trial, and a key patient’s Facebook posts, the report concluded that HMI-102 “therapy is showing zero efficacy even for a high dose patient,” signifying that “the HMI-102 program is dead in the water.” Moreover, citing internal emails and analyst reports, Mariner Research claimed Homology had selectively discussed the patient’s Facebook posts with sell side analysts covering Homology and major investors.

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $1.71 per share, or more than 10%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $14.77 per share on July 24, 2020, thereby injuring investors.

If you purchased Homology securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to [email protected], or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201013005999/en/

CONTACT: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith

Howard G. Smith, Esquire

215-638-4847

888-638-4847

[email protected]

www.howardsmithlaw.com

KEYWORD: PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA

INDUSTRY KEYWORD: LEGAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

SOURCE: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith

Copyright Business Wire 2020.

PUB: 10/13/2020 04:30 PM/DISC: 10/13/2020 04:31 PM

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201013005999/en

Source Article

Continue reading

Amy Coney Barrett dodges abortion, healthcare and election law questions

On the second day of hearings before the Senate judiciary committee, Democrats pressed supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on healthcare, election law and abortion rights – and met with little success.



a person standing in front of a counter: Photograph: Demetrius Freeman/EPA


© Provided by The Guardian
Photograph: Demetrius Freeman/EPA

Related: ‘Slayer Pete’: Buttigieg emerges as Biden’s unlikely Fox News fighter

Donald Trump’s third nominee for the highest court dodged questions on how she might rule on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA); if she would recuse herself from any lawsuit about the presidential election; and whether she would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v Wade, which made abortion legal.



a man standing in front of a counter: Supreme court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies during the Senate judiciary committee hearing on Tuesday.


© Photograph: Demetrius Freeman/EPA
Supreme court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies during the Senate judiciary committee hearing on Tuesday.

Barrett argued that she was not a pundit, citing remarks by Justice Elena Kagan and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in saying that outside of reviewing a specific case, it was not her place to offer a position.

“No hints, no previews, no forecasts,” Barrett quoted Ginsburg as saying, after the California senator Dianne Feinstein questioned her about how she might rule in any case challenging the legality of abortion.

Barrett is a devout Catholic whose previous statements and affiliations have been closely examined by Democrats and the media. Trump has said overturning Roe v Wade would be “possible” with Barrett on the court.

At another point in Tuesday’s hearing, Barrett cited Kagan in saying she would not give “a thumbs up or thumbs down” on any hypothetical ruling.

Most of the questioning from Democrats centered on the ACA, known popularly as Obamacare, and how a ruling by the high court overturning the law would take away healthcare from millions of Americans. A hearing is due a week after election day. Democrats see protecting the ACA as a productive electoral tactic, having focused on it in the 2018 midterms, when they took back the House.

Barrett said she was not hostile to the ACA, or indeed abortion or gay rights, another area worrying progressives as the court seems set to tilt to a 6-3 conservative majority. Barrett said she was simply focused on upholding the law.

“I am not hostile to the ACA,” Barrett said. “I apply the law, I follow the law. You make the policy.”

Video: Barrett refuses to address whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned, despite prodding from Sen. Feinstein (CNBC)

Barrett refuses to address whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned, despite prodding from Sen. Feinstein

UP NEXT

UP NEXT

Asked about gay rights, Barrett said: “I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.”

Her choice of words conspicuously suggested that to her, sexuality is a choice. Amid scrutiny of Barrett’s past, meanwhile, it has been reported that she was a trustee at a school whose handbook included stated opposition to same-sex marriage

Republican senators also questioned Barrett on healthcare, the Iowa senator Chuck Grassley asking if she had been asked during the nomination process if

Continue reading

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Announces Investigation of Loop Industries, Inc. (LOOP) on Behalf of Investors

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces an investigation of Loop Industries, Inc. (“Loop” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: LOOP) on behalf of investors concerning the Company’s possible violations of federal securities laws.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate.

On October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging, among other things, that “[a] former Loop employee told us that Loop’s scientists, under pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to lie about the results of the company’s process internally. We have obtained internal documents and photographs to support their claims.” The report also stated that “Loop’s previous claims of breaking PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100% were ‘technically and industrially impossible,’” according to a former employee. Moreover, the report alleged that “Executives from a division of key partner Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a ‘global alliance agreement’ with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on ‘indefinite’ hold and that Loop ‘underestimated’ both costs and complexities of its process.”

On this news, Loop’s stock price fell as much as 33% during intraday trading on October 13, 2020.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.

If you purchased Loop securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to [email protected], or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201013006085/en/

Contacts

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
[email protected]
www.frankcruzlaw.com

Source Article

Continue reading

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Announces Investigation of Homology Medicines, Inc. (FIXX) on Behalf of Investors

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces an investigation of Homology Medicines, Inc. (“Homology” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: FIXX) on behalf of investors concerning the Company’s possible violations of federal securities laws.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate.

In June 2019, the Company launched a dose-escalation Phase 1/2 clinical trial for HMI-102, its lead product candidate for the treatment of phenylketonuria. Homology “reported encouraging safety and efficacy data from the dose-escalation portion of the trial” and claimed that the data showed HMI-102 “produced a sustained reduction in phenylalanine (Phe).”

Then, on July 21, 2020, Mariner Research published a report, alleging that the Company’s comments “conveniently ignor[ed] the implications to efficacy and the business.” Citing data from a mouse study, the Phase 1/2 trial, and a key patient’s Facebook posts, the report concluded that HMI-102 “therapy is showing zero efficacy even for a high dose patient,” signifying that “the HMI-102 program is dead in the water.” Moreover, citing internal emails and analyst reports, Mariner Research claimed Homology had selectively discussed the patient’s Facebook posts with sell side analysts covering Homology and major investors.

On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $1.71 per share, or more than 10%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $14.77 per share on July 24, 2020, thereby injuring investors.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.

If you purchased Homology securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to [email protected], or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201013006049/en/

Contacts

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
[email protected]
www.frankcruzlaw.com

Source Article

Continue reading

U.K. Plans New Law to Undo Foreign Deals on Security Grounds

(Bloomberg) — Boris Johnson’s government is drawing up plans for a radical new law that would give ministers power to unravel foreign investments in U.K. companies — potentially casting major doubt on deals that have already been concluded — to stop hostile states gaining control over key assets.



a close up of a light pole: Pedestrians walk as the Tower Bridge stands beyond in London.


© Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg
Pedestrians walk as the Tower Bridge stands beyond in London.

The National Security and Investment Bill is in the final stages of drafting and could be published later this month, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive.

It aims to cover deals in sectors such as defense and critical infrastructure, and will make provisions to protect sensitive intellectual property.

Among the most potentially controversial parts of the draft law is a proposal to allow the government to intervene retrospectively in circumstances where national security is an issue. That would mean allowing government officials to look back at past takeovers and mergers where concerns have been raised.

While the draft legislation as it stands does not explicitly target any particular country, it comes against a backdrop of heightened political concerns in the U.K. over China’s involvement in critically important infrastructure programs.

Members of Parliament in Johnson’s ruling Conservative Party pressed him to ban Huawei Technologies Co. from the U.K.’s next-generation wireless networks, reversing an earlier decision to allow the company a role.

China Concerns

Longstanding concerns have also been raised over China’s involvement in Britain’s nuclear power program. In 2016, then Prime Minister Theresa May paused the Hinkley Point C nuclear project, which is backed by Chinese investment, before eventually allowing it to proceed.

“The bill will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows and remains a priority for the government’s agenda,” a spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said.

The draft law is likely to be presented to Parliament later this month, the people said, though the timetable could slip. The bill is a blueprint to allow Johnson’s government to strengthen its powers of scrutiny and to intervene in takeovers and mergers to protect national security.

Outlining its proposals last December, the government said its aim was to safeguard key assets while providing a transparent system for business.

Unusual Step

At the time, the government said its plan would include powers to mitigate the risks to national security by “adding conditions to a transaction or blocking the transaction as a last resort.” A regime of sanctions for companies that fail to comply with the new regime was also proposed.

But introducing a law that could apply retroactively would be highly unusual in the U.K. and risks undermining investor confidence at a time when the government wants to boost trade and attract foreign partners after Brexit.

The proposed law is close to being finalized, but some parts are still subject to internal debate, the people said.

Under the plans, the bill would include certain elements that are retroactive, enabling ministers to look back

Continue reading