Category Archives: Legal Issues

California Files New Lawsuit Against Trump Administration

California and the Trump administration are finding themselves at odds once again. The left leaning state wasted no time filing a lawsuit against the current President’s administration over a question that is set to appear on the 2020 United States census.


The United States issues a census every few years. A census gives a fairly accurate count of how many citizens are in the nation, where they live, and gives the government an idea of what needs to be done for each community. The 2020 census questions were recently released, one of which the state of California was quick to jump on, weather or not the person taking the census questions was a citizen of the United States. This question did once appear on the United States census, but was removed around 1950 and has not been back in place until this most recent census questionnaire was released.


California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, recently stated that she found the question to not just be alarming but an unconstitutional attempt to gain an accurate census count. The state listed in their lawsuit that they believe that this question will likely make people more wary and less likely to fill out the survey which will lead to undercounts. It is believed that in some areas where there are large undocumented immigrant populations, this could cause huge undercounts which provides very skewed data. Likewise, a serious undercount could even go so far as to cost the state seats in Congress, electoral college votes in presidential elections and federal funding, all of which are based off the population of the state.


California believes, weather citizen or undocumented immigrant, every person must be accurately counted to fulfill the actual Enumeration mandate in the United States Constitution, and their lawsuit states as much. Eric Holder, who previously served as a United States Attorney General, now heads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and stated that his group also plans to file a lawsuit against the Trump Administration. He also noted that he firmly believes that it is a direct attack on democracy. For more information on this topic, click here.

Ricardo Tosto, One of the most Prominent Lawyers in Brazil

Lawyers are considered to be the smartest people in the world. No wonder, they are some of the best paid professionals. Their work is responsible for just being served on so many people, and you cannot imagine what the world would be without these professionals and more information click here.

Just like any industry, for one to be successful in the legal niche, you have to have a good education followed with experience. As can be seen from the career life of Ricardo Tosto, it all pays off, if you put hard work and dedication to it.

Ricardo Tosto is one of the most prominent lawyers in Brazil. He is known for being an excellent strategist with a very high case win probability. For this reason, he has received numerous awards, and has managed to win over high end clients. His clientele includes politicians, companies and even international businessmen.

Tosto is a graduate of Armando Alvares Penteado Foundation (FAAP), where he studied Business Administration. For his law degree, he attended the Mackenzie Presbyterian University. His law degree saw him gain expansive knowledge of the legal industry and prepared him to be one of the best litigators there are in Brazil and learn more about Ricardo.

In the year 1996, he began working for Leite, Tosto and Barros Advogados Associados. Today, he has grown to be a managing partner of the firm. And, his Business Administration education plays a critical role in the governance of the firm and Ricardo’s lacrosse camp.

Leite, Tosto and Barros Advogados Associados offers a wide range of legal services. However, if you are looking for an experienced business litigation lawyer, Ricardo Tosto is the man to be asking for. He has helped so many people in the past and does not plan on stopping anytime soon.

His success is mainly due to great customer service. He strongly believes that every client deserves the maximum amount of attention, for their needs and cases to be heard and understood. From there, he has to formulate winning strategies to ensure that they always get the favor of the judge- that is Ricardo Tosto for you and

Cone Marshall Representatives Give Tips For Avoiding Changes To Wills

The Cone Marshall law firm, a highly reputable firm that is committed to the appropriate development and implementation of tax and trust funds, has recently held a discussion with the firm’s recent clients to discuss various ways that families can decrease the possibility that their wills will be challenged by family members in the event of the executor’s death. Representatives from the firm stated that executor’s can effectively eliminate the chance of a challenge to their wills by having themselves declared competent by mental health professionals during the development of the will, implementing a no-contest clause in the document, and ensuring that the will is executed by a reputable law firm.


Declaration of Executor’s Competence

Cone Marshall Representatives stated the most common reason given in New Zealand for the contesting of a last will and testament is the incompetence of the executor. The representatives stated that executors should have themselves declared legally sane and of sound mind by a legal professional during the development of the will in an effort to prevent relatives from making this argument in court. By having themselves declared legally sane, executors can eliminate this argument before any relative has the chance to use it against them.


Implementation of No-Contest Clause

Cone Marshall representatives also suggested the implementation of a no-contest clause in the last will and testament document. A no-contest clause generally states that any person who was named in the executor’s will and decides to contest the will gets nothing in the event that they lose the court case. By implementing this clause in the will, executors greatly diminish the possibility that a relative will challenge the decisions made on their behalf. Generally, relatives will not risk the amount that they have been guaranteed in the executor’s will to challenge a decision.


Execution of Will by Reputable Law Firm

Cone Marshall representatives stated that an executor’s final course of action to protect against challenges to a will is to ensure that the will is appropriately executed by a reputable law firm. Beneficiaries of the will can legally contest the decisions made by the executor if the will is not properly executed. For this reason, Cone Marshall representatives suggest that the executor hire a law firm that has developed an expertise in the area of estate planning to execute the last will and testament. By hiring a firm like Cone Marshall to execute the will, executors can rest assured that their final wishes are respected.




Seattle Passes New Worker’s Rights Law

The Seattle city council and mayor have once again passed worker’s rights laws designed to give hourly employees more dependability when it comes to their schedules. The council hopes this move will benefit those workers making them feel more empowered. You may remember that last year, Seattle became the second city in the United States to mandate a $15 an hour minimum wage.
Under the new law, according to the AP,workers who are employed by food industry and retail establishments that have 500 employees globally and to full-service restaurants with 500 employees and 40 establishments. Under the new law, employees would have to be given their schedules a minimum of 14 days in advance, be given more than 10 hours off between shifts and be paid extra if they come in at short notice. Additionally, companies cannot hire new employees until all their current employees have a full schedule. Additionally, employees who show up for work and are not needed or employees who are called and told not to come to work will have to be compensated. Employees would also receive an estimate of their total hours needed from their employer.
Starting in July, Walmart already had taken steps to allow employees more control over their schedules. These employees can enter a computer system and tell Walmart when they want to work and for how long.
A person has to wonder about this new law. Many franchisers are actually small businessmen who own very few establishments so this law would not apply to them. Additionally, it does not cover other industries that may require employees to work long hours such as those in health care. Many business owners say this new law will force them to leave Seattle. While one has to applaud the city council for trying to look out for employees, driving these employers out of Seattle does not seem like a good business principle. For the most part, these are jobs taken by the city’s youngest workers or its poorest so residents need to prepare for an impact in the social service sector as these people may no longer be able to find jobs.

Human Rights Fishermen Now Doing Well in San Francisco

According to an AP story, two fishermen who claim that they had been held against their will aboard Honolulu-based fishing vessels are now living in San Francisco using emergency visas designed for those who have been victims of human trafficking. The fishermen have also filed a lawsuit against their former employer saying that they were forced to work 20 hour shifts without the proper equipment, pee in buckets and sleep where bed bugs could cause running sores on their bodies. The two men say that they signed the contract in Honolulu believing that they would be well treated and be able to leave the boat whenever they chose. The two claim that they were held aboard the board against their will in a move that their lawyer compares to slavery.
Earlier this year, the AP investigated many such claims involving 140 boats where workers claim to make less than 70 cents an hour. As a reaction to the criticism, the Hawaii Longline Association has created a new contract. Owners wanting to sell their fish at seafood auctions beginning on October 1. By signing the contract, workers acknowledge that they understand that they will be living on boats for up to one year while their passports are held by the ship’s owners.
Currently, owners do not have to provide basic rights to their workers. Many human rights advocates are calling on Congress to rectify the situation so that these workers are treated like all workers in the United States.
Today, the two fishermen are doing well. They do, however, avoid Fisherman’s Wharf. Both men are employed by a liquor store. After completing their first job, one man goes on to drive a car for hire while the other man takes inventory at a large department store.
The men say that they like their new life. They admit to being scared of their previous boss saying that they want to avoid him. They say that the reason for their lawsuit is to bring people’s attention to this problem believing that most people are not even aware that the problem is going on today in America.

Judge Wants FBI to Respect Privacy

Unfortunately for the FBI, a federal judge has ruled that over 200 hours of conversations recorded in a bugged courthouse are a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since the Fourth Amendment bans unreasonable searches, the lawyers of several defendants in the recorded conversations argued that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy within the courthouse. As per the judge’s ruling, it would seem that the court was in agreement.

The case traces its origins back to 2009 and 2011, when the FBI bugged the San Mateo County Courthouse in Redwood City, California. They were attempting to gather evidence on people they suspected of rigging public auctions on foreclosed homes. While US District Judge Charles Breyer has agreed to suppress the evidence, no decision has been made yet to the rest of the prosecution’s case.

When the FBI first began building its case, they used an informant to gather information via a wire. Unfortunately, this wasn’t effective for very long, which led the FBI to look for alternative routes to the information they needed. In addition to violating the rights of the suspects, Judge Breyer also found that the FBI violated the rights of many people that spoke in the courthouse, unaware that they were also being listened in on.

Although this may be a step back for the FBI’s case, it certainly stands as a victory to anyone concerned with their privacy in a post-digital world. As Judge Breyer noted in his decision, privacy may eventually become a dated notion, but the Fourth Amendment still exists to protect it right now.

Woman Facing Eviction While Owning Apartment

An elderly woman is on the verge of being evicted from her apartment. This is a home that the 99-year-old woman owns with someone else. Iris Canada has plenty of supporters in her community as they recently held a vigil for her. She did win one court battle. It meant that she could live in the home. However, she still faces an eviction because of legal fees that are owed because of going to court. The other owner of the apartment has made comments about dropping the legal fees.

There are some people who believe the eviction is being staged. Peter Owens is the other person who owns the apartment with Iris. Other people who live in the apartment building want the woman to sign the paperwork to have the building turned into condos. Until she signs those papers, no one can buy or sell any of their units. Owens has been granted $164,000 in legal fees. He will waive those fees if Iris will sign the papers. She has requested to have more time so that she can look over the paperwork and make a reasonable decision. Owens is willing to giver her the time she needs to look over the documents. However, Iris’ family thinks that if she doesn’t sign the paperwork for her San Francisco apartment, she could be left with nothing but her belongings on the street.