Argentina has attempted another lawful move in its endeavors to abstain from paying off US mutual funds that have obtained its obligation and which are declining to tune in a rebuilding. Argentina has tried a new legal move in its efforts to avoid paying off US hedge funds that have acquired its debt and which are refusing to take part in a restructuring.

President Cristina Fernandez revealed residential enactment the previous evening that would swap its current bonds, which secured by US law, for new notes legislated by Argentine law.

“In the event that bondholders choose in individual or aggregate structure to request a change of the enactment and locale of their bonds… the economy service is approved to execute a swap for new open bonds under neighborhood enactment,” Fernandez said.

She said: “This is an alternative bondholders have. It’s not a commitment on the grounds that we can’t force commitments on them as per our agreement. Our contractual commitment is to dependably ensure that they can gather [interest].”

Argentina defaulted on its obligation a month ago after a New York court kept the nation from paying enthusiasm to bondholders unless it initially remunerated the fence investments holdouts that are requesting reimbursement in full.

A few examiners cautioned regardless of the fact that bondholders acknowledged the swap offer the move could convey legitimate dangers.

“Argentina could wind up in disdain,” said Alejo Costa, methodology boss at the Buenos Aires venture bank Puente, alluding to the first US court request precluding premium installment.

Argentina is looking to avoid a US court decision keeping it from paying back a few banks. New enactment predicts repatriating extraordinary obligation and proposing a bond swap at a national trustee bank.

In a broadcast discourse, de Kirchner said the move was proposed to ensure installments to bondholders who participated in obligation swaps in 2005 and 2010.

De Kirchner’s arrangement anticipates the state-run Banco Nación Trust supplanting the Bank of New York Mellon, bringing remarkable obligation under national locale and empowering Buenos Aires to pay its lenders locally.

In July, a US area court judge, Thomas Griesa, requested a coupon installment to trade bondholders be solidified at the Bank of New York Mellon.

That deciding stipulated that premium installments to holders of rebuilt obligation could just be paid out if a gathering of US-based multifaceted investments likewise got the cash they were owed in full.

The president additionally welcomed holdout speculators to take part in an alternate arranged bond swap.

More than 90 percent of Argentina’s lenders officially acknowledged extensive write-downs in the wake of a national default in 2001. A few flexible investments, including NML Capital and Aurelius, on the other hand, are looking to be forked over the required funds for securities they purchased.

“In the event that bondholders choose – in individual or aggregate structure – to request a change of the enactment and ward of their bonds … the economy service is approved to actualize a swap for new open bonds under neighborhood enactment,” de Kirchner said.

Experts caution another bond swap could represent a lawful hazard as Argentina is as of now in “specialized default,” tailing its disappointment to pay $539 million (405 million euros) in enthusiasm to trade bondholders in June.

De Kirchner, who has over and over depicted the holdout banks as “vultures,” said she was dead set to push the bill through parliament in a vote planned for Thursday.

National and international laws are constantly being broken at some part of the earth or other. Recent cases of killing and catastrophe have stunned the most powerful countries even. The envoy of the Palestine Authorities have recently vented out to the United Nations Human Rights Council that the PA cannot hope to press charges against Israel in the international courts, because terrorists belonging to Palestine are in fact the worse violators of international law themselves. The recent mass killing in Palestine, presents a clear picture of the level of inhumanity that stem from conflicts between nations. As the PA applied for membership in the international agencies, all types of peace talks between the Palestinian and Israel authorities have fell apart.

No peace talks

All signs of peace talks between Palestine and Israel have fallen apart and many advocates and Palestinian factions have pushed the PA, so that he can sign the Roman statute. This will help him to press all kinds of necessary charges against Israel in the ICC at Hague. But, according to Ibrahim Khreisheh, any such moves is sure to backfire as Israel’s conduct during Operation Protective Edge to stop rocket fire from rocket fire where their forces have always warned civilians before launching any kind of airstrikes, compared to the action of Hamas and some other armed groups. According to Khreisheh, every missile fired by Israel show their lack of humanity, irrespective of whether they hit or missed their target.

Removing Israeli civilians from target

While launching an appeal to the ICC, Khreisheh states that Palestinian factions will have to commit this in writing that they will surely refrain from targeting any civilians of Israel. This is something that none of them are willing or likely to do. In sharp contrast, he pointed out that Israeli army warned people and asked them to evacuate their homes, in order to avoid hurting or killing them in any way. Thus, in such a case, if someone has been killed then the cause isn’t intentional and the international law would rather consider it a mistake. The Israelis have followed legal procedures before the bombardment. But, Khreisheh did not bring into his declaration about the numerous human rights that have been violated. One such human rights violation was the use of human shield. The world is waiting to see what the international law is going to decide on the behalf of the two countries.

One of the most prominent debates and discussions going on in the legal world currently is the shooting down of the MH17. The governments of countries as well as the UN are entering into constant discussions in order to bring the perpetrators in public eye and do them justice. The most likely scenario and argument that is being brought forth is that the unfortunate event was the consequence of a mistake made by the pro-Russian Ukrainian rebels who shot down the aircraft. But, there is still lack of clarity and this is mainly due to lack of proper evidence. More evidences about responsibility have to be gathered; and currently pending investigation is leading to difficulty in accountability of international law.

A crime under the law

Law protectors and enforcers are of the view that the entire incident represents a crime that has taken under the international law. According to the international law, a conflict between the rebel forces of Ukraine as well as those of the state can lead to an armed conflict of a bigger nature. This will lead to the application of international laws of war which are generally declared in case of internal conflicts. One of the main tenets of the international humanitarian law is the distinction between combatants and civilians. It is completely prohibited to target civilians as an object of attack in conflict and this tenet is found under treaty law. The International Committee of Red Cross, prohibits targeting innocent civilians and considers it an international legal norm, to be followed by all countries.

Steps taken by the ICRC

According to international jurisprudence and state practice, the ICRC has confirmed that there exists a customary international norm, where it has been notified to take precautions in order to protect civilians an also damage to property, in such turbulent times. Parties, who are in a conflict, must do everything feasible to very that the targets and the damages made are actually military objectives. Thus, it becomes clear that the perpetrators of the MH17 attack, have violated the customary international law as well as the treaty law. They have also not taken any precautions to make the mission purely military in nature. Though, a lot of evidences need to be gathered before holding them completely accountable for all these actions. A number of actions for legal recourse have been raised in open public platform discussions held lately.

Marijuana becoming legalized in some states has opened the doors to many new issues. Now Home Owner Associations have to come up with rules for the use of marijuana in their neighborhoods. Homeowners’ associations don’t have the power to ban anyone in their communities from using the drug in the comfort of their own homes, especially since it’s legal. But if the neighbors can see or smell weed anywhere near their homes, then the law is completely clear.

Homeowner associations do have the power to regulate the drug as a nuisance or a threat to all of the children who may also be able to smell the drug. Just because the drug has become legal does not mean that they can smoke whenever they want no if’s or but’s. The fact in the matter remains that smoking doesn’t just affect the person but everyone who surrounds themselves with him. You wouldn’t light up a cigarette in a restaurant, so you most certainly can’t light up a joint around someone else’s property. Many people in Colorado have claimed that as soon as spring and summer times come around, they are forced to file complaints because people are out in their patios with the windows down. There have been constant disputes between neighbors on a daily basis.

There are many people, who want to smoke pot, and there is nothing wrong about that, but there are also many people who don’t want to see it or smell it. There have been mixed feelings about the issue, and there is a 50% chance that your neighbor might disagree with you on the issue. This has become a serious cause for concern, because many people have been fighting about the issue, and it’s only getting worse. If the decision to legalize marijuana is present, then there also have to be rules and laws to go alongside of it. Laws need to be there that will help both parties, and stop the dispute between neighbors.

Since the creation of the online marketplace more than twenty years ago, brick-and-mortar stores have experienced a steady drop in revenue thanks impart to ‘unfair’ tax laws. A Senate bill that looks to gain traction on Capitol Hill targets such ‘unfair’ practices by ‘leveling the playing field’ between online E-tailers and brick-and-mortar retailers.

Under the 1992 United States Supreme Court’s decision in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, an online E-tailer is not obligated to collect sales tax for transactions conducted over the Internet unless the company has a “physical presence” in its customer’s state. This ruling created a huge burden for brick-and-mortar retailers because it became increasingly more difficult to compete in the marketplace since the online retailers can undercut brick-and-mortar stores by 5 to 10 percent because they are required by law to charge consumers sales tax.

The Marketplace and Internet Tax Fairness Act (MITFA), championed by senators Dick Durbin (D., Illinois) and Mike Enzi (R., Wyoming) will allow states to collect sales tax from E-tailers with annual sales exceeding $1 million. The MITFA, which is highly touted by the brick-and-mortar retail community would create fair competition in today’s marketplace and give brick-and-mortar retailers a flailing chance at increasing sales to respectable numbers.

The bad news for brick-and-mortar shops is that this is second go-around for MITFA. The first failed attempt did pass the Senate but was rejected by the House. This second attempt includes a new stipulation that the original did not – annual sales must exceed $1 million.

Congress is set to take a month-long recess in August, so for now MITFA has been placed on the back burner. As for brick-and-mortar retailers, their uphill battle against online E-tailers continues. And judging by the House’s prior decision, their fate resembles that of Sisyphus from Greek Mythology where he was condemned to ceaselessly push a boulder up a hill just to have it roll back down on him.

On July 25^th top Palestinian officials filed a complaint before the International Criminal Court, the complaint accused Israel of war crimes committed against Gaza. There have been several legal proceedings over the 18 days of fighting between Hamas and Israel, a regional war that has killed over 800 people.

Said complaint accuses Israel of severe crimes such as: attacks against civilians, excessive loss of human life, and apartheid amongst many others.

The next step this complaint will follow is to see whether the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction in the Palestinian Authority. The main concern for this is that this territory is not a member of the United Nations, although the territory became an observer a couple of years ago.

Earlier in the week, the United Nations Human Rights Council announced its intention to create an international commission of inquiry whose main focus would be to investigate all alleged violations of international humanitarian law as well as international human rights law in the aforementioned territory, specifically during Israel’s latest offensive military strike in Gaza.

It should be noted that last month, United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, urged Israel to release any and all Palestinian administrative detainees over fears of failing health in a hunger strike. Also since April another undisclosed United Nations human rights expert asked Israel to prevent settlers from taking over a building in the West Bank city of Hebron. This building was strategically located between the Israeli Settlement of Kiryat Arba and the Ibrahami Mosque, any settlement of such kind has the potential to increase violence and harassment against not only Palestinians but agains a whole religion as well.

Let us hope that the situation happening in this conflict region comes to swift, decisive and lasting peace. For the best of everyone.

Lawyers are free to mine the social-media accounts of jurors, but they may not request access to an account that’s hidden behind a privacy wall, according to an ethics opinion issued Thursday by the American Bar Association.

In sum, the rules give lawyers a green light to scour a juror’s Twitter feed, Facebook account or any other site where they posted comments, photos or videos about themselves for anyone to see. Everything that’s public online is fair game. And the same goes for potential jurors during jury selection.

But lawyers are advised against Facebook ‘friending” a juror, sending a Twitter follower or LinkedIn request to a juror who restricts access to their accounts. That’s considered communication under ABA rules restricting contact between lawyers and jurors not authorized by the court.

“This would be akin to driving down the juror’s street, stopping the car, getting out, and asking the juror for permission to look inside the juror’s house because the lawyer cannot see enough when just driving past,” stated the opinion, which was handed down by the ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility.

The opinion also advises lawyers what to do if they stumble across content about a juror that they suspect may be evidence of improper behavior.

They’re only obligated to report it to the court if the juror or a potential one appears to be up to something that looks “criminal or fraudulent, including conduct that is criminally contemptuous of court instructions.”

But if lawyers encounter something more innocuous, like a juror tweeting about a rotten meal she had at the court cafeteria, they don’t have to tell anyone, even if the juror appears to be disobeying instructions about what she can say outside the courtroom.

Criminal Defense, the California Killings and Implications within Criminal Defense

Suddenly a gun holder opens fire on a crowd instantly killing some and fatally wounding quite a number. How, as a criminal defense attorney would you defend such successfully? You must create adequate doubt on all accusations by the prosecution.

The following are some of the common defenses:

• Prove that They have the wrong man

 The defendant claims that he is the wrong person. In the two cases of Elliot Roger at Santa Barbara and Joseph Ferguson at Sacramento the criminal defense attorney, in absence of any video evidence, may put forth a case for “the wrong man”. The crime of murder took place but not by this defendant. In this scenario you can create an alibi.

• Create Doubt

 As defense poke holes in the prosecution witness so as to create doubt in the entire case. For instance you can allude that the suspect was gunned down by police to cover up a sinister motive. The police could have immobilized the suspect, you may argue. In absence of video evidence to the contrary, this line of defense may prove successful.

• Demonstrate that It was done in Self-Defense

 The defense admits to the crime and the criminal defense attorney claims that it was justified in the circumstances. In case of mass murder, as the case of Elliot Roger and Joseph Ferguson, one can claim that the crowd was after severely injuring or even killing the suspect so he had no choice but to open fire. The defendant can claim that he was not the aggressor and that death to him was eminent.

• Prove Insanity of Defendant or Undue Influence

 As attorney, establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant was not in control of themselves at the time of committing the murder. Demonstrate that they were not mentally and psychologically aware of what they were doing at the time. The defense may put forth a case that the defendant was legally insane. Demonstrate that they committed a crime under the influence of drugs and chemicals that would affect their mental functioning and that they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Final Thoughts

 There are quite many lines of arguments as to why a criminal defense attorney would want their client acquitted. Importantly is how convincing you are to the judge and jury not the bare facts. The cases of mass murder plus suicide as in California recently, can best be argued of as cases of insanity of the defendant.