All posts by admin

What makes the USA think they have a right to violate International Law and put boots on the ground in Syria?

International Law

International Law

Residents and local administration officials in the northern Syrian town of Al-Hasakah rallied on Wednesday to protest against the illegal presence of 150 US troops in the Kurdish-controlled town of Rumeilan, Syrian SANA news agency reported.

“We are categorically against the impermissible and flagrant violation of our country’s sovereignty. We will not allow American boots on our soil. We are also against any plans for a division or federalization of Syria,” Al-Hasakah Governor Mohammad Zaal said during the meeting.

A similar rally had earlier been held in the neighboring town of Al-Qamishli.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry called the reported deployment of 150 US troops to Rumeilan airport in the northeast of the country “an unacceptable and illegal intervention” which came without authorization from the Syrian government.

On April 28, US President Barack Obama announced that Washington would “deploy up to 250 additional US personnel in Syria including Special Forces.” They are reportedly expected to train the Syrian Democratic Forces.

The White House asserts that the deployment of the Special Forces is intended to repel Daesh terrorists.

On Wednesday, about 150 US soldiers arrived in the Kurdish-controlled town of Rumeilan in northeastern Syria, according to a Kurdish security source. According to the source, part of the contingent immediately headed to the north of Raqqa province.

Meanwhile, a 28-year-old US Army officer has sued President Barack Obama over the legality of the war against the Islamic State (Daesh), questioning Mr. Obama’s disputed claim that he needs no new legal authority from Congress to order the military to wage the ever deepening mission, The New York Times wrote on Wednesday.

Captain Nathan Michael Smith, an intelligence officer stationed in Kuwait, voiced strong support for fighting Daesh but, citing his “conscience” and his vow to uphold the Constitution, he said he believed that the mission lacked proper authorization from Congress.

The legal challenge comes after the death of the third American serviceman in the fight against Daesh and as President Obama has decided to significantly expand the number of Special Forces members.

President Obama has argued that he already has the authority he needs to wage a conflict against the Islamic State under the authorization to fight the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, enacted by Congress shortly after the attacks.

Source/Credit : http://bit.ly/1TNbCBF

All Your Questions About Bank Secrecy Law, Answered

Bank Secrecy Law

Bank Secrecy Law

What is it? What awaits violators of the law? What types of accounts are covered? Is yours safe?

Former US Ambassador to the Philippines Francis Ricciardone noted in his January 2005 cable that the bank secrecy laws of the Philippines are “among the strictest in the world.” This means that bank accounts in the country can only be opened in cases of violation of the Anti Money-Laundering Act.

Prior to this, there had already been a movement toward a more transparent bank law, especially for individuals working in the public sector. This is because investigations involving accused corrupt public officials through lifestyle check and their Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) would be so much easier if we had a fair Bank Secrecy Law.

Here are some of the things you need to know about it:

1. What is the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits?

According to Republic Act (RA) No. 1405 Section 2, “All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions, and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office.”

Exceptions include “written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.”

Deposits may only be disclosed if a bank account is being investigated in court. This is also extended in the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines, or FCDA, also known as Republic Act No. 6426. Foreign currency accounts may not be disclosed, except upon a written permission of the depositor.

Section 3 also states that “It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits.”

2. What will happen to any violation of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits?

Section 5 of the RA states that violators will be subject to “conviction, to an imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than P20,000, or both, at the discretion of the court.”

3. What accounts are covered in the secrecy law?

Savings account, checking account, and other types of bank deposits are included in the secrecy law. Money markets, trust funds, mutual funds, and the like are not covered.

4. If someone purportedly gained access to an individual’s bank account, does that mean the bank involved isn’t safe? Should I withdraw all my money from the said account and move it to another bank?

Bank employees can see some bank accounts in the system. What’s important is that they don’t disclose the information they see to anyone.

In the event of data breach, it is best to move your deposits to a bank with stronger data protection in place.

5. What happens when the depositor dies and the spouse or dependent requests to withdraw the funds?

Upon knowing of the depositor’s death, Section 97 of the Tax Code allows banks to freeze the deceased depositor’s account until the Estate Tax Clearance from the BIR is submitted. This applies to both individual or joint accounts. The withdrawal will only be granted if the Estate Tax has been paid.

The deposit is considered tax-exempt if it’s P200,000 or below, and the spouse or dependent only needs to submit documents such as marriage certificate, birth certificate, and certificate of deposit (e.g. a passbook) to withdraw the account. However, if the amount deposited is more than P200,000, it is subject to Estate Tax, and the spouse or dependent is mandated by law to pay a certain percentage of the amount deposited. When it’s paid, a Certificate of Tax Clearance will be provided to the spouse or dependent. It should be submitted along with the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate, and other document requirements stipulated by the bank.

6. What has been done toward a more transparent investigation for public officials’ bank deposits?

At the height of the Bangladesh stolen government funds worth some $81 million, vice presidential candidate Senator Francis Escudero urged fellow public officials to sign a waiver or written permission to the Office of the Ombudsman to grant permission into all bank deposits and other investments, within and outside the country.

This is in support of Senate Bill No. 16 he filed in 2016, which makes lifestyle checks mandatory for public officials and employees. They will be required to sign a waiver for the transparency of their bank accounts.

Source/Credit: http://bit.ly/1rxFzg3

Germany to Make Medicinal Cannabis Legal in 2017

Germany to Make Medicinal Cannabis Legal in 2017

Germany to Make Medicinal Cannabis Legal in 2017

In “hey, forget about all that other stuff – we’re cool now!” news, this week Germany’s health minister announced that medicinal cannabis will be made legal early in 2017. Herman Gröhe drafted legislation to be put to the German cabinet and is confident it will be passed.

This isn’t tantamount to full-on recreational legalisation, of course, with Gröhe making it clear that the drug will only be available in pharmacies with a prescription, as it is “not an inoffensive substance”. In lieu of federal grow houses the medicinal weed will be imported from elsewhere. Three guesses where.

The steam train that is the liberation of medical cannabis rolls on worldwide after America took the lead in the 1990s, before a few South American nations followed. Cannabis is used to treat a variety of illnesses, including glaucoma and cancer, where the drug helps with the sickness associated with chemotherapy.

While the rest of the world moves forward, the UK trundles on and refuses to even properly discuss the matter in Parliament.

Source/Credit : http://bit.ly/1ZlcTBx

Obama administration sends legal threat to North Carolina Governor over anti-LGBT law

Obama administration sends legal threat to North Carolina Governor over anti-LGBT law

anti-LGBT law

President Obama’s Justice Department has warned North Carolina that its anti-LGBT laws directly contravene civil rights protections.

The state has lost a string of big investment ventures over Governor McCrory’s decision to sign HB2 – which voided all local ordinances protecting LGBT rights, bans transgender people from using their preferred bathroom, and permits businesses to discriminate against LGBT people on the grounds of religious belief.

President Obama Speaks On Automotive And Manufacturing Industry At Ford Michigan Assembly Plant

McCrory continues to insist the changes are “common sense”, despite legal action threatening to cost the state millions, combined with thousands of job losses.

But the federal government filed a warning shot today, finding that the law is in violation of civil rights protections.

A letter from the Justice Department to NC Governor Pat McCrory warned him that he is personally in violation of rights protections, as is the State.

It reads: “This letter is to inform you that the Department of Justice has determined that, as a result of compliance with and implementation of North Carolina House Bill 2 both you and the State of North Carolina are in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Specifically, the State is engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against transgender state employees and both you, in your official capacity, and the State are engaging in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of Title VII rights by transgender employees of public agencies.

“Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual on the basis of sex and from otherwise resisting the full enjoyment of Title VII rights.

“The Supreme Court made clear in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that discrimination on the basis of sex includes differential treatment based on any ‘sex-based consideration’.

“Federal courts and administrative agencies have applied Title VII to discrimination against transgender individuals based on sex, including gender identity.

“Access to sex-segregated restrooms and other workplace facilities consistent with gender identity is a term, condition, or privilege of employment.

“Denying such access to transgender individuals, whose gender identity is different from their gender assigned at birth, while affording it to similarly situated non-transgender employees, violates Title VII.

“HB2, which took effect on March 23, 2016, is faciaily discriminatory against transgender employees on the basis of sex because it treats transgender employees, whose gender identity does net match their ‘biological sex’, as defined by HB2, differently from similarly situated non-transgender employees.

“Under HB2, non-transgender state employees may access restrooms and changing facilities that are consistent with their gender identity in public buildings, while transgender state employees may not.

“HB2 places similar restrictions on access to restrooms and changing facilities for all public agencies in North Carolina, including, for example, all political subdivisions of the State.

“By requiring compliance with HB2, you and the State are therefore resisting the full enjoyment of Title VII rights and discriminating against transgender employees of public agencies by requiring those public agencies to comply with HB2.

“We have concluded that the State is engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against its employees and both you and the State are engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of Title VII rights by employees of public agencies.

“When the Attorney General of the United States has a reasonable basis to believe that a state or person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title VII, she may apply to the appropriate court for an order that will ensure compliance with Title VII.

“Please advise the Department no later than close of business on May 9, 2016 whether you will remedy these violations of Title VII, including by confirming that the State will not comply with or implement HB2, and that it has notified employees of the State and public agencies that, consistent with federal law, they are permitted to access bathrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identity.”

McCrory

McCrory has dismissed the threat, saying: “This is no longer just a North Carolina issue, because this conclusion by the Department of Justice impacts every state

He claimed it is “something we’ve never seen regarding Washington overreach in my lifetime.”

Source/Credit : http://bit.ly/1XbJHOI

Low-Cost Highs: Price of Legal Marijuana Plunges in Washington State

Price of Legal Marijuana Plunges in Washington State

Price of Legal Marijuana Plunges in Washington State

Recreational marijuana use has been legal in Washington State for two years, and while sales of the drug have been filling public coffers with tax revenues, the prices for pot have also been shrinking considerably.

As of March 2016, the price of legal marijuana in Washington was $9.32 per gram, the Washington Post reported, citing data from the state’s Liquor and Cannabis board. The wholesale price of the drug was $2.99 per gram.

Low cost

In September 2014, pot was selling for about $25 per gram, according to a report from KUOW News. By August 2015, marijuana prices had plunged more than 50 percent to $11 per gram.

Although prices initially went up after the drug was legalized, that surge was linked to increased demand and limited supply, according to Steve Davenport of the Pardee RAND Graduate School, who helps aggregate data from the Washington’s cannabis board. Since then, prices have been coming down at a rate of 2 percent per month, he told the Post, and they could potentially shrink 25 percent every year.

“It’s just a plant,” Professor Jonathan Caulkins, of Carnegie Mellon University, who works with Davenport, told the newspaper. He said the drug could become so inexpensive that certain types are essentially given away for free.

“There will always be the marijuana equivalent of organically grown specialty crops sold at premium prices to yuppies,” he said, “but at the same time, no-frills generic forms could become cheap enough to give away as a loss leader – the way bars give patrons beer nuts and hotels leave chocolates on your pillow.”

The news out of Washington State has also been echoed in Colorado, another state where marijuana has been legalized. In June 2015, an eighth of an ounce of cannabis (about 3.6 grams) cost between $30 and $45 – notably less than the $50-$70 it was going for the year prior.

As pot prices trend downward, there could be positive and negative consequences for states. Since pot is taxed by sale, falling prices mean each sale results in fewer dollars for the state government. However, cheap marijuana could end up pushing more people to abandon the black market and stick with purchasing legal pot. Fewer drugs being moved on the black market could also mean fewer costs for law enforcement.

Even with pot prices clearly dipping last year, though, new businesses continued to crop up, KUOW reported.

“The fact that prices are falling, and people are still entering the business – it’s confusing to me,” Tracey Seslen, an economics lecturer at the University of Washington’s Foster School of Business, told KUOW. “Standard theories of economics would only suggest entry into an industry when people see that it’s profitable.”

Perhaps one reason that people keep trying to enter the marijuana business is that, novelty aside, it’s simply becoming easier to do so. Over the last two years, the number of banks and credit unions willing to do business with pot shops has increased substantially – from 51 in March 2014 to more than 300 now.

Although federal law still prohibits banks from handling cash derived from the marijuana trade, the Treasury Department has stated it will not go after banks if they are certain that businesses are complying with state pot regulations.

Source/Credit : http://bit.ly/24zo39q

Breaking: Alabama City Council Rescinds Sweeping Anti-Trans Law After Legal Warnings

Alabama City Council Rescinds Sweeping Anti-Trans Law After Legal Warnings

Alabama City Council Rescinds Sweeping Anti-Trans Law After Legal Warnings

ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center Advised Oxford City Council Law Violates US Constitution

The City Council of Oxford, Alabama City Council rescinds sweeping Anti-Trans Law after Legal Warnings. The ordinance has been described as “the most far-reaching law of its type in the county.” The City Council Wednesday afternoon voted 3-2 to repeal the ordinance that made it illegal for transgender people to use restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. The law applied to not only government offices, but all public accommodations, including stores and restaurants, as Buzzfeed’s Dominic Holden reports.

“The Oxford City Council did the right thing by recalling its discriminatory ordinance,” Chinyere Ezie, a staff attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center says. “We are pleased the council members came to the conclusion that nobody should be criminalized simply for using the restroom.”

In a joint letter with the ACLU of Alabama, the SPLC explained to Oxford lawmakers that the ordinance exposes the city to “substantial legal liability as well as a loss of federal funding.”

“Also, the Ordinance harms already marginalized transgender individuals and leaves all residents of Oxford vulnerable to invasions of privacy, without conferring any meaningful protections.”

The SPLC advised Oxford the ordinance “violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by targeting transgender people for ‘different and unequal treatment.’ It also violated the due process clause.”

Source/Credit : http://bit.ly/1WaTk1p