Navigating Cross-Border Injuries: A Comprehensive Guide for Victims in the USA

In today's interconnected world, where borders blur and travel is commonplace, incidents such as accidents and injuries can occur across international lines. For individuals who find themselves involved in cross-border accidents or facing injuries while in the USA, understanding the legal landscape and avenues for recourse is paramount. This comprehensive guide aims to shed light on the complexities surrounding cross-border injuries and provide invaluable insights for those seeking justice and compensation.

Understanding Cross-Border Accidents and Injuries in the USA

Cross-border accidents in the USA refer to incidents involving individuals from different jurisdictions, often resulting in injuries or damages that transcend geographical boundaries. These accidents can occur in various scenarios, including road traffic accidents, slip and fall incidents, dog bites, and more. When such incidents happen, navigating the legal framework becomes challenging, especially for victims unfamiliar with the laws governing their situation.

Legal Considerations and Claims Process

Cross-border injury claims in the USA involve a multifaceted legal process, requiring expert guidance and representation. From initiating the claim to negotiating settlements or pursuing litigation, every step demands meticulous attention to detail. Victims must understand their rights, assess the extent of their injuries, gather relevant evidence, and engage legal professionals specializing in cross-border injury cases.

Role of Legal Experts: Cross-Border Injury Lawyers and Attorneys

Cross-border injury lawyers and attorneys play a pivotal role in advocating for victims' rights and ensuring they receive just compensation for their losses. These legal experts possess in-depth knowledge of international laws, jurisdictional issues, and intricacies specific to cross-border injury cases. By partnering with a reputable cross-border injury law firm in the USA, victims can navigate the complexities of their legal journey with confidence and peace of mind.

Types of Cross-Border Injury Claims

Cross-border injury claims encompass a wide range of incidents, each requiring a tailored approach to resolution. Whether it's pursuing compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, or other damages, experienced legal professionals adeptly handle various types of claims, including:

Motor vehicle accidents (cars, motorcycles, trucks)

Slip and fall accidents

Dog bite injuries

Other personal injury incidents

Challenges and Solutions

Cross-border injury cases pose unique challenges, such as jurisdictional issues, differences in legal systems, and complexities in determining liability. However, with strategic planning, diligent research, and effective legal representation, these challenges can be overcome. By leveraging the expertise of seasoned cross-border injury lawyers and attorneys, victims can navigate the intricacies of their case and pursue fair compensation for their losses.

Conclusion

In the face of cross-border accidents and injuries in the USA, victims need not navigate the legal maze alone. By seeking the guidance of experienced legal professionals specializing in cross-border injury cases, individuals can assert their rights, pursue justice, and embark on the path to recovery. Remember, when it comes to cross-border injuries, informed decisions and proactive legal representation are key to achieving a favorable outcome.

The best leading law firm in USA

In our day to day life we have faced many problems that are gonna be solved with the help of lawyers or a Law firm. A right lawyer can fight for you in the right place and can bring you justice. So today we are gonna talk about one the best leading law firms in the USA which is the CONRAD & SCHERER. They have a bunch of talented Attorneys, if any of the problems mentioned below will happen then you can surely contact them for justice.

Conrad & Scherer

Conrad & Scherer is a leading national law firm based in Florida, New York, and North Carolina, with an international office in Quito, Ecuador.

We represent clients in high-profile cases and provide legal representation in all areas, from commercial cases to employment law, government relations, and unfair death.

With almost half a century of history behind us, Conrad & Scherer remains committed to providing attention, personal service and offensive representation, both on and off the court.

Conrad & Scherer’s practice areas include:

Appellate Practice

Bank Fraud

Class Actions

Commercial Fraud

Commercial Litigation

Complex Business Litigation

Construction

Copyright & Trademark

Cross-Border Litigation

Employment

Government Relations & Public Policy

Insurance

International Family Law

International Mergers & Acquisitions

International Negotiations

International Real Estate

Land Use

Maritime

Personal Injury/Wrongful Death

Ponzi Schemes

Procurement & Government Contracts

Professional Negligence & Malpractice

Securities & Financial Regulatory

Trust & Probate

Commercial Litigation

Commercial litigation includes any type of litigation or business dispute between businesses, corporations and government agencies, and employees and employers. A wide variety of disputes can be categorized by this discipline, including contract breach, class action cases, business summons, public RICO claims, and participatory disputes.

Cases requiring commercial litigation can occur at both state and federal levels and may include private mediation and administrative hearings. It is common to prove business in business disputes, however, we also represent business owners in cases involving employees and government agencies.

We see an increase in different cases and different categories. As commercial cases become more complex and stakes increase, maintaining a strong legal team is more important than ever.

Proponents of the Conrad & Scherer case have provided general business representation and a particular focus on business fraud and complex business courts.

Bank Fraud Litigation

Bank fraud is a serious crime that has a profound effect on anyone who loses money or property as a result of fraudulent schemes used by fraudulent individuals to protect their customers' property.

Both individuals and organizations can be victims of bank fraud. Victims of bank fraud should reach out to a lawyer in a factory with a successful record. At Conrad & Scherer, our dedicated team against bank fraud scandals has years of experience combined in bank fraud scandals, giving us unparalleled insight and expertise in the world of financial fraud cases. Our team has successfully identified the victims of bank robberies and other white-collar crimes in South Florida for more than 45 years.

Ponzi Scheme Litigation

Ponzi schemes were already in vogue in the 1990s and early 2000s, and now these types of scams are becoming more and more popular in the new years of "digital entrepreneurs" claiming their success in social media and attracting potential investors in the face of potential financial crisis. Victims of Ponzi's programs are likely to lose a lot. It can be hard to see that you are an unwilling participant of the Ponzi scheme until it is too late. With the help of a fraudulent investment lawyer, you can fight Ponzi schemes that can recoup losses.

Our team understands how frustrating it can be to fall under the Ponzi scheme and we will work hard to recoup your financial losses. Contact our Ponzi scheme opponents team today, and we will fight for you!

Construction Litigation

Because there are so many moving parts, fixed deadlines, and tight budgets involved in a construction project, it is all too easy with negligence or inconsistency to make things slow. Construction law revolves around disputes between stakeholders involved in construction projects at the state, commercial, or housing level. Stakeholders usually include individuals and organizations such as project owners, contractors, material suppliers, investors and insurance companies.

Through our construction case services, Conrad & Scherer can assist you with a variety of applications including contract negotiations, bonds, guarantees and securities, debts and security interests, tenders, building claims, contractors, negligence, and more.

Getting help with your construction case case is the best way to keep a construction project on time and on budget. Our talented trial lawyers can help you overcome obstacles, such as breach of contract and technical negligence, to get your project back on track.

Land Use Litigation

Land use laws govern the use and development of public and private spaces. Local governments use land redistribution laws to manage construction development and also create codes to guide other land use issues.

Municipal and state zoning regulations are not always in line with organizational plans, and many architects rely on land use and landowners to represent their distinct interests while undertaking construction projects.

Our land use prosecutors are ready to assist project planners with strategic advice. Our land use attorneys work for a variety of clients including property developers, real estate agents, homeowners, architects, and more. Conrad & Scherer's land use advocates advise clients on a variety of land uses and land use issues to assist them during the complex approval process.

See High-Impact Results with Conrad & Scherer

Conrad & Scherer opened its doors as a local law firm in 1974. Since then, we have made a name for ourselves in Florida and have continued to open other offices in New York and North Carolina. We pride ourselves on serving overseas clients at our office in Quito, Ecuador. Our legal services extend to international legal expertise, including International Family Law, International Merger & Acquisitions, International Negotiations and International Real Estate.

Contact us today, and learn why Conrad & Scherer has such a bad reputation among our peers and the community. We are happy to discuss the details of your case and provide a deeper understanding of your legal options.

Relists Return

John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists.

After a couple of weeks with no new relists, the Supreme Court is back this week with a vengeance. The court has scheduled an impromptu conference for Wednesday, July 1. In most years, an impromptu conference scheduled for the last week of June would be the mop-up conference for the entire term in which all outstanding business for the term is resolved. But the court still has enough outstanding opinions in argued cases that things may continue for a while yet.

At most conferences, the justices actually discuss only a tiny subset of the cases distributed for that conference. But this conference is the rare exception when the justices seem likely to discuss all 25 distributed cases. 16 are newly relisted cases, and nine are cases the court had been holding for argued cases that it recently decided and that it must now dispose of.

16 relists are too many to discuss at any length, particularly with the conference looming. So I’ll be quick. The most high-profile case is Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary, 19-1328, which arises out of the investigation by Robert Mueller into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. The House Judiciary Committee sought disclosure of grand jury material in connection with the Mueller report, and the district court ordered the material to be disclosed under an exception to the grand jury secrecy rule for “judicial proceeding[s],” reasoning that this exception includes impeachment proceedings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court stayed the mandate pending the filing of the government’s cert petition, so it’s clear the justices are taking a close look at this one.

There are several cases with implications for foreign relations. Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe I, 19-416, and Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I, 19-453, raise a number of issues involving the Alien Tort Statute. The court called for the views of the solicitor general, who recommended granting review in Cargill and holding Nestlé. Doppelgangers Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 19-351, and Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany, 19-520, together with Republic of Hungary v. Simon, 18-1447, all involve the scope of the “expropriation exception” of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.” The court called for the views of the solicitor general, who recommended that the court grant the Federal Republic of Germany case, deny the conditional cross-petition in Philipp and hold Simon. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the respondent in Simon.]

There are also four cases involving the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to demand monetary relief. At the solicitor general’s urging, the court appears to have held those for the recently decided Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, which involved a related question, but now the court needs to decide what further action is warranted. And then there are two cases that appear to present exactly the same question as Liu that the court may need more time with — or perhaps they’ve spotted a follow-on issue.

The court has relisted three capital cases that, broadly speaking, ask whether Moore v. Texas I and Moore v. Texas II, involving the criteria used for determining if a defendant is too intellectually disabled to be subject to the death penalty, apply retroactively on collateral review.

That leaves Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 19-983, which argues that subsequent cases have undermined the test for content neutrality under Hill v. Colorado, which held that it was not improper content-based regulation “to look at the content of an oral or written statement in order to determine whether a rule of law applies to a course of conduct.” Reilly argues that a Harrisburg ordinance creating “buffer zones” around abortion clinics placed content-based restrictions on speech within the zone. But it’s a little hard to tell whether Reilly is actually a relist and not just a case that arrived in the nick of time for the court to consider it alongside cases it was holding. That’s because another case, Price v. City of Chicago, Illinois, 18-1516, presents exactly the same question, and the court recently released its hold on Price after holding it since October, apparently for the June Medical Services LLC v. Russo admitting privileges abortion-restriction case decided Monday.

We should be hearing from the court about these cases soon. Until then, stay safe! 

New Relists

Republic of Hungary v. Simon, 18-1447 Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the respondent in this case. Issues: (1) Whether a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, in a matter in which former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II but the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies; and (2) in a forum non conveniens analysis, whether a district court is required to defer to the plaintiffs’ choice of a U.S. forum when the case’s sole connection to the United States is that some named plaintiffs (representing a putative worldwide class) became naturalized citizens after the time relevant to the complaint, and is permitted to defer to a foreign sovereign defendant’s comity interest in hosting claims in its own courts, when the plaintiffs allege that the sovereign defendant harmed its own nationals on its own soil and the plaintiffs have not exhausted local remedies. CVSG: 5/26/2020. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe I, 19-416 Issue: Whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute may overcome the extraterritoriality bar where the claim is based on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity; and (2) whether the judiciary has the authority under the Alien Tort Statute to impose liability on domestic corporations. CVSG: 5/26/2020. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Cargill, Inc. v. Doe I, 19-453 Issues: (1) Whether the presumption against extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute is displaced by allegations that a U.S. company generally conducted oversight of its foreign operations at its headquarters and made operational and financial decisions there, even though the conduct alleged to violate international law occurred in – and the plaintiffs suffered their injuries in – a foreign country; and (2) whether a domestic corporation is subject to liability in a private action under the Alien Tort Statute. CVSG: 5/26/2020. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Publishers Business Services, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 19-507 Issues: (1) Whether a district court can award monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, consistent with separation of powers principles; and (2) whether a monetary disgorgement award under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act is a penalty and therefore outside a district court’s inherent equity powers. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 19-508 Issue: Whether Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, by authorizing “injunction[s],” also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to demand monetary relief such as restitution—and if so, the scope of the limits or requirements for such relief. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Federal Trade Commission v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC, 19-825 Issue: Whether Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes district courts to enter an injunction that orders the return of unlawfully obtained funds. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Credit Bureau Center, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 19-914 Issue: Whether the second proviso of Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, providing that the Federal Trade Commission “may seek” a permanent injunction, is an independent grant of authority to “file suit” seeking implied consumer redress remedies circumventing the elaborate enforcement scheme set by Congress. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 19-351 Issues: (1) Whether the “expropriation exception” of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” provides jurisdiction over claims that a foreign sovereign has violated international human-rights law when taking property from its own national within its own borders, even though such claims do not implicate the established international law governing states’ responsibility for takings of property; and (2) whether the doctrine of international comity is unavailable in cases against foreign sovereigns, even in cases of considerable historical and political significance to the foreign sovereign, and even when the foreign nation has a domestic framework for addressing the claims. CVSG: 5/26/2020. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany, 19-520 Issue: Whether the Federal Republic of Germany, a foreign state, is subject to jurisdiction under the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for claims to property that was taken in violation of international law because Germany’s instrumentality (and possessor of the property at issue), Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, is engaged in commercial activity in the United States. CVSG: 5/26/2020. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 19-983 Issues: (1) Whether the Supreme Court’s holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert – that laws restricting speech on the basis of its function or purpose are facially content-based – overruled and replaced the Supreme Court’s previous test for content neutrality set forth in Hill v. Colorado; (2) whether an Article III court’s use of the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to impose a narrowing construction on a content-based regulation of protected speech that is contrary to the law’s plain text and the government’s construction, enforcement and defense conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedents in United States v. Stevens and Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union; and (3) whether the Supreme Court’s holding in McCullen v. Coakley – that the government must demonstrate it seriously undertook to address alleged problems with protected speech by less restrictive tools readily available to it –  requires that the government show, with a meaningful record, that other less restrictive alternatives were tried and failed or that such alternatives were closely examined and ruled out for good reason, as stated in Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Team Resources Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 19-978 Issue: Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission may seek and obtain disgorgement from a court as “equitable relief” for a securities law violation. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Sharp v. Smith, 19-1106 Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in concluding that Moore v. Texas I and Moore v. Texas II were mere applications of Atkins v. Virginia that could be applied retroactively on collateral review, contrary to Shoop v. Hill and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit; (2) whether, in sua sponte holding that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals did not rule on the adaptive-functioning prong because its analysis was too cursory, the 10th Circuit violated the Supreme Court’s precedent that forbids the imposition of opinion-writing standards, Johnson v. Williams; and (3) whether, reviewed de novo or with deference, the 10th Circuit erred in granting habeas relief on the respondent Roderick Smith’s claim of adaptive-functioning deficits when Smith’s only expert to opine on this prong improperly administered the adaptive-functioning assessment directly to Smith, contemporaneously administered other tests to Smith that showed malingering and relied on information that was disputed by other witnesses. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary, 19-1328 Issue: Whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Keen v. Tennessee, 19-7369 Issue: Whether the Constitution permits Tennessee to evade the mandate of Atkins v. Virginia by legislative inaction and judicial abdication. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Smith v. Dunn, 19-7745 Issues: (1) Whether Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas announced new substantive rules that apply retroactively to cases on collateral review; and (2) whether a court assessing a challenge to a prosecutor’s use of peremptory strikes under Batson v. Kentucky may reasonably rely on extra-record evidence about a prosecutor’s character. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

De Maison v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 19-7714 Issue: Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission may seek and obtain disgorgement from a court as “equitable relief” for a securities law violation. (relisted after the June 25 conference)

Returning Relists

Really?

The post Relists Return appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/relists-return/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

Will Medical Cannabis Soon Be Legally Available to Everyone?

by Paul Fassa Health Impact News

There are and have been a few major pro-marijuana bills introduced on the Congressional floor of Capitol Hill over the past several months. Some have been stalled, but an important one remains viable with bi-partisan support, and President Trump has mentioned that he'd probably sign it. 

This bill would eliminate the constant haggling of including the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, which comes under threat each year from being included in the annual spending federal spending bill. This amendment prohibits the Justice Department from using federal funds for intervening in state-approved medical cannabis activities under cover of federal laws superseding state laws.

Earlier in 2017, Department of Justice (DOJ) head U.S. Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions pressured Congressional leaders to not include the amendment. This would allow the DOJ to unleash an uninhibited DEA open season for cracking down on all cannabis use regardless of state laws and its medical applications.

The Roherbacher-Blunenauer protective amendment finally went through recently this year despite being blocked from being voted for on the House Floor even with bipartisan support in the House and Senate. Unfortunately, bills can be killed in legislative committees without going to a vote.

However, this new bill would finally grant total states' rights to cannabis by federal law without having to be haggled over every year when the national budget bill comes up for discussion.

New Bill Would End the Annual Trauma of Getting Medical Cannabis Protections if Passed

With the involvement of Senators Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, and Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts a bill was introduced that would completely restore states' rights for however they want to handle the cannabis issue early June of this year, 2018. 

If passed, the federal government would have no right to interfere with states' cannabis activities and would not be able to block federal banks from handling money for cannabis growers and distributors. 

Around the same time, Canada went beyond its current position of allowing medical exemptions for marijuana as efforts to simply legalize the weed completely made strides in its Senate with a 56 to 30 vote. This has a large impact culturally since Canada is a G7 (Group of Seven) nation that includes the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

The fact that Canada is beating the U.S. to the punch on legalization is another demonstration that federal prohibition of marijuana is an untenable position and Congress will have to act soon, claimed Drug Policy Alliance spokesman Michael Collins. (Source)

Already the Canadian government is planning to warn Canadians that their medical, recreational, or other use of marijuana could be problematic when crossing the border into the United States, because even with its varying patchwork state-by-state legalization, it is still against federal law. 

Uruguay is another nation that has completely legalized cannabis, but it is not a G7 nation. Other nations not part of the Group of Seven, including Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Israel have become more lenient with cannabis use, either decriminalizing it or allowing medical applications. 

The synchronicity of President Trump's departure to attend the June 2018 G7 meeting in Quebec, Canada, with his statements regarding the Gardner-Warren bill that had just been introduced in the U.S. Senate, is encouraging for cannabis legalization advocates.

As he was preparing to leave for the G7 conference in Canada, Trump confided to attending journalists:

I support Senator Gardner. I know exactly what he's doing. We're looking at it. But I probably will end up supporting that. (Source)

Political journalists consider Trump's departure from supporting AG Sessions' harsh stance against cannabis for any purpose as part of the growing rift between them over political matters not related to marijuana. 

That may be the case. But other factors could be part of the shift, since Trump had previously positioned himself as an advocate of states' rights. And the Gardner-Warner proposal apparently does have bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate. 

The bill's co-sponsor, Republican senator Gardner, issued, perhaps, a politically-diplomatic clarification with the proposed bill when he tweeted:

We need to take a states' rights approach to the legal marijuana question. Our bill does not legalize marijuana. Instead, it allows the principle of federalism to prevail as the founding fathers intended and leave the marijuana question up to the states. (Source)

Most cannabis use advocates will likely agree that this would be a major step forward if passed into law, though not necessarily as ideal as total national legalization for a plant so helpful in many ways and, yet, erroneously maligned by prohibitionists.

An incident at London's Heathrow Airport Emphasizes the Need for International Uniform Cannabis Legalization

Single mother, Charlotte Caldwell, had just returned from Toronto, Canada, with her severely epileptic 12-year-old son, Billy, with recently purchased cannabis oil, which she declared at customs. It was immediately confiscated and not returned. Until cannabis oil, Billy was having up to 100 seizures per day.

Perhaps Ms. Caldwell shouldn't have declared it. Cannabis oil is usually stored in syringes without needles and is odorless and compact. Maybe she felt all was fine, since her North Ireland GP (general practitioner) had prescribed it. Insult was added to injury soon after the airport incident, as the physician was ordered to never prescribe cannabis oil again.

Billy was first treated in the USA with cannabis oil and went from having up to 100 serious seizures daily to going seizure free for 300 days with the oil, Ms. Caldwell claimed. Since pure CBD can be prescribed in England, it's likely this oil contained THC in addition to CBD. This full spectrum whole plant cannabis oil has proven even more effective for epilepsy than even pure CBD.

Despite Ms. Caldwell's polite pleas to return the oil, the Home Office minister, Nick Hurd, has refused on the basis that her son's medicine is a schedule I drug and prohibited. Sound familiar? Charlotte Caldwell stopped being polite after her meeting with Home Office minister Hurd, exclaiming:

It's Billy's anti-epileptic medication that Nick Hurd has taken away, it's not some sort of joint full of recreational cannabis. So what Nick Hurd has just done is most likely signed my son's death warrant. (Source)

Unfortunately, until some sanity is uniformly achieved, with, at least, the medicinal use of whole plant cannabis, not synthetically produced pharmaceutical versions that are less effective with harmful side effects, there will be more “War Against Drugs” collateral damage of children being denied its medicinal qualities or taken away from parents who use cannabis medicinally by corrupt Child Protective Services agencies. 

See also:

Study: Cannabis Prevents Premature Deaths – Cannabis Prohibition Is a Major Cause of Premature Death in the U.S.

<!--//<![CDATA[ var m3_u = (location.protocol=='https:'?'https://network.sophiamedia.com/openx/www/delivery/ajs.php':'http://network.sophiamedia.com/openx/www/delivery/ajs.php'); var m3_r = Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999999); if (!document.MAX_used) document.MAX_used = ','; document.write ("<scr"+"ipt type='text/javascript' src='"+m3_u); document.write ("?zoneid=3&target=_blank"); document.write ('&cb=' + m3_r); if (document.MAX_used != ',') document.write ("&exclude=" + document.MAX_used); document.write (document.charset ? '&charset='+document.charset : (document.characterSet ? '&charset='+document.characterSet : '')); document.write ("&loc=" + escape(window.location)); if (document.referrer) document.write ("&referer=" + escape(document.referrer)); if (document.context) document.write ("&context=" + escape(document.context)); if (document.mmm_fo) document.write ("&mmm_fo=1"); document.write ("'><\/scr"+"ipt>"); //]]>-->

Will Medical Cannabis Soon Be Legally Available to Everyone?

by Paul Fassa Health Impact News

There are and have been a few major pro-marijuana bills introduced on the Congressional floor of Capitol Hill over the past several months. Some have been stalled, but an important one remains viable with bi-partisan support, and President Trump has mentioned that he'd probably sign it. 

This bill would eliminate the constant haggling of including the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment, which comes under threat each year from being included in the annual spending federal spending bill. This amendment prohibits the Justice Department from using federal funds for intervening in state-approved medical cannabis activities under cover of federal laws superseding state laws.

Earlier in 2017, Department of Justice (DOJ) head U.S. Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions pressured Congressional leaders to not include the amendment. This would allow the DOJ to unleash an uninhibited DEA open season for cracking down on all cannabis use regardless of state laws and its medical applications.

The Roherbacher-Blunenauer protective amendment finally went through recently this year despite being blocked from being voted for on the House Floor even with bipartisan support in the House and Senate. Unfortunately, bills can be killed in legislative committees without going to a vote.

However, this new bill would finally grant total states' rights to cannabis by federal law without having to be haggled over every year when the national budget bill comes up for discussion.

New Bill Would End the Annual Trauma of Getting Medical Cannabis Protections if Passed

With the involvement of Senators Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, and Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts a bill was introduced that would completely restore states' rights for however they want to handle the cannabis issue early June of this year, 2018. 

If passed, the federal government would have no right to interfere with states' cannabis activities and would not be able to block federal banks from handling money for cannabis growers and distributors. 

Around the same time, Canada went beyond its current position of allowing medical exemptions for marijuana as efforts to simply legalize the weed completely made strides in its Senate with a 56 to 30 vote. This has a large impact culturally since Canada is a G7 (Group of Seven) nation that includes the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

The fact that Canada is beating the U.S. to the punch on legalization is another demonstration that federal prohibition of marijuana is an untenable position and Congress will have to act soon, claimed Drug Policy Alliance spokesman Michael Collins. (Source)

Already the Canadian government is planning to warn Canadians that their medical, recreational, or other use of marijuana could be problematic when crossing the border into the United States, because even with its varying patchwork state-by-state legalization, it is still against federal law. 

Uruguay is another nation that has completely legalized cannabis, but it is not a G7 nation. Other nations not part of the Group of Seven, including Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Israel have become more lenient with cannabis use, either decriminalizing it or allowing medical applications. 

The synchronicity of President Trump's departure to attend the June 2018 G7 meeting in Quebec, Canada, with his statements regarding the Gardner-Warren bill that had just been introduced in the U.S. Senate, is encouraging for cannabis legalization advocates.

As he was preparing to leave for the G7 conference in Canada, Trump confided to attending journalists:

I support Senator Gardner. I know exactly what he's doing. We're looking at it. But I probably will end up supporting that. (Source)

Political journalists consider Trump's departure from supporting AG Sessions' harsh stance against cannabis for any purpose as part of the growing rift between them over political matters not related to marijuana. 

That may be the case. But other factors could be part of the shift, since Trump had previously positioned himself as an advocate of states' rights. And the Gardner-Warner proposal apparently does have bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate. 

The bill's co-sponsor, Republican senator Gardner, issued, perhaps, a politically-diplomatic clarification with the proposed bill when he tweeted:

We need to take a states' rights approach to the legal marijuana question. Our bill does not legalize marijuana. Instead, it allows the principle of federalism to prevail as the founding fathers intended and leave the marijuana question up to the states. (Source)

Most cannabis use advocates will likely agree that this would be a major step forward if passed into law, though not necessarily as ideal as total national legalization for a plant so helpful in many ways and, yet, erroneously maligned by prohibitionists.

An incident at London's Heathrow Airport Emphasizes the Need for International Uniform Cannabis Legalization

Single mother, Charlotte Caldwell, had just returned from Toronto, Canada, with her severely epileptic 12-year-old son, Billy, with recently purchased cannabis oil, which she declared at customs. It was immediately confiscated and not returned. Until cannabis oil, Billy was having up to 100 seizures per day.

Perhaps Ms. Caldwell shouldn't have declared it. Cannabis oil is usually stored in syringes without needles and is odorless and compact. Maybe she felt all was fine, since her North Ireland GP (general practitioner) had prescribed it. Insult was added to injury soon after the airport incident, as the physician was ordered to never prescribe cannabis oil again.

Billy was first treated in the USA with cannabis oil and went from having up to 100 serious seizures daily to going seizure free for 300 days with the oil, Ms. Caldwell claimed. Since pure CBD can be prescribed in England, it's likely this oil contained THC in addition to CBD. This full spectrum whole plant cannabis oil has proven even more effective for epilepsy than even pure CBD.

Despite Ms. Caldwell's polite pleas to return the oil, the Home Office minister, Nick Hurd, has refused on the basis that her son's medicine is a schedule I drug and prohibited. Sound familiar? Charlotte Caldwell stopped being polite after her meeting with Home Office minister Hurd, exclaiming:

It's Billy's anti-epileptic medication that Nick Hurd has taken away, it's not some sort of joint full of recreational cannabis. So what Nick Hurd has just done is most likely signed my son's death warrant. (Source)

Unfortunately, until some sanity is uniformly achieved, with, at least, the medicinal use of whole plant cannabis, not synthetically produced pharmaceutical versions that are less effective with harmful side effects, there will be more “War Against Drugs” collateral damage of children being denied its medicinal qualities or taken away from parents who use cannabis medicinally by corrupt Child Protective Services agencies. 

See also:

Study: Cannabis Prevents Premature Deaths – Cannabis Prohibition Is a Major Cause of Premature Death in the U.S.

<!--//<![CDATA[ var m3_u = (location.protocol=='https:'?'https://network.sophiamedia.com/openx/www/delivery/ajs.php':'http://network.sophiamedia.com/openx/www/delivery/ajs.php'); var m3_r = Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999999); if (!document.MAX_used) document.MAX_used = ','; document.write ("<scr"+"ipt type='text/javascript' src='"+m3_u); document.write ("?zoneid=3&target=_blank"); document.write ('&cb=' + m3_r); if (document.MAX_used != ',') document.write ("&exclude=" + document.MAX_used); document.write (document.charset ? '&charset='+document.charset : (document.characterSet ? '&charset='+document.characterSet : '')); document.write ("&loc=" + escape(window.location)); if (document.referrer) document.write ("&referer=" + escape(document.referrer)); if (document.context) document.write ("&context=" + escape(document.context)); if (document.mmm_fo) document.write ("&mmm_fo=1"); document.write ("'><\/scr"+"ipt>"); //]]>-->

Having trouble viewing? View in Browser Thursday, October 26, 2017 TOP OF THE MORNING Welcome to Fox News First. Not signed up yet? Click here. Developing now, Thursday, Oct. 26, 2017: Ex-FBI informant cleared to testify about Russia/Uranium One deal Watchdog: Clinton campaign, DNC broke law in funding Trump dossier Fox Business Exclusive: Trump blasts Clinton, DNC's roles in dossier New questions about security guard in Las Vegas massacre Classified files on JFK's assassination to be released today   THE LEAD STORY: The Justice Department has lifted a gag order and cleared a former FBI informant to talk to Congress about alleged corruption and bribery in the controversial Obama-era Russia/Uranium One deal ... In a statement, the DOJ said it had authorized the informant to speak to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee, and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. All three congressional committees launched investigations after the Hill reported that the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear officials were involved in fraudulent dealings – including extortion, bribery and kickbacks – as far back as 2009. What you need to know about the Obama-era Russia/Uranium One deal From Fox News Opinion: Hillary Clinton and the real Russian collusion Stuart Varney: The media refuse to cover the Clinton Russian scandal TRUMP DOSSIER LEGAL QUESTIONS: The Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign broke campaign finance law by failing to accurately disclose the money spent on the Trump-Russia dossier, a watchdog group says ... In a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission, the Campaign Legal Center alleges that the DNC and Clinton's campaign committee hid the payments for Trump's dossier from public view. The Washington Post reported this week — and Fox News confirmed — that the political consulting firm Fusion GPS was retained last year by Marc E. Elias, an attorney representing the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The firm then hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to write the infamous Trump dossier. DNC, Clinton, FBI take heat after bombshell that Dems funded Trump dossier Fusion GPS officials take the Fifth in Trump dossier interview on Capitol Hill FOX BUSINESS EXCLUSIVE: In an interview on Fox Business' 'Lou Dobbs Tonight,' President Trump blasts the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign's "disgraceful" funding of a dossier designed to sink his candidacy. ... "Don't forget Hillary Clinton totally denied this. She didn’t know anything. She knew nothing," Trump tells Dobbs. "All of a sudden they found out. What I was amazed at, it's almost $6 million that they paid and it's totally discredited, it's a total phony. I call it fake news. It’s disgraceful." Trump said the Clinton camp is now trying back away from the now-discredited dossier that contained allegations that the Russian government had compromising information about him and was trying to assist his presidential campaign. MORE LAS VEGAS QUESTIONS: The security guard wounded during the Oct. 1 Las Vegas massacre traveled to Mexico less than a week after the shooting, sparking new questions ... Tucker Carlson told viewers an anonymous source had provided a Customs and Border Patrol Form showing Jesus Campos re-entering the United States from Mexico at the San Ysidro border crossing in California almost one week after the shooting. Carlson wondered how authorities allowed Campos, a key witness in the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, to leave the country. “Did they facilitate it? How did he manage to travel to Mexico? Was his employer aware that he left the country?" Carlson asked. Report: Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock removed hard drive from laptop found in hotel room Vegas shooter's brother arrested for child porn WHAT'S INSIDE JFK FILES? The classified files on the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy will be released today, President Trump announced on Twitter ... The move to release the government documents on the 1963 assassination could shed light on a tragedy that has stirred conspiracy theories for decades.    ABOUT LAST NIGHT 'COLLUSION' OR 'RESEARCH'?: "When the Clintons do it, it's called opposition research. When Trump didn't do it, it's called collusion." – Jesse Watters, on "The Five," arguing there is a double standard between what is considered colluding with a foreign power and doing opposition research on a political foe. WATCH WHY URANIUM ONE MATTERS: "The media has been wrong about the Trump-Russia collusion for over a year. America's national security was sold out." – Sean Hannity, on why he believes the Uranium One deal is one of biggest scandals in U.S. history, in his opening monologue on "Hannity." WATCH   MINDING YOUR BUSINESS Trump 'thinking about' Janet Yellen for Fed chair. Trump, GOP at odds over using 401(k)s to pay for tax cuts. Saudi citizens plagued by new taxes, high unemployment after oil prices collapse.   NEW IN FOX NEWS OPINION Masculinity isn't the problem. Power is. Judge Napolitano: Why are Swiss bankers on trial in the U.S. when they didn’t violate any Swiss law? Newt Gingrich: Left-wing education cheats children.    HOLLYWOOD SQUARED Corey Feldman claims he's being targeted for death for trying to expose Hollywood pedophile ring. Dolly Parton details horrible childhood injury on Dr. Oz. Ellen DeGeneres slammed on Twitter over sexist tweet to Katy Perry.   DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS? Waiter: MLB catcher Bruce Maxwell made up story about service refusal over anthem protest. Kellogg's called out for 'racist' cartoon on cereal box. Here's a wild explanation for why we haven't discovered aliens yet.   STAY TUNED On Fox News: Fox & Friends, 6 a.m. ET: House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley on the new investigations on the Obama-era Uranium One deal and the push for a special counsel. Tucker Carlson Tonight, 8 p.m. ET: Dr. Michael Baden, chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, gives special insight on the release of the JFK files and their revelations. On Fox Business: Mornings with Maria, 6 a.m. ET: Day 3 of Maria Bartiromo's live broadcast from the financial summit in Saudi Arabia. Her guests include: Andrew Liveris, Dow Chemical CEO; Brendan Bechtel, Bechtel CEO; Peter Thiel, venture capitalist and partner, Founders Fund; House Budget Committee Chairwoman Diane Black; Tom Farley, NYSE president. Cavuto: Coast to Coast, Noon ET: Sen. Marco Rubio takes on Trump's war with Sens. Bob Corker and Jeff Flake and their decisions to retire. Making Money with Charles Payne, 6 p.m. ET: Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter, who filed a lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies, explains why he is seeking criminal charges against the opioid industry. On Fox News Radio: The Brian Kilmeade Show, 9 a.m. ET to Noon ET: House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes gives the latest on new investigations on the Obama-era uranium Russia deal and the FBI's handling of the case; Amb. John Bolton discusses U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley's evacuation from a U.N. camp for displaced people in South Sudan.   #OnThisDay 2001: President George W. Bush signs the USA Patriot Act, giving authorities unprecedented powers against possible terrorists. 1881: The "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral" takes place in Tombstone, Ariz., as Wyatt Earp, his two brothers and "Doc" Holliday confront Ike Clanton's gang. 1861: The legendary Pony Express officially ceases operations, giving way to the transcontinental telegraph.   Thank you for joining us on Fox News First! Enjoy your day and we'll see you in your inbox first thing Friday morning. Unsubscribe ©2017 Fox News Network, LLC. All Rights Reserved. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036. Privacy Policy.

Revised version of Trump’s travel ban is set to take effect, but a Supreme Court decision in the case raises ‘more questions than answers’

A revised version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban approved by the Supreme Court is set to take effect at 8:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, several news outlets reported Wednesday night.

The justices implemented an exemption for travelers with a “bona fide relationship” to people or entities in the US.

It is unclear how the court interprets a “bona fide relationship,” but lawyers say travelers will have difficulty proving one.

A revised version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban approved by the Supreme Court is set to take effect at 8:00 p.m. ET on Thursday.

The high court on Monday allowed parts of Trump’s contentious executive order barring citizens of six majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States for a 90-day period to take effect.

But the decision included an exemption allowing those citizens to enter if they have a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” This has prompted some confusion, as the justices provided only a few examples of what constitutes a “bona fide relationship” and how a credible claim might be verified.

Trump was quick to declare the Supreme Court’s decision a victory for his administration — but others have said the decision exempts a potentially wide swath of travelers from being denied entry, depending on how federal officials and courts interpret it.

So what is a “bona fide relationship,” how can one be proved or disproved, and who decides?

Here’s what we know:

Who can credibly claim a ‘bona fide relationship’?

The Supreme Court in its per curiam ruling said a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the US included family members seeking to visit or live with their US relatives, students admitted to American universities, workers hired by American companies, or lecturers invited to speak to American audiences.

The justices noted that two of the plaintiffs in the travel-ban suit sought entry for a spouse and a mother-in-law, both of whom reside in one of the countries included in the ban. The justices said each of those family members “clearly” had a “close familial relationship” and would be permitted to enter.

But the justices didn’t delineate how close the familial relationship must be. Would a cousin qualify? A niece or nephew? And as far as nonfamilial exemptions go, there appears to be some room for interpretation on what counts as an “entity” and to what extent a foreign national must be related to it.

Reaz Jafri, a partner and the head of the global immigration practice at the Withers Bergman law firm, told Business Insider that it was unclear what constitutes “close familial ties” and that having too close a relation to a US citizen or resident may work against travelers. Federal officials are often suspicious of foreigners who say they are visiting a close relative, believing them to be attempting to unlawfully immigrate to the US under the guise of visiting temporarily.

“This whole close family ties — it’s a very dangerous thing to talk about or to use as a basis to get a visa,” Jafri said. “My sense is that it just creates massive confusion as to who’s going to get in. Only employees, students, people who have had green-card cases processed overseas are going to be let in. Everyone else, in my opinion, are going to be out of luck.”

The Supreme Court’s decision also explicitly states that people who enter into relationships “simply to avoid” the travel ban are not exempt.

“For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion,” it says.

Some nonprofits and refugee advocates argue that refugees who already have ties to US organizations should still be allowed to enter under the court’s exemption — though they concede there’s no guarantee US officials will interpret it in the same way.

“We believe it would be correct to interpret this language to mean that all security-vetted and assured refugees that have family ties or an established connection with resettlement organizations can safely enter the United States,” Hans Van de Weerd, a vice president of the International Rescue Committee, told Business Insider in a statement. But he added that the Supreme Court’s decision provided “more questions than answers.”

“Until the administration implements the court order in this spirit, we remain deeply concerned that many refugees are at risk of not being able to find safe haven in the United States,” he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs, appears to have adopted a broad reading of the bona fide relationship exemption, saying in a blog post that people with relationships to US schools, employers, or nonprofit organizations may still enter the country.

“A large proportion of those who would otherwise be barred by the Muslim ban do have family in this country, and remain protected under the Supreme Court’s order,” Cody Wofsy, an ACLU staff attorney, said in the post. “It appears relatively few can be legitimately prohibited under the Supreme Court’s decision.”

Who decides whether someone has a ‘bona fide relationship’?

The Department of Homeland Security is in charge of the border crossings and ports of entry into the US, and its agents are given much discretion when it comes to admitting or denying travelers.

The Trump administration has not yet laid out a plan for implementing the travel ban with the Supreme Court’s exemption, but DHS has said it will soon provide details after consulting with the State and Justice departments.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the decision would bring a “flood of litigation” as travelers attempt to discern “what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship,’ who precisely has a ‘credible claim’ to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed ‘simply to avoid'” the travel ban.

It’s possible the meaning of a “bona fide relationship” and the extent of the Supreme Court’s exemption will not be clear until travelers are barred from entry by US officials and seek redress through litigation, which Thomas also said was likely to reach the same courts that blocked the travel ban from being implemented in the first place.

But Jafri said litigation probably wouldn’t occur unless US residents or American companies can prove they’ve been harmed by the ban.

“If a CBP officer believes that your purpose for coming here is legitimate and bona fide, they’ll admit you,” Jafri said, referring to Customs and Border Protection. “If they feel it’s not, they’ll deny you admission. And you can’t appeal that. You can’t litigate that. You’re just going back, and that’s it.”

In the meantime, Jafri said he was advising clients not to travel unless they have a strong reason for doing so. Those who do attempt to enter, he said, should have documentation that supports their reason for travel. Visitors should show US officials all invitations, schedules, correspondence, hotel reservations, return-flight tickets, and ties to their home countries to prove they intend to return home afterward.

“Hope for the best,” Jafri said.

How will this exemption be implemented?

Much about the implementation of such an exemption is unclear. But DHS said in a statement on Monday that it would “be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry.”

Thomas predicted in his dissent that the implementation of such an exemption would be logistically “unworkable.”

“Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,” Thomas wrote.

Some immigration advocates, meanwhile, have predicted chaos. Amnesty International on Monday said it filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents about how the federal government plans to implement the travel ban.

“The public needs to know exactly what agents in airports nationwide are being told to do, and we need to know now,” Margaret Huang, Amnesty International USA’s executive director, said in a statement. “This policy is cruel and discriminatory, and it could create havoc in airports in the US and around the world.”

SEE ALSO: The ball is ‘back in the president’s court’: Here’s the key question as Trump’s travel ban heads for a Supreme Court showdown

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 hand gestures that could get you in serious trouble in other countries

The Supreme Court's decision on Trump's travel ban raises 'more questions than answers'

The Supreme Court has partially allowed Trump's travel ban to take effect.

The justices implemented an exemption for travelers with a 'bona fide relationship' to people or entities in the US.

It is unclear how the court interprets a 'bona fide relationship,' but lawyers believe travelers will have difficulty proving one.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed parts of President Donald Trump's contentious travel ban to take effect, barring certain travelers from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States for a 90-day period.

But the decision included a key exemption allowing for the entry of people from the six countries to enter so long as they have a "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." This has prompted some confusion, as the justices provided only a few examples of what constitutes a "bona fide relationship" and how a credible claim might be verified.

Trump was quick to declare the Supreme Court's decision a victory for his administration — but others have pointed out that the order exempts a potentially wide swath of travelers from being denied entry, depending on how federal officials and courts interpret the order.

So what is a "bona fide relationship," how can one be proven or disproved, and who decides?

Here's what we know:

Who can credibly claim a 'bona fide relationship?'

The Supreme Court in its per curiam ruling offered several examples of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the US, such as family members seeking to visit or live with their US relatives, students admitted to American universities, workers hired by American companies, or lecturers invited to speak to American audiences.

The justices noted that two of the plaintiffs in the travel ban suit sought entry for a spouse and a mother-in-law, both of whom reside in one of the countries listed under the ban. The justices said each of those family members "clearly" has a "close familial relationship" and would be permitted to enter.

But the justices didn't delineate how close the familial relationship must be. Would a cousin qualify? A niece or nephew? And as far as non-familial exemptions go, there appears to be some room for interpretation on what counts as an "entity," and to what extent a foreign national must be related to it.

Reaz Jaffri, a partner and head of the global immigration practice at the Withers Bergman law firm, told Business Insider that it's unclear what constitutes "close familial ties," and added that having too close a relation to a US citizen or resident may actually work against travelers. Federal officials are often suspicious of foreigners who say they are visiting a close relative, believing them to be attempting to unlawfully immigrate to the US under the guise of visiting temporarily.

"This whole close family ties — it's a very dangerous thing to talk about, or to use as a basis to get a visa," Jaffri said.

"My sense is that it just creates massive confusion as to who's going to get in. Only employees, students, people who have had green card cases processed overseas are going to be let in. Everyone else, in my opinion, are going to be out of luck."

The Supreme Court's order also explicitly states that people who enter into relationships "simply to avoid" the travel ban are not exempt from the ban. "For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion."

Some nonprofits and refugee advocates argue that refugees who already have ties to US organizations should still be allowed to enter under the court order's exemption — though they concede there's no guarantee US officials will interpret the order in the same way.

"We believe it would be correct to interpret this language to mean that all security-vetted and assured refugees that have family ties or an established connection with resettlement organizations can safely enter the United States," Hans Van de Weerd, a vice president of the International Rescue Committee, told Business Insider in a statement, but added that the Supreme Court's order provided "more questions than answers."

"Until the administration implements the court order in this spirit, we remain deeply concerned that many refugees are at risk of not being able to find safe haven in the United States," he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs, has appeared to adopt a broad reading of the bona fide relationship exemption, explaining in a blog post that people with relationships to US schools, employers, or nonprofit organizations may still enter the country.

"A large proportion of those who would otherwise be barred by the Muslim ban do have family in this country, and remain protected under the Supreme Court's order," ACLU staff attorney Cody Wofsy said. "It appears relatively few can be legitimately prohibited under the Supreme Court's decision."

Who decides whether someone has a 'bona fide relationship?'

The Department of Homeland Security is in charge of the border crossings and ports of entry into the US, and its agents are given great discretion when it comes to admitting or denying travelers.

The Trump administration has not yet laid out a plan for implementing the Supreme Court's order, but the DHS has said it will soon provide details after consulting with the State and Justice departments.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court's decision would bring in a "flood of litigation" as travelers attempt to discern "what exactly constitutes a 'bona fide relationship,' who precisely has a "credible claim" to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed 'simply to avoid' [the travel ban]."

It's possible that the true meaning of a "bona fide relationship" and the extent of the Supreme Court's exemption will not become clear until certain travelers are barred from entry by US officials and seek redress through litigation, which Thomas also noted are likely to reach the same courts that blocked the travel ban from being implemented in the first place.

But Jaffri said litigation probably won't occur unless US residents or American companies can prove they've been injured or harmed by the ban.

"If a CBP officer believes that your purpose for coming here is legitimate and bona fide, they'll admit you. If they feel it's not, they'll deny you admission. And you can't appeal that, you can't litigate that. You're just going back, and that's it," Jaffri said.

In the meantime, Jaffri said he is advising clients not to travel unless they have a very strong reason for doing so. Those who do attempt to enter, he said, should have documentation that supports their reason for travel. Visitors should show US officials all invitations, schedules, and correspondence, hotel reservations, return-flight tickets, as well as ties to their home countries to prove they intend to return home afterward.

"Hope for the best," Jaffri said.

How will this exemption be implemented?

Much about the implementation of such an exemption is unclear. But the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement on Monday it "will be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry."

Thomas predicted in his dissent that the implementation of such an exemption would be logistically "unworkable."

"Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country," Thomas wrote.

Some immigration advocates, meanwhile, have predicted chaos. Amnesty International has already filed a freedom of information request for documents revealing how the federal government will implement the travel ban, the organization announced Monday.

"The public needs to know exactly what agents in airports nationwide are being told to do, and we need to know now," Margaret Huang, Amnesty International USA's executive director, said in a statement.

"This policy is cruel and discriminatory, and it could create havoc in airports in the US and around the world."

SEE ALSO: The ball is 'back in the president's court': Here's the key question as Trump's travel ban heads for a Supreme Court showdown

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 hand gestures that could get you in serious trouble in other countries

from All About Law http://www.businessinsider.com/us-travel-ban-exemptions-supreme-court-bona-fide-relationship-2017-6

Cross-Border Personal Injury Claims: Navigating Legal Complexities with Cross Border Injuries

Introduction:

In today's interconnected world, cross-border travel is a common occurrence. Whether it's for business, leisure, or other reasons, individuals frequently find themselves crossing international boundaries. However, along with the benefits of global mobility come the risks, including the potential for accidents and injuries. For Canadians traveling to the United States or vice versa, understanding the intricacies of cross-border personal injury claims is crucial in ensuring proper compensation and legal representation in the event of an accident. In this guide, Cross Border Injuries provides valuable insights into navigating the complexities of cross-border accident claims in the USA.

Understanding Cross-Border Accidents in the USA:

Cross-border accidents in the USA involving individuals from Canada or other countries can present unique legal challenges. These accidents may occur on highways, in workplaces, or even in public spaces. Regardless of where they occur, victims need to understand their rights and options for seeking compensation. Cross Border Injuries specializes in assisting individuals injured in cross-border accidents, offering expert legal guidance and representation throughout the claims process.

Key Steps in Cross-Border Injury Claims:

When faced with a cross-border injury, taking the right steps from the outset is essential. This includes seeking medical attention promptly, documenting the incident, gathering evidence, and notifying relevant authorities. However, navigating the legal complexities of cross-border claims requires specialized knowledge and expertise. Cross Border Injuries has a team of experienced personal injury lawyers who understand the nuances of international law and can provide tailored guidance to clients throughout the claims process.

The Role of Cross Border Injuries:

As a leading cross-border injury law firm in the USA, Cross Border Injuries is dedicated to advocating for the rights of injured individuals. Our team of skilled attorneys has extensive experience handling a wide range of cross-border personal injury cases, including those involving traffic accidents, workplace injuries, and more. We understand the challenges faced by individuals injured in foreign jurisdictions and are committed to securing the compensation they deserve.

Seeking Compensation for Cross-Border Injuries:

One of the most critical aspects of cross-border injury claims is determining the appropriate jurisdiction and applicable laws. This often involves complex legal analysis and coordination between multiple parties, including insurance companies and legal representatives in both countries. Cross Border Injuries has the expertise and resources to navigate these challenges effectively, ensuring that our clients receive fair compensation for their injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Why Choose Cross Border Injuries:

When it comes to cross-border personal injury claims in the USA, choosing the right legal representation can make all the difference. Cross Border Injuries stands out as a trusted partner for individuals seeking justice and compensation for their injuries. With our deep understanding of cross-border law and our unwavering commitment to client advocacy, we have earned a reputation for excellence in the field of international personal injury law.

Conclusion:

Cross-border accidents and injuries can have devastating consequences for victims and their families. However, with the right legal guidance and representation, injured individuals can navigate the complexities of cross-border injury claims and secure the compensation they deserve. Cross Border Injuries is proud to serve as a beacon of support and advocacy for individuals injured in cross-border accidents in the USA, providing expert legal representation and fighting tirelessly for our clients' rights.

Navigating Cross-Border Injuries: Understanding Claims and Compensation in the USA

In the bustling world of cross-border travel and commerce, accidents unfortunately occur, leading to a myriad of injuries and legal complexities. The United States, with its extensive borders and diverse population, frequently encounters cross-border accidents, sparking the need for a comprehensive understanding of related claims and compensation processes.

Cross-border accidents in the USA encompass a broad spectrum, including out-of-province incidents, road traffic collisions, and personal injuries sustained by individuals crossing state lines or national borders. Such incidents not only pose challenges in terms of jurisdiction but also in navigating the legal landscape to ensure rightful compensation for victims.

When it comes to cross-border injuries in the USA, the first step is often determining the appropriate jurisdiction for filing a claim. This can be particularly complex when accidents involve parties from different states or countries. In such cases, seeking guidance from legal experts specializing in cross-border injury law is crucial.

Cross-border injury claims in the USA entail a meticulous process that necessitates thorough documentation and adherence to specific legal procedures. From gathering evidence to negotiating with insurance companies, each step requires attention to detail and a nuanced understanding of applicable laws.

Furthermore, cross-border accident compensation claims in the USA demand a proactive approach to ensure that victims receive fair and just reparation for their injuries. This involves assessing the extent of damages, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, and advocating for appropriate compensation.

In navigating the complexities of cross-border accidents and injuries, enlisting the services of a reputable cross-border injury law firm in the USA can significantly streamline the legal process. Experienced attorneys specializing in cross-border personal injury lawsuits possess the expertise and resources to effectively represent clients and secure favorable outcomes.

Moreover, cross-border personal injury lawyers and attorneys in the USA play a pivotal role in advocating for the rights of victims and navigating the intricacies of cross-border injury claims. Their knowledge of relevant laws and regulations, coupled with their ability to communicate across jurisdictions, proves invaluable in achieving successful resolutions.

Whether it's a cross-border road accident claim or a dispute involving cross-border accident insurance claims in the USA, having skilled legal representation is paramount. Cross-border injury claim lawyers and attorneys in the USA serve as staunch advocates for individuals affected by cross-border accidents, striving to obtain the compensation they rightfully deserve.

In conclusion, cross-border accidents and injuries in the USA present unique challenges that require specialized expertise and proactive advocacy. By understanding the intricacies of cross-border claims and compensation processes, individuals can navigate the legal landscape with confidence, ensuring their rights are protected and justice is served.

Navigating Cross-Border Motor Vehicle Accidents: The Role of Cross Border Injuries

In today's interconnected world, the roads we travel often transcend national boundaries, making cross-border motor vehicle accidents an increasingly common occurrence. When such incidents happen, navigating the legal complexities can be daunting. This is where Cross Border Injuries comes into play, providing expert legal guidance and support for individuals involved in cross-border motor vehicle accidents in the USA.

Cross Border Injuries specializes in addressing the intricate legal aspects of motor vehicle accidents that extend across borders. With a team of seasoned attorneys well-versed in both domestic and international law, Cross Border Injuries offers comprehensive assistance to clients seeking compensation and justice for their injuries.

One of the unique challenges in cross-border motor vehicle accidents is determining which jurisdiction's laws apply and how they interact with international treaties and agreements. Cross Border Injuries understands the nuances of these legal frameworks and leverages this expertise to ensure that clients' rights are protected and upheld.

Cross Border Injuries attorneys in the USA possess a deep understanding of both domestic and international laws pertaining to motor vehicle accidents. They are well-versed in the intricacies of jurisdictional issues, insurance coverage across borders, and the complexities of pursuing compensation in multiple legal systems. Their expertise extends beyond mere legal knowledge; they are adept at crafting strategic approaches tailored to the unique circumstances of each case.

Whether it's a cross-border car crash, motorcycle accident, truck collision, or any other motor vehicle incident, Cross Border Injuries has the knowledge and experience to handle the complexities of the case. The firm's attorneys are adept at investigating the circumstances surrounding the accident, identifying liable parties, and pursuing maximum compensation on behalf of their clients.

Moreover, Cross Border Injuries recognizes that the aftermath of a motor vehicle accident can be physically, emotionally, and financially overwhelming. That's why the firm provides compassionate support and guidance to clients throughout the entire legal process, offering personalized attention to address their individual needs and concerns.

When it comes to cross-border motor vehicle injury claims in the USA, Cross Border Injuries stands out as a trusted ally for those seeking justice and fair compensation. With a commitment to excellence, integrity, and client advocacy, the firm is dedicated to helping accident victims navigate the complexities of the legal system and secure the compensation they deserve.

In conclusion, Cross Border Injuries is a leading authority in handling cross-border motor vehicle accidents in the USA. With a team of experienced attorneys, a deep understanding of international legal frameworks, and a commitment to client satisfaction, the firm is the go-to choice for individuals seeking expert legal representation in their time of need.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s travel ban raises ‘more questions than answers’

The Supreme Court has partially allowed Trump’s travel ban to take effect.

The justices implemented an exemption for travelers with a ‘bona fide relationship’ to people or entities in the US.

It is unclear how the court interprets a ‘bona fide relationship,’ but lawyers believe travelers will have difficulty proving one.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed parts of President Donald Trump’s contentious travel ban to take effect, barring certain travelers from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States for a 90-day period.

But the decision included a key exemption allowing for the entry of people from the six countries to enter so long as they have a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” This has prompted some confusion, as the justices provided only a few examples of what constitutes a “bona fide relationship” and how a credible claim might be verified.

Trump was quick to declare the Supreme Court’s decision a victory for his administration — but others have pointed out that the order exempts a potentially wide swath of travelers from being denied entry, depending on how federal officials and courts interpret the order.

So what is a “bona fide relationship,” how can one be proven or disproved, and who decides?

Here’s what we know:

Who can credibly claim a ‘bona fide relationship?’

The Supreme Court in its per curiam ruling offered several examples of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the US, such as family members seeking to visit or live with their US relatives, students admitted to American universities, workers hired by American companies, or lecturers invited to speak to American audiences.

The justices noted that two of the plaintiffs in the travel ban suit sought entry for a spouse and a mother-in-law, both of whom reside in one of the countries listed under the ban. The justices said each of those family members “clearly” has a “close familial relationship” and would be permitted to enter.

But the justices didn’t delineate how close the familial relationship must be. Would a cousin qualify? A niece or nephew? And as far as non-familial exemptions go, there appears to be some room for interpretation on what counts as an “entity,” and to what extent a foreign national must be related to it.

Reaz Jaffri, a partner and head of the global immigration practice at the Withers Bergman law firm, told Business Insider that it’s unclear what constitutes “close familial ties,” and added that having too close a relation to a US citizen or resident may actually work against travelers. Federal officials are often suspicious of foreigners who say they are visiting a close relative, believing them to be attempting to unlawfully immigrate to the US under the guise of visiting temporarily.

“This whole close family ties — it’s a very dangerous thing to talk about, or to use as a basis to get a visa,” Jaffri said.

“My sense is that it just creates massive confusion as to who’s going to get in. Only employees, students, people who have had green card cases processed overseas are going to be let in. Everyone else, in my opinion, are going to be out of luck.”

The Supreme Court’s order also explicitly states that people who enter into relationships “simply to avoid” the travel ban are not exempt from the ban. “For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.”

Some nonprofits and refugee advocates argue that refugees who already have ties to US organizations should still be allowed to enter under the court order’s exemption — though they concede there’s no guarantee US officials will interpret the order in the same way.

“We believe it would be correct to interpret this language to mean that all security-vetted and assured refugees that have family ties or an established connection with resettlement organizations can safely enter the United States,” Hans Van de Weerd, a vice president of the International Rescue Committee, told Business Insider in a statement, but added that the Supreme Court’s order provided “more questions than answers.”

“Until the administration implements the court order in this spirit, we remain deeply concerned that many refugees are at risk of not being able to find safe haven in the United States,” he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs, has appeared to adopt a broad reading of the bona fide relationship exemption, explaining in a blog post that people with relationships to US schools, employers, or nonprofit organizations may still enter the country.

“A large proportion of those who would otherwise be barred by the Muslim ban do have family in this country, and remain protected under the Supreme Court’s order,” ACLU staff attorney Cody Wofsy said. “It appears relatively few can be legitimately prohibited under the Supreme Court’s decision.”

Who decides whether someone has a ‘bona fide relationship?’

The Department of Homeland Security is in charge of the border crossings and ports of entry into the US, and its agents are given great discretion when it comes to admitting or denying travelers.

The Trump administration has not yet laid out a plan for implementing the Supreme Court’s order, but the DHS has said it will soon provide details after consulting with the State and Justice departments.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court’s decision would bring in a “flood of litigation” as travelers attempt to discern “what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship,’ who precisely has a “credible claim” to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed ‘simply to avoid’ [the travel ban].”

It’s possible that the true meaning of a “bona fide relationship” and the extent of the Supreme Court’s exemption will not become clear until certain travelers are barred from entry by US officials and seek redress through litigation, which Thomas also noted are likely to reach the same courts that blocked the travel ban from being implemented in the first place.

But Jaffri said litigation probably won’t occur unless US residents or American companies can prove they’ve been injured or harmed by the ban.

“If a CBP officer believes that your purpose for coming here is legitimate and bona fide, they’ll admit you. If they feel it’s not, they’ll deny you admission. And you can’t appeal that, you can’t litigate that. You’re just going back, and that’s it,” Jaffri said.

In the meantime, Jaffri said he is advising clients not to travel unless they have a very strong reason for doing so. Those who do attempt to enter, he said, should have documentation that supports their reason for travel. Visitors should show US officials all invitations, schedules, and correspondence, hotel reservations, return-flight tickets, as well as ties to their home countries to prove they intend to return home afterward.

“Hope for the best,” Jaffri said.

How will this exemption be implemented?

Much about the implementation of such an exemption is unclear. But the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement on Monday it “will be done professionally, with clear and sufficient public notice, particularly to potentially affected travelers, and in coordination with partners in the travel industry.”

Thomas predicted in his dissent that the implementation of such an exemption would be logistically “unworkable.”

“Today’s compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding — on peril of contempt — whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country,” Thomas wrote.

Some immigration advocates, meanwhile, have predicted chaos. Amnesty International has already filed a freedom of information request for documents revealing how the federal government will implement the travel ban, the organization announced Monday.

“The public needs to know exactly what agents in airports nationwide are being told to do, and we need to know now,” Margaret Huang, Amnesty International USA’s executive director, said in a statement.

“This policy is cruel and discriminatory, and it could create havoc in airports in the US and around the world.”

SEE ALSO: The ball is ‘back in the president’s court’: Here’s the key question as Trump’s travel ban heads for a Supreme Court showdown

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 hand gestures that could get you in serious trouble in other countries