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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Defense, the California Killings and Implications within Criminal Defense

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

The following are some of the common defenses:

• Prove that They have the wrong man

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

• Create Doubt

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

• Demonstrate that It was done in Self-Defense

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

• Prove Insanity of Defendant or Undue Influence

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

Final Thoughts

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