Featured post

Finding the Debt Reduction Right Lawyer

When you are looking for the best debt reduction lawyer, taking the time to make sure that you are choosing the right person to work with is very important. Before we get into more information regarding debt , we will cover the basics as to what it really takes for your to make sure that you choose the right lawyer if you need to consolidate your loans or if you find yourself in a situation needing legal help with your finances.

Our original Article:

Finding the right lawyer can be a difficult task especially if you do not have any prior experience. In fact, you will have to consider certain conditions prior to finding the right lawyer for your task. On this note, many lawyers often give free consultation to see if they match your need. Even if you are going for a basic legal advice or other serious matter, never take the issue of finding the right lawyer lightly. Is your quest after finding a lawyer that delivers with top-notch professionalism? Are you willing to hire the best lawyer that stands the test of time? Reading through the rest part of this article will help you effectively.

Always determine the type of lawyer that you need. Take your time to know the actual prospect of your need prior to hiring a lawyer. In case your prospect is into business, then look for a professional in that area. You will be able to get the best result as required.

Recommendation is a big factor that should not be underestimated when looking for the right lawyer. Ask from your family, friends, agents or relatives. You will surely get one or two referrals. Contact the listed lawyers and ask of the term of their service. This will help you narrow your list to a successful option.

Finding a lawyer with insurance coverage dictates high professionalism. Always ensure to hire a lawyer that has insurance coverage against any damage. You will be safe in time of trouble. Reputation is also a great factor that you can look at prior to selecting the right lawyer. Always go for a lawyer that is highly reputable in the public.

Finally, budget is also a great factor that can help you select the right lawyer for your need. Always hire or select a lawyer without breaking the bank. You will always have the need to be happy at the end of the whole process.

About.com Resource: http://moneyfor20s.about.com/od/gettingoutofdebt/a/A-Guide-To-Debt-Settlement.htm

Watch This Spider Crawl Out Of A Woman’s Ear, And Try Not To Wince

It?s a sight that?s not for the faint hearted.

Video shows a tiny spider crawling out of a woman?s ear after she sought help for an extreme headache in southern India, according to SWNS TV, which uploaded to the footage to YouTube Friday.

The creepy crawly was revealed during an inspection at Columbia Asia Hospital in Hebbal, the news service reports.

The woman, identified only as Lekshmi L by local media, said she was taking a nap on her veranda in Karnataka when she woke up with an overwhelming pain in her head and a tingling sensation in her ear.

Her husband drove her to hospital, The Indian Express reports. Doctors looked inside her ear and confirmed a spider had made itself at home there.

?I was terrified as I could feel the movement of a creature in my ear,? the woman said, according to The Sun. ?I couldn?t think of anything and was petrified when the doctor confirmed the presence of a spider in my ear.?

Dr. Santosh Shivaswamy at Columbia Asia Hospital stressed that it?s one thing to remove a foreign object from an ear canal and another to remove a living creature ? especially when the patient knows exactly what it is.

?When a living insect makes its way inside a human ear, the patient?s anxiety makes it difficult to continue the procedure,? she said, according to The Mirror.

Fortunately, the eight-legged squatter calmly left her ear on its own, as the video shows.

In other instances, the victim wasn?t as lucky.

In 2015, a spider was found weaving a web inside of a woman?s ear cavity in China. When doctors tried to remove it, the insect responded aggressively, causing her even more pain.

Then in 2014, writer Annie Stoltie wrote of how a beetle climbed into her ear while camping in the Adirondack Mountains with family.

The pain the insect caused her was described as ?a full-body shock from my toes to my temples,? she wrote. ?With every stab I saw a flash of light.?

H/T Mashable

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… articlesList=581df761e4b0aac62484c203,5810df6ae4b08582f88d3e6a,580e8b49e4b0a03911ee6de7,5740178de4b00e09e89f30c3

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Orange County Sheriff Ordered To Testify In Hearings Over Jailhouse Snitch Scandal

SANTA ANA, Calif. ? An Orange County judge who ordered hearings related to the misuse of jailhouse informants inside county jails said that after weeks of inconsistent testimony from sheriff?s officials, he now wants to hear from the sheriff herself.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals said Thursday that he will order Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens to testify about a sophisticated and secretive jailhouse informant program that has already led to the unraveling of more than a dozen cases and threatens to upend countless others.

?Based on what we?ve heard, the sheriff needs to testify,? Goethals said Thursday. ?I don?t particularly care who calls her to testify.?

Over the last three weeks of hearings, a steady theme has emerged from testimony delivered by sheriff?s department leadership ? if deputies inside county jails were illegally working with informants and violated the rights of numerous defendants, it was just a handful of overzealous, rogue deputies doing so, and they did it behind the backs of their managers, who knew nothing of those improprieties at the time they took place.

But, this week, troubling questions were raised about the credibility of the supervisors? version of events. And those questions were punctuated by testimony from a sole sheriff?s deputy who said that his fellow deputies in the jail did work with informants, but did so under the supervision, and approval, of those above them in the chain of command.

The hearings were ordered as part of the penalty phase of the case against Scott Dekraai, who pleaded guilty to murdering eight people in 2011. Dekraai?s sentencing has remained in limbo amid allegations of malfeasance by county prosecutors and sheriff?s deputies over their misuse of an informant that officials allegedly illegally planted in jail next to Dekraai.

OCSD leadership shifts blame to allegedly rogue deputies

A commander and multiple sheriff?s lieutenants and sergeants have all testified that they did not know that their deputies were working extensively with informants in county jails. They also said they didn?t know that much of that work may have been illegal.

The sheriff?s department?s denial of the jail informant program is nothing new. Hutchens has said consistently that her deputies do not develop informants and direct them to elicit statements from other inmates.

But Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders, Dekraai?s attorney, has for years alleged that a long-concealed, illegal snitch program has been operating inside county jails, perhaps for decades. Under the program, he alleges, deputies placed informants next to targeted inmates and directed them to fish for incriminating evidence to help prosecutors secure convictions.

Last year, an 1,157-page formerly secret document, known as the Special Handling log, became public and bolstered Sanders? allegations significantly. Maintained by OCSD jail deputies for years, the thousands of log entries shed new light on the scope of the misconduct surrounding the jail informant program. Goethals has said the evidence that has already surfaced points to a snitch program in the jail, and his findings were affirmed in a 2016 California appeals court ruling.

?The magnitude of the systemic problems cannot be overlooked,? the appeals court ruling said.

However, in surprising testimony this week that the judge called ?the biggest piece of evidence? yet, Cmdr. Jon Briggs became the first command-level staffer to contradict Hutchens. Briggs said he believes it?s ?obvious? that a tainted informant program was being used by some deputies inside county jails and that significant misconduct had been going on, possibly for years.

Deputies were trying to ?one-up each other, like it is a fraternity and they are trying to do better than the other guy,? he said.

Briggs also said poor management from sergeants and lieutenants was largely to blame for the rampant misconduct described in the log ? a point other officers also made under oath.

?We had constant turnover of supervisors. Constant turnover of lieutenants,? Briggs said. ?The deputies were kind of ? if you want to refer to it as ? the inmates were running the asylum on that occasion,? Briggs said. ?With all the accolades being given to the deputy sheriffs ? they were senior deputies, trusted deputies ? by all accounts everybody thought they were doing a great job, so nobody looked into it.?

Briggs also said one deputy, Seth Tunstall, poisoned the behavior of other Special Handling deputies in the two jails in the county where informants are housed.

Tunstall has become a central figure in the Dekraai proceedings. In his 2015 opinion removing the entire Orange County District Attorney?s office from the case, Goethals singled out Tunstall and a fellow deputy for misleading the court. Tunstall worked in a unit that dealt with inmates and informants inside county jails before it was recently disbanded. He was also assigned to a gang task force with the Santa Ana Police Department, where Briggs believes Tunstall encouraged deputies to engage in the improper conduct with informants in the jails that is described in the log.

?You believe Seth Tunstall was changing the way Special Handling at both jails was doing business?? Sanders asked Briggs.

?Yes, sir,? he responded.

Cracks emerge in the sheriff?s department?s version of events

Yet just moments after Briggs pegged Tunstall as the source of the misconduct of other deputies in the jail, he appeared to back down after Sanders confronted him with an internal department memo celebrating the ?intelligence gathering? skills of the Special Handling unit at one county jail.

The memo states that the jail unit ?possesses an excellent expertise in the cultivation and management of informants? ? expertise ?recognized by the Orange County District Attorney?s Office as well as numerous law enforcement agencies throughout Southern California.? The memo, dated March 2007 and sent from an OCSD sergeant up the chain of command to a captain, was written during a period before Tunstall was working in the jails.

After showing Briggs the memo, Sanders asked: ?Do you think, looking at that, maybe your thesis about Seth Tunstall being the motivating factor could have been wrong??

?I guess it could have been, yes,? Briggs replied.

Sanders also showed Briggs a 2009 internal OCSD memo sent to command staff that requested permission, which was granted the same day, to place an informant next to an inmate charged with murder and then record the conversation. According to the testimony of OCSD officials, however, command-level staff weren?t aware of informant operations in the jail.

?Sergeants and lieutenants are actively deceiving this court? in their effort to claim ignorance about the informant operation within the jail, Sanders later told Goethals.

California Deputy Attorney General Mike Murphy, the lead prosecutor, disagreed, saying the evidence thus far did not indicate a ?greater cover-up.? 

On Thursday, additional inconsistencies emerged through the testimony of sheriff?s deputy Zachary Bieker.

Bieker said he and his fellow deputies worked with informants in the jail and documented that work in the Special Handling log. That contradicted a steady stream of sergeants and lieutenants who claimed to be unaware of the log, even though their deputies made daily entries in it. Bieker testified that the log was re-started in 2011 at the direction of a supervisor, and that he had discussions with supervisors about it.

According to Bieker, the work of a Special Handling deputy included not only making decisions about housing movements and maintaining jail safety, but working with informants. He said his efforts were fully known by his supervisors in the jail. Beiker added he was comfortable speaking with supervisors about what he described in the log.

Asked about the sophisticated jail informant operations Bieker said deputies were at times involved in, Bieker said: ?I don?t think it would be possible to hide it from a supervisor.?

Dekraai victim?s husband speaks out, wants OCSD officials held ?accountable? for misconduct 

Despite the misconduct that has already tainted the Dekraai case, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced in March that his office would continue to pursue the death penalty against Dekraai.

On Monday, Paul Wilson, whose wife Christy was one of the eight people killed by Dekraai at a Seal Beach hair salon in 2011, told Goethals that he would ?absolutely? prefer that Goethals drop the death penalty and instead sentence Dekraai to eight consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole ? an option Goethals has said he?s considering.

It?s a ?huge wound this continues to open by coming to court,? Wilson said on what would have been Christy?s 53rd birthday. ?I can?t tell you what this does to me.?

?The testimony we?ve heard in here, from people who knew exactly what they were doing, is pathetic.?

Hearings will resume next week.

Catch up on what happened during the hearings in week one, All The New Questions We Have About The Orange County Jail Informant Scandal, and week two, Key Witnesses In A California Jailhouse Snitch Scandal Refuse to Testify.

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

While You Were Paying Attention To Comey, House Republicans Voted For Everything Big Banks Want

WASHINGTON ? While much of the political world was watching the fallout from former FBI Director James Comey?s Senate testimony Thursday, House Republicans were jamming through a bill that would largely gut the financial regulations in Dodd-Frank, the landmark banking legislation passed in 2010 after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

But instead of quietly sneaking the legislation through, Republicans were loudly touting the bill ? which passed, 233-186, with all Democrats and one Republican (Walter Jones of North Carolina) voting no ? as a major victory.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) spent most of the week pointing to the measure as a win for community banks, calling the so-called Financial CHOICE Act the ?crown jewel? of a GOP effort to peel back regulations and bolster the economy. And Republicans, largely looking for something to discuss instead of Comey or Trump or any number of the other associated scandals, used the legislation as their preferred talking point of the week.

?The big banks are bigger. The small banks are fewer. We?re losing a community bank or credit union a day,? Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), the sponsor of the bill, said Thursday.

When HuffPost asked House Republicans about the bill Wednesday and Thursday ? whether easing Wall Street regulations was really the message of the 2016 election ? GOP lawmakers quickly reframed the measure as a win for community banking.

?We?re getting rid of ?too big to fail,? and we?re saving the little banks,? Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) said. ?There was over 14,000 community banks. We?re losing one a day; we?re under 7,000.?

Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said the legislation would lift regulations off local banks so they could more freely lend to their communities and small business. He said that small banks had been ?getting killed? by the regulations in the Dodd-Frank Act.

Freshman Rep. James Comer, who was a director of a community bank before coming to Congress, said he saw firsthand the impact of Dodd-Frank on small banks.

?With the community banks, they paid the price for the sins of the big banks,? Comer (R-Ky.) said. ?And in small towns, it?s become much harder to borrow money.?

But Democrats were quick to point out that if Republicans simply wanted to help small banks, they could have crafted a bill that did so without gutting other consumer protections meant to protect the market from risky bets.

?This is about going backwards,? Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) told HuffPost. ?Republicans were never very enthusiastic about holding Wall Street to account or protecting consumers, and this shows it.?

?It moves us back to an era before the 2008 meltdown when there was no one watching Wall Street,? Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said of the bill.

?If the Republicans were interested in some productive changes around community banking, there?s many Democrats who?ve been at the table on that as well,? Polis continued, ?but this bill would remove the critical consumer protections that were put in place from Dodd-Frank.?

Republicans were never very enthusiastic about holding Wall Street to account or protecting consumers, and this shows it.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.)

Specifically, the bill would subject the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to the appropriations process, meaning lawmakers could substantially cut, or even defund, the consumer watchdog. Democrats say subjecting the CFPB to congressional appropriations is the first step in eviscerating the agency.

The CHOICE Act would also cut the so-called Volcker Rule, which was meant to stop big banks from making speculative bets with taxpayer-backed funds. (Simple in premise, the Volcker Rule is in fact incredibly complex and contains multiple exemptions too large and purposeful to be called loopholes.) The bill would also remove regulators? increased power over ?systemically important financial institutions.? (Colloquially, these are the ?too big to fail? institutions.)  

Republicans have cannily described that ?too big to fail? designation as meaning the institutions are earmarked for bailouts. In fact, it subjects the institutions to greater regulation and forces them to produce plans showing they can fail without government intervention, and big finance companies fight ? and sometimes sue ? to avoid the tougher regulation the designation brings.

The legislation also would prohibit the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. from overseeing plans on how banks with more than $50 billion in holding assets would be unwound should they need to go into bankruptcy. And the bill would substantially lower capital requirements.

For years, as an alternative to Dodd-Frank, some Republicans have proposed increasing capital requirements as a simple way to make banks safer. Bankers and their lobbyists would often offer general agreement to such a trade. But given the chance to write such a bill, the banking industry and Republican lawmakers showed their hand: Higher capital requirements are out, and a banking system loaded up with more debt is in.

Dodd-Frank, like the complex and interrelated financial system it regulates, does not have a simple, identifiable core. There is no one main thing Dodd-Frank does or stops. Instead, Dodd-Frank reins in the hugely diverse, interconnected financial world ? banks, hedge funds, mortgage originators, insurance companies, debt collectors, payday lenders ? by creating dozens and dozens of new rules, processes and organizations. The CHOICE Act rips almost every bit of this away. If Dodd-Frank is the ecosystem of a wooded hillside and gentle stream, the CHOICE Act is mountaintop removal mining.

From the very inception of Dodd-Frank, the political right has seized on the law as onerous and harmful to economic growth. Gutting the law would be a substantial ?win? for Republicans in their minds, particularly when they can paint their actions as helping small banks.

But the bill undeniably allows riskier bets from banks and restrains the ability of regulators to monitor Wall Street. The legislation certainly would make it easier on small-town banks to lend more of their money, but the measure is wrapped in so many other sops to the financial industry that it?s unlikely to go anywhere in the Senate, where it?s subject to 60 votes to pass. Even the Trump administration gave a less than full-throated endorsements of the legislation in a statement, saying the administration ?looks forward to working with the Senate on arriving at a final piece of legislation.?

Still, the prospect of passing a bill ? any bill ? that Republicans like and Democrats hate was enough to thrill GOP lawmakers. Amid all the news about Russia and Comey on Thursday, Republicans set up a ?media row? in one of the House office buildings so members could play up their action on Dodd-Frank and try to muddle headlines about the president potentially obstructing justice. And as absurd as that plan may sound, it, in part, seemed to work.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage articlesList=591b3e92e4b05dd15f0beba7,5909fa1ae4b0bb2d0874171b

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Cop Has A Beef With Bolt In His Arby’s Sandwich

Red meat is a good source for iron, but this is a little extreme.

A police sergeant in Birmingham, Alabama, has a beef with fast-food chain Arby?s after he reportedly found a bolt in his sandwich last week. 

Sgt. Patrick Cosby said he was eating a roast beef sandwich at his desk on Thursday when he noticed something amiss.

?I took the first bite into the sandwich, I mashed down on something really hard,? Cosby told AL.com. ?I pulled back and spit it out and looked into the sandwich. There?s a massive bolt laying there. I?m kind of in shock.? 

Cosby?s first thought was that the additional ingredient might be intentional, because the Arby?s drive-in attendant recognized him as a law enforcement officer. 

The sergeant took pictures of the adulterated sandwich and sent them to his wife, Angela, who posted one on Facebook. 

Cosby then bolted back to the Arby?s to beef about the hardware in his sandwich.

The manager gave him his money back, and promised to investigate. Cosby said a regional manager told him a couple days later that the bolt came from a malfunctioning meat cutter.

An Arby?s representative insisted that ?no one was targeted,? according to WTVM TV.

?We have a longstanding tradition of supporting our men and women in uniform, and we are currently working with the guest to resolve the matter,? Arby?s senior vice president Christopher Fuller said, according to Fox News.

The Jefferson County Health Department visited the Arby?s on Monday. Officials told Cosby the bolt came from a faulty cutter ? a problem that had occurred at the restaurant in the past.

Cosby isn?t biting.

?I don?t know how you make a sandwich with a bolt that large in it and not be intentional,? Cosby told AL.com. ?I can?t wrap my head around that.?

– This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.