In compiling the report, a non-profit organization analyzed data on vehicle thefts received from the FBI National Crime Information Center. As a result, US cities with the highest rates of vehicle theft per capita in 2018 were identified.

The list is not the first to lead the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, despite the fact that compared to 2016, the number of hijackings decreased by 28%.

The National Bureau of Crime Prevention explains the improvement in the fact that the Office for the Prevention of Car Theft was created in the state of New Mexico. But this success was not enough for Albuquerque not to take first place in the list of hot spots.

In these cities, cars are stolen most often:

Albuquerque, New Mexico
Anchorage, Alaska
Bakersfield, CA
Pueblo, Colorado
Modesto, California
Redding, California
Stockton-Lodi, CA
Wichita, KS
Vallejo-Fairfield, CA
St. Joseph, Missouri

The organization explains that the rating results were obtained on the basis of a population survey, therefore “an area with a much smaller population and a moderate number of hijackings often has a higher level of car theft than the area where more hijackings are statistically absorbed by a large number of residents”.

That is why St. Joseph ranks 10th with 674 car thefts, and Los Angeles – 38 with more than 53,000 hijackings.

In general, the statistics of car thefts in the United States in 2018 decreased by 3.3%, according to preliminary data from the FBI. The National Bureau of Crime Prevention notes that the number of thefts has decreased since 2004. In the period from 1991 to 2017, the number of stolen cars decreased by 53%.

The improvement is explained by the fact that “automobile manufacturers, law enforcement agencies and legislative bodies for many years reacted to crimes related to vehicle theft”.

How best to insure the car from theft

If you live in one of the states included in the list of the National Bureau of Anti-Crime, there is a high probability that you pay more for car insurance. Living in an area with a high level of hijacking can increase insurance premiums.

Fortunately, you can optimize the cost of car insurance, regardless of where you live. The best way to do this is to periodically compare your rate with those offered by other insurers. To do this, call several insurance or fill out the forms on their websites.

Picture Credit: RJA1988

The post The U.S. City Where Your Car Is Most Likely to Be Stolen appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

Laws that Save Lives

“This bill suggests that every life has value, every life matters and deserves protection,” said Georgia’s governor Brian Kemp on May 7, signing a bill to ban abortions after 5-6 weeks of gestation.

Americans responded instantly to him, calling him “discriminatory” and “unconstitutional”. Even more outraged by the similar law in Alabama: it not only prohibits abortion in most cases, but also declares them a criminal offense. At the same time responsibility for him will not be borne by women, and doctors who will carry out the operation: they face up to 99 years imprisonment.

In the states of Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky and Ohio, this year has already banned abortions after the appearance of a heartbeat in the fetus. Queuing is Louisiana and South Carolina.

On May 17, a scandalous bill was signed in Missouri. Most of the Senate deputies, like in Alabama and Georgia, are Republicans.

Democrats are mostly opposed to the law: a Missourian senator, Jill Shup, has accused legislators of “not wanting to understand that all women’s lives are organized differently.”

So far, the prohibition of abortion in these states actually does not work: some have not yet come into force, while others challenge it in the courts. In North Dakota and Iowa, these laws recognized the courts as unconstitutional.
However, women who are planning – at present, still legally – to do an abortion, are already facing difficulties. For example, in Mississippi, the entire state has only one clinic where you can interrupt pregnancy.

According to a poll conducted by Morning Consult / Politico in Alabama and Georgia after the adoption of laws, 33% of people support the prohibition of abortion, while 56% oppose such an initiative.

Among the supporters of these laws is the majority of Republicans. United States President Donald Trump said that “he strongly advocates life, though he has three exceptions: rape, incest and the need to protect his mother’s life.”

However, the first two cases do not take into account the new law in Alabama. The UN Human Rights Committee emphasizes that abortions should be safe for the first time, and “as experience shows, a total ban on abortion does not reduce their number, but only drove them into an underground, thus calling into question the safety, life and health of women” .

The UN and human rights organization Human Rights Watch have declared “the discriminatory nature of such bills.”

Fighting and its results

As long as the laws have not come into action, human rights defenders can challenge them in the Supreme Court. Representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) plan to go there. They believe that the adopted ban on abortion is contrary to the historic decision of the Supreme Court of 1973 – it was then that they were legalized at the federal level. It all began with the case of Roo v. Wade, when the residents of Texas succeeded in securing the recognition of an abortion law in the state unconstitutional and eventually legally abortion.

Initiators of restricting the right to abortion, mainly Republicans, have their own political motives for such decisions. For example, in Alabama 63% of state believers – Protestants, along with Catholics, they oppose the artificial abortion.

After the legalization of abortion at the state level in the 1970s, they resorted to a radical confrontation, including staging pogroms in hospitals.

Now the state authorities are coming to meet them, wanting to secure their positions in the state on the eve of the new presidential elections.

With the advent of the United States, Donald Trump of the Republican Party, known for his negative attitude to abortion, the situation has changed.

In 2016, the president said that “abortions should not be legal”, and “women who do them should be punished.” Trump also appointed two judges to the Supreme Court: in 2017 Nila Gorscha, and in 2018 Bretta Kavano. Experts suggest that, through them, Republicans can take a look at the case of “Row v. Wade.”

So that the highest judicial body in the United States reconsiders the case, four of the nine judges agree. And if that happens, it will motivate supporters of abortions throughout America.

Picture Credit: hhach

The post Alabama: Republican State Senate Passes Most Restrictive Law In Us appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

Several dozens of states, cities, and community groups joined the judicial struggle against the Trump administration, saying the issue was inappropriate in a census that should count every person living in the United States, regardless of his status.

The US Census Bureau did not ask for citizenship for 70 years, although in 1950 it was asked where all family members were born. If someone was born outside the United States, they were asked if they were naturalized citizens.

Opponents of the question claim that it would entail the refusal of some groups of the population to participate in the census. And this, in turn, may lead to an unaccounted number of immigrants and color communities, which will have serious consequences for the distribution of federal funding over the next decade.

Counting the population determines how many seats in the Congress and the votes in the Electoral College each state receives. It also determines the allocation of approximately $ 880 billion per year to states and local communities to pay for Medicare, schools, and other public services.

Picture Credit: PublicDomainPictures

The post Justices to Decide Whether ’20 Census Can Ask About Citizenship appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

“I remember they brought a young man who was accused of carrying a weapon. “He never had a weapon with him, your honor!” “OK let’s see”.

We went to his Facebook page and the first thing we came across was a photo of a child holding pistols and smiling widely. For the most part, everything you post online is in the public domain. If you say: “This is not my photo”, then this issue will need to be resolved in advance before the jury sees the photo. How can you prove that you are not in the photo? Or vice versa? Well, the photo was published from this account. And the account belongs to you.

Sometimes there are cases when someone publishes your photo in their own home – and you really wouldn’t want someone to see it. Suppose you have a drunk driving trial in progress. And in the photo it is very clearly visible that you were drunk, and the date coincides with the time when you were stopped on the road while drunk. And in this case, you do not have the right to indignation. You cannot appeal to the fact that you were filmed without asking.

You were in a public place. People just wanted to capture the moment. If you accidentally hit the shot while committing a crime, then everything is very bad. This photo is a clear proof of your guilt, and it is useless to deny it.

The ban on the use of illegally obtained data is used mainly in the law enforcement environment. It does not apply to a civilian. If you are stupid enough to let other people catch you at the crime scene, everything is very bad for you.

Picture Credit: Alexas_Fotos

The post Here’s How Social Media Can Be Used Against You In Court appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

They were supposed to be delivered to the Mexican border town of Tijuana on January 25, but observers did not notice the arrival of migrants in the city that day, Voice of America reports.

Mexican officials have officially declared their willingness to take care of those who are waiting in their territory for asylum in the United States. At the same time, Mexico nevertheless expressed dissatisfaction with the “one-sided” decision of the United States to send asylum seekers back to Mexico for the duration of their cases. Given the situation in the US immigration courts, asylum cases can take several months or even years.

“The government of Mexico does not agree with the unilateral decision of the government of the United States. However, we confirm that our government supports migrants and protects human rights, ”said Roberto Velasco, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico.

The local authorities of Tijuana expressed dissatisfaction with such a policy. The mayor of Tijuana called on the central government to shoulder the financial burden of maintaining migrants.

According to the previously existing rules, if the US government accepted asylum requests, the immigrants who submitted them were allowed to stay in the United States pending a decision on their cases, they were often detained for a waiting period, but kept in the US. Since January 25, this policy has changed, the Donald Trump administration unilaterally, without consulting with the Mexican authorities, decided to send asylum seekers to await decisions on their cases in Tijuana.

However, in the border cities of Mexico migrants suffer from attacks by criminal gangs. Cases of murder, kidnapping demanding ransom or forced labor for criminal cartels are known.

Representatives of the Democratic Party in Congress criticized the new Trump administration policy.

“The Trump administration has set about to destroy the asylum system, which appeared in response to the horrors of World War II, in order to provide victims of reprisals an opportunity to ask the government for shelter,” said Senator Dian Feinstein and Congressman Jerrold Nedler, representing the US Democratic Party.

Picture Credit: geralt

The post US set to send first group of asylum seekers back to Mexico appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

Florida only recognizes two mutually exclusive grounds for filing a divorce. The claimant must state that the marriage has finally collapsed and cannot be restored (“irretrievably broken”), or that the court recognized one of the spouses as mentally incapacitated for at least three years prior to filing the application.

Do such restrictions in the law mean complete exemption from any liability for immoral behavior? Not! Limiting the grounds for divorce and exemption from proving guilt means that the court is not interested in the reasons for the breakdown of family relations. The only thing that the court needs to know is whether there is a possibility of reconciliation of the parties and restoration of family relations. As they say, you will not be forced by force, and if the applicant believes that the marriage cannot be saved, the court will not understand the reasons.

However, the court may take into account the guilt of one or both spouses, including violation of marital fidelity, waste of jointly acquired property, mistreatment of a spouse or children, as one of the factors affecting the determination of the size of marital content (“alimony“), parental responsibilities, the division of property and the distribution of responsibility for debts, and the determination of the party responsible for paying lawyer’s services.

So, if one of the spouses had extramarital affairs, the court may consider this fact by deciding on the award and the amount of marital support for that spouse or on refusing to pay one.

In cases of physical violence against a spouse and / or children, if this adversely affects the development and condition of children, the court can take into account the behavior of this parent by determining the duration and frequency of his or her visits with children.

Under certain circumstances, when the behavior of one of the spouses has led to the waste of jointly acquired property and the depletion of financial resources, the court can move away from 50/50 sharing of property between the spouses and determine other shares for each of them.

Under certain circumstances, when the behavior of one of the spouses has led to the waste of jointly acquired property and the depletion of financial resources, the court can move away from 50/50 sharing of property between the spouses and determine other shares for each of them. The court may also include the value of the property as part of the share of the court-determined portion of the remaining property.

Picture Credit: Tumisu

The post Family Law and Divorce in Florida appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

“Just as we cannot“ make laws from the bench, ”the executive cannot make decisions from the Oval Office,” wrote district judge Jay Bibi, a conservative nominated by President George W. Bush.

The new rules proposed by Trump prohibit seeking asylum to anyone who crosses the US-Mexican border outside official checkpoints – a reaction to the caravans of migrants from Central America.

Lower courts have stated that federal law does not allow the president to make such changes. The statute states that an application for asylum must be received from any alien who “is physically located in the United States or arriving in the United States, regardless of whether he is at the indicated checkpoint or not, regardless of the status of such a foreigner.”

Trump called US District Judge John Tyghar “Obama Judge” when he blocked the innovation on December 19, and then refused to immediately restore it. This provoked a reproach against Trump from Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who defended the independence of the federal judiciary.

Lee Gelert of the American Civil Liberties Union, representing those who challenge these rules, said in a briefing at the trial that this policy cannot be justified, adding that this is fundamentally unfair to those who have legitimate asylum applications.

According to him, “those who flee from persecution are desperate and most often unsophisticated, are not aware of the possibility of applying for asylum at the point of entry, are persecuted by gangs and individuals and therefore cannot reach these ports because of the danger and distance “.

Recall that on Thursday, the US Department of Homeland Security announced a new policy that prohibits asylum seekers from entering the US and is demanding that a decision be expected in Mexico.

Also two weeks ago, Donald Trump offered to charge $ 50 from anyone who wants to seek asylum in the United States.

Picture Credit: Matt Schwartz

The post U.S. Supreme Court denies Trump’s ban on asylum for illegal migrants appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood said that during the investigation they revealed a “shocking pattern regarding the Trump Foundation — including illegal political coordination with his presidential campaign,” RTVi writes.

The remaining $ 1.75 million will be handed over to other charitable organizations, which will be approved by the State Office and the judge. “This is an important victory for the principle of the rule of law, which shows that for all there is one set of rules,” the prosecutor general added.

The largest donation in the history of the fund – $ 264 thousand. The sum was donated by the private non-profit organization Central Park Conservancy in 1989 and, as the newspaper notes, benefited Trump’s business – it went to the restoration of the fountain near the Trump Plaza hotel.

The smallest donation was in the same year from the boy scouts, in the amount of $ 7. And it also benefited the Trump family, WP writes. That was exactly how much it cost to enroll a boy in scouts that year, and it was then that Trump’s son Donald Jr. was 11 years old (at that age they are taking boy scouts).

Underwood’s investigation also revealed that Trump’s children, Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka were employees of the foundation, but have not held a board of directors meeting since 1999. Allen Weisselberg, the treasurer of the fund and the head of the Trump Organization, told investigators that he did not know that he was on the board.

In June of this year, Underwood filed a lawsuit against US President Donald Trump, his three children, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing them of illegal activities for more than ten years. The lawsuit also demanded compensation for the city in the amount of $ 2.8 million.

According to the Prosecutor General’s Office, the fund’s employees repeatedly made deals in the personal and business interests of Donald Trump. In response, Trump said he was not going to satisfy this claim.

Picture Credit: quinntheislander

The post Trump Foundation to dissolve under court supervision appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

Contact your local bar association to help you find a qualified lawyer.

In some states, immigration law specialists are required to undergo certification. These lawyers take exams to test special knowledge in the field of immigration law.

The lists of these certified professionals are currently listed on the websites of the following states: California, Florida, North Carolina and Texas.

If you need legal assistance on an immigration issue, but you do not have enough money to hire a lawyer, there are some ways to get inexpensive or free help.

Consider getting help at one of the following places:

1. In a recognized organization. These are organizations that are officially recognized by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). In order to be recognized by the Appeals Board, an organization must have sufficient knowledge and experience in providing services to immigrants. An organization may charge and accept only very small fees for its services.
2. Have an accredited representative. These are individuals who are associated with organizations officially recognized by the BIA. Such representatives may charge or accept only a very small fee for their services.

3. Have a qualified representative. These are individuals who provide free services. Such representatives should be familiar with immigration law and court rules. Students and law graduates, as well as conscientious people associated with you personally or professionally (relative, neighbor, clergyman, work colleague, friend) can act as qualified representatives.

4. In companies providing free legal services. The Ministry of Justice has a list of approved firms that provide free legal services to people who participate in immigration proceedings. This is a list of lawyers and organizations that may agree to represent immigrants in cases handled by immigration courts. Such lawyers and organizations agree to help immigrants on a voluntary basis (free of charge) only in immigration proceedings. Some of them will not be able to assist you in matters not related to the consideration of the case in court, that is, on applications for visas, naturalization, etc.

5. In a firm participating in the free legal services program (volunteer). A list of local approved organizations and their volunteer (free of charge) organizations can usually be obtained from each local office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Tip: keep multiple copies of all forms that you send to the US Immigration and Citizenship Service (USCIS) and other government agencies. Send copies of documents, not originals. Forms can sometimes be lost, so saving copies will help avoid problems.

Picture Credit: Claimaccident

The post Where can I find free legal resources? Where can I get free immigration help? appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

To date, the area of ​​the grizzly bear in the United States has decreased to 2% of its original area. Bear populations are preserved in the national parks of the country – Yellowstone, Denali and Glacier. Since the habitat of animals is not too extensive, at times to reduce the population of bears allow seasonal hunting.

Grizzly may fear nothing

Last year, the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that grizzly bears are no longer on the list of endangered species to which they were included in 1975, which means hunting is allowed. Quite possibly, this was due to the fact that in four years in the territory of Yellowstone National Park and in its vicinity three attacks by bears of people with a fatal outcome occurred at once, and several episodes of grizzly attacks on cattle were recorded.

Despite the fact that local authorities promised to establish quotas for the number of animals that were taken (according to preliminary information, in the states of Wyoming and Idaho, these figures were 23 heads each) and to stop all attempts to go beyond them, this initiative was challenged immediately by six lawsuits. Parties to animal protection organizations and Indian tribes inhabiting the north-west of the country. Indeed, even taking into account the fact that the bear population of Yellowstone National Park has grown significantly over forty years, and today is about 700 individuals, it still remains quite low in comparison with the area inhabited by animals.

The animal defenders did not associate the grizzly attacks on tourists, not with the growing number of bear populations, but with the fact that the number of visitors to the national park has increased significantly, and they do not always take precautions, often going alone to the forest.

As part of a meeting in Montana, federal judge Dana Christensen decided to cancel the verdict of the Fish Resources and Wildlife Service and renew the ban on hunting for Yellowstone bears, returning the grizzly protected status two days before the first hunting season of these animals since 1991.

The judge said that the population of 700 individuals is negligible compared to what the population of grizzly bears was in the nineteenth century, and it is too early to say that the United States grizzlies are out of danger. Alas, the residents of Wyoming and Idaho, who are now preparing to go on a campaign for trophies, will now have to look for new prey.

Alternative opinion

The grizzly bear is the largest subspecies of the brown bear.

The National Rifle Association, the Wyoming Farms Bureau, as well as members of hunting associations have already expressed their dissatisfaction with the decision of Christensen. All of them see grizzly bears in the first place as a huge threat to humans and livestock: since these animals are not afraid of people, having multiplied in large numbers, they can begin to terrorize the settlements located near Yellowstone National Park. Canada has been suffering from a bear problem for many years – animals come to feed on landfills, allowing citizens to go outside, hunt cows and sheep, destroy crops in gardens and fields.

Whether Christensen was right, leaving behind the Yellowstone Grizzlies a protected species status will be shown in the coming years. If the statistics of attacks on people and livestock do not begin to grow rapidly, then the bears can live in peace in the national park for a very long time.

Picture Credit: jill111

The post US Judge Blocks First Yellowstone-Area Grizzly Hunt In 40 Years appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.