List of All Articles with Tag 'm'

If you want fast service from McDonald's, avoid going during the turn over from breakfast to lunch.

Following a five-year federal investigation, a grand jury has indicted President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden on three charges connected to a gun purchase in 2018, a time period during which the president’s son has admitted to using drugs. Federal law prohibits people who use drugs from buying firearms, but questions surrounding the constitutionality of that law could throw the case into jeopardy following a landmark US Supreme Court decision that opened a wave of litigation under the court’s expansive Second Amendment lens. That’s if the case survives the political maelstrom targeting the Biden family, with congressional Republicans eager to prosecute the president’s son and impeach his father in parallel probes separate from a US Department of Justice special counsel investigation facing GOP pressure. That partisan scrutiny comes as the leading candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination for president faces four sprawling criminal trials of his own, including charges for serious crimes allegedly committed while serving as 45th president. Republican officials and campaigns are eager to draw a false equivalence and dominate airtime with investigations surrounding the younger Biden instead. Ironically, a Supreme Court decision celebrated by Republicans last year may have set a precedent that could protect Hunter Biden from prosecution. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits people who use drugs from possessing firearms, a ban that applies to people who have admitted to using illegal drugs within 12 months before buying a gun, according to the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Violating that provision could land an offender with a 15-year prison sentence. But the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen – decided by the court’s six conservative justices – argues that such restrictions be historically consistent with the Second Amendment. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition.” The decision created an absurdly high new burden to test the constitutionality of restrictions and other safety measures to combat the proliferation of high-powered firearms and keep them out of the hands of people who could be a danger to themselves or others in the American era marked by daily mass shootings and surging rates of gun violence, analysts and advocates have argued. President Biden has said the decision “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution.” Within a year after that decision, more than a dozen state and federal gun laws have been challenged, with 30 per cent of civil cases and nearly 4 per cent of criminal cases citing the Bruen decision in challenges that have invalidated gun control measures, according to research in Duke Law Journal. This year, federal judges in several cases have ruled that banning someone who uses drugs from owning a firearm is “inconsistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” “In short, our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage,” Ronald Reagan-appointed US District Judge Jerry Smith wrote for a federal appeal courts panel in August. “Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users.” Hunter Biden is charged with illegally owning a gun as a drug user, and with allegedly lying on a form when he bought the firearm. If convicted, he could face up to 25 years in prison, though it is highly unlikely he would face such a sentence. Jacob Charles, a professor at Pepperdine University’s Caruso School of Law and a constitutional law scholar focusing on the Second Amendment, said Mr Biden’s attorneys likely have a viable Second Amendment case. It might be more difficult to challenge federal law against lying on a firearms form, which is not directly tied to Second Amendment rights, “so it’s possible that an appeals court or the Supreme Court would agree with the defense on both of the questions, and say it’s unconstitutional, and since it’s unconstitutional, you also can’t be punished for lying about the other category,” Mr Charles told The Independent. Essentially: if one count is on unconstitutional grounds, there’s a chance the other counts wouldn’t stand up either. “It’s not always the case that the higher profile the defendant, the more likely you’re going to get Supreme Court review,” he said. “Sometimes it seems to happen lately. But there are other cases that are farther along in the process that are challenging this same law, that if the court really wanted to answer this question, it wouldn’t have to use the Hunter Biden vehicle to do it.” Mr Charles says the case has underscored the “disruptive effects of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen” and the chaotic new landscape for the nation’s myriad gun laws, which now have an apparent historical analogy regardless of the urgency for such laws in the first place. This year, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a major Second Amendment test that further magnifies the chasm between the new historical test and current realities, when justices will hear a case involving a man who possessed firearms and allegedly repeatedly shot at people while subject to a domestic violence restraining order. It is also unclear what evidence prosecutors are reviewing to determine that Hunter Biden was using drugs at the time; those details are publicised in his memoir, in which he describes his struggle with abuse and his relapse in 2018, the year he bought the gun. Mr Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell believes the case will be tossed out altogether. “The only change that has occurred between when they investigated [this alleged crime] and today is that the law changed,” he told ABC’s Good Morning America on 15 September. “But the law didn’t change in favour of the prosecution. The law changed against it.” ‘I’ve never heard of this charge. Never’ Mr Lowell and others have also questioned the timing of the case, parallel to growing threats of impeachment from far-right members of Congress against President Biden and adjacent investigations from House Republicans seeking criminal prosecutions against the president and his family. “The US Attorney’s Office has known about this for years,” Mr Lowell said. “What changed? Not the facts, not the law, but all the politics that have now come into play.” The younger Biden was prepared to plead guilty to charges stemming from the firearms purchase as well as separate tax-related misdemeanours earlier this year, though a plea agreement appeared to fall apart under scrutiny from a federal judge. Justice Department special counsel David Weiss, who as US Attorney for Delaware has been investigating Hunter Biden for roughly five years, said he would seek a grand jury indictment in the case by the end of September. Mr Weiss was appointed by Mr Trump and initially requested by congressional Republicans to lead a special counsel probe. Following the collapse of that plea deal, Mr Lowell stressed to CBS Face the Nation that Mr Weiss is “a Republican US attorney appointed by a Republican president and attorney general who had career prosecutors working this case for five years looking at every transaction” in which Hunter Biden was involved. “If anything changes from his conclusion,” he added, “the question should be asked, what infected the process that was not the facts in the law?” Outside of the constitutional scrutiny in Mr Biden’s case is the unusual stand-alone charge for lying on a form, which is typically charged in connection with a more serious underlying crime. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 – supported by then-Senator Joe Biden as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee – made a federal form for firearms purchases a key part of a package of anti-crime legislation. According to prosecutors, Hunter Biden lied on the form when he was asked whether he is an “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.” But the chance of being prosecuted for lying on that form is exceedingly rare among the millions of background checks performed each year. Within the fiscal year that Mr Biden bought the gun and filled out that paperwork, federal prosecutors received 478 referrals for charges – and filed cases in roughly half of them. Mr Biden likely did receive so-called “special treatment” from federal prosecutors, as Republican officials have claimed. But it was in the opposite direction. His prosecution appears especially more severe than that facing a typical defendant. “Can anyone tell me how many people have been federally indicted for purchasing a gun while dealing with substance abuse issues?” asked Keisha Lance Bottoms, a former senior adviser to President Biden. “I don’t know the answer, but in my over 29 years as an attorney, I have never heard of it.” According to former Justice Department inspector general Michael Bromwich, these kinds of charges simply do not happen. “I’ve been involved in law enforcement both as a prosecutor and a defense lawyer for 40 years. I’ve never heard of this charge being brought. Never,” according to Mr Bromwich, who served as Justice Department inspector general from 1995 to 1999 and previously served as a federal prosecutor in New York. He is currently a senior counsel at Steptoe & Johnson LLP. “I think it’s extremely unusual to bring, if not unprecedented to bring, this set of charges,” he told The Independent. “These charges were brought as a result of the unrelenting political pressure brought by Republicans in Congress to bring a heavy hand down on Hunter Biden as a way of trying to get to Joe Biden, and I think the prosecutor, Mr Weiss … has succumbed to political pressure,” he said. A plea agreement like the one reached this summer “is much more in keeping with what an ordinary prosecutor would do,” according to Mr Bromwich. Should Mr Weiss seek a plea arrangement like the one prosecutors sought earlier this year, his office is “going to invite criticism from the very Republicans who will put the pressure on him right now who now feel great that there are these very serious charges against Hunter Biden,” he told The Independent. “Given all the forces at play, all the political pressure exerted from the Republican members of Congress, it’s very hard to predict where this is going to go, and how.” Read More Trump denies pushing for Biden impeachment inquiry in secret meetings with MAGA Republicans Hunter Biden indicted: What are the charges and what could happen next? Will House Republicans put up or shut up on Hunter Biden? Should domestic abusers have the right to be armed? The Supreme Court could upend protections for survivors Trump, January 6 and a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election: The federal investigation, explained

Hunter Biden has sued the IRS, arguing that they unlawfully released his private tax information. The son of the president is also alleging that the tax agency failed to safeguard his private records. The younger Mr Biden is seeking all the files linked to the disclosure of tax information, as well as $1,000 for every improper disclosure, and legal fees, in addition to other things, CNN reported. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Washington, DC. It doesn’t name the two IRS whistleblowers as defendants, but it’s focused on information shared by the agents – Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler – as well as their lawyers in testimony to Congress, interviews, and public statements. “Despite clear warnings from Congress that they were prohibited from disclosing the contents of their testimony to the public in another forum, Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler’s testimony only emboldened their media campaign against Mr. Biden,” the legal filing notes. “And finally, since their public testimony before the House of Representatives on July 19, 2023, the agents have become regular guests on national media outlets and have made new allegations and public statements regarding Mr. Biden’s confidential tax return information that were not previously included in their transcripts before the Committee on Ways and Means.” “The lawsuit is about the decision by IRS employees, their representatives, and others to disregard their obligations and repeatedly and intentionally publicly disclose and disseminate Mr. Biden’s protected tax return information outside the exceptions for making disclosures in the law,” Mr Biden’s legal filing states. “These agents’ putative ‘whistleblower’ status cannot and does not shield them from their wrongful conduct in making unauthorized public disclosures that are not permitted by the whistleblower process. In fact, a ‘whistleblower’ is supposed to uncover government misconduct, not the details of that employee’s opinion about the alleged wrongdoing of a private person,” the lawsuit adds. The legal filing claims that Mr Shapley and Mr Ziegler did more than verify the investigation into Mr Biden – that they shared specific claims against the 53-year-old, the amount of the deductions he had taken and how much he owed in taxes. Mr Shapley’s attorneys said in a Friday statement that Mr Biden’s lawyers have attempted to get the Department of Justice to take action against their clients for sharing information that was protected under whistleblower regulations. “Taxpayer privacy laws are written by Congress, and it gave itself authority in those laws to hear disclosures about taxpayer information,” a lawyer for Mr Shapley said in the statement on Friday. The agents shared their allegations regarding the Department of Justice’s handling of the Biden probe earlier this year. The Department of Justice said in June that they had struck a deal with Mr Biden that meant that he would plead guilty to two tax misdemeanours after he didn’t pay his taxes on time in 2017 and 2018. Mr Biden also agreed to a deal which would mean that he wouldn’t be charged with a gun possession violation, but that agreement was torn up following scrutiny by a federal judge. When the judge declined to greenlight the deal, discussions ended between the office of US Attorney David Weiss and Mr Biden’s legal team. Mr Weiss then asked for, and was granted, the status of Special Counsel. Mr Biden was indicted on three felony gun charges on Thursday and the office of Mr Weiss has stated that they could bring tax charges, with Washington, DC and California being on the list of possible jurisdictions. Read More Rambling Biden is on the ropes – will his Democratic challengers strike? Trump denies pushing for Biden impeachment inquiry in secret meetings with MAGA Republicans Trump suggests Biden impeachment is revenge for his own

The four men and one woman fly out of Tehran after $6bn of frozen Iranian funds is released.

Cats and “Pspsps” go together like toddlers and the crinkling wrapper of a candy bar that you were trying to eat in secret. What gives?

The 150 million year-old camptosaurus is expected to fetch up to €1.2m ($1.2m) in October.

Kyiv says Moscow falsely used genocide law to justify its invasion, but Russia wants the case thrown out.

Dr Victor Ebenuwa misdiagnosed a patient's condition and medication, a tribunal hears.

By Paul Sandle LONDON (Reuters) -Britain set out principles designed to prevent generative AI models like ChatGPT from being dominated

By Paritosh Bansal Cadence Bank CEO Dan Rollins calls the regional banking crisis from earlier this year "March

Over a dozen climate activists were arrested in Berlin after they sprayed orange paint onto the iconic Brandenburg Gate amid worldwide protests held over the weekend demanding governments put a stop to burning planet-heating fossil fuels. Members of the Last Generation group used fire extinguishers filled with paint to spray all six columns of the popular landmark in Germany’s capital on Sunday. Police cordoned off the area surrounding Brandenburg Gate and confirmed they detained 14 activists affiliated with the Last Generation. The group said it wants Germany to stop using all fossil fuels by 2030 and take short-term measures, including imposing a general speed limit of 100km/h on highways to cut emissions more quickly. “The protest makes it clear: It is time for a political change. Away from fossil fuels – towards fairness,” the group said in a statement. Berlin mayor Kai Wegner condemned the group’s actions, saying their tactics go beyond legitimate forms of protest. “With these actions, this group is not only damaging the historic Brandenburg Gate, but also our free discourse about the important issues of our time and future,” he told German news agency DPA. Arrests also took place in Sweden where police said they detained 17 people suspected of sabotage after climate activists entered Stockholm’s Bromma airport, which operates mainly domestic routes, and sprayed red paint on one aircraft, police told Swedish news agency TT. An ambulance flight was forced to land at Stockholm’s main international Arlanda airport instead of Bromma due to the action, according to Swedish airport authorities. The climate activists announced later that the action was part of a global campaign calling for a ban on private jets. These demonstrations were among hundreds of events taking place worldwide this weekend ahead of this year’s UN General Assembly meeting. Photos and videos on social media showed thousands gathering in dozens of cities across Europe, the US, India, Africa, Australia and South America. People held banners demanding stronger action from governments against heat-trapping carbon pollution responsible for the climate crisis. Burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas is scientifically proven to be responsible for the majority of carbon pollution that is heating up the world and fuelling more extreme weather and disasters. There is an increased demand to end reliance on fossil fuel for energy and continued subsidies given to oil and gas, especially ahead of the upcoming UN sessions and climate talks in November. Tens of thousands of people also gathered in New York and across the US on Sunday. The March to End Fossil Fuels featured politicians such as representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and actors Susan Sarandon, Ethan Hawke, Edward Norton, Kyra Sedgewick and Kevin Bacon. In one strike in Quezon City in the Philippines, activists lay in front of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in protest and held signs demanding fossil fuels be phased out. The protests were driven by several mostly youth-led, local and global climate groups and organisations, including Greta Thunberg’s Fridays for Future movement. Additional reporting by agencies Read More Tens of thousands join March to End Fossil Fuels in New York City to demand climate action from Biden Climate protesters around the world are calling for an end to fossils fuels as the Earth heats up More than 3,000 arrested as massive climate protests block major Netherlands motorway for fifth day World’s largest carbon-sucking factory starts operation in Iceland ‘The climate crisis is a reality’: Africa’s summer of extremes Against the odds: The fight to save sea turtles in Ras Baridi

A baby’s “beautiful big blue eyes” which were complimented by everyone - turned out to be a symptom of a condition causing blindness. Louise Bice, 34, was stunned when her daughter, Aretria, was born with big blue eyes - a trait nobody else in the family had. Her “beautiful” eyes would see the tot complimented “six or seven times every day” by strangers - which Louise loved. But at six months old, in May 2023, one of Aretria’s baby blue eyes turned “milky” and any light caused the tot to scream in pain. Louise and her partner, Connor Bice, 29, a chartered accountant, thought their youngest daughter might have hit her eye with a toy. But the family were told Aretria - now 10 months old - had a severe case of bilateral congenital glaucoma, a genetic abnormality which saw extreme and growing pressure on the optic nerve. Her much-loved big eyes actually required urgent surgery. Tiny Aretria had a four-hour operation at Birmingham Children’s Hospital in June to relieve the pressure - but follow-up tests showed it had failed. She had a second surgery in August and her parents are awaiting the results - although the tot has lost almost 100 per cent of her vision in one eye already. Mum Louise wants to warn other parents to look for the symptoms - and to not assume big eyes are “beautiful” when they could be a sign of something more serious. Louise, a stay-at-home mum, from Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, said: “I never expected Ari’s big, beautiful eyes to be a bad thing. “Suddenly one day her eye clouded over - one minute it was fine and 15 minutes later it was completely changed. “Specialists had to do horrific tests on her and I learned she had already lost some vision in both eyes. “After two surgeries we still don’t know what will happen - she already has just five per cent vision left in her right eye. “She’s in so much pain and I don’t know if she can cope with another surgery. “I just think if we had managed to get this diagnosed before the pressure got out of control, she might not now be blind in one eye. “If someone had said it was weird, she had big eyes rather than cute we might have got it checked - but none of us knew it was even a red flag.” After Aretria was born on October 20, 2022, her big eyes became a source of many compliments from friends and family. Her parents even lovingly likened their little one to a cartoon bug, thinking nothing of it. Even doctors and health visitors thought they were sweet - and nobody mentioned any risks. But on May 20, Louise popped to the shop and when she returned 15 minutes later one of her daughter’s eyes was clouded. Louise said: “Connor sent me a picture that morning of the two of them together while I was out and her eyes were fine. “When I got back her right eye had clouded over. “I hadn’t even got through the door when I said ‘we need to take her to A&E right now’.” They went to their local hospital, King’s Mill, Mansfield, then were sent to Chesterfield Royal Hospital, Derbyshire, where doctors identified the high pressure but couldn’t work out why it was happening. They were then booked in to see specialists at Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, two days later on May 22. Aretria’s condition was finally diagnosed - as bilateral congenital glaucoma - and even the specialists said they’d only seen a handful of cases. Medics explained the little girl needed surgery but warned even then, she’d be left with little vision in her worst eye because the damage had already been done. Louise said: “Doctors said she had been exposed to high eye pressure from birth because her fluid drainage system didn’t form properly in her eye when she was still in the womb.” A surgery was scheduled at Birmingham Children’s Hospital, West Midlands, for June 13 which saw the tot go under the knife. The four-hour procedure was followed by a month of eye drops six times a day as well as having protective eye shields taped onto her face for a week. Louise said: “We didn’t get any sleep for about a week after and hoped that would be the last of it. “But two weeks later when we went back for her post-op, the pressure readings were even higher than before. “The operation had failed - and she would need more surgery.” A second operation was done on August 18 - and it was again followed by a gruelling recovery for the tot, who couldn’t understand why any of it was happening. They’re still waiting for official results, but signs so far suggest the surgery may have been unsuccessful for a second time. Louise said if that’s the case, medics will move on to a different kind of surgery to release the pressure involving drainage tubes or valves. She fears the tot “might not cope with another surgery” - but they may not have a choice. While Aretria’s vision is virtually gone in her right eye, her left eye is compensating - although Louise and Connor fear the vision will worsen in her good eye too. Louise wants to warn parents to look out for the symptoms - even if they might not seem sinister. She said: “Before, she used to get compliments about her eyes six or seven times a day. “Now I just feel really awkward when people say it. “Aesthetically it might be, but having these big, beautiful eyes isn’t always a good thing. “If we knew that before, she might not be blind in her right eye now.” Read More GoFundMe for actor blinded in attack over Covid mask tops $15,000 He couldn’t see his wedding. But this war-blinded Ukrainian soldier cried with joy at new love A camp teaches Ukrainian soldiers who were blinded in combat to navigate the world again ‘Millions of women and girls suffer severe pain’ during periods – research finds Miriam Margolyes jokes that her ‘longing for fudge’ caused her health issues 5 things everyone needs to know about eczema