US Senate May Block HFC Landmark Climate Treaty

The US Senate could choose to approve or block the landmark HFC climate treaty that bans the use of climate-changing chemicals.

While the United Nations climate talks have approved and supported the climate treaty on the ban on HFC chemicals and finalised deals with countries to avoid using the chemicals in refrigerators and air conditioners, the US senate may vote not to ban the products.

Coinciding with the climate treaty approval is the enforcement of the Paris agreement.

American experts on international environmental law said the new HFC agreement may require two-thirds of the votes from the Senate. The new treaty on HFCs could only start in 2019 if enough countries formally agree to join the treaty.

“This is different from Paris, in that it requires ratification — and that’s concerning to me,” said Michael Wara, and expert on energy and environmental law at Stanford. “This is going to require getting Republicans to vote for it.”

If Trump wins next month’s election, his campaign statements on environmental issues strongly suggest he would not pursue American ratification of the HFC agreement. But even if Hillary Clinton wins, Republicans may yet be able to block America from entering into the agreement.

“I worry about her ability to have enough cocktails with enough Republican senators to get this over the hump,” Wara said. “That’s a heavy lift.”

Brexit Threatens Equal Laws Between Men and Women

Equality law and developments on equal pay had been "profoundly driven" by Europe. As the UK had voted out of its EU membership, equal pay laws for men and women may find different standard as future governments may attempt to tamper the laws.

The UK government said the Parliament will repeal the equality laws through a vote.

According to Professor Aileen McColgan and Professor Catherine Barnard of Kings College London, the laws would depend on the government of the day.

She said that nothing may change after the UK leaves the EU as most directives was implemented by 

UK law.

"But on another level it means there would be no underpinning or demand for maintenance of the current provisions, so... it is very troubling as the whole thing could be knocked away", she told MPs.

"My particular concern would be about equal pay... because it's probably economically rational to pay women as little as you can get away and if you don't have strong legislative provisions to prevent that, that is one of the areas that could be very problematic."

Catherine Barnard, professor of European law at Cambridge University, told MPs it would be very difficult for a government to repeal protections against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or religion and belief, as it was "so politically sensitive".

If the UK opted for a Norway-style model, and remained a member of the European Economic Area, 

EU laws would continue to apply, Prof Barnard said.

"More difficult is if there is no model at all or a really hard Brexit," she added, as the UK would "lose EU law acting as this floor" and lobby groups were worried that a government may then "decide to lower the standards".

It could be "a complete free-for-all as far as employment law and equality legislation are concerned", she said, as it would be "for the government to decide which rules it wanted to keep" - although she acknowledged any changes would require parliamentary approval.

Firms Moving To Ireland For Business

A massive migration of major operations from the market circle of UK's legal firms saw a huge influx of solicitor registration in Ireland due to the Brexit.

Freshfields, Hogan Lovells, Slaughter and May and Allen & Overy have put forward applicants to join their roll of solicitors in the Republic of Ireland. They have proceeded as well before the EU referendum last June 23.

Eversheds plans to launch the Eversheds Consulting. Its focus would be in Ireland working alongside a team from Dublin. Meanwhile, Slaughter and May would fund its Brussels based competition partners to help them join the Irish solicitor roll. Others are seeking partners as well.

Ciara Kennedy-Loest, partner at Hogan Lovells, said the firm was registering lawyers from its competition practice in London and Brussels in Ireland and from its IP practice.

She said: “Competition is one area where we have registered lawyers and intellectual property is another because lawyers registering trademarks have to deal with Europe’s trademark office. To do so you have to be a lawyer from a qualifying state in the EEA.”

EU antitrust or cartel investigations can last for many years and the UK will have just two years to leave the EU once the Article 50 process is triggered.

Can You Be Arrested When You're Playing Pokemon Go?

Pokemon has become an international phenomenon. By augmenting reality allowing players view otherwise-invisible Pokemon in the world to catch and train, Nintendo and Niantic Labs had created a truly cute and large monster.

However, the GPS-based game leads players to different areas. Sometimes, these are private properties that serve as 'gyms' or 'pokecenters' where they could perform special activities.

One incident involved people flocking to a church because it was a Pokemon Gym. Another was that the presence of "offensive Pokemon" such as "Koffing" and "Weezing" in the Holocaust Museum had brought in people who do not observe the Museum's sanctity just to catch Pokemon.

Can people be imprisoned for doing this?

British Privacy Lawyer John Spyrou talks about how this could all come to be.

Mr Spyrou believes that if strangers head to a person's garden simply because they want to catch a Pokemon, they can still be charged as trespassing. The resident still has grounds to call the police even if the situation will descend into a minor scare.

Mr Spyrou also made clear that Niantic is not "legally responsible" for people heading to locations with Pokemon as shown in their map. The Niantic Terms and Conditions for playing Pokemon Go may include players are responsible for local rules and must detach themselves from liability by not brekaing local laws.

How The EU Is Damaging Our Legal System

The fight for Britain's EU membership starts the following week and I've seen a major turnaround towards the Vote Leave campaign.

I've been wondering why. I'm a Vote Remain guy simply because I'm also an investor in many companies involving EU. To leave the EU would mean a drastic change in my investments.

The United Kingdom is a counrty where almost anyone can afford top-notch legal services with government and tax subsidy. What scares most people is the fact that EU laws are tampering with our own.

Here, to be honest, I can say that Vote Leave is just messing with you. The EU laws can talk more about taxation and economics. However its laws are for uniformity and "housekeeping rules" including crime, traffic, infrastructure development and others, are rooted from England and Wales, 

Scotland and Ireland's own ancient traditions and morals.

Many are scared because in France nowadays you could be detained while investigations are still ongoing. You're guilty until you're proven innocent. According to scaremongers for Vote Leave, you have a European Arrest Warrant that would detain you for life instead of using the UK law that allows detainment but only for a period of time.

But I'm more of an economist, I should say and that's where I want to go. So I vote to stay.

UK Case on Death Penalties Can Be Commuted Through Global Precedent

Two Trinidadian prisoners in the United Kingdom accused of killing three Britons in the Port Spain may not be indicted with the death penalty due to their intellectual levels.

According to the World Health Organisation's guideline that classifies any person with an IQ below 70 as "intellectually disabled", could be considered a case of insanity rather than criminal.

Lester Pitman is convicted of killing BBC Lynette Lithgow 51, Maggie Lee 83 and brother-in-law 

John Cropper 59 in their bathroom from their bungalow property.

The three were found with their hands tied behind their backs. Their throats were slit.

Authorities believe Pitman was to rob the house in 2004 but was forced to murder the three in 2004. 

He was sentenced with death penalty in Trinidad, his original country. In 2013, his case was commuted to 40 years in jail.

A court of appeal hearing declared Pitman to be sentenced properly with the death penalty.

Experts measured Pitman's IQ to be initially at 52 and then at 67, which can use the global precedent on IQs to avoid the death penalty.

Another prisoner, Neil Hernandez, had killed Christine Henry and her six-year old son Philip in Toco in Trinidad in May 2000 with a cutlass used for coconut harvesting. He was to receive the death penalty but had his sentenced commuted to 25 years due to his long wait for the death penalty. 

Experts measured his IQ at 57, which may also exempt him from the death penalty permanently.

Denying Legal Aid To Anyone In the UK Is Illegal. Even Non-UK People

Overseas domestic workers, contractual workers, habitual residents of the UK who head back to their countries every end of the contract.

Each of these individuals have stepped on UK soil. Each one of these individuals are human beings.

While I'm up for UK citizens first, I'm also up for giving fair legal rights to anybody in the United Kingdom.

The Public Law Project (PLP) also reflects my views. It would seem domestic workers, who had reported abuse from their British employers involving hiding Visas and being locked inside the house have increased in the number of incidences.

The Ministry of Justice's rule that only those with an established link to the United Kingdom should have legal aid, is illegal in itself.

The Public Law Project will demonstrate that no minister has the power to enforce discriminatory regulations.

Legal aid is a budget the government sets aside from our tax money, which would help us and non-taxpayers the opportunity to a fair trial and service of justice.

We pride that the UK is a country of fair legal right and trial for everyone. But now, they've cut the legal aid budgets even for the poorest UK citizen and now the non-UK resident.

It would seem justice now just serves money. Not that lawyers are money-grubbing professionals; you need professional fee upkeep. However, a lack of elevating funds to keep the quality and professional services of lawyers intact for everyone denies justice for the lower and lowest society.

So, nothing's really fair in the world. And this post was just your magnifying glass.