Author: TSA Press

Mnangagwa said in his State of the Nation Address the country would set up an alternative stock market for small enterprise companies and allow companies to independently import fuel.

He said he was aware of the challenges faced by the nation.

“The government is fully aware of the challenges faced by the public in accessing cash, which has resulted in some unscrupulous traders selling cash in exchange for electronic money,” Mnangagwa said.

The address also came a week after authorities froze bank accounts of companies alleged to have been involved in black market foreign exchange dealings.

“We are determined to consolidate digital financial services which are contributing to the creation of financial inclusion by way of delivering banking services to previously unbanked and vulnerable groups of our population.”

Apart from contending with the financial sector disarray, Zimbabwe is working on a stock exchange for small to medium enterprises, with the Zimbabwean leader saying “measures will be put in place to establish an SME stock exchange with a view to unlock resources”.

The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange has become a haven for investors pursuing exit strategies from other portfolios, especially as challenges in remitting dividends and other capital gains out of the country remains difficult.

Zimbabwe’s capital city shut its main waterworks on September 26, potentially leaving the city dry and raising the risk of water-borne diseases.

The Harare water shortages follow months of drought in rural areas and fast-falling water levels in polluted dams around the country. Amid reports of soaring diarrhoea cases in the capital, concern is growing over the possible spread of cholera and typhoid – dozens died in cholera outbreaks in Zimbabwe last year.

An El Nino-induced drought has reduced water levels in the country’s dams, including Kariba, which supplies the biggest hydroelectric plant and hit the capacity of cities and towns to supply water to residents.

Harare City Council deputy mayor Enock Mupamawonde told reporters that the local authority required at least 40 million Zimbabwe dollars ($2.7 million) a month for water chemicals but it was only collecting 15 million Zimbabwe dollars in monthly revenue.

It is devastating, to say the least,” Mupamawonde told reporters, urging President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s government to declare the water crisis a national disaster.

Wealthier residents are able to buy tankers of water for a price well beyond the means of most people.

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), inflation in Zimbabwe is now the highest in the world.

Despite the nation’s hardships, questionable spending continues at the highest levels of power. President Mnangagwa reportedly took a bloated entourage of 90 people to the UN General Assembly session September 17-30 in New York, including Zanu PF youths who took part in an anti-sanctions demonstration there on September 26.

Mnangagwa’s wife, Auxilia, reportedly flew to the U.S. separately with her own sizable delegation, which included her security team, officials from her Angels of Hope charity organisation and a crew of journalists from the state media.

Both teams are reported to be enjoying hefty allowances funded by Government’s Treasury, at a time the government has been asking the citizenry to endure the pain induced by its austerity measures, which have severely eroded incomes and impoverished the majority of the population.

Meanwhile, Zimbabwean ex-leader Robert Mugabe was buried in his home village of Kutama on September 28. His family chose a private funeral after a weeks-long dispute with the administration. He was forced from power in November 2017 after presiding over the country for 30 years. A priest asked God to take pity on the independence.

Post published in: Agriculture

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts from Lateral Link’s team of expert contributors. Sarkis Adajian manages marketing and business development for Lateral Link.

Lateral Link is one of the top-rated international legal recruiting firms. With over 14 offices world-wide, Lateral Link specializes in placing attorneys at the most prestigious law firms and companies in the world. Managed by former practicing attorneys from top law schools, Lateral Link has a tradition of hiring lawyers to execute the lateral leaps of practicing attorneys. Click ::here:: to find out more about us.

The pharmaceutical industry is influencing the drive to have President Donald Trump impeached because of his administration’s efforts to lower drug prices, the president suggested, without providing evidence, in a speech Thursday.

“Lowering the cost of prescription drugs, taking on the pharmaceutical companies, you think that’s easy, it’s not easy,” Politico quoted Trump as saying. “It’s not easy. … I wouldn’t be surprised if the hoax didn’t come a little bit from some of the people that we’re taking on.”

“They’re very powerful, spent a lot of money, spent, I think, more money than any other group in the world, actually, in terms of lobbying and lobbying abilities,” he said in a video clip of the speech, broadcast by CNBC. “And I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the nonsense that we all have to go through – but that I have to go through – wouldn’t be surprised if it was from of these industries like pharmaceuticals.”

Trump was speaking at an event in The Villages, Florida, where he signed a Medicare-related executive order. The president has dismissed as a “hoax” a complaint filed by an unnamed whistleblower over an alleged attempt to persuade Ukraine to interfere with the 2020 presidential election during a call in July with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The scandal has sparked an impeachment inquiry against Trump.

The Trump administration released its “blueprint” to lower drug costs last year, which included proposals like allowing some personal drug importation and ending rebates collected by pharmacy benefit managers from drugmakers. However, it withdrew the rebate proposal – one of the signature components of the blueprint – in July over reported disagreement between Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and other White House officials regarding the merits of the rule. Advisers in the administration objected to the estimated cost of $180 billion over the next decade and feared it would raise Medicare premiums.

An analysis in July by consultancy Rx Savings Solutions found that more than 3,400 drugs have seen price increases in 2019, compared with about 2,900 in 2018.

Photo: Win McNamee, Getty Images

The “rule of law” is no longer a concept that is practiced by the Republican Party. We see it from the executive branch, where the Republican President of the United States confesses to abusing his power on television and dares anybody to stop him. We see it in the legislature, where Republican congressmen and senators do nothing to arrest the president’s assault on the rule of law. And we are now seeing it at the Supreme Court, where the Republican justices are now poised to overturn precedent simply because Trump, McConnell, and the Republicans successfully installed an alleged attempted rapist on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear June Medical Services v. Gee. The case is a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring doctors who offer abortion services to have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals.

If that all sounds familiar to you, it should. The Supreme Court decided exactly this issue in 2016, in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. There, Stephen Breyer, writing for a 5-3 majority, ruled that a Texas law — a law which required doctors who offer abortion services have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals — was an unconstitutional “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose. Breyer lodged Whole Woman’s Health squarely within the test provided by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Whole Woman’s Health is precedent applying settled precedent about abortion.

And the Republicans don’t care.

The first court to not care was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. With Gee, the Fifth Circuit looked at essentially the same kind of TRAP law in Louisiana that was at issue in Texas with Whole Woman’s Health, but found factual differences between the application of the Louisiana law justified ignoring the Supreme Court precedent established in Whole Woman’s Health. It’s the “I’m not getting on the plane, I’m getting in the plane” of circuit court opinions.

Gee should be summarily reversed. As Jonathan B. Miller — Chief of the Public Protection & Advocacy Bureau in the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General — explains on SCOTUSblog, summary reversal is appropriate for a case that presents such clear error:

Summary reversal also is appropriate because the 5th Circuit went too far with its extensive critique of the physicians’ good-faith efforts to obtain admitting privileges. As an initial observation, a difference in scale seems to have allowed the 5th Circuit to engage in a tougher review than the Supreme Court’s inquiry in WWH. The Supreme Court had before it evidence that Texas’ admitting-privileges requirement reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state from 40 to less than 10. The impact spoke for itself, and any exercise seeking to call into question the basis for 30 clinic closures would have bordered on the absurd. Here, instead, the 5th Circuit had much more limited ground to cover and far fewer causal links to sever. As the decision explained, “[t]he paucity of abortion facilities and abortion providers in Louisiana allows for a more nuanced analysis of the causal connection between Act 620 and its burden on women[.]” Laws that are so similar, however, should not be analyzed so differently.

The intense second-guessing of the district court’s factual findings (which are supposed to get deference) was clear error. The district court fairly evaluated the efforts of doctors to come into compliance with a law that has never been in effect, that most of the physicians did not believe they could comply with as a practical matter, and that they knew was designed to have the same effect as H.B. 2 in Texas (because Act 620 was passed a year later). By contrast, the 5th Circuit’s review of the record impliedly required these physicians to prove a negative – that they cannot get credentialed at any qualifying hospital. In so doing, the 5th Circuit at times determined that particular physicians are not burdened or overly burdened by Act 620. Of course, the constitutional question is whether women experience an undue burden.

That’s right, the Fifth Circuit asked if doctors would be unduly burdened by the admitting requirements, AS OPPOSED TO WOMEN SEEKING ABORTIONS.

The only thing that has changed in the legal firmament between Whole Woman’s Health and Gee is that Brett Kavanaugh has replaced Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. That is all. There is no other factor.

But that might be all that is needed to squelch women’s access to abortion providers. Instead of kicking this case and admonishing the Fifth Circuit for its gross refusal to apply Court precedent, the Republican Court will entertain the Fifth Circuit’s bad faith arguments. Three justices are already on record as being in dissent from the opinion in Whole Woman’s Health, and two more have been appointed by a president who vowed to only appoint judges who are against abortion. Will John Roberts change his legal opinion in Whole Woman’s Health to beat back this direct challenge to Supreme Court precedent that Gee represents? Or will he stick to his guns and let the addition of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh change the law just a few years after it was settled, because Republicans have the raw political power to do so?

If the Court chooses the latter, precedent means nothing. And that means the law means nothing, beyond who has the raw political power to bend it to their will. This case is an affront to the rule of law in this country. But, at this point, why should the Republican-controlled Supreme Court be different than all the other Republican-controlled institutions in this country?

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Hollywood has done a lot to romanticize the legal profession. From LA Law to Law & Order to Ally McBeal to How To Get Away With Murder, television has long been in the business of making lawyers look a lot cooler than the reality.

As anyone who actually spent time at law firms knows, there is just a ton of mindless, soul-crushing work that needs to be done. And rather than glorifying it, the ABC show Single Parents keeps it 100. In this week’s episode, Leighton Meester’s Angie D’Amato explains what reviewing depositions is all about to Miggy Park, played by Jake Choi.

Angie: Okay, now you’re going to go through each deposition. Every time you see the word propane, rectum, or shards. Highlight it.

Miggy: Propane, rectum, shards. Got it. Then what do I do?

Angie: You do it again. And again. Until the earth collides with the sun and our souls are finally free.

Miggy: Cool.

That sounds about right.

Watch the full clip below.

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Among the most vital examples of the application of business discipline and strong process to the legal function is the burgeoning field of IP operations. The capacity to carefully manage and extract maximum value from intellectual property assets can be the difference between a thriving company and a fading also-ran.

On October 31st at 1 p.m. ET, join us for a free webinar, The IP Operations Landscape, moderated by leading industry consultant Brad Blickstein. Brad will be joined by Annya Dushine of CPA Global and Amy Gagich of Koch Industries and our program will explore the following topics, among others:

• The four pillars of IP Operations — people, processes, technology, data — that define the field.
• Benchmarking your organization by way of the IP Ops “maturity spectrum.”
• Firsthand case study of how one of the U.S.’s largest privately held corporations implemented a successful IP Ops function.
• Analysis of the first-ever demographic study of the professionals developing the IP Ops field.

For prospective law students, bar exam pass rates should be pretty close to the top of the list of things to research — right along with employment statistics and average graduate indebtedness — when deciding which law schools to apply to and which law school to eventually enroll at after being accepted. For the past few years, bar exam pass rates across the country have plummeted, but there’s hope on the horizon with the news that the average national score on the July 2019 administration of the Multistate Bar Exam climbed to a 141.1, fresh off a 34-year low set in 2018. For what it’s worth, 74.82 percent of 2018 law school graduates who took the bar passed on their first try.

While we eagerly wait for the results of the July 2019 bar exam to be released and for the 2019 calendar year results to be compiled across all law schools, it’s worth taking a look at the law schools whose recent graduates did the worst on the 2018 exam — and by that, we mean law schools where less than 50 percent of first-time takers were able to pass the test. This list highlights why it’s so important to thoroughly research each and every law school during the application process.

Which law schools need to help their graduates a little more to put them in the best position to pass the bar exam on the first try?

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Emory’s law school has a bit of a problem with the casual use of the n-word, and while one professor caught deploying the term immediately began to make amends, the law professor who kicked off Emory’s current spate of problems — who was caught using the term twice — plans to vigorously fight the school in a faculty hearing today. The committee will determine if the professor, Paul Zwier, should be reinstated or remain suspended without pay for up to another two years.

Law.com affiliate The Daily Report acquired a copy of the 75-page report from the Emory Office of Equity and Inclusion, which recommends another two years on ice.

The unsigned report concluded that Zwier’s use of the n-word in a first-year torts class and his subsequent use of a variant of the epithet in a private conversation constituted “a pattern of discriminatory harassment” that was “so severe” it created “an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment” that was “disruptive” and interfered with students’ academic performance.

It’s astounding how unnecessary it is to use this language. For his own case, Zwier says that, “in using the n-word, he intended to suggest that the court record was sanitized and that the plaintiff had actually been called the inflammatory epithet.” You see how that sentence accomplished exactly the same purpose without any racial slurs? Amazing!

Unfortunately, rather than embrace this reality and seek amends, Zwier’s got the American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education trying to pitch this as academic freedom thing.

When I’ve discussed this case over social media, Zwier’s defenders allege that the second incident was a “trap” of sorts — an utterance drawn out by a student with an agenda. It’s a weird way to put it because an agenda of “maybe don’t use the n-word” doesn’t seem all that bad, but whatever. In any event, the Law.com article recounts allegations that the second accuser’s behavior that tends to make him look like he was a vexatious party — including characterizing the interim dean’s cautionary words about avoiding libel during the ongoing investigation (which led that same dean to call for Zwier’s dismissal) as a “threat.” Putting aside whether or not one can be forgiven for being overly upset about being forced to listen to racial slurs, when no one is seriously contesting that the supposed professional in a power position used racial slurs, who the hell cares what the guy on the receiving end did?

“I was trying as much as I could [to explain] what my family background was. It was not meant disparagingly to any group,” Zwier said in explaining why he told Tolston he had been called a ”n-r lover.”

Yes. That right there is all that’s relevant no matter what the other guy did afterward. This is the old Sarah Silverman routine (that got her in a good deal of trouble at the time) highlighting how racial slurs don’t become better when you say you “love” them. Being an ally doesn’t carry absolute immunity in perpetuity. In Zwier’s defense, he seems to genuinely feel that he’s substantively on the right side of the civil rights chasm and that this is entirely stylistic.

The problem that he just doesn’t seem to grasp is that rhetoric isn’t just stylistic. It shapes everything about the educational dynamic. In another conversation with a student, Zwier pointed out his genuine track record on racial justice work and said, “I’m the wrong guy to be subject to this kind of attack as if I’m cavalier or insensitive or… misunderstanding how it can cause harm.”

No, if you’re not yet in a position to say, “it was cavalier and insensitive and I did misunderstand how it can cause harm,” then you’ve not yet come to grips with what’s really going on here. Once that’s been done, the path to returning to school can begin, but not before.

Confidential Report Sets Stage for Emory Law Prof’s Hearing Over N-Word [Law.com]

Earlier: Welcome To Emory Law School — It’s Been 0 Days Since We Last Used The N-Word In Class
Why Can’t Emory Law School Professors Stop Using The N-Word All The Time?
Law School Professor Drops The N-Word In The First Week Of Class
Law School Professor Who Dropped The N-Word In Class Is Back At It
Law Professor Drops Racial Slur In Class Because Otherwise How Will Black Students Ever Learn About Racism?

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.