SETH LENON FOR CBS3 EYEWITNESS NEWS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON D. C. HAS FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. NEVER IN THE HISTORY THIS COUNTRY HAVE WE HAD A PRESIDENT WITH THESE KINDS OF EXTENSIVE BUSINESS INTANGLEMENTS OR PRESIDENT WHO REFUSED TO ADEQUATELY DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THEIR THEMSELVES FROM THEIR HOLDINGS. SUIT ALES THE PRESIDENT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION BY RETAINING TIES TO HIS BUSINESS EMPIRE. MUCH OF THE CASE IS FOCUSED ON THE LITTLE KNOWN EMOLUMENT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. MARKET RATE PAYMENTS FOR GOODS AND SERVICES AT THE.
>>> THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON, D. C. ARE SUING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, CLAIMING HE HAS FAILED TO COMPLETELY SEPARATE HIMSELF FROM HIS VAST BUSINESS EMPIRE. AT THE CENTER OF IT IS THE LITTLE-KNOWN PIECE OF LAW KNOWN AS THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE. >> WE HAD JN THAN TURLEY ON EARLIER THIS MORNING. HE HAD A QUESTION ABOUT STANDING. DO YOU HAVE STANDING? >> WE BELIEVE WE HAVE STANDING ON TWO BASES, FIRST SOVEREIGN STANDING, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ATTORNEY GENERALS TO PROTECT THEINTEREST OF THEIR RESIDENTS. IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENT ALAN TIE CORRUPTION LAW KNOWN AS THE EMOLUNTS CLAUSE TA GIVES US STANDING TO PROTECT OUR PEOPLE. YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT, JOE. THERE IS A NO DOUBT THAT THEY HAVE A ROLE IN THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE. HE WOULD HAVE THE FOLLOWING CHECKS AND BALANCES, THE PRESIDENT CHECKING HIMSELF, THENTHE STAFF CHECKING THE PRESIDENT THEN THE REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED CONGRESS CHECKING THE PRESIDENT. WE KNOW THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. IT'S THE PRESS, THE DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY GENERALS AND OTHERS WHOARE INVOKING THE CONSTITUTION AND TAKING THESE THINGS TO COURT. >> ALL RIGHT. HAROLD? >> GENERAL FROSH, HAROLD FORD. AT THE END OF HIS ANSWER HE SAID THIS IS A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED LAWSUIT BY TWO ATTORNEYS GENERAL WHO THE MAJORITY OF THEIR RESIDENTS DIDN'T SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP AND THEY PERSONALLY DON'T SUPPORT HIM. NUMBER ONE, HOW DO YOU REACT TO THAT? IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BUILD ON GENERAL RACINE'S POINT, PLEASE DO. >> FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE WORKING WITH THE ETHICS ADVISER TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION. THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE IS THE KEY ANTI-CORRUPTION CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT PROTECTS EVERY AMERICAN FROM THE PRESIDENT PUTTING HIS INTERESTS ABOVE THOSE OF ALL OF THE REST OF US. I THINK EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO KNOW THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT SENDS OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS INTO HARM'S WAY HE'S NOT DOING IT BECAUSE OF HIS BUSINESS INTERESTS. WE NODE TO KNOW THAT WHEN HE MAKES A DEAL WITH ANOTHER NATION HE'S NOT DOING IT BECAUSE HE HASA GOLF COURSE THERE. THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. THIS IS AN ISSUE ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL HONESTY AND THE AVOIDANCE OF CORRUPTION. >> BRIAN, DOES IT CONCERN YOU ATALL WHEN PEOPLE HEAR ABOUT THIS SUIT OR READ ABOUT THIS SUIT THAT THERE'S A GENERAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A BIG LEAGUE INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT GOING ON IN BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE AND AS A MAJOR LEAGUER BOB MUELLER CONDUCTING HIS OWN INVESTIGATION AND THAT PEOPLE WOULD THINK, MAN, THIS IS JUST NOW ALL POLITICS? THEY'RE JUST JUMPING ON THIS POOR GUY BECAUSE THE COUNTRY IS DIVIDED AND A LOT OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS WILL REFUSE TO BELIEVE ALMOST ANYTHING SAID OR FILED AGAINST HIM. DOES THAT CONCERN YOU AT ALL? >> WHAT CONCERNS ME IS YOU HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO IS DOING SO MANYTHINGS THAT VIOLATE HIS OATH OF OATH OF OFFICE. SPECIFICALLY, THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS WE HAVE IN THE CONSTITUTION. MUELLER MAY BE LOOKING AT THINGS THAT RELATE TO THAT. THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION MAY UNVEIL SOME PAYMENTS THAT HE'S RECEIVED, TREATMENT HE'S RECEIVED FROM RUSSIA THAT AFFECTHIS CONDUCT, BUT OUR LAWSUIT IS ABOUT THINGS THAT WE KNOW HAVE HAPPENED. WE KNOW HE'S RECEIVING PAYMENTS FROM CHINA. WE KNOW HE'S RECEIVING PAYMENTS FROM SAUDI ARABIA, FROM QATAR, FROM AFGHANISTAN, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER COUNTRIES. AND WE KNOW HE'S MARKETING HIS PROPERTIES ADDITION. >> SO, LET ME INTERRUPT YOU. WOULDN'T YOU HAVE TO PROVE HE'S GETTING MORE THAN MARKET VALUE OR MAYBE, PERHAPS, THOSE PAYMENTS HAVE INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY SINCE HE BECAME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? >> WELL, HE'S PROVED THAT HIMSELF. I MEAN, HE GOT ELECTED PRESIDENT. HE DOUBLED THE FEES AT MAR-A-LAGO, THAT'S HIS FLORIDA RESORT, FROM $100,000 TO $200,000. HE DOUBLED THE PRICE OF THE ROOMS AT THE TRUMP HOTEL IN WASHINGTON. AND HE HE BRAGS ABOUT WHAT A GREAT NEGOTIATOR HE IS, THAT CHINA IS ONE OF HIS BIGGEST TENANTS. HE HIMSELF HAS TESTIMONY -- >> BUT HE BRAGGED ABOUT CHINA BEING ONE OF HIS BIGGEST TENANTSDURING THE CAMPAIGN. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING, IF YOU GO BEFORE THE COURT, DOESN'T JANUARY 20th HAVE TO BE THE CUTOFF DATE AND YOU SHOW THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASE EXPONENTIALLY FROM FOREIGN POWERS IN MONEY THAT'S GONE TO THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION? >> JOE, INC. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. JANUARY 20th IS THE KEY DATE. THAT'S THE DATE ON WHICH THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO PUT IN A CREDIBLE DIVESTMENT PLAN. THE FACT HE HASN'T, THE FACT HE'S SO WILLING ENTHUSIASTICALLYACCEPT MONEY FROM FOREIGN COUNTRY WHO IS CLEARLY HAVE AN INTEREST IN INFLUENCING AMERICAN POLICY IS WHY WE'RE FILING THIS LAWSUIT. >> STEVE RATTNER. >> HE INCREASED THOSE FEES AT MAR-A-LAGO SHORTLY BEFORE HE WASELECTED, NOT AFTER. THE PRESIDENT CAN BE SUED CIVILLY. SEE YOU'RE GOING TO SUBPOENA HISTAX RECORDS AND OTHER INTERESTING DOCUG DOCUMENTS. WHAT DO YOU SEE THE TIMELINE FOR THIS CASE? WHEN DO YOU THINK THIS WILL BE IN COURT IN A WAY WHERE WITH WE CAN FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE PRESIDENT, HIS GUESTS, HIS TAXES AND BUSINESSES? >> THIS WILL BE AN EXTEND THE CIVIL LITIGATION. PRESIDENT HAS 60 DAYS TO ANSWER TO OUR COMPLAINT. WE EXPECT THE PRESIDENT AND THE DEPARTMENT TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS. I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PERIOD OF MONTHS. DURING THAT TIME FRAME, WE WILL BE SEEKING DISCOVERY. >>.
Indian Attorneys are people who have gone to law school and who practice the law. They must pass a big exam called the bar exam. This is what makes a student a certified attorney. Sometimes students can have a hard time determining what kind of law they want to practice because there are so many different types.
First, you need to consider all areas of the law. Once you have narrowed your choices down to a three you should start seeking as much information on those choices that you can possibly fund. You will also want to determine what type of firm you want to practice. Maybe you want to do corporate law where you have the opportunity to make partnerships or maybe you want to head out on your own.
Lawyers & How They Negotiate Personal Injury Settlements
There are so many areas of the law that some lawyers specialize in a couple areas, while some focus on just one area of the law. Practicing attorneys that do a generalization of many areas of the law are called general practitioners.
They don’t focus on all the areas, but they choose many areas in which to have great knowledge of. Specialists focus on one area. You may have criminal attorneys, tax attorneys, women’s rights attorneys, and so on. A general practitioner can handle most legal issues that are common.
If you are involved in a complex case or case that is worth a lot of money or a serious matter you will want a specialist. In some cases, people will have multiple attorneys so that they can make sure that their case is being handed to the firm’s full capability and so on.
When it comes to the lawyers, you will mostly see what special training they have gotten. Attorneys are just the name for anyone who can represent you in a court of law. They too have to pas a bar and are state certified. Any lawyer can be an attorney. The only thing is that some lawyers do not litigate.
Hollywood and lawyers have gone together like two peas in a pod since the very inception of motion pictures. In an industry built on fantasy and unlimited imagination, playing an attorney in a well-written film can be the direct route to big recognition in an actor's career. From Atticus Finch to Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, those portraying legal advocates have given us some of the most memorable characters in Hollywood history. Among all the many examples, these top seven thespians provided us with some of the most unforgettable performances in the courtroom.1. Gregory Peck as Atticus FinchNo one can forget Gregory Peck's portrayal of attorney Atticus Finch in "To Kill A Mockingbird." Admirable father to Scout and Jem, Atticus Finch uses his legal prowess to fight against racial injustice in Depression-era Alabama. His defense of African-American Tom Robinson, who was wrongfully accused of rape, stands the test of time as one of the top courtroom performances ever.6. Richard Gere as Billy FlynnA movie generally thought of for its tap dancing rather than its courtroom drama, "Chicago" nonetheless highlights Richard Gere's impressive performance as a less than reputable attorney. This film, based on the Broadway play, revolves around murderous celebrities who turn their notoriety into a successful vaudeville act.7. John Travolta as Jan SchlichtmannIn "A Civil Action," based on real-life events, John Travolta brings a complex legal battle to the silver screen with his role as Jan Schlichtmann, a small-firm plaintiffs lawyer. Schlichtmann embarks on a David vs. Goliath quest by going after two big corporations that he believes are at fault for the deaths of eight neighborhood kids who were all diagnosed with leukemia.