Tax The Rich, Levy Wealth, Pay Our Debt: Smash Elon Musk’s Ridiculous $1 Trillion Tesla Pay Package – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Apu
Gomes/Getty
Images)

Elon
Musk
is
already
the
best-paid
CEO
in
the
world.
He
is
also
the
richest
man
in
the
world.
Naturally,
this
led
Tesla’s
board
to
introduce
a
ludicrous
pay
package
that
could
more
than
treble
his
net
worth
and
make
him
the
world’s
first
trillionaire.

Today,
the
423.7
million
additional
Tesla
shares
that
Musk
could
acquire

are
worth
“merely”
$148.7
billion
.
If
Musk
can
meet
12
highly
ambitious
milestones
over
the
coming
decade,
including
increasing
Tesla’s
overall
value
eightfold
to
$8.5
trillion,
those
extra
shares
will
be
his,
and
will
at
that
point
be
worth
close
to
$1
trillion.

This
$1
trillion
pay
package
is
a
bit
of
a
gimmick,
and
Tesla
investors
like
myself
will
still
get
to
vote
on
it
come
November.
It
is
unique
not
only
in
its
amount,
but
also
in
the
fact
that
it
seems
to
partially
be
a
product
of
a
CEO
holding
his
own
company
hostage.

Normally
the
CEO
of
a
car
company
overseeing

a
year
of
disastrous
sales
numbers
,
primarily
as
a
result
of
his
political
activities
that
seemed
almost
intentionally
engineered
to
alienate
large
swathes
of
his
customer
base,
would
not
be
up
for
a
big
reward.
But
in
negotiations
with
the
board
Musk
threatened
to
“pursue
other
interests”
if
his
demands
for
a
truly
historic
pay
package
were
not
met.

For
most
of
us,
I
don’t
think
saying,
“Pay
me
more
than
anyone
else
has
ever
been
paid
or
I
will
continue
to
do
my
job
poorly,”
would
be
a
very
good
negotiating
tactic.
To
be
fair
to
the
Tesla
board,
though,
they’re
kind
of
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place.
As
odious
a
man
as
he
continually
proves
himself
to
be,
Musk
has
achieved
borderline
miraculous
things
with
Tesla
and
his
other
companies
before,
and
keeping
him
challenged
at
Tesla
might
be
the
best
way
to
keep
him
out
of
further
forays
into
politics
and
social
media.
That,
of
course,
leaves
open
the
question
of
what
he
will
do
with
his
additional
$1
trillion
a
decade
into
the
future
if
he
is
able
to
pull
another
rabbit
out
of
his
hat.

This
all
makes
for
a
troubling
moral
conundrum.
Not
for
Tesla’s
shareholders,
or
its
board,
or
even
Musk
himself.
It
is
the
job
of
a
company
to
make
money
(hopefully
at
least
somewhat
ethically),
and
billionaires
are
not
going
to
police
themselves.
No,
I
place
the
blame
for
what
is
happening
to
install
Musk
and
others
like
him
permanently
at
the
levers
of
power
squarely
on
the
American
voter.

Look,
at
the
risk
of
engaging
in
my
own
mythmaking
here,
I
do
not
have
a
problem
with
capitalism.
I
worked
my
way
up
from
the
floor
of
a
meatpacking
plant
to
my
investments
being
almost
entirely
the
source
of
whatever
financial
security
I
have,
and
sure
wouldn’t
mind
the
value
of
my
own
Tesla
shares
being
multiplied
by
eight.
And
that,
in
the
wake
of
smashing
Victorian
era
monopolies
and
regulating
financial
markets
in
the
early
20th
century,
is
what
modern
capitalism
was
supposed
to
be:
providing
normal
people,
working
people,
with
a
relatively
secure
avenue
to
save
and
invest
wisely
and
someday
have
the
freedom
that
participating
in
well-regulated
financial
markets
provides.

That
is,
hypothetically,
why
the
capital
gains
tax
rate
is
less
than
all
but
the
lowest
marginal
tax
rates
for
income
from
working.
The
theory
was
that
you
were
already
taxed
once
on
your
income
when
you
earned
it,
so
you
should
get
a
bit
of
a
tax
break
on
the
fruits
of
investing
that
income.

Instead
of
such
a
Utopian
vision
coming
to
pass
and
elevating
everyday
people,
we
had
a
generation
of
CEOs
restructuring
their
pay
to
take
advantage
of
every
tax
loophole
know
to
the
savviest
tax
lawyers
of
America.
We
had
several
generations
of
Americans
kept
deliberately
ignorant
of
how
the
financial
markets
functioned.
Did
any
of
your
teachers
mention
to
you
even
once
in
high
school
what
an
IRA
is
or
how
a
stock
market
index
fund
works?
We
had
big
money
flood
into
politics
with

a
wink
from
a
compliant
Supreme
Court

so
as
to
more
efficiently
spread
lies
to
people
to
keep
them
stupid
and
to
keep
career
politicians
busy
fundraising
rather
than
advocating
for
their
constituents.

The
top
marginal
tax
rate
for
most
of
the
1950s
was
91%,
and
it
only
applied
to
the
portion
of
a
person’s
income
that
was
over

the
equivalent
of
about
$2
million

in
today’s
money.
While
we
do
need
to
go
back
to
higher
income
tax
rates
for
high
earners,
what
we
really
need
is
to
levy
wealth
itself
and
close
the
huge
loopholes
that
allow
the
mega-rich
to
have
a
lower
overall
tax
burden
by
percentage
than
a
grocery
store
clerk.

This
is
our
own
fault.
It’s
yours
and
mine.
If
you
want
politicians,
left
or
right,
to
reign
in
the
power
of
men
like
Musk,
it’s
on
you
to
get
out
there
and
f*cking
demand
it.

Ten
years
is
a
long
time.
We
can
tax
the
rich.
We
can
levy
wealth.
We
can
pay
down
our
national
debt.
If
Musk
is
getting
a
$1
trillion
payday
a
decade
hence,
and
we,
the
U.S.
taxpayers,
are
not
capturing
a
quarter,
a
third,
half
of
it,
then
we
have
all
failed
yet
again.




Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of 
Your
Debt-Free
JD
 (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at 
[email protected].

Why a US Judge Paused Several Provisions of the Marketplace Rule – MedCity News

Democrats
recently
notched
a
win
when
it
comes
to
the
Affordable
Care
Act
Marketplaces.

A
federal
district
judge
in
Baltimore
issued
a
stay
in
August
on
several
provisions
of
the
Trump
administration’s

Marketplace
Integrity
and
Affordability
Rule
.
The
rule
aimed
to
reduce
fraud,
waste
and
abuse
in
the
Affordable
Care
Act
Marketplaces,
but
would
have
also
led
to
significant
coverage
losses
(up
to
1.8
million
people).
It
would
tighten
eligibility
verifications
for
ACA
plans,
shorten
the
annual
open
enrollment
period,
and
prohibit
subsidies
to
ACA
plans
for
gender-affirming
care,
among
other
changes.

U.S.
District
Judge
Brendan
Hurson’s

decision

came
just
a
few
days
before
the
rule
was
supposed
to
take
effect.
The
lawsuit
challenging
the
rule
was
filed
by
the
cities
of
Columbus,
Baltimore
and
Chicago,
as
well
as
Doctors
for
America
and
Main
Street
Alliance
(a
network
of
small
business
owners).
They
argued
the
rule
violates
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
which
governs
the
process
by
which
federal
agencies
can
create
regulations.
The
court
found
that
the
plaintiffs
would
likely
succeed
on
their
challenges
to
several
provisions.

Democracy
Forward,
a
legal
organization
that
represented
the
plaintiffs,
applauded
the
decision,
stating
that
it
protects
healthcare
for
millions
of
Americans. 

“The
Trump-Vance
administration
is
making
life
harder
for
working
Americans,”
said
Skye
Perryman,
president
and
CEO
of
Democracy
Forward.
“It
should
be
doing
everything
possible
to
increase
access
to
affordable
health
care,
but
this
administration
seems
intent
on
making
accessing
basic
health
care
harder.
We
are
pleased
the
court
has
stepped
in,
and
we
will
continue
to
pursue
this
case
to
ensure
that
the
Affordable
Care
Act
fulfills
its
promise
of
affordable,
accessible
health
care
for
all.”

This
lawsuit
is
separate
from
a
similar

lawsuit

filed
by
a
group
of
Democratic
attorneys
general.
A
decision
has
not
been
made
on
that
lawsuit
yet.


The
judge’s
ruling

Specifically,
Hurson
issued
a
stay
on
seven
of
the
nine
provisions
challenged
by
the
plaintiffs.
This
means
that
these
provisions
cannot
go
into
effect
until
the
judge
issues
a
final
ruling,
or
if
Hurson’s
ruling
is
appealed
and
reversed.

He
noted
that
several
of
the
provisions
of
the
Marketplace
Integrity
and
Affordability
Rule
are
either
not
authorized
by
the
Affordable
Care
Act
and
are
contrary
to
law,
or
are
“arbitrary
and
capricious.”
The
latter
means
the
agency
didn’t
adequately
explain
its
rationale
for
these
provisions. 

The
provisions
he
issued
a
stay
on
include:

  • The
    requirement
    for
    Marketplaces
    to
    automatically
    re-enroll
    consumers
    who
    haven’t
    updated
    their
    eligibility
    information
    into
    plans
    with
    a
    $5
    monthly
    premium
    instead
    of
    fully
    subsidized
    coverage
  • The
    provision
    allowing
    insurers
    to
    demand
    payment
    of
    past-due
    premiums
    before
    issuing
    new
    coverage
  • The
    rule
    cutting
    off
    premium
    subsidies
    for
    people
    who
    didn’t
    reconcile
    past
    tax
    credits
  • The
    provision
    requiring
    additional
    documentation
    to
    verify
    eligibility
    for
    special
    enrollment
    periods
  • Two
    income
    verification
    requirements
    requesting
    additional
    documentation
    for
    applicants
    with
    very
    low
    income
    or
    no
    tax
    records
    to
    confirm
    their
    reported
    income
  • The
    provision
    giving
    insurers
    more
    flexibility
    in
    how
    generous
    their
    health
    plans
    are
    by
    loosening
    the
    rules
    around
    actuarial
    value,
    or
    the
    percentage
    of
    costs
    a
    plan
    covers

“The
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
have
met
their
burden
of
showing
that
there
is
a
strong
likelihood
that
they
will
succeed
on
the
merits
of
their
challenges
to
seven
provisions
of
the
Rule.

Plaintiffs
have
also
shown
they
will
face
irreparable
harm
if
the
challenged
portions
of
the
Rule
are
not
enjoined,”
the
judge
wrote.
“Finally,
the
balance
of
equities
and
the
public
interest
weigh
in
favor
of
a
stay.”

The
judge
did
not
issue
a
stay
for
two
other
provisions,
which
will
go
into
effect.
These
include
CMS’s
changes
to
the
premium
adjustment
percentage
methodology
and
its
decision
to
revoke
the
60-day
extension
for
resolving
data
matching
issues.

There
are
also
some
provisions
that
weren’t
challenged
by
the
plaintiffs,
such
as
the
exclusion
of
Deferred
Action
for
Childhood
Arrivals
(DACA)
recipients
from
Marketplace
coverage.
The
DACA
program
protects
young
adults
without
U.S.
citizenship
or
legal
status
from
deportation.
These
young
adults
were
minors
who
accompanied
their
parents
or
other
family
members
when
the
latter
illegally
crossed
the
border.
While
they
had
certain
protections
under
Democratic
administrations,
Republicans
under
the
Trump
administration
have
sought
to
remove
those
protections.


What’s
ahead?

The
Trump
administration
has

appealed

the
district
court’s
decision
to
the
Fourth
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals.

However,
it’s
unlikely
that
the
appeals
court
will
make
a
decision
ahead
of
the
open
enrollment
period,
which
starts
on
November
1.

“These
can’t
move
forward
until
there’s
either
some
resolution
of
an
appeal
or
this
federal
trial
board
makes
a
final
decision
on
the
issue,”
said
Kaye
Pestaina,
director
of
KFF’s
Program
on
Patient
and
Consumer
Protection,
in
an
interview.
“So
there
is
a
chance
that
these
might
not
be
implemented
when
they
were
supposed
to
be
effective,
but
we’ll
see
how
fast
the
courts
move
and
what
happens
next.”

At
least
one
patient
advocacy
organization
hopes
that
the
delayed
provisions
are
permanently
blocked. 

“The
rule
is
another
one
of
the
Trump
administration’s
unlawful
and
harmful
attacks
on
health
care
that
creates
significant
hurdles
for
families
and
individuals

mainly
immigrant
and
marginalized
communities

to
access
health
insurance
through
the
Affordable
Care
Act,”
said
Sophia
Tripoli,
senior
director
of
health
policy
at
Families
USA.
“It
significantly
undermines
the
ACA’s
intended
purpose
and
reverses
the
record
health
coverage
gains
made
over
the
past
few
years.”

If
the
complete
rule
does
go
into
effect,
it
could
cause
significant
harm,
especially
when
combined
with
changes
in
the
One
Big
Beautiful
Bill
Act
and
the
expiration
of
the
ACA
enhanced
premium
tax
credits
at
the
end
of
this
year.
That
said,
it’s
possible
Congress
may
issue
an
extension
to
the
tax
credits.

“All
these
factors
are
working
together
to
drive
premiums
higher
next
year
and
to
drive
enrollment
lower,”
said
Louise
Norris,
health
policy
analyst
with

healthinsurance.org
.
“But
some
of
it
is
still
up
in
the
air,
like
this
marketplace
rule
where
all
these
provisions
have
been
stayed.
We
don’t
know
when
the
court
ruling
will
eventually
come,
and
we
don’t
know
what
it
will
say,
and
then,
obviously,
we
don’t
know
what
Congress
will
do
as
far
as
extending
the
subsidy
enhancement.”

While
the
future
remains
uncertain
for
those
enrolled
through
the
ACA
Marketplaces,
it’s
clear
that
this
year’s
open
enrollment
period
is
likely
to
be
marked
by
significant
confusion.
The
Democrats
may
have
notched
a
victory
with
the
judge’s
ruling
but
it
may
only
be
a
temporary
win. 


Photo:
kroach,
Getty
Images

Morning Docket: 09.10.25 – Above the Law

*
Judge
blocks
effort
to
fire
Fed
governor
Lisa
Cook,
noting
that
pre-role
misconduct

in
this
case,
a
mere
accusation
of
pre-role
misconduct
to
boot

doesn’t
meet
the
statutory
definition
of
a
“for
cause”
dismissal.
[Politico]

*
Federal
judges
are
learning
from
each
other’s
experiences.
It’s
why
Judge
Sooknanan
oversaw
a
grueling,
round-the-clock
oversight
effort
having
watched
the
government
exploit
Judge
Boasberg
for
treating
them
like
good
faith
litigants.
[Lawfare]

*
Banksy
piece
depicting
a
UK
judge
using
a
gave
to
brutally
beat
a
protester
will
be
removed.
[Legal
Cheek
]

*
Supreme
Court
to
fast
track
appeal
of
Trump’s
tariffs
case.
Big
test
for
a
Court
that
already
tried
to

twist
itself
in
knots

to
build
a
conception
of
presidential
power
that’s
unlimited
right
up
until
it
impacts
their
stock
portfolios.
[CNBC]

*
Former

Biglaw
associate
accused
in
DC
occupation

receives
the
latest
no
bill
from
a
grand
jury
[WUSA]

*
Second
Circuit
to
hear
appeal
in
“Tylenol
causes
autism”
suits.
The
Onion

had
the
best
take

on
this
latest
of
RFK
Jr.’s
insane
theories.
[Law.com]

*
LGBTQ
rights
lawyer
indicted
in
Alabama
for
judge
shopping.
Meanwhile,

in
Amarillo
,
that’s
just
called
“a
Tuesday.”
[Reuters]

*
Just
Ken…
getting
a
DUI.
[Lowering
the
Bar
]

Bill Watch 27/2025 of 8th September 2025


This
Week
in
Parliament

Both
Houses
of
Parliament
will
be
sitting
this
coming
week,
and
in
this
Bill
Watch
we
shall
outline
the
business
they
are
expected
to
deal
with. 
Please
however
bear
the
following
points
in
mind:

  • When
    the
    National
    Assembly
    and
    the
    Senate
    adjourn,
    they
    set
    down
    all
    outstanding
    business
    on
    their
    Order
    Papers
    (i.e.
    their
    agendas)
    for
    the
    next
    appropriate
    sitting
    day. 
    There
    is
    usually
    too
    much
    to
    be
    covered
    in
    one
    day
    so
    whatever
    is
    not
    dealt
    with
    is
    postponed
    to
    the
    next
    appropriate
    day.
  • Both
    Houses
    of
    Parliament
    can
    change
    the
    order
    in
    which
    they
    consider
    business.

THE
NATIONAL
ASSEMBLY

Tuesday
9th
September

Bills
to
be
dealt
with

The
Assembly
is
expected
to
deal
with
the
following
Bills:


  • Medical
    Services
    Amendment
    Bill
     [link]

The
Second
Reading
of
this
Bill
is
due
to
continue.


  • Zimbabwe
    School
    Examinations
    Council
    Amendment
    Bill
     [link]

The
Second
Reading
of
this
Bill
is
due
to
begin.


  • Pipelines
    Amendment
    Bill 
    [link]

This
Bill
is
also
due
to
begin
its
Second
Reading.


  • Insurance
    and
    Pensions
    Commission
    Amendment
    Bill 
    [link]

This
Bill,
too,
is
due
to
begin
its
Second
Reading.


  • State
    Service
    (Pensions)
    Bill
     [link]

The
House
is
due
to
consider
the
Parliamentary
Legal
Committee’s
adverse
report
on
this
Bill.

Reports
of
constitutional
commissions
to
be
considered

The
Assembly
will
be
asked
to
consider:

  • 2024
    report
    of
    the
    Judicial
    Service
    Commission
  • 2024
    report
    of
    the
    Zimbabwe
    Electoral
    Commission
  • 2024
    report
    of
    the
    Zimbabwe
    Human
    Rights
    Commission
  • 2024
    report
    of
    the
    National
    Prosecuting
    Authority.
  • 2024
    report
    of
    the Attorney-General’s
    Office

International
agreement
to
be
approved

The
Assembly
will
be
asked
to
approve:

  • The
    SADC
    Protocol
    on
    the
    Inter-State
    Transfer
    of
    Sentenced
    Prisoners [link]
  • Treaty
    on
    Mutual
    Assistance
    in
    Criminal
    Matters
    with
    China
  • The
    UN
    Convention
    on
    the
    Law
    of
    the
    Sea
    on
    the
    Conservation
    and
    Sustainable
    Use
    of
    Marine
    Biological
    Diversity
    of
    Areas
    Beyond
    National
    Jurisdiction [link].
  • Convention
    establishing
    the
    International
    Organisation
    for
    Mediation [link].

Reports
on
petitions
received

  • A
    petition
    for
    a
    Lippert
    Concession
    Decolonisation
    Restorative
    Justice
    and
    Reparations
    Bill
  • A
    petition
    on
    security
    of
    tenure
    and
    title
    deeds
    for
    urban
    poor
  • A
    petition
    on
    the
    status
    of
    the
    Disaster
    Risk
    Management
    and
    Civil
    Protection
    Bill

Reports
of
parliamentary
committees

The
Assembly
will
be
asked
to
consider
committee
reports
on
the
following
issues:

  • The
    2024
    third
    and
    fourth
    quarter
    budget
    performance
    report
    of
    the
    Ministry
    of
    Women
    Affairs,
    Community,
    Small
    and
    Medium
    Enterprises
  • The
    accounts
    of
    the
    Ministry
    of
    Transport
    and
    Infrastructural
    Development
    for
    2022
  • The
    2024
    budget
    performance
    report
    of
    the
    Ministry
    of
    Environment,
    Climate
    and
    Wild
    Life
  • The
    audited
    accounts
    of
    Bulawayo
    City
    Council
    for
    2019
    and
    2020
  • Large-scale
    irrigation
    schemes
  • Responsible
    mining
    by
    artisanal
    and
    small-scale
    miners
  • The
    2024
    Budget
    Performance
    Reports
    of
    the
    Ministry
    of
    Transport
    and
    Infrastructural
    Development
  • The
    state
    of
    prisons
    in
    Zimbabwe
  • The
    state
    of
    digital
    information
    centres
    in
    Zimbabwe
  • Constraints
    and
    challenges
    affecting
    Zimsec
  • The
    2024
    Budget
    Performance
    Reports
    of
    the
    Ministry
    of
    Foreign
    Affairs
    and
    International
    Trade
  • The
    2025
    first
    quarter
    Budget
    Performance
    Report
    of
    the
    Ministry
    of
    Environment,
    Climate
    and
    Wildlife
  • Innovation
    hubs
    and
    industrial
    parks
    in
    universities
    and
    polytechnics
  • The
    2024
    quarterly
    budget
    performance
    reports
    of
    the
    Ministry
    of
    Mines
    and
    Mining
    Development
  • The
    2024
    third
    and
    fourth
    quarter
    Budget
    Performance
    Report
    of
    the
    Ministry
    of
    ICT,
    Postal
    and
    Courier
    Services
  • The
    audited
    accounts
    of
    the
    Zimbabwe
    National
    Road
    Administration
    for
    2023
  • The
    status
    of
    border
    posts
    in
    relation
    to
    border
    security
  • The
    state
    of
    centres
    for
    the
    treatment
    and
    rehabilitation
    of
    victims
    of
    drug
    and
    substance
    abuse

Motions
on
the
National
Assembly
order
paper

Motions
set
to
be
debated
by
the
Assembly
will
include
the
following
topics:

  • Introduction
    of
    quotas
    for
    employment
    of
    youths
    in
    the
    public
    service
  • Introducing
    a
    two-term
    school
    year
    for
    Zimbabwe’s
    schools
  • Increasing
    spending
    and
    reducing
    regulations
    to
    encourage
    technological
    innovation
  • Regularising
    informal
    settlements
    in
    urban
    areas
  • Compensation
    for
    victims
    of
    road
    accidents
  • Policies
    to
    protect
    the
    inheritance
    rights
    of
    widows
  • Measures
    to
    support
    the
    health
    and
    welfare
    of
    students
    at
    institutions
    of
    higher
    education
  • Birth
    certificates
    and
    IDs
    for
    Zimbabweans
    living
    in
    South
    Africa
  • Enforcing
    weight
    restrictions
    on
    public
    transport
    vehicles
  • Youth
    quotas
    in
    provincial
    councils,
    local
    authorities
    and
    public
    boards
  • Declaration
    of
    the
    public
    health
    situation
    to
    be
    a
    national
    emergency
  • Tax
    relief
    for
    businesses
    that
    invest
    in
    or
    sponsor
    arts,
    sport
    and
    culture
  • Measures
    to
    combat
    deforestation
  • Promotion
    of
    traditional
    culture
    and
    practices
  • Extending
    the
    prohibition
    against
    smoking
    tobacco
    in
    public
    places
  • Controlling
    dangerous
    dogs
    and
    increasing
    protection
    against
    rabies
  • Increased
    resources
    to
    treat
    mental
    disorders,
    particularly
    drug-related
    conditions
  • Abolition
    of
    bank
    charges
    for
    balance
    enquiries
  • Preventing
    child
    marriages
    and
    protecting
    girls
    from
    exploitation
  • Dealing
    with
    tuberculosis
    and
    silicosis
    among
    miners
  • Fires
    in
    communal
    areas
  • Ensuring
    that
    local
    authorities
    fill
    vacant
    posts
    with
    substantive
    appointments
    rather
    than
    acting
    appointments
  • Management
    and
    protection
    of
    wetlands
  • Remodelling
    of
    community
    information
    centres
  • Reply
    to
    the
    President’s
    speech.

Wednesday
10th
September



Note:
 
On
Wednesdays,
questions
and
other
private
members’
business
have
precedence
over
government
business.

Questions
set
down
for
answer

Among questions set
down
for
Ministers
to
answer
in
the
National
Assembly
on
Wednesday
are questions on the
following
issues:

  • Government
    policy
    on
    menstrual
    leave
  • Revenues
    from
    the
    fast
    foods
    tax
    up
    to
    June
    2025
  • Collection
    and
    distribution
    of
    corporate
    social
    responsibility
    levies
    on
    lithium
    and
    quarried
    stone
  • Settling
    of
    bills
    owed
    by
    government
    to
    Gweru
    City
    Council
  • Procurement
    of
    essential
    medical
    supplies
    through
    the
    government’s
    e-GP
    system
  • Revenues
    from
    the
    wealth
    tax
    up
    to
    June
    2025
  • Measures
    to
    support
    businesses
    affected
    by
    current
    economic
    environment
  • Compensation
    for
    victims
    of
    political
    violence
    since
    1980
  • Implementing
    recommendations
    of
    the
    SADC
    election
    observer
    mission
    from
    2018
    and
    2023
  • Compliance
    with
    court
    orders
    by
    companies,
    institutions
    and
    communities
  • The
    Geo
    Pomona
    Waste
    Project
  • Construction
    of
    filling
    stations
    in
    residential
    areas
  • Government
    policy
    on
    breeding
    and
    keeping
    dangerous
    dog
    breeds
  • Statistics
    on
    prosecutions
    of
    drug
    dealers
  • How
    the
    government
    balances
    its
    commitment
    to
    democracy
    and
    human
    rights
    with
    trade
    relations
    with
    autocratic
    regimes
  • Repatriation
    of
    Zimbabweans
    in
    foreign
    immigration
    holding
    centres
  • Abolition
    of
    visa
    requirements
    for
    visiting
    African
    countries
  • The
    number
    of
    mental
    health
    practitioners
    employed
    by
    government
  • The
    effectiveness
    of
    “sin
    taxes”
    in
    improving
    national
    health
  • The
    cost
    of
    maternal
    health
    services,
    and
    whether
    bribes
    are
    demanded
    for
    those
    services
  • Time
    allocated
    for
    party
    political
    broadcasts
    before
    elections
  • Exemption
    of
    deaf
    people
    from
    paying
    for
    car
    radio
    licences
  • Housing
    and
    capacitation
    of
    school
    teachers
  • Payment
    of
    school
    fees
    and
    the
    consequences
    of
    non-payment
  • Fees
    payable
    by
    university
    students
  • Construction
    and
    maintenance
    of
    roads,
    dams
    and
    other
    infrastructure.

Thursday
11th
September

The
Assembly
will
continue
with
business
stood
over
from
Tuesday.

THE
SENATE

Tuesday
9th
September

Bill
to
be
dealt
with

The
Senate
will
deal
with
the
following
Bill:


  • Parks
    and
    Wild
    Life
    Amendment
    Bill
     [link]

This
Bill
will
undergo
its
Second
Reading.

Reports
of
Constitutional
Commissions
to
be
considered

The
Senate will be
asked
to
consider
the
reports
of
the
following
constitutional
Commissions:

  • The
    Zimbabwe
    Human
    Rights
    Commission’s
    report
    for
    2024
  • Reports
    of
    the
    Zimbabwe
    Electoral
    Commission
    on
    by-elections
    held
    in
    October
    and
    November
    2024
    and
    January
    2025
    to
    fill
    vacancies
    in
    local
    authorities

International
agreements
to
be
approved

The
Senate
will
be
asked
to
approve:

  • The
    SADC
    Protocol
    on
    the
    Inter-State
    Transfer
    of
    Sentenced
    Prisoners [link]
  • The
    UN
    Convention
    on
    the
    Law
    of
    the
    Sea
    on
    the
    Conservation
    and
    Sustainable
    Use
    of
    Marine
    Biological
    Diversity
    of
    Areas
    Beyond
    National
    Jurisdiction [link].

Thematic
Committee
reports
to
be
considered

The
Senate will be
asked
to
adopt
reports
on:

  • Universal
    access
    to
    primary
    and
    secondary
    education
  • Sustainable
    development
    goals
  • State
    of
    the
    water
    supply
    in
    Bulawayo
    [link]

Motions
to
be
dealt
with
by
the
Senate

The
Senate
is
expected
to
debate
motions
on
the
following
topics:

  • Establishment
    of
    DISCO
    Steel
    Mill
  • Protection
    of
    wetlands,
    particularly
    in
    Harare
  • Measures
    to
    reduce
    traffic
    accidents.

Wednesday
20th
August

The
Senate
will
continue
business
stood
over
from
Tuesday

Thursday
21st
August

Questions
set
down
for
answer

Among
questions
for
Ministers
to
answer
in
the
Senate
on
Thursday
are
questions
on
the
following
issues:

  • Exemption
    of
    senior
    citizens
    from
    paying
    rates
    and
    levies
    to
    urban
    and
    rural
    local
    authorities
  • Exemption
    of
    war
    veterans
    from
    paying
    parking
    fees
  • Land
    audit
    to
    identify
    under-utilised
    land
    for
    reallocation

Bills
Being
Considered
by
the
Parliamentary
Legal
Committee

The
PLC
is
considering
the
following
Bills:

  • Mines
    and
    Minerals
    Bill [link]
  • Occupational
    Safety
    and
    Health
    Bill [link]
  • Public
    Service
    Amendment
    Bill [link]
  • Tourism
    Bill

Veritas
makes
every
effort
to
ensure
reliable
information,
but
cannot
take
legal
responsibility
for
information
supplied.

Post
published
in:

Featured

Depends On What Your Definition Of ‘Can’t’ Means – See Also – Above the Law

Fox
News
Asks
Amy
Coney
Barret
If
The
22nd
Amendment
Is
Vague:
It
isn’t.
For
now.
E-Bike
Accident
Claims
Biglaw
Partner:
Our
condolences
to
the
friends
and
family
of
Michele
Mulrooney.
No
Two-Tier
Here!:
Ropes
&
Gray
decides
against
adopting
nonequity
partnerships.
Voice
Support,
Get
Appointed:
Judge
confirmed
to
federal
bench
after
cosigning
Trump’s
strange
legal
theory.
Say
Hello
To
NYU’s
New
Chief
Legal
Officer!:
Someone
has
to
help
the
school
navigate
new
legal
landmines!

Texas Holds A Litigation Funding Conference Flush In 2026 – Above the Law

One
of
my
little
joys
this
past
summer
was
a

brown
sugar
cold
foam
cold
brew

from
Starbucks,
most
often
purchased
after
a
strenuous
sculling
session.
Simpler
in
both
construction
and
calories
than
a
frappuccino,
but
with
the
same
instantaneous
burst
of
sugary
delight
on
the
initial
sip,
each
drink
was
a
hit
of
warm-weather
pleasure
to
savor.
For
the
first
few
sips
(gulps)
the
brown
sugar
cold
foam
overwhelmed,
but
as
it
was
consumed,
the
remaining
cold
brew
retained
just
enough
sweetness
to
make
finishing
the
cup
an
enjoyable
certainty.
Since
this
is
not
a
beverage
review
column,
by
now
the
question
of
why
I
am
discussing
a
cup
of
overpriced
(but
delicious)
coffee
is
appropriate
for
this
audience
to
ask.
The
answer?
Because
that
cup
of
joe
is
what
comes
to
mind
when
I
think
of
the
state
of
the
patent
litigation
funding
market
as
we
approach
the
final
quarter
of
2025.
That
is
true
even
if
one
takes
a
longer
view
regarding
the
maturation
of
the
litigation
funding
market
as
well.
I’ll
explain.

On
the
one
hand,
2025
has
already
delivered
some
impressive
patent
verdicts
and
settlement
results,
particularly
in
cases
that
are
suspected,
if
not
confirmed
to
be,
funded.
Adding
to
the
fun
has
been
the
defanging
of
the
PTAB
for
many
patent
owners
due
to
the
developing
discretionary
denial
of
IPR
jurisprudence.
Likewise,
many
of
the
dangerous
shoals
in
the
regulatory
waters
have
thus
far
been
avoided
by
the
good
ship
USS
Litigation
Funding,
from
the
attempted
taxation
without
representation
of
the
Tillis
Big
Beautiful
Bill
amendment,
to
the
adaptation
by
the
industry
to
even
the
strictest
disclosure
rules
currently
in
place
in
various
jurisdictions.
From
that
perspective,
2025
has
been
a
banner
year
for
patent
litigation
funding,
with
prospects
for
the
industry
looking
bright
for
the
future
as
well.
Brown
sugar
cold
foam
sweetness,
in
other
words.

On
the
other
hand,
2025
has
not
been
without
its
challenges
in
the
patent
space.
More
than
one
market
participant
has
expressed
the
view
that
it
is
harder
than
ever
to
find
fundable
patent
cases
to
invest
in,
even
as
already
funded
cases
continue
to
face
settlement
challenges
and
longer
than
expected
times
to
recovery.
Compounding
those
challenges
is
the
behavior
of
some
funded
parties
in
terms
of
holding
onto
unrealistic
settlement
expectations,
particularly
those
unsophisticated
about
patent
litigation
or
who
see
themselves
as
having
one
shot
to
score
big.
For
funders,
having
those
types
holding
settlement
authority
can
be
a
real
pain
point,
especially
for
cases
that
have
dragged
on
and
the
amount
on
offer
would
allow
the
funder
to
show
a
return
in
a
more
reasonable
timeframe.
Moreover,
patent
defendants
have
continued
to
fight
hard
on
the
litigation
front,
with
very
few
paths
to
easy
and
quick
settlements
available
to
patent
owners
hoping
for
above
nuisance
value
for
a
license
to
their
assets.
At
the
same
time,
litigation
costs
have
continued
to
increase

and
if
recent
negotiations
are
illustrative

patent
acquisition
costs
are
becoming
more
dear
as
well.
Lastly,
the
difficulties
in
the
judgment
preservation
insurance
markets
have
put
pressure
on
patent
holders
hoping
to
monetize
successful
trial
results.
All
that
tastes
more
like
not
as
sweet
bottom
of
the
cup
cold
brew.

In
short,
the
story
of
2025
is
one
of
opportunities
and
challenges
from
a
patent
litigation
funding
perspective
and
there
is
still
a
quarter
of
the
story
that
will
be
written
in
the
coming
months.
Thankfully,
there
will
be
an
unmissable
opportunity
to
discuss
all
those
developments
in
mid-January
2026
at
one
of
the
industry’s
leading
conferences,

LITFINCON
.
Returning
to
its
home
base
in
Houston
for
its
fifth
installment,
the
first
of
three
planned
2026
LITFINCONs
promises
to
deliver
for
attendees
everything
that
prior
iterations
has
provided
with
some
new
and
exciting
twists. 

Continuing
the
tradition
of
kicking
off
with
a
can’t
miss
and
unique
panel
of
jurists
sharing
their
views
on
litigation
funding,
LITFINCON
V’s
agenda
is
shaping
up
to
provide
two
days
of
worthy
content
and
networking
opportunities
for
those
fortunate
enough
to
attend.
For
IP
practitioners,
the
panels
on
funding
patent
litigation
matters
and
law
firm
monetization
strategies
are
must-listens,
as
are
the
updates
on
the
use
of
AI
and
technology
in
the
litigation
funding
arena.
Likewise,
the
panel
discussing
general
trends
in
the
funding
space,
as
well
as
the
panel
regarding
the
changing
legislative
landscape
for
litigation
funding
will
certainly
have
discussion
of
interest
for
readers
of
this
column.
Add
in
a
reprise
of
the
panel
I
moderated
last
year,
a
debate
on
the
case
for
and
against
litigation
funding,
as
well
as
an
update
on
the
ever-changing
role
on
insurance
in
the
litigation
funding
space

and
there
is
very
little
chance
that
a
LITFINCON
V
attendee
will
walk
away
from
the
conference
saying
that
they
knew
everything
that
was
discussed
already.
For
those
interested,
I
am
sure
that
the
panels
on
mass
torts
and
the
investment
side
of
the
industry
will
likely
be
compelling
as
well.

Content
aside,
I
have
always
been
effusive
in
my
praise
in
the
past
for
both
LITFINCON’s
venue
and
social
aspects.
Thankfully,
LITFINCON
V
will
once
again
be
hosted
by
the
Post
Oak,
as
tasteful
and
guest-centered
a
luxury
hotel
as
you
can
expect
to
find
in
a
major
U.S.
city.
And
as
with
prior
years,
LITFINCON
V’s
social
events

before
and
during
the
conference

should
be
of
the
highest
caliber,
both
in
terms
of
fun
and
networking
with
other
industry
participants.
On
top
of
these
old
standbys,
LITFINCON
V
will
also
host
a
Legal
Tech
AI
Pitch
Competition,
helping
to
bring
tomorrow’s
technologies
forward
as
quickly
as
possible,
with
a
focus
on
tools
that
can
be
of
service
to
the
litigation
funding
community,
from
funders
to
lawyers
and
everyone
else
involved.

Ultimately,
as
with
the
prior
events,
LITFINCON
V
will
surely
be
a
few
days
well-spent
for
both
attendees
and
presenters.
The
combination
of
great
networking
and
informative
panels
on
order
at
prior
LITFINCONs
promises
to
expand
greatly
in
2026,
with
planned
events
in
Amsterdam
and
Singapore
later
in
the
year
as
well.
Before
then
though,
there
is
plenty
to
look
forward
to
at
LITFINCON
V
in
Houston.
I
encourage
those
interested
to
keep
an
eye
out
for
the
final
agenda
and
speaker
list
as
we
get
closer
to
the
event,
but
there
is
plenty
of
reason
to
book
a
spot
already
for
those
who
stand
to
benefit
from
attendance.
Who
knows,
maybe
you
will
see
me
once
again
on
the
speaker
roster.
Registration
for
LITFINCON
V
is

open
,
with
special
super-early-bird
pricing
until
September
15.
I
hope
to
see
you
there.

Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at

[email protected]

or
via
Twitter:

@gkroub
.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome. 




Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of 
Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC
,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and 
Markman
Advisors
LLC
,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at 
[email protected] or
follow
him
on
Twitter: 
@gkroub.

Law Firms And The Cloud: Is Your Data As Safe As You Think? – Above the Law

The
legal
industry
has
been
in
full
embrace
mode
when
it
comes
to
cloud
computing.
Data
from
the
American
Bar
Association
and

reported
in
2023

for
example
showed
cloud
usage
among
lawyers
jumped
from
60%
to
70%
overall,
with
solo
practitioners
leading
the
charge,
going
from
52%
to
84%
adoption
in
just
one
year.
The
legal
tech
press
has
been
enthusiastically
covering
this
“digital
transformation,”
with
publications
like

Legal
Futures

touting
how
“cloud-first
strategy”
is
proving
particularly
popular
among
law
firms.

The
narrative
has
been
almost
universally
positive.
Cloud
computing
offers
flexibility,
cost
savings,
remote
access

what’s
not
to
love?
The
ABA’s
2023

Cloud
Computing
TechReport

reads
like
a
love
letter,
noting
that
cloud
computing
eliminates
the
need
for
substantial
upfront
capital
investment
in
“hardware,
software
and
support
services”
and
provides
“robust
data
backup”
if
there
is
a
disaster.
It’s
become
almost
axiomatic
in
legal
tech
circles
that
the
cloud
is
better
than
on-premises
solutions.

The
assumption
seems
to
be
that
by
moving
to
the
cloud,
firms
are
automatically
more
secure,
more
efficient,
and
more
disaster-proof.
But
while
the
move
to
the
cloud
from
on-prem
for
law
firms
is
considered
a
no-brainer,
law
firms
may
mistakenly
believe
that
it’s
foolproof,
that
someone
else
is
taking
on
the
total
responsibility
to
watching
after
and
secure
your
data.
And
you
need
do
nothing
more.
They
miss
the
fact
that
according
to
cloud
vendors,
security
is
a
shared
responsibility.


But,
Wait

I
read
an
interesting
and
perhaps
scary

Report

from

Vanson
Bourne

and

HYCU
.
Vanson
Bourne
is
an
IT
research
firm.
HYCU
is
a
SaaS
data
protection
platform.

The
Report
was
entitled

Rethinking
SaaS
Resilience
In
the
Legal
Sector

and
it
came
out
on
August
11th.
The
Report
confirms
that
like
the
US,
firms
in
the
UK
are
increasingly
using
the
cloud.
Usage
jumped
from
60%
in
2021
to
75%
in
2024.
Most
firms
believe
their
core
business
systems
will
run
entirely
in
the
cloud
by
2027.
It
goes
on
to
note
that
law
firms
have
moved
to
the
cloud
for
convenience
and
remote
access

But,
the
gist
of
the
Report
is
that
law
firms
are
mistakenly
relying
on
cloud
providers
for
recoverability
and
data
protection.
The
Report
implies
that
firms
that
rely
on
cloud
providers
are
unknowingly
vulnerable
to
cyberattacks,
insider
threats,
accidental
deletion,
and
supply
chain
disruptions.
Indeed,
according
to
the
Report,
85%
of
business
and
professional
services
IT
personnel
surveyed
are
not
aware
that
they,
not
the
cloud
providers,
are
responsible
for
their
own
data.

The
Report
further
notes
firms
are
unaware
that
if
there
is
a
deletion,
corruption,
or
attack,
“the
responsibility
for
protecting
or
restoring
data
rests
squarely
with
the
firm
themselves.”

The
Report
cites
other
statistics
suggesting
that
it
will
take
until
2028
for
most
enterprises
to
make
SaaS
a
requirement
and
most
firms
believe
moving
to
the
cloud
improved
security.
The
Report
quotes

Microsoft
Policy

as
follows:
“for
all
cloud
deployment
types,
you
own
your
data
and
identities.
You’re
responsible
for
protecting
the
security
of
your
data
and
identities,
on
premises
resources
and
the
cloud
components
you
control.”
The
Report
states
that
some
72%
of
the
firms
surveyed
use
Microsoft
and
54%
use
Dropbox.

Vinsan
Bourne
puts
it
this
way:
The
Shared
Responsibility
Model
compounds
this
risk

by
dividing
responsibility
between
provider
and
customer,
creating
a
dangerous
data
protection
gap
if
customers
do
not
take
data
protection
into
their
own
hands.

Similarly,
Google
protects
the
infrastructure,
but
customers
are
responsible
for
recovery
of
deleted
or
corrupted
files
and
for
implementing
retention
polices.
Security
is
a
shared
responsibility

says
Google
.

And
the
risks
do
seem
to
be
growing
according
to
Vanson
Bourne.
Cyberattacks
against
UK
law
firms
grew
by
77%
in
just
one
year.
Sixty-three
percent
of
the
business
leaders
surveyed
experienced
a
SaaS
data
security
breach
last
year.
In
the
US,
according
to
the
Report,
ransomware
attacks
surged
some
30%
in
the
first
quarter
of
2024,
with
the
average
demand
exceeding
$500k.
In
2024,
36%
of
the
reported
data
breaches
were
linked
to
third
party
vendors.


So?

What
does
all
this
mean?
If
your
firm
gets
hit
with
ransomware
and
your
Microsoft
365
data
is
corrupted,
Microsoft
will
restore
the
service
but
according
to
its
own
statement,
restoring
your
files
is
on
you.
And
if
you
have
no
backup?
You
may
be
screwed.


Don’t
Forget
Ethics

Clearly,
when
firms
lose
client
data,
it’s
not
just
an
IT
problem.
It’s
also
an
ethical
and
even
malpractice
nightmare.


ABA
Formal
Opinion
477

makes
clear
that
lawyers
have
an
ethical
duty
to
conduct
due
diligence
on
technology
vendors

which
necessarily
includes
understanding
who’s
responsible
for
what
when
things
go
wrong.
And
when
they
do
go
wrong,

ABA
Formal
Opinion
483

requires
lawyers
to
promptly
notify
clients
of
any
data
breach
involving
material
confidential
information.


One
More
Thing

And
consider
this:
if
there
is
a
breach
and
you
can’t
access
data,
you
can’t
do
work.
You
can’t
bill.
Profitability
takes
a
hit
even
if
you
somehow
manage
to
keep
your
clients.


But
Is
it
Right?

So,
if
the
Report
is
correct,
there
could
be
some
significant
problems
ahead.
But
when
I
first
read
it,
I
wondered
whether
this
was
just
another
vendor
trying
to
drum
up
business
for
services
it
offers.

But
as
it
turns
out,
the
responsibility
for
backup
and
recovery
lying
with
the
firms
is
well
documented.
For
example

Gartner
,
a
major
technology
consulting
and
research
firm,
states
in
an

overview
,
“Customers
are
still
responsible
for
backup
policies
and
performing
recovery
tasks.”
And
perhaps
even
more
importantly,
the
ABA’s
Cybersecurity
Handbook
provides
that
law
firms
using
SaaS
must
implement
independent
backup
strategies
since
SaaS
vendors
“provide
availability
but
not
resistance.”

I
talked
to
one
large
firm
CIO
about
the
issue.
He
told
me
that
among
larger
law
firms,
there’s
an
awareness
that
they
remain
responsible
for
securing
their
own
data,
and
there
are
ongoing
discussions
about
backup
solutions.
His
firm
has
implemented
backup
procedures.
But
he
suspects
many
smaller
firms
may
not
understand
the
scope
of
their
responsibilities.

So,
while
the
methodology
may
be
a
little
suspect
(a
40
law
firm
survey
is
hardly
a
comprehensive
legal
industry
study),
and
of
course
HYCU
is
in
the
business
of
SaaS
protection,
the
conclusions
seem
sound.


Conclusion

The
bottom
line?
If
your
firm
moved
to
the
cloud
without
implementing
independent
backup
and
recovery
procedures,
you’re
not
just
vulnerable,
you
may
be
gambling
with
client
data,
professional
liability,
and
the
ability
to
practice
law
if
and
when
things
go
sideways.
The
cloud
isn’t
magic.
It’s
just
someone
else’s
computer,
and
the
providers
have
been
pretty
clear
about
who’s
responsible
when
it
breaks.




Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads
,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law
.

U.S. Visa Updates for Zimbabwe



Important
Update
on
Nonimmigrant
Visa
Processing


Visa
Applications:
 Applicants
for
U.S.
nonimmigrant
visas must
now schedule
their
visa
interview
appointments
at
the
U.S.
Embassy
or
Consulate
in
their
country
of
nationality
or
residence. Nationals
of
countries
where
the
U.S.
government
is
not
conducting
routine
nonimmigrant
visa
operations must apply
at a designated
embassy
or
consulate,
unless
their
residence
is
elsewhere.  For
Zimbabweans
resident
in
Zimbabwe,
you
must
apply
at
the United
States
Consulate
in Johannesburg,
South
Africa
.


Residence
Requirement:
 
Zimbabwean
applicants
not
resident
in
Zimbabwe
must apply
for
a
visa
in
their
country
of
residence
and be
able
to
demonstrate
residence
in
the
country
where
they
are
applying.


Fees:  
 Fees
paid
for applications outside
an
applicant’s
country
of
residence
cannot be
refunded.


Important
Update
on
C1/D
Visas


The
validity
of
C1/D
(transit/crew
member)
visas
for
Zimbabwean
applicants
has
been
extended
to
24
months
with
multiple
entry. Applications
for
C1/D
visas
may
be
submitted
at
the
U.S.
Embassy
in
Johannesburg
at
this
time.
 The
U.S.
Embassy
in
Harare
continues
the
pause
on
routine
immigrant
and
nonimmigrant
visa
services.


Pause
on
Immigrant
and
Non-Immigrant
Visa
Services
at
U.S.
Embassy
Harare
Continues

The
U.S.
Embassy
in
Harare,
Zimbabwe,
continues
its
pause
on
all
routine
immigrant
and
nonimmigrant
visa
services
except
for
most
diplomatic
and
official
visas. Zimbabwean
applicants 
for
U.S.
nonimmigrant
visas 
currently
resident
in
Zimbabwe 
should
schedule
their
visa
interview
appointments
at
the
U.S
Embassy
in
Johannesburg
unless
their
residence
is
elsewhere. 

Effective
immediately,
all
individuals
applying
for
an
F,
M,
or
J
nonimmigrant
visa
are
requested
to
adjust
the
privacy
settings
on
all
their
social
media
accounts
to
‘public’
to
facilitate
vetting
necessary
to
establish
their
identity
and
admissibility
to
the
United
States
under
U.S.
law.

Applicants
with
scheduled
visa
interviews
will
receive
information
once
appointments
can
be
rescheduled.
Wait
times
for
nonimmigrant
interview
appointments
vary
by
location. 
Applicants
applying
outside
their
country
of
nationality
or
residence
should
expect
to
wait
significantly
longer
for
an
appointment
and
might
find
that
it
will
be
more
difficult
to
qualify
for
the
visa. 
Fees
paid
for
such
applications
will
not
be
refunded.

Routine
and
emergency
American
Citizens
Services
will
continue
as
normal.

The
Department
of
State
is
committed
to
protecting
our
nation
and
our
citizens
by
upholding
the
highest
standards
of
national
security
and
public
safety
through
our
visa
processes,
preventing
overstay
and
visa
misuse.

Post
published
in:

Economy

NYU Creates New Chief Legal Officer Role – Above the Law

Image
from
Getty

Left
to
their
own
devices,
universities
probably
just
double
down
on
the
trend
of
being

real
estate
hedge
funds

with
a
degree-minting
side
hustle.
Unfortunately,
they
have
to
respond
to
existential
threats
from
Trump
administration
like
getting
their
accreditation
taken
from
them
or
having
to
fight
in
court
over
billions
of
dollars
in
federal
funding.
As
such,
universities
have
to
move
with
a
bit
more
finesse
and
planning;
NYU
is
commiting
to
that
reality
by
having
Trevor
Morrison
serve
as
their
Chief
Legal
Officer.
Law.com
has
coverage:

New
York
University
has
appointed
Trevor
Morrison,
who
was
dean
of
the
NYU
School
of
Law
from
2013
to
2022,
as
its
first
chief
legal
officer
and
senior
presidential
adviser
for
institutional
policy.

In
a
memo
to
senior
leadership,
NYU
President
Linda
Mills
said
Morrison
will
report
to
her
and
will
be
NYU’s
senior-most
legal
strategist,
leading
on
such
issues
as
institutional
integrity,
governance,
ethics,
risk
and
compliance.

You
can
imagine
that
some
of
the
issues
discussed
will
be.
“Do
you
think
Trump
will
threaten
our
ability
to
take
international
students
if
at
least
three
faculty
in
the
Economics
department
don’t
scrounge
up
some
data
on
how
tariffs
are
actually
good
for
the
country?”
and
“If
we
don’t
call
the
police
on
campus
protestors
within
the
first
five
minutes
of
them
erecting
signs,
how
much
federal
funding
will
it
cost
us?”

Best
of
luck
to
Morrison
in
the
new
role.
As
rough
as
it
is
to
balance
integrity
with
the
short-term
shock
of
the
disturbances
the
Trump
administration
can
throw
your
way,
there
is
some
solace
in
knowing
that
Harvard
and
Perkins
Coie
are
better
off
fighting
the
good
fight
than
Columbia
and
the
Yellow-Bellied
Nine
fared
by
caving
in
early.


NYU
Hires
Its
Former
Law
School
Dean
for
Newly
Created
Chief
Legal
Officer
Role

[Law.com]



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.