$2.04 billion. $1.55 billion. $1.05 billion. “Mega Millions jackpot now estimated to be largest in game’s history.” America has seen historically huge jackpots within just the past year. Even after taxes, we’re talking mind-boggling, generational wealth – if you can keep it (from ruining your life too).

A lottery win, especially a big one, can be a blessing - or a curse - and the days after a big win are the most critical in determining how your life will be. Because sudden, massive wealth comes with huge responsibility, and sudden wealth syndrome is real. Lottery jackpot winners are more likely to blow through all of their money and declare bankruptcy, get divorced, and... worse.

Remember that you are now in a battle for self-control and planning. If you manage to get everything in order, then you will usher you and your family into hakuna matata land. If you mess up, then you risk seeingyour family members die early, your life filled with divorce, lawsuits and thefts, and getting called stingy, a miser, and being hated because you are not giving your money away as fast as others want you to. So what's a lottery jackpot winner to do? Here are my top 7 tips for lottery jackpot winners:

A Pittsburgh man’s been accused of secretly putting a camera in a public restroom, and filming the public, including kids, who’ve used that restroom. He’s been charged with 20 felony counts of child sexual abuse under the PA crimes code Sec. 6312(b)(2), and 70 misdemeanor counts of invasion of privacy under Sec. 7507.1(a)(1). He’s since turned himself in, and the police have executed a search warrant of his residence, which has turned up more evidence of his recordings. Technically, if he’s convicted of all charges, he might be looking at a maximum sentence of approximately 540 years (!) imprisonment.*

But, I think he’s been charged incorrectly. This can be problematic. Filing the right charges is very important. If a defendant’s been charged with the wrong crime, then the government risks wasting resources prosecuting him, only to have him be acquitted at trial, or have a conviction overturned on appeal. It’s simple – a defendant can only be guilty of committing a specific crime, and if the charge doesn’t fit, then he can’t be legally guilty of the charge.

Let’s take a look at why I think this defendant's been charged incorrectly. Let’s start with the most serious 20 felony charges – child sexual abuse under Sec. 6312(b)(2). The allegations are not that he engaged in the direct abuse of a child. Rather, this particular criminal law requires the government to prove that this defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt, “knowingly photograph[ed], videotape[d], depict[ed] on computer or film[ed] a child under the age of 18 years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act commits an offense.” Assuming that the evidence the police has gathered only show minors engaging in ordinary urination or defecation, then any lawyer worth their salt will argue that there was no “sexual act” depicted in what this defendant’s filmed. This means that, as reprehensible as his actions may be, what he’s done simply doesn’t fit what this law requires. I expect these felony charges to be withdrawn or changed early on in this case, or else a defense lawyer may ask a judge to dismiss them.

The second set of 70 misdemeanor charges – invasion of privacy under Sec. 7507.1(a)(1) – seems somewhat harder to fight. This law says it’s illegal for someone to “…for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, knowingly does any of the following: (1) Views, photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts, films or otherwise records another person without that person's knowledge and consent while that person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where that person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.” A defense attorney’s best shot at tackling this set of misdemeanor charges will depend heavily on the facts involved. Most parts of this law (e.g. Views/photographs/etc., another person, without consent, nudity) will be hard to challenge. But, I think there are 2 ways to defend these charges: challenging the “sexual desire” and the “reasonable expectation of privacy” parts of this law.

Assume, in this case, that this defendant's exercised his right to remain silent and hasn't confessed, and assume that the police don't find any other evidence which show that there was sexual intent involved (e.g. pictures in a folder labeled “racy pics”). While a defendant can be proven guilty by circumstantial evidence alone under Commonwealth v. Brooks, 7 A.3d 852, 856-57 (Pa.Super. 2010) (e.g. the pictures were placed in a folder containing indisputable pornography, versus direct evidence like the defendant admitting that the pictures were taken for sexual gratification), it will be much harder for the government to prove its case if the only circumstantial evidence is that the pictures merely depict nude individuals engaged in regular use of the toilet. A defense argument might be that the defendant's been inappropriately, immorally, but not illegally, interested in human anatomy or bathroom activities, but without any sexual interest. Perhaps this may be just enough to generate reasonable doubt in at least one juror?

The other way to defend these charges can be to argue that there’s no “reasonable expectation of privacy” inside that particular public bathroom. Was the door lockable? Were there windows, and where were the windows? Were the windows open or shut? Were there multiple stalls? Were there other people in the bathroom during the picture-taking? And, does anyone even have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public bathroom, if they’ve ever used their own smartphone while in the bathroom, which continuously tracks their own location, data usage, phone contents (including photographs), and even vital signs? This argument, of course, seems to be the weaker one. No matter what data one’s own phone may be stealing, an ordinary person certainly does not expect their own phone to be taking non-consensual nude pictures.

Suffice it to say, I think the government might be better served in this case by charging the defendant with other crimes instead. Some examples include criminal trespass under Sec. 3503(a)(1)(i), disorderly conduct under 5503(a)(4), public nuisance under 6504, or perhaps illegal wiretapping under 5703(1) and (3), and wiretapping device under 5705(1) and (3).

Do note, however, that I don’t have the charging documents or evidence in this case, and am only going by what was reported in the news (which often omit important details, and occasionally even get things very wrong). But the relatively simple facts of this case, along with the large amount of evidence that the police must've seized by now, means that the government has a strong case for some kinds of convictions - provided that the government files the right charges.

            My practice involves many transactions and clients from China, and I pay keen attention to the economic and political climates of both countries since a trade war will directly affect investments and cases going both ways. After giving the issue of a trade war between China and the United States much thought, I have concluded that there is more than a 90% chance that a trade war will come between the two countries if President Trump does not accept token concessions from China, because Trump is attacking China’s now-entrenched political position that China cannot extricate itself from.

            As I have mentioned previously, Trump has indeed made China an important focus of his foreign political and trade policy. While I was wrong on the timing of Trump addressing China by a year, I believe the timing was off due to Trump having to deal with other more acute issues such as the firings of Michael Flynn and James Comey, repealing Obamacare, DACA, tax reform, and North Korea. The question of the bilateral trade deficit and containing China could be placed on the backburner. Still, Trump was not sitting idle on the issue of China; already in 04/2017, he directed the Department of Commerce to begin an investigation into steel dumping.

            A year later, Trump is now confronting China through the enactment of an escalating trade policy, first on steel and aluminum, then working towards tariffs on $50 billion’s worth of Chinese imports, and then teasing an additional $100 billion’s worth of imports. Trump’s stated objective is to cut down on the trade deficit between the two countries by providing additional intellectual property safeguards for US companies, and to provide additional help for US companies which do business in China.

​            China’s response is multifaceted: The Chinese government is conservatively mirroring Trump’s but is not “upping the ante”, yet at the same time it is gearing up for a protracted trade war. Some Western observers, and apparently equity markets as well, have interpreted Chinese President Xi Jinping’s very recent speech in Boao on trade policy as conciliatory and that China is willing to negotiate within the framework of Trump's proposed tariffs, but they are wrong.

            Xi just successfully abolished term limits, which has been called his “coronation” by influential commentators. Xi’s “mandate of heaven”, then, is grounded in his dual “Made in China 2025” (MIC 2025) and “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiatives, which seek to develop alternatives for China to the post-Cold War, US-fostered world trade network that has been key to securing world peace through mutually-dependent economies, and to isolate and weaken adversaries (e.g. sanctions against Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Russia). In other words, Xi is seeking to avoid the containment of China in its continued ascension as a superpower.

            While the majority of Americans might not have heard about MIC 2025 and OBOR and therefore are uninformed as to the strategic position that Xi has entrenched China in, MIC 2025 and OBOR are household terms in China, the Chinese government has made sure to spread this message far and wide, and MIC 2025/OBOR are essentially the same concepts as Manifest Destiny for the United States. Students of history will know that Zheng He is regarded in China as a Chinese Christopher Columbus, and the narrative of Zheng He is promoted heavily today in China in conjunction with MIC 2025 and OBOR as both a celebrated apex of the achievement of Chinese civilization, as well as a warning that to go against "opening up" -- meaning both domestic isolationism as well as foreign containment in terms of economics and technology -- is a death sentence for China.

            Trump’s tariffs strike at the heart of both MIC 2025 and OBOR. Trump’s essential demands retard the developmental path of MIC 2025, the fruits of which have already been demonstrated most visibly in China’s high-speed rail (HSR) network, through which forced technology sharing has resulted in China eventually leapfrogging over their foreign partners in building the largest high-speed rail network in the world and both an export and foreign policy tool. Thus, there is absolutely no way that China is going to back down from forced technology transfers, although China is most likely willing to provide minor concessions in the way of enhanced IP enforcement (such as trademark and patent protections) and making additional purchases of US commodities.

            But ultimately, Trump’s tariffs, whether intentionally or otherwise, is viewed as an existential challenge to the political legitimacy of not only Xi, but of the Chinese government as a whole. The reality is that China will rather take the sting of a trade war, just as Russia has taken one to the chin and has not backed out of Ukraine in spite of US sanctions, since Russia feels that the issue of Ukrainian alignment is also an existential issue in having a potential NATO ally in the cradle of its own historical foundation.

            In this context, Xi’s Boao speech which I have mentioned earlier is clearly not as a conciliatory gesture towards Trump, although it does serve as a neutral statement that China does not seek confrontation. Instead, Xi’s Boao speech is directed at China’s domestic audience and politics; it is Xi’s framing of the situation by setting up China as seeking openness and free trade, as an innocent victim of Trump’s tariffs, and as a gesture to other nations that China is willing to go even further in its OBOR initiative in promoting trade alternatives (meaning even better terms for grants, loans, and other aid). 

            My interpretation is the correct interpretation of the current course of events, and with neither Trump nor Xi backing down from their positions, negotiations are not happening, and I believe that unless Trump is willing to soften his stance and accept minor concessions from China without major reform, which I do not believe Trump to be willing to accept, a trade war is inevitable.

Are there enough warning bells about Elon Musk and Tesla? Or have we forgotten Madoff, Enron, and other big-time names who were ultimately in way over their heads? For those following Tesla, it was jockeying with GM as the biggest US automaker by market capitalization, even though it sold less than 1% of the number of vehicles that GM sold, and last month, the Chevy Bolt alone outsold both the Tesla Model S and Model X combined. By being propelled to the loftiest heights based on hype, the only way left for Tesla to go is down. And many heads will roll when this gigantic house of cards Musk and Tesla has built comes tumbling down.

Now why am I so sure that Tesla has turned into a scam, a securities pyramid scheme?

​Because it is doing everything it thinks it can get away with in order to keep it stock price up and get more money anywhere, any way it can.

Because the desperation of Elon Musk and Tesla is now plain as day. Desperation of failed execution (flat growth in actual sales), desperation to maintain the stock price (~$380/share at its peak, now down to about $310/share; Elon Musk has pledged his interest in Tesla as collateral for loaned funds for himself, and his creditors will surely be displeased at a precipitous stock price drop), desperation to raise additional inexpensive capital as its junk bonds dive underwater, desperation to "prove them wrong", and desperation to be loved and wanted, and to maintain his cult leader status.

I have witnessed this scenario many times, both from public events as well as through my own practice experience. Desperate people do desperate things, and desperate things typically means cutting corners, fudging numbers, and in the case of a publicly listed and highly visible company, invariably results in a scandal that threatens its very existence.

Because:

1. Tesla's sales are leveling off even as cash burn continues unabted. Recent sales have been spurred by by large discounts, even though Musk himself promised "no discounts";

2. Tesla being unable to achieve extremely important promises that it has staked its name upon because of Elon Musk being wrong. To wit:
 (a) "Full self driving" sans LIDAR for which customers have put down deposits and are now suing,
 (b) Musk in 2012: "Tesla does not need to ever raise another funding round",
​ (c) 20,000 Model 3 cars made per month by 12/2017 (Tesla is being sued for misleading investors by actually producing cars by hand due to "production bottlenecks"),
 (d) Mass firing of employees under the guise of "performance reviews", apparently conducted en masse;
 (e) SolarCity acquisition failing, and much more.

3. Tesla's cash burn of half a million dollars per hour means a capital raise via an equity sale and consequent dilution is inevitable in light of pending interest rate raises by the Fed, which renders another bond sale unfeasibly expensive in the face of an imminent credit downgrade;

4. Tesla is becoming increasingly defensive as well as evasive, and seeing the world in a black-and-white, us-vs.-them lens. During earnings calls, for example, its CFO avoided questions about deposit allocation, and Elon Musk himself actually saying "shut the f---- up" in response to Toyota's solid state battery technology claims (rather reminiscent of Enron's "asshole" earnings call comment made when asked about why it was "the only financial institution that can't come up with balance sheet or cash flow statement after earnings", shortly before Enron imploded);

​5.  After "revealing" the first 30 Model 3 "deliveries" to employees who are subject to gag contracts and the subsequent failure to deliver on its production and sales promises, and realizing the major problems it now faces Tesla and Musk have quickly scheduled another "reveal" that would "blow your mind clear out of your skull and into an alternate dimension". The more joking hyperbole Elon Musk and Tesla spits (psychological "reappraisement" in order to cope with horrific reality), the more it reveals Tesla's true position --Tesla is teetering on the brink of collapse --

In my years of practice, I have seen the issue of opioid addiction come up time and again. Opioid addiction is hardly a new phenomenon; the British even fought two wars to ensure that they could deal opium in China (while simultaneously banning opium in Britain), perhaps cementing Great Britain as the world's first modern narco-state.

​In any event, now that the opioid epidemic is an official national priority, and with the imminent implementation of national policies on this issue, perhaps it would be wise to take a step back and try to figure out how to deal with one of the most addictive drugs in the world.

But in order to deal with it, we have to face some facts -- facts which are not as well-publicized:

- Over 40% of American soldiers who had served in Vietnam during the Vietnam War tried heroin, and 20% became addicted.
- But, 96% of the soldiers who did not receive treatment for their heroin addictions resolved their addictions without treatment.
- Yet, of the soldiers who did receive treatment, 67% relapsed.

One can definitely argue that perhaps those who did not receive treatment, either by choice or because their addictions were not sufficiently problematic to result in forced treatment, were not as addicted as those who were subject to treatment. This might mean that those who received treatment were more troubled and therefore had more potential for relapse. Other arguments may be that treatment was less sophisticated in past years, or that the statistical analysis is flawed in some way. These are all valid counterpoints, but then look at this statistic:

"Of the Vietnam vets who were addicted to heroin in the war, 98% of them didn't get treatment, yet only 12% relapsed. Recovery, without treatment, is the norm."

Recently, I had yet another bad interaction with a local retail bank, PNC, and I think I've just about had it with banks in general. A nosy teller noticed that I was making a high value check deposit into my IOLTA client funds trust account, and asked me where this check came from.

I replied, "I decline to say."

"Are you buying a house?"

Well, since the amount was related to a client, I thought instantly about client confidentiality and responded, "It's confidential."

She snidely countered, "It's bank policy against fraud, if there's a problem and my manager asks where this is from and I don't know, I can be fired."

Looking around, I saw there were other customers next to me; I didn't want to explain too much, so I finally said, "It's from a client."

Apparently, this was enough to satisfy her, but she gave me a dirty look and did her business without further hassle.

This also reminds me of many other times when I was making significant deposits, that each time the teller would ask me if I wanted to invest "my" money (despite it going into an IOLTA account -- it's not my money) into some kind of better financial product. No thanks. The pushier ones would even get their manager to come over and try to sell me their investments.

Once, I even tried to tell a PNC teller to put a note on my accounts to not ask me about my deposits -- you can be assured that this request did not go over well at all. In fact, she flat out rejected my request and said asking nosy questions and pushing sales of investment schemes (I'm paraphrasing) was a mandatory part of their job.

Banks couch their aggressive nosiness under the guises of "security" and "fraud prevention", but it's really because they want to turn your money into their profit. I don't have a problem with banks or any other business making money, but I do have a problem when banks pretend to be friendly and helpful, or when they try to scare customers with claims of "security", when they are in fact manipulative and look to milk customers, who may never know any better, for all they're worth.

Like when Wells Fargo opened up fake accounts and charged customers for such accounts, or when Wells Fargo charged customers bogus car insurance. Like when Bank of America cheated on its deposit insurance, or when it recorded customer calls without consent, or when it cheated homeowners by overcharging mortgage interest.

Local examples? Plenty. Citizens Bank directly stole from customers' deposits. PNC manipulated customers' deposits in order to hammer more overdraft charges. PNC also bled its own employees in not paying overtime wages.

Now, tell me how many of the banks were actually stopped from doing business (since corporations are now people, but real people go to jail for committing crimes), or how many bankers involved in each of these schemes went to jail?

Slightly more legal ways banks seek to profit come even with "free" checking, which now comes with lots of strings attached and involve complex fees if a certain balance is not maintained or some mandatory interaction with the bank is not met. This is all to generate fees from even basic checking accounts, which are hardly the loss leaders that banks have complained about. Banks are constantly trying to figure out the maximum amount of hassle a customer is willing to tolerate versus paying for peace of mind, whether it's an "overdraft protection fee", "account maintenance fee", or some other scheme.

The alternative? Perhaps credit unions with an ATM network alliance, since the only reason why I had a PNC account was because they had a lot of ATMs and branches with international experience. Or perhaps internet banks so you have a better choices on customer service, and at least you don't have to endure a teller's pettiness when you don't want to share your confidential information with them in a public space.

A Starter Guide to Doing Business in the United States
$49.00
Edited by Woon-Wah Siu
293 pages

Lawyers have specialized libraries called law libraries, where you will find titles that are almost impossible to find elsewhere. One of these new books that I found especially useful at the Allegheny County Law Library is “A Starter Guide to Doing Business in the United States”. I have recommended this to two clients, who have similarly expressed their appreciation for this book.

A Starter Guide is one of those no-nonsense books that is clearly laid out and written by expert business attorneys from top firms who know what they're talking about. While nothing can replace good legal advice tailored towards the unique aspects of each client's business, clients (and lawyers who do not practice business law) are given a concise and well-written overview of almost all issues they are likely to face, or at least have questions about.

The comprehensiveness of the book is evident from the topics listed in its table of chapters, which address entity selection, federal securities laws, mergers and acquisitions, immigration law, real estate, intellectual property, environmental liability, product liability, and much, much more.

What I most appreciate about the book is its just-the-facts approach with a minimum of use of specialized legal terms and other information of secondary importance. It lacks substantive depth in exploring each topic (e.g. it gives an overview of virtually all the types of insurance a business may need to consider – property, worker's comp, general liability, excess/umbrella, business interruption, directors'/officers' liability, professional liability, pollution liability, health, and life insurance). However, such an overview in 293 condensed pages helps a client understand the framework through which an attorney considers their case, and prepares visits my clients for asking well-informed questions rather than waste time going over the very basics. For example, if a restaurant owner client comes in having already read this book, they will already know what types of insurance they will likely need, and why a landlord or a local governmental body might require them to carry such types of insurance.

While this book is ostensibly written for foreign individuals and entities seeking to do business in the United States, I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to start a business in the United States.

This video is a powerful reflection of society today. I leave it to each viewer to form their own specific opinions.

I can only say that being a police officer today is quite challenging.

JOHN A. TAYLOR, PETITIONER
v.
MICHAEL P. HUERTA, AS ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, RESPONDENT

John A. Taylor, Esq., decided he had enough of bureaucratic BS, and so he sued the Federal Aviation Administration. By himself. For no money, but only for the pure principle of the matter. It was not even for fame, and it was not even in his practice area (he practices insurance law).

It was him against the man. Just take stock of the intimidating header of the case to begin with:

John A. Taylor, pro se, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner.

Abby C. Wright, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed, Michael S. Raab, Attorney, and Paul M. Geier, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation, Federal Aviation Administration. Richard H. Saltsman, Attorney, Federal Aviation Administration, entered an appearance.

But sometimes, no matter how many lawyers they have have on their side, sometimes, justice does pervail:

Congrats, John!

Of course they did. The sum is confidential, but I can make an educated guess as to how much it would be: at least half a million, maybe even a couple of million dollars, if not more.

United wants this buried ASAP, even if the actual damages and potential punitive damages are not going to be that high.

If the case went to trial, a bar napkin estimate may be between $10,000 and $50,000 in actual damages (e.g. for injuries to face and 2 broken teeth) and a multiplier of perhaps 5 for punitive damages, leading to a grand total of maybe $50,000 to $250,000, plus likely attorney's fees of tens of thousands of dollars.