Willamette Valley Bankruptcy – Erin Uhlemann

Founded by Erin Uhlemann, Willamette Valley Bankruptcy was created in order to help clients with bankruptcy and debt issues in and around the Lane County Area. Erin’s understanding of Bankruptcy law has allowed her to help individuals, families, and other Oregonians get their life back on track. Erin’s compassion drives her to help those in need to achieve a fresh start and she understands the importance of having a bankruptcy attorney who you can trust, who makes you feel comfortable since filing for bankruptcy is not an easy task. Erin strives to make the process of filing for bankruptcy as easy as can be since most people do not look forward to doing it.

At Willamette Valley Bankruptcy, Erin will work with you by providing low upfront fees and affordable payment plans. She understands that most filing for bankruptcy do not have extra income to pay fees and tries to cater to those filing for bankruptcy. Consultations are free in order to provide clients all the information they request in order to make an informed decision.

The goal at Willamette Valley Bankruptcy is to provide you with a clear understanding of your rights and the options available to you. Learn more about Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy by visiting the Willamette Valley Bankruptcy website. 

Ex-UBS banker pleads guilty in US tax evasion case

A former executive at Swiss bank UBS AG has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge as part of a long-running U.S. investigation into tax evasion using secret accounts.

Hansruedi Schumacher entered the plea Thursday before a Florida federal judge. Schumacher is cooperating in the investigation and in return, prosecutors will recommend a sentence of five years' probation and a $150,000 fine.

Schumacher admitted in court papers that while at UBS and a second Swiss bank from 1995 to 2009 he helped wealthy U.S. citizens escape the Internal Revenue Service using secret offshore accounts.

Several other bankers and dozens of customers have been prosecuted. UBS itself paid a $780 million fine to the U.S. in 2009 and agreed to disclose names of thousands of its American customers.

5 arrested in protest inside Supreme Court

Protesters disrupted Supreme Court proceedings on Wednesday for the second time this year with shouted criticism of the court's previous rulings on campaign finance.
 
Supreme Court police swiftly removed five people from the courtroom after they rose, one after another, to interrupt the start of the court's session.

The advocacy group 99rise, which opposes the influence of money in elections, took responsibility for the protest, as it did for similar episodes in January and last year. The group said in a statement that six of its members took part Wednesday, though court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said only five people were arrested.

Arberg said all five have been charged under a law that prohibits making "a harangue or oration" or uttering "loud, threatening or abusive language" in the Supreme Court Building. They also were charged with conspiracy-related offenses and sent to a holding cell at Washington, D.C., police headquarters.

The first protester rose from his seat among spectators in the courtroom just after the justices took the bench at 10 a.m. "I rise to claim our democracy, one person, one vote," he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts initially joked that he didn't think the court's scheduled arguments in bankruptcy cases "would attract such attention." But Roberts turned serious as the protests continued and warned that anyone disrupting proceedings could be charged with criminal contempt.

In the two previous protests, at least one person from 99rise carried a camera and recorded the disruption in violation of the court's ban on cameras in the courtroom. The surreptitiously recorded video was later posted online.

The group said in a statement that the protest was tied to the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, in which the justices struck down the overall federal limit on individual campaign contributions. The anniversary is on Thursday, when the court will not be in session.

NC Supreme Court considers status of private school vouchers

The state Supreme Court is about to decide whether millions of dollars in taxpayer money that started flowing this year to pay student tuition at private and religious schools continues for a second year.

The state's highest court hears arguments Tuesday on a ruling last summer that the Opportunity Scholarships program violates the state constitution because religious schools can discriminate based on faith. Wake County Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood also said privately run K-12 schools are not required to meet state curriculum standards.

Supreme Court justices showed they're in a hurry to decide whether private school vouchers will continue by latching on to the case early. Parents are already looking ahead and the deadline for them to submit scholarship applications for the next academic year is March 1.

So far, more than $4.2 million has paid for 1,200 students to attend 216 private schools around the state, according to the State Education Assistance Authority. That's a fraction of the 5,500 students whose families sought one of the scholarships, said Darrell Allison, who heads a group that advocates for expanding the program. Three out of four applicants for the vouchers, which pay private schools up to $4,200 per child per year to schools that admit them, were minority students.

"There are literally thousands of families who are looking forward to their day in court — desperately hopeful for a favorable ruling," Allison, president of Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina, said in a statement.

The program opened this year to families whose income qualified their children for free or discounted school lunches, a ceiling of about $44,000 for a family of four. Eligibility increases for the year starting in August as the ceiling rises to nearly $59,000 per family.

Opponents of the voucher law complain that it violates the constitution because money from collected taxes goes to religious schools that have the option of ruling out students who don't follow their faith's beliefs, turning away the disabled or refusing the children of gay parents.

Freed Al Jazeera journalist hopeful about Egypt court case

Freed Al Jazeera journalist Peter Greste says it is too soon to celebrate because his two colleagues still face retrial in Egypt.

Greste was freed from an Egyptian prison earlier this month and his two colleagues were released last week. He told BBC on Thursday that the controversial court cases seem to be moving in the right direction.

Greste had initially been sentenced to seven years in jail for spreading false information and helping the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. He was deported from Egypt on his release.

Colleagues Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohammed are still in Egypt and are required to report regularly to the police in advance of a retrial expected to begin next week.

Their imprisonment for more than a year sparked numerous protests throughout the world.

Court dismisses 3rd lawsuit against hen cage law

A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a decision to dismiss a lawsuit by a farmer that challenged a law banning the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the 2012 decision by a lower court to throw out the lawsuit by egg farmer William Cramer. Cramer's lawsuit said the law is unconstitutionally vague.

It's the third time courts have rejected lawsuits by egg farmers against California's landmark Proposition 2.

"We are thrilled that the court sided with the millions of California voters who supported this measure and chose to end extreme and reckless factory farming practices," said Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation for the Humane Society of the United States.

The initiative approved in 2008 bans the inhumane confinement of egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves in cages so small the animals cannot stretch their limbs, lie down or turn around.Since its passage, farmers have complained that the measure lacks specific language designating appropriate cage size and as a result puts them at risk of misdemeanor charges and fines up to $1,000.

In addition, they say they are on the hook for millions of dollars in upgrades but can't get bank loans without knowing whether new cages will be in compliance.

Anxiety over Supreme Court's latest dive into health care

Nearly five years after President Barack Obama signed his health care overhaul into law, its fate is yet again in the hands of the Supreme Court.

This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.

Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.

And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.

Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.

The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.

The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state.