Shemesh Paralegal Services

Based in Toronto, Ontario, Shemesh Paralegal provides legal services pertaining to the following areas of law:

·         Small Claims Court

·         Highway Traffic Offences

·         Employment/Labor Issues

·         Landlord Tenant Board

·         Criminal Summary Matters

Mr. Shemesh is a licensed paralegal by the Law Society of Upper Canada who brings a unique approach to each case and focuses his practice on his client’s needs by ensuring their rights are protected. He has had years of experience in handling small claims court, highway traffic offences, employment issues, criminal summary matters, and landlord tenant boards. Whether it’s your first time going through the legal process or not, Mr. Shemesh is ready to represent you and provide his knowledge and expertise to successfully win your case.

Mr. Shemesh has built a reputation on his success in court and has served many happy clients. You can visit his website to read a few happy testimonials. With his passion and devotion, Mr. Shemesh will fight for you.

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.

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.

High court must fix special prosecutor process, lawyers say

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not known for being shy about defending its prerogatives, has put itself in a curious situation.After months of intrigue and court silence, the justices surprised Pennsylvania's legal community by saying they would hear public arguments on Attorney General Kathleen Kane's legal challenge to the court's self-appointed power to launch special prosecutions.

The case in question is a court-ordered investigation into whether Kane's office illegally shared secret investigative material with the Philadelphia Daily News. The result was a grand jury's recommendation that Kane be charged with perjury and other offenses.

The justices may not ultimately agree with Kane that the courts lack the authority to appoint prosecutors to run grand juries or investigate her office. But, say lawyers and court watchers, the justices must at least clean up a murky and messy process that has been dogged by questions about legality and constitutionality.

Republicans welcome court decision in immigration lawsuit

House Speaker John Boehner says a federal judge's ruling temporarily blocking President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration underscores that he acted beyond his authority.
 
In a statement Tuesday, the Ohio Republican said the ruling by a Texas judge was no surprise, citing Obama's repeated comments about the limits of his authority. Boehner said he hoped that Senate Democrats will relent in their opposition to a Homeland Security Department spending bill that overturns Obama's actions to spare millions of immigrants from deportation.

The department's funding expires Feb. 27 and Congress has only a few legislative days to act.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said in a statement that he hoped Obama obeys the court's ruling. The Justice Department has said it would appeal.

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.