Connect with us


    Does American Law Currently Authorize the President to seize Russian Sovereign assets?




    Since Russia started its brutal invasion of Ukraine, There has been a global attempt to find legal ways to freeze and take and utilize in aiding Ukraine the assets belonging to Vladimir Putin’s oligarchs and those of Russia itself. In a piece for The New York Times last month, my co-author Jeremy Lewin and I pointed to a solution that could be the President’s application of the power Congress gave in the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to transfer to Ukraine the billions of dollars of Russian reserves of the Government’s currency that are already frozen by American banks as well as at the Federal Reserve. The need to pursue this option has increased as the war intensifies in the region. As we anticipated in the last month, opposition to the possibility of funding further Ukraine assistance via American taxpayers is beginning to grow. So I was pleased to witness the Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, declare just a few weeks ago that the Biden administration is looking at the options that Lewin and I had proposed and observed a growing trend within Europe to implement similar measures in recognition of the possibility that a joint NATO-G7 initiative could open up the equivalent of $300 billion of frozen Russian funds to fund the reconstruction and defence of Ukraine. However, the administration is taking steps to take over the assets of private Russian Oligarchs, a decision that was endorsed by a bipartisan resolution in Congress.

    The issue continues to gain momentum with commentators and scholars. Some commentators have proposed methods to call for a new law from Congress to take over Russian foreign currency sovereign assets. In Foreign Affairs, University of Virginia historian Phillip Zelikow and M.I.T. economist Simon Johnson have put forth an entirely different idea to reuse the assets that are frozen Russian state assets which rely on international legal frameworks. This proposal has led to an exchange of words within Lawfare among Zelikow and University of Virginia international law expert Paul Stephan about whether Russia’s inflicting several flagrant violations of international law. In contrast, the prosecution of its illegal invasion warrants the efforts of officials from the United States and others to remove Russian funds to help its Ukrainian victims right now.

    These exchanges have been informative, but they do not relate to my proposal to The New York Times. In my plan, I am particularly concerned about confiscating the assets of Russia’s central bank and the currency reserves currently stored within the United States. While I am also in favour of seizing assets belonging to oligarchs, this could require years of complicated legal proceedings and won’t be enough to deliver enough funds to meet the growing demands of Ukraine and, even less severely, penalize Russia’s Russian state and prevent it from committing more of war crimes that are blatantly committing. In the debate between Stephan and Zelikow regarding whether international legal doctrines permit the seizure of the sovereign assets of Russia to repair the damage caused by its willful disregard for the essential tenets of this legal system, I believe Zelikow has the upper hand in the arguments. However, Stephan is one of the authors who argue that these seizures “manifestly violate international law” and has acknowledged it is “if Congress and the executive adopt with sufficient clarity and intent an unconstitutionally sound law that violates lawful United States’ international legal obligations, U.S. courts must accept that law as legitimate.”

    There is no evidence that Zelikow or Stephan, or any other expert in the field of the law suggests an argument that any non-U.S. judiciary is competent or can apply against government officials of the U.S. government any potential international law-related claims against the confiscation of billions in previously in the frozen Russian government assets. Therefore, the most crucial issue is whether proposals similar to mine will be able to overcome any hurdles in the context of United States law.


    Stephan, who was responding to my suggestion and Zelikow’s proposal, raised questions about the legality of these proposals under Constitutional and domestic law. While I am aware of no other person who has expressed constitutional doubts, a few other commentators than Stephan has expressed doubt of statutory reasons, either questioning whether the provision of IEEPA on which I’ve used is legally valid. The possibility that the president Biden will need to use a similar condition that was enacted by Congress in the Patriot Act in the wake of the 9/11 attacks (a law that is only applicable in the event of “attacked from a different nation or foreign citizens.”) The intention here is to answer any legal objections in the domestic law.

    Stephan states that Lewin and I and those who agree with our views “get legal doctrines that are outdated” and “blow-by legal obstacles with speed and fury,” but he does not address the language of the statute on which we are based our decisions. Maybe as an expert in international law, Stephan thinks we’re not actually relying on the domestic law but, in reality, relying, which in his opinion, unjustly, on international law and customs. If this is the case, he’s mistaken. We depend only on IEEPA, an Act of Congress passed in 1977 and subsequently signed into law by President Obama. However much stability it may bring to international affairs, and something I am concerned about. Stephan exaggerates that the set of principles commonly referred to by the name of “international law” is not a delegated power over to an American president, nor does it override the authority granted to the President by our legislative body.

    The language of IEEPA is unambiguous 50 U.S.C. SS1702(a)(1)(b) clarifies that “The President could . . . Direct and compel, annul or prohibit . . . Any . . . Holding the property, use, transfer or exercising. . . of . . . any power, right or privilege concerning. . . any property that is located in a foreign country . . . Does anyone have any desire” to declare an emergency to cause IEEPA the IEEPA, which President Biden has done?

    In addition to noting the literal nature of that text, Stephan suggests that the notion of taking Congress at its word could result in the use of the law to extend past its “goal of reducing the powers which presidents have had before World War I, including an expansive confiscation power.” This type of argument flies in opposition to the current Supreme Court’s constant insisting that the legislation Congress applies follows its usual meaning, regardless of what Congress might have planned or expected in the past. This was the underlying message that the Court conveyed in its recently affirmed decision in Bostock and Co. v. Clayton County, treating the discrimination of trans and gay people as “discrimination . . . because of sexuality” to be used in the context for purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a majority decided on 6-3. For sure, this strict textual approach has been one that scholars who are more tolerant than me have criticized at times as being too literal and not sufficiently aware of legislative intent. However, in a society brimming with hardballers and set amid desperate strategic and humanitarian needs and a need for unilateral disarmament methodologically isn’t all that convincing. The Biden administration shouldn’t put the other hand in front of the other. In practical terms, if any case involving this issue goes before the Supreme Court at present, the Supreme Court, there is an overwhelming likelihood that all nine Justices, who Justice Kagan famously remarked are “all textualists right now,” would start and conclude their examination by referring to the text of the law as it was implemented.

    Stephan is next responding to the assertion that Lewin and I are unable to claim “the president has implicit powers in the Constitution to seize foreign assets, even in the absence of the war zone,” perhaps ancillary to “an exclusive authority of the president to recognize the foreign governments of other states and make other decisions which are derived out of this authority.” Even though these “implied powers” aren’t fictitious, especially when viewed in the expansive knowledge of Article II embodied in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, nothing in our proposed legislation relies on this kind of understanding. As someone concerned about an unwieldy and the power of an imperial president, I would not advocate an argument based on this.


    Stephan believes that the instances we mention “from the recent history”–of creating “frozen Venezuelan central bank assets accessible to rebel leader Juan Guaido” and of liquidating “around $7 billion of assets belonging to the defunct Afghan central bank” instead of giving them to the Taliban and reserving half of them to fund Afghan human rights efforts and the other half for court judgements in lawsuits brought by the family members of those killed or wounded in the September. 11. attacks”These are “proof of the legitimacy of [our] plan.” We haven’t provided those instances to provide “proof” that is contrary to what the clear language of IEEPA can show, and we provided them only to refute the notion that the provision of “hostile funding from the government for various human and remedial reasons” could be “radical” and “unprecedented” as well as “a massive expansion of the president’s authority at the behest of Mr Biden’s request.” In the sense that one is hesitant to believe that Congress as its word because Congress is not able to be thought to have granted to President Biden any new authority and without precedent and precedent, we were trying to offer any guarantee that the actual circumstances of such a presidential takeover could offer. Whether a sovereign’s confiscated assets are transferred to a successor government or a different ruler does not affect the amount of authority that such confiscation confers. It would be a mistake–given the apparent dangers of promoting changes to the Government of a nation with the potential to demolish the human race utilizing its thermonuclear arsenal to base our proposal for restructuring Russia’s sovereign assets on an imagined power of the President to overthrow the current regime that is in control in Moscow. Put that we did not do such a thing.

    In the same vein, Stephan observes that “[w]ere the president Biden to acknowledge the new government of Russia maybe that is headed by Aleksey Navalny, and grant him the power to sell the assets that were frozen,” the decision from 2014’s Supreme Court decision, Zivitofsky v. Kerry, “might apply.” Stephan writes: “But there’s no evidence that he’s been able to do that, so it’s not.” However, the argument we’re presenting does not invoke the presidential power at the heart of Zivitofsky, which is the ability to decide who legitimately is the President of a particular ancient city or nation. We weren’t so foolish as to base our pro-Ukraine argument on any possible Biden move to demand the downfall of the Putin regime, no matter how much it may merit that fate.

    Then, Stephan argues that, while a freeze of property owned by foreigners “destroys the value of assets through criminalizing any attempt to deal with them or gain any benefit from them,” what a “freeze does not accomplish is . . . Change ownership.” However, I’ve never said that the freeze in itself “changes ownership”,–only that the broad language permits the President, after making the required emergency determination, to defrost the frozen funds and apply them to help Ukraine instead of letting them sit idle, possibly for the rest of their lives.

    What do you think of Stephan’s claim that the amendment of 2001 to IEEPA by expressly conferring a power “confiscate” in addition to “vest … the title” over the money in exchange for the purpose in question in a way, erases the energy that was previously available under the Patriot Act IEEPA? This argument is also unproven. It violates the established constitutional rule that grants to a person by Congress, such as the IEEPA grant to the President the authority to “direct and force” the “transferor removal” and “exportation” from frozen foreign money – can be modified or repealed only through an explicit legislative act of Congress, not by simple implication.

    Stephan’s argument and the colleagues he quotes to support it argue that Congress could never say with greater clarity what is already stated in a more high level of generality. Thus it is true that what Congress clearly stated in 1977 is no longer able to be read in the light of its fundamental meaning, even though it had been initially that way. However, any suggestion of this kind is in contradiction with the notion that “Congress states what it means and does what it states” and, as per Article I of the Constitution, it is what Congress adopts and what the president signs, not what Congress could have hoped or planned to achieve that counts as law. This contradicts the long history of instances where Congress has repeatedly reacted with caution to areas that previous Congresses have covered but with minor detail to clarify what could have been missed previously.


    Furthermore, it is true that, even if one was to keep one’s eyes on the supposed motives or beliefs, the immediate attention of legislators on the Hill after 9/11 was to hold those responsible for the day’s terror accountable in two ways: by pursuing them militarily and thereby that Authorization for the Use of Military Force and also by claiming ownership of any personal or tangible property they owned. That could be the reason that is the reason for the Patriot Act’s addition to IEEPA of SS1702(a)(1)(c) to allow the president “when it is determined that the United States is engaged in conflict or is attacked by a foreign nation or foreign nationals” for example, to “confiscate the property of any person . . . of any foreigner . . . organisation or . . . The country he believes has committed, authorized, assisted or participated in these (activities),” at which point “all rights, titles and all interest in the property confiscated will pass to . . . subject to such conditions and terms that the President can prescribe . . . for the benefit of and in the interest to in the interest of and benefiting the United States . . . .”

    For sure, the language grants an additional and less specific authority of “confiscate” as well as “vest title” in foreign “property.” However, it’s not necessarily the case the way Stephan and others have been quick to conclude that SS1702(a)(1)(b) should be read in the year 2001 and after that and not be used to accomplish what it says, namely allow the President to “direct and force” to force the “transfer” as well as the “use” of frozen foreign currencies inside the U.S. Beyond the general rules of statutory interpretation, which support this conclusion, one key aspect that some commentators such as Stephan ignore is the fact that the power granted to the Patriot Act amendment addressed “property” in a way which may not have encompassed money. In this sense, when we talk about “property,” the critical issue isn’t about who is the one with “title” in it, but the person who decides its use and use, which is something that the definition in SS1702(a)(1)(b) already addresses. There is a lot of talk about being able to claim “title” in a specific vehicle or rare coin or that a bank has “title” in the home where they reside, but seldom, if ever, is it mentioned that they could claim “title” in the particular dollars they carry within their purses. Regarding personal and tangible property, which includes physical and natural assets, they are known as “vesting. “vesting . . . title” is an entirely different and more complicated legal system and one that Congress felt the need to establish, and stating that the President can unilaterally transfer title in a separate entity than the person or the entity which initially had ownership of the asset. This type of property, unlike currencies, cannot be fungible and is usually not subject to greater control by the Government than a sovereign currency, such as U.S. dollars, which is, as was the case in Supreme Court noted in the 1935 Gold Devaluation Cases is an invention of the Government and is, even when held privately is subject to more control by the Government than other assets.

    Stephan also fails to understand our contention regarding the Supreme Court’s historic ruling of 1981 regarding the Iran hostage crisis, Dames & Moore v. Regan, establishes that IEEPA confers on the president “‘broad power” to take action during times of national emergencies.” He thinks we’re using Dames & Moore to establish an inherent presidential “capacity that, in the absence of authorization or objection from Congress and to allow Iran to transfer a portion of its assets that are frozen to an international tribunal for claims for disposal by that tribunal in accordance with the provisions in the accord.” However, this is not the case. We depend in Dames & Moore solely for the Court’s agreement with the Government as well as two circuits which state that the “plain text of the [IEEPA]specifically authorized” for the President to “compel the transfer and removal” of the blocked assets in addition the President to “nullify some rights or privileges that were acquired by the case of these assets” for the purpose of making this transfer feasible.

    Dames & Moore expressly rejected arguments that the Court “should disregard the language in [SS1702(a)(1)(b)[SS1702(a)(1)(b)] since the study of its legislative background and the development of” similar and pre-existing statutory laws “reveals it was never designed to grant the President vast control to control the property of an overseas country during situations of national emergencies.” Instead, the Court is correct in its decision to “refuse[dto] take out of (subsection (b)[subsection (b)] any meanings of the words ‘transfer’ ‘compel’ or “nullify.’” Stephan rightly declares the case of Dames & Moore “was not about the executive’s exclusive power . . . Congress cannot override or restrict.” However, we cannot rely on this power.

    Even if the passage in 2001 of an amendment to IEEPA is a way of reading the prior power granted in SS1702(a)(1)(b) less narrowly than the text should, it does not mean that the amendment would be in all cases, applies to it comes into force, would apply to “United States” is in effect . . . Has been victimized by a foreign state or foreign nation . . . ,” could not be considered by the President to be relevant to Russia. Stephan says it is true that Russia “has not “attacked” in any way against the United States as a matter of international law.” However, it’s not international law that decides the limits of the authority Congress granted to the President in the context of IEEPA and the Patriot Act amendment. It’s the domestic law of constitutional and statute-based construction. In that law, it’s up to the President to determine what constitutes Russia as a state that has “attacked” the United States within the meaning of the United States Code. President Biden made this decision in his executive order released in April. The order initiated all our sanctions currently in place against Russia and its state-connected oligarchs. The order identified Russian territorial incursions, including that of Ukraine, as being a component of Russia’s interconnected efforts to undermine the safety of the United States, by means such as “engag[ingin] and facilitating malicious cyber-enabled attacks towards and against the United States” and our crucial infrastructure, Government and private sector.


    These cyberattacks were outlined by announcing the existing emergency caused by the global Russian aggression, and the illegal conflict against Ukraine is only one of the components. The law that governs them is the National Emergencies Act – or in the provisions of IEEPA, which states that the powers that it delegates over to the President “may be used to address any unique or extraordinary danger” for our “national security as well as foreign policy or economic system” which originates entirely or in part from outside and triggering what the President considers as a “national emergency”–that could mean the possibility of an expiration date to an assessment similar to the one that President Biden has made regarding past or ongoing Russian cyber-attacks against U.S. citizens. The United States.

    So if President Biden was to use his Patriot Act amendment to IEEPA in the belief that Biden has concluded that Russia has “attacked” our country’s cyberspace, it is doubtful that the federal judiciary, which has been increasingly receptive to presidents’ decisions about facts in the field–and probably, in cyberspace, to take a sceptical stance towards any such decision and even to doubt the existence of an “attack by a foreign nation or foreign nation.”

    Stephan then argues that the use of IEEPA as a result of one of the subsections (b) and subsection (c) could violate the principle that “[a]s it relates to Constitutional law, the taking of property can only be done through a due procedure and law.” The Fifth Amendment does indeed say that “private property” cannot “be used for public benefit and without compensation.” This is personal property. Not the publicly owned and, in essence, only sovereign, governmental property that Lewin me and Lewin wrote for The New York Times. However, even if it does not have a right to “just compensation”, shouldn’t the Russian Federation be at least entitled to “due procedure of law” if its frozen sovereign assets are confiscated? Actually, no. The language of the Fifth Amendment is quite specific regarding who is entitled to its protections. It states: “No person shall be . . . The person is deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper procedure or due process.” Since Russia is certainly not a “person” capable of being, in principle, in being “deprived of the right to life” or “liberty,” the principle that words used in a sequence will likely have similar significance strongly indicates that “property” is also not applicable to the Russian Government.

    This isn’t an issue of factual nature. Republic of Argentina v. Westover was a 1992 Supreme Court decision involving specific Argentinian debt instruments enacted in a commercial context, declaring that a foreign government does not count as a “person” or is merely mentioned as a possibility in passing. It’s more an ordinary matter of terminology in the construction of an instrument by the great Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1819 that it was not a mystical document for lawyers “partak[ingthe complexity of a legal code which is hardly accepted by the human mind” but as a set concept that was intended to be “understood by the general public.”

    So, I don’t have to argue any claim that the Russian Federation is a “person” in the Constitution of the Republic of Argentina or according to the rulings that are a part of the Second and District of Columbia Circuits. They are the two crucial ones in this legal sphere. You can point to any dictionary or how people generally speak. Ordinary people would consider Vladimir Putin, a monstrous individual, but no one would describe the Russian Government as a vile “person.” Therefore despite the highly-controversial declaration from the U.S. Supreme Court that privately-held corporations (the expression of their corporate owner) constitute “persons” for various reasons under the Constitution, I would like to insist on the fact that the state-owned entity Russian Federation is not.


    However, even in the case that Russia can claim that it is a “person,” it wouldn’t mean that its “process”, which is their “due”, should be, according to what Stephan believes, be a legal process that takes the form of a federal court’s review of repurposing by the President of the sovereign assets of the country. Even ordinary flesh and blood people are entitled by law to have a judge, particularly in a crisis, such as an outbreak or massive wildfire. The Court must review the legality of property seizures intended to stop the effects of a rising disaster. And the circumstances surrounding Russia’s brutal military campaign against the civilian people of Ukraine are about as severe as anyone could imagine. An administrative process that includes an impartial factfinder is often sufficient for the purpose. It should not always precede the confiscation but could also, if circumstances permit, be conducted afterwards.

    I’m not the type of person to slackly deny anyone access to the courts. However, I am not hesitant in arguing, at a minimum, under the federal Constitution that Russia does not have the right to the what Stephan says is “some type of judicial oversight if they are seized by the U.S. government seizes its property to be disposed of according to the presidential discretion.”

    I haven’t even thought of filing a lawsuit against the Russian Federation. Stephan’s thorough examination of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in his analysis of asset seizures does not alter any of the arguments I offer. Stephan admits that he is “obviously right”, in my opinion. The immunity recognised in this act protects foreign sovereigns “from the authority of courts” and not from executive actions that hinder the transfer of assets of foreign rulers or even freeze the assets. Stephan claims the idea that “some form protection protects the properties of a central bank owned by a sovereign from international law against confiscation, and not freezing by the state in which they’re located” and believes that it is “clear” that this “immunity is not dependent upon the existence or absence of a judicial process and is therefore independent of the sovereign immunity” I’ve talked about. He admits that even assuming that the existence of some “international legal immunity” exists, it has a “scope . . . It is not clear” since “outside of war states aren’t regularly engaging in this” and claims it is because “the lack of seizure in periods of peace is a loud signal.” The author is perplexed by the notion that the lawless actions of Russia wouldn’t be enough to overturn any unclear immunity, based on the assumption that states don’t seem to be “in routine” of offering assistance to the victims of such aggression, which has been virtually unheard of in the years since World War II. Even if the rule of foreign sovereign immunity that is not the one codified in FSIA could be used to contest executive actions like the ones I’ve proposed, It is clear that like in the case of the Supreme Court held in Bank Markazi, also known as Central Bank of Iran v. Peterson, that Congress may revoke sovereign immunity of foreign states at any time. The IEEPA’s expressive power to grant the president authority to transfer and cancel the assets of sovereign nations over sovereign immunity. To think otherwise could result in the absurd conclusion that, even though Congress wrote a statute explicitly giving the President the authority, in the subsections (b) (b) and (c) to block and seize foreign assets in the real sense, it was the power was almost entirely removed by any sovereign immunity of foreign governments was partially codified in the FSIA.

    In the end, if Russia decides to file a lawsuit against the United States in an American court to recover its funds, there will be ample time to think through the arguments that would be presented in support as well as against any decision made by our Government to waive its sovereign immunity to allow such a case to proceed. Because it is true, as Stephan correctly states, the Russian “invasion is a scourge and the atrocities that are coming to light annoy anyone sane.” Given the evident weakness of any substantive assertions Russia might assert in a suit of this kind, it is possible that the optics would advise for waiver Let Russia be beaten in public in the Court of law, on its merits, should it be able to claim, despite committing war crimes every day that its rights were violated by the decision of America, according to Stephan’s words “hoist Russia on its own petard.”

    Continue Reading
    Click to comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


    Keiser University |Demographics |Directions |Campus Maps |Locations |Ein |Lawsuit.




    Are you interested in becoming a student at Kaiser University? Are you looking for more information on Kaiser University’s demographics? Locations, maps, addresses, lawsuits, and more? You will find all the details and information you need here.

    You will find out the acceptance rate of Keiser University in a separate post. This is vital information before you apply for admission. This helps you identify how many students universities accept. You can also learn more about the Keiser University lawsuit and its location on the main campus.

    A glimpse at Keiser University

    Arthur Keiser founded Keiser University to help students get a job. This allows them to be eligible for business growth. It began its journey as a college in 1986. It moved to university in 2006 after it became a college.

    This university is the first to be non-profit and offers many courses, including bachelor, associate, or graduate degrees. The U.S. government has approved it. It provides online and offline degrees. There are many campuses. There are many campuses located in different parts of Florida. Let’s find out more.


    Kaiser universities demographics:

    Demographics analyzes the general characteristics of a group or population. It primarily identifies gender and age, employment status, family composition, geographic locations, race, and other pertinent data required for a specific purpose.

    We present the body demographics of students at Keiser University. Here are the total students in 19567:

    Students of color are 30%, and students of color are 18%. 15% of unidentified students are Asian, while 3% of Asian students are unknown. The number of Americans, Indians, and other international students is less than 1%.

    Kaiser university corporate office

    Keiser University’s corporate headquarters is in the U.S. It is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, at 1500 NW 49th Street.

    Here’s the address for Keiser University.

    • Primary Address
    • 1900 West Commercial Boulevard
    • Suite 180
    • Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
    • USA

    For more information about Keiser University’s headquarters’ contact number or email address, visit

    Keiser university ein:

    Ein (Employer Identification Number) is a Tax Id number with 9 digits. It can also be called the social security number of your company. Employers use it primarily to report taxes and file tax returns.


    Ein is used to identify the university’s business activities in the university. You can apply for ein in many ways. It is now possible to apply online for it.

    The main campus of Keiser University:

    Keiser University’s main campus is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It can be found at West Palm Beach 2600 North Military Trail. Distance between West Palm Beach, Florida, and Keiser University: 37 miles

    Other campuses include China and Nicaragua, Fort Myers, and Jacksonville. It has 100 acres.

    Keiser university direction:

    • By bus, you can quickly get to Keiser University
    • It takes 38 minutes to get from The Mall at Wallington Green to Sunshine Parkway.
    • It will take 65 minutes from Breakers Palm Beach.
    • It will take 57 minutes to get there from the Norton Museum of Arts.
    • Take 53 minutes to get from Greenacres, FL Lake.
    • It will take 55 minutes to get from the Cheesecake factory.
    • It will take 56 minutes from John I Leonard High school.

    Bus station near Kaiser University:

    • There are 2 bus stops here.
    • Vista Pkwy at Pbc Vista Ctr Ent 1 min walk
    • Okeechobee Blvd, Bld63399 min 9 minute walk

    Visit for more information about Keiser University’s directions. This page will provide step-by-step instructions for getting to Keiser University.

    Map of the campus at Kaiser University:

    Visit the official Kaiser University website using your Android phone. You will find all information about Keiser University, including directions, map details, contact information, library information, and much other helpful information.

    Keiser University lawsuit

    Students complained about the accreditation, cost, credits, and costs in 2010. An investigation into this university revealed that many students were mistreated by their admission counselors. This lawsuit was called Keiser University Class Action Lawsuit.


    Another claim was that students were denied graduation because of higher tuition. Some took out loans to pay for this. They also lied about the loan process and misappropriated federal loans that were given to them. They wasted nearly 30 billion dollars in government aid.

    They also deceived students regarding their accreditation. Others blame them for not paying taxes or following strict regulations. Transferring credits to another university was another claim. This is a controversial topic in the educational center.

    We can all say that you now know everything about Keiser University’s demographics, locations, maps, and directions.

    Continue Reading


    Texas Car Accident Lawyer Austin.




    One of the biggest states in America, Texas is second only to Florida in terms of the number of fatal accidents involving cars that happen every year.

    The current figures show that in Texas, there is a person hurt in a vehicle crash every two minutes. Likewise, the death rate of a victim in car accidents every twenty minutes for two hours.

    As the population of Texas cities which include Austin are, growing, as does the number of accidents.

    Interstate 35, between San Antonio and Austin, is among the most popular highways in the United States.


    This road is the site of hundreds of car accidents every year. Many of these result in death or serious injuries.

    If you’ve been injured as a result of an auto crash in Austin and require an experienced auto accident lawyer to take care of your case.

    The Zimmerman Law Firm P.C. has represented clients in auto collisions in Austin for more than 60 years.

    The Austin attorneys for car accidents will assist you with your case from beginning to finish and help you get the justice you deserve.

    Common Causes of Car Accidents in Austin

    Car accidents can happen in Austin due to a variety of reasons. However, most of the time, they’re caused by the negligence of a driver.


    Negligence, legally speaking, comprises four components: duty, breach of duty, injury, and causality.

    Essentially, it’s when someone fails to fulfil the law of care and the breach results in injuries.

    Common causes of car crashes in Austin are:

    • Distracted driving
    • Careless driving
    • Driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs,
    • driving with malfunctioning or damaged equipment,
    • Driving in challenging road conditions.

    The city of Austin grows, as does the amount accident-related car crashes that happen every year.

    While largely preventable, accidents involving cars can cause havoc on your lifestyle emotionally, physically and financially.

    Make sure you are protected by hiring a seasoned Austin attorney for car accidents who will help you get the financial compensation you’re entitled to.


    Austin, Texas Auto Accident Statistics

    Austin is a huge and rapidly growing city that has many businesses that are booming. While a bustling, large community can be a blessing for the city, the flood of people can cause havoc on the streets.

    Austin has recently seen an increase in fatal traffic accidents. This has prompted efforts for increased traffic safety measures as well as efforts to decrease the number of cars that are on the roads.

    Based on the Crash Records Information System, Austin had 12,791 crashes in 2022.

    Additionally, there have nearly 4,000 crashes during the first quarter of 2022.

    Distracted driving is among the main causes of recent Austin crashes in cars, which make up about 27% of the crashes that occurred in 2022.


    Although there are steps you can take to decrease your risk of being involved in an accident, it is impossible to influence the way others drive.

    If a negligent driver has caused injury to you, seek out an Austin car accident lawyer right away for the best possible Compensation.

    Where do the majority of AUSTIN CAR Accidents HAPPEN?

    Although speed plays a major role in Austin’s battle with crashes, the place of the accident is the biggest aspect in the probability that an incident will occur.

    Out of the 1279 Austin automobile crashes that occurred in the year 2022, 5 247 of them involved an intersection.

    Intersections played a major role in Austin accidents, compared to other factors, such as alcohol, drug speed, distractions, workplaces and cell phones.


    A mishap in any place could be devastating. However, the help of an Austin attorney for accidents can help hold the responsible party responsible for your pain.

    What Should You Do Following A Car Accident in Austin

    Car accidents can cause life-altering consequences.

    The stress could be overwhelming, and the repercussions grave, but there are ways to protect yourself. They begin right after the accident:

    • Examine the medical needs of the people who were involved in the accident.
    • For a full report of the crash from the police officer on the scene
    • Photograph the scene and the vehicles involved as well as any injuries.
    • Collect the contact information of all witnesses;
    • Request contact and insurance details from other drivers involved.
    • Contact your insurance provider to inform them about the accident.
    • Documents in connection with the accident you get at the scene, from medical personnel or through the mail.
    • It is essential to act fast to secure the amount you are due.

    In Texas, there are at least two years following the time of your incident to file your claim. If you do not submit your claim within the two-year timeframe, then you could be disqualified from filing a claim in the future.

    Employing an experienced Austin attorney for car accidents will make sure that you don’t forget important deadlines.

    The Zimmerman Law Firm The Zimmerman Law Firm, our lawyers, will work with you in the development of your case.


    We can help you gather evidence to file your claim with Texas civil court and work with the opposing counsel.

    You may be entitled to Compensation

    Car accidents could result in substantial physical, financial, and emotional trauma. If you’ve been injured in a car crash in Austin and you were injured, you could be eligible for Compensation for the damages.

    Some examples of the damages that are available to Texans injured in an automobile accident are:

    • Reimbursement for current, future and past medical costs;
    • Rehabilitation costs;
    • Loss of wages;
    • Insufficient earnings;
    • The pain and suffering of
    • Mental anguish.

    The amount you can get for damages in Texas is dependent on the degree to that you’re responsible for the incident.

    Texas uses the “modified comparative fault” model whereby those who are found to be more than 50% responsible for the incident may not be able to claim damages.

    If you’re the one in the driver’s seat, but with 50 per cent or less, you could be entitled to claim compensation for injuries resulting from an auto accident.


    What To Do When the driver at fault doesn’t have Insurance

    In the event of any accident motorist at fault’s liability insurance is likely to pay for medical expenses along with property damage and any wage loss that is related to it.

    Texas law requires that motorists provide at minimum $30,000 of Insurance for each injured person and $25,000 in property damages.

    If more than one person suffers injuries in a single incident and the insurance company is required to pay the maximum amount of $60,000 to cover any injuries.

    While the law mandates insurance coverage in order to compensate for crash victims, some drivers are hesitant to drive without the insurance coverage required.

    The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles estimates that 20 per cent of Texas drivers are not insured.


    What should you do when the driver is in a negligent manner with their insurance and driving habits and causes you injury?

    You may file claims on your own uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) insurance policy to pay for your losses. An Austin attorney for auto accidents can assist you in the procedure.


    Underinsured or uninsured motorist coverage provided by your insurance policy compensates for property damages and injuries in the event that the at-fault driver is not insured to the required level.

    Your UM/UIM insurance must be in the same policy limits applicable to your automobile liability insurance.

    If the driver at fault has Insurance, however, it is at a low level, and the coverage isn’t sufficient. The UM/UIM coverage to cover your losses.


    Texas law limits the amount you can recover from UM/UIM by the amount “recoverable” from an underinsured driver.

    This means that even if you are unable to recover money from the motorist who was underinsured, Your UM/UIM policy will not cover damage that was incurred by the motorist who was underinsured.

    An Austin lawyer who handles car accidents will be able to use these calculations to figure out the best way to recover.


    It is likely that you have UIM/UM coverage. However, you need to verify your automobile insurance policy to be sure.

    Texas law obliges auto insurance companies to include UM/UIM coverage within your policy unless you specifically reject this coverage by writing.


    If you first rejected the coverage of UM/UIM in writing, you cannot regain the coverage at the time your policy renews unless you ask for the policy in writing.

    An Austin lawyer for car accidents can assist you in determining your rights to insurance benefits following an accident and assist you in determining your best options for maximizing your recovery.

    What Can An Austin Car Accident Attorney Can Assist

    Accidents in the car can prove costly emotionally as well as financially.

    If you’ve suffered injuries in a car crash and you’re wondering yourself if it’s worth it to retain an attorney.

    Research shows that a person injured in an accident that hires an accident lawyer has a higher chance of receiving the damages than a person who isn’t represented.


    And not only that, those who are represented by an attorney could get a lot more sums of money.

    A seasoned Austin attorney for accidents in cars can assist you throughout the process, from gathering evidence and filing motions to negotiating settlement agreements.

    When the lawsuit is filed, the defendant has 21 days to reply. In most cases, an insurance company and its lawyers will represent the plaintiff.

    Then both you and your attorney will collaborate to decide your next step.

    If the other side offers an acceptable amount of settlement, your lawyer will discuss the offer with them to make sure your rights are safeguarded.

    If the offer isn’t satisfactory enough, Your personal injury lawyer will bring your case to trial, and jurors will determine your Compensation.


    To make sure you’re safeguarding your right as well as your possessions, contact the Zimmerman Law Firm.

    We’ll help you navigate your case, contact the insurance company, and then go to court to defend your claim.

    Continue Reading


    Austin Car Accident Lawyers.




    Were you hurt during a car accident that occurred in Austin, Travis County or any other part of Texas? Our Austin Car Accident Lawyers at the law firm of Fleming Law Personal Injury Attorney are here to assist. Our office is located centrally within Austin, and we can assist with any car accident injury situation you may face. Experience is a factor when choosing an accident lawyer for your motor vehicle crash injury case. Michael P. Fleming has over 30 years of experience in the field of Texas complicated laws governing accidents and has been Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Personal Injury Trial Law. This is a big difference. If you or someone close to you was injured in a car crash within or within Austin and the surrounding areas, you require a lawyer with your best interests in mind. Contact us now for an absolutely free and no-obligation consultation.

    Our attorneys will work all night and all day to make sure you receive an agreement you can count on to be in your best interests.

    If you’re involved in a vehicle accident in Austin, and you’re in a car accident, your life could be turned upside-down. The team of Austin car accident lawyers can assist you in negotiating an agreement with insurance companies so that you can concentrate on the thing that’s most important: getting back to your life.

    Find an experienced Austin Car Crash Attorney to Take Care of Your Case!

    Austin is famous for its laid-back and lively city that is a magnet for artists and musicians from all over the globe. Tourists come to 6th Street for world-renowned live entertainment. South by Southwest (SXSW), one of the biggest annual music festivals across the nation, attracted Michael p. fleming board-certified Texas to 280,000 people to Austin in the year 2021.


    A bustling, vibrant City, Austin is also known for its 15,000+ automobile accidents each year.

    If you or someone close to you were injured in a vehicle accident and you need help, the Austin lawyer for car accidents has more than three decades of experience in helping victims of motorcycle, car, and truck crashes victims across the Austin region.

    Working with an insurance company and its aggressive adjusters typically means just one thing: settlements that are low.

    The adjuster:

    • Doesn’t seem to care about your discomfort or pain
    • Does what is in the best interest of the insurance company.
    • Offer a lower amount of money in the hope that you’ll be able to settle for less than what you’re entitled to.

    If an adjuster from the insurance company calls you, you should be prepared for an aggressive insurance adjuster trying to convince you to say something that could render you responsible for the incident. We have dealt with adjusters from experience and will fight for every dollar you’re entitled to in the event of injuries, medical bills or lost income, as well as suffering.

    We aim for the highest compensation, and not less.

    Fleming Law Personal Injury Attorney is one of the most reputable lawyers for accident across Texas who will battle to get you the compensation you’re due.

    How Do Accidents Arise in Austin?

    Austin is a pulsing city with events, live music, festivals, and bustling roads. Our clients turn to us with all their needs related to accidents, and we do our best to ensure that each accident victim obtains the best possible settlement in their case.


    The most popular local spots for the car accident that are located in Austin are:

    • I-35
    • MoPac Expressway
    • Highway 183
    • US290

    I-35 is among the more hazardous highway that runs through Austin and is ranked among the most dangerous routes for travel during the holiday season and security. The freeway runs both north as well as south to the city and out. US290 was also ranked as one of the 25 most deadly roads across the United States.

    Drivers also must contend with some of the most dangerous intersections in Texas when driving through Austin, such as:

    • Trinity 7th St. 7th St.
    • Riverside Drive and South Pleasant Valley Road
    • Parmer Lane and North Lamar Boulevard

    There are accidents all over the city. We are able to assist you in defending your case today.

    What are some types of accidents that Your Austin Car Injury Lawyers handle?

    Our lawyers handle every car accident case, including, but not limited to:

    • DWI or DUI
    • Distracted driving
    • Drive and Run Driving
    • Driving recklessly or aggressively
    • Speeding
    • Driving fatigued
    • Tire blowouts
    • More

    What kind of damage can I get back from my Austin Auto Accident?

    Your life may be destroyed, your car may be damaged, and you could have nagging injuries. The injuries you sustain and the difficulties that arise as directly resulting from the incident will be taken into consideration when determining the damages you suffered from your crash.

    We’ll assist in recovering damages on your behalf of you.

    In most car accident cases, you can recover:

    • Vehicle damage
    • Medical costs for treatment

    Earned wages lost (if you were forced to take time off from work)

    If you’re involved in an accident that is more serious, your injuries or pain and suffering will be more severe.

    If you’ve been in an accident that caused the serious injury you may be able to claim damages for:

    • Suffering and pain
    • Future earnings loss (if you are unable to go back)
    • Physical impairment
    • A loss of enjoyment from life
    • Permanent injuries

    We, Austin car accident lawyers in our firm, understand from experience how devastating an auto accident can be. Compensation for the accident you were involved in may not completely reverse the effects the incident had on your personal life but could aid you in moving into the future financially secure.

    Insurance companies and negligent drivers who always seek to reduce settlements don’t need to be tackled on their own – we can aid.

    A company that insures you will, most of the time instances, contest the loss in the event of a car crash. Your losses and injuries could be questioned as well as the medical treatment you receive. Adjusters for auto insurance are likely to try to minimize their responsibility in your claim. It’s our responsibility to defend against ruthless adjusters in order to ensure you receive the highest amount of compensation that you are entitled to.

    What Should I Do to prove the damage I suffered from my Austin Auto Accident?

    Car accidents can be complicated. You’ll have to prove your injuries as well as fending against insurance adjusters who attempt to reduce the loss. As your lawyer, we are required to keep track of every detail.


    Documentation is the proof you’ll need to prove your claim.

    We’ll document the following:

    • Medical bills
    • Medical medical records
    • Employer information

    If you’ve been absent from work because of injuries, we’ll collect the details from your employer in order to provide evidence of the dates and hours you were required to be absent from work.

    We’ll reach out to all medical professionals and clinics where you’ve been treated to make sure we have a complete document of your injuries and treatment.

    If you suffered a serious injury, it is possible that you’ll never be able to recover from the injuries. Then, you’ll have to endure a lifetime of hardships, and it’s our responsibility of us to consult with your specialists and doctors to know your chances of recovery.

    Specialists can assist us in knowing your medical condition, your challenges and the effects that the accident can affect your daily routine.


    The documentation gathered could include the following:

    • Costs of treatment in the future
    • Prognosis for injury
    • Everyday life impacts

    We’ll compile all your expenses and treatment details, as well as estimates of repairs to your car as well as any other relevant details pertaining to the case. Documentation will help us create an argument that is strong on your behalf, and ensures that we can pursue the maximum damage for you.

    What are Some Austin Car Accident Statistics?

    Texas has had 12,161 serious injury accidents, with more than 14,900 who sustained serious injuries as a result of these incidents in 2021. One person dies each two-hour period and 25 minutes in the state, with a reported accident happening every 60 seconds.

    The months of May and July are considered to be the most dangerous seasons in Texas.

    In Austin, the city, there are more than 10 fatalities from accidents per 100,000 inhabitants. Pedestrian accidents reached the highest level in four years in 2021, resulting in 37 pedestrians killed. In all, there were 15365 accidents within Austin in 2022. There was the death of 67 people.

    Austin is working together with his colleagues at the Department of Transportation in an attempt to decrease the amount of pedestrian-related accidents that increased dramatically in 2022 and doubled by the beginning of 2023 when compared with the similar timeframe a year earlier.

    Continue Reading