山东颞叶内侧癫痫症状有哪(菏泽中医对癫痫病的治疗) (今日更新中)

A GoFundMe for a San Diego-area Starbucks barista who refused service to a woman who refused to wear a COVID-19 mask has now surpassed more than ,000.Last Monday, a woman took to Facebook after she said she was turned away at a Starbucks because she was not wearing a mask. At the time, San Diego County required everyone — except for those with health issues — to wear masks while in public."Meet lenen (sic) from Starbucks who refused to serve me cause I'm not wearing a mask. Next time I will wait for cops and bring a medical exemption," the woman's post was captioned.Though the woman was upset that she was not served, many on Facebook sided with the barista, Lenin."There's no reason to publicly shame a kid who's trying to work his shift like any other day," one commenter wrote."They are following what they're told. I understand your frustration But it's being at aimed at the wrong people," a second commenter wrote.Another Facebook user, Matt Cowan, was inspired to set up a GoFundMe page to collect tips for Lenin."I set it at ,000, thinking that was a reach, and we would be lucky if we hit like 0. And when we hit 0, I was overwhelmed by that," Cowan told Scripps station KGTV in San Diego last week.By Wednesday, Cowan's campaign had raised more than ,000 tips for Lenin. Over the weekend, funds continued to pour in, and as of Monday afternoon, the campaign had raised more than ,000.In an update posted to the campaign page on Sunday, Cowan reiterated that all of the funds would be going directly to Lenin, and that he had arranged for Lenin to meet with a financial adviser."Lenin has said that he plans to use some of the money to pursue his dreams of becoming a dancer," Cowan said. "He also wants to donate to some organizations in the San Diego community."In a statement last week, Starbucks said that it advises customers to heed advice on mask ordinances set by local governments."We want everyone to feel welcome in our stores. We respectfully request customers follow social distancing and safety protocols recommended by public health officials, including wearing a facial covering when visiting our stores," a Starbucks spokesperson said in a statement to KGTV. "More information on what customers can expect in our stores can be found on our At a Glance page." 2316

A Cape Coral pilot is in jail in a Middle Eastern country which says will not free him unless he pays nearly ,000.Steven Bral is an international pilot who lived in Oman in 2012. While living there, he bought a car and owed ,000, but had to leave the country when he lost his job. Oman law requires all foreign nationals to pay all debt before leaving the country.When Bral was flying from Rwanda to Bahrain, he made a stop in Oman to change planes and was immediately arrested upon landing on March 8."You can't help but just think 'what's going to happen?'" his son, Nolan Bral said."It's a small cell and there's six men in that cell, and they have concrete floor and nothing else. That is where they sleep and eat. They eat in a circle on the floor with their hands," Cheri Bral, Steven's first wife, said.Bral has been ordered to pay ,600 to be released."He does not have that money in savings," Cheri Bral said. "It's too much."Bral's current wife, Shamirah has been able to talk to him on the phone in the middle of the night."I know it's very hard on her, and it's scary," Cheri Bral said.She said guards are trying to move Bral to an even bigger jail."Where you hear about torture and all this other stuff, you just don't know what's going to happen to him," Nolan Bral said.Bral's youngest son, Trevor, is trying to stay hopeful. "I just wouldn't understand or know if I never see him again. I just know he'll come back," he said.The family said the U.S. Embassy in Oman hasn't been helpful.The State Department's press officer emailed the following statement to Scripps station WFTX in Fort Myers, Florida: 1679

A day after Judge Amy Coney Barrett mostly sidestepped questions on her judicial views of politically-charged topics, Barrett returned to the Capitol on Wednesday for another marathon session of questioning in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.On Tuesday, Democrats continued their attempt to pry Barrett into sharing her judicial views on topics like abortion, public healthcare, LGBTQ+ rights and gun control — topics which Barrett is considered to take a conservative slant. However, Barrett continued to repeatedly invoke the "Ginsburg rule.""Justice Ginsburg, with her characteristic pithiness, used this to describe how a nominee should comport herself at a hearing. No hints, no previews, no forecasts," Barrett said on Tuesday.Ginsburg — whose seat Barrett seeks to fill following the longtime justice's death in September — coined the phrase during her confirmation hearings 27 years ago. While she did not set that precedent, she's credited with the concise phrasing that has been recited by many prospective justices in the decades since.But The Associated Press notes that Ginsburg was open on her views of at least one hotly-debated topic — abortion."The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity," Ginsburg said in 1993 during her confirmation hearing, according to the AP. "It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices."As Democrats lobbed questions at Barrett regarding her judicial views, the judge offered few insights. Here's how she answered on the following topics:AbortionLike she did on Tuesday, Barrett attempted to avoid answering specific questions regarding her personal views on abortion. However, Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Barrett specifically about legislation he introduced that would prevent a woman from receiving an abortion after 20 weeks. When asked if Barrett would listen to both sides of that case, Barrett said she would.Graham went on to say that if Barrett were to be confirmed, it would punch through a "reinforced concrete barrier" facing conservative women, adding it would be the first time in history that a woman who is "unashamedly pro-life" would be appointed to the Supreme Court.Affordable Care ActBarrett mostly stuck to the "Ginsburg Rule" by attempting not to tip her hand when it came to sharing judicial views. However, questioning from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, forced Barrett to admit that while she had written negatively about the Affordable Care Act and some Supreme Court rulings upholding it in the past, she had not ever written favorably about the law.Cameras in the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court has famously been one of the most secretive branches of government. Cameras and recording devices weren't allowed in high court hearings until this year when arguments were forced to be held via teleconference due to the COVID-19. In fact, it wasn't until 2018 that the court published case filings online.However, Barrett said Wednesday that she would "keep an open mind" about allowing cameras in the courtroom moving forward.Climate changeSen. Richard Blumenthal asked Barrett directly if she believed if humans are causing climate change. She declined to answer the question directly and added that she didn't think it was relevant to her job.Her comments come a day after she said during the first day of questioning that she has "no firm views" on climate change and added that she's "not a scientist."COVID-19 lockdownsFeinstein also asked Barrett about a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year in which the court said Wisconsin could not extend mail-in voting during its primary elections. The primary took place on April 7 — in the throes of pandemic-related lockdowns.Feinstein asked Barrett specifically about her view of the case. Barrett declined to give one, again citing the fact that she did not want to provide a judicial view.PolygamyWhen asked by Graham if a group of Americans had a right to polygamous marriage, Barrett declined to give a direct answer, keeping in line with avoiding direct judicial answers.Presidential powersLeahy asked Barrett specifically if a president had a right to pardon himself for any crimes he may have committed. Barrett responded that such a hypothetical was not settled law and that she did not want to speculate lest a similar case come before the courts.ImmigrationSen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat who ran for the party's presidential nomination, question Barrett on her views on separating children at the border. "Do you think it is wrong to separate a child from their parent, not for the safety of the child or parent, but to send a message? As a human being, do you believe that that is wrong?"Booker asked. "That's been a matter of policy debate and that's a matter of hot political debate in which I can't express a view or be drawn into as a judge," Barrett responded. What's nextSenators will meet privately to review Barrett's FBI file and background check. On Thursday, witnesses for and against Barrett's confirmation will go before the committee. _____Tuesday's hearings were also beset by technical issues. During Blumenthal's questioning, the committee was forced to take a brief recess when microphones in the room stopped working. Upon the committee's return, microphones again went dead as Blumenthal was wrapping up his time, forcing another brief recess.On Tuesday, Barrett also often invoked the "Ginsburg Rule" when discussing abortion, an upcoming case that could decide the legality of the Affordable Care Act, gun control and voting rights.Barrett was also asked about comments from President Donald Trump, who has hinted in the past that Ginsburg's seat must be filled prior to the election in the event the Supreme Court needs to make a crucial ruling. Barrett did not commit to recusing herself should such a case arise, but said she would consider the case and the recommendations of other justices.Barrett's thorniest stretch on Tuesday came in a denouncement of discrimination of LGBTQ+ people when she used the term "sexual preference." The term, generally deemed to be outdated, is classified as "offensive" by GLAAD because it implies that sexuality is a "choice" that can be "cured." Barrett later apologized for using the term when confronted by Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii.The 22 Senators on the committee were each given 30 minutes to question Barrett on Tuesday. Senators will each be given 20 minutes for questioning on Wednesday. Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, says he hopes to wrap up the confirmation hearing Thursday, and that Barrett is on track to be confirmed later this month, about a week before the 2020 election.Several swing-vote Republicans have already indicated that they will vote to confirm Barrett, suggesting that she will likely be confirmed. 6963

A man accused of running a multi-million dollar investment fraud scheme appeared in court for his preliminary hearing Monday.Jacob Cooper was the CEO of Total Wealth Management in San Diego. Prosecutors allege Cooper received a referral fee for placing clients’ money in certain funds. In many instances, Zipp said he received greater compensation through the referral fee than through his clients’ fees, creating a “blatant conflict of interest.”“He mainly was interested in whether a particular fund would enrich him, not whether it would enrich his paying client,” said Deputy District Attorney Rebecca Zipp.Zipp said Cooper had “no regard to investor goals or suitability for the investor.”Several clients testified in court Monday morning. Loren Engel said he and his wife both invested with TWM. He said they lost approximately 5,000. Engel was not aware Cooper and TWM were receiving what many victims described as kickbacks.“The risk of being defrauded is not a reasonable risk to assume,” Engel said, when the defense asked if he understood investments have risks.Many clients first learned about TWM through Cooper’s weekly radio show. Cooper also regularly appeared on local media.George Rasor called TWM after hearing Cooper on the radio. He testified that he invested more than 0,000. His son Jeffrey Rasor saw red flags when trying to get information about his father’s investments.“Questions not answered, not acceptably answered,” Jeffrey Rasor said when recalling TWM’s response after meeting with the company a few years ago. “Too much vagueness and a real concern that my father’s investments were in jeopardy.Cooper faces 19 felony counts, including conspiracy to commit a crime, elder theft, and making false statements in connect with sale of a security. Zipp said he could face a maximum of 23 years in prison if he is convicted. Cooper also faced several civil lawsuits and an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.Cooper’s defense attorney, John Kirby, denies his client did anything wrong.“He did not have the intent to enrich himself above the interest of his clients,” Kirby said. Kirby said there were a number of funds where he received revenue sharing, but any conflict of interest was set out in documents.“Mr. Cooper had no intent to cheat or steal from anyone,” Kirby said. “He made bad investment decisions.”Kirby said Cooper and his family also lost money through the same investment funds. The preliminary hearing is expected to last several days. Two others connected with TWM already reached a plea deal. Doug Shoemaker and Nathan McNamee are scheduled to be sentenced later this week. 2656

A Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Sheriff's Department employee was on the job when he overdosed in the parking lot of a Brooklyn IHOP in March.Paul Grivas has a badge with the sheriff's department where he works as a process server — someone who serves warrants and subpoenas. He was in his marked sheriff's department vehicle when someone noticed him slumped over at the wheel and dialed 911."It was definitely a different situation dealing with somebody that's in the same line of work we are," Officer Joe Bugaj with the Brooklyn Police Department said.Police officers found several subpoenas he was in the process of serving in the back seat. They also found the badge he was carrying.When Brooklyn first responders arrived at the scene, they immediately recognized he was overdosing and unresponsive.Grivas was given several doses of Naloxone, the antidote for heroin. Police say when he woke up he was extremely combative. "He was flailing his arms, kicking his legs, and one of the medics ended up getting kicked in the head," Bugaj said.He kneed a fireman so hard, the fireman suffered a mild concussion. Officials say he is doing okay.Bugaj said it's not uncommon for people to wake up from an overdose and be aggravated. He said it's something first responders have to keep in mind. "You never know what could happen, whether or not they're going to be upset, because we are basically taking that high away from them," Bugaj said.When asked if there is anything first responders can do to protect themselves, Bugaj said it's just part of the job."It's our job. It's what we signed up to do. We are here to preserve life," Bugaj said.Scripps station WEWS in Cleveland requested more information on Grivas' status with the sheriff's department, but did not hear back Wednesday. Grivas has been charged with felonious assault and obstructing official business.  1998

来源：资阳报