郑州三十六岁,近视九百度,可以做激光手术吗?(郑州全国眼科医院排名) (今日更新中)

LOS ANGELES (AP) — President Donald Trump does not have to disclose his tax returns to appear as a candidate on California’s primary ballot next spring, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.The law, the first of its kind in the nation and aimed squarely at Trump, violates a specification of the state constitution calling for an “inclusive open presidential primary ballot,” the court said.“Ultimately, it is the voters who must decide whether the refusal of a ‘recognized candidate throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States’ to make such information available to the public will have consequences at the ballot box,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote in the 7-0 decision.Trump has broken with tradition among presidential candidates by refusing to disclose his financial information.A U.S. judge had temporarily blocked the state law in response to a different lawsuit, and the high court ruled quickly because the deadline to file tax returns to get on the primary ballot is next week.The state Republican Party and chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson challenged the bill signed into law this year by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom because it singled out Trump.“Today’s ruling is a victory for every California voter,” Patterson said in a statement. “We are pleased that the courts saw through the Democrats’ petty partisan maneuvers and saw this law for what it is — an unconstitutional attempt to suppress Republican voter turnout."The state defended the law, saying release of tax returns gave voters important information to weigh candidates’ financial status.Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat who authored the bill, said it was a simple requirement for candidates to meet and provided accountability.“Today’s decision flies in the face of what the American people have come to expect from presidential candidates — transparency,” McGuire said. “Every presidential candidate for the past 40 years has released their tax returns, with the exception of the current occupant of the White House. If he has nothing to hide, why wouldn’t he release them?”The law would have required candidates for president or governor to file copies of personal income tax returns dating back five years. Refusal to do so would keep them off the state's primary ballot, but not apply to general elections.The ruling does not apply to the requirement for gubernatorial candidates, Newsom spokesman Jesse Melgar said.“Governments have a moral duty to restore public confidence in government and ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards,” Melgar said in a statement. “Congress and other states can and should take action to require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns.”California is the only state to pass such a bill, but the issue was before lawmakers in 20 states this year, said Wendy Underhill of the National Conference of State Legislatures.While bills in 10 states are still pending, those legislatures are on recess or done for the year so that legislation is effectively dead, Underhill said.Skeptical justices at a hearing earlier this month questioned whether such a law could open the door to future requirements of medical and psychiatric records or school report cards.Attorney Thomas Hiltachk argued for the state GOP that the law violated a 1972 voter-approved amendment guaranteeing that all recognized candidates must be on the ballot.Republicans also said it would lower voter turnout in the primary, hurting Republican legislative and congressional candidates’ chances of reaching the general election.Trump has cited an ongoing Internal Revenue Service audit in refusing to release his returns.Other courts have ordered Trump to turn over his tax returns to a Manhattan grand jury and the House of Representatives for separate investigations.The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to intervene in the demand from a congressional committee or to let a lower appeals court ruling stand that would require disclosure of Trump’s taxes.Trump has also asked the high court to block a subpoena from a New York prosecutor for his tax returns.Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. is seeking the records in an investigation that includes alleged payments to buy the silence of adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy centerfold Karen McDougal, both of whom claim they had affairs with the president before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has denied the allegations. 4505

Local veterans are getting help buying homes through a program that aims to give them an upper hand in the competitive southern California housing market.  So Cal VA Homes was founded six years ago by Peter Van Brady. He says he realized just how many issues his military clients were having buying a home with their benefits.  So he makes a cash offer on behalf of the vets and incorporates them in the renovation process. " And then we transfer the home to the veteran using their VA benefit for zero down and zero closing," said Brady. So far he's been able to help put nearly 40 veterans and their families into houses. For more information on how to apply go to : http://www.socalvahomes.org/ 740

LOS ANGELES (AP) — President Donald Trump does not have to disclose his tax returns to appear as a candidate on California’s primary ballot next spring, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.The law, the first of its kind in the nation and aimed squarely at Trump, violates a specification of the state constitution calling for an “inclusive open presidential primary ballot,” the court said.“Ultimately, it is the voters who must decide whether the refusal of a ‘recognized candidate throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States’ to make such information available to the public will have consequences at the ballot box,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote in the 7-0 decision.Trump has broken with tradition among presidential candidates by refusing to disclose his financial information.A U.S. judge had temporarily blocked the state law in response to a different lawsuit, and the high court ruled quickly because the deadline to file tax returns to get on the primary ballot is next week.The state Republican Party and chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson challenged the bill signed into law this year by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom because it singled out Trump.“Today’s ruling is a victory for every California voter,” Patterson said in a statement. “We are pleased that the courts saw through the Democrats’ petty partisan maneuvers and saw this law for what it is — an unconstitutional attempt to suppress Republican voter turnout."The state defended the law, saying release of tax returns gave voters important information to weigh candidates’ financial status.Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat who authored the bill, said it was a simple requirement for candidates to meet and provided accountability.“Today’s decision flies in the face of what the American people have come to expect from presidential candidates — transparency,” McGuire said. “Every presidential candidate for the past 40 years has released their tax returns, with the exception of the current occupant of the White House. If he has nothing to hide, why wouldn’t he release them?”The law would have required candidates for president or governor to file copies of personal income tax returns dating back five years. Refusal to do so would keep them off the state's primary ballot, but not apply to general elections.The ruling does not apply to the requirement for gubernatorial candidates, Newsom spokesman Jesse Melgar said.“Governments have a moral duty to restore public confidence in government and ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards,” Melgar said in a statement. “Congress and other states can and should take action to require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns.”California is the only state to pass such a bill, but the issue was before lawmakers in 20 states this year, said Wendy Underhill of the National Conference of State Legislatures.While bills in 10 states are still pending, those legislatures are on recess or done for the year so that legislation is effectively dead, Underhill said.Skeptical justices at a hearing earlier this month questioned whether such a law could open the door to future requirements of medical and psychiatric records or school report cards.Attorney Thomas Hiltachk argued for the state GOP that the law violated a 1972 voter-approved amendment guaranteeing that all recognized candidates must be on the ballot.Republicans also said it would lower voter turnout in the primary, hurting Republican legislative and congressional candidates’ chances of reaching the general election.Trump has cited an ongoing Internal Revenue Service audit in refusing to release his returns.Other courts have ordered Trump to turn over his tax returns to a Manhattan grand jury and the House of Representatives for separate investigations.The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to intervene in the demand from a congressional committee or to let a lower appeals court ruling stand that would require disclosure of Trump’s taxes.Trump has also asked the high court to block a subpoena from a New York prosecutor for his tax returns.Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr. is seeking the records in an investigation that includes alleged payments to buy the silence of adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy centerfold Karen McDougal, both of whom claim they had affairs with the president before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has denied the allegations. 4505

LOS ANGELES (CNS) - Uber and Lyft will keep operating in San Diego and across California -- for now -- with a state appeals court Thursday putting on hold a ruling requiring the ride-hailing companies to classify their drivers as employees instead of independent contractors.The decision by the state's 1st District Court of Appeal averted threats by Uber and Lyft to shut down all California operations at midnight. Uber officials said earlier this week they would likely shut down, and Lyft issued a statement earlier Thursday saying its operations would be halting at midnight.In a blog post on Thursday morning, Lyft stated: “At 11:59PM PT today our rideshare operations in California will be suspended. This is not something we wanted to do, as we know millions of Californians depend on Lyft for daily, essential trips.”Lyft added: “This change would also necessitate an overhaul of the entire business model -- it’s not a switch that can be flipped overnight.”The dispute traces its roots to the state's passage of Assembly Bill 5, which effectively required the companies to classify their drivers as employees, a move supporters said would guarantee their wages and assure them of other benefits and workplace protections.The companies, however, said the move would require a complete overhaul of their operations and would actually hurt drivers -- forcing them to work set schedules instead of giving them the flexibility to work only when they wanted. The companies also said the move would result in many drivers losing their jobs unless they could work standard hours, and would likely also harm overall service for riders.California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and the city attorneys of San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco argued in court that Uber and Lyft have misclassified their drivers as independent contractors, preventing them from receiving "the compensation and benefits they have earned through the dignity of their labor" such as the right to minimum wage, sick leave, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation benefits.On Aug. 10, San Francisco-based Judge Ethan P. Schulman ruled against the companies, but he stayed his decision for 10 days to give them time to appeal. They did so, resulting in Thursday's last-minute ruling putting Schulman's ruling on hold.The court, however, warned the companies to continue preparing for the possible switch to employee drivers, saying each company must submit a sworn statement by Sept. 4 "confirming that it has developed implementation plans." The companies must also affirm they are prepared to actually implement those plans and switch to the employee system within 30 days if they ultimately lose their appeal and a company-sponsored measure on the November ballot fails.That ballot measure, Proposition 22, would allow ride-hailing drivers to work as independent contractors.The court scheduled oral arguments in the appeal for Oct. 13.Lyft contends that four out of five drivers prefer working as independent contractors so they can have more flexibility. 3056

LOS ANGELES (CNS) - Two Beverly Hills men, including a Realtor, have been charged with burglarizing the homes of singers Usher and Adam Lambert and other residences by allegedly using open houses to facilitate the crimes, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced Thursday. Jason Emil Yaselli, a 32-year-old Realtor, is scheduled to be arraigned Friday in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom on 50 felony counts, including first-degree residential burglary, first-degree residential burglary with a person present, money laundering, identity theft, conspiracy to commit burglary and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The charges include an allegation of taking more than 0,000 through fraud and embezzlement. Yaselli, who was arrested Wednesday by Los Angeles police, was jailed in lieu of .73 million bail. Co-defendant Benjamin Eitan Ackerman, 33, pleaded not guilty Monday to the same charges, which allege crimes between December 2016 and August 2018. The criminal complaint alleges that Yaselli ``allowed defendant Ackerman to use his credit card with the understanding that defendant Ackerman would pay down the principal and interest from the proceeds of the sale of the luxury items taken from 14 inhabited dwellings'' and ``encouraged'' Ackerman to commit the burglaries. The alleged victims of the burglaries included Usher, Lambert, reality TV personalities Paul and Dorit Kemsley and former professional football player Shaun Phillips. In many instances, Yaselli and Ackerman allegedly identified the targets or committed the burglaries during open houses in Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Brentwood and Hollywood Hills, according to Deputy District Attorney Stephen Morgan. At a Jan. 2 news conference, Los Angeles police announced that more than 2,000 high-end items -- including art work, clothing, purses, jewelry and fine wine -- had been seized from a home and storage unit belonging to Ackerman. ``Ackerman would pose as either an interested buyer or in purchasing the property or he would pose as a real estate broker wanting to show the property,'' Los Angeles Police Department Capt. Cory Palka said at the news conference. ``With the assistance of the LAPD's Commercial Crimes Unit, Hollywood detectives were able to identify 13 separate burglary victims based on evidence recovered from the locker or storage unit and Ackerman's residence. We believe there may be additional victims based on the large volume of stolen property that was recovered and are asking the public's help in identifying additional victims, and most importantly, returning their property to them.'' LAPD Detective Jared Timmons estimated that the items are collectively worth ``in the millions of dollars, multiple millions of dollars.'' Investigators determined that Ackerman -- who has a criminal record -- had signed into open houses on several occasions and asked in one instance about acquiring rare art work, the detective said. Ackerman -- who allegedly went after ``high-value targets'' -- showed up to the open houses while ``dressed to the nines'' and ``acted the part'' without being challenged to confirm his identity or where he was employed, according to the detective. ``He would tour open houses and he would come back later,'' Timmons told reporters. ``... This person is very sophisticated. In a lot of these cases, we see tampered surveillance videos. We're still looking into that. As we said, open houses usually were the main source of that. However, we do have one case where he targeted a family friend, so nobody's off the table.'' Ackerman was initially arrested last September by Los Angeles police, then arrested again on Aug. 16, one day after the criminal charges were filed. He was subsequently released on a .2 million bond and is due back in court Oct. 3, when a date is scheduled to be set for a hearing to determine if there is sufficient evidence to require him to stand trial. Yaselli and Ackerman could face up to 31 years and eight months in prison if they are convicted as charged, according to the District Attorney's Office. 4099

来源：资阳报