Hill Holler

Raw Political Coverage and Opinions

Home /
Category: Legal

Category: Legal

The Venezuelan born human rights activist Thor Halvorssen has spent the last few years leading the activism community as he has looked to change the way the world views activists as a whole. Many different groups have become involved in human rights and look to change the way people around the world live their lives, but for Thor Halvorssen the need to identify every single human rights violation and violator has put him in opposition to many of those with a longer history in the human rights activism world.

Thor Halvorssen does not believe that political ideologies should play a role in how a government or political leader is viewed in terms of the loss of human rights; the New York based film producer decided he should publicize the human rights violations committed by socialist governments in South and Central America alongside those committed in Asia and parts of Eastern Europe. As the work of Thor Halvorssen has grown in standing he has seen a greater level of support for his work, which has also seen the founder of the Human Rights Foundation explain he does not believe the activists who ignore left leaning human rights violators are not continuing their work in the correct way.

Despite his aristocratic background, Thor Halvorssen has explained he is a classical liberal in his personal political beliefs and went so far as to save a socialist newspaper in Norway from closure in the early years of the 21st century. The political workld holds little interest for Thor aside from the help that can be found in fighting for the human rights of people in closed societies. Although Thor has been an outspoken critic of the socialist governments of the human rights records of Cuba and Venezuela he strongly defended the former Democrat candidate for President Bernie Sanders and his socialist ideals during a TV appearance in the U.S.


I recently read that Laidlaw & Company (UK) Ltd., a global investment brokerage firm, has run afoul of U.S. financial regulations once again. In December of last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted an injunction and issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Laidlaw & Co. and its principals, Matthew Eitner and James Ahern, from “continuing to disseminate false and misleading proxy materials.” It appears from the record that Laidlaw is a partial stakeholder in Relmada Therapeutics, Inc. and was attempting to gain effective control (often referred to as a hostile takeover) by disseminating materially false information to stockholders and proxy voters. Sergio Traversa, Chief Executive Officer of Relmada, believes that Laidlaw’s interests are very different from those of the other Relmada stockholders, and he has vowed to continue taking the necessary actions to protect the Company and its interests.

That makes me wonder, why would an investment firm want or need effective control over a pharmaceutical company? For those that don’t know, Relmada Therapeutics is in the pain pill business (think Methadone). Is Laidlaw trying to corner the market on prescription drug users? Not likely, but for an investment company with holdings in everything from insurance, to biotech, to mining, an investment in pain pharmaceuticals is probably a good investment. Still, why would Laidlaw, particularly its principals Matthew Eitner and James Ahern, want decision making authority over the company?

The logical answer is that Laidlaw believes it can make money. Laidlaw must see something in Relmada that makes them think that, if they can win enough votes to get Relmada uplisted on the NASDAQ, or some similar scheme, perhaps a larger biotech company or a larger investment firm will come along and offer Eitner and Ahern a fortune for their controlling share. Laidlaw makes money, a legitimate pharmaceutical business gets tossed around like a pinball, and who really wins? I’ll tell you who doesn’t win, the guy who needs his Methadone.

Original Source:


Our Constitution is supposed to protect American citizens from unlawful search and seizure of property. However, federal legislation has found loopholes in the sentiment imposed by our founding fathers. A United States Federal Appeals Court announced their ruling which allows police officers to seek and search cell phone records directly from wireless carriers, without a warrant.

The same court responsible for approving warrentless searches, is the same court that ruled just last year to deny what some consider to be invasions of privacy. American citizens can no longer expect any amount of personal security when it comes to their cell phone use.

Cops can now easily access every piece of data on your phone, without a search warrant, which includes information such as where you go, how long you stayed, personal phone calls, text messages, and websites visits, among other personal details.

Christian Broda has learned that many people are claiming this new law that allows the search and seizure of our phone records to be in direct violation of our constitutional rights as American citizens. Unfortunately, the Federal Appeals Court disagrees and has made it clear that officials will have full and unlimited access to your data.