bills

FAMILIES can bag free tickets to top attractions over the Easter holidays with a quick move that takes just minutes.

The offer includes GoApe, ZSL zoos and top English Heritage sites which can easily set you back around £30 for admission.

The Free Days Out annual pass is offered by comparison site MoneySupermarket to uses who have joined its SuperSaveClub.

As well as the Free Days Out pass, you can get cashback when you shop through the site and other competitions and discounts.

You can join the membership club when you buy or take out a qualifying product through the site such as insurance or a new credit card.

But you can also join without spending any cash at all.

HOLI-YAY!

Freebies to entertain the kids over Easter holidays with games, days out & more

CHA-CHING

Nine freebies to get this week worth £513 including £100 days out and £200 cash

You’ll qualify for membership when you sign up and simply look up your credit score while logged in.

It takes just a few minutes to enter some details such as your address and date of birth to sign up for the credit score check.

Then you automatically become a member of the SuperSaveClub and you can tap through and access the Free Days Out pass.

Through the pass you can look for days out by postcode or location to see what’s on offer close to you.

You can then ‘claim’ an offer such as a free ticket.

Some of the more premium venues are ‘hot picks’ and you can only claim a free ticket once a month.

This includes Whipsnade and London ZSL zoos, as well as GoApe – but it’s worth noting not all GoApe venues are included.

For all other venues you won’t be able to claim more than once in seven days.

Once claimed, vouchers will need to be used withing 14 days.

To cut the cost of days out and top venues, you can also check websites for discounts.

For example, you’ll get 10% off bookings through GoApe when you sign up to its email distribution list.

A Kids Pass can also cut the cost of days out – it costs just £1 to sign up for the first 30 days which can easily be recouped if you are using it to get discounted entry tickets.

Just remember to cancel the subscription if you don’t think you’ll continue using it.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Treasury Department is working on plans to put President Trump’s signature on all new U.S. paper currency, the agency announced Thursday.

The move would be a first for a sitting president. The news was first reported by Vanity Fair.

It’s the latest instance of Trump putting his name and likeness on American cultural institutions, following his renaming of the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Kennedy Center performing arts venue and a new class of battleships, among other tributes.

The plans come in tandem with an effort to get Trump’s face on a coin.

This month, a federal arts commission approved the final design for a 24-karat gold commemorative coin bearing Trump’s image to help celebrate America’s 250th birthday on July 4.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s signature would also appear on the currency, according to a Treasury news release.

Bessent said in a statement that “there is no more powerful way to recognize the historic achievements of our great country” than with U.S. dollar bills bearing Trump’s name.

U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach said in a statement that printing Trump’s signature on the American currency “is not only appropriate, but also well deserved.”

The Mint, which is part of the Treasury Department, manufactures and distributes the currency.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

March 26 (UPI) — South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden on Thursday signed six election-related bills, including one that requires newly registered voters to prove their citizenship.

The bills, which Rhoden, his administration and the state legislature said are meant to protect the integrity of the state’s elections, also affect campaign finance disclosures, publication of election results, processing of absentee ballots, publication of statewide voter registration files and the submission of nomination petitions.

The voter registration law, called the South Dakota SAVE Act, is one of several that states across the country have been considering as similar legislation has been the subject of heated debate in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

“In South Dakota, we do things right, especially when running out state elections,” Rhoden said in a press release.

“This bill ensures only citizens vote in state elections, keeping our elections safe and secure,” he said.

All six bills that Rhoden signed were named emergencies, which allows them to go into effect immediately, as opposed to July 1, when laws in South Dakota usually go into effect.

This will allow for the requirements to apply to the state’s June 2 primary elections, registration for which has a May 18 deadline, the South Dakota Searchlight reported.

The governor’s office said the state’s SAVE Act applies only to state elections and only to people who are registering to vote in South Dakota for the first time, and will need to show a passport, birth certificate or other document that proves they are a U.S. citizen.

South Dakota residents who are already registered do not need to take any action, and those who need to update their name, address or other information are not required to prove their U.S. citizenship.

“Noncitizens cannot vote in South Dakota — this bill is wholly unnecessary,” South Dakota Democratic state Rep. Erik Muckey said during debate of the bill, The New York Times reported.

Earlier this year, Rhoden also signed into law a bill that would allow voters to challenge the citizenship of other registered voters with a sign, sworn statement and some type of documented evidence.

That law will not take effect before the primary, but it will be effective during the general election in November.

The Cabinet on Tuesday approved two prosecution reform bills that would dismantle the current prosecution service later this year to separate its exclusive power to both initiate criminal probes and indict suspects.

When promulgated, it would mark a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s prosecution system. Under the new laws, the prosecution office will be shut down in October, 78 years after its establishment in 1948, and two new agencies will exercise indictment and investigate roles, respectively.

The bills on establishing the so-called serious crimes investigation agency and the indictment agency, pushed by the ruling Democratic Party (DP), were passed at the National Assembly last week in a plenary session boycotted by the main opposition People Power Party (PPP).

Under the laws, the new indictment agency will handle only indictments, while investigative powers will be transferred to the newly established serious crimes investigation agency.

The new investigative body will be established under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety and will be responsible for probing six major crimes, including corruption, economic offenses, defense industry-related crimes and drug offenses.

The government has been seeking to separate the prosecution service’s authority over both indictment and investigation amid longstanding criticism that the prosecution has abused its exclusive powers by carrying out politically motivated investigations.

The DP has argued that the reform is needed to curb potential political abuse of prosecutorial power, while the PPP has warned it could weaken checks on investigators and increase the risk of political influence.

The two new agencies are set to be established after the abolition of the prosecution office.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

A group of California trial lawyers is backing a package of bills aimed at policing their industry by ramping up the penalties for attorneys who recruit clients illegally or prioritize the desires of hedge fund investors.

The Consumer Attorneys of California, a prominent trade group, said it is supporting two bills this session meant to crack down on the “small number of bad actors engaged in illegal conduct that threatens to undermine public trust” in the state’s legal bar.

The group said the bills, introduced Monday by Assemblymembers Ash Kalra (D-San José) and Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), were a response to recent Times investigations involving California lawyers. The Times found nine clients within L.A. County’s $4-billion sex-abuse settlement who said they were paid to sue and, in some cases, fabricate claims that became part of the historic payout. Another story examined opaque investor financing arrangements used by some firms.

“We’re not trying to insulate ourselves from accountability,” said Douglas Saeltzer, president of the attorney group, in an interview. “There needs to be consequences.”

The bill introduced by Zbur would disbar any attorney who is convicted of illegally soliciting clients. Kalra’s bill would ban private equity firms and hedge funds from dictating case strategy after giving money to a law firm.

Plaintiff’s attorneys say the legislative push is an attempt to clean up their profession’s image. It comes amid efforts by companies and governments frequently targeted by lawsuits to rein in a barrage of litigation.

Uber is pushing a measure for the November ballot that would limit how much lawyers can collect in fees for car crash cases, encouraging Californians to “stop the billboard lawyer scam.” A coalition of California counties has simultaneously begun circulating language to lawmakers that would limit attorneys’ ability to sue over older sex-abuse cases, pointing to recent allegations of fraud.

Zbur’s legislation, Assembly Bill 2039, would require the State Bar strip the license of any attorney with a felony conviction for a practice known as capping, in which law firms directly solicit or procure clients to sign up for lawsuits. Currently, attorneys convicted of capping can face suspension or probation, but are eligible to keep their license.

Under the bill, the attorney also would be disbarred for a misdemeanor capping conviction if the lawyer “acted knowingly and for financial gain.”

“It really is making very clear that if you’re engaging in this kind of capping, then there’s going to be a consequence,” Zbur said.

All clients who said they were paid to sue L.A. County over sex abuse were represented by Downtown LA Law Group, one of Southern California’s largest personal injury firms. The firm, also known as DTLA, is under investigation by the district attorney, the State Bar and L.A. County.

DTLA has denied any wrongdoing and said its lawyers “operate with unwavering integrity, prioritizing client welfare.”

Zbur’s bill also would provide whistleblower protections to people who report on attorney misconduct and tighten the rules around client loans. California is one of the few states where lawyers can lend money directly to clients.

Other states have barred the practice, concerned that direct loans give an attorney too much leverage over their clients.

The second bill introduced Monday, AB 2305, is aimed at the rising trend of private equity firms and hedge funds lending money to law firms and profiting from the payouts. The Times reported in December that investors were financing some of the flood of sex-abuse litigation against L.A. County.

Supporters of litigation finance say it gives attorneys the funding they need to take on deep-pocketed corporations and represent victims who can’t afford to sue on their own. Critics say investors can secretly sway case strategy, putting their profit before the best interests of a client.

“These Wall Street investors are salivating,” Kalra said. “This is just gonna clearly say, ‘No, no more. We’re not gonna allow these types of investments to influence the practice of law.’”

Kalra’s bill would bar investors from weighing in on litigation, such as who the firm should take on as a client and when they should settle a case. Any contracts that allow investor influence would be void under the law.

It’s unclear how the restrictions would be enforced. It’s often difficult to tell when an investor is financing a firm’s caseload, much less whether they’re exerting influence on a case.

Lawyers already are barred under the State Bar’s rules from allowing a third party to dictate case strategy and are barred in many cases from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer.

“We’re finding that’s not enough,” Kalra said. “We actually need clear statutory safeguards.”