Ford Motors Could Pay Out $77 Million Over Defective Transmissions


For about seven and a half years, consumers
in the United States have been fighting Ford motor company over claims that some of their
vehicles had shotty transmissions that the company failed to fix and failed overall to
address. But there may finally, after seven and a half
years of fighting, be an end in sight. Joining me now to talk about what’s happening
is Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions and Scott this we, we see happen a lot. Right? A lot of these lawsuits are not just super
quick, easy over and done with in a matter of months. Seven and a half years, September of 2012,
is when this first started here against Ford. So take us back to the beginning real quick
with what was going on back then in 2012. What did the consumers complain about? Well, you know, we’ve seen this grow and expand,
so it started off in 2012 with Ford Focus and Ford Fiesta owners saying, hey, we have
a problem with this transmission. It’s kicking back. It’s chugging along and there’s a lot of issues
here. And there was a settlement that was reached
and now it’s been expanded for 2012 to 2016 Ford Focus or 2011 to 2016 Ford Fiestas equipped
with the power shift transmission. Now the settlement was objected to because
the objectors thought that the original settlement was too low. So now years later, after a lot of battling,
Ford has come back and now there’s a $77 million that’s up for grabs. And it’s a great settlement if you had this
problem, because Ford is not only going to reimburse you if you had this problem and
you had to get it fixed. Ford will also, if you returned your car and
you don’t even have your car anymore, you have a shot at getting some cash. There’s actually $25,000 or more for returning
a vehicle that they could have been driving for many years. So there’s a lot of money at, you know, possible
for these Ford Focus and Ford Fiesta owners, if they qualify. And with the way vehicles are, you know, built
today, there’s a very good chance that most of these vehicles are still on the road today. So if you’re driving one of these and you
haven’t necessarily noticed any problems, maybe reach out to the seller of the vehicle. You know, this could be something they had
fixed, maybe they had forgotten about it after all these years. So if you can, if you know who sold you the
vehicle, maybe reach out to them. This could be something that’s very, you know,
pertinent to them if they paid to have this problem fixed and then got fed up and sold
the car anyway. So, you know, something to keep in mind there. I know that’s not something people usually
think of, but you also run into a situation, and I’ve been thinking about this, you know,
obviously this is a transmission issue, transmission problems, one of the most expensive things
on a vehicle when it goes wrong. So what happens and I don’t even know if,
if you know the answer to this because this might seem complicated. Suppose you had somebody who purchased one
of these cars. They had taken it in a couple times to the
shop because the transmission was doing this. It couldn’t get fixed so finally they decided
to sell it and they sell it to somebody who says, well don’t worry, I know how to work
on transmissions. I’ll see if I can fix it. If you had two separate people with that same
vehicle, would they both qualify for a claim if they both spent money on it? Possibly. I know that’s a bit of a hypothetical, but. That’s a very lawyer answer, maybe. But, so the original owner, even if they no
longer own the car, they might qualify for this settlement. They’ll want to take a look to see if they
do once the settlement is approved. The person who, who actually received that
transmission that that car with a faulty transmission and fix it, they might also be able to submit
a claim. So they’ll want to take a look at it. Something that’s interesting about this settlement
is they actually bring in the lemon laws because they had a lot of people that bought these
cars, brought this car back multiple times to the dealer and said, hey, why can’t you
fix this? Well in this settlement they say, hey, we
are actually settling these claims in three months if it’s a lemon law claim. So, you know, if you’re taking this to arbitration
we are getting people either paid out a new car or, you know, those damages taken care
of in, in just three months. Which in the class action world as we know
is huge. So that’s one of the benefits of using a lemon
law attorney if you have a new car that is not being fixed under the factory warranty. But, it’s important to take a look at it and
see if you had this problem, even if you don’t have the car anymore, you might be able to
get some money back. Because that was a big part of the settlement
is making sure that there is millions of dollars above and beyond this $70 million. Because there’s a, there’s an extra 30 million
bucks that could be put into play if they run out of money. So Ford is really doing their best to take
care of their customers. If you had that Ford Focus or Fiesta that’s
included in this with transmission problems, please make sure to, to, to stay tuned with
us and check in because you could have a significant amount of money coming to you. And, do we have any kind of timeline? I know the, the $77 million now has to be
submitted for approval. Do we know about how long that process could
take for approval or rejection of this $77 million proposal? It depends on how busy the judge is. Usually takes around two to three months. Could take a little less, could take a little
more. But that’s what we’d be hoping for is that
the judge will get this reviewed and approved in, in about two to three months. Well, fantastic. And we’ll, we’ll definitely follow up with
story once that happens. Hopefully it will be a positive thing. Hopefully it will be approved and we can explain
to people, tell them where to go, you know, to get their settlements. And until then, folks, I recommend everybody
follow the link in the description of this video. It will take you to this story over at topclassactions.com. Bookmark it, keep an eye on it. There will be updates to this, hopefully in
a positive way and of course, while you’re there, you can also subscribe to the weekly
Top Class Actions newsletter. Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions, thank
you very much for talking with us. You’re welcome. Thanks for your time, Farron.

Trump Has Said 27 Times He Won’t Leave Office After His Term Ends


On at least 27 different occasions since Donald
Trump was sworn in as president. 27 different occasions. He has a joked about staying in office long
after his term ends. Now nearly every one of those times he does
point out. I’m kidding. I’m joking. Sometimes he says, I do it because it makes
the media go crazy, but 27 times, that’s a lot of times to tell the same joke. So at this point we have to start to wonder,
is Donald Trump actually kidding about remaining in office after his term ends? You know, there’s been a lot of speculation
about whether or not Donald Trump is actually going to accept the results of the election
in November. If he loses and maybe he just comes out and
says, no, this is illegitimate. I’m still president. I’m not leaving. Then what happens? People are asking, well, in that particular
instance, Trump’s going to be forced out of office one way or another. Quite possibly physically. The problem is not that he keeps joking about
it or that he may not leave the white house. If he gets booted out, there are people in
place to make sure that he physically leaves the white house and they’re going to make
sure he does that. The problem is his supporters, his supporters
are open to this idea. His supporters love this idea and that’s where
the real danger lies. When you have segments of the population,
no matter how small, who are now saying, we want president for life, just like China has
now, and Trump praised presidentG for declaring himself president for life. He likes that idea. He truly does. And when you have members of the public who
say, I’m okay with this, then those last little bits that were holding this Republic together
start to fall apart. And I think that’s what we’re seeing right
now. Back in December, mid December, Donald Trump’s
given a little speech down in Hollywood, Florida. Um, any mentions maybe I stay longer, right? Maybe I do two terms. Maybe I do two more terms, another eight years,
maybe I do three more terms, right? Wouldn’t that drive them crazy? 12 more years. And after he said 12 more years, that audience
erupted in chance of 12 more years, 12 more years, 12 more years. If Trump was joking, which again, not really
clear if he is, the crowd wasn’t. They liked that idea because they’re a cult. They don’t care about the Constitution. They don’t care about the limits we have in
place on both terms and power of the president of the United States. They view Donald Trump as some sort of godlike
figure that needs to stay up there as as possible. He’s done nothing for them, by the way, and
yet they worship him and they’re fine with destroying this country just to let this con
man have more time in office. It’s not Trump that we need to be worried
about. It’s the crazy people who want him to stay
longer than two terms.

Should We Pay People to Move to Mars? (feat. Nasa)


– Woo, howdy, partner! Hop on board, we’re headin’
out to settle the frontier except this time, the frontier is on another planet.
(mellow twang music) Okay, don’t panic. I’m not really on Mars. Plus. This thing smells funny. (sighs) The point is that
according to the Mars Society, Earth is old news. The real party is here
on the Red Planet, baby! So if our species is
truly going to be in it for the long haul, we gotta
figure out how to live in places like here,
but are you interested? How much longer until we’re
not a single planet species? – Well, I hope that we can
get to Mars in my life time. (mellow music) We’re looking to be in the 2030’s to start the Mars missions timeframe. – That’s Marshall Smith,
and he’s the head director of Human Lunar Exploration
Programs at NASA. His job is to lead the
teams that are working to get humans to the moon by 2024, and then to Mars in the 2030’s. What is moon to Mars,
and why have these plans been expedited?
– This has been in our long term plan for quite awhile. We had a plan that was
to get us to the surface of the moon in ’28, we’ve
accelerated it to ’24. – So NASA’s plan to get back to the moon has been accelerated to 2024
by the order of the President, and from there, they’ll develop
sustainable human presence on the moon by 2028. So in 10 years, when
you look up at the moon, there will be people living there. And after all of that, the
infrastructure developed from these trips will
help NASA get to Mars in our very near future.
– We did Apollo in nine years. And that would probably not have happened if we didn’t have that
commitment from the President and the administration. We’ve got that same commitment
now from the President and the administration to
go forward and expedite, and let’s take the next step.
– Okay, let’s put this into perspective, a trip to the moon could take up to three
days while a trip to Mars can take up to a few months. And the full journey could take astronauts a full three years before
they get back home. A few years ago, the Mars
One Project made news by creating sort of a reality show that planned very literally
to establish a Mars colony by 2032, the only catch
for the participants? It was gonna be a one-way ticket, and once you got there,
it was pretty certain that something at some
point was going to kill you. And probably in a pretty awful way. It’s an interesting idea. Let’s find some brave
pioneers who are willing to take the greatest of all risks. The question is how do you motivate people to make that kind of leap? Well, last time we did
something like this, it was pretty simple. We paid them. A few hundred years ago,
the American frontier wasn’t that different from Mars. It was rugged, it was unpredictable, and there were plenty of
things that could kill you. (upbeat music) (mellow music) – But here’s the key. For the government, it
was essential that lots and lots of people take the risk. So they had to figure
out what sort of award was worth this risk. – The United States government
gave away free or cheap land to encourage settlers to
move and set up homesteads out in the West. Now, we’d be remiss if we didn’t bring up that colonization is a
continually dark chapter in the history of indigenous peoples, from which European
settlers have profited. Mars, as you can guess, is
probably a tougher sell. Farmland? Nope, not yet. Religious freedom? I guess, maybe, if you find a way to build a Mars church or something. And a chance to live however you want. Sure, just don’t take off your helmet or forget to clean your
carbon dioxide scrubbers three times a day. All I’m say is that it’s probably going to take more incentives
than it did last time. Could you see that happening with Mars? In an advent where it’s
like, hey nobody really wants to go out there, potential
death could happen at any point in time. Could you see people
getting large sums of money to possibly go out to Mars to inhabit it? – And you say it’s part of
NASA’s spirit to explore. If Mars is an inhabitable planet, at one point do you
believe, in your opinion, that it would turn from exploration to potential colonization or civilization in NASA’s mission, or would
that never be NASA’s mission and that would take some
outside type of entity to make that happen?
– I don’t know the answer to that question, it’s
a good policy question for people above my pay
grade, but I could tell you that those are the things
that we think about. What are the next steps?
– But NASA doesn’t like using the word colonization. They’re not looking into a
continuous human presence in deep space, but they
are interested in building an infrastructure for private companies to enter into that field. They described it like
building the railroads for settlers to move out West. For you and NASA, what
are we hoping to learn or get out of going to
Mars, like what is the point of the journey?
– We know that there’s flowing water on Mars, we’ve
seen it, we’ve documented it. There are things like Mars quakes. We understand in the geology of Mars as Mars is a planet that was, we think, maybe Earth-like some long time ago. And so, studying that might help us understand the future of Earth. – There’s one other
historical parallel we need to consider here, the last
time there was this much land settled in our country, there
were major players involved, including Britain,
France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. And as we know, to the
winner went the spoils. Today, there’s a similarly
complicated power struggle forming in space, with
China, Russia, India, Israel, not to mention the private sector. All doing what they can to
claim a piece of the pie. Last time, the winner would
get to become the ruler of the free world. Tomorrow, maybe the winner will become ruler of the free solar system. – We’ve definitely been working closely with our international partners. Matter of fact, I have a meeting today with a country that’s coming up that wants to participate in this endeavor, I know somebody that says if
you wanna go fast, go alone. If you wanna go far, go together. – So this is a lot different
than the Space Race? – Well, 50 years ago, we were
in a race with the Russians, and now they’re one of our partners on the International Space Station, and as we move forward, we’re
in discussions with them about how they want to participate
in how we move forward. So yeah, so it’s definitely
a different flavor. – The real question is
beyond the dollars and cents, is it worth it? There was a time when
the American experiment depended on lots of
fresh blood and muscle. The argument today is
that our collective future may depend on a new type of expansion between overpopulation, climate change, and maybe simply running
out of space on Earth. So if we don’t figure it out,
this old dog and pony show known as humanity, it’s all for nothing. Though it may not be part
of NASA’s current mission, is it important for humans to be able to live on other planets?
– I personally think so. I read a lot of science fiction,
mainly because I like it, but I see these civilizations that are multi-planet civilizations and I think, if we’re
gonna always be on Earth, I think Earth has got its set
of resources and that’s it. Other planets have other resources. To me, today, we’re taking the baby steps, the initial steps, to
expand our human presence beyond the Earth permanently,
and where’s that leave us? Do we go to the asteroids next? Do we go to planets surrounding Jupiter? Those are the kinds of
things that I think we need to take the steps for today
to make happen in the future. – So here we are. Potentially, there’s a
future where we’ll need to pay people to rocket
off to their deaths, or maybe, just maybe, to rocket off to something
closer to a Utopian, science fiction wonderland
where the future really is limitless. And that’s why we wanna hear from you. If America was ours to make today, would we consider paying the
families of Mars colonists, and how much should we pay them? Or is this all nonsense? Let us know.
(trippy music) PBS is bringing you the
universe with Summer of Space, which includes six incredible
new science and history shows streaming on PBS.org
and the PBS Video app. Along with lots of spacey episodes from PBS Digital Studios creators. Follow me over to Reactions to check out their Summer of Space episode on what the moon smells like. Woo-hoo! (Toussaint mumbles) Cheese and rice. (Toussaint clears throat)
(Toussaint sighs) Woo, howdy, partner! (bright music)

Parliament pays tribute to Bercow as tearful speaker chairs last PMQs


This is your last prime minister’s questions. And as befits a distinguished former
Wimbledon competitor, you have sat up there in your high chair not just as an umpire
ruthlessly adjudicating on the finer points of parliamentary procedure with your trademark
Tony Montana scowl, Mr Speaker. Not just as a commentator offering your
own opinions on the rallies you are watching — sometimes acerbic and sometimes kindly
— but above all as a player in your own right,
peppering every part of the chamber with your own thoughts and opinions
like some uncontrollable tennis-ball machine [laughter] Mr Speaker, delivering a series of literally
unplayable and formally unreturnable volleys and smashes. Although we may disagree about some
of the legislative innovations you have favoured, there is no doubt in my mind that you
have been a great servant of this parliament – Hear hear.
– and this House of Commons. You have modernised, you have widened
access, you have cared for the needs of those with disabilities, and you have cared
so deeply for the rights of back benchers that you have done more than anyone
since Stephen Hawking to stretch time in this particular session. [laughter] As we come to the end of what must be
the longest retirement since Frank Sinatra’s, Mr Speaker, I am sure the whole house
will join me in thanking you and hoping that you enjoy in your retirement the
soothing medicament that you have so often prescribed to the rest of us. You have done so much to reform this
House of Commons, and our democracy is stronger for the way you have done it. You have served for 10 years. You have given real power to back benchers,
vastly expanded the use of urgent questions, which has been overwhelmingly popular
with all government ministers, and opened up the number of emergency
debates, which is even more popular with even more government ministers. And in the traditions of the great Speaker
Lenthall and others, you have stood up for parliament when it ​has to be stood up for and we
thank you for that because you have also carried that message internationally
in terms of the role of parliamentary democracy and parliaments holding governments to account. And as we hope to form a government
in the future, we hope to be held to account by parliament as well. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I, on behalf of those of us on these benches,
wish you all the best for your impending retirement and salute you, Sir, for the
way that you have stood up for the democracy of this house in order that at this time of crisis
we hold the government to account. We trust that you will enjoy your many
passions in retirement. You will always be welcome up in Scotland,
and if you need to visit a football team as an antidote to Arsenal
you will always be welcome at Easter Road to see the mighty Hibernian. Let me, Mr Speaker, wish England all the
best for the rugby on Saturday. – Hear hear. From the Liberal Democrats
benches can we wish you well and congratulate you on a decade particularly
as a modernising Speaker? From topicality of debates to promoting diversity
within the staff of the house, to reforms to support parents who are MPs,
you have helped to drag this institution out of the past so it can face the future. Before we proceed with a number of
statements that need to be made, I would like to thank the prime minister
and colleagues for their kind and generous personal remarks,
which are greatly appreciated. I want to thank staff of mine, past and present,
who have given of their time to be here today for the last prime minister’s questions
that I chair. All of them are people who have worked
with me for a significant period of time. We have had fantastic relations and
a terrific bond and I hugely appreciate the fact that they have bothered
to turn up on this occasion. And in particular, again, I want to thank
my wife Sally and our three children – Hear hear.
– Oliver, Freddie and Jemima for the support, stoicism and fortitude, which they have displayed
through thick and thin over the past decade. I will never forget it and I will always be
grateful for it. [Applause]

Iowa Caucus Explained – How does it work? | QT Politics


Iowa is the first state to have the opportunity
to weigh in on presidential primary contests, making the Iowa Caucus an invaluable contest
for candidates vying for their party’s nomination. For the 2020 election, the Democratic Party
will officially begin choosing their party’s leader in rowdy public precinct meetings all
across the state on Monday, February 3rd. Iowa’s delegates represent just 1% of the
national total, but outcomes in Iowa greatly influence future contests. More often than not, the top choice in Iowa
goes on to become the party’s presidential nominee. Few doubt the indelible influence of Iowans
when it comes to selecting presidential candidates, but even fewer seem to really understand the
process. In this video, I’ll answer this burning question
about the Iowa Caucus: How does it work? The Iowa Caucus is the first contest for the
democratic primary, which will determine presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, who will
in turn run against the Republican candidate, almost certainly President Donald Trump, in
the 2020 Election. The contest culminates at the Democratic National
Convention, which for 2020, will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in mid July. At the convention, the president is chosen,
based on votes made by delegates. Delegates, like electors in the electoral
college process, are actual human beings who actually vote, on behalf of their communities. There are two kinds of delegates. There are unpledged delegates, also known
as super delegates, who are granted a vote because of their status within the party—these
are generally elected career politicians and members of the DNC. In Iowa, 8 of the 49 delegates are unpledged. For the 2020 election, the super delegates
will not vote until the second ballot, meaning if a majority of the other type of delegates
coalesce behind one candidate—that candidate will secure the nomination. These delegates, are called pledged delegates. So named because they are pledged to vote
for a particular candidate—one determined by the outcome of their state’s contest. Iowa will send 41 pledged delegates to the
National Convention in 2020. In the first ballot, they must vote for their
designated candidate, but if the convention goes to a second ballot, they can change their
vote. Most states select their delegates with a
primary contest—which is a statewide secret ballot vote—not unlike the process of voting
in general elections. In Iowa, there’s a caucus, a far more complicated
process—which is, historically, why Iowa gets to go first. The more complex and active process also means
voter turnout is relatively low. Generally speaking, only the more politically
active and passionate voters tend to show up. On the evening of February 3rd, Iowans will
gather in 1678 precinct locations, as well as 96 satellite locations across the state,
country, and globe. At 7 PM, their doors will shut to begin
the process. First alignment: Voters will split up into different sections
of the room, to designate their top choice of presidential candidate. There may also be a gathering of undecided
voters. First count: Everyone gets counted, and caucus organizers
take note of groups that are not viable, in other words, too small to win delegates. Generally speaking, a candidate needs 15%
of voters in a room to be viable, although smaller precincts might set a higher bar to
clear. At some caucuses, however, the threshold is
higher than 15%. In caucuses that elect just one delegate,
the first count is sufficient. After the alignment, the caucus as a whole
elects their county delegate by a majority vote. In caucuses electing two delegates, the group
must have at least 25% to be considered eligible. Those electing three have a threshold of 16
and 2/3%. In caucuses that elect four or more, the threshold
is 15%. Second alignment: If a candidate does not meet this threshold,
their supporters can realign to support another candidate. Or, they can attempt to persuade other voters
from non-viable groups to join their group. They have fifteen minutes to do so. Unlike in previous contests, for 2020, voters
who select a viable candidate with their initial preference are not allowed to realign. They will be given presidential preference
cards to write their choice down. If they get tired of the process, they can
hand in their cards, leave early, and still be counted in subsequent votes. But, since convincing the supporters of non-viable
candidates to switch over can have an astounding impact on the nomination of a presidential
candidate—dedicated supporters are likely to stick around. Final count: Another count is taken. Every candidate who clears the viability threshold
is awarded at least one county delegate, with more awarded proportionally to candidates
with more votes. The state party then calculates and report
the number of “state delegate equivalents” each candidate has won based on precinct caucus
results. Once all precincts have reported in, the National
Convention Delegate count can be calculated and reported. These are the crucial numbers. They tells us how many delegates from Iowa
will support each candidate at the DNC—in other words, who won, and by how much. Technically speaking, this is only the beginning
of the process. 11,402 county convention delegates will go
on to their county convention in March. There, 2,107 District and State Delegates
will head to the District Conventions on April 25th And it isn’t until the State Convention
in June that the 49 delegates who will go to the Dem National Convention in Milwaukee
are finished being selected. Of course, few bother to follow these conventions,
as the important results are already determined by the February precinct caucuses. And just one week after Iowa, most everyone
will focus in on the next most important early state: New Hampshire. New Hampshire, of course, has a primary election:
a far simpler, straight forward system. In fact, while caucuses were once the most
common system for choosing nominees, most states have opted to switch over to a primary. Still, in Iowa, the old ways prevail, and
the raucous, inaccessible, and frankly, bizarre system remains in place. A primary would be easier, but Iowans manage
to recurrently live the answer to this question about their president-picking process: How does it work?