Saturday, March 28, 2009
Case
They argued that he could not be convicted because when he commited the first act of domestic violence, there was still no law that convicted you for comiting a crime of domestic violence. “) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State or Tribal law; and (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim”- http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-608.
Decision
“In their 2007decision on United States v. Hayes, the Fourth Circuit agreed with Hayes’ argument, and ruled that the domestic relationship must indeed be a specific element of the prior offense in order to trigger the federal gun ban -- effectively rendering the gun ban moot in the states that do not have misdemeanor laws specific to domestic violence.” - http://www.legalmomentum.org/news-room/decision-usvhayes.html.
The decision of the supreme court was to make sure that the amendment made to the gun control act is enforced and “to prevent known perpetrators of domestic violence from possessing firearms and to help keep victims safe.” - http://www.legalmomentum.org/news-room/decision-usvhayes.html, therefore reversing the Fourth circuit decision.
The decision of the supreme court was to make sure that the amendment made to the gun control act is enforced and “to prevent known perpetrators of domestic violence from possessing firearms and to help keep victims safe.” - http://www.legalmomentum.org/news-room/decision-usvhayes.html, therefore reversing the Fourth circuit decision.
Issue
The Issue was that he had been convicted before of domestic violence to his ex wife. In 2005 police answered to a call of domestic violence to Randy Edwards Hayes house. While the police were there, they found a weapon and charged him for breaking “18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing a firearm” -http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v._Hayes. The argument is if that law only applies if the crime has as an element a domestic relationship or if it applies to any crime that involves a domestic relation.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
EOC Week 10
I think that the artist should have the right to express himself any way that he wants but there should be limits to what he does. I think that there should be rules to what is considered to be artistic. The creator of the movie created it saying that it was art. I think that it should be considered art only if there are strong artistic elements in it. I there is a lot of good acting it should be considered artistic no matter what type of movie it is. I don’t think that any of that art exists in anymore in porn today.
I do think that they were bias because she was the only and first woman. The male judge would say that she is thinking as a woman and not as a juror. I think that they thought that her views were going to be different just because she was a woman. I think that some things have changed but a lot of that still exists. I think that everyone should be seen just by their qualifications and not by their sex.
I do think that they were bias because she was the only and first woman. The male judge would say that she is thinking as a woman and not as a juror. I think that they thought that her views were going to be different just because she was a woman. I think that some things have changed but a lot of that still exists. I think that everyone should be seen just by their qualifications and not by their sex.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
EOC Week 9
After seeing the film, I see how illicit activity affects others and not just owners of the product. I see that by buying their products just feeds their hunger for more money and therefore make more stuff to put out on the market. This is exactly what is happening with the drug traffickers in Mexico. They are fighting each other and the government harder to regain the sales ground that they used to have. The demand is high for their product and they want their customers back. Many wars around the world have started because of these type of operations.
I did not see how a thing as buying a fake watch or purse would affect people that didn’t have anything to do with it, but it chains down. When you buy their product, you are giving them the courage to create more “fake” things such as counterfeit medicine. In the film we saw how hundreds of people died because of a counterfeit cough medicine. If someone had not bought the counterfeits, it would have not been spread to so many parts of the world and the company would not still be operational.
I think that even buying a non eatable counterfeit product could harm the buyer. An original product made in a legitimate factory would have many restrictions on the materials that they can use to make their products, but in an illicit factory they would not. They use the cheapest materials possible not caring if it is toxic to the consumer.
I did not see how a thing as buying a fake watch or purse would affect people that didn’t have anything to do with it, but it chains down. When you buy their product, you are giving them the courage to create more “fake” things such as counterfeit medicine. In the film we saw how hundreds of people died because of a counterfeit cough medicine. If someone had not bought the counterfeits, it would have not been spread to so many parts of the world and the company would not still be operational.
I think that even buying a non eatable counterfeit product could harm the buyer. An original product made in a legitimate factory would have many restrictions on the materials that they can use to make their products, but in an illicit factory they would not. They use the cheapest materials possible not caring if it is toxic to the consumer.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
EOC Week 8
I was not here last week and did not know about the assignment until today. I researched and found a case which is The United States Vs Hayes. I read what the case is about and I understand what they are charging him of. I will continue to study the case to fully understand what he is charged of and what he is arguing against. I found that there are many pages that give information about the case and the decisions. The page where I found the case is http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-608
I have also read information about the case on http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v._Hayes . For next week I will have all the information researched about the case and the decisions. I will also research what the main allegations made by him and by the united state were.
I have also read information about the case on http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v._Hayes . For next week I will have all the information researched about the case and the decisions. I will also research what the main allegations made by him and by the united state were.
The United States VS Hayes
I will be doing “The United States VS Hayes.
In West Virginia, officers responded to a call of domestic violence and when they arrived at the location they found fire arms on Randy Hayes. He had already been convicted before of domestic violence and was not allowed to posses any because of the 1996 extension of the federal gun control act of 1968 that says that a person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor is not allowed to own any fire arms or ammunition. He was convicted under §§922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2) of possessing fire arms after been convicted of domestic violence. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-608 )
Hayes argued against the indictment saying that the his first charge of domestic violence did not have a domestic relationship between offender and victim as an element and therefore could not be prosecuted under the gun control act. (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-608)
In West Virginia, officers responded to a call of domestic violence and when they arrived at the location they found fire arms on Randy Hayes. He had already been convicted before of domestic violence and was not allowed to posses any because of the 1996 extension of the federal gun control act of 1968 that says that a person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor is not allowed to own any fire arms or ammunition. He was convicted under §§922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2) of possessing fire arms after been convicted of domestic violence. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-608 )
Hayes argued against the indictment saying that the his first charge of domestic violence did not have a domestic relationship between offender and victim as an element and therefore could not be prosecuted under the gun control act. (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-608)
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Smash Doll
I would want a doll of all the big corporations that waste their money on unuseful things. many of the top people from companies will use money for things like personal vacations or personal objects and the money they spend comes from the consumers.
It is worse if the ones who are spending the money are government officials. This affects all the tax payers making the economy even worse.
It is worse if the ones who are spending the money are government officials. This affects all the tax payers making the economy even worse.
Greed is Good
I think that greed is good because its the way this country and other successful countries have become powerful. You have to want the money in order to get the money. All companies that are successful is because they are greedy.
If people were not greedy then they would just be happy and not seek all the other possible ways for making money. Greed is what makes a corporation come up with new ideas and products to make more money. They will come up with different plans and different investments to make their business make more money. Many small companies will become greedy to be able to grow. I think that one thing that are made to make more money because of greed are extended warranties for cheap products. "A warranty is a guarantee or promise made by the manufacturer or seller that the goods offered really are what they are claimed to be." Essentials of bussiness law, Anthony Liuzzo,Pg 232. They will come up with many unusefule little things that will attract customers into buying them. Without greed, they would not be able to maintain themselves. “The owners of an LLC frequently have difficulty in raising additional funds to expand and maintain their business.” Essentials of business law, Anthony Liuzzo, pg 271.
Governments are also greedy. They will come up with many ways to get money for their departments and agencies. This makes countries get rich and powerful. Countries will be greedy about the products that they have access to. Countries can become greedy of a product like oil and ask for more money from others that purchase it from them. This is why all the oil companies have become very powerful that they can even influence the government.
I also think that greed is not good sometimes. Greed is the reason why there is a lot of corruption in the government. Governments will become influenced by large companies because of greed. They will make laws that will help the companies so that the companies help out the government.
If people were not greedy then they would just be happy and not seek all the other possible ways for making money. Greed is what makes a corporation come up with new ideas and products to make more money. They will come up with different plans and different investments to make their business make more money. Many small companies will become greedy to be able to grow. I think that one thing that are made to make more money because of greed are extended warranties for cheap products. "A warranty is a guarantee or promise made by the manufacturer or seller that the goods offered really are what they are claimed to be." Essentials of bussiness law, Anthony Liuzzo,Pg 232. They will come up with many unusefule little things that will attract customers into buying them. Without greed, they would not be able to maintain themselves. “The owners of an LLC frequently have difficulty in raising additional funds to expand and maintain their business.” Essentials of business law, Anthony Liuzzo, pg 271.
Governments are also greedy. They will come up with many ways to get money for their departments and agencies. This makes countries get rich and powerful. Countries will be greedy about the products that they have access to. Countries can become greedy of a product like oil and ask for more money from others that purchase it from them. This is why all the oil companies have become very powerful that they can even influence the government.
I also think that greed is not good sometimes. Greed is the reason why there is a lot of corruption in the government. Governments will become influenced by large companies because of greed. They will make laws that will help the companies so that the companies help out the government.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Myspace hoax comments
"Now, I believe that the woman should be punished because of what she did. I don't blame her one-hundred percent for this girl's death, but she did have part in it, and I believe that she should be punished." Barnhurst, Valerie Louise
I also think that she should be punished. I think that because of her false identity someone died. I think that this should be classified as harrasment and child abuse because she was a minor. I dont think that the lady should be free.
"I felt that she was responsible for pushing this young girl over the edge. Whether she knew it or not this girl suffered from severe depression. With further research could this woman also be charged with even more including negligence? “Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care necessary to protect others from risk.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, 50, 51). She didn’t consider the girls state of mind at the time of this incident." Hill, Brittany Reann
You never know when a person is suffering of things like this and I think that she should be charged with negligence. She should have never faked being someone else and then create a harmful environment for her. It doesnt matter if the girl was suffering from anything she was creating a harmful environment for her online. I think that by making such comments she should have been charged.
"I do feel that the creator of "Josh's" profile was wrong and rather sick to do what she had done. Had the creator been another teenage girl, the incident still would have been sickening but not quite has harsh as it seems due to the fact that the profile was created by another teenage girl's MOTHER." Brietzke, Hannah Elizabeth
I think that she is right. It is very sickening that it was a girls mother. If there were problems between the two girls, the mother should have not intervened. I think that she should have just protected her daughter by looking over what she did online and who she spoke with. What she did was just harrasment. There were better ways of protecting her daughter that creating a fake profile to see what a younger girl was saying about her daughter online. There were more dangers for her daughter online than what ever the girl was saying online.
"The rationalizations behind why she chose to create the account and harass the girl are irrelevant. Maybe she did not intend for the girl to kill herself but she did however intend to do the girl harm. She posted publicly viewable bulletins on MySpace calling her names and saying all kinds of things that were not true. “Slander includes spoken words, gestures, actions and even omissions. Most cases of slander involve thoughtless statements that reflect on another person’s good name and reputation.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo, pg 47)" Ter Avest, Anthony Eugene
She did slender the girl online. she did not only create false information, but she also posted many slanders about the girl. I think that there are many laws that she broke and should not be left unpunished. we all would like our kids to be protected while they are online and this should be the start of harsher rules aplied to cyber bullies. I think that if the woman is left unpunished, others will not be afraid to commit similar crimes .
I also think that she should be punished. I think that because of her false identity someone died. I think that this should be classified as harrasment and child abuse because she was a minor. I dont think that the lady should be free.
"I felt that she was responsible for pushing this young girl over the edge. Whether she knew it or not this girl suffered from severe depression. With further research could this woman also be charged with even more including negligence? “Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care necessary to protect others from risk.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, 50, 51). She didn’t consider the girls state of mind at the time of this incident." Hill, Brittany Reann
You never know when a person is suffering of things like this and I think that she should be charged with negligence. She should have never faked being someone else and then create a harmful environment for her. It doesnt matter if the girl was suffering from anything she was creating a harmful environment for her online. I think that by making such comments she should have been charged.
"I do feel that the creator of "Josh's" profile was wrong and rather sick to do what she had done. Had the creator been another teenage girl, the incident still would have been sickening but not quite has harsh as it seems due to the fact that the profile was created by another teenage girl's MOTHER." Brietzke, Hannah Elizabeth
I think that she is right. It is very sickening that it was a girls mother. If there were problems between the two girls, the mother should have not intervened. I think that she should have just protected her daughter by looking over what she did online and who she spoke with. What she did was just harrasment. There were better ways of protecting her daughter that creating a fake profile to see what a younger girl was saying about her daughter online. There were more dangers for her daughter online than what ever the girl was saying online.
"The rationalizations behind why she chose to create the account and harass the girl are irrelevant. Maybe she did not intend for the girl to kill herself but she did however intend to do the girl harm. She posted publicly viewable bulletins on MySpace calling her names and saying all kinds of things that were not true. “Slander includes spoken words, gestures, actions and even omissions. Most cases of slander involve thoughtless statements that reflect on another person’s good name and reputation.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo, pg 47)" Ter Avest, Anthony Eugene
She did slender the girl online. she did not only create false information, but she also posted many slanders about the girl. I think that there are many laws that she broke and should not be left unpunished. we all would like our kids to be protected while they are online and this should be the start of harsher rules aplied to cyber bullies. I think that if the woman is left unpunished, others will not be afraid to commit similar crimes .
Week 4 EOC
Crimes commited in film.
1. Bribery
2.False Advertising
3. Sexual Harassment
4. Perjur
5. Destruction of Propert
6. Lying Under Oath
7. Underage Drivers
8.Driving with out License
9. Speeding
10. Hit & Run
11. Trespassing
12. Assault
13. No Seatbelts
14. Reckless Driving
15. Child Endangerment
16. Misrepresentation
17. Libel
18. Slander
19. Defamation
20. Conversion
1. Bribery
2.False Advertising
3. Sexual Harassment
4. Perjur
5. Destruction of Propert
6. Lying Under Oath
7. Underage Drivers
8.Driving with out License
9. Speeding
10. Hit & Run
11. Trespassing
12. Assault
13. No Seatbelts
14. Reckless Driving
15. Child Endangerment
16. Misrepresentation
17. Libel
18. Slander
19. Defamation
20. Conversion
Saturday, January 31, 2009
EOC Week3
This case was about a mini game in GTA that could be unlocked by downloading an application. The lawsuit was started by a grandmother who bought the game for his 14 year old grandson and was offended when she saw the sex scene. This scene had been locked by the developers but was later discovered and was made available for others to see. Some people found that offensive and made a law suit on Take-Two (the company that made it).
Take two said that they were not liable because in order for people to see the scene they had to use third party hardware and software.
To avoid spending more on lawyers and other costs, they settled with paying $2.75million dollars. From that amount, they would give from $5 to $35 dollars to anyone who claimed that they were offended by the fact that people were able to unlock and see the sexual scene between the main character and his girlfriend. The five dollars were given to anyone that claimed that they were offended by it even if they had not bought the game. The rest of the money up to 35 was given according to how much proof they had that they were affected. From the 21.5 million people that bout the game, only 2676 of them filed a claim saying that they were offended.
I think that it is ridiculous that they were offended with a sex scene on a game that gives its users to commit many crimes. I think that by buying the 14 year old kid a game that was intended for 17 and older, the lady should have know that the game would have parts that were not suitable for her 14 year old grandson. I think that Take-Two were smart by just settling with giving the refunds that not many people claimed instead of spending more money on taking the case higher.
Take two said that they were not liable because in order for people to see the scene they had to use third party hardware and software.
To avoid spending more on lawyers and other costs, they settled with paying $2.75million dollars. From that amount, they would give from $5 to $35 dollars to anyone who claimed that they were offended by the fact that people were able to unlock and see the sexual scene between the main character and his girlfriend. The five dollars were given to anyone that claimed that they were offended by it even if they had not bought the game. The rest of the money up to 35 was given according to how much proof they had that they were affected. From the 21.5 million people that bout the game, only 2676 of them filed a claim saying that they were offended.
I think that it is ridiculous that they were offended with a sex scene on a game that gives its users to commit many crimes. I think that by buying the 14 year old kid a game that was intended for 17 and older, the lady should have know that the game would have parts that were not suitable for her 14 year old grandson. I think that Take-Two were smart by just settling with giving the refunds that not many people claimed instead of spending more money on taking the case higher.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Blog Comment
After reading RoVegas Design's Blog I commented this:
I also think that sometimes lawyers getting favors from the judge is something that can help us but it could also go against us. It is sometimes helpful but it could also hurt us. Let’s say someone is in jail for something they were falsely accused of. They get a good lawyer to get them out of jail but the plaintiff gets one of those “great lawyers”, the defendant would be sentenced unfairly. Their life could be ruined because our law system was not fair. You can see the “fairness of our law system in the movie Justice For All.
I also think that sometimes lawyers getting favors from the judge is something that can help us but it could also go against us. It is sometimes helpful but it could also hurt us. Let’s say someone is in jail for something they were falsely accused of. They get a good lawyer to get them out of jail but the plaintiff gets one of those “great lawyers”, the defendant would be sentenced unfairly. Their life could be ruined because our law system was not fair. You can see the “fairness of our law system in the movie Justice For All.
Week two
The case was about a lady who created a fake profile on MySpace to check if a girl was saying things about her daughter. The lady and other people that helped her create the profile about a sixteen year old boy flirted with the girl that was suffering from attention deficit disorder, depression and a weight problem for a few months. On October 15 2006 he sent her a message saying that he didn’t want to be her friend anymore because he had heard that she did not treat her friends well. She also got a message saying that the world would be better without her and saw posts that said many defamatory things about her. “A defamatory statement usually holds a person up to hatred, ridicule, or concept; or cause a person’s esteem, respect or social position to be diminished” Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo-Bonnice pg 45. The girl was found dead in her bedroom the next day.
The lady that created the profile was being sued for breaking MySpace’s user policy saying that a profile should not be created to cause harm or damage. “The development of technology has introduced a burgeoning array of ethical questions” Essential of business law, Liuzzo-Bonnice pg 19.
The defendant attorney said during the court that it sounded like they were trying the lady for murder instead of breaking the policies. The court said that they could not prosecute the lady because there were no laws that covered that. They were trying to convict her on high charges of cyber bullying but was convicted on three misdemeanors of breaking the policy.
The lady that created the profile was being sued for breaking MySpace’s user policy saying that a profile should not be created to cause harm or damage. “The development of technology has introduced a burgeoning array of ethical questions” Essential of business law, Liuzzo-Bonnice pg 19.
The defendant attorney said during the court that it sounded like they were trying the lady for murder instead of breaking the policies. The court said that they could not prosecute the lady because there were no laws that covered that. They were trying to convict her on high charges of cyber bullying but was convicted on three misdemeanors of breaking the policy.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Week one
I think that Lawyers, even though they are sometimes viewed as cheaters, are there to help. They learn the laws to know how to interpret them.
Some lawyers have the reputation for not helping their customers or for cheating over certain cases, but I think that not all of them are like that. They are also humans that make mistakes. I think that lawyers deserve more respect for who they are and for what they do than what they are given. They are very knowledgeable people that have gone through a lot of school to be able to help people understand the law. People sometimes don’t understand how certain things about the law work and can sometimes think that their lawyer did not work hard enough to get them compensated for their case. Sometimes things are more complicated that what they seem.
Lawyers sometimes do things that makes them seem like cheaters but are doing this to help the public. Throughout history, many important cases have been able to win and change the way our country is shaped because the lawyer knew how to convince the judge or the people that the other way was better.
Over all I think that without lawyers, many things would be different because people would not know how to interpret certain laws to defend themselves or their cases.
Some lawyers have the reputation for not helping their customers or for cheating over certain cases, but I think that not all of them are like that. They are also humans that make mistakes. I think that lawyers deserve more respect for who they are and for what they do than what they are given. They are very knowledgeable people that have gone through a lot of school to be able to help people understand the law. People sometimes don’t understand how certain things about the law work and can sometimes think that their lawyer did not work hard enough to get them compensated for their case. Sometimes things are more complicated that what they seem.
Lawyers sometimes do things that makes them seem like cheaters but are doing this to help the public. Throughout history, many important cases have been able to win and change the way our country is shaped because the lawyer knew how to convince the judge or the people that the other way was better.
Over all I think that without lawyers, many things would be different because people would not know how to interpret certain laws to defend themselves or their cases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
